Is satire in political cartoons fully protected? Ask the lawyer – The Daily Breeze

Q: This is an election year. I saw a cartoon about Trump that was just plain offensive. Does anything go legally, its all OK?

-D.H., Hawthorne

A: Political speech is a right fundamentally defended by the First Amendment. Unless actual malice can be proven with regard to a depiction, the public figure or politician is fair game. An important case in this regard was decided in 1970 about former Los Angeles Mayor Sam Yorty. He sued the Los Angeles Times and its publisher for a caricature done by the well-known editorial cartoonist Paul Conrad, arguing it represented that Yorty was insane and should be placed in a straight jacket. In denying his claim for libel, the court held that opinions about the fitness of a person for public office are protected even though (the) view are those of a political adversary and are presented in rhetorical hyperbole. In addition, the court held the cartoon was not intended to be a literal depiction, and that reasonable readers would know.

Q: Can a tweet, or an online post, actually lead to a defamation claim?

-K.B., Long Beach

A: Defamation is a publication to a third person, which is not privileged (in other words, subject to some legal protection), that is false and damages a persons reputation. There are two kinds of defamation: Slander, which is oral, and libel, which is written. A post on twitter, or online generally, can rise to the level of defamation for the simple reason it may meet the definition. There is nothing about social media that is all that different from libeling someone in a letter (a writing) that is false and has been sent to one or more others.

This is a well-established procedure in California, which stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. The law is intended to prevent people from using the courts, and potential threats of a lawsuit, to intimidate those who are properly exercising their First Amendment rights. The way it works is if a person is sued, he or she makes a motion to strike the case because it involves speech on a matter of public concern. The plaintiff, or plaintiffs, then has the immediate burden of showing the court a probability he or she will prevail in the suit. This means, often very early on, having to show evidence that a favorable outcome for plaintiff is likely; if the plaintiff cannot do so, thats the end of that claim and the plaintiff may have to pay attorney fees to the other side.

Ron Sokol is a Manhattan Beach attorney with more than 35 years of experience. His column, which appears in print on Wednesdays, presents a summary of the law and should not be construed as legal advice. Email questions and comments to him at RonSEsq@aol.com.

See the article here:

Is satire in political cartoons fully protected? Ask the lawyer - The Daily Breeze