Re: Internet and defamation laws (was Re: Oil Economics)

From: Lee Daniel Crocker (lee@piclab.com)
Date: Wed Jan 29 2003 - 10:36:22 MST


> (Brett Paatsch <paatschb@ocean.com.au>):
>
> Interesting. The Onion is obviously a farcical publication aimed
> at stirring and joshing rather than reporting. Fair enough.
>
> But given it actually includes photos (or digital likenesses) of Bush
> and purports at least superficially to quote him, I wonder, in light of
> a recent High Court decision on internet publication and defamation
> in Australia whether The Onion and its ilk might be in danger of sticking
> their neck out too far and becoming actionable under defamation (libel)
> law....

Unlike Australia, Germany, and many other so-called free societies,
the U.S. still takes free expression pretty seriously. I don't
think any court in the country would even hear such a case against
the Onion, because parody, especially political satire, has always
been the most strongly protected of all. Libel and slander suits
here have a very high bar: they have to prove that (1) the statements
were false, (2) that the speaker knew or should have known that they
were false, (3) that they were presented as factual (i.e., not
parody or satire), (4) that actual harm was caused by them, and in
the case of "public figures", (5) that there was actual malice in
the speaker's intent. Even the UK, which is better about free speech
than most of Europe, allows libel and slander suits with much less.

While I don't for a moment thnk our system is perfect, I'm proud
to live in a country where a magazine can publish a parody about
Jerry Falwell screwing his mother in an outhouse.

-- 
Lee Daniel Crocker <lee@piclab.com> <http://www.piclab.com/lee/>
"All inventions or works of authorship original to me, herein and past,
are placed irrevocably in the public domain, and may be used or modified
for any purpose, without permission, attribution, or notification."--LDC


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:03 MST