The High Court has defended the right of The Guardian newspaper
to publish the spoof diary, and has said that a reasonable reader
would not take the contents of a humorous piece in the magazine as
being fact.
The ruling backs the right of newspapers to use humour and irony
to lampoon or criticise public figures.
In July this year The Guardian's magazine carried one of a
regular series of spoof diaries, this time supposedly written by
Elton John but bylined 'as seen by Marina Hyde'. Hyde is a Guardian
journalist.
In that piece Hyde described the organising of a party John
throws every year, which he calls the White Tie and Tiara Ball. The
party is usually attended by many famous people and is often
extensively covered in glowing terms by the entertainment
press.
"Naturally, everyone could afford just to hand over the money if
they gave that much of a toss about Aids research – as could the
sponsors," said Hyde's piece. "But we like to give guests a
preposterously lavish evening, because they're the kind of people
who wouldn't turn up for anything less."
"They fork out small fortunes for new dresses and so on, the
sponsors blow hundreds of thousands on creating what convention
demands we call a 'magical world', and everyone wears immensely
smug 'My diamonds are by Chopard' grins in the newspapers and OK.
Once we've subtracted all these costs, the leftovers go to my
foundation. I call this care-o-nomics," it said.
John claimed that article suggested that he misled party
attendees and others about where raised money goes.
"The words complained of meant and were understood to mean that
the commitment of [John] to the stated aims and objectives of [the
Elton John Aids Foundation (EJAF)] is so insincere that he
dishonestly or falsely claims that all the money raised by the
White Tie & Tiara Ball goes to EJAF whereas the true position
is that once the costs of the Ball have been covered only the small
proportion of the money raised by the Ball which is left over is
available for EJAF to distribute to good causes," said John's
claim.
The Guardian said that its words did not mean that John spent on
the party money that he claimed was going to the charity, only that
all the money involved in the staging of the event should go to the
charity.
"If and insofar as the words complained of bore the meaning that
[John's] conduct in arranging a lavish celebrity ball was
distasteful and wasteful, because all of the money spent on the
ball should have been given to EJAF, they were fair comment on a
matter of public interest," said The Guardian's case. "The matter
of public interest was [John's] method of fundraising for his
charity."
The Guardian argued that the words in the article should not be
read as being facts, but as being comment on the way that John
conducted activities related to fundraising.
Mr Justice Tugendhat said that the fact that the article
appeared in the Weekend section of the paper, a magazine, and not
the news section was relevant to how the words would be read.
"While different types of speech can appear in any of these
sections, the designation of the section assists in understanding
the extent to which particular speech is to be understood as
factual or not. Weekend is not the news section of the paper," he
said.
"The words complained of are obviously words written by the
journalist, who has attributed them to [John] as a literary
device," said the ruling. "The attribution is literally false, but
no reasonable reader could be misled by it."
Mr Justice Tugendhat said that if the serious allegation that
John used funds raised to pay party costs and not cure Aids was
correct a reader would not expect to see that reported humorously
in the Weekend section of the paper.
"If that was the allegation being made, a reasonable reader
would expect so serious an allegation to be made without humour,
and explicitly, in a part of the newspaper devoted to news," he
said in the ruling.
John has taken many defamation cases to the courts, and has been
successful against some of the country's biggest newspapers. In
2006 The Sunday Times claimed he had acted in a "self-important,
arrogant and rude manner" at his summer ball. The same year The
Daily Mail paid out £100,000 over a story that he had told guests
not to talk to him unless he approached him at his White Tie and
Tiara Ball.
Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger welcomed the decision. "We're
sorry that Elton John lost his sense of humour over this article,"
he said. "The judge – and, we suspect all readers – saw the article
for what it was: a piece of mild satire. Newspapers have published
satire since the 17th century in this country. The judgment is an
important recognition of the right to poke the occasional bit of
fun."
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
