Inspired by the thread on Ulrika Jonsson (that has been quite rightly cleared by TubaDiver - better safe than sorry!) I have a quick question about libel laws.
I am interested in both the UK’s and the US’ law on the subject, if possible.
It seems the laws on libel are very strict. If anyone makes any kind of allegation or defamatory remark that they cannot prove, they leave themselves open to being sued. Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of this, I wonder how people writing comedy and satire get away with their constant fun poking at celebrities and companies?
Let’s say the Onion (or some other joke publication) was to write a satire article announcing that president Bush has admitted he didn’t know where Iraq was on a map, and thought they were attacking France… or maybe a spoof interview where Tony Blair publicly admits his love for Bill Clinton… could these people then sue the Onion for libel? Clearly they are false allegations?
You never hear of comedy publications being sued. Is it a case of the victims not being offended as it is clearly comedy, or perhaps there is some kind of disclaimer the publications use to make clear to readers it is not serious?
I believe Jerry Fallwell tried to sue Hustler Magazine for printing a story involving him losing his virginity to his own mother in an outhouse or something of the sort. I’m almost positive Hustler won or the case was dismissed because the story was so obviously ludicrous. Maybe this set a precedent?
Libel and Slander have a provision called “Fair Comment” and humor falls under its protection. Basically, if the humor is presented in such a manner that “no reasonable person” would assume that it is “Real” then you can’t sue for Libel/Slander.
Its why talk shot hosts like Jay Leno can make certain jokes without getting sued etc.
As far as I know Canada, US and Britain all have Fair Comment provisions.
for US dopers Private Eye is a part satirical news magazine. However, it presents (and means to present) much of its items as fact, even if done humorously. When Private Eye said that Maxwell was a crook, it meant it - and Maxwell sued.
You obviously haven’t read the fine print on the masthead at Mad magazine very carefully – they have detailed people to respond to lawsuits, so one presumes that they get a few of them. Satire might be protected under law, but that doesn’t mean that the targets don’t occasionally strike back.
N.B. My understanding is that UK libel laws are rather more strict than in the U.S. In the U.S., for instance, if the target of the statement (the victim) is a celebrity or other person in the public eye, then it’s almost impossible for them to sue for libel, as they must prove that not only was the statement false, but that when the defendant made the statement he wither knew it was false or was recklessly indifferent to its truth or falsity. This means that as long as you believe it or have some shred of evidence to believe it (even if that belief would be wholly unreasonable), it isn’t libel.
To expand on what CalMeacham (great name, BTW)said, yeah, despite the laws on the books about parody and fair comment, they are pretty much meaningless unless you can afford a lawyer (like MAD magazine can).
For example, Something Awful had to pull two Photoshop features at the request of Jim Henson Inc. and Ask Jeeves because they threatened legal action. Something Awful would be vindicated in court under the “parody” exemption to trademark and slander laws, but Rich “Lowtax” Kyanka, the webmaster, can’t afford as many lawyers as Jim Henson or Ask Jeeves. This happens quite a bit on the internet, sadly.
Jim Henson, being dead, can’t afford any lawyers, but his company can. I didn’t see the Photoshop features you mentioned, but I’m willing to bet they featured Muppets. Fictional characters can’t be libeled or slandered.
IANAL, but I don’t think it’s libel Henson Inc. is worried about. More likely, it’s copyright infringement. Ditto for Ask Jeeves. And as far as I know, there is no exemption on copyright infringement for humorous purposes.
There’s a copyright exemption for “parody”, same as with the libel laws, but it’s very narrowly defined -just because something is humorous, that doesn’t mean that you can ignore copyright restrictions. In other words, if I were to write a novel that purported to retell Gone With the Wind from the slaves’ point of view, and in the process I skewered the original work, that’s protected parody. If I produced a cartoon featuring an anthropomorphic duck in a sailor suit who speaks unintelligibly, however, Disney is going to have a case against me, even if it’s a really funny cartoon.
There’s a copyright exemption for “parody”, same as with the libel laws, but it’s very narrowly defined -just because something is humorous, that doesn’t mean that you can ignore copyright restrictions. In other words, if I were to write a novel that purported to retell Gone With the Wind from the slaves’ point of view, and in the process I skewered the original work, that’s protected parody. If I produced a cartoon featuring an anthropomorphic duck in a sailor suit who speaks unintelligibly, however, Disney is going to have a case against me, even if it’s a really funny cartoon.
Libel in the UK isn’t about being false - it’s about being defamatory. A jury has to find the words were capable of being defamatory, and whether they are or not depends on who the person allegedy defamed is.
For many years Mad Magazine had–maybe still has–a line in the masthead reading thus:
“All characters in MAD fiction and semi-fiction are fictitious. Any similarity without a satiric purpose to a real person is a coincidence.”
This didn’t protect them from everything. A satirical article in the 50s about “Of-the-Month Clubs” included a “Crime-of-the-Month Club,” whose address was given as “Mafia, Italy.” This irked the government of Italy, which protested to the U. S. State Department, which asked Mad not to do that kind of thing again.
There was a line in a Mad article titled “Protest Magazine” about a girl named Yetta Piltch who had been ‘attending college classes naked.’ Wouldn’t you know, a girl named Cynthia Piltch protested this directly to Mr. Bill Gaines–and he settled with her out of court.
There is no exemption per se for parody in the copyright law; however, parody has traditionally be considered fair use. The thinking is that if you can sue a parody for infringement, then no parodies would ever be written, which would be bad for free speech.
Humor doesn’t give an automatic exemption for libel, but if the charges are humorous so that no reasonable person would believe them true, any libel suit would get thrown out.
There are also the rules of libel in the U.S.; they are different if you’re a public figure or not. A public figure needs not only to prove that the words were false and defamatory, but also to show that the publisher deliberately chose to publish them even though he knew they were false.
Finally, in trademark law, the rules are unclear, but the trademark holder would seem to hold the upper hand. Not only do they have more money for lawyers, but there’s at least one case (Disney vs. Bobby London) where the use of the trademarked characters was deemed illegal.
