They did, however, parody his TV show, did they not?
I don’t know. I was responding to your point that using his likeness was protected as parody.
Which was…
Guinastasia
Wilde was having an affair with the Marquis’ underage son. The Marquis accused him of pederasty in public and Wilde tried to sue him for libel. The problem was that the accusation was true. Wilde not only lost his lawsuit, but was prosecuted criminally and went to prison.
Who is this guy and what kind of fraud is he accused of perpatrating?
TV “talk to the dead” psychic. He had an incredibly tasteless talking to the dead of 9-11 last year.
JOHN EDWARD IS GAY!!!
Underage? I was under the impression that Wilde became intimate with Douglas around 1893. Lord Alfred Douglas was born in 1870 which hardly makes him underage.
You’d think so. But really, for frauds and publicity whores like him, even if he loses, he wins. His name gets spread even wider. I’m thinking of the example of David Irving, a Holocaust denying “historian” who sued an author who basically called him a liar. Irving was destroyed in court, but goes merrily on his fraudulent ways. He has a website, but I don’t want to provide a link to it.
raisinbread, you are correct. I was mistaken. Douglas was 21 and Wilde 39 at the time of their affair. However, it WAS shown at his trial that Wilde had paid for the services of underage male prostitues. (Queensbury produced at least ten such boys willing to testify at the trial)
I remembered that pederasty was one of the specific charges lodged against Wilde, and that it was subsequently proven, but I was wrong in thinking that Douglas one of the victims.
Here is a link to an online transcript of the trial.
Edwards is a public figure, so that makes libel suits all the more difficult to win (public figures have to show ‘actual malice’). Since any suit would have to be based upon blatant disregard for the truth, and Stan’s scenes where he researched and deconstructed Edwards’ whole routine seem to show the creators put some thought into what was really going on, it would be difficult for Edwards to win.
However, he could still sue. Even if you think you have an airtight case against libel, that doesn’t mean someone won’t sue you anyway. Edwards would have a monstruous uphill battle, but it’s still a battle he’s allowed to fight.
They did a fine job didn’t they? I missed it on Wednesday, saw it last night. I was very impressed at what a great debunking they did.
To be able to sue for fraud you have to have suffered some financial loss (which could be loosely related to emotional suffering) and the statement must be either untrue or invasion of privacy (such as revealing that someone had an abortion). But, since the case between Larry Flynt and Jerry Falwell set a precedent, it’s been very hard for people who choose to be public figures to win lawsuits regarding fraud because they have to prove that the defendant knew the statement was untrue and that there was malice behind it.
Bluemit, I think you mean libel not fraud, and I believe in the Flynt case, it was ultimately decided that, while the cartoon was both malicious and knowingly false, that no reasonable person who read the cartoon would believe that it was being offered as truth. (at least that’s what they said in the movie)
The interesting wrinkle for Edward is that he would have to prove that Parker and Stone made assertions in the South park episode which they KNEW to be false. IOW, Edward would have to prove that they KNEW he was psychic and called him a fraud anyway. Good effing luck with THAT one.
Personally, although I would love to see him try, no lawyer with a brain is going to let him pursue a lawsuit which is
a) unbelievably difficult to win. (how does he prove that they KNEW he wasn’t a fraud?)
b)would allow the defendants a wide latitude on discovery to investigate the logistics of his show, subpoena witnesses who work on the show, subpoena unedited tapes of the show and investigate the studio and anterooms of the show.
c)would expose him to an embarrassing cross examination on the stand which would make Darrow’s cross of Bryan look like a puffball interview on Entertainment Tonight.
I’d love to see it, but he ain’t gon’ do it. Wouldn’t be prudent.
(John Edward voice) Why did the chicken get to the other side?
She crossed the road. (non-JE voice)
–Nott
This has nothing to do with the actual question, but I have to say: The aliens showing up for Mr. Edwards for the award ceremony was very very funny. The song at the end? Faaaaaaantastic.
I hate to sound like an aspiring Mod, but I think this question has been asked and answered. Diogeses’s most recent post sums up what everyone else has said. The only thing I’m left wondering about is whether the fact that Stan is a fictional cartoon character that frequently says ridiculous things would have any bearing on the judgment of whether a reasonable person would believe the statement was being presented as the truth. Also, are “liar” and “fake” merely insults or accusations of wrongdoing? Any experts on libel out there?
No, he could no sue over being called a stupid douche. Douche is a non-specific, generalized term that expresses an opinion, not neccesary a fact. Same with calling him an asshole, or even a “fake”… since that word could be construed to mean different things.
I hope that’s Elvis’s remark was a joke, Blalron. Of course the guy isn’t literally a douche.
But he did beat a literal douche in the “biggest douche in the universe contest”! Which was maybe the funniest thing I’ve ever seen on SP, which is saying a lot.