limits on personal mockery of someone?

[Shrykull]

I've been wondering, just exactly how far does mockery and sarcasm go?

In theory, in the US you're supposed to be able to say almost anything you like, no matter how harsh, just as long as it isn't slanderous, or threatening, though even this doesn't seem to be absolute either, even with those 2 restrictions

My situation is basically a bad "business" experience I had. Normally the "service" he provided free. A game master (Dungeon Master in this case) of a game I was involved in at a local community center years ago, and he really did piss me off with his bad manners, often telling me my questions were silly, if he simply didn't like them (for example, one time me asking what my food was in some rations I bought, and another time someone in our party wanting to shoot a raven watching us, he thought it was dumb that we wanted to shoot it, him basically making a judgment on what he personally thought was silly, or another time saying I was wasting time asking of the specifics of swords) and put me up for display in front of the group, which often agreed with him. I'm not sure how much of the money went to him, no idea, but the community center's programs weren't free, and I figured I'd enjoy so I'd pay once.

Not to mention other things I could pin on him, where he would forget dates of things he was supposed to host (that people paid him to host) not show up. One time he told us we were wrong about not seeing a statue on the way into to some ruins, even though it was six against one! What the fuck?! Does he think we were all abducted by aliens and they erased our memories? And finally, he was a postal worker, and while I'm not saying all postal workers are idiots, this one definitely was.

He actually refused to be called a mailman, he would loudly retort that he wasn't one, that he delivered the mail instead, that there was some kind of difference.

Anyway, I'd like to write a book, a kind of mocumentary, that I would call The Complete Losers handbook............an expert guide on how not to DM with an autographed forward by him, all satirical of course, disclaimer in the front

But, I'm wondering if any action could be taken by him, and I going beyond what my rights allow me to do? I certainly wouldn't want to collect any money on it (hmm, could I though?) I thought perhaps only celebrities can be mocked, newspaper reporters write about just about anyone, but they are required to be neutral and impartial, I certainly wouldn't be, though I think magazines and websites are not, and may display harsh opinions of someone.

In short, could I get in any trouble for this, if I wrote something to publicly humiliate someone provided it was all true?

[Maraxus]

As far as I can imagine, you can't get in trouble for libel if your characters are "inspired" by someone. If I remember correctly, precident set by Hustler V. Jerry Falwell stated that as long as it was clear that a particular piece of writting was done in satire, emotional damages cannot be claimed, although I'm fairly certain that he could hit you with a libel charge on your fake forward in the beginning of the book. Please bear in mind that I have no legal training whatsoever, and am merely trying to float ideas that might be better supported by other members of this board.

[Shrykull]

As far as I can imagine, you can't get in trouble for libel if your characters are "inspired" by someone. If I remember correctly, precident set by Hustler V. Jerry Falwell stated that as long as it was clear that a particular piece of writting was done in satire, emotional damages cannot be claimed

I'm not trying to sue anyone, unless you meant him suing me for libel, which I won't do, I just want to name and mock him basically, and name him specifically.

although I'm fairly certain that he could hit you with a libel charge on your fake forward in the beginning of the book.

Even if it was just that, fake.......and I said it was fake?

[Ariphaos]

I've been wondering, just exactly how far does mockery and sarcasm go?

In theory, in the US you're supposed to be able to say almost anything you like, no matter how harsh, just as long as it isn't slanderous, or threatening, though even this doesn't seem to be absolute either, even with those 2 restrictions

There is also something called 'fighting words'.

[Shrykull]

I've been wondering, just exactly how far does mockery and sarcasm go?

In theory, in the US you're supposed to be able to say almost anything you like, no matter how harsh, just as long as it isn't slanderous, or threatening, though even this doesn't seem to be absolute either, even with those 2 restrictions

There is also something called 'fighting words'.

We use those here all the time though. Well, direct insults to people here, though different people react different ways and they aren't allow to retaliate physically, whether in Canada or not.

It seems fighting words would be trying to provoke someone to come at you. Like saying "I fucked your wife, come and get me, asshole!" Or like Ali used to do in the ring.

[Ariphaos]

We use those here all the time though. Well, direct insults to people here, though different people react different ways and they aren't allow to retaliate physically, whether in Canada or not.

It seems fighting words would be trying to provoke someone to come at you. Like saying "I fucked your wife, come and get me, asshole!" Or like Ali used to do in the ring.

I don't know if the defense has ever been tested in such a context, so I'm not sure.

Keep in mind though, that the Falwell case involved Falwell being considered a public figure, where the standards for libel and slander are far, far higher. Your old GM most certainly isn't.

[Shrykull]

We use those here all the time though. Well, direct insults to people here, though different people react different ways and they aren't allow to retaliate physically, whether in Canada or not.

It seems fighting words would be trying to provoke someone to come at you. Like saying "I fucked your wife, come and get me, asshole!" Or like Ali used to do in the ring.

I don't know if the defense has ever been tested in such a context, so I'm not sure.

Keep in mind though, that the Falwell case involved Falwell being considered a public figure, where the standards for libel and slander are far, far higher. Your old GM most certainly isn't.

