General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPublishers shy away from Trump satire for fear of being sued.
Before he's taken office there's a fear of censorship.
Artist Alison Jackson has said that she chose to self-publish spoof photographs of Donald Trump as part of a protest against the potentially chilling effect a litigious president could have on artistic freedom.
The celebrity lookalike specialist said she was warned by her lawyers against publishing the images, some of which feature a Trump lookalike in compromising situations, and that no book publisher was prepared to release a collection of the Trump images.
Vanity Fair and the Mail Online have published some of the images. However, no publisher has shown some of the most politically sensitive pictures she has produced, including one in which a Trump character is depicted with members of the Ku Klux Klan and another where he is shown holding a rifle.
All kinds of artistic endeavour, from the cast of the Hamilton musical to Saturday Night Live have also come under fire from Trump directly. Most recently the Saturday Night Live sketch starring Alec Baldwin which imagined the president elect constantly tweeting unknown teenagers and possible bigots while in the middle of a security briefing provoked Trump who tweeted:
"Just tried watching Saturday Night Live - unwatchable! Totally biased, not funny and the Baldwin impersonation just can't get any worse. Sad"
Forced to consider the threat of legal action by her lawyers, who have never given such warnings before, Jackson said she had to fight against self-censorship. It makes you frightened, it makes you put the brakes on and that is very worrying.
She admits that she will probably think very carefully about future work. I dont want to be sued and I really dont want to be sued by the next US president.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2016/dec/08/artist-alison-jackson-self-publishes-spoof-trump-photos-despite-fear-of-being-sued
treestar
(82,383 posts)One, it would give them their 15 minutes of fame. Two the First Amendment protects them. The standard is very high for public figures.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)And its scope is limited.
From the same article.
According to newspaper analysis during the election, Trump and his businesses had been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions over the past three decades. Since his election, Trump has spoken warmly of British libel laws. His wife, Melania, is currently suing the Daily Mail and a blogger for $150m (£119m) over allegations about her modelling career.
Earlier this year, artist Illma Gore received thousands of death threats after her images of a naked Trump with a small penis went viral. The LA-based artist asked a London-based gallery to manage the sale of the painting but was threatened with legal action from an anonymous filing under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the US if she sold the painting.
treestar
(82,383 posts)we will support them. Other countries are not quite relevant in that we don't have jurisdiction. Another conflict of interest for Dump since if he is suing someone in a foreign country while president, that obviously gives him reasons to like or dislike that country depending on whether he gets what he wants.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)It's easier to take the less litigious path, not everyone is a crusader. Most publishers are just businesses, lengthy, costly court cases, even if successful, can still force them into liquidation.
Trump has fallen foul of the British courts yet he still waxes lyrical about Farage. I think he likes or dislikes a country depending on what the last person he spoke to says.
treestar
(82,383 posts)if Dump would have a real case. Threatening to sue is one thing - doesn't mean he'd have a good case. I don't see why people should give in to that kind of intimidation. They would get lots of support.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Guess you don't pay much attention to what happens outside America. This has happened.
Donald Trump's legal challenge to a planned offshore wind farm has been rejected by the UK's Supreme Court.
Developers hope to site 11 turbines off Aberdeen, close to Mr Trump's golfing development on the Aberdeenshire coast.
The US businessman and presidential hopeful was taking on the Scottish government, which approved the plan.
The Trump Organisation said it was an "extremely unfortunate" ruling and it would "continue to fight" the wind farm proposal.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-north-east-orkney-shetland-35106581
treestar
(82,383 posts)from a UK lawyer.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)There's not really anywhere else to go legally.
If you still want a lawyer there's always this one.
Vinca
(50,170 posts)Even if he wants to sue, it's impossible to sue millions of people around the world, especially when he will lose because of that small technicality called the First Amendment. The ManBaby needs to grow thicker, orange skin.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)See my previous post.
