can satire be sued for defamation

[calhoon]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin

Curious about the possibility of getting sued for defamation for writing a satirical blog, website posting, or article along the lines of what you'd see in the Onion, on South Park, or Saturday Night Live. Over the top, obviously fictitious, but referencing, and possibly fictitiously quoting, real life celebrities. Again, this is typical stuff you'd see in any of those fake news outlets or any satire show. Wasn't sure if this was protected, but if not how was the Onion getting away with it.

Was experimenting with this style of writing, but in no way wanted to create trouble for myself down the road.

 

[FlyingRon]

Calling it satire or parody won't prevent a lawsuit. Satire is someothing you claim as a defense once you are sued. Your defense has to show that a reasonable person would recongize the work as satire, and hence not believably true.

 

[tranquility]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin

Curious about the possibility of getting sued for defamation for writing a satirical blog, website posting, or article along the lines of what you'd see in the Onion, on South Park, or Saturday Night Live. Over the top, obviously fictitious, but referencing, and possibly fictitiously quoting, real life celebrities. Again, this is typical stuff you'd see in any of those fake news outlets or any satire show. Wasn't sure if this was protected, but if not how was the Onion getting away with it.

Was experimenting with this style of writing, but in no way wanted to create trouble for myself down the road.

That "typical stuff" you are talking about is run through editors and, sometimes, attorneys before it is posted with an eye to potentially defamatory or otherwise actionable statements. Certainly, satire is protected speech. Defining what is satire is sometimes harder.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Wisconsin

Curious about the possibility of getting sued for defamation for writing a satirical blog, website posting, or article along the lines of what you'd see in the Onion, on South Park, or Saturday Night Live. Over the top, obviously fictitious, but referencing, and possibly fictitiously quoting, real life celebrities. Again, this is typical stuff you'd see in any of those fake news outlets or any satire show. Wasn't sure if this was protected, but if not how was the Onion getting away with it.

Was experimenting with this style of writing, but in no way wanted to create trouble for myself down the road.

The Onion, South Park and Saturday Night Live have all been sued, for one thing, so satire does not offer immunity from a lawsuit. Satire is only a defense to a lawsuit, as FlyingRon noted.

What does protect to a certain extent The Onion and South Park and Saturday Night Live from being sued all the time is their reputation as outlets for satire. They are well-known. And the writers are very very good at what they do. When you watch a South Park episode, you know that what you are hearing/seeing is a Trey Parker and Matt Stone skewed-toward-humor interpretation of famous individuals and entities. In addition, The Onion, South Park and Saturday Night Live have excellent teams of editors and lawyers, to better ensure the content that makes it to print or on air does not cross the line from humor to defamation.

There are necessary arts and skills involved in pulling off a good satire or parody, and many lack the art and skill. For them, a defamation lawsuit becomes a greater risk. For them, a personal review of their proposed content by a publishing law professional becomes more of a necessity.

 

[calhoon]

Thanks everyone for the replies. Sounds like it might not be worth it.

Now what about the case of submitting a satirical article to one of these fake news sites? In that case is the liability on the writer, or the outlet that purchased the writer's work?

 

[tranquility]

Thanks everyone for the replies. Sounds like it might not be worth it.

Now what about the case of submitting a satirical article to one of these fake news sites? In that case is the liability on the writer, or the outlet that purchased the writer's work?

Both. But, you have the protection of the process if you submit it to a professional organization.

 

[quincy]

Thanks everyone for the replies. Sounds like it might not be worth it.

Now what about the case of submitting a satirical article to one of these fake news sites? In that case is the liability on the writer, or the outlet that purchased the writer's work?

I disagree with tranquility.

Most sites are immune from suit arising from third-party content published on their site. This immunity is granted by the Communications Decency Act, Section 230. Unless the "fake news site" has contributed to the content or encouraged specific content, liability for the content rests with the content-creator.

