Another moment were an identity was ‘taken’ per se is in Vanna White v. Samsung Electronics America Inc. Samsung at the time--1992--were running a bunch of humorous ads where they implied that there VCRs would make it into the next century. The ad in question is one that spoofed the game show the “Wheel of Fortune.” In the ad there is a robot that is dressed to kind of hint at Vanna White. White was never consulted about the ad. This became an issue because the ad made it seem as though she was associated and endorsed Samsungs VCRs. Additionally, she believed that the company had unlawfully used her image in their ad. Samsung tried to rebuttal by stating the fact that the ad was a parody and was protected by the First Amendment. “The majority
…show more content…
Defamation is hard to prove because of actual malice, if actual malice is proven than one can file a lawsuit under intentional emotional distress--there is a case to consider. A second factor in the failure of most of the cases viewed is the outrageousness factor; “‘Outrageousness” in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of jurors’ tastes and views on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression” (Pember and Calvert). Referencing both the Levitt case and Falwell, the claims on both were outrageous on the factor that the claims were out of range compared to their careers to be factual. Drunk incest is far fetched to the evangelical preacher Falwell, and alcohol for a grade plus ensuing bad behavior is far from a lawyer and adjunct teacher Levitt. Leading to the conclusion that suing a company or group for defamation is hard because the of the outrageous statements and that malice intent that has to be proven. Most importantly is the likeness of each person: some may consider a subject matter funny and the other cruel, but the First Amendment protects all forms of speech if you do or do not agree. In the majority of the cases, the court seems to lean toward the plaintiffs, but afterwards the defendants ask for a repeal and get a ruling overturned. Most cases will depend on the jury and …show more content…
“Though satire and parody both utilize false elements of comic purpose, the main reason parody and satire are suitable defenses against defamation actions is that public policy behind their expression generally outweighs any offense they may cause” (Pfeiffer).
So what can be done against sketch comedy? Should there be a change in law. I believe that there should not be a change in the law. Parody and satire are protected under the First Amendment because it allows the people to talk about the government without repercussion, which allows the United States to be a democracy and not a dictatorship. By adding restriction to parody or satire, freedom of speech is
Defamation is hard to prove because of actual malice, if actual malice is proven than one can file a lawsuit under intentional emotional distress--there is a case to consider. A second factor in the failure of most of the cases viewed is the outrageousness factor; “‘Outrageousness” in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of jurors’ tastes and views on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression” (Pember and Calvert). Referencing both the Levitt case and Falwell, the claims on both were outrageous on the factor that the claims were out of range compared to their careers to be factual. Drunk incest is far fetched to the evangelical preacher Falwell, and alcohol for a grade plus ensuing bad behavior is far from a lawyer and adjunct teacher Levitt. Leading to the conclusion that suing a company or group for defamation is hard because the of the outrageous statements and that malice intent that has to be proven. Most importantly is the likeness of each person: some may consider a subject matter funny and the other cruel, but the First Amendment protects all forms of speech if you do or do not agree. In the majority of the cases, the court seems to lean toward the plaintiffs, but afterwards the defendants ask for a repeal and get a ruling overturned. Most cases will depend on the jury and …show more content…
“Though satire and parody both utilize false elements of comic purpose, the main reason parody and satire are suitable defenses against defamation actions is that public policy behind their expression generally outweighs any offense they may cause” (Pfeiffer).
So what can be done against sketch comedy? Should there be a change in law. I believe that there should not be a change in the law. Parody and satire are protected under the First Amendment because it allows the people to talk about the government without repercussion, which allows the United States to be a democracy and not a dictatorship. By adding restriction to parody or satire, freedom of speech is