Published by: Jon Dooley 2/25/11 11:13am
Former Chicago Bull Forward and current announcer Stacey King made quite a scene at a local grocery store on
Wednesday. King frightened patrons and employees at the Deerfield Jewel with his loud behavior, insults and anger and
authorities were called to the scene.
Upon entering the store King began screaming about the prices of products as he went down the aisles. Afraid of the
large man and his loudness customers began running away from him and fleeing the store. King first started in the cereal
aisle where he examined some frosted mini wheats, saying “$5 for a box of mini wheats. You’ve gotta be kidding me.”
Next King moved over to the produce section. He examined every tangerine available according to Jewel employee
Andrea Abrams. “No I don’t want you, not you either,” King said to the tangerines. “Where is my baby at? Where did
you go? Are you hiding from me? I’m going to find you! Oh, yes there you are you are the one I have been wanting all
along.”
The deli was the next stop where King demanded a turkey sandwich be made for him. “He was very loud, yelling at me
to hurry up and make the sandwich faster. He told me to fold the turkey like triangles and he kept blowing on the glass
and making pictures with his fingers,” said Erica Schultz, who was working the counter at Jewel. King then told the deli
worker to throw that sandwich away and brought her over a new loaf of bread to make the sandwich on. Frightened,
Schultz ran out of the store.
Jon Dixon had a difference experience with King. Dixon helped explain the cereal section to King of which King was very
appreciative of the employees vast knowledge. King then demanded to see the store manager in which he told him,
“you see this young man, this young man right here? He is your number 1 employee. He is a superstar and he is going to
be running this whole place soon.
King proceeded to check out but was delayed by an elderly woman trying to load her groceries on the conveyer. “Hurry
up old lady,” he yelled, “I haven’t got all day. And don’ t you know who I am? I am Stacey King of the world champion
Chicago Bulls, now get out of my way.” The woman was so frightened by the loud, large man that she collapsed to the
floor. King was said to have laughed and commented well it was going to coming soon anyways. He reportedly later
helped her put her groceries in her car in the parking lot. King was very proud of his coupon usage at Jewel, saying, “holy
cow, $37.18 I saved in coupons. That is awesome. I love coupons, baby. They are the best!” King also commented on
how everyone in the store seemed to vanish, saying, “it was like the parting of the Red Sea.”
Police arrived on the scene and issued King a ticket for “disorderly conduct and disrupting the peace.”
Parodies & Satires: 1st amendment protected?
The First Amendment protects satire and parody as a form of free speech and expression. Satire is a centuries-old type
of literature that uses humor and imitation to attack and ridicule individuals’ moral and character flaws, such as vice,
unfairness, stupidity or vanity.
A parody is also an attack on folly, but it takes the form of a contemptuous imitation of an existing artistic production —
usually a serious work of literature, music, artwork or film — for satirical or humorous purposes. Satire and parody have
served for generations as a means of criticizing public figures, exposing political injustice, communicating social
ideologies, and pursuing such artistic ends as literary criticism. Satirists usually find themselves subjected in turn to
criticism, contempt and, sometimes, lawsuits.
Questions that have arisen in case law concerning libel, emotional distress and copyright infringement are discussed in
the relevant case below:
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell
In this case from the 1980s, a well-known minister, the Rev. Jerry Falwell, sued Hustler for an advertisement parody that
portrayed him as having had a drunken sexual encounter with his mother in an outhouse. The parody was a spoof on a
series of ads for Campari Liqueur. In small print at the bottom of the ad were the words, “ad parody — not to be taken
seriously.” The table of contents for that issue of the magazine listed the ad as “Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody.”
Falwell sued for libel, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Issuing a directed verdict in favor of Hustler on the issue of invasion of privacy, a federal district court also ruled against
Falwell on his libel claim because, the court said, no reasonable person would believe the situation depicted in the ad to be
true. The court did award damages for emotional distress, however. On appeal, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the lower court’s judgment, declaring that the issue was whether the ad’s publication was sufficiently outrageous
to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.
However, the U.S. Supreme Court found to the contrary. The high court held in its 1988 decision that public figures and
public officials could not recover damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress without an additional
showing that “the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with ‘actual malice,’ i.e., with knowledge
that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true.”
The Court recognized the importance of allowing the free flow of ideas despite a possible negative emotional impact on
the target of ridicule. Although the Court said not all speech enjoys the same protection under the First Amendment (for
instance, “fighting words” aren't protected), it affirmed that “the sort of expression in [the Hustler] case does not seem to
us to be governed by any exception” to general First Amendment protection.
In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held, in a unanimous 8–0
decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's
free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally
inflicted upon them. Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the
Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal
of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $150,000 in damages by a lower court.
First Amendment Project Questions
1. This film follows the case that Fox News Channel brought against who?
2. Franken could be called a satirist and is being sued for what?
3. Is this a civil or criminal suit?
4. Why was Fox News upset?
5. What Fox reporter is highlighted during the video and why?
6. What did Fox News requested the issuance of, in hopes of not allowing Franken to release his
book?
7. Who wins the suit and why?
8. What was the official title of the lawsuit?
9. Where did the lawsuit take place? (list court, city and state)
10. What organization and person is the owner of Fox News Corporation?
11. What were the after-affects of the lawsuit on Franken’s book release & sales?
12. What positions do Al Franken and Bill O’Reilly currently hold?