Opening Salvos Friday in Fox's Franken Lawsuit

[headscratcher4]

Appartently, Bill O'Reilly is now the arbitor of what is satire and humor...if he finds it amusing, it is protected speech, if he doesn't find it amusing (or is the object of the attempt at humor) it isn't.

From this morning's Reuters Entertainment Wire:


Opening Salvos Friday in Fox's Franken Lawsuit
Mon Aug 18,11:41 PM ET
By Andrew Grossman

NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - Arguments will begin Friday in federal court as Fox News Channel seeks a preliminary injunction against distribution of Al Franken's new book.

Fox is suing the comedian and his publisher, Penguin, arguing that the book's title, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," violates Fox's trademarked franchise on the words "fair and balanced."

Franken's attorney, Floyd Abrams, argues that it is really a First Amendment issue and that trademark infringement cases must yield to the Bill of Rights.

New York District Court Judge Denny Chin will hear arguments in the case. The parties gave Chin three- to four-page letters in a hearing Thursday, according to Abrams, who said he gave Chin a copy of the book and told him that 250,000 copies will have been distributed to bookstores nationwide by the middle of this week.

Fox attorneys submitted legal papers to Chin last week, and Abrams expects to follow suit Wednesday.

During the weekend, Bill O'Reilly, host of Fox's popular debate show "The O'Reilly Factor," fiercely defended the network's lawsuit and attacked Franken in his syndicated newspaper column.

"It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a 'satirist' by the New York Times. Attempting to smear and destroy the reputations of those with whom you politically disagree is not satire," he wrote, adding later, "It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander."

Sources close to Franken believe that O'Reilly pushed Fox to pursue the lawsuit because of his intense dislike of the comedian and that O'Reilly was irate that his picture appeared above the word "Lies" on the book's cover. Fox pushed the trademark issue because it represented its best chance of winning the case, the Franken sources said.

Fox has declined comment on the suit.

[Sundog]

I am going to enjoy this and savor it like a fine wine.

[Ziggurat]

Originally posted by Sundog
I am going to enjoy this and savor it like a fine wine.

This is really more of a fine whine. But oh, the irony runs deep today.

[Diamond]

Al Franken could not have asked for better publicity for his book. He must be toasting the Fox network with the best champagne. :D

[Aoidoi]

... First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander." Er, as far as I know propaganda is legal, but neither libel (which the book may be) nor slander (which it by definition a book can't be) is legal. If the book contains libel, sue for that... not some lame copyright thing. Sheesh.

Man, I tend to avoid Fox News, but this is managing to make them look both incompetent and stupid. Way to go Fox.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
"It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a 'satirist' by the New York Times.

Jeez, only on Fox News would you find disagreement with the claim that Franken is a satirist.

[Michael Redman]

It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander. So does that mean he's going to quit his show? :confused:

[Ladewig]

------------------------------------------------------------------------
It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So does that mean he's going to quit his show?
:roll:


___________________
Is it considered slander to call someone a slanderer? Does Frankin have a case against O'Reilly?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Aoidoi
Er, as far as I know propaganda is legal, but neither libel (which the book may be) nor slander (which it by definition a book can't be) is legal. If the book contains libel, sue for that... not some lame copyright thing. Sheesh.


That's the thing. If they are going to argue copyright infringement, then make the case on that. But copyright infringement does not depend on whether the use was in a favorable or non-favorable light. Thus, claims that the language is libel or slanderous is irrelevent to a copyright infringement case. On the other hand, as you say, copyright infringement is irrelevent to charges of libel or slander.

I don't know enough about trademark laws, so I don't know about the grounds for the case. For example, I assume that the name "Harry Potter" is trademarked to Rowling and/or the publisher (to prevent knock off authors from writing and publishing "Harry Potter" rip-offs). However, what about books that are like "The True Meaning of Harry Potter"? Is that a trademark infringment?

