US Secretary Of Energy Was A Former Porn Star!

[ayoub_ibrahim]

WASHINGTON, DC—Addressing shocked fellow cabinet members, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said Tuesday that he had assumed everyone knew about his roles in numerous 1980s pornographic films.


Abraham said he's sure he mentioned his work in films like Shacking Up.
"I just figured people knew about the porno," Abraham said, shrugging. "I never got any flak about it, so I didn't think it was a big deal."

A former U.S. senator from Michigan who was appointed Energy Secretary by President Bush in 2001, Abraham said he has never denied that he performed in more than 50 erotic videos between 1984 and 1987

http://www.theonion.com/3943/top_story.html

[Gurm]

You know the onion is fake, yeah?

- Gurm

[Novdid]

Yeah, the pic at the bottom is clearly fake.

[ayoub_ibrahim]

Originally posted by Gurm
You know the onion is fake, yeah?

- Gurm

yeah, I know but its a spoof story & this is the lounge!

[Gurm]

Just checking. It's funny, just wanted to make sure you weren't confused.

- Gurm

[Brian Ellis]

Are there no libel laws in the US?

[High_Jumbllama]

Yes.

This probably falls under the lines of online tabloid. We have tons of printed tabloids.

[Dr Mordrid]

Originally posted by Brian Ellis
Are there no libel laws in the US?

Yes there are, but absent malice you don't have a case. Satire is generally presumed to be absent malice and falls under the protection of the first ammendment to the US Constitution;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

regardless of how, outrageous or perverted the "speech" may be.

The sole exceptions are activities like yelling "FIRE" in a theater etc. or photographic kiddie porn, although synthetically generated kiddie porn and written stories of this type are legal for some strange reason known only to the Supreme Court

Since Federal law holds sway the States are also limited in legislating "speech", which covers just about every technology capable of distributing it.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

Well, the why of it is easy enough.

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..."

The speech, per se, is not what's illeagal.

The laws are based on preventing the effect of the speech such as panic in the theater.
Real child porn can't be created without the occurence of a rape, for example.

I doubt if it's against the law to shout "fire" in an empty theater.

Chuck

[Brian Ellis]

Sorry, still don't get it. You can still have freedom of speech, but if that speech (or whatever) is defamatory, it is still criminally slanderous (if spoken) or libellous (if written). For example, if I published a document that stated that M.....l J.....n is a paedophile that is easy to do and I'm free to do so, but may be a libel unless it could be legally proven to be true (which may be easy, according to last night's news). Satire lampoons the publicly-known traits of a personality and is something entirely different. For example, Tony being portrayed as the lapdog of GeorgeW is satirical, but is not libellous because it is only an exaggeration of how Tony appears to the British public.

In the case in question in this thread, if the politician in question never took part in the production of porn/erotic films, then this appears to be defamatory and is therefore a libel. It cannot be satire unless it exaggerates a known trait.

There is all the world of difference between stating that Prince Charles had a homosexual affair with a servant, which is libellous unless it can be proven true, and stating that one of Prince Charles' staff alleged that he did so, if the allegation was, in fact, made. The onus of defamation is then transferred from the publication to the member of staff. But either case can be published (freedom of speech) but the consequences of such a publication are the responsibility of the publisher.

[Wombat]

Sorry Brian. I don't know what country you're using as your foundation, but it certainly isn't the States.

If I publish something which is obviously untrue, especially in the context of a satire rag like the Onion, no reasonable person would mistake it for the truth. Satire and parody are quite protected in the States. See the Flynt case for more info.

This is obvious parody.

[Brian Ellis]

Originally posted by Wombat

If I publish something which is obviously untrue, especially in the context of a satire rag like the Onion, no reasonable person would mistake it for the truth. Satire and parody are quite protected in the States. See the Flynt case for more info.

This is obvious parody.

Surely, the key word is 'obviously'? To me, as an alien, not knowing the Onion, I might believe that this is a breaking scandal from that 'report'. As such, I could conclude that one of the Admin's Secs is depraved, which I would consider scandalous. It does not contain anything that is sufficiently incredible to make me think it was satirical or parodic.

What would happen if the same story were printed with a banner headline on the front page of a respected newspaper like the Washington Post or the Christian Science Monitor?

[cjolley]

Well the link doesn't work anymore.
So, maybe it was a little too close to the line.
chuck

[Admiral]

Originally posted by Wombat
See the Flynt case for more info.

Somehow I think that guy should be shot, he opened the gates of hell for media abuse (by the media) and defamation.

[cjolley]

Originally posted by Admiral
...I think that guy should be shot...

Isn't that why he is in a wheel chair?
chuck