Judge Decides That Calling Someone A Douchebag Is Okay... So Long As It's Funny
from the laugh,-people dept
Last year, a series of lawsuits were filed over the publishing of a book based on the hit website Hot Chicks with Douchebags. Some of the "hot chicks" and at least one of the "douchebags" claimed it was libelous. However, in a rather entertaining ruling, a judge has dismissed the case filed by three of the women, noting that after he "carefully scrutinized" the book, he determined that the use of the term "douchebag" along with the various photographs was "used for humorous social commentary" -- making it perfectly legal. So, kids, remember when calling someone names, make sure to do so in a way that is funny and used for social commentary. Otherwise you might not only look like a douchebag, but you might end up in court.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: defamation, douchebags, parody, satire
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
HA-larious
Humor about humor...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems ok to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Seems ok to me
The realization that parody/critiques/etc. were considered 'fair use' while homage/tribute/etc. were not was my first clue that the laws were fundamentally broken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't understand...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Having seen the site I can see A being very possible, but B being a nearly insurmountable obstacle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
correct ruling
This is similar to the Hustler lampoon which suggested humorously that a preacher had sex in an outhouse; or the cartoons that said Reagan had no brain. They are not literally believable, and are therefore not libelous.
- Lint
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: correct ruling
I see. So if , for example, you were "straight" (not *literally*) and objected to being called homosexual, I could still publish a book calling you a "cock smoker" because, obviously, one cannot *literally* smoke a cock. That's an interesting legal theory you have there but I'm doubting that you're an actual lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
am I the only one
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a disappointing ruling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]