Suppose I wrote a book "Harry Potter is a Witch and So is my Mom"? Would that be copyright infringement? That's the case at hand. If Fox argues that it is copyright infringement because it is propaganda, libel, or slanderous, then I don't think they will get very far. They have to show that it is outside the protection of "fair use."

[Brown]

Do you hear that? It's the last of O'Reilly's credibility disappearing down the crapper.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Brown
Do you hear that? It's the last of O'Reilly's credibility disappearing down the crapper.

I think it's evidence of actual borderline insanity. O'Reilly actually thinks the world should operate the way he wants it to and is willing to use force to achieve it.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Sundog
I think it's evidence of actual borderline insanity.Assuming O'Reilly is really the driving force behind the suit, then "borderline insanity" seems to be a reasonable description. A more polite term might be "an unwise move." O'Reilly is far more likely to sink his own ship than to sink Franken's.

There are certain things that one should not do out of anger. Filing a lawsuit is one of them.

[headscratcher4]

Can anyone really think that the court is going to restrain publication of this book?

Can you imagine the negative publicity for Fox if they somehow win?

Can you imagine the threat to the first amendment should Fox win?

(different subject, but remember how 60 Minutes was embarassed over their Smoking expose a couple of years back...their credibility is still suspect...).

It makes you wonder why Fox is doing this, it can't be just because O'Reilly is having a fit...

This looks to be a great show...it will either be laughed out of court, or cause a constitutional issue that will go all that could go all the way to the Supreme Court...either way, it seems to me Frankin wins and Fox/O'Reilly look small and foolish....

[Sundog]

Never, NEVER p*ss off a popular comedian... even if he isn't popular with YOU. You can't possibly win. Franken will ride this for YEARS.

[jj]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Can anyone really think that the court is going to restrain publication of this book?

Can you imagine the negative publicity for Fox if they somehow win?

Can you imagine the threat to the first amendment should Fox win?

(different subject, but remember how 60 Minutes was embarassed over their Smoking expose a couple of years back...their credibility is still suspect...).

It makes you wonder why Fox is doing this, it can't be just because O'Reilly is having a fit...

This looks to be a great show...it will either be laughed out of court, or cause a constitutional issue that will go all that could go all the way to the Supreme Court...either way, it seems to me Frankin wins and Fox/O'Reilly look small and foolish....

Or it could be that O'Reilly thinks they have found a friendly judge who will slap this down hard, and chill some more of our constitutional rights. Don't forget that Bush has been appointing Ashcroft's judges now for several years!

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by jj


Or it could be that O'Reilly thinks they have found a friendly judge who will slap this down hard, and chill some more of our constitutional rights. Don't forget that Bush has been appointing Ashcroft's judges now for several years!

True, but it is hard to see how a friendly judge at the District Court level wins it for Fox. It will be appealed, and it will be reported by all Fox rivals as a p*ssing match, and as an attempt by Fox to censor critics...No, I really believe that even by loosing, Franken wins...and it is difficult to see how Fox can win up the line without stirring up real concern among the public and politicians about censorship.

[Brown]

An update from Yahoo and the AP: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=12&u=/ap/20030819/ap_on_en_tv/fox_franken_lawsuit)So far, the legal action has only helped sell the book, which for the past week has been in the top 10 on Amazon.com. Penguin originally planned a print run of 250,000, but announced Monday that it had ordered an additional 40,000 copies.

"The extra printing is definitely a result of the interest generated from the lawsuit," said Penguin spokeswoman Lisa Johnson.

Penguin also moved up the publication date from Sept. 22 to the end of this week, meaning books will likely be on sale by the time of Friday's hearing.

[jj]

Originally posted by Brown
An update from Yahoo and the AP: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=12&u=/ap/20030819/ap_on_en_tv/fox_franken_lawsuit)

Hmm. I should go buy one ASAP. :)

I noticed there's a new Lazlo Letters coming out, too. I think the 1960's are back. :(

[shanek]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a 'satirist' by the New York Times.

