As I've been doing for each and every Republican debate, I took to Twitter last night to post a number of sarcastic tweets throughout the event. A pair of Marco Rubio supporters didn't take too kindly to one of my tweets, as one said, "He didn't say that! That's slander!" I quickly responded, "Psst, it's satire..." Another Rubio supporter then decided to post the definition of the term slander on my page. I'm not sure if he was doing this to inform the other Rubio fanboy he was wrong or to try telling me he had a point.
The definition of slander is, "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."
Last I checked, my tweet wasn't spoken, so even if I were committing an act of defamation, it would be libel, not slander. But, nice try kiddos!
Granted, sarcasm and satire are foreign languages to many, and this appeared to definitely be the case with the two before-mentioned Rubio groupies, but even if that's the case, perhaps they'd like to read about the legal protections of satire:
- "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals the freedoms of speech, the free exercise of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble. While many individuals may construe their freedom of speech rights broadly, not all forms of speech are protected. Satire is generally a protected form of speech..." - HG.org Legal Resources
- “With cases involving outrageous parody and satire, the path of least resistance has been to find the ‘speech’ non-defamatory as a matter of law. The rationale used to justify this conclusion is that no reasonable reader could understand the publication as an assertion of fact. The presumption is that satires so outrageous as to preclude belief is incapable of harming reputation” - From Constitutional Law-Satire, Defamation, and the Believability Rule as a Bar To Recovery
- "Memo to anyone thinking of suing or threatening someone else for defamation after that person made fun of them. Don't." - Media Law Journal
In other words, if an individual interprets satire as slander, the joke's kind of on them...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34438
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/satire-v-defamation/
http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=608
The definition of slander is, "The action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation."
Last I checked, my tweet wasn't spoken, so even if I were committing an act of defamation, it would be libel, not slander. But, nice try kiddos!
Granted, sarcasm and satire are foreign languages to many, and this appeared to definitely be the case with the two before-mentioned Rubio groupies, but even if that's the case, perhaps they'd like to read about the legal protections of satire:
- "The First Amendment to the United States Constitution grants individuals the freedoms of speech, the free exercise of religion, the press and the right to peacefully assemble. While many individuals may construe their freedom of speech rights broadly, not all forms of speech are protected. Satire is generally a protected form of speech..." - HG.org Legal Resources
- “With cases involving outrageous parody and satire, the path of least resistance has been to find the ‘speech’ non-defamatory as a matter of law. The rationale used to justify this conclusion is that no reasonable reader could understand the publication as an assertion of fact. The presumption is that satires so outrageous as to preclude belief is incapable of harming reputation” - From Constitutional Law-Satire, Defamation, and the Believability Rule as a Bar To Recovery
- "Memo to anyone thinking of suing or threatening someone else for defamation after that person made fun of them. Don't." - Media Law Journal
In other words, if an individual interprets satire as slander, the joke's kind of on them...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slander
http://www.hg.org/article.asp?id=34438
http://kellywarnerlaw.com/satire-v-defamation/
http://www.medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=608
Comments
Post a Comment