Pring v. Penthouse International, Ltd.
695 F.2d 438 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a statement to be defamatory, it must be reasonably understood by a reader as a false representation of actual fact. Satirical or fictional works containing events that are physically impossible or utterly fantastic are not statements of fact and are protected by the First Amendment.
Facts:
- Penthouse magazine published a story written by Philip Cioffari about a fictional character named 'Charlene,' a baton-twirling Miss Wyoming competing in the Miss America contest.
- The plaintiff was the real-life Miss Wyoming who participated in the Miss America contest as a baton twirler.
- The article described Charlene performing an act of fellatio on a football player in Wyoming, which caused him to levitate.
- During the talent portion of the televised pageant, the story described Charlene performing a fellatio-like act on her baton that stopped the orchestra.
- The article culminated with a scene where Charlene performed fellatio on her coach at the edge of the stage during the pageant finals, causing him to levitate while television cameras focused on them.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a defamation suit against Penthouse magazine and the article's author in federal trial court.
- The plaintiff amended her complaint, limiting her cause of action to three specific incidents described in the article.
- The trial court submitted the question of the plaintiff's identity to the jury but ruled as a matter of law that the story was not fiction, refusing to let the jury decide if it could be reasonably understood as factual.
- A jury found that the article was 'of and concerning' the plaintiff and returned a verdict in her favor.
- The defendants (Penthouse and the author) appealed the judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 a satirical magazine article containing physically impossible and fantastic events constitute defamation when it could not be reasonably understood as describing actual facts about the plaintiff?
Opinions:
Majority - Seth, Chief Judge
No, the article does not constitute defamation. A publication cannot be defamatory if the allegedly false statements could not be reasonably understood as describing actual facts. The First Amendment protects speech, including gross and repugnant satire, that is so fantastical and impossible that no reasonable reader would perceive it as a statement of fact. The court reasoned that the central theme of levitation resulting from oral sex is a physical impossibility presented within a fanciful story. Citing Greenbelt Pub. Assn. v. Bresler, the court compared the descriptions to 'rhetorical hyperbole' and concluded that it is 'simply impossible to believe' any reader would understand the charged portions as anything other than 'pure fantasy.' Therefore, the trial court erred by treating the story as a statement of fact and not recognizing that, as a matter of constitutional law, the article was not libelous.
Dissenting - Breitenstein, Circuit Judge
Yes, the article does constitute defamation. A publisher cannot escape liability for a defamatory statement of fact by embellishing it with fantasy. The dissent argued that while levitation is fiction, the act of fellatio is a fact—a physical act of sexual perversion. The article explicitly and falsely accused the plaintiff of committing this act. Unlike in Greenbelt, where 'blackmail' was used as hyperbole, the word 'fellatio' was used to describe a specific physical act. The dissenter contended that adding fantasy to a factual, defamatory accusation does not grant it First Amendment protection and that the question of whether the article was 'reasonably understood' as fact should have been decided by the jury, not by the court as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This decision significantly reinforces First Amendment protection for satire, parody, and fiction, even when