It's about free speech, not the money

In 2007, Paris Hilton sued cards company Hallmark over a greeting card that sort of featured her. The card was called “Paris’s First Day as a Waitress,” and showed Hilton saying to the customer, “That’s hot” — a phrase she used frequently in her reality television show, “The Simple Life.” The inside of the card reads: “Have a smokin’ hot birthday.” It’s basically a spoof of everything we’d expect to see spoofed about her.
However, Hilton wasn’t too happy that Hallmark did this without her permission, claiming “misappropriation of publicity” under Californian law. Two courts refused to dismiss the lawsuit, but whatever the legal process is, I honestly hope that the ending isn’t a “misappropriation of publicity” conclusion, because that would be setting a very wrongful precedent in a case of First Amendment rights.
Hallmark creating a card truthfully (although a few may disagree) depicting what Hilton factually is like. Is someone honestly going to tell me that what Hilton says in the card isn’t characteristic of her, or of what she’s said in the past? Hallmark has every right to create a spoof of her when at the very least, they’ve created a cartoony-version of her, put her in a made-up situation, and added some phrases for the sole purpose of creating an interesting birthday card. In terms of First Amendment rights, it would be as if a newspaper wasn’t allowed to create caricatures or political cartoons of notable people and would get sued for it. How does that make any sense? Part of the First Amendment is being able to incorporate other people in order to deliver a message. It’s ridiculous to say that we can’t freely do so.
Furthermore, in the article it is noted that the “classical” misappropriation case involves the celebrity who is “embarrassed or humiliated by unwanted displays of his or her image.” This is clearly not the case here. This is not a hypothetical case of Hilton drinking out of a beer bong and yelling “this stuff rocks” while totally drunk. That would be false endorsement, and I can understand why someone would have to ask her permission first, but that is not the case here. With the birthday card, she is not endorsing anything, and certainly nothing “embarrassing or humiliating.” This whole lawsuit revolves around Hiliton’s desire to get some cash out of Hallmark, and money shouldn’t get in the way of our First Amendment rights.
-Siyang Liu

A Question of Distaste

by Victoria Ison


A news brief in the March 22 issue of Time Magazine chronicles a clash of the freedom of speech and poor taste.

In 2006, Albert Snyder’s son, a Marine, was killed in Iraq. The ensuing funeral failed to provide the father the comfort or closure he needed. That’s because Snyder’s funeral was chosen as a protest point for the Westboro Baptist Church. The organization, run by Fred Phelps out of Topeka, Kansas, is aggressively anti-gay. According to Time, its members believe that American troops die in combat because the United States accepts and allows homosexuality. Members of the church raise awareness of their beliefs by attending military funerals and holding signs that say things like “Thank God for dead soldiers.”

When Albert Snyder sued the church for its members’ funeral behavior, he won almost $11 million in emotional distress damages. But that amount was later reduced, and, later, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals nullified the ruling. In September 2009, the Court termed the church’s behavior “repugnant,” but, according to Time, could not deny its legality.

Now the Supreme Court has agreed to consider the Snyder v. Phelps case. The Court’s decision this fall will determine whether offensive protests like the Westboro Church’s are actually protected by the First Amendment.

It may be tempting to hope the Court decides in favor of Snyder. However, such a decision would have dramatic effects on the breadth of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech clause. It is important that the First Amendment be as far from exclusionary as possible; to ensure maximum, necessary rights, it must encompass all speech, no matter how distasteful.

What should actually be hoped is that individuals and organizations like the Westboro Church will recognize an age-old principle: gifts that are not respectfully acknowledged will be scarce in the future. Unfortunately, the freedom of speech is a gift, not an inalienable right. Thanks to the Westboro Baptist Church’s repugnant actions, the Supreme Court may now limit this gift.

Apparently simple values like respect are missing from the church’s Sunday School curricula.