Satire v. Defamation: A Legal Exemption
In all citations and commentary posted on Molière Citations, it is our intent and practice to avoid any event of defamation, by relying on the use of satire to draw attention to the foibles and behavior of awardees. At all times, and in all ways, Molière Citations practices the use of satire, and never in any way intends to defame any individual or organization.
There are many online resources setting out the theory and practice of satire in drawing attention to ridiculous and hypocritical actions by recipients of Molière Citations.
We offer a selection of quotes and holdings here, and would point our readers to an excellent column outlining the legal distinction between satire and defamation, including a few trenchant observations:
HYPERLINK TO DANIEL WARNER ARTICLE
Satire v. Defamation: A Legal Explanation
January 13, 2014 | Posted by Daniel R. Warner | Defamation | 0
“With cases involving outrageous parody and satire, the path of least resistance has been to find the ‘speech’ non-defamatory as a matter of law. The rationale used to justify this conclusion is that no reasonable reader could understand the publication as an assertion of fact. The presumption is that satires so outrageous as to preclude belief is incapable of harming reputation” – From Constitutional Law-Satire, Defamation, and the Believability Rule as a Bar To Recovery – Falwell v. Flynt by Kevin M. Smith
From the linked article, we draw your attention to this particular distinction:
Satire v. Defamation: The Case Of The Esquire Blog Post
Satire v. Defamation: What Is The Difference?
Defamation is a believable false statement of fact that causes material harm. Satire is “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.” In other words: defamation is a malicious lie passed off as truth; satire is a humorous skewering of a cultural or political event – regardless of whether or not you agree with the viewpoint.