"Urging Michael S. Class, founder of the American Values Awards for movies, to drop a potential libel case against innocent, anonymous blogger"

The AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY, Fourth Ed., defines the noun "parody" with the following words:


A literary or artistic work that imitates the characteristic style of an author or a work for comic effect or ridicule. See Synonyms at caricature.
The genre of literature comprising such works.
Something so bad as to be equivalent to intentional mockery; a travesty: The trial was a parody of justice.
Music. The practice of reworking an already established composition, especially the incorporation into the Mass of material borrowed from other works, such as motets or madrigals.

According to an article in the November/December issue of the highly esteemed magazine Foreign Policy, there are millions of blogs on the Internet right now the article projected 10 million by 2005. (The article can be found here.) The vast majority of these blogs are by persons anonymous, have tiny readerships, and are difficult to find in search engines like Google, often appearing in search results by chance (and even then, they are most likely listed near the end of all results, where most Web surfers do not care to look, since major search engines rely on page popularity to help get users to the right place). Therefore, unless a blogger is a very well-known figure online or offline, anything that he/she posts is extremely unlikely to influence the opinion of a significant number of all Internet users. This is somewhat analogous to the following hypothetical situation: If on a trip to New York City's Time Square an average private citizen shouted, "George W. Bush is a homo!" very few bystanders are likely to listen, much less take this statement seriously. Just because the audience is there does not mean it will pay attention. The same goes with the World Wide Web.

On The Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law the free speech rights of bloggers receive the same protections as individuals who practice other, traditional forms of free speech. Establishing a particular statement or article as defamation, also called libel or slander, requires the following to be proved:

a publication to one other than the person defamed;
a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice.

The case collapses if the second condition is not met. In this case, the accused, a San Francisco blogger known as "JW" (blog here) published the posting that has resulted in this legal situation with the title Family Values (A Parody). While only a qualified judge can determine whether or not the text of the post was truly "parody" as defined above, the fact that the author identified it as parody in the title suggests an undeniable intent for the reader to take the post as fiction, not fact. And thus, as it is clearly not meant to deceive anybody, the post cannot be called a "false statement of fact" or a "reckless negligence" of the truth.

In the United States of America, a public figure cannot expect to be free from satirical ridicule. Whether or not the satire parodies the actual statements or views or other elements of the public image of a figure, the satire remains valid, and the American public accepts it as such. Take, for example, Michael Jackson. He has never admitted to or been definitively proven as being a pedophile, but this conclusion drawn of him by a significant portion of the public has made America receptive to ongoing jokes by popular late night comedians like Jay Leno about Jackson's alleged pedophilia. Even after Jackson was acquitted of all charges in his latest sexual molestation case, said comedians continued to make jokes about Jackson's sexual preferences and activities. Do you categorically disapprove of these jokes, Mr. Class, since they would, under a certain twisted analysis, perpetuate a claim that Michael Jackson is a pedophile even though he may not be? If the blogger JW portrayed you as a homosexual, sexual predator, or practitioner of incest in any article that was a self-declared parody, would you not be in the same position as Michael Jackson?

You may ask how you are to be considered a public figure. The Bloggers' FAQ on Online Defamation Law says that: "A public figure is someone who has actively sought, in a given matter of public interest, to influence the resolution of the matter. In addition to the obvious public figures a government employee, a senator, a presidential candidate someone may be a limited-purpose public figure. A limited-purpose public figure is one who (a) voluntarily participates in a discussion about a public controversy, and (b) has access to the media to get his or her own view across. One can also be an involuntary limited-purpose public figure for example, an air traffic controller on duty at time of fatal crash was held to be an involuntary, limited-purpose public figure, due to his role in a major public occurrence." You are clearly a limited-purpose public figure by this definition. By creating a set of movie awards showcasing your kind of values in today's political climate, where American values are a hot topic for discussion, and then getting media attention on these awards, in the form of an article reported by international news agency AFP, you have become a public figure, whether you like it or not. Thus, you must accept that you are herein to be judged and treated by the standards given to public figures, which are different from those of private figures.

