Elton John Loses Libel Case, Guardian Declares "Victory For Irony"

UK paper The Guardian proclaimed "A Victory For Irony" after a UK judge ruled against Elton John in his libel case against the paper:

Sir Elton John is well known for his quick temper and outrageous behaviour. A documentary of his life said it all - it was called, knowingly, Tantrums and Tiaras.

But a high court judge ruled yesterday that the singer's sense of humour failure over a satirical piece by a Guardian columnist was a tantrum too far.

In a groundbreaking libel decision, the judge said that "irony" and "teasing" do not amount to defamation. The ruling offers protection to writers of satirical articles clearly not meant to be taken seriously and was welcomed last night by media lawyers and journalists.

The Guardian was awarded costs and the singer, who brought the action, was refused leave to appeal by Mr Justice Tugendhat. John's legal team indicated that he might now seek leave to appeal.

In July, the paper printed a fake diary by Elton John, written by Marina Hyde, which contained the following:

What a few days it's been. First I sang Happy Birthday to my dear, dear friend Nelson Mandela - I like to think I'm one of the few people privileged enough to call him Madiba - at a party specially organised to provide white celebrities with a chance to be photographed cuddling him, wearing that patronisingly awestruck smile they all have. It says: "I love you, you adorable, apartheid-fighting teddy bear."

The next night I welcomed the exact same crowd to my place for my annual White Tie & Tiaras ball. Lulu, Kelly Osbourne, Agyness Deyn, Richard Desmond, Liz Hurley, Bill Clinton - I met most of them 10 minutes ago, but we have something very special and magical in common: we're all members of the entertainment industry. You can't manufacture a connection like that.

Hyde wrote in The Guardian this weekend, thanking the judge for "the most civilised of rulings." She continued:

We British have a rich tradition of irony and satire but there is very little case law protecting what may well turn out to be one of the few comforts left to us in these darkening times.

Comments

[S-Jane]

What the heck happened to Elton John? He used to be quite cool. Now he looks like a bon-bon eating soccer/minivan mom. Tantrums and tiaras? LOL.

[Bombalot]

His behavior reeks of addiction.

[MsLiz]

Thanks to Elton John, we all got to read a pretty funny article lampooning him.

[white mende man]

poor guy someone need to tell Elton that if it's good enough for politicians it's darn well good enough for entertainers.

[Okieborn]

I am shocked !
I seriously thought Elton John had passed on from age.
He does look quite ill.

[dctuss]

I dont think I would call him " Sir Elton"

[gascelebrations]

Writing "Levon" doesn't give someone the right to write "I Guess That's Why They Call It The Blues" and that song from "The Lion King".

[jonolennon]

Reg,
Those bloody wankers bent you over mate!

[Wirehedd]

ummm... ol' reg wouldn't sue for that.

...he might PAY for it but not sue.

[pbcrunch]

That is one thing about American libel/slander law that is substantially different from most other countries: public figures can be mocked, ridiculed -- even blatantly lied about -- in publications and the 1st Amendment will give protection unless actual malice and an intentional disregard for the truth are shown (a nearly impossible standard to meet). Elton John could have never brought this case in America; he would have been laughed out of court.

[Seldon]

This wasn't a first amendment issue it was defamation case. If someone publishes something that is not true about you and puts you in a negative light you are able to sue them because they have damaged you. If someone claims you raped someone, then you lose your job for being a suspected rapist, they have damaged your career. These laws exist (for good reason) in most countries.

I point this out not only because you apparently misunderstood what happened, but also because you were trying to compare laws in Britain and in America. When in fact..

"the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was designed to protect freedom of the press, for most of the history of the United States, the Supreme Court neglected to use it to rule on libel cases. This left libel laws, based upon the traditional common law of defamation inherited from the English legal system"

Now there are actually differences in libel law between Britain and America. In Britain libel is considered to be false unless the defendant can prove it to be true. Whereas in America libel is considered false merely by demonstrating that the defendant didn't care if it was true or not.

So in actual fact Elton John would have had a much easier time winning his case in America rather than Britain

[Beaucat]

I disagree about Elton John having an easier time with this case in the US. He's a public figure, and the standard for claiming libel, etc., is very different. It's assumed that public figures want lots of people to notice them, and that they benefit in many ways from public attention. But they can't pick and choose how the public notices them. That's the difference. If they want to receive the benefits of fame, they also have to accept that they're going to be spoofed and ridiculed.

[MsLiz]

Unfortunately, you missed the essense of defamation law.

The Sullivan vs. NY Times case is the Supreme Court case which is the basis of the law of defamation as it applies to public figures and public officials. The "actual malice" standard has nothing to do with feelings of malice but means that the defendant knew the statement was untrue, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. The idea is that public figures have access to forums to rebut falsehoods, and public officials cannot use libel laws to suppress criticism of themselves.

The traditional standard of proof applies to private figures. If you call me a wh*re, you better be able to prove it by a preponderance of the evidence.

[nequam]

Seldon, you are incorrect. Elton John is a public figure and, as such, could only prevail in a US defamation case if he showed the two elements described by pbcrunch.

Also, in your comparison of Brit and US law, you've conflated some concepts on the American standard for falsity. Truth is always a defense to defamation in the US; it is not determined by a recklessness standard as you suggest.

[Seldon]

My apologies....I misread pbcrunch's original post.

I must have mentally skipped the line he mentioned about American libel/slander law and I thought his post was entirely pertaining to 1st Amendment. I retract my initial comment, and thank you to those who corrected me.

[rightofatlanticleftofus]

"...So in actual fact Elton John would have had a much easier time winning his case in America rather than Britain"

Gosh - I can't let that comment stand. It's just completely wrong. In the US, to prove defamation you need to show A) the statement was false, AND B) D was negligent, or had no belief in the truth of the statement - two hurdles. If the statement is demonstrably true, it doesn't matter what the state of mind of the defendant was - P loses. The negligence limb is an *extra defence*, not an alternative route to liability.

In English law it is generally no defence to say that you acted reasonably in publishing a statement which turned out to be false. It is effectively a tort of strict liability. Pretty insane: because if you maim someone, the claimant (plaintiff) has to prove that you were careless. It's mindlessly applying a feudal value system whereby a man's honour is literally worth more than his life. There is now a very limited 'due diligence' defence re: public figures ('Reynolds v The Times') , but it's nothing like as useful as the US version.

Indeed, English libel law is considered so inhibiting to free speech that US law treats it like a filthy emanation of some banana republic, and refuses to enforce English libel judgments: read 'Telnikoff v Matusevitch' - http://www.uniset.ca/other/css/877FSupp1.html.

As an English lawyer, I'm ashamed to agree with the US Federal Court.

[45245]

wow, he is still alive

[Eoin45]

Perhaps someday someone will say the same about you and you'll realize what a nasty thing you just posted.

[unfettered]

You're assuming the poster 45245 knows other people.

[sedum]

Reginald Dwight will always be Reginald Dwight.

[Furby]

Old queens are the saddest thing. The Norma Desmond syndrome.