Comedy v. Libel Show
74 U.Va 21 (2022)
TONSETH, C.J. EMERITUS delivers the opinion of the COURT.
Libel. This is both the defendant and the claim.[1] After being forced to sit through a droning, monotonous, and frankly, not funny, show that wasted precious hours that could have been spent at Bar Review, the entity known as “comedy” levied this complaint against the Libel Show. This claim posits that Libel acted with actual malice against public figures–the actors who ~attempted~ to be funny–by ruining both the actors’ and comedy’s reputation through clear and convincing evidence. Plaintiffs claim this action was not mere negligence, but calculated malice with intent to inflict grievous emotional damage on all of those students unfortunate enough to be duped into buying a ticket that was $15 overpriced.[2] The Plaintiffs have beseeched this Court for punitive damages, a permanent injunction against all Libel participants from ever telling a joke again, and to bar the admissions office from considering washed-up theater kids during the admissions process. As the Law Weekly views itself as the prime judge of comedy within UVA Law, it is only appropo that the Court granted cert.
II.
This case’s libel claim is directed specifically at one person, with the actors who participated in Libel as co-conspirators to the initial criminal conduct. The true criminal here is the Head Writer for Libel, who, interestingly enough, had half of the show written about them.[3] The District Court for Petty Appeals found that of the twenty-plus acts performed during the show, only three elicited laughs beyond those students who either helped write the act, the planted actors who were paid to laugh at certain parts of the show, or those who were too intoxicated to realize the bits weren’t actually that funny. This Court holds that the District Court did not abuse their discretion when they found for the plaintiffs, as, while a 10% success rate for 3Ls reading for their second semester classes is something to cheer about, the bar does not equally extend to a 3L writing acts that are supposed to be funny.
In an amicus brief that was as confusing, unoriginal, and whiney as Libel itself, the Head Writer propositioned three defenses. First, that none of the skits, bits, or quips in Libel were false. Two, that those offended are snowflakes, K-JDs who had never been made fun of before in their “highly privileged” lives,[4]and the acts only added to the valuable public discourse of UVA Law. And, lastly, that any attempt to “silence” Libel, which is the longest running organization in the school, would have a deleteriously chilling effect on free speech and comedy. The Court shall address each defense in turn.
III.
Coloring this Court’s opinion, and my own personal judicial Phil-osophy[5] as an ardent originalist to the Law Weekly’s Constitution, this Court defaults to the first Petty Rule of Civil Procedure at all turns, “we do what we want.”[6] To answer the defendant’s first defense, i.e. the lack of falsity in Libel, the defendant has a point. The vast majority of the skits were based on real-life events. However, this misconstrues the libel claim before us. The claim is that Libel falsely advertised itself to be a comedy show, and thus committed libel by being unfunny. Moving on. This Court finds sympathy for the second defense proffered. For all of the parties who complained about potential sketches, attempted to cancel certain segments of the show, or threatened to boycott, this Court shames you. If y’all can’t take a joke now, wait until you see your social life as a BigLaw junior associate. Toughen up, buttercup. However, the veracity of this defense doesn’t rise to the clear and convincing standard to show that no malice occurred. True statements hurting people’s feelings, in a comedy show, should be funny, not just honest. Strike two. Only a pithy response is warranted for the final defense. The only chilling that would occur by upholding the District Court’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be this majority’s ability to enjoy a cold beer after a hard day’s work. This Court isn’t “canceling” Libel for committing libel, rather just calling a spade a spade, or a snowflake. Be better Libel.
IV.
“What is essential is not that everyone shall speak, but that everything worth saying shall be said.”[7]Libel failed this aspirational goal through their shoddy production this year. While this Court holds that Libel must go on, those who volunteer for the writer’s room next year are ordered to attend improv classes, joke-creation seminars, and creativity colloquiums in order to present a show with attending next year. The show mustn’t succumb to mediocrity; we aren’t Georgetown here.
Mic. Drop.
BIRCH, J., dissenting.
To hold Justice[8] Tonseth to their opinion would be to remove the Justice, myself, and half of the court’s active members from the bench. Appearing in numerous sketches and writing another portion of the show, Justice Tonseth would be granting a permanent injunction on himself and his colleagues. It could be argued that this is his “last laugh” as he twinkles out of stardom and into the real world, but that would assume Justice Tonseth has ever been humorous.
Libel is not a case of libel. Libel is a case of slander. In what can only be imagined to be the height of humor in 1908, a show in which a bunch of people slander each other was given the name “Libel.”[9] No party who was not a member of the writing room, cast, or crew, had open access to any written libel. If a party did have copies of the show in advance and did not acquire it by being a member of the aforementioned groups, they have only their own illicit actions for their libelous claim.[10]
While the peak of comedy in 1908 remains a staple today, an improper claim cannot be given merit for confusion between libel and slander. While the majority ignores harm for the purpose of comedy, I wish they could teach many of the aggrieved parties the same issue. I might not have learned much in Civil Procedure, but I did learn that the “laity” must be kept in line through strict pleading rules.
KULKARNI, J., dissenting.
Libel was funny. Justice Tonseth is simply trying to milk this show for all it is worth. To him, all I can say is to ride off into retirement (read: the workplace) and leave determining what is funny to those of us who still have some time in the limelight. Personally, I think that Justice Tonseth is simply jealous of Justices Birch and Brown who, among other members of this paper, put a lot of effort into making people laugh. Despite exposing himself to three separate crowds and potentially breaking my back,[11] Justice Tonseth is insistent that Libel amounted to nothing. For shame dear colleague. For shame.
---
pjt5hm@virginia.edu
sfb9yu@virginia.edu
omk6cg@virginia.edu
[1] You could argue that the claim should be slander, but you’d ruin the comedy aspect of this opinion.
[2] For those lucky enough to have avoided Libel, the cost of the drinking ticket was $15. The non-drinking ticket was only $12, but those students deserved to at least make money for attending as they couldn’t drink during the show to try and immediately forget how bad it was.
[3] Nepotism anyone?
[4] At least we have an abundance of silver spoons hanging around to use for the debutante ball later in the semester.
[5] This is a dad joke you should have laughed at.
[6] Law Weekly v. CoPA Copiers 369 U.Va 96 (2019).
[7] Free speech theorist Alexander Meiklejohn.
[8] You’re not a Chief anything anymore. That’s like Georgetown calling itself an “OG T-14.”
[9] Seriously, think about it. 114 years ago this joke probably made it all the way out to Oklahoma, the Forty-Sixth and newest state.
[10] *cough* NGSL *cough*
[11] This is not a joke. I am still in pain.