Texas Supreme Court finds for newspaper in satire case


Dallas Observer did not libel Denton County officials, judges rule

ASSOCIATED PRESS


Saturday, September 4, 2004


A fictional Dallas Observer article about the arrest of a 6-year-old girl for a book report was satire and didn't libel two Denton County officials who sued the newspaper, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday.

The 8-0 ruling in favor of the Dallas Observer and three journalists stated that Denton County Court-at-Law Judge Darlene Whitten and District Attorney Bruce Isaacks, who sued the alternative weekly paper, will get nothing.

The article in question was published in 1999 under the headline "Stop the Madness." It was a parody of the actual arrest of a 13-year-old Ponder student for reading a graphic Halloween story in class.

The fictional article was about a girl jailed for a school book report on Maurice Sendak's children's story "Where the Wild Things Are."

Whitten and Isaacks said the fictional article was presented as news and damaged their reputations. Their attorney said that some people -- even lawyers, college professors and other journalists -- thought the story was true.

Whitten's lawyer said he may ask the Texas Supreme Court for a rehearing.

The attorney for the Observer argued that the article was clearly satire when read in its entirety and that it was protected by the First Amendment.

There are only two types of entities that can generally predict victory when they become combatants in Texas' civil justice system: insurance companies and the news media. Governmental entities fall much further down the list. With that said, and with all my personal sympathy flowing to Mr. Isaacs, it was predictable (and, perhaps, desirable) that the Supreme Court would hold satire to be non-actionable in libel jurisprudence. Just as governmental, absolute, qualified and official immunities are intended to promote fearless governance (rather than excuse misconduct), so, too, do the federal and state constitutional guarantees of free speech rights operate to encourage vigorous discussion and debate of public issues, although the cost is toleration of churlish, perhaps immature and unsupportable, views of those like the Dallas Observer's columnist or Larry Flynt. To paraphrase Justice Holmes, inoffensive speech needs no protection. The prospect of eroding First Amendment and article 1, section 8 protection to erect a governmental system of accountability for arguable irresponsibility and unabashed bombast was simply too great from a public policy standpoint to support any outcome other than the one which ultimately occurred.

But, Scott, most everything these days has to be properly labeled. Would it really curb free speech too much to require a footnote or something somewhere explaining an otherwise ambiguous situation? But, I know, it all depends on what the meaning of "truth" is or whether satire would lose its effectiveness if it were properly labeled. The problem with this particular case all along was that the claims in the article were not so outrageous that you could not very easily tell what was in jest. I am a staunch supporter of freedom of the press and speech, but when people's reputations are at stake and they have done nothing wrong, do we really need the "procession of improbable quotes and unlikely events" defense available to improve our society or government? I just do not think the court gave the "news" label as much weight as it deserved. Falwell was, in my opinion, a much easier case.

[This message was edited by Martin Peterson on 09-04-04 at .]

Your point is well taken. It suggests the more difficult question about responsibility for amateurish satire (which the Observer piece certainly qualifies as being). Is First Amendment protection dependent upon how skillfully one wields the acerbic pen? I do agree, though, that protection of reputations is a substantial counterbalancing concern that is, quite frankly, generally given no more than lip service in federal and state free speech jurisprudence. Money (like that possessed by media interests) talks, you know. Judge Onion once said that the media is fond of criticizing lawyers for their lack of professional responsibility, "but that comes from people who have no code of professional responsibility, either."

Actually, reporters do have a code. For details, see this link to the Code.

The rule relevant to this discussion might be:

Sound practice makes clear distinction between news reports and expressions of opinion. News reports should be free of opinion or bias and represent all sides of an issue.

quote:

---

News reports should be free of opinion or bias and represent all sides of an issue.

---

So, I guess 98% of the mainstream news falls outside their own code of conduct?

I have had some experience with SPJ's code of ethics (I was president of the Tech chapter of SPJ/Sigma Delta Chi). To borrow from an authority no less august than Pirates of the Caribbean, "the Code is more of a guideline." Unlike the Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct, it lacks any official enforcement mechanism.