Dave Starsky
(5,914 posts)Look up the Supreme Court decision in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Not just for its historical significance, but because what Hustler did is funny as hell.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)I reckon a legal case would revolve around the argument of it not being satire but a direct attack on the office of president. It will still cost a ton of money, could force them out of business and then there's the harassment including death threats from right wing nutjobs.
Nobody should refrain from saying anything. This the USA where we can say anything we fucking want to say.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Chuck Jones is also dealing with the consequences of speaking out against Trump.
The rich can say whatever they want, the rest, not so much.
treestar
(82,383 posts)intimidation. And the Dixie Chicks it is hard to say they didn't in the long run prevail. They had the guts and dealt.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)Or did they just keep their heads down until another domestic hate figure emerged?
It's one thing an artist sticking to their principles and putting their heads above the parapet, but publishers are just a business.
Btw, all your checks and balances didn't stop Bush passing the Patriot Act, setting up a torture camp, extraordinarily rendering civilians to said torture camp and illegally invading other countries.
Of course Trump won't do any of that, he's a much calmer, more reasonable individual.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Are you disliking the US, "your checks and balances didn't work?" Yes they did - there are many Patriot act cases in the courts.
Are you arguing we should give in to that type of intimidation and watch what we say? There seems to be a bit of that too. The Dixie Chicks survived. Are you saying they should have been more careful?
You seem a bit eager to argue for suppression of free speech.
Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)when you're not the one in the crosshairs. I'm not the one telling other people what they should or should not do. It's a bit too armchair general for my tastes.
The Dixie Chicks hardly made a bold statement of principle, they slagged off George Bush in Shepherd's Bush, (no relation.) It's hardly a risky thing to do. They didn't know it was going to go viral, and when it did they offered " numerous clarifications and apologies."
America is a big place, there's a lot to like and dislike, it's not an either or situation. Very few things are that black and white. Not filling up with self-righteous, and extremely safe, indignation when one hears that someone has decided to keep their heads down is not the same as arguing for the suppression of freedom of speech.
If someone wants to stand up and say/publish/broadcast/twitter something then that's down to them. If a third party decides not to go along with that they should not be pilloried for being cautious. That's what Trump's supporters do.
It is a worrying trend that people are likely to self censor, but it's understandable why they choose to do it.
TrekLuver
(2,573 posts)Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)The comments at the concert beginning a Dixie Chicks world tour sparked off possibly the biggest black balling in the history of American music. Spoken 10 days before the beginning of the Iraq War, the backlash took the Dixie Chicks from the biggest concert draw in country music to relative obscurity in country music in a matter of weeks.
Despite numerous clarifications and apologies from Natalie Maines and the Dixie Chicks, a full on boycott of their music was called for by pro-Bush, pro-war, and pro-American groups. Their single Landslide went from #10 on the Billboard charts, to #44 in 1 week, and the next week fell off the charts completely. Radio stations who played any Dixie Chicks songs were immediately bombarded with phone calls and emails blasting the station and threats of boycotts if they continued. Even radio DJs and programmers who sympathized with the Dixie Chicks were forced to stop playing them from the simple logistics nightmare the boycott created. Some DJs who played the Dixie Chicks were fired.
Dixie Chicks CDs were rounded up, and in one famous incident were run over by a bulldozer. Concerts were canceled in the US as the Dixie Chicks couldnt sell tickets, and rival concerts were set up that would take Dixie Chicks tickets in exchange. The Dixie Chicks lost their sponsor Lipton, and The Red Cross denied a million dollar endorsement from the band, fearing it would draw the ire of the boycott. The Dixie Chicks also received hundreds of death threats from the incident.
http://www.savingcountrymusic.com/destroying-the-dixie-chicks-ten-years-after/
TrekLuver
(2,573 posts)Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)There's threads on this forum about the harassment Chuck Jones has faced since speaking out against Trump.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)RonniePudding
(889 posts)If his people think that a few threats are going to prevent the satire from being created they are in for a rude awakening.
spanone
(135,636 posts)Bad Dog
(2,025 posts)It works though, the leadup to the invasion of Iraq is prof of that.