Judge Decides That Fake Giraffe Attack Story Is Protected Free Speech

from the good-move dept

Tue, Mar 16th 2010 7:42pm — Mike Masnick

A few weeks back, we were a bit concerned about a judge's decision to force offline a satirical "news story" about a fake giraffe attack at the Global Wildlife Center in Louisiana. Just because GWC was worried that some people might take the story seriously, it doesn't remove the First Amendment rights of the creators of the satirical site. Thankfully, the judge now agrees and has removed the injunction and ordered GWC to pay the legal costs of the site's creators. The judge noted that while the center had some concerns about how the article was viewed, it doesn't change the fact that the content is protected free speech as satire.

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: free speech, giraffe, satire
Companies: global wildlife center

8 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Aaron, 16 Mar 2010 @ 8:10pm

The original
The original article can be found here:
http://www.hammondactionnews.com/post/411762027/giraffe0210
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2010 @ 8:59pm
  
  Re: The original
  There is a disclosure disclosing the fact that it's not real. Not sure if it was there before.
  
  If the disclosure wasn't there before then perhaps the judge shouldn't have demanded that legal fees be paid. The site actually looks like it was intended to be factual to a casual reader, especially someone who didn't know any better, and perhaps instead of an injunction the judge could have demanded that some sort of disclosure be posted somewhere indicating that this was satire? Maybe in this situation it's obviously satire but even so a disclosure wouldn't hurt. I guess I just have mixed feelings about this.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2010 @ 9:05pm
    
    Re: Re: The original
    err.. if the disclosure WAS there before ...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2010 @ 9:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: The original
      oops, sorry. ignore the previous Mar 16th, 2010 @ 9:05pm post (and moderators, please delete it, it was a mistake and I don't want these posts to clutter up your forum).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2010 @ 10:12pm
    
    Re: Re: The original
    Don't need to disclose that something is satire to make it protected. That's just idiotic.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2010 @ 9:38pm

wow, score for the good guys
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Vila, 16 Mar 2010 @ 10:12pm

Giraffes are vicious but rarely cause fatalities. I don't blame the relatives for wanting a second opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 17 Mar 2010 @ 5:58am

Obligatory SNL link.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]