A Judge Ruled That Jon Hamm’s Penis Could Legally Be Scrutinized By The Huffington Post

September 11, 2020 / Posted by:

A ruler was used to get to the bottom of Jon Hamm’s dick as to whether or not it’s worth all the fuss. And by ruler I obviously mean a judge, who, according to Page Six, recently ruled that The Huffington Post was within their rights to print a photo not belonging to them of The Hammaconda in order to “illustrate what all the fuss is about.” In a 2013 article titled 25 Things You Wish You Hadn’t Learned In 2013 And Must Forget In 2014, HuffPost writes that Jon is apparently “very blessed south of the border, and he, or those who examine photographs of him, really want you to know that,” accompanied by a photo taken by photographer/plaintiff Lawrence Schwartzwald of Jon’s betrousered Hickory Farms summer sausage with a little animated GIF that reads “image loading…” The judge ruled that since HuffPost was making fun of Jon’s Johnson, the usage qualifies as “transformative,” and now you know why we stay un-sued and #blessed.

The photo HuffPost ran was one from the day grey chino’s finally got their (dick) dew. You know the ones. This isn’t the exact shot they used, but it illustrates a point. Well, its more of a rounded baby arm shape, but you get the picture.

View this post on Instagram

out walking my Hammaconda! #itsheavy

A post shared by HAMMACONDA (@hammaconda) on

According to Page Six:

In her ruling, Manhattan federal Judge Ronnie Abrams said there’s legal precedent for news outlets using licensed images for stories that “illustrate what all the fuss is about.”

“Here too, the photograph was used to illustrate what all the fuss is about, namely Hamm’s ‘privates’ and the public’s fixation with them,” Abrams wrote.

In addition, HuffPost mocked the actor’s package, and the accompanying article poked fun at media outlets that deemed the photo newsworthy.

The flip nature of the piece on Hamm’s piece proves HuffPost’s use of the image was “transformative” and offered criticism of the photograph, Abrams said in the ruling.

“This year has been a busy one for ‘Mad Men’ star Jon Hamm’s privates … Hamm says he wants people to stop talking about his loins, but it might help if he’d put on some underwear,” the text of the article read.

Abrams said the excerpts like that “reinforces the Court’s conclusion that the article aims to mock the public fixation on Hamm’s ‘privates’ in addition to mocking Hamm himself.”

Lawrence, the photographer, is planning to appeal the decision stating “it’s one of the most infringed upon stolen photos that I have. It became a very famous photo.” He didn’t even notice the bulge when he took the shot! I don’t know, sounds to me like he owes that hose a drink. Lawrence added:

“This is not Jackson Pollock or Andy Warhol doing something with the image. It’s clickbait for a newspaper,” he said. “The photo, with or without the outline of his penis showing is clickbait, that’s about why every newspaper or tabloid magazine in the world ran it.”

Excuse me, but I’m sure that photo has been Pollocked upon plenty of times!

Pic: Wenn.com

Our commenting rules: Don't be racist or bigoted, or get into long-ass fights, or go way off topic when not in an Open Post. Also, promoting adblockers is not allowed. And some comment threads will be pre-moderated, so it may take a second for your comment to show up if it's approved.

src="https://c.statcounter.com/922697/0/f674ac4a/1/"
alt="drupal analytics" >