Mr. Schwartz at SD Moderate does us the service of archiving the parody published by Randall Beck and the Argus Leader this summer that provoked a million-dollar libel lawsuit from Dan Scott. As you listen to the arguments (and you will be able to listen, as the lawyers, Bill Janklow for Scott and Steve Sanford for Beck et al., are arguing this case as hard before the cameras as in the courtroom), be sure to read the original text.
I have great appreciation for the art of parody. I also have great appreciation for the potential of parody to backfire. After an incident of homecoming week vandalism on my property, I wrote a satirical response to some rumors floating around about what had actually happened. I made a conscious effort to portray my response to the vandals in such extreme language (instead of my actual response of yelling at the kids and calling the cops, my satirical account spoke of ninja skills, cracking engine blocks, and single-handedly hurling vehicles into Lake Herman). I shared this writing with my fellow teachers and had a good laugh. But just a few months later, I learned one teacher had complained to the boss, saying my words frightened him.
The idea of a beefy football coach being frightened by a few words from a skinny debate coach gives me another good laugh. The incident inspires me with the reminder that words really do have power. But there's the point Janklow is making: words have power. Those of us who presume to use them in the public arena (especially the members of the media that make their living with them) have to be careful.
The perhaps more practical point made by both my fellow teacher and by Janklow is that we have to be careful with our words not just avoid doing harm, but to avoid giving folks with axes to grind words to use against us.
But maybe there's a little incautious wordsmithery and axe-grinding on both sides. Dan Scott made a speech to legislators in which he said they should get excited about Sioux Falls's development or at least "get out of the way." The Argus razzed him hard for that comment, expressing a feeling that it wasn't hard for us small-towners to glean from Scott's own words. Some board members of Scott's own Sioux Falls Development Foundation felt that comment warranted a letter of apology. Did the Argus actually harm Dan Scott with its subsequent parody of Scott's apology? Is there anyone who still thinks the parody letter was Scott's actual writing? And was the faux sentiment in that letter really that much different from the sentiment Dan Scott himself expressed?
Stay tuned for more lawyerly fireworks -- attorneys Janklow and Sanford promise a really good show.
I have no difficulty recognizing that the letter in the column is satire and is poking fun at an attitude.
ReplyDeleteIn South Dakota it is almost impossible to go to court over libel that is outright false defamation. Even though South Dakota case law acknowledges libel per se, libel per quod, and implied libel (which might exist in satire), lawyers tell libel victims that they have to prove that they lost their jobs or were otherwise damaged in their livelihoods to go to court.
The problem with this case is that, if it goes forward, it will have a chilling effect on what we used to call fair comment and criticism in the media, but will do nothing to discourage the blatant cases of libel and slander that hurt ordinary citizens in their everyday lives.
Indeed, the plaintiff has the burden to prove harm. Scott is retiring from the SF Development Foundation, and his board members say his stepping down has nothing to do with the summer's controversy. It will be interesting to hear how Janklow tries to quantify the harm Scott claims.
ReplyDelete