Every once in a while, there's a news event that combines several of my interests -- media law and baseball being among them.
You may have heard today that the manager of the St. Louis Cardinals, Tony LaRussa, is suing the social network website, Twitter, for libel, emotional distress and trademark rights, topics I cover in the media law class.
First, let me say this -- I'm a die-hard Houston Astros fan and have little love for the Cardinals (though I do have some very good friends who are Cardinals fans and I harbor no ill will for them).
It seems that someone created a fake Tony LaRussa Twitter page that poked fun at his misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence in 2007. According to the Associated Press news article (which you can read by clicking here), one tweet posted on April 19 read, "Lost 2 out of 3, but we made it out of Chicago without one drunk driving incident or dead pitcher."
The dead pitcher reference is painful because the Cardinals have had two pitchers die during the season (Darryl Kile, a former Astros pitcher, died from a heart condition in 2002 and Josh Hancock died in a car accident in 2007 and was later found to have nearly twice the legal limit for alcohol). Of course, neither of those deaths are LaRussa's fault.
So, LaRussa's legal claim is that the fake Twitter page has harmed his reputation, caused emotional distress and affected his trademark rights.
But the fake page, which has been taken down, also included this note: "Bio Parodies are fun for everyone."
It seems to me that the question is whether this falls under fair comment and criticism of a public figure. I think it does. The "Bio Parodies" remark is notice that it's not really LaRussa posting on the Twitter page.
This might be distasteful, but I think it'll be protected nonetheless. As for the trademark issue, I know that fair use and parodies are protected in some cases, so it will be interesting to see how that plays out.
Anyone out there? What do you think?
4 comments:
Hey Gilbert,
Long time no speak. You said on facebook to check out yer blog. So here I am.
Fascinating topic. I think the case will be dimissed.
Who is LaRussa suing? Twitter or the person who made the page using Twitter?
If that person had gone around Chicago and posted signs all over with that same crass joke, would LaRussa be suing the city for having telephone posts?
I think it will be protected. Seems like the "bio parodies" part is a dead give away that it's fake. I would assume that most reasonable persons, given all the facts, would agree.
But yes, very distasteful.
---------------------------
on a side-note:
Have you heard about David Caradine's death? I saw on the news that his death was a result of some bizarre activities. If he were still alive, It'd probably be pretty darn embarrassing.
I honestly couldn't help but to think of media law. If he were still alive, how would he feel about this news leaking out? Did it damage his reputation? Could he sue for libel? Not if it's actually true. Could he file a private facts claim? Hmmm.
Sorry. Random, I know.
Interesting question, Sajen. If Carradine survived, then it may not have been news, unless it involved a trip to the emergency room or something unusual.
Assuming he survived, you are right that he would not have a successful libel claim (if what was reported was true).
What about a private facts claim? I think probably not. I've seen some coverage suggesting that Carradine was said to be involved with "kinky" sexual activities, so suggesting that he was into auto-erotic asphyxiation would not have been a revelation that would have been actionable, I don't think.
I just saw a link to a story that a Thai tabloid newspaper published a photo of Carradine dead. A statement from Carradine's family indicates that they will sue any media outlet that publishes such photos on invasion of privacy and emotional distress claims.
Go 'Stros!! We Astros fans will always have the 2005 NLCS...
Post a Comment