Posted by Atticus on December 7, 2004, at 12:55:27
In reply to Lou's response to Atticus's post- » Atticus, posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 10:26:16
Lou,
You're intertwining two separate posts here. I really just tossed in Falwell v. Hustler as an additional example of how opinion speech was protected, even if it was satire. Satire is typically so outrageous that a "reasonable person" wouldn't mistake it for factual accusations. This is essentially the argument that won the day for Larry Flynt. Falwell's status as an "all-purpose public figure" did mean he would have to prove "actual malice" rather than merely "negligence" -- and actual malice (deliberately publishing something with knowledge that it is untrue or with "reckless disregard for the truth") is indeed a much higher hurdle for a plaintiff to clear. But that really wasn't a major factor in the justices' opinions. Satirists readily acknowledge that their work isn't factually true -- it is over-the-top hyperbole deliberately meant to sting the subject. I was a professional editorial cartoonist for a newspaper with a circulation of about 70,000 for years as a side job, and I DID mean to make people laugh at the politicians or social positions I lampooned. But PB certainly is not a forum for satire in any case. Forget I brought it up, alright? It's not really relevant here. Atticus
poster:Atticus
thread:423270
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/425743.html