I love Al Franken's comedy and hate his politics. I took one of his books on my honeymoon and Ms. Giddy got irked with me reading it and laughing in bed... just while she got ready!
From a legal standpoint, Foxnews, whatever you think about them, has a legitimate right to sue Franken. I'm sure that slogan is copyrighted and according to my good friend and former media law prof in college who I talked to about it a couple of days ago via email, he said that Fox has a great chance of winning. He's both a PhD and a former media lawyer for a big newspaper, so I will trust his opinion on that one.
From the First Amendment prof at Yale, from 2 days ago: (This essay originally appeared in the August 14, 2003, edition of the Los Angeles Times.) Don't Use Those Words: Fox News Owns Them By Jack M. Balkin, Knight Professor of Constitutional Law and the First Amendment Fox News is suing comedian and writer Al Franken in the New York courts, attempting to stop the sale of his forthcoming book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." Fox claims that Franken may not use the expression "fair and balanced" because it has been trademarked by Fox News and that Franken's book would confuse viewers about the source of the book and about the objectivity of Fox's coverage. The court papers filed by Fox are particularly colorful, describing Franken as a "parasite," "shrill and unstable" and as a person whose "views lack any serious depth or insight." It also accuses him of attacking Fox news personalities when he was either "intoxicated or deranged" at a press correspondents' dinner in April 2003. Because Franken's obvious purpose is political parody and satire and, in particular, parody of Fox News among others, the lawsuit should not succeed. Fox may well argue that Franken's parody tarnishes its business and its mark, but the whole purpose of political parody is to poke fun at people one disagrees with. If Franken may not use the expression "fair and balanced" in a book that accuses Fox News of failing to be "fair and balanced," there is something seriously wrong with trademark law under our 1st Amendment. And if Fox can get an injunction preventing the sale of the book, we can be sure that the expansion of intellectual property rights has gone too far. The most troubling aspect of the lawsuit is its attempt to harass a political opponent through the use of intellectual property laws. Fox News vs. Franken is merely one episode in a much larger conflict between freedom of speech and intellectual property rights. Trademark, like copyright, has now become a general-purpose device for private parties to use when they want the state to suppress speech they do not like. And they are trying to suppress the speech of others not merely to protect their legitimate economic interests but because of aesthetic and political disagreements as well. This is a misuse of trademark, which is designed to protect ongoing commercial interests, and it is a misuse of copyright, which is designed to promote progress in ideas, not inhibit robust debate about ideas. Fox will richly deserve the bad press it's going to get for filing this lawsuit, first, for being on the wrong side of a free speech controversy and, second, for attempting to squelch criticism of its coverage of the news. It is egregious for a news organization to try to use the courts to harass its political critics. In 1964, at the height of the civil rights movement, an Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, tried to use the state's libel laws to shut down the New York Times for publishing an advertisement that condemned racial discrimination in the South and implicitly criticized him. The Supreme Court wisely decided that protection of an individual's reputation had to yield to the promotion of "uninhibited, robust and wide-open" debate in a democracy. Its decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan established that free speech was protected even if it included "vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks." Now Fox News is trying to circumvent that rule by claiming not that Franken is defaming it but that Franken is stealing and misusing the words "fair and balanced," which Fox News claims to own. But no one should own the words necessary to engage in public protest. It's time for the courts to consider whether trademark law, like defamation law before it, needs greater constitutional boundaries to protect robust debate. Throwing out Fox's lawsuit would be a good first step. Jack M. Balkin teaches constitutional law at Yale Law School.
Foxnews could really care less how this ended imo. It seems they only used this opportunity to take a few comical jabs at Franken with the usage of "deranged" and the like. Foxnews has a good reputation for taking jabs at the intolerate left. Fox is basically a right wing parody of CNN. I don't understand why so many devote so much hate, spite, etc over a news corporation which subscribes to an ideology that sits in the minority in the American mainstream media.
? Really, if they didn't care then why did they file the lawsuit? They're the ones who come out of this looking like petty fools. It's not as if they need the publicity, they don't need a lawsuit to bash Al Franken. And if they want to get into a satire contest with Al Franken they're going to lose. Just like they will in court. Maybe they will care then.