It is simply a sorry joke to see a satirist like Al Franken labeled a 'political activist' by Fox News.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by shanek


It is simply a sorry joke to see a satirist like Al Franken labeled a 'political activist' by Fox News.

You submit, WE define.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Sundog


You submit, WE define.

Actually, methinks the goal of fox news is the reverse (as it is Ashcroft, et al.):

We Define, you submit....

;)

[corplinx]

I was watching Fox News Watch this weekend. Everyone on the show thought the lawsuit was either insanity or a Fox honcho getting a kickback from Franken's book sales by increasing sales of it tenfold.

[chulbert]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
"It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a 'satirist' by the New York Times. Maybe he should tell the Fox News journalists that (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95162,00.html) .

[corplinx]

Originally posted by shanek


It is simply a sorry joke to see a satirist like Al Franken labeled a 'political activist' by Fox News.

He is an activist. To be a satirist, he would have to be funny...... (He stopped being funny around 1992)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
"It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a 'satirist' by the New York Times. Attempting to smear and destroy the reputations of those with whom you politically disagree is not satire," he wrote, adding later, "It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander."


:i: Isn't this the whole purpose of FNN and O'Reiley's show in particular?

[Brown]

Originally posted by corplinx
To be a satirist, he would have to be funny...... (He stopped being funny around 1992) Well, I think Al's still got some wit in him, unlike other Minnesota natives who had comedic talent and then lost it (such as Charles Shultz). I saw Al give a speech about five years ago, and he had everybody in the auditorium laughing. (He also made some remarks to the media following his speech that I thought were extremely gracious, considering the fact that parts of the presentation had been the cause of great embarrassment... a story that I will not go into here.)

Good Al Franken quote: "I'm not Garrison Keillor. You're going to take some hits." Franken said this to Bill and Hillary Clinton after throwing the first of many zingers at them during a speech. The Clintons accepted the zingers in good humor.

[Brown]

Another article of interest, from the Star Tribune: (http://www.startribune.com/stories/389/4051170.html)The Authors Guild, a nonprofit network that lobbies on behalf of writers and freedom of expression issues, is compiling a list of titles it plans to submit in federal court today to show that the use of trademarked terms in titles is common and not confusing to the public. [Link omitted.] Among the suggestions: Kurt Vonnegut's "Breakfast of Champions," taken from the Wheaties cereal slogan; director John Landis' film comedy, "Kentucky Fried Movie," and "Spam-ku," a collection of Spam-themed poetry.The article also mentions unsuccessful lawsuits concerning "Star wars" and "Spike TV."

If memory serves, Al Franken once did a comedic bit about suing the makers of Frankenberry cereal for using his name, his face (he could smile in a manner like the Frankenberry monster), and his rear end (the top of the Frankenberry monster's head resembled a human butt). [For a picture of the monster, go to this web site.] (http://home.comcast.net/~Frankenberryfans/) How long will it be before someone digs up that comedic bit?

BTW, there is a reason for the publisher to expedite delivery of the books before the hearing. When one party wants to enjoin another from doing something, one justification for doing so is "to preserve the status quo." By beginning delivery of books before the hearing, "preserving the status quo" will mean that the publisher will continue to deliver books. Basically, the publisher is trying to take away one of Fox's expected arguments, and it's a safe bet that the folks at Fox are pretty irked by this tactic.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by corplinx

(He stopped being funny around 1992)

False.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Keith Olberman on MSNBC this evening referred to the Fox lawsuit as "disasterous". What were they thinking?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
Keith Olberman on MSNBC this evening referred to the Fox lawsuit as "disasterous". What were they thinking?

You just reminded me to watch the season premiere of SNL. I can only hope that they do an O'Reiley sketch..

[a_unique_person]

Headscratcher, maybe this should be your new avatar.

http://www.rosehearty.co.uk/images/history/rupert.jpg

[bangdazap]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


False.
Humor is so very subjective, especially political humor (for obvious reasons).

