http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090415/..._allen_lawsuit
My first question is: how is this relevant to the case? They're basically saying they used a pervert to sell billboards and they don't think they should have to pay the pervert for using his image because he's a pervert.
I mean how is that not a cheap shot?
My first question is: how is this relevant to the case? They're basically saying they used a pervert to sell billboards and they don't think they should have to pay the pervert for using his image because he's a pervert.
I mean how is that not a cheap shot?