There is a show on Fox News on Sundays where they have a round table about the media. It's the best show on Fox News, the least skewed. The panel today agreed to a person that Fox made a mistake, and they all work for Fox News. I think this is a deal where Fox let Bill O'Reilly have what he wanted, and he really thinks courts will be as offended as he is. B-O is about to get his first lesson in American Jurisprudence. let me put it this way to Mr. O'Reilly: You're a public figure, dork! We can make fun of your monkey azz all we want! We can make fun of Faux News. And mimicry is a time honored form of humor in this country, so suck it up you freakin' baby!
Well why not? They get to bash him and if they win that makes it even more satisfying. Personally, I feel that this lawsuit is unnecessary but Fox seems to indulge on this kind of liberal enmity. I agree, that they are giving Franken a bigger soapbox than deserved. Other than a book he released called "Rush Limbaugh Is a Big Fat Idiot" never heard of the guy till he started attacking O'Reily and Fox. Other than his Drew Carey look-alike thing going on he's pretty obscure. I think thats what they're trying to do - trying to get involved into a satire contest. When I said they "didn't care" I meant in the sense of the frivolous nature of this lawsuit. It all sounds like a joke to me. Foxnews Watch. I agree, its a good show with a pretty good concept. Hannity and Colmes is not bad either as far as having a balanced view on certain topics. Although Fox could do better than Colmes his ideas are represented well and guests are pretty balanced. This show is definately better than Hannity's radio show.
Hannity v. Combover is no contest. They need to let us pick our own rep. How about Jonathan Alter? Hannity is the football guy from high school and Colmes is the nerd that the football guy messes with. Colmes really has more of a birdnest than a combover, of course. Hannity's radio show is comical, unintentionally so. "How dare these Hollywood types like Jeanine Garafolo set themselves up as political commentators! After the break we will have Charlie Daniels on the phone to tell us what he thinks about the war." I'm not kidding. That really happened.
They can, and do, bash him all day long to millions of viewers across the country. They already "get" to. Shrill court filings are redundant at best, and embarassing at worst, given the fact that O'Reeilly and co. frequently lament the litigious nature of our society and whine about plaintiffs lawyers. As for it being more satisfying "if they win", I can tell you, not as a layman, that there's about as much chance of that as me getting a talk show on fox. Given the lukewarm at best support for this from other Fox related quarters, this all seems to be driven by egomaniac O'Reilly, who can't stand not getting the last word.
I have this picture in my head of the judge as he gets ready to rule that the case lacks merit. Mr. O'Reilly, I'll give you the last word. Bill is going to be the goat on this one.
Check out this Op-ed piece from today's New York Times: Paul Newman Is Still HUD By PAUL NEWMAN The Fox News Network is suing Al Franken, the political satirist, for using the phrase "fair and balanced" in the title of his new book. In claiming trademark violation, Fox sets a noble example for standing firm against whatever. Unreliable sources report that the Fox suit has inspired Paul Newman, the actor, to file a similar suit in federal court against the Department of Housing and Urban Development, commonly called HUD. Mr. Newman claims piracy of personality and copycat infringement. In the 1963 film "HUD," for which Mr. Newman was nominated for an Academy Award, the ad campaign was based on the slogan, "Paul Newman is HUD." Mr. Newman claims that the Department of Housing and Urban Development, called HUD, is a fair and balanced institution and that some of its decency and respectability has unfairly rubbed off on his movie character, diluting the rotten, self-important, free-trade, corrupt conservative image that Mr. Newman worked so hard to project in the film. His suit claims that this "innocence by association" has hurt his feelings plus residuals. A coalition of the willing — i.e., the Bratwurst Asphalt Company and the Ypsilanti Hot Dog and Bean Shop — has been pushed forward and is prepared to label its products "fair and balanced," knowing that Fox News will sue and that its newscasters will be so tied up with subpoenas they will only be able to broadcast from the courtroom, where they will be seen tearing their hair and whining, looking anything but fair and balanced, which would certainly be jolly good sport all around. Paul Newman, an actor, is chief executive of Salad King. Hilarious!
there are also a number of online sites that are flaunting their new FAIR AND BALANCED slogans in open defiance of Fox.
