The issue at hand is regarding constitutional protection for satire and parody. Can a satirical publication ever face legal culpability for printing false information – could they be sued for defamation? First, it is important to define satire and parody. Satire is “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues” (cite). Parody involves the manipulation of existing materials, usually for comedic effect. Defamation, however, is a believable false statement of fact that causes material harm. Historically, the courts have established that satire and parody are not defamatory because a “reasonable reader” would
…show more content…
Falwell, established that actual malice (define?) did not apply to satire, because satirical material is obviously understood to be false by most individuals. In the Falwell case, Hustler Magazine printed an advertisement that used obvious hyperbole about a prominent minister and said he had sexual relations with his own mother in an outhouse (cite). There was a disclaimer as well at the bottom of the page, saying it was an “ad parody – not to be taken seriously.” Thus, in this case, it was obvious to readers it was fictional and should be taken as satire. Jerry Falwell, the minister, sued the magazine and its editor Larry Flynt for libel, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although the lower courts sided with Falwell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hustler because the jury found the parody contained no assertion of …show more content…
In 1969, the court created a test to permit hate speech; only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has intentions to initiate such action, may be restricted by law (cite). In 2011, the court sided with the Westboro Baptist Church in regards to the group’s use of offensive signs to protest public issues (the original issue was about the organization picketing a U.S. Marine corporal’s funeral with posters that displayed messages like “You’re going to hell and “Thank God for dead soldiers”) (cite). Thus, although there is a test to gauge hate speech, many might say that this test is too lax and does not prohibit derogatory speech like the Westboro Baptist Church’s, if it didn’t threaten immediate harm from the speaker. Additionally, critics might say even if the Danish cartoons didn’t threaten violence directly, they caused violence around the world and the newspaper should have foreseen such
Falwell, established that actual malice (define?) did not apply to satire, because satirical material is obviously understood to be false by most individuals. In the Falwell case, Hustler Magazine printed an advertisement that used obvious hyperbole about a prominent minister and said he had sexual relations with his own mother in an outhouse (cite). There was a disclaimer as well at the bottom of the page, saying it was an “ad parody – not to be taken seriously.” Thus, in this case, it was obvious to readers it was fictional and should be taken as satire. Jerry Falwell, the minister, sued the magazine and its editor Larry Flynt for libel, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although the lower courts sided with Falwell, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hustler because the jury found the parody contained no assertion of …show more content…
In 1969, the court created a test to permit hate speech; only speech that poses an imminent danger of unlawful action, where the speaker has intentions to initiate such action, may be restricted by law (cite). In 2011, the court sided with the Westboro Baptist Church in regards to the group’s use of offensive signs to protest public issues (the original issue was about the organization picketing a U.S. Marine corporal’s funeral with posters that displayed messages like “You’re going to hell and “Thank God for dead soldiers”) (cite). Thus, although there is a test to gauge hate speech, many might say that this test is too lax and does not prohibit derogatory speech like the Westboro Baptist Church’s, if it didn’t threaten immediate harm from the speaker. Additionally, critics might say even if the Danish cartoons didn’t threaten violence directly, they caused violence around the world and the newspaper should have foreseen such