Courtesy of the Smoking Gun, I see that a judge in New Jersey has dismissed a defamation suit brought by several women featured in the satirical work Hot Chicks With Douchebags. The women — depicted in pictures, and thus accused of being some of the "hot chicks" at issue — complained that their reputation has been harmed and their emotions tormented by the authors' unauthorized use of their pictures. The earnest Superior Court judge of New Jersey — a locale that skeptics might say is a hub, even an epicenter, of the very douchebaggery depicted in the book — engages in a thoughtful First Amendment analysis, concluding that the book is clearly satirical and therefore not defamatory.
As always in such cases, the joy of the opinion is in seeing staid and stodgy legal analysis applied to something very unserious. Witness, for example, the judge's musings on what a reasonable person would or would not believe that Jean-Paul Sartre said, and whether a reasonable person would accept that Johns Hopkins has a Department of Scrotology.
Last 5 posts by Ken White
- Hate Speech Debate on More Perfect Live - September 5th, 2017
- Popehat Goes To The Opera: Un ballo in maschera - August 19th, 2017
- Department of Justice Uses Search Warrant To Get Data On Visitors to Anti-Trump Site - August 14th, 2017
- America At The End of All Hypotheticals - August 14th, 2017
- Lawsplainer: Why John Oliver Is Anti-Diversity Now - August 11th, 2017