Evel Knievel Krystal Knievel v. Espn, a Subsidiary of Walt Disney, Inc.
393 F.3d 1068, 3 A.L.R. 6th 733, 33 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1097 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statement that could be defamatory when read in isolation is not actionable under the First Amendment if the context in which it appears, including the general tenor of the publication and the use of figurative or hyperbolic language, would lead a reasonable person to not interpret it as a statement of actual fact.
Facts:
- In 2001, famed motorcycle stuntman Evel Knievel and his wife Krystal attended ESPN's Action Sports and Music Awards.
- ESPN photographed Evel Knievel with his arm around his wife Krystal and another young woman.
- ESPN published this photograph on its 'extreme sports' website, EXPN.com, in a photo gallery of the event.
- The caption accompanying the photograph read, 'Evel Knievel proves that you’re never too old to be a pimp.'
- The EXPN.com website and the photo gallery in which the picture appeared had a lighthearted, jocular tone and used youthful slang terms such as 'hardcore,' 'scoping,' and 'hottie of the year.'
- The Knievels alleged that the caption accused Evel of soliciting prostitution and implied Krystal was a prostitute.
- The Knievels claimed the publication injured their reputations and caused several of Evel's former clients to no longer want him associated with their products.
Procedural Posture:
- Evel and Krystal Knievel filed a defamation lawsuit against ESPN in Montana state court.
- ESPN removed the action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana based on diversity jurisdiction.
- ESPN filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The federal trial court granted ESPN's motion to dismiss, finding the statement was not defamatory as a matter of law.
- The Knievels' subsequent motion to alter or amend the judgment was denied by the district court.
- The Knievels (appellants) appealed the district court's dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does publishing a photograph of a public figure with a caption using the word 'pimp' constitute defamation when the publication is on a website targeted at a youthful audience and replete with loose, figurative, and jocular slang?
Opinions:
Majority - Tashima, J.
No. The photograph and caption are not defamatory as a matter of law because, when viewed in the totality of the circumstances, they cannot reasonably be interpreted as stating an actual fact about Knievel. The First Amendment protects statements of rhetorical hyperbole and non-literal commentary. Applying a three-part test, the court analyzed: (1) the broad context, (2) the specific context, and (3) whether the statement was provably false. The broad context of the EXPN.com website was lighthearted, jocular, and targeted at a youth audience, setting an expectation of non-literal language. The specific context of the photo gallery included numerous other slang terms and humorous captions, indicating that the word 'pimp' was used in a loose, figurative sense rather than as a criminal accusation. Although the literal definition of 'pimp' is susceptible to being proven true or false, its use in this context negates any literal interpretation, rendering it protected speech.
Dissenting - Bea, J.
Yes. The statement is reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning, and therefore the case should be decided by a jury, not dismissed as a matter of law. A publication is defamatory if it is reasonably susceptible to any defamatory meaning, and courts should not strain to find an inoffensive one. The word 'pimp' has an unambiguous dictionary definition describing criminal activity, which is distinct from the other harmless slang used on the website. While some may understand a slang meaning, a reasonable person, including Knievel's business associates, could interpret the term in its literal, criminal sense. The majority improperly narrows its focus to the intended youthful audience and the slang definition, ignoring that a statement capable of multiple constructions, one of which is defamatory, presents a question of fact for a jury.
Analysis:
This case is significant for applying traditional defamation principles to the unique context of internet publications. It establishes that the overall tone, style, and target audience of a website are critical factors in determining whether a statement is a protected opinion or an actionable assertion of fact. The ruling provides considerable protection for online media that employ a casual, slang-filled, and jocular style, making it more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in defamation claims based on isolated words or phrases that might be defamatory in a more formal context. The decision underscores the importance of the 'totality of the circumstances' test in the digital age and reflects the judiciary's recognition of evolving language and communication norms.
Unlock the full brief for Evel Knievel Krystal Knievel v. Espn, a Subsidiary of Walt Disney, Inc.