You may have seen South Park’s latest episode called ‘The Worldwide Privacy Tour’ dropped this week.
If you’ve been living under a rock, the episode centres on a redhaired-prince and his wife who, in search of a peaceful location to escape mean media in their home country, go on a world tour to promote the prince’s new book, “Waaagh” and protest (with picket signs and megaphones!) for privacy, before finally settling in the (fictional) town of South Park.
For those familiar with ‘South Park’, you’ll know that it’s famous for using controversial humour and satire to address certain social and political issues. The latest episode is no exception!
Over the years, the show’s creators, Trey Parker and Matt Stone have been sued for defamation, invasion of privacy and copyright infringement, among other things.
In fact, they’ve been sued a record 19 times, with the majority of these lawsuits coming from individuals and companies who have been (fictionally) featured on the show. Although most of these lawsuits have failed, following the latest episode, there have been reports that Prince Harry and Meghan are not happy and are considering suing to bring the number of lawsuits up to 20.
Can Harry and Meghan sue South Park?
The ability to sue over television depictions is a complex issue often challenging to resolve.
Television is covered by various legal protections and exceptions in the US, such as the First Amendment of the US Constitution. Generally, this means that people cannot sue if they are unfavourably featured on TV or made fun of. However, certain exceptions exist, the most notable of which being the New York Times standard. This standard, established in the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, requires media organisations to have acted with “actual malice” and to have recklessly disregarded the truth when issuing a statement regarding a public figure.
This standard has been cited in various situations and applies to many media outlets, including television.
However, it is important to remember that television often employs a creative licence and is typically protected from legal action, which means that people are generally unable to sue for the portrayal of a fictional character or satire and comedy.
Criticisms and humorous jests, no matter how distasteful, are usually well protected under the law of free speech. As such, it is often extremely difficult to sue for a TV portrayal successfully.
Does the same apply in Australia?
The position is slightly different in Australia, with the most significant factor being defamation. Defamation can occur if false statements about a person may have caused the person harm, including the loss of reputation, financial loss, or distress.
To make a successful claim, a person will need to prove that the broadcast was false, that it was published to at least one other person, damage resulted, and that the person was identified as the subject of the broadcast.
In most cases, people cannot bring a successful case against the creators of a TV show if they are ‘fictionally’ depicted unfavourably or humorously. However, exceptions may exist if there is purposeful intent to defame or other extraordinary circumstances.
If you have any questions, royal-related or not, give us a call.