If you are still unconvinced about the lack of legal basis of your claim, please consider the famous case of Hustler v. Falwell. You can read the opinion of the Supreme Court, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, here. In Hustler v. Falwell, "nationally known minister and commentator" (as well as a leader for the Moral Majority movement in the early 1980s) Jerry Falwell was featured in a parody of a magazine advertisement for an alcoholic beverage. The text of this parody consisted of a fictional interview with Falwell in which "Falwell" said that he had had an incestuous sexual encounter with his mother while drunk. The parody did not explicitly identify itself as a parody, unlike in your case. As a national figure and leader of a significant religious-political movement, Falwell stood to lose much more than you now do. He sued for damages caused by defamation and emotional distress. The appeals process went all the way to the Supreme Court. The decision of the Supreme Court was unanimous. This famous case bears a number of parallels with yours. However, in your case, your burden of proof is much greater. We urge you to save yourself the trouble (as well as the embarrassment of a backfire) and drop this case.

For the benefit of all parties interested in supporting this cause of free speech rights, the text of the blogger's post has been posted below as well as your e-mail correspondence with him. (All of the following text was shared in an open forum at the Oscarwatch Forums)




Family Values (A Parody)

INT. OFFICE OF MICHAEL CLASS DAY

A man is sitting at a chair behind a large mahogany desk. He is reading a copy of The Wall Street Journal. We see pictures of him on the wall with the President of the United States and various corporate dignitaries. We see the name "Michael Class" written in reverse on the back of the open door to his office. The phone rings.

MICHAEL CLASS:
Yes?

VOICE ON PHONE:
Your publicist is here to see you, Mr. Class.

MICHAEL CLASS:

Send him in, and have him shut the door.

A man walks through the door and shuts it behind him.

PUBLICIST:
You asked for me?

MICHAEL CLASS:
Yes. I would like to issue a press release. We need to do something before these godforsaken hippie communist film studios take over the country.

PUBLICIST:
What exactly do you mean?

MICHAEL CLASS:
Look at all of the movies that are up for awards this year. I don't need to remind you that awards mean publicity, publicity means attention, and attention means the public being exposed to issues that don't help our cause. Fear of the unknown and ignorance of government action is something we need to preserve.

PUBLICIST:
What movies are you concerned with?

MICHAEL CLASS:
Almost all of them! Brokeback Mountain portrays homosexuals in a relationship that might remind people of one of their own. If we don't attack this movie and it becomes less of a values issue than we might lose some of our morals constituency. We pratically rode the San Francisco marriage debacle into a re-election for the president in 2004.

PUBLICIST:
I see your point, sir.

MICHAEL CLASS:
And along the same lines, Transamerica. We can't let the public see a transexual portrayed in a positive light. Also Capote, which...

PUBLICIST:
Isn't the portrayal of the character in that movie actually rather negative?

MICHAEL CLASS:
Yes, but not negative enough, there is too much complexity there. We need to preserve a cartoon-like negative connotation in people's minds.

The publicist jots down notes.

MICHAEL CLASS:
We also need to attack the political movies. Syriana suggests that the government and Corporate America are corrupt, and that our presence in the Middle East might be directly leading to terrorism. People must believe in their government and corporations, or at least be ambivalent, otherwise people might switch sides and new voters could defeat us in the next election. Good Night, and Good Luck might make people think twice about why they aren't getting both sides to every story on the news these days. We've made great progress in this area recently, especially with Fox, and we can't lose that.

PUBLICIST:
What do you suggest we do?

MICHAEL CLASS:
We'll create our own awards, I've already come up with a name: "American Values Awards for Movies and Television". We will nominate films less distasteful to us, and call for a change to award movies with patriotism and respect for family values.

PUBLICIST:
Which movies did you have in mind?

MICHAEL CLASS:
The Chronicles of Narnia, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Star Wars Eppisode III, and Cinderella Man.

PUBLICIST:
Why those in particular?

MICHAEL CLASS:
Well Narnia is obvious. Everybody thinks it is about Jesus. In this country Jesus equals morals. Jesus equals conservatism.

PUBLICIST:
But isn't that movie rather violent for young children? And how does exactly does it portray family values or..

MICHAEL CLASS:
It doesn't matter. Churches organized groups to see this movie in droves. We have to pick it or else we won't appeal to our constituency.

PUBLICIST:
What about Harry Potter? Didn't we just publicly criticize the author of the books for writing anti-christian stories about witchcraft just a couple of years ago?

MICHAEL CLASS:
People have forgotten about that already. We can say it is a story about good versus evil. The same goes for Star Wars.

PUBLICIST:
Well, forgive me for asking here, but isn't that movie about genocide? Doesn't the protagonist turn evil and murder children? And in the end the bad guys win? Is that really the message we want to be sending? Not to mention that it isn't a big leap for someone to make a connection between the Emperor's quest for more power and military might to the neoconservative agenda of the current administration...

MICHAEL CLASS:
Please, do you actually think that anyone is going to catch that? It's good versus evil. And the Jedi from the movies remind people of monks.

