Network executives have removed a performance of Garth Brooks’ hit song, “Friends in Low Places,” from a featured segment on “The Late Late Show” devoted to country music.
The annual special was taped on Thursday, October 3, to accommodate the performers with live performances scheduled nationwide the following day.
Michael English took to the stage to perform Brooks’, however, amid reports that the latter faces serious charges of rape, sexual assault and battery in a US court, the The performance was suddenly canceled.
According to a source speaking to Radar Online, “This song being dropped is just the beginning of the end for Garth.”
“He spent years at the top, but no TV network or streamer wants to get involved in a scandal these days with all the ‘silliness’ and ‘cancel culture’ going around. “
“Besides his reputation being ruined depending on how this case plays out, this could really hurt him where it hurts — his wallet.”
This comes amid an expert’s claim that Brooks took a “high stakes” approach to responding to the sexual assault allegations against him.
Allegations recently surfaced against the “Standing Outside the Fire” crooner in connection with an incident involving “Jane Roe” during a business trip in 2019. The accuser, who initially started worked as a makeup artist and hair stylist for the singer’s wife in 1999, and switched to direct work. with him in 2017.
“On the one hand, filing a defamation suit shows that Brooks is taking an aggressive stance to protect his reputation,” Duncan Levin, a lawyer not directly involved in the case, told Fox News.
Unfortunately, the complaint against Garth Brooks seems to imply that they have phone records and text messages that show him fooling around with the makeup artist pic.twitter.com/mzUFh0Rtk9
— detective 🔍 (@jmadison60) October 6, 2024
“This can sometimes benefit public figures who believe they have been wrongly accused because it forces the accuser to provide evidence to support their claims. However, naming the accuser Accusations can backfire, especially if the accusations are credible or if the accuser receives sympathy from the public.” public.”
“It could also be seen as an attempt to intimidate or discourage other potential whistleblowers from coming forward, which would attract criticism.”
Levin, who has defended Harvey Weinstein before, also stated: “Legally, Brooks will need to prove that the allegations are false and have caused him reputational harm, a high standards in defamation cases.”
Legal experts say that, to avoid negative reactions from public opinion, famous individuals choose not to reveal the identity of the accuser.
Levin points out that the confidence Brooks or his legal team showed in their defense strategy may explain their aggressive stance.
The decision to counter-sue shows confidence in their ability to not only refute the allegations but also prove them to be unfounded.
However, Levin revealed that this approach carries many risks. If Brooks lacks a strong defense, the countersuit could be viewed as retaliation, potentially exacerbating the damage to his reputation.
“In short, this is a high-risk, high-reward strategy,” the attorney concluded. If Brooks wins the defamation suit, it could clear his name in the court of public opinion. But if the suit On the contrary, it is counterproductive and can cause negative public opinion.” awareness and expose him to greater legal jeopardy.”
Garth Brooks card