Racked is no longer publishing. Thank you to everyone who read our work over the years. The archives will remain available here; for new stories, head over to Vox.com, where our staff is covering consumer culture for The Goods by Vox. You can also see what we’re up to by signing up here.
Up until now, most of the news about Woody Allen's lawsuit against American Apparel had come from either Allen's camp or AA's legal team. Yesterday afternoom, though, company CEO Dov Charney released a statement about his own take on the controversy. "The media has misinformed the public that American Apparel supposedly plans to make Woody Allen's personal life the central focus of our defense. This is false," he writes. "It has also been reported that American Apparel intends to call Mia Farrow or Soon Yi as witnesses in the upcoming trial. This also is false."
Charney reiterates that he loves Woody Allen, that the billboards were intended as social commentary, and that the real issue here is whether he has the right under the first amendment to "quote" the scene from Annie Hall in order to spark discussion. Then he makes an ill-fated analogy to another famous legal case: Hustler Magazine, Inc v. Falwell. It's true that the Supreme Court ultimately upheld Larry Flynt's right to run gross-out satire about Jerry Falwell in his porn mag, but Dov, dude, if you're that worried about your public image, maybe you shouldn't compare yourself to the publisher of Hustler.
· A Statement from Dov Charney [American Apparel]
· American Apparel's Legal Argument: Those Woody Allen Billboards Were Political Statements, Not Ads [Racked]