# Libel laws exclude humour publications? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 24, 2002, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654 "2002-10-24T10:04:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Racer1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee59a6/32.png) [@Racer1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Racer1)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/1 "2002-10-24T10:04:46Z")
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’d be grateful if anyone could explain! Thanks! ---
**Author:** ![Cisco](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ccd318/32.png) [@Cisco](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cisco)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/2 "2002-10-24T10:16:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Racer1 \* > \*\* > 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? > > Thanks! \*\* 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? ---
**Author:** ![Eidolon909](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ce7236/32.png) [@Eidolon909](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eidolon909)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/3 "2002-10-24T10:21:26Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Eleusis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Eleusis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eleusis)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/4 "2002-10-24T10:25:11Z")
Well take the landmark supreme court ruling of [Larry C. Flynt v. Jerry Falwell](http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/cases-conflicts/print/hustler.html). Flynt published in an ad parody that Falwell had sex with his own mother in an outhouse (among other things). > [@](#): > > The lower court found that the ad parody was not reasonably believable. Herein lies the essence of the case. If it’s obviously parody, it’s not libel. Somebody please post a better link to the details of this case ---
**Author:** ![Racer1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee59a6/32.png) [@Racer1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Racer1)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/5 "2002-10-24T10:27:07Z")
I just found this on the Internet at [Gigalaw.com](http://Gigalaw.com) (my bolding)… > [@](#): > > Libel consists of three parts. **First, the writer must publish an untruth about another person in a manner that is meant to be believed by others**. Second, the object of the author’s words must be damaged in some fashion. Third, to distinguish libel from slander, the publication must be in some form of permanent impression. That medium may be anything from a ponderous tome to a photograph either in a book or embedded in a web site to an e-mail. Even an angry response posted to a chat room may be the subject of a lawsuit. > > The major component of libel is that the published material is untrue or misleading in a manner that defames the subject. If the words are facts, they cannot be libelous. **Misinformation that is essentially harmless is also not considered to be defamatory and therefore libelous.** [Find the full article here.](http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2000-all/morris-2000-01-all.html) So it seems that if the publication makes it very clear it is just satire, harmless, and not to be believed, the person would not really have a case? ---
**Author:** ![Racer1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ee59a6/32.png) [@Racer1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Racer1)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 10:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/6 "2002-10-24T10:28:56Z")
Ah, excellent! Thanks all. That was just what I was looking for! Wow, a legal case where common sense prevailed? 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Sir\_Doris](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5ac83/32.png) [@Sir\_Doris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sir_Doris)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/7 "2002-10-24T12:20:40Z")
Why not ask this question to Ian Hislpo and Private Eye? I think they have more experience than most … They have lost on occaision, most notably when sued by Robert Maxwell, and by Sonia Sutcliffe (remember “If this is justice, I’m a banana”?) ---
**Author:** ![scm1001](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@scm1001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scm1001)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/8 "2002-10-24T13:36:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sir Doris \* > \*\*Why not ask this question to Ian Hislpo and Private Eye? I think they have more experience than most … > \*\* 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. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/9 "2002-10-24T14:03:37Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2002, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/10 "2002-10-24T14:46:20Z")
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. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![ElwoodCuse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/edb3f5/32.png) [@ElwoodCuse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElwoodCuse)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/11 "2002-10-28T01:25:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/12 "2002-10-28T02:54:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ElwoodCuse \* > \*\*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. Robin ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/13 "2002-10-28T03:13:36Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Some\_Guy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/439d5e/32.png) [@Some\_Guy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Some_Guy)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/14 "2002-10-28T03:19:39Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/15 "2002-10-28T07:35:05Z")
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. > [@](#): > > \*\*Libel law protects individuals from unjustified attacks on their reputation. A person is libelled if the words expose him or her to the risk of being: > > • hated, ridiculed, or viewed with contempt, or > • shunned or avoided, or > • lowered in the standing of right thinking members of society, or > • discredited in his trade, business, office, or profession. > > The law tries to balance the equally important but often opposing demand of freedom of expression.  The job of a journalist often involves saying things about people which they prefer not being said. The law allows you to report on what is true or comment on a fact based on truth. There are also situations protected by qualified privilege preventing libel challenges where there is a duty to give information and a corresponding interest to receive it.  This area of law is being developed with a new protection for “responsible” journalism which means getting the story right and acting on good advice. \*\* From [http://www.libel-law.co.uk/](http://www.libel-law.co.uk/) ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 8:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/16 "2002-10-28T08:56:38Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![RealityChuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/realitychuck/32/195_2.png) [@RealityChuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RealityChuck)\ **Post date:** [October 28, 2002, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/libel-laws-exclude-humour-publications/133654/17 "2002-10-28T13:34:22Z")
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.