PUBLICIST:
May I suggest something?

MICHAEL CLASS:
Go Ahead.

PUBLICIST:
Why don't we promote more appropriate movies? More family oriented movies, or ones that actually promote family values and patriotism?

MICHAEL CLASS:
Such as?

PUBLICIST:
Well, there's Duma, or...

MICHAEL CLASS:
You don't get the point. None of the movies you are about to name actually made any money. And we can't include animated movies because people will not take it seriously. Remember, we want to promote these awards as an alternative to the trash the liberal establishment is giving out. If we get really lucky here, we could even compete with the Oscars. Then with less prestigious awards to be won, maybe less of these objectionable movies will be made.

PUBLICIST:
What about Cinderella Man?

MICHAEL CLASS:
Well, none of our other choices received much critical praise. We've got to include something regarded as a quality film to be considered legitimate.

PUBLICIST:
Okay. I'll work up a press release.

The publicist leaves the office. Michael Class continues to read the paper for a few seconds, when the phone rings again.

VOICE ON PHONE:
Sir, your broker left a message for you. He says you are way up on defense and oil stocks today, sir. Also I have a delivery for you.

The assistant whose voice we heard enters the room and hands over a package to Michael Class. He opens it up, and we see a DVD entitled Policemen with Muscles 17.



JW:

I have read your weblog in which you have posted a fictitious
conversation between myself and my publicist. You posted it at:
http://fictiondepartment.blogspot.com, on January 25, 2006.

Your posting is not only fictitious and completely fabricated you
have used my name and persona without authorization from me. Your
false statements about me and the intent of your weblog posting is
defamatory. I consider your weblog to be libelous, with the intent of
damaging my professional reputation and harming my publishing business.

I am asking that you remove all content about me from your weblog
within 24 hours, or I will turn the entire matter over to
professional legal council for action. I will ask my attorneys to
seek a defamation lawsuit against you.

Once you remove all content mentioning me from your weblog, I will
monitor your weblog daily to make sure this problem does not happen
again.

If the problem does repeat, I will not offer warning: I will simply
forward the matter to my attorneys for appropriate action.

Your prompt compliance is now required.

Thank you.


Michael S. Class
Author / Photographer / Publisher



January 28, 2006

Re: Weblog http://fictiondepartment.blogspot.com/ with references to
Mr. Michael Class

Mr. (EDITED TO REMOVE: MY FIRST AND LAST NAME):

I am asking you to immediately remove all content from your site
regarding references to "Michael Class" (myself). The information is
defamatory and casts me in a false light that is damaging to my
business reputation and publishing business. It is libelous. It is
not a parody because there is nothing similar I have done or said for
you to parody.

I must warn you that you attribute to me political beliefs that I do
not hold and have not voiced.

It also appears you have based your personal assault on information
that is also false and erroneous: the article in the TURKISH PRESS
that you cite is filled with inaccuracies. I am not a film producer.
I have never commented on some of the movies that you mention in your
blog, specifically Good Night and Good Luck, Capote, Transamerica,
and any other Harry Potter movies (other than Goblet of Fire).

I have nothing to do with the San Francisco gay marriage debate.

I have also been on radio and in the press with specific reasons for
not placing Brokeback Mountain on my list of recommended movies - and
my reasons have nothing to do with homosexuality and I am on record
to that effect. I am on record in newspapers, press releases, and
radio and television on many issues.

You also portray me as a person who would order DVDs of homosexual
pornographic material - not something I would do, and something that
directly harms me as an author of a children's book.

I am an author and publisher of a children's book of American history.

I chose several movies and placed them on my website (American Values
Awards) because the movies are inspiring and reflect positive
American values that kids can emulate - an extension of my book. My
book lists 600 movies for kids to watch. You can see some of them
here: www.MagicPictureFrame.com

I tell you all of these things so that you are forewarned with full
disclosure: your information about me is wrong, and the picture you
paint of me is damaging.

But I have no choice but to turn this whole affair over to my
publishing company's legal firm: I already have. On Monday morning, I
am asking them to pursue this to the maximum punitive extent in order
to protect my reputation and children's book publishing business.
When an individual lawyer is assigned on Monday, I will forward
contact information so you may deal with them directly.

I have told them that damage has already been done because your blog
is accessible worldwide in Internet search engines. I want it removed
immediately, but I want them to consider compensation for damage
already done.




All concerned parties wishing to contact you directly may do so via the e-mail address listed on the "Contact the Author" page of your Web site.