Well, for one it's REALLY difficult to sue anyone for libel in the United States; the First Amendment is very effective that way. But it's wild how much of this they do. If you look through the headlines on their front page, it's full of this kind of stuff.

 

And in the case of satirical sites, it falls to the "reasonable person" defense. Would a reasonable person really believe something like this is true? The idea is that if you make it absurd enough, that reasonable person would smell a rat right away. Kind of like on The Onion a few years ago when they had a story about Strom Thurmond having a change of heart on gay rights issues after a late-night homosexual encounter.

And in the case of satirical sites, it falls to the "reasonable person" defense. Would a reasonable person really believe something like this is true? The idea is that if you make it absurd enough, that reasonable person would smell a rat right away. Kind of like on The Onion a few years ago when they had a story about Strom Thurmond having a change of heart on gay rights issues after a late-night homosexual encounter.

 

Hey, I've already admitted I'm an idiot. How much public shame and embarrassment should I have to put myself through. I also thought you were serious about the Closer thread you started in the MLB forum last night. I should have also ween right thru that using the "reasonable person" defense. :lol::lol::lol::lol2::lol2:

And in the case of satirical sites, it falls to the "reasonable person" defense. Would a reasonable person really believe something like this is true? The idea is that if you make it absurd enough, that reasonable person would smell a rat right away. Kind of like on The Onion a few years ago when they had a story about Strom Thurmond having a change of heart on gay rights issues after a late-night homosexual encounter.

 

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell is a great one to read on that subject. Details parody, satire and even the use of grotesque depictions in political cartoons as a part of the national discourse and why they deserve constitutional protection despite being untrue or not commensurate with reality. The First Amendment is pretty great.

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell is a great one to read on that subject. Details parody, satire and even the use of grotesque depictions in political cartoons as a part of the national discourse and why they deserve constitutional protection despite being untrue or not commensurate with reality. The First Amendment is pretty great.

 

Until you are the one whose character is targeted.

Until you are the one whose character is targeted.

 

Don't want to have a public roasting... don't live your life in public. The courts have been pretty clear about what you're permitted to publish about a public figure versus a private citizen. If Jerry Falwell had stayed home and prayed at his bedside every night, nobody would have ever written a bad word about him.

Don't want to have a public roasting... don't live your life in public. The courts have been pretty clear about what you're permitted to publish about a public figure versus a private citizen. If Jerry Falwell had stayed home and prayed at his bedside every night, nobody would have ever written a bad word about him.

 

Ok. Choosing who qualifies as a public figure is an interesting concept.

Ok. Choosing who qualifies as a public figure is an interesting concept.

 

There are two types:

 

1) Public Figure: someone who has fully entered the public's mind in celebrity or political activity.

 

2) Limited Purpose Public Figure: one who a) voluntarily engages in discussions about a public controversy and b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across.

 

I don't know if Falwell or Coulter fit No. 1 perfectly but they certain both fall within the second definition.

Don't want to have a public roasting... don't live your life in public. The courts have been pretty clear about what you're permitted to publish about a public figure versus a private citizen. If Jerry Falwell had stayed home and prayed at his bedside every night, nobody would have ever written a bad word about him.

 

 

So basically the courts have decided if you're rich and famous others are allowed to bully you?

Definitely seemed Onion-ish. She can't REALLY be that dumb, can she?

 

The fact that she can be that dumb is what makes people do a double take and think just maybe it's real for a minute.

So basically the courts have decided if you're rich and famous others are allowed to bully you?

 

The simple, terrible answer is "Yes". The real answer is that it depends on your definition of bullying and whether or not you find satire of a public, political figure -- even in a manner that can be seen as insulting -- as political discourse. Thanks to the guys that wrote the thing, the First Amendment definition of "political speech" is extremely broad and the protections it gets are very broad.

"Never believe anything you read on the internet"

-Abraham Lincoln

There are two types:

 

1) Public Figure: someone who has fully entered the public's mind in celebrity or political activity.

 

2) Limited Purpose Public Figure: one who a) voluntarily engages in discussions about a public controversy and b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across.

 

I don't know if Falwell or Coulter fit No. 1 perfectly but they certain both fall within the second definition.

 

Of all the slippery slope references on this site, option #2 seems to fit.

 

I believe school officials fall into this category.