Here is a link to information on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act: https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230

 

[tranquility]

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/communications_lawyer/august2011/protection_under_cda_sect_230_responsibility__third_party_content_comm_law_28_2_revised.authcheckdam.pdf


Edit:
That's not to say quincy is not correct. I don't mean to sound like I disagree. The key issue, I believe, (other than the contribution of content determination) is:

Another Information Content Provider
By its text, Section*230(c) protects a
“provider or user” of an “interactive
computer service” from certain types
of liability as “publisher” of content
that is “provided by another information
content provider.”3
[See sidebar
on next page.]
For media entities seeking to solicit
substantive submissions from users, the
issue then becomes: what is “another
information content provider”? Section
230 defines an information content
provider as “any person or entity that
is responsible, in whole or in part, for
the creation or development of information
provided through the Internet
or any other interactive computer
service.”4
So, what makes someone
“responsible, in whole or in part, for
the creation or development” of the
content?
Thus far, courts have rarely found
website owners to be responsible for
the creation or development of content
outside of materials authored by their
own employees.5
But there are exceptions,
and while some areas of concern
have more established case law to provide
guidance, in other areas the law is
less settled and more controversial.

Also, review the section on "solicitation", especially in regards to the "contract/payment" section.

 

[quincy]

I am glad you are not saying I am incorrect, because I'm not.

Also, most purchasers of written content (book publishers, online publishers) will have their contributors sign contracts with warranty and indemnity clauses.

 

[tranquility]

I am glad you are not saying I am incorrect, because I'm not.

Also, most purchasers of written content (book publishers, online publishers) will have their contributors sign contracts with warranty and indemnity clauses.

Would those clauses prevent liability on the part of the publisher?

How valuable would they be if signed with the OP? (As a rough guess.)

 

[quincy]

Would those clauses prevent liability on the part of the publisher?

How valuable would they be if signed with the OP? (As a rough guess.)

These contracts with these clauses can hold up in court, so they can be valuable to the publisher. That said, it does not sound as if this would be necessary for a news site that solicits content, as the news sites are pretty well insulated from suit by CDA's 230, as long as they refrain from contributing to the content that is submitted by third-parties.

The best known lawsuit where the CDA 230 immunity failed a content-provider was Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al. v. Roommates.com, LLC. Here is a link to information: http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case484.cfm

Most book publishers will have insurance enough to cover the costs of lawsuits that arise over the content in their publications and/or will require their authors to have insurance. Publishers are almost always named in these lawsuits as defendants, or co-defendants along with the authors, though, because they are generally the ones with the money.

 

[tranquility]

These contracts with these clauses can hold up in court, so they can be valuable to the publisher. That said, it does not sound as if this would be necessary for a news site that solicits content, as the news sites are pretty well insulated from suit by CDA's 230, as long as they refrain from contributing to the content that is submitted by third-parties.

The best known lawsuit where the CDA 230 immunity failed a content-provider was Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley, et al. v. Roommates.com, LLC. Here is a link to information: http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case484.cfm

Most book publishers will have insurance enough to cover the costs of lawsuits that arise over the content in their publications and/or will require their authors to have insurance. Publishers are almost always named in these lawsuits as defendants, or co-defendants along with the authors, though, because they are generally the ones with the money.

So, do the clauses prevent liability on the part of the publisher or not?

How valuable would such a clause be if signed by the OP? (A rough guess)

Of course, any additional information unrelated to the questions is always welcome.

 

[quincy]

So, do the clauses prevent liability on the part of the publisher or not?

How valuable would such a clause be if signed by the OP? (A rough guess)

Of course, any additional information unrelated to the questions is always welcome.

I don't know how valuable such a clause would be to the publisher if signed by calhoon - and I am really not fond of guessing.

I can tell you that traditional publishers find these clauses valuable enough that they include them in all of their standard contracts, though. Although authors have the ability to negotiate with their publisher ALL terms of their publishing contracts, and this is just another area where negotiation is possible, it would be the rare publisher that would agree to an author's request to remove them entirely from a contract. It is possible, if not probable (it depends on the particular author), that a publisher will reduce the scope of the clause or limit the effect of the clause - but facts matter.

The clauses will not prevent a lawsuit, if that is what you are asking. The publisher can be, and usually will be, sued right along with the author. The clauses however allow for the publisher to pursue an action against the author if damages are awarded against the publisher as a result of content created by an author.

I believe calhoon has been provided with answers to his questions already, though.

 

[tranquility]

The clauses will not prevent a lawsuit, if that is what you are asking. The publisher can be, and usually will be, sued right along with the author. The clauses however allow for the publisher to pursue an action against the author if damages are awarded against the publisher as a result of content created by an author.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer.[1]

 

[quincy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

Interesting. So THAT is what a rhetorical question is, huh? (that is a rhetorical question, by the way - you don't have to answer)

Your "rough guess" after your questions threw me off. I thought you actually expected an answer or, at the very least, a rough guess.

Quite frankly, tranquility, you suck at posing rhetorical questions.