First Amendment Follies - Libel-by-Fiction
Mood:
Auctorial
Read/Post Comments (0)
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/12/findlaw.analysis.hilden.libel/index.html
Texas Supreme Court's libel-by-fiction case
A key First Amendment controversy
By Julie Hilden
FindLaw Columnist
Friday, December 12, 2003 Posted: 12:12 PM EST (1712 GMT)
(FindLaw) -- Last week, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral argument in New Times, Inc. d/b/a Dallas Observer v. Isaacks, an important First Amendment case. The case invokes both the little-known doctrine of "libel by fiction," and the principle that satire is a form of constitutionally protected speech.
The case implicitly raises an issue of great importance: How careful do citizens have to be when they criticize judges' rulings, and district attorney's decisions to prosecute? Must they fear that if their criticism is too barbed, or too subtle, the officials involved will sue and win?
In the Isaacks case, a newspaper published a parody criticizing a judge and prosecutor. The judge and prosecutor subsequently sued -- arguing that the parody could all too easily have been construed as a true, and libelous, statement about them.
(lots more at site...)
(Thanks to VEG)
Texas Supreme Court's libel-by-fiction case
A key First Amendment controversy
By Julie Hilden
FindLaw Columnist
Friday, December 12, 2003 Posted: 12:12 PM EST (1712 GMT)
(FindLaw) -- Last week, the Texas Supreme Court heard oral argument in New Times, Inc. d/b/a Dallas Observer v. Isaacks, an important First Amendment case. The case invokes both the little-known doctrine of "libel by fiction," and the principle that satire is a form of constitutionally protected speech.
The case implicitly raises an issue of great importance: How careful do citizens have to be when they criticize judges' rulings, and district attorney's decisions to prosecute? Must they fear that if their criticism is too barbed, or too subtle, the officials involved will sue and win?
In the Isaacks case, a newspaper published a parody criticizing a judge and prosecutor. The judge and prosecutor subsequently sued -- arguing that the parody could all too easily have been construed as a true, and libelous, statement about them.
(lots more at site...)
(Thanks to VEG)
Read/Post Comments (0)
Previous Entry :: Next Entry
Back to Top
