Quote: Marc P @ May 7 2008, 4:14 PM BSTYou can't be sued for satire.
??? So you can write anything as long as it's classed as satire ?
Vegas: That joke isn't funny anymore. Page 2
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 BSTYou can't be sued for satire.
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."
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.
Quote: Norman Wisdom @ May 8 2008, 8:44 PM BSTI believe Johnny V IS A GOOD BLOKE BY ALL THAT I HEAR.
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'.
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/
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 BSTAhem.
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?
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.
I bet they won't even mention it. Especially if there are legal matters now.
I wish they would though.
Quote: SlagA @ May 8 2008, 9:39 PM BSTI believe changing names won't protect you in court
sey sadie what have you done?
you've ruined it all for everyone.
Anyway who'd be stupid enough to sue a website with a small number of readers - that would only bring attention to it and keep the medias attention on the incident that inspired it.
Quote: waring @ May 10 2008, 3:13 AM BSTsey sadie what have you done?
you've ruined it all for everyone.Anyway who'd be stupid enough to sue a website with a small number of readers - that would only bring attention to it and keep the medias attention on the incident that inspired it.
Fair comment. Maybe correct, I wouldn't know.
Thing is though it was still pretty 'cheap' - the pre-amble, as some spotted, was a direct steal from the media and the joke itself not severe enough to be considered obvious 'satire'.
Having read some of the other offerings on Mr Musgrove's site I had a favourable first impression - so this has somewhat tainted it all. In this instance, the name change is laughable in response to the views of several posters who have advised some caution. Maybe he's a lawyer and feels quite confident - who knows.
Name change and picture change. I feel this is now safe, and as I think Waring said it would be madness to sue a website with such small readership.
http://petermusgrove.com/2008/05/06/this-joke-isnt-funny-anymore/
p.s. Though I am sure there was some piss taking going on I genuinely thank people for there advice on this one. You never know, with my luck at the moment things would probably have gone tits up. It would have been great publicity for the website though. Lose my wife and kids, but gain some comic notoriety 