Quote: Marc P @ May 7 2008, 4:14 PM BST

You can't be sued for satire.

View original

??? So you can write anything as long as it's classed as satire ?
 

---

www.petermusgrove.com
 

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6938554.stm

Private Eye gets sued all the time, of course, but I think that is mostly due to the "factual" content rather than the obviously satirical.
 

---

"'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'"

 

i think the lawyers at HIGNFY may disagree!

you cant just say what you want about someone and then say "only joking"

Quote: Marc P @ May 7 2008, 4:14 PM BST

You can't be sued for satire.

View original

 

You can write a positive piece about someone and get sued, but you can't be sued for a nasty piece about someone if it is deemed satire.
 

ripped from the BBC:

To win at court you have to convince a jury that your comic tormentors have lowered your reputation in the eyes of society at large or made you an object of hatred, ridicule or contempt.

Martin Soames of London law firm Biddle says that satirists and comedians, however funny their material, can find the courtroom a tough venue to play.

"Technically there's no defence that it was only meant as a joke. It might not seem half as funny in front of a crusty old judge."
 

Quote:

you cant just say what you want about someone and then say "only joking"

No, obviously this is true. And I am not a lawyer.

However I think there are some useful points to make.

I believe there is a legal concept called "vulgar abuse". The law believes, I think, that vulgar abuse, while unpleasant, does not seriously damage someone's reputation. So someone saying "Gordon Brown is a ******* ****" on stage can get away with it, because they are not making a specific allegation. Someone saying "Gordon Brown is a traitor and sells secrets to the Russians" might conceivably get into hot water. I also believe that the degree of intent to damage someone's reputation is also taken into account. So someone saying that during an improv night at a comedy club, who is clearly not trying to convince the audience that it is true, would be treated differently to someone publishing it as a leader in a broadsheet newspaper.

Secondly, obviously it is possible to say all kinds of horrible things about people in all kinds of media because it happens every day and most of the time, no-one gets sued. It's a risk you run I guess. Also, I think the first step in any legal proceedings in most cases would likely be a "desist" notice asking you to take down the blog, or stop using the gags in your theatre show, or print a retraction in your newspaper, rather than the other party seeking damages. Unless they are Tom Cruise or the McCanns.
 

---

"'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'"

 

While the above is all true - it still leaves an online article that has ripped half its content from newspapers and then claimed someone was raped very exposed. In simple terms it ticks most of the boxes needed to get the "writer" in trouble.
 

Its true you can't be sued for satire. But it must be clear that it is satire. I think people were just pointing out that as the beginning of the report is actually genuine. For anybody who didnt know any better it would be difficult to tell where the facts end and where the fiction begins.

I would just rewrite it and begin with him having full sex with an audience member, but completely ham it up.
 

I have changed his name and location and age. Does that help. Suppose I should change the pic. Still it would take a right toss pot to sue a struggling comic/psychiatric nurse for that, and I believe Johnny V IS A GOOD BLOKE BY ALL THAT I HEAR.
 

---

www.petermusgrove.com
 

Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 8 2008, 8:44 PM BST

I believe Johnny V IS A GOOD BLOKE BY ALL THAT I HEAR.

View original

Well, if it sheds any light on the matter, the man in question broke both my legs with a mallet while simultaneosly shagging my girlfriend on stage in Swindon. Take from that, whatever lesson you will.

I believe changing names won't protect you in court, so the original dilemma remains the same. If the person being lampooned is easily recognised from the 'clues' (which is the whole point behind lampooning a celebrity) then it's the same as using their real name. Allegedly.

Also saying allegedly isn't a defence. You have to have reasonable grounds / sources from which to make the allegation.

It seems to be about 'context'. If the Spitting Image personalities weren't damaging to certain reputations then I don't know what else qualifies. But because the show was clearly set in satire / parody then the joke element is firmly established. In a show like HIGNFY (or even Private Eye) the content is funny but sometimes serious points and barbs are concealed within and this is what may place them on the edge of comedy / slander / libel. Spitting Image may well have been succesfully sued but I guess nowhere near as often as P.Eye etc.

Only 500 hits per day? Well done, Pete. We top Googles on certain keywords but still only average 100 a day, if that. I think including famous names as often as possible within your content will help drive people to your website. It's something we've been moving towards as part of our 'strategy'.
 

---

The Slagg Brothers live at:welshwriters.org.uk/slaggbrothers.

Our MySpace. Feel free to add us as friends.

Our YouTube. Subscribe to us and we'll return the compliment.
 

I have been known to put the odd link on forums Slag A. For example the article I did on JK Rowling I put on a Harry Potter website. Had over 1000 hits that day alone. And then hopefully some people like what you do and come back on a regular basis.

Other good forums...Football fan sites, digital spy, mirror forum.

Even put this one on a Psychotherapy forum. Seemed to get good feedback. Shows these shrinks actually do have a sence of humour.

http://petermusgrove.com/2008/03/11/desperate-gang-members-demand-psychoanalysis-at-gunpoint-2/
 

---

www.petermusgrove.com
 

Digital spy is very good for attracting traffic.

I had this blog going last summer

http://tossed-salads.blogspot.com/2007/06/charley-snubs-kieran-shocker.html

And i attracted around 15k hits in a couple of months. A lot of it returning traffic. Due in no small part to a few entries that were posted on DS.
 

Quote: thing @ May 6 2008, 11:39 AM BST

Ahem.

No comment on the particular incident but your report?

Get a suit on ready for Court mate! "--as Vegas continued to have full sex with the audience member---"

Bit dangerous?

View original

You might want to read this Peter

!Vegas acts over 'assault' claim
Johnny calls in the lawyers
Johnny Vegas has launched legal action against The Guardian for a story which claimed he sexually assaulted an audience member on stage.

Chortle understands that the comic has instructed leading libel lawyers Schillings to act on his behalf over an article printed on May 1 entitled: ‘Since when is sexual assault funny?’

The story claimed Vegas had ‘gratuitously groped’ a young woman on stage at London’s Bloomsbury Theatre, and accused him of being ‘a powerful, famous man on a stage seedily touching up a young woman’.

The paper’s allegations were widely repeated over the internet.

The original article has now been removed from the Guardian’s website, along with a follow-up opinion piece by comic Jackie Clune, also condemning Vegas, which appeared in this Sunday’s Observer.

Clune, who was not at the gig, began her article: ‘Stand-up comedy, like rape, is mostly about power’ and claimed the show ‘sounds like any night at an ordinary brothel - a fat, sweaty bloke getting his jollies with a captive young woman way out of his league. Except it was he, and not she, going home with a fistful of cash.’

A spokesman for Guardian News and Media said: ‘I can confirm that we have received a complaint from solicitors acting for Johnny Vegas about the two articles and we are currently investigating it.’

Schillings – whose recent clients include David Walliams, Nicolas Cage, Lisa Marie Presley and Marco Pierre White – did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

- and your link is still active ? Pretty arrogant, in my view.
 

---

Sorry: It's something to do with Stella.
 

I believe Mr.Vegas is on Jonathan Ross tonight. I wonder if the matter will be discussed. (Obviously I won't be watching as (A) Peep Show is on the other side, and (B) Jonathan Ross is rubbish.)
 

---

"'Reality,' sa molesworth 2, 'is so unspeakably sordid it make me shudder.'"

 

I bet they won't even mention it. Especially if there are legal matters now.

I wish they would though.
 

---

Before everything got out of hand, Political Correctness used to be called Spastic Gaytalk