Re: The People Versus John Oliver: The Murky Ethics Of Modern Comedy

On Tue, 8 Apr 2025 16:46:14 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

On Apr 8, 2025 at 1:30:43 AM PDT, "Ubiquitous" <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>

Late-Night TV may never be the same.
 
HBO’s John Oliver, host of LAST WEEK TONIGHT, is facing a new defamation
lawsuit from health care executive Dr. Brian Morley who claims the comedian
slurred him for ratings and profits.
 
In an April 2024 telecast, Oliver played an alleged audio clip of Morley at
an administrative hearing saying, "People have bowel movements every day
where they don't completely clean themselves and we don't fuss over [them]
too much. People are allowed to be dirty ... You know, I would allow him to
be
a little dirty for a couple of days."
 
Oliver's immediate on-air response: "F*** that doctor with a rusty canoe! I
hope he gets tetanus of the balls."
 
Morley's lawyer claims the recording was altered by the program.
 
Suing comedians for telling the wrong jokes seems an uphill legal battle at
best. The 1st Amendment allows for plenty of creative embellishments,
although Oliver's comments proved highly specific and potentially damaging to
 
the doctor's reputation.

>
No shit. Altering a recording and presenting it as authentic-- if that's
really what happened-- goes way beyond comedic license. It's pretty much
textbook defamation.

Which is why I would say it is almost certain it didn't happen. At
least not by Oliver or his people. Not knowing where the recording
came from I suppose it is possible some third party altered it before
Oliver and crew got it. Oliver has had plenty of practice with these
lawsuits so I'm certain they wouldn't do something that is so clearly
against the law.

The courts will have the final say on the matter.
 
Should Dr. Morley emerge victorious it could have a much larger impact. Yes,
LAST WEEK TONIGHT, would take a sizable hit, but consider the big picture.
 
What if other satirical comics have to watch what they say moving forward?

>
They won't have to watch what they say. As long as they don't manufacture fake
recordings and pretend they're real, they'll be just fine.
>

snip

Take Bill Burr, who insinuated Kyle Rittenhouse was a White Supremacist
during his Netflix special "Bill Burr Presents: Friends Who Kill".
 
Rittenhouse shot three people, killing two and injuring one during a 2020
fracas tied to the BLM protests. A court of law found him innocent, agreeing
with his self-defense explanation. Elements of the press and the Left
insisted his actions were racist, even though his victims were white and they
 
couldn't pin any racially-charged comments to the young man.

>
That's still the most bizarre aspect of that whole case: a white guy shoots
two other white guys and the black grievance brigade starts screaming
"raaaaciiism!!"
>
Come again?
>

I think it's more of why he traveled across state lines to supposedly
protect a business. That he ended up shooting some white guys doesn't
get around the fact that he was there to supposedly protect the
business from BLM protestors.