[BostonCard]

“Some speak harsh words of this man of renown, but some say our attitude should be one of gratitude — like the widows and orphans of old London Town, who owe their large pensions to Werner Von Braun.” I heard the WVB sued Lehrer over that song, but lost because he was considered a public figure. (Presumably TL didn’t have to use truth as his defense.)

According to this interview that Lehrer did with the Sydney Morning Herald, the lawsuit was apocryphal.  

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art...dgcoz.html

The widespread rumour that von Braun sued Lehrer proves to be a furphy. "I've heard that a lot, that I have to pay all my royalties for the song to him and so on and so forth. No, that's one of those myths. There is no possible way he could have sued me."

Not a lawyer (so those who are please correct me), but the song is clearly satire, which should be protected: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...015/satire

Court has turned back claims that satire was defamatory
Satire can also come under attack as defamation.

The key distinction between satire and defamation is that satire is not meant to be believed by the audience. Satire is biting, critical, and designed to attack, often with malice. It is almost always false.

For example, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous court, stated that a parody depicting the Reverend Jerry Falwell as a drunken, incestuous son could not be defamation since it was an obvious parody, not intended as a statement of fact. To find otherwise, the Court said, was to endanger First Amendment protection for every artist, political cartoonist, and comedian who used satire to criticize public figures.

And yes, as a public figure, von Brown would have had to prove actual malice.

BC

[BostonCard]

“Some speak harsh words of this man of renown, but some say our attitude should be one of gratitude — like the widows and orphans of old London Town, who owe their large pensions to Werner Von Braun.” I heard the WVB sued Lehrer over that song, but lost because he was considered a public figure. (Presumably TL didn’t have to use truth as his defense.)

According to this interview that Lehrer did with the Sydney Morning Herald, the lawsuit was apocryphal.  

https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/art...dgcoz.html

The widespread rumour that von Braun sued Lehrer proves to be a furphy. "I've heard that a lot, that I have to pay all my royalties for the song to him and so on and so forth. No, that's one of those myths. There is no possible way he could have sued me."

Not a lawyer (so those who are please correct me), but the song is clearly satire, which should be protected: https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/art...015/satire

Court has turned back claims that satire was defamatory
Satire can also come under attack as defamation.

The key distinction between satire and defamation is that satire is not meant to be believed by the audience. Satire is biting, critical, and designed to attack, often with malice. It is almost always false.

For example, in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988), Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for a unanimous court, stated that a parody depicting the Reverend Jerry Falwell as a drunken, incestuous son could not be defamation since it was an obvious parody, not intended as a statement of fact. To find otherwise, the Court said, was to endanger First Amendment protection for every artist, political cartoonist, and comedian who used satire to criticize public figures.

And yes, as a public figure, von Brown would have had to prove actual malice.

BC