Burton v. Crowell Pub. Co.
1936 U.S. App. LEXIS 2924, 82 F.2d 154 (1936)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A publication can be libelous if it subjects an individual to substantial ridicule or contempt, even if it does not assert a false statement of fact and is patently an optical illusion or caricature.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, a widely known gentleman steeple-chaser, agreed to pose for photographs for an advertisement for Camel cigarettes.
- The plaintiff was paid for the use of his photographs in the advertisement.
- The defendant published the advertisement, which included two photographs of the plaintiff.
- One of the photographs, due to a distortion caused by the camera angle and the way the plaintiff was carrying his saddle, created an optical illusion.
- This optical illusion made it appear as though the plaintiff had a grotesque and obscene deformity, or was indecently exposing himself.
- The plaintiff was never shown the distorted photograph before its publication.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a complaint for libel in the trial court against the defendant, a publisher.
- The defendant answered, alleging the plaintiff had consented to the use of the photographs.
- The trial court judge dismissed the complaint upon the pleadings.
- The trial court judge held that the advertisement did not hold the plaintiff up to hatred, ridicule, or contempt and that, in any event, he had consented to its use.
- The plaintiff appealed the dismissal to the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a photograph actionable as libel if it subjects a person to substantial public ridicule, even when the photograph is a clear optical illusion that asserts no false statement of fact about the person?
Opinions:
Majority - L. HAND, Circuit Judge
Yes, a photograph can be actionable as libel under these circumstances. A publication that exposes an individual to overwhelming ridicule is prima facie actionable, even if it does not assert a fact and is an obvious optical illusion. The court reasoned that while nobody would believe the photograph depicted reality, it made the plaintiff a 'preposterously ridiculous spectacle.' The gravamen of defamation is not just injury to reputation through false statements, but also the feelings of repulsion or light esteem that such ridicule engenders. The court rejected the argument that a libel must be something that can be proven true or false, stating that when a publication causes substantial ridicule, the publisher must find an excuse, and the fact that it is not a factual assertion is not an excuse. The plaintiff's consent to be photographed for an advertisement did not extend to consent for the publication of a distorted and mortifying caricature.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the scope of libel law by establishing that a publication need not contain a false statement of fact to be defamatory. The court decoupled libel from the truth/falsity paradigm, focusing instead on the reputational harm caused by subjecting a person to substantial ridicule and contempt. This precedent is crucial in cases involving caricatures, satire, or accidental distortions where the harm comes from the ridicule itself, rather than from a false assertion. It affirmed that the core interest protected by defamation law is a person's standing in the community and the feelings their reputation engenders, which can be harmed even without a direct lie.
