The Freedom of Speech: Comedy and Defamation

By Dan Spinelli 

Dan Spinelli is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE).

Libel, the  publication  of false statements  defamatory to  one’s  character, is one of the most inscrutable areas of constitutional law. Laws surrounding libel and slander, the spoken form of libel, often provoke some of the judicial system’s most eccentric cases. This article will trace the developments in libel law over the past half­-century  by  focusing  on  the  landmark  1987  Supreme  Court  case  of  Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, and discuss a more recent controversy involving comedienne Sarah Silverman and rapper Eminem.

Hustler Magazine opened up the floodgates for defamation of public figures through  a quite humorous  case. After discovering his scandalous portrayal in the magazine, Reverend Jerry Falwell sued Hustler. [1] Falwell was  a figurehead  of the  “moral majority” movement  of the  1980’s that  aligned  the Republican  Party with the Christian right. His  notoriety made  him  an  easy target for  controversial publications like Hustler. In one issue, Hustler ran a parody feature discussing the “first times” of different celebrities, and depicted Falwell’s first time as a “drunken incestuous  rendezvous  with  his  mother  in  an  outhouse.”  [2]  This  evidently outrageous piece enraged Falwell, who sued Hustler for defamation of character.

Upon reaching the Supreme Court, the justices deliberated over whether Falwell’s right to recover damages for libel or Hustler’s First Amendment right to freedom of the press should reign supreme. To contemporary readers, the idea of Falwell  recovering  damages  for  “emotional  distress”  caused  by  an  outrageous comment may seem ridiculous. However, the defamatory magazine feature seemed blatantly  unconstitutional  when  held  up  to  the  Court’s  decision set  forth  in  the 1963 case of The New York Times v. Sullivan. In this landmark case, the justices elaborated a standard for the press to publish freely (and sometimes erroneously) about  public  affairs  without  fear  of  libel  charges,  except  in  cases  of  “reckless disregard  for  the  truth.”  [3]  The  dilemma  here  is  almost  comically  apparent: showcasing  Reverend  Jerry  Falwell  having  incestuous  sex  with  his  mother  is almost certainly recklessly untruthful. How can the Court reconcile its standard in New York Times with the problematic situation in Hustler?

Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s  opinion  in Hustler  provided  a  clever answer: freedom of speech requires some “breathing space” for the press to ensure that no chilling effects block important speech about public figures. [4] Following this line  of reasoning, the  press  does  not  always  have to report facts  completely factually. Punishing them for a single misstep with costly libel charges will almost certainly derail any further conversation. This was exemplified through the charges against the Saturday Evening Post, which essentially went bankrupt after fending off libel charges from the 1967 case of Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (although the Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s  opinion  in Hustler  provided  a  clever Post  was  exonerated,  the  immense  trial  costs  contributed  to  the  venerable newspaper’s bankruptcy). [5] With the Post’s demise clearly in mind, Rehnquist’s reasoning makes sense. We as a democratic populace certainly want free-­flowing conversation about public issues, even if the reporting may sometimes stretch the truth. But  is  the  depiction  of Jerry  Falwell, so  to speak,  going  to  town  with  his mother really a matter of “public concern?”

Well,  yes. As  a figure  of immense  public import, satirical  depictions  of Falwell run to the crux of First Amendment protection. Furthermore, as Rehnquist explicated in the Hustler opinion, a showing of “actual malice” must be present to allow any recovery for libel of public figures. [6] Hustler’s humorous depiction of Falwell seems  hardly reminiscent  of  “actual  malice,”  but  as  many  critics  of  the Court’s opinion have pointed out, almost nothing seems to meet the hard standard of “actual malice.” Ultimately, the Court lent a helping hand to two rather disparate social commentators: Sarah Silverman and Eminem.

