So I was watching the latest episode of South Park last night where they spent most of the show bashing John Edwards of Crossing Over fame.
At one point in the show, Stan is speaking with John, and says:
So my question is this: I thought you could get away with calling someone names (I.e.; “John, you are a douche”) but once you called someone a fraud, liar, fake, etc., you could be sued for slander or somesuch?
Was John Edward perhaps listed as a “guest voice” in the credits? If so, or probably even if not, I would expect the producers had him give his permission to be referenced in the show. I think it was Loius B. Mayer who said “There is no such thing as bad publicity.”
Not sure about the legal aspects, but I do know that South Park rarely, if ever, uses guest voices. Indeed, each show starts with a disclaimer stating that all celebrity voices are imitated.
Also, after seeing the episode, I seriously doubt that Edward would have given them any kind of permission to do what they did. Stan pretty much gave a basic explanation of cold reading and did some simple demonstrations so the idiots of South Park would stop believing Edward. Instead, they decided that Stan was a psychic, too, and gave him his own TV show.
IMHO, it was a very well-done episode that would have made quite a few Dopers who stopped watching the show years ago, proud.
There is no need for his permission; John Edward is a public figure, and as such would have to prove not only that the comments in South Park were false, but were made in reckless disregard of the truth. Since he is a fraud, he faces a considerable challenge. Besides, far more credible people than a fictional child have called him a fraud, without getting sued.
Remember: a statement must be false to be slander. No exceptions.
Ahhh…The disclaimer:
The celebrity voices part is not true, because several guest voices have appeared.
At any rate, I suppose John wouldn’t want to make a big deal out of this, lest he bring more attention on his “gift”.
The celebrity voices thing is almost true. I think there’s only two episode where the celebrities actually play themselves.
I’ve found it surprising how good Southpark still is. I stopped watching after the movie figuring they could never top that . A while back I downloaded an episode from the net (note to any mods, Parker and Stone condone this) and got hooked again.
I loved the running Rob Schneider gag.
That would be libel, not slander. Easy mistake since the distinction is generally that libel is written and slander is spoken, but it’s different with broadcasts. I believe this would be considered opinion as well. No one could seriously think that Stan’s (a cartoon character) statements were intended to be taken as fact. And what Nametag said: He would have to prove in court that he can, in fact, communicate with the dead. Good luck.
I’d take issue with this. From the beginning of the series the creators have no problem with making their characters spokespeople for their own issues and beliefs. Stan’s statements were meant to be taken as fact. AFAIK they were true about how cold reading works, and I’d tend to agree with why he said what John Edwards does is wrong, though I’m really agreeing with Trey Parker, and not Stan the mouthpiece :).
I don’t know the precise the legal standard for opinion vs. fact. But “liar” and “fake” are much closer to insults that assertions of fact. Everyone has lied and faked something, so literally we’re all liars and fakes. I wasn’t basing my conclusion on the fact that Stan is a cartoon character. I’d be curious to know how statements by fictional characters fit into the libel issue.
Maybe John Edward will make the same mistake Oscar Wilde made with the Marquis of Queensberry.
We can only hope!
Parody is protected free speech, and no permission is required to use Edward’s likeness or imitate his voice.
The truth is always a valid defense against libel. Since Edward has already been publicly debunked and exposed as a liar and a fraud several times, he would really have no case.
Also, doesn’t the claimant have to demonstrate that the libel or slander actually damaged his reputation?
Not sure Mr. Edward has much of a reputation to damage, but if damage is part of the issue, he would have a better case against real humans who have called him a liar and a fraud than a cartoon character.
Think about it. If Edward did attempt to pursue a lawsuit, he would be forced to answer questions about his “abilities” under oath. This would not only expose him to a withering and humiliating cross-examination which would probably damage his reputation even more, it might also open him up to perjury charges if he makes any claims which can easily be impeached or falsified.
Agreeing with DtC…
I am hoping like mad that he attempts to take them to court.
Also, pretty hopeful that it would get wide coverage. Even if he somehow won in court, he would lose. Too much factual info about him would be revealed in a manner that would be hard to ignore even by the people who seem to make a career out of ignoring info like this.
A lot of posts have hit on why, as a practical matter, John Edwards will not sue. But I’d like to point out that the South Park comments would not be considered parody. A parody is an imitation of a creative work done to comment on the original work.
I believe the SP episode was a deliberate attempt at making the clearest accusation of fraud possible. That is, to ensure that their target had the best grounds for a lawsuit if he could really do what he claims. Since the writers probably don’t believe the latter, they might be thinking they are on good legal grounds. But I have my doubts.
Note that famous debunkers, such as James Randi phrase things carefully. They do not say:
“Person X is using trick Y to fake paranormal act Z.”
They say:
“I can use trick Y to fake paranormal act Z.”
And let the readers fill in the conclusion. This results in fewer lawsuits (which when even in the right, are time and money consuming). It will be interesting to see what happens given that the South Park episode crossed a line that many others prefer to avoid.
Edward could still sue over the “stupid douche” stuff - but then, in the US, truth is an absolute defense.
I was referring only to the use of JE’s image and the imitation of his voice. These things, in and of themselves, are parody.
The accusations of lying, fraud, and douchery are NOT parody–they’re TRUE.
Well, this is a bit of a digression, since parody is a defense in a copyright infringement suit, which John Edwards would not be able to bring based on the description of the episode.
But parody has a specific legal meaning which is not met by imitating a voice or making fun of somebody. In Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. the Supreme Court said:
Calling Edwards a liar, fraud, douchebag, etc. are not parodies since they are not using an element of his composition.
[sub][fixed coding - DrMatrix][/sub]