I remember back on ASVS, if you've ever been there, we used to write FAQ's about people we didn't like, to publically mock them, though there was usually a reason, them being dishonest, a troll, or in the case of someone named Timothy Jones, just plain stubborn and obstinate, in my case it's him being insulting to me which pretty much seems like what we do when we HOS posts here, for any of those reasons.

But.....this will be a downloadable book on him, mentioning his name is probably the farthest it would go. Anyway, it looks like no one here is a lawyer or has any legal background, I might call one and ask one if I have to.

[Ariphaos]

I remember back on ASVS, if you've ever been there, we used to write FAQ's about people we didn't like, to publically mock them, though there was usually a reason, them being dishonest, a troll, or in the case of someone named Timothy Jones, just plain stubborn and obstinate, in my case it's him being insulting to me which pretty much seems like what we do when we HOS posts here, for any of those reasons.

But.....this will be a downloadable book on him, mentioning his name is probably the farthest it would go. Anyway, it looks like no one here is a lawyer or has any legal background, I might call one and ask one if I have to.

ASVS? I'm not sure. On forums there is generally a record of past posting history, and as long as the administration does not have a history of modifying people's posts, it is plenty of evidence as to their activities.

If you do look for a lawyer, find someone to refer you to one.

[Tahlan]

First, realize that we live in a litigious society, so even if you have the law on your side, it doesn't mean someone won't sue you just for the hell of it, or because they don't like what you did. There are far too many attorneys who are willing to take a person's money, and sue, regardless the basis for, or the validity of, the underlying claim.

In regards to an action for libel (and defamation), the truth is always a defense. Regardless of who the person is--public figure v. non-public figure--if what you print is the truth, you have a defense, which is how the press can do the news. And by "truth" I mean the facts. Publishing (that's also a legal term) that your mailman did x, y, and z versus calling him a mentally retarded ignoramus are two different things.

So, when you satirize someone, you've gone beyond the truth. The general rule is that you can satirize a "public figure" with impunity, but it becomes defamation if you satirize a non-public figure. So who is a "public figure?" It's a very broad definition, but basically, once a person receives any sort of publicity in a public forum--radio, tv, newspaper, and nowadays the Internet--that person becomes a public figure.

So, my knee-jerk response to your desire to "mock" this individual publicly in print is that it is an endeavor fraught with peril. Especially, see paragraph number one above.

Hope this helps.

[Shrykull]

First, realize that we live in a litigious society, so even if you have the law on your side, it doesn't mean someone won't sue you just for the hell of it, or because they don't like what you did. There are far too many attorneys who are willing to take a person's money, and sue, regardless the basis for, or the validity of, the underlying claim.

In regards to an action for libel (and defamation), the truth is always a defense. Regardless of who the person is--public figure v. non-public figure--if what you print is the truth, you have a defense, which is how the press can do the news. And by "truth" I mean the facts. Publishing (that's also a legal term) that your mailman did x, y, and z versus calling him a mentally retarded ignoramus are two different things.

So, when you satirize someone, you've gone beyond the truth. The general rule is that you can satirize a "public figure" with impunity, but it becomes defamation if you satirize a non-public figure. So who is a "public figure?" It's a very broad definition, but basically, once a person receives any sort of publicity in a public forum--radio, tv, newspaper, and nowadays the Internet--that person becomes a public figure.

So, my knee-jerk response to your desire to "mock" this individual publicly in print is that it is an endeavor fraught with peril. Especially, see paragraph number one above.

Hope this helps.

As far as internet is concerned what about Nicholas Fittro or anyone on Mike's hatemail pages? Is he making them public as well, even though they aren't?

[Superman]

Shrykull, let me help you out, my brother.

Slander and libel do NOT apply in the case of parody. Look at all the political cartoons. Do a little googling on libel and parody, and then go from there.

[Superman]

Recent examples:

Important recent libel cases

Edwards v. National Audubon Society, 1977 -- The New York Times reported both sides of a heated dispute over pesticide science, and noted that the Audubon society said scientists consluting for industry were "paid to lie." The scientists sued the New York Times, which successfully defended itself with the"neutral reportage" defense.

** Hutchinson v Proxmire, 1979 -- The doctrine of privilege is confined to floor debate, not press releases issued by U.S. senators. The case occurred when Sen. William Proxmire gave a "Golden Fleece" award to a scientist working on a federal grant and publicized it in a press release.

Janklow v. Newsweek, 1986 -- South Dakota Gov. William Janklow sued Newsweek after an article described his prosecution of Indian activist Dennis Banks as revenge after Banks (apparently falsely) accused him of raping an Indian woman. Courts found that the opinion expressed fell under the fair comment and criticism defense (See above)

Philadelphia Newspapers v. Hepps, 1986 -- Plaintiff has burden of proof to show that information is false; media doesnt even have to show its true in case where private person suing about public issue.

** Hustler Magazine and Larry C. Flynt v. Jerry Falwell, 1988 -- An ad parody was not a believable defamation, and the Virginia common law tort against "Intentional infliction of emotional distress" is not permissible as a form of libel action.