The  versatile  and  fearless  comedienne  Sarah  Silverman  has  long  been notable for  her  cutting­edge  comedy that transgresses the  boundaries  of  decency and  acceptability.  Silverman  appeared  to  push  the  envelope  too  far  in  her appearance in the 2005 film The Aristocrats, which traced the history and stylistic diversity of the famous  “aristocrats” joke through  constant retellings by different comedians. In  Silverman’s retelling, she  included real  people, such  as  television host  Joe  Franklin,  as  characters  in  her  joke.  In  her  conclusion,  Silverman deadpanned  that  “Joe  Franklin  raped  me.”  This  wildly  scandalous  but  clearly tongue­-in­-cheek  claim  caused  an  uproar  upon  the  movie’s  release.  While Silverman’s  comment  was  clearly  staged  as  part  of  a  joke,  her  first-person narration  and  serious  delivery  drew  ire from  the  real-­life  Joe  Franklin,  who remarked  that  he  “didn’t  like  the  nature  of  the  wisecrack.”  [7]  While  Franklin ultimately chose not to sue Silverman, his outrage signaled a roadblock of sorts to the  American  legal system’s  jurisprudence  on  defamation.  Could  Franklin  have garnered a settlement from Silverman? Although her comments surely lacked any discussion of matters of “public importance,” Franklin’s status  as  a public figure and  the  improbable  case  that  Silverman  intended  “actual  malice”  toward  him would have complicated Franklin’s lawsuit.

Another interesting  case study regarding libel involves the musical  artist Eminem whose  often-­defamatory rap lyrics  about  his mother  could  very well  be said to show “actual malice.” Eminem has made it no secret that his childhood in Detroit was difficult, and that his mother’s drug abuse blighted his childhood. This raises the legal question of whether Eminem’s malice is truthful or in the guise of one of the rapper’s personas.

The lyrics in question came off of Eminem’s debut track, “My Name Is,” in which he rapped, “My mom smokes more dope than I do.” Such lyrics present a scurrilous claim, though clearly in the manner of hip-­hop’s tendency toward exaggeration and invective. If the courts were to actually adjudicate the truth of such a statement, Eminem would need to incriminate himself in order to “measure” his intake of drugs against his mother’s, which was clearly not an option per the Fifth Amendment. Eminem had arguably the clearest case of “actual malice.” In his follow-­up record, The Marshall Mathers LP, Eminem raps about raping his mother in the song, “Kill You.” [8] In interviews, he has expressed nothing but distaste for her. The strict legal standard of “actual malice” seems to have actually been met in this case.

Ultimately, the big winners in Debbie Mathers’ litigation against her son were the lawyers. A pair of $11 million defamation lawsuits resulted in a measly $25,000 settlement for Eminem’s mom. The presiding judge then ruled “that $23,354.25 of the $25,000 settlement should go to Fred Gibson, Mathers’ former attorney.” [9]

The trend from Hustler shows the increasing difficulty to trying cases of libel. The Court’s almost impossibly strict standard of “actual malice” firmly discourages litigation and strengthens the position of transgressors. What this legal standard does not do is protect public figures from the court of public opinion. And it does indeed seem that public opinion is the best recourse to affect the actions of transgressors.

[1] “Jerry Falwell ­ Biography ­ Evangelist, Minister, Pastor, Television Personality, Radio Talk Show Host,” Biography, accessed November 19, 2014, http://www.biography.com/people/jerry­falwell­9291425.
[2] Special To The New York Times, “Excerpts From High Court’s Affirmation of Speech Protections,” The New York Times, February 25, 1988, sec. U.S., http://www.nytimes.com/1988/02/25/us/excerpts­from­high­court­s­affirmation­of-speech­protections.html.
[3] “New York Times Co. v. Sullivan | Casebriefs,” accessed November 19, 2014, http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts­keyed­to­epstein/defamation/new-york­times­co­v­sullivan/.
[4] “Court: No Special Protection For News Opinion,” Chicago Tribune, accessed November 19, 2014, http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990­06­22/news/9002200731_1_libel­supreme­court­defamatory.
[5] “Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts | Casebriefs,” accessed November 19, 2014, http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/torts/torts­keyed­to­epstein/defamation/curtis-publishing­co­v­butts/.
[6] Genelle Belmas and Wayne Overbeck, Major Principles of Media Law, 2014 Edition (Cengage Learning, 2013).
[7] Sam Anderson, “Irony Maiden,” Slate, November 10, 2005, http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2005/11/irony_maiden.html.
[8] Eminem: Kill You (lyrics), 2008, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Y-CSQor5s&feature=youtube_gdata_player.
[9] Corey Moss 8/8/2001, “Eminem’s Mom Nets Measly $1,600 From Lawsuits Against Her Son,” MTV News, accessed November 19, 2014, 
http://www.mtv.com/news/1446458/eminems‐mom‐nets‐measly‐1600‐from‐lawsuits‐against‐her‐son/.

Photo Credit: Flickr User Tim Green