Abstract
In sonle types of communication, the 'author contends that her words were not intended to be understood as representing that the events portrayed actually occurred. Such communications comm/only take the form of parody, cartoons, caricature, or similar types of communication. Sometimes parodies and similar types of speech will be the bases of claims for defamation. The problem is that while a parody may often exact a severe emotional toll on its victim, it mayor may not adversely affect the victim's reputation. A victim's reputation can be harmed only if falsely depicted or implied events change the recipients' perception of the events that make up the victim's life history that detennines the victim's standing. Whether parodies should be potentially actionable as defamation depends on whether the statement is deemed factual and thus potentially actionable, or is a matter of protected opinion and not actionable. Under the prevailing trends in the cases, and based on constitutional and/or state substantive defamation law principles, four core bases have in general emerged for classifying statements as protected opinion. A statement will usually be deemed protected opinion if it does not contain a provably false factual connotation; if it cannot reasonably be understood as suggesting the occurrence of actual events; if it consists ofrhetorical hyperbole or an obvious epithet; or, if it does not express or imply undisclosed, unassumed, or unknown (or not generally well known) defamatory facts.
Recommended Citation
King, Joseph H.
(2008)
"Defamation Claims Based on Parody and Other Fanciful Communications Not Intended to be Understood as Fact,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2008:
No.
3, Article 4.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2008/iss3/4