[CFLarsen]

"Fox is suing the comedian and his publisher, Penguin, arguing that the book's title, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right," violates Fox's trademarked franchise on the words "fair and balanced." "

Sorry, no can do. You can put "99 billions sold" on a critical book about McDonald's. (Hey, that was actually a pretty good marketing idea! :D)

"It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a 'satirist' by the New York Times."

Al Franken is, I believe, a political satirist, first and foremost. Acidic, at times, sure. But a satirist nevertheless.

"Attempting to smear and destroy the reputations of those with whom you politically disagree is not satire"

Depends on how you do it. Simply calling them stupid is not satire. Pointing out factual lies and making fun of that is.

"It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the First Amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander."

Free speech, buddy. Deal with it.


Originally posted by pgwenthold
Suppose I wrote a book "Harry Potter is a Witch and So is my Mom"? Would that be copyright infringement?

"The Tao of Pooh". No lawsuits from Disney, eh? ;)

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Headscratcher, maybe this should be your new avatar.

http://www.rosehearty.co.uk/images/history/rupert.jpg

No way! He's far too scary and a real presence in the world...his minions might find me and hurt me. All praise the great leadership of the Son of Fox TV! Our Dear Leader, and Philosopher of the O'Reilly Method! Hail Rupert -- Friend of Man kind and struggling people everywhere!

[zakur]

Paul Newman is still HUD (http://www.presstelegram.com/Stories/0,1413,204~21479~1579598,00.html)
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. Newman claims piracy of personality and copycat infringement. :D

[Sundog]

The best part is the last paragraph:


A coalition of the willing - i.e., the Bratwurst Asphalt Co. 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


This is already one fine wine. Ahhhh.

[Upchurch]

I'm going to be kind of interested in O'Rilley's reaction when Fox loses the lawsuit. Think he'll try to start another boycott?

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm going to be kind of interested in O'Rilley's reaction when Fox loses the lawsuit. Think he'll try to start another boycott?

But according to O'Reilly he has never started a boycott. He just advised his viewers to not buy a product. See the difference?

Lurker

[corplinx]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer
False.

He seems to be funny off the cuff but if you look at his SNL work (those wonderful seasons from 94-97 that drew more flies than viewers), or his failed CBS sitcom from that time, you are left wondering if he can be consistently funny in tv production. He has had some very funny public appearances including a hilarious one at Rob Reiner's roast a few years back.

I think what really marked Al Franken's comedy decline was his admiration and love for Bill Clinton. He seems to be too enamored with the man to lampoon him the way he had done previous administrations. It got so bad at one point, I remember an SNL sketch where the founding fathers were brought forward in time and basically they repeated Clinton's rhetoric for fixing the country.

Mind you, its hard to not like a guy who does the most dead-on pat robertson impression ever. However, he seems to be very hit-and-miss ever since he got into activism and became a personal friend of Bill Clinton.

Compare Bob Hope to Al Franken. You always knew who Bob Hope was voting for but it seems like he left it at the voting booth when it came to his comedy.

[Suddenly]

Just stumbled upon this from the UPI website. (http://www.upi.com/history.htm)

United Press International pioneered many areas of worldwide news coverage and distribution, striving since 1907 to provide news coverage that is fast, accurate, fair and balanced.

[Sundog]

Prominent Democrats have started a movement to "recall" Bush:


http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/08/20/bush.recall.ap/index.html

The name of their PAC is the Fair and Balanced PAC. ;)

[Brown]

No injunction for Fox, but some big laughs for Franken, from Yahoo and Reuters: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20030822/en_nm/media_fox_dc)Fox Loses Bid to Stop Sale of Franken Book
...
"There are hard cases and there are easy cases. This is an easy case," said U.S. District Judge Denny Chin, who added that the motion for an injunction was "wholly without merit."

