Publishers shy away from Trump satire for fear of being sued.

[Bad Dog]

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 don’t want to be sued and I really don’t 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]

1. That's stupid

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]

3. The first ammendment only applies in America.

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]

5. still they should be courageous and know

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]

7. Should they?

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]

11. The thing to do is get British counsel and find out

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]

15. A real case?

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]

20. I don't, that's why I'd need to get an opinion

from a UK lawyer.

[Bad Dog]

24. You don't need to be a lawyer to know Trump lost the case in the UK supreme court.

There's not really anywhere else to go legally.

If you still want a lawyer there's always this one.

[Vinca]

2. People should flood the Internet.

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]

4. I don't think the 1st ammendment is the panacea you hope it is.

See my previous post.

[Dave Starsky]

18. Satire is protected in the US.

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]

23. Legal protection doesn't help much when you're faced with mob rule.

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.

[treestar]

6. This

Nobody should refrain from saying anything. This the USA where we can say anything we fucking want to say.

[Bad Dog]

9. Didn't work out too well for the Dixie Chicks.

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]

10. I don't like the idea of accepting that

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]

14. Did it work out in the long run

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]

21. I'm not sure where you are coming from

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]

25. I'm saying it's very easy to tell people to stand up and be counted

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]

12. What consequence is that? n/t

[Bad Dog]

16. You've got a short memory.

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 DJ’s and programmers who sympathized with the Dixie Chicks were forced to stop playing them from the simple logistics nightmare the boycott created. Some DJ’s who played the Dixie Chicks were fired.

Dixie Chicks CD’s were rounded up, and in one famous incident were run over by a bulldozer. Concerts were canceled in the US as the Dixie Chicks couldn’t 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]

17. You said Chuck Jones is facing the consequences - I wasn't talking about the Dixie Chicks

[Bad Dog]

22. Fair enough.

There's threads on this forum about the harassment Chuck Jones has faced since speaking out against Trump.

[AgadorSparticus]

8. Yep. EVERYONE has a duty to speak up.

[RonniePudding]

13. That's what I'm saying

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]

19. that's called intimidating the media...nothing less.

[Bad Dog]

26. You're right it is.

It works though, the leadup to the invasion of Iraq is prof of that.