A key First Amendment controversy.......
Find a Conversation
| Thu, 12-25-2003 - 8:06am |
This is an interesting case.
Can a fictional article contain a libel?
Texas Supreme Court's libel-by-fiction case.
>"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.
Case facts
In October 1999, Texas judge Darlene Whitten sentenced 13-year-old Christopher Beamon to 5 days in jail because he had written a Halloween essay about the shooting of a teacher and two classmates. District Attorney Bruce Isaacks had brought the charges against Beamon. Beamon served his sentence in a juvenile facility.
Then, in November 11, 1999, the Dallas Observer published an article -- under the headline "Stop the Madness" -- that said that, in another recent case, Isaacks had prosecuted, and Whitten had jailed, a six-year-old girl. Her crime? According to the article, the girl had written a book report on Maurice Sendak's children's picture book Where the Wild Things Are. The article reported that the girl was detained in handcuffs and shackles.
According to the article, the judge remarked, "Any implication of violence in a school situation, even if it was just contained in a first-grader's book report, is reason enough for panic and overreaction." The article also claimed that the judge told the little girl, "It's time for you to grow up, young lady, and it's time for us to stop treating kids like children." And it claimed that the prosecutor said, "We've considered having her certified to stand trial as an adult, but even in Texas there are some limits.""<
>"On November 18, the Observer published the following comment on the article: "Here's a clue for our cerebrally-challenged readers who thought the story was real: It wasn't. It was a joke. We made it up. Not even Judge Whitten, we hope, would throw a 6-year-old girl in the slammer for writing a book report. Not yet, anyway."
Unsurprisingly, Whitten did not deem this to be the sincere retraction he had sought. Accordingly, on November 30, he sued the Observer for libel on behalf of his wife and Isaacks. And, to the surprise of many First Amendment advocates, he prevailed in both the trial court and the court of appeals. Now the Texas Supreme Court will hear the case."<
Complete article...............
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/12/12/findlaw.analysis.hilden.libel/index.html
cl-Libraone


The only change I would think that the paper should have made was to state at the beginning of the 'article' that it was a fictional, op-ed piece.