Instructions: Knievel v. ESPN Facts : Evel Knievel was a motorcycle stuntman who
ID: 397435 • Letter: I
Question
Instructions:
Knievel v. ESPN
Facts: Evel Knievel was a motorcycle stuntman who had built an international reputation through decades of daredevil feats. The Smithsonian Institute honored his deeds, and he built a solid reputation as a community activist and advocate for young people, using his fame to promote anti-drug programs and motorcycle safety.
ESPN held an awards program honoring winners in extreme sports and photographed many attending celebrities. On its website www.EXPN.com, the network featured a photo of Knievel, with his right arm around his wife Krystal, and his left arm around a young woman. The caption read, “Evel Knievel proves that you’re never too old to be a pimp.”
The Knievel’s sued for defamation and the District Court dismissed the case without going to trial ruling that the photo and caption could not be defamatory because no reasonable viewer would have taken the phrase in its literal, criminal sense. The Knievels appealed.
Issue: Should a jury have decided whether the phrase and caption were defamatory?
Decision: Affirmed, for the defendant.
Majority: The threshold issue, whether the complained-of phrase including inferences fairly attributable to it could reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts about Knievel and, therefore, be actionable defamation, must be interpreted from the standpoint of the average reader, judging the statement in the context in which it was made. The term “Pimp” as used on the EXPN.com website was not intended as a criminal accusation, nor was it reasonably interpreted as having that connotation. It was most likely intended as a compliment. The context of the EXPN.com main page is lighthearted and intended for young audiences. The series of photos immediately preceding and following the Knievel photo use slang such as “hardcore” and “scoping” and slang phrases like “throwing down a pose,” “put a few back,” and “hottie of the year,” none of which is intended to be interpreted literally. A reasonable viewer would have interpreted the word “pimp” in the same figurative sense as well.
Dissent: Whether the phrase or caption was defamatory is based on three things. First, the broad context in which the statement appears. The majority’s “broad context” is not broad enough. The majority only focuses on who the targeted audience is, not who actually viewed the photos and caption. Although the target audience of the website is young and hip, what about the corporate types who are Knievel’s clients who allegedly abandoned him because of the photo and caption? Liability is not based on who was targeted, but on who was hit. Second, we must look at the specific context in which the statement was made, the website. The majority claims that the definition of “pimp” as implied in their photo is not the only definition of the word, and therefore it cannot be defamatory, rather it is slang that is commonly used. Just because a word is slang does not negate the fact that the statement is susceptible to different reasonable meanings. It is noteworthy that the other slang used on the website referred to fun-filled misconduct such as drinking too much or being hip. Only Knievel was described using a criminal term. Lastly, the court must look at whether the statement can be proved true or false. While “hottie” may depend upon who is saying it, “pimp” has a literal definition that is clearly susceptible of being proven true or false. The plaintiff is entitled to have a jury decide whether the caption and photo was defamatory.
In the assignment instructions is a case summary - feel free to write about the case or anything else relating to the chapter - do you agree with the majority or the dissent (and why)?
Explanation / Answer
I agree with the dissent side. One cannot just focus on the audience the message is being sent to. There is no way that no one saw the caption apart from the young audience and the definition of a pimp is clear and it isn't an adjective that has a positive connotation.
In the photograph, Evil Knievel is with two women and one of them was not his wife. The word used by ESPN on the photo caption showed negligence and it insinuated that Knievel as a pimp. ESPN did not portray a sensible image of him using that word and hence the jury must have taken the case up.