These are legal arguments?

Here's some of how Fox News describes Al Franken in their lawsuit against him.

Fox said in the suit that Franken flew into a rage near a table of Fox News personalities at a press correspondents' dinner in April and acted "either intoxicated or deranged."

It said Franken has become "increasingly unfunny."

"Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality. He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable," the suit said.

My understanding is that lawsuits should be based on legal issus. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in copyright or trademark laws - both of which allow the use of copyrighted or trademarked material for the purpose of satire - that actually requires the satire to be funny, or the presenter of the satire to be well-respected, un-shrill, stable or, for that mater, even sober. These comments bring nothing to the case other than a chance for Fox News to smear Franken and make themselves look even smaller and pettier than usual.

While I don't think their suit has any merit (not that I'm a legal expert or anything), if they were going to sue, it would have been far better for them to stick to the actual legal issues involved, rather than trying to slime Franken with the ectoplasmic residue of their inhumanly thin skins.

Posted by thorswitch at August 13, 2003 12:24 PM | TrackBack