No Cruising in the UK for South Park

Discussion in 'Now Playing - TV Show Talk' started by Azlen, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. Azlen

    Azlen Well-Known Member

    2,654
    67
    Nov 24, 2002
    Peoria, AZ

    Advertisements

    Ok so I am a wannabe headline writer. Anyway...

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/19/south_park_axed/

     
  2. busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    302
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    Screw Tom Cruise. He doesn't have a legal leg to stand on in this case.

    A) Parody and satire are clearly protected (Hustler v. Fallwell)

    2) They never say Tom is gay anway, they literally tell him to come out of an actual closet.
     
  3. MickeS

    MickeS Active Member

    25,975
    24
    Dec 26, 2002
    What does "having a pop" mean as in "having a pop at Cruise's acting abilities"?
     
  4. busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    302
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    Prbably the same as "taking a swipe"
     
  5. KRS

    KRS Mmm...invisible cola

    6,999
    261
    Jan 30, 2002
    Franklin, MA

    Advertisements

    I thought it meant "drinking a soda."

    Thank goodness the South Park guys used fake names in the credits for that episode!
     
  6. SparkleMotion

    SparkleMotion New Member

    20,816
    0
    Feb 2, 2004
    Alive at...
    Minor correction...it was Falwell v. Hustler (complainant comes first). :)
     
  7. trainman

    trainman Nice to see you

    11,451
    1,043
    Jan 29, 2001
    Sherman...
    Which is probably why we haven't heard anything about Cruise and/or the Church of Scientology threatening Comedy Central over this episode.

    The article is referring to the U.K., though, where the laws and court decisions are different (but I don't know how different -- there's quite a history of British parody and satire!).
     
  8. TeeSee

    TeeSee Tiiin ROOF. Rusted!

    1,456
    0
    Jan 16, 2003
    Atlanta, GA
    Is it illegal to imply that someone is homosexual? My hair is brown. Can I sue someone if they tell people that it's red? :confused:
     
  9. quarkman97

    quarkman97 All mobbed up!

    695
    0
    Nov 17, 2002
    Brewcity, WI
    I think the episode in question was hilarious. The way South Park exposed what Scientology is about....brilliant. I love how they put at the bottom "This is what Scientologists actually believe" when they were showing all the aliens, motherships, and absolutely rediculous beliefs of Scientology.

    I'd like to see Cruise sue them. Add more fuel to the fire for me. I can't wait until his marriage to Katie (now Kate) Holmes fails and he's run out of Hollywood for being a weirdo. I don't see how he's becoming more popular with the way he acts nowadays.

    <downgrade>
     
  10. busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    302
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    That was my first impluse, but when I googled, pretty much every reference I saw said "Hustler v. Falwell"

    I don't know why.
     
  11. busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    302
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    Responding to myself....

    My best guess is that:

    A) The original suit slander in a state court was "Falwell v Hustler". In that case Hustler was found not liable for slander, but liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress and Falwell was awarded damages.

    then

    B) The federal case that went to the supreme court was "Hustler v. Fallwell" because Hustler was the plaintiff alledging that finding a satirist liable for infliction of emotional distress was a 1st amendment violation.
     
  12. SparkleMotion

    SparkleMotion New Member

    20,816
    0
    Feb 2, 2004
    Alive at...
    Perhaps it was a countersuit...I don't think appeals (which is the only route to the SCOTUS) change the contenders in a lawsuit.
     
  13. busyba

    busyba The Funcooker

    34,759
    302
    Feb 5, 2003
    NYC
    I'm thinking now that appeals do change it.

    The SCOTUS ruling that struck down sodomy laws is called "Lawrence v. Texas", and in that case Lawrence was the defendant on the sodomy charge and Texas was the complainant.

    I'm thinking that maybe cases in general are "complainant v. defendant" and SCOTUS cases are then "petitioner v. respondant", regardless of what the case being appealed was.
     
  14. cmontyburns

    cmontyburns Excellent.

    20,808
    2,802
    Nov 14, 2001
    Houston, TX
    He doesn't need to sue, and he doesn't need to have a legal leg to stand on. What he needs is to be the executive producer and star of Paramount's most expensive and most important 2006 release, Mission: Impossible III, which he is, and then he needs to tell Paramount he is unhappy, which he did. He knows full well they will do whatever he wants without getting lawyers involved; threatening suit was just saber rattling.
     
  15. LostCluster

    LostCluster Member

    504
    0
    Feb 10, 2002
    Call this censorship by contract rider. Cruise is currently working on two Paramount movies... and that half of Viacom is the side that has the ability to stop syndicating a given episode.
     
  16. smak

    smak TV MA SLV

    26,408
    2,479
    Feb 11, 2000
    NoHo, CA USA
    It's too bad that "John Smith" isn't running Paramount or a UK television network :D

    -smak-
     

Share This Page

spam firewall

Advertisements