Satire 8, Libel 0
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Imagine Jonathan Swift publishing A Modest Proposal with a big red government stamp on it:
THIS IS NOT SERIOUS
Or a pages long disclaimer in Catch-22. God help Kurt Vonnegut.
I'm sure there are plenty of drooling, barely functional morons out there who don't understand satire. They can avoid it.
I live in America, where I have the opportunity to prove that I am a puerile imbecile. I don't like being assumed to be one.
Gary Gunnels, you should have sued everyone who accused you of being Jean Bart while it was still libel. It's just plain ol' stupidity now.
This reminds me of the Dilbert strip where they were going around labelling things "Coffee Maker," "Doorknob," etc., in order to meet ISO-9000 requirements.
Maybe we should help them out with some labels that say "Shit," "Shinola," "Ass," "Hole in the Ground," and so forth.
Anybody notice the small print in Burger King's "Angus Diet" TV commercials? At the bottom of the screen they print "The Angus Diet is not an actual diet." Duh. That's got to be the most cowardly ass-covering-in-case-of-lawsuit I've ever seen.
Yes, jean bart was much smarter, eh?
Some links.
The Texas Supreme Court opinion:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/texasstatecases/sc/030019.pdf
The satirical article, as reprinted in an Appendix to the opinion:
http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2004/sep/030019app.pdf
Several years ago, while I was editing the opinion section of my college's rag, I ran a satire purporting to be a letter from a public school student taking me to task for advocating a voucher system. The 'letter' was full of mistakes and grotesque flaws in logic. My mistake was modeling it after letters from school children published in the Chicago Tribune.
I thought that it was clear that the article was satiric. I was wrong. Over the next several weeks, I received several letters lambasting me for embarrasing the fictional child by publishing his letter uncorrected.
Letters from college students. At a moderately selective school.