A case a New Jersey judge deemed an “inherent tension between defamation law and The First Amendment,” was recently thrown out because of defamation protection in satire, The Smoking Gun reports. Three women filed a lawsuit against publishers Simon and Schuster, et al, for their appearance in the book “Hot Chicks with Douchebags.”
The book is a spinoff of the website Hot Chicks with Douchbags, which explores the “dark cultural trainwreck of hottie/douchy commingling.” Author, Jay Louis, known as “Douchebag1” on his site, says his site and book are about poking fun at “douche-[expletive] and the hotties who love them.”
The women whose photographs appear in the book filed a lawsuit claiming defamation, alleging their reputations were damaged because of their appearance in the book. The women were photographed at clubs and were not provided with, nor asked for, consent forms.
But recently, Judge Menelaos Toskos ruled that Jay Louis’ 2008 book was “replete with obvious attempts at satirical humor”, and as such, dismissed the case.
(C) 2003 Associated Press
Soccer star Christiano Ronaldo has been called a "douchebag" on the site by the author, Jay Louis- If someone’s picture is taken with consent, and then later used in the context of satire, should said person be allowed to claim defamation if he/she feels his/her reputation has been hurt?
- What implications does the Judge’s decision have on defamation? How far can satire go without being considered defamatory?
No comments:
Post a Comment