* Michael Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co, 1990 -- When "opinion" rests on facts known to be false, plaintiff can sue; some fear this is loss of "fair comment" defense. However, the court also reaffirmed the Philadelphia Newspapers decision (above, in this section) and said an expression of pure opinion which can't be proven false cannot be libel.

[Superman]

Ah, hit 'submit' too soon.

Wanted to add that if you're seriously going to do something like this, why not pay a few bucks and talk to a lawyer for expert advice?

[Tahlan]

First, realize that we live in a litigious society, so even if you have the law on your side, it doesn't mean someone won't sue you just for the hell of it, or because they don't like what you did. There are far too many attorneys who are willing to take a person's money, and sue, regardless the basis for, or the validity of, the underlying claim.

In regards to an action for libel (and defamation), the truth is always a defense. Regardless of who the person is--public figure v. non-public figure--if what you print is the truth, you have a defense, which is how the press can do the news. And by "truth" I mean the facts. Publishing (that's also a legal term) that your mailman did x, y, and z versus calling him a mentally retarded ignoramus are two different things.

So, when you satirize someone, you've gone beyond the truth. The general rule is that you can satirize a "public figure" with impunity, but it becomes defamation if you satirize a non-public figure. So who is a "public figure?" It's a very broad definition, but basically, once a person receives any sort of publicity in a public forum--radio, tv, newspaper, and nowadays the Internet--that person becomes a public figure.

So, my knee-jerk response to your desire to "mock" this individual publicly in print is that it is an endeavor fraught with peril. Especially, see paragraph number one above.

Hope this helps.

As far as internet is concerned what about Nicholas Fittro or anyone on Mike's hatemail pages? Is he making them public as well, even though they aren't?

I confess ignorance: I don't know who Nichola Fittro is; also, I am only peripherally familiar with Mike's hatemail pages. So I'll try to answer your question with those caveats.

I also confess some confusion with your question: "Is he making them public as well...." Do you mean he is "making them public figures" or do you mean he is "publishing" information about them, or do you mean something else entirely?

Regarding the first question, when someone logs onto an Internet forum--this BBS, for example--and makes a post, they are making themselves public figures, which opens the door, i.e., heckle and spoof away.

Regarding the second question, yes, he is "publishing" information about them, but I am assuming that they have already opened the door for him to do so.

First, and this is not intended as a criticism, but could you be more precise with your questions? Second, recognize that defamation law is a broad topic, a speciality in the legal profession, and it is not my specialty.

Also, I went back and re-read your original post:

Anyway, I'd like to write a book, a kind of mocumentary, that I would call The Complete Losers handbook............an expert guide on how not to DM with an autographed forward by him, all satirical of course, disclaimer in the front

But, I'm wondering if any action could be taken by him, and I going beyond what my rights allow me to do? I certainly wouldn't want to collect any money on it (hmm, could I though?) I thought perhaps only celebrities can be mocked, newspaper reporters write about just about anyone, but they are required to be neutral and impartial, I certainly wouldn't be, though I think magazines and websites are not, and may display harsh opinions of someone.

In short, could I get in any trouble for this, if I wrote something to publicly humiliate someone provided it was all true?

Just a couple of more comments.

First, if you write a book, and assuming it's published, then the implication is that you've made some money which makes you an attractive target to sue.

Second, yes, he can take action against you. Re-read the first paragraph of my original post. And that's even if you are within your rights.

Here's some practical advice. Assuming that you are within your rights to "publicly humiliate" this individual as you want to, what is the risk to you? Do a cost benefit analysis. What would it cost you to defend a lawsuit? What are you willing to pay for the pleasure of publicly scorning this individual? Does it mean that much to you? And recognize, that even should you win your lawsuit, you may not get your attorney's fees back.

Also, I do not think a publishing house/book publisher would let you do anything that would jeopardize them; they don't want to be sued, either.

But anyway, this is all moot at this point. Write your book, do it the way that you want, and then go from there. It doesn't become a practical issue until you have a publisher and actually have the prospect of publishing your book.

Sorry, but that's all I have time for. Work is calling.

[Darth Wong]

I've been wondering, just exactly how far does mockery and sarcasm go?

In theory, in the US you're supposed to be able to say almost anything you like, no matter how harsh, just as long as it isn't slanderous, or threatening, though even this doesn't seem to be absolute either, even with those 2 restrictions

There is also something called 'fighting words'.

The "fighting words" doctrine only applies to face-to-face communications IIRC.

[Surlethe]

I've been wondering, just exactly how far does mockery and sarcasm go?

In theory, in the US you're supposed to be able to say almost anything you like, no matter how harsh, just as long as it isn't slanderous, or threatening, though even this doesn't seem to be absolute either, even with those 2 restrictions

There is also something called 'fighting words'.

The "fighting words" doctrine only applies to face-to-face communications IIRC.

That does make sense. The website says they are fighting words essentially if they would incite a crime of passion in an average addressee; it must be face-to-face, or else any violence resulting from the words is no longer a crime of passion.

[Ariphaos]

The "fighting words" doctrine only applies to face-to-face communications IIRC.

It falls under the guideline of inciteful speech, which has been applied over radio broadcasts and public speeches, though mostly in the style of inciting listeners to commit various crimes.