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Brown
No injunction for Fox, but some big laughs for Franken, from Yahoo and Reuters: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=638&ncid=762&e=1&u=/nm/20030822/en_nm/media_fox_dc)

Thank you. I've been waiting all day for this.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

[arcticpenguin]

He said it is highly unlikely that consumers would be misled to think that Fox is sponsoring the book. He also said the trademark is weak.
Wouldn't it be hilarious is Fox lost their trademark of the phrase as a result of this?

[Reager]

Originally posted by Sundog


Thank you. I've been waiting all day for this.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

I picked up the book last night and couldn't put it down. I only wish I could read it again for the first time.

Mike

[Brown]

More, from Yahoo and AP: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=9&u=/ap/20030822/ap_on_en_tv/fox_franken_lawsuit)Franken called the ruling a victory for the First Amendment and satirists everywhere — "even bad satirists."

"In addition to thanking my own lawyers," Franken said, "I'd like to thank Fox's lawyers for filing one of the stupidest briefs I've ever seen in my life."

[Cain]

I picked up the book last night and couldn't put it down. I only wish I could read it again for the first time.

You bastard! I've been eagerly anticipating the publication of this book for nearly three months, but did not learn until a few days ago (in this thread!) that they would send it out early. It's not expected to arrive at my house until late August/early September (from Amazon).

This sucks.

[Sundog]

Oh, I'm enjoying this WAAAY too much.


IN YOUR FACE, O'REILLY!!!

:dl:

[Brown]

More from the article (WARNING: do not drink while reading):Fox spokesman Paul Schur said the network was considering its options, including appealing the judge's denial of an injunction.

"We don't care if it's Al Franken, Al Lewis or Weird Al Yankovic," he said. "We're here to protect our trademark and our talent." Al Lewis? Don't drag Grandpa Munster into this! Gee, if you really wanted to insult Franken, you could have at least mentioned Al Capone. How about Al Hirt, Al Shepard, Al Unser, or Al Qaeda?

[Reager]

Originally posted by Cain


You bastard! I've been eagerly anticipating the publication of this book for nearly three months, but did not learn until a few days ago (in this thread!) that they would send it out early. It's not expected to arrive at my house until late August/early September (from Amazon).

This sucks.

Yep, Barnes & Noble didn't know a thing about the book, but Borders already had it out on shelves and 30% off.

Mike

[Silicon]

Flies,
And the Flying Fliers Who Eat Them

http://www.pscelebrities.com/alhead1.gif

A Fair and Balanced Look at Igor, My Pet Bat.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Silicon

Flies,
And the Flying Fliers Who Eat Them

http://www.pscelebrities.com/alhead1.gif

A Fair and Balanced Look at Igor, My Pet Bat.

"You was right about my dog. He's got pellagra. She don't serve no meat to either of us."

(Name the movie Al Lewis said this in!)

[Regnad Kcin]

Many years ago Al Lewis was on a speaking tour of college campuses during which he lectured on the importance of the arts in general and theatre in particular. For his visit to my school he was dressed in the typical mod style of the day: striped bell bottoms, a paisley shirt and a brown leather biker's cap.

Following his talk he met with a few of us theatre geeks for a casual coffee and a round of yarns. After quite some time spent holding forth on matters of public policy and current events, he realized he might have been getting a bit too deep and esoteric. Pausing, he asked our group, "Any questions?" I raised my hand and said, "Yeah, where'd you get that hat?"

[Lemastre]

Fox may be allowed to charge Franken a royalty for using its copyrighted term "fair and balanced" in his book title. Most such uses of copyrighted terms go unchallenged because the copyright holders find the uses unobjectionable or profitable to them or because the holders recognize that the publicity attending a suit will benefit the violator. Fox apparently isn’t clever enough to figure this out. Obviously, Fox objects primarily to the content of the book, and a suit will only increase interest in it.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Lemastre
Fox apparently isn’t clever enough to figure this out. Obviously, Fox objects primarily to the content of the book,


