Controversy over satirical Adolf Hitler article

[ElNono]

Rutgers University newspaper adviser responds to controversy over Adolf Hitler article (http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/04/rutgers_university_newspaper_a_1.html)

Quote from University President Richard McCormick:
"No individual student should be subject to such a vicious and provocative and hurtful piece, regardless of whether the First Amendment protections apply to such expression," McCormick said in a statement.

[ElNono]

In regard specifically to the Univ president, he's supporting longstanding restrictions on Constitutional liberties for students -- like it or not, ie drug dogs sniffing lockers, dress codes, etc.

The U.S. Supreme Court makes few exceptions to the First Amendment such as what the report calls "speech that incites reasonable people to violence, libel and actual harassment." The Court has defined harassment as "so severe, pervasive and objecttively offensive that it effectively bars the victim's access to an educational opportunity or benefit."

I doubt satire is included...

[ElNono]

For college students, the courts have been more protective of First Amendment rights. Thus a college's refusal to give a particular student group the same recognition it gave to other groups was held to violate the First Amendment, when the college's refusal was based on a generalized fear of disruption (Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169 (1972)) or when the college refused to recognize or provide funds to religious groups while doing so for secular groups (Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263 (1981); Rosenberger v. Rector of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995)). While most of these cases involved on-campus speech, some lower courts, and the Supreme Court in Morse, applied these rules to off-campus speech with a possible impact on campus.

Generally, public schools can limit students' speech only if the limitations are content-neutral, further an important government interest, and are "narrowly tailored" to further that interest. U.S. v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). In most of the cases, the cited governmental interest is the school's interest in ensuring a safe, non-disruptive educational environment.

[ChumpDumper]

Haven't read the article itself, but why the hell would anyone think attributing it to an actual Jewish writer for the paper without his knowledge would be a good idea?

[ElNono]

Haven't read the article itself, but why the hell would anyone think attributing it to an actual Jewish writer for the paper without his knowledge would be a good idea?

Maybe they thought it was funny? Doesn't The Onion do that kind of stuff all the time? (attributing quotes, etc to people that would have completely opposite views?)

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe they thought it was funny? Doesn't The Onion do that kind of stuff all the time? (attributing quotes, etc to people that would have completely opposite views?)I don't believe those people actually write for the Onion.

[CosmicCowboy]

Hmmmm...bad taste and all, but just looks like an April Fools joke that went viral.

[ElNono]

I don't believe those people actually write for the Onion.

Why would that matter? Satire should be satire no matter who does it.

[ChumpDumper]

Why would that matter?Looks like we're finding that out.

[Blake]

Seems to me the editors thought it would be a hoot if they threw the article out there and made it look like the Jewish kid wrote it.

Sounds like a nice lawsuit to me.

[ElNono]

Even for a well known satirical newspaper?

[ElNono]

I guess we will find out. AFAIK, satire is protected speech, even if the recipient finds it distasteful...

[Blake]

I might be misreading it, but it seems to me that the issue is more about him not being the author of the article than the content.

What else might we be talking about?

[ElNono]

I might be misreading it, but it seems to me that the issue is more about him not being the author of the article than the content.

What else might we be talking about?

That's still protected speech... see Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, it was in bad taste but nothing illegal.

[Blake]

That's still protected speech... see Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Falwell was clearly a public figure. This kid, I'm not so sure.

I notice the editors are already claiming Marcus is a public figure on campus. If he decides to pursue a libel claim, I guess we'll find out just how public a figure the court determines him to be.

[ElNono]

Falwell was clearly a public figure. This kid, I'm not so sure.

I notice the editors are already claiming Marcus is a public figure on campus. If he decides to pursue a libel claim, I guess we'll find out just how public a figure the court determines him to be.

I don't think the First Amendment make any distinction as far as being a public figure when it comes to satire/parody. As long as it's well established it's satire, AFAIK, it's protected speech.

[Blake]

I don't think the First Amendment make any distinction as far as being a public figure when it comes to satire/parody. As long as it's well established it's satire, AFAIK, it's protected speech.

Public Figure Doctrine is pretty well established, point here being that public figures have a nearly impossible task of proving libel. If this kid is considered to be a public figure, then his chances of winning any kind of lawsuit is next to nothing.

From what I can tell, The Medium publishes student opinions on a regular basis. The "satire" they published made no mention of it poking fun at Marcus, so on the surface, it looks like he was the one that submitted the "funny" piece........as other real students have done.

If he successfully argues that he is not a public figure, then I think he has a good case. The First Amendment doesn't simply protect satirical publications, only that a history of satire helps their case.

First read, I thought it was a sure lawsuit......but even though I'm not as sure, I still bet he sues. I also bet they settle.

[ElNono]

Public Figure Doctrine is pretty well established

You mean on cases of defamation.

Again, this is a well known satirical publication. I don't think the kid has a case at all unless he can prove it was not satire.

[Blake]

You mean on cases of defamation.

Again, this is a well known satirical publication. I don't think the kid has a case at all unless he can prove it was not satire.

Yes, defamation. Libel is a form of defamation.

[TeyshaBlue]

First read, I thought it was a sure lawsuit......but even though I'm not as sure, I still bet he sues. I also bet they settle.

Pretty good bet tbh.

[ElNono]

Yes, defamation. Libel is a form of defamation.

Satire isn't libel nor defamation, IMO anyways.

[CosmicCowboy]

Yeah, settlement is likely. Probably low 5 figures. That's the insurance companies pain threshold. Cost benefit analysis. Cheaper to pay it off than to pay legal fees through a trial.

[Blake]

....In a letter to Rutgers President Richard McCormick, Etzion Neuer, Acting Director of ADL's [Anti-Defamation League] New Jersey Office, stated, “We understand that The Daily Medium describes itself as ‘satirical’ newspaper and opinion writers are free to express their views despite how offensive they may be. However, this article specially targets Mr. Marcus and includes anti-Semitic remarks attributed to him. The content and misappropriation of his identity creates a situation where he may be the subject of harassment and bullying. It also contributes to an atmosphere where anti-Semitism can easily become an accepted part of campus life…We do not believe any student should be targeted in this manner and urge you to immediately investigate the matter and take appropriate action.”

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/154648#.T4Q5A_fLhWx