Originally posted by DoctorScribbles The Island of Dr. Moreau has a similar "factual" introduction before its first chapter. Do you believe the facts listed there, such as the disappearance of the Lady Vain on Feb. 1, 1887?
The introduction to 'The Island of Dr. Moreau' claims that the entirety of what follows is factual and, since the reader knows that he is reading a work of fiction, will reasonably infer that that introduction is also fictional.
This is not the case with DVC. Its facts page distinguishes itself from what follows and is intended not to be treated as part of what follows.
Except, perhaps, for litigation purposes (unless no1 disagrees).
Originally posted by Nimzofish Sorry, i was merely offering suggestion as to what legal basis the Catholic Church or Opus Dei might object to Dan Browns work, and i apologise if i gave the impression that such an action would certainly be successful, merely that they could make a claim.
However, under UK libel law, the diclaimer allows an author to be protected from someone who claim ...[text shortened]... Though, oddly, only Jesus and his Dad are protected by them - perhaps Allah has thicker skin.
After reading that link, I cannot believe that anyone could assert that the UK has Freedom of Speech or Press.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Do you believe that 'Freedom of Speech' entitles me to put a small disclaimer on the inside page and write whatever I want about whomever I want?
To me, a small disclaimer is not necessary when dealing with a public figure or organization.
EDIT: The applicable standard on this side of the pond is given in the last paragraph here: http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/277/
In practice, it is virtually impossible to win a defamation and/or libel case against a public figure or organization in the US.
Originally posted by no1marauder To me, a small disclaimer is not necessary when dealing with a public figure or organization.
What level of slander/libel is unacceptable when dealing with a public figure or organisation, without a small disclaimer, to you?
EDIT: I think your link provides part of the answer:
The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).
If I have the small disclaimer, can I make malicious statements about public officials?
Originally posted by lucifershammer [b/]What level of slander/libel is unacceptable when dealing with a public figure or organisation, without a small disclaimer, to you?
EDIT: I think your link provides part of the answer:
The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except whe ...[text shortened]... ]
If I have the small disclaimer, can I make malicious statements about public officials?
Probably you can make "malicious" statements with or without such a disclaimer. The case cited was decided in 1964 and a lot of cases have fleshed out the law since then. A few years ago, Larry Flynt published a piece saying Jerry Falwell had had drunken sex with his (Mr. Falwell's) mother. The Supreme Court ruled that that was not libelous or defamatory. Somehow I don't think Opus Dei would fare any better on a claim that the Da Vinci Code "defamed" them then Jerry Falwell did.
Originally posted by lucifershammer The introduction to 'The Island of Dr. Moreau' claims that the entirety of what follows is factual and, since the reader knows that he is reading a work of fiction, will reasonably infer that that introduction is also fictional.
Anybody who reads the Da Vinci code also knows that it is a work of fiction and will reasonably infer that its introduction is also fictional.
The fact page is after the title page, so it is part of the novel.
The inside front cover of the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent and was entitled "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." This parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included interviews with various celebrities about their "first times." Although it was apparent by the end of each interview that this meant the first time they sampled Campari, the ads clearly played on the sexual double entendre of the general subject of "first times." Copying the form and layout of these Campari ads, Hustler's editors chose respondent as the featured celebrity and drafted an alleged "interview" with him in which he states that his "first time" was during a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The Hustler parody portrays respondent and his mother as drunk and immoral, and suggests that respondent is a hypocrite who preaches only when he is drunk. In small print at the bottom of the page, the ad contains the disclaimer, "ad parody--not to be taken seriously." The magazine's table of contents also lists the ad as "Fiction; Ad and Personality Parody."
Originally posted by DoctorScribbles Anybody who reads the Da Vinci code also knows that it is a work of fiction and will reasonably infer that its introduction is also fictional.
The fact page is after the title page, so it is part of the novel.
You skipped the first part of my argument - the introductory chapter in IDM inserts itself into the narrative; the facts page of DVC explicitly separates itself from the rest of the novel. That's why the reasonable reader infers that one is part of the novel and the other is not. It's not a question of what comes after the title page.
Originally posted by lucifershammer It's not a question of what comes after the title page.
Then what constitutes the work that the copyright page refers to?
Your argument is crap. The fact page is as much a part of the novel as the introduction to The Island of Dr. Moreau. Both set a factual rather than fantastical mood for what follows.
Originally posted by no1marauder From Hustler Magazine v. Falwell:
The inside front cover of the November 1983 issue of Hustler Magazine featured a "parody" of an advertisement for Campari Liqueur that contained the name and picture of respondent and was entitled "Jerry Falwell talks about his first time." This parody was modeled after actual Campari ads that included intervie arody."
Interesting. I'm surprised any public figure in the US is able to maintain a good reputation at all - apparently anyone can say anything about such a figure (regardless of how reasonable readers will interpret it) and get away with it.
Originally posted by lucifershammer Interesting. I'm surprised any public figure in the US is able to maintain a good reputation at all.
If your reputation can be seriously damaged by whatever anybody, anywhere says than you probably don't deserve a "good" reputation. In the US, there's more concern over freedom and basic rights than in the reputations of politicans and powerful men.
RCC and The DaVinci Code
10 May '06 17:58
Back to Top