That is what I find most objectionable about Fox and the lawsuit. Fox can afford the best lawyers in the world, they are not dummies. Fox veiled a content-based suit in the guise of a meritless trademark infringement case. O'Reilly even claimed in a recent column that Franken's book was libelous. Funny then, that Fox sued Franken for trademark infringment and not defamation (for which TRUTH is a complete defense). No, through this suit, Fox said to Franken, and anyone else thinking of criticizing them, "Take us on, and we'll come after you and try to shut you up." Franken even points out in Lies that this is the typical MO of Rupert Murdoch, Roger Ailes, and Bill O'Reilly (whose fabulously eloquent and oft-repeated response to criticism is a schoolboy admonition to "SHUT UP!! SHUT UP!!"). The suit shows you how much value those three place on the integrity of their "profession" and the importance of the first amendment, as opposed to their own thin skin.


Mike

[WildCat]

How can the commonly used expression "fair and balanced" be awarded a copywrite in the first place? Is this the copywrite equivalent to a perpetual motion patent?

Both Franken and Fox win from this suit - they're both getting loads of free publicity over this. I've never seen Fox News (or Bill O'Reilly) or read any of Franken's books, he used to be good on the old SNL though.

[headscratcher4]

Here's something the Judge said that I think brilliant...

...It is ironic that a media company that should seek to protect the First Amendment is instead seeking to undermine it."

Could apply to John Ashcroft too...Indeed, something Michael Powell and the FCC should consider when trying to make it easier for large media companies to controll more and more of the airwaves...

BTW, there are a number of very conservative posters on these boards, some whose logic and arguments I admire even when I am in disagreement with them...can someone here defend Fox? I mean it seriously, is there a rational defense for Fox (beyond keeping O'Reilly happy), is there a serious issue here?

I write this because the discriptions of the Fox courtroom presentation make them seem so pathetic and even half-hearted. In short, an abuse of the legal system in a manner that should have all those who complain of how the legal system is abused by frivolous law suits in a state of outrage.

Any thoughts?

[Reager]

Originally posted by WildCat
How can the commonly used expression "fair and balanced" be awarded a copywrite in the first place? Is this the copywrite equivalent to a perpetual motion patent?


Copyrighted works are different than trade marks. You can't copyright a short phrase like "fair and balanced." And what the judge basically said was that Fox can't enforce its trademark of the phrase against Franken because nobody would be confused that Fox actually endorsed or was associated with Fanken's book, which obviously used the phrase satirically.


Both Franken and Fox win from this suit - they're both getting loads of free publicity over this. I've never seen Fox News (or Bill O'Reilly) or read any of Franken's books, he used to be good on the old SNL though.

I don't think Fox wins at all. Sure it's gotten publicity, but does anyone (aside from some ultra right-wing fanatics) actually think more highly of Fox News because it filed a frivolous lawsuit in an effort to stifle the free speech of a Fox critic?

Mike

[corplinx]

Borrowing from another Newscorp owned franchise:

Worst lawsuit ever!

[KelvinG]

I likely wouldn't have given Franken's book a second look had it not been for the Fox lawsuit. But now I'll probably buy it.

Is Franken going to give Fox a cut of the profits for all the free publicity and increase in sales that will likely result?

[headscratcher4]

Another quote from the AP account of the hearing...

The judge pointed out the book cover also features pictures of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. Is someone going to think they are affiliated with Fox?


It seems to me that the answer is yes, at least I have now for several years....;)

[Cain]

The New York Times has an article describing the scene in the courtroom:


But these [O'Reilly on the cover; "fair and balance" trademark] arguments were met by laughter in the crowded courtroom, as Fox tried to defend its signature slogan. Part of the network's burden was to prove that Mr. Franken's use of the phrase "fair and balanced" would lead to consumer confusion.

One round of laughter was prompted when Judge Chin asked, "Do you think that the reasonable consumer, seeing the word `lies' over Mr. O'Reilly's face would believe Mr. O'Reilly is endorsing this book?"

The giggling continued as Dori Ann Hanswirth, a lawyer for Fox, replied, "To me, it's quite ambiguous as to what the message is here."

She continued, "It does not say `parody' or `satire.' "

Ms. Hanswirth said Fox's "signature slogan" was also blurred, because people who were not associated with the network, which owns the Fox News Channel, also appear on the cover with Mr. O'Reilly.

Judge Chin said, "The president and the vice president are also on the cover. Is someone going to consider that they are affiliated with Fox?"

The courtroom broke into laughter again.

And

Judge Chin said the case was an easy one, and chided Fox for bringing its complaint to court. The judge said, "Of course, it is ironic that a media company that should be fighting for the First Amendment is trying to undermine it."

[Regnad Kcin]

Well, I've just finished the book. And yes, it is altogether funny, astute, playful, and (as with the extraordinary chapter on the Paul Wellstone memorial controversy) scathing.

Another #1 NY Times best seller for Mr. F? I wouldn't bet against it.

[Brown]

E!Online (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/eo/20030823/en_tv_eo/12371) made an interesting point. The pleadings that Fox filed included all sorts of personal and professional insults, but at least one was missing:In an apparent oversight, [Fox] did not make fun of him for that Stuart Smalley movie.

[a_unique_person]

Murdoch is not longer an Aussie, (he became a patriotic American when he saw the business benefits of becoming one), so, please feel free to kick him in the *** for me.

[Silicon]

Reading the book now. It's very funny, and very scathing.

I notice he hasn't jumped on Murdoch the Pornographer. www.page3.com IS his, after all.


Maybe he gets to that later.


But he has pegged him a a communist stooge, and collaborator. Helping Beijing start up the web-based version of The People's Daily, China's answer to Pravda.

This guy needs to be called out.

Anytime ANYONE to the right talks about Fox News, I'm answering, "I'm not watching anything by that communist pornographer Murdoch."

[a_unique_person]

Couldn't find anything on the Foxnews site. I am not looking hard enough?

[Frank Newgent]

Wondering if Franken might file a countersuit against Fox for false advertising about their use of the phrase "Fair and Balanced".

[Silicon]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Couldn't find anything on the Foxnews site. I am not looking hard enough?

Anything on what, AUP?


Murdoch's porn interests? Hehehheh.

[zakur]

Originally posted by a_unique_person
Couldn't find anything on the Foxnews site. I am not looking hard enough? They're carrying the AP story...unedited. Including Judge Chin's remarks "This case is wholly without merit, both factually and legally" and "It is ironic that a media company, which should be protecting the First Amendment, is seeking to undermine it."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95484,00.html

Kinda funny. Perhaps by running this story they are trying to say they actually are "fair and balanced."

[Mr Manifesto]

Hmm... this thread is missing something... can't put my finger on it...

THAT'S IT! THE O'REILLY FANS!

Where are O'Reilly's loyal legions in the face of this humiliating setback? Fairweather friends, the lot of 'em.

[Silicon]

Fox News Drops Suit Vs. Franken Over Book

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=9&u=/ap/20030825/ap_on_en_tv/fox_franken_lawsuit_2



"It's time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he's normally
accustomed to," Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said.


Yes, we can barely see Franken's face obscured in the Number 1 Slot of the Bestseller list.



Hehehe... Irena, YOU WORK FOR A COMMUNIST PORNOGRAPHER!!!! :roll:

[Brown]

From Yahoo and AP: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=9&u=/ap/20030825/ap_on_en_tv/fox_franken_lawsuit_2)Fox News Drops Suit Vs. Franken Over Book
"It's time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he's normally accustomed to," Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said.
...
Floyd Abrams, who represented Franken and Penguin in the case, said the withdrawal of the suit was "welcome, if overdue."

"Fox's lack of grace in ending its suit is of the same nature as its name-calling and silly efforts to deal with criticism of it in the first place," Abrams said. I expect Al Franken is already typing a chapter for an updated edition of the book.

[Brown]

The CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/25/fox.v.franken/index.html) article further quotes Abrams as saying "The case never should have been brought." He was right, on many levels. Not only has Fox lost the case in humiliting fashion (which it had a negligible chance of winning in the first place), this case has tarnished Fox's credibility. On top of that, Franken will get as much mileage out of the debacle as he can.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Brown
From Yahoo and AP: (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=9&u=/ap/20030825/ap_on_en_tv/fox_franken_lawsuit_2)I expect Al Franken is already typing a chapter for an updated edition of the book.


As of this hour, Lies is still the #1 book on Amazon.com. And of course, on CNN's Crossfire this afternoon (co-hosted by Franken) conservative radio-host Blanquita Cullum all but accused Franken of being in on the lawsuit. Apparantly she believes that Roger Ailes is in the business of helping liberal authors sell books while simultaneously making himself look like as ass. Boy those crazy conservatives will believe anything! :)

Mike

[Regnad Kcin]

"It's time to return Al Franken to the obscurity that he's normally accustomed to," Fox News spokeswoman Irena Steffen said.Irena who?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by Brown
The CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/25/fox.v.franken/index.html) article further quotes Abrams as saying "The case never should have been brought." He was right, on many levels. Not only has Fox lost the case in humiliting fashion (which it had a negligible chance of winning in the first place), this case has tarnished Fox's credibility. On top of that, Franken will get as much mileage out of the debacle as he can.

I have MSNBC on now, and they just reported that the case was "laughed" out of court! LOL! Everyone is piling on!

[UnrepentantSinner]

Fair and Balanced Search Engine Results

http://www.planetsocksinteractive.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi

[Charlie Monoxide]

BTW, there are a number of very conservative posters on these boards, some whose logic and arguments I admire even when I am in disagreement with them...can someone here defend Fox?

Errr, I'm not a right-winger (although I play one on TV), I will say one thing in defence of Fox.

"The Simpsons"

Charlie (I like my beer cold ... my TV loud ... and my homosexuals flaming. - Homer) Monoxide

[headscratcher4]

Yes, but to bring The Simpson's to Fox (at that time a fledgeling network with no "hits") the network specifically signed away the right to give the Simpson Creative team "notes"... so the show was from the very beginning issolated from the network legal/practices and policy offices...besides, I suspect that Fox entertainmnet and Fox News operate differently...Fox Entertainmnet specializing in cheap sexual inuendo programming, and Fox News specializing in cheap condemnation of the culture that craves cheap sexual inuendo programming...

[Hexxenhammer]

Gotta love those Springfield Republicans: Mr. Burns, Smithers (reluctantly), the crazy texan, Dr. Hibbert, Krusty, Sideshow Bob, and Dracula! I love how they meet in a scary castle on a cliff.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Hexxenhammer
Gotta love those Springfield Republicans: Mr. Burns, Smithers (reluctantly), the crazy texan, Dr. Hibbert, Krusty, Sideshow Bob, and Dracula! I love how they meet in a scary castle on a cliff. Don't forget actor Renier Wolfcastle

[headscratcher4]

http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/27/franken/index.html

Salon post law-suit interview with Franken...

[Hexxenhammer]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Don't forget actor Renier Wolfcastle

I hear he's running for governor.

[Ladewig]

I like Joe Conason's take on it: maybe Fox can trademark the phrase "Utterly Without Merit."

[Regnad Kcin]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/27/franken/index.html

Salon post law-suit interview with Franken... "O'Reilly keeps saying I'm a smear artist," [Franken] says, "but all I do is just say what they said...It's jujitsu. You just use what they do against them. And when you do that, they get mad."

:D

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/27/franken/index.html
http://salon.com/news/feature/2003/08/27/franken/story.jpg

Man, that just made my day.

edited to add: and there is something vaguely satisfying about that picture too. O'Rilley could use a good pop in the head once in a while.

[Charlie Monoxide]

I think Al Franken summed it nicely with:
Liberals have a little bit of a different mindset, in which I think liberals by nature look for information and conservatives look for ammunition

Charlie (and gosh darn it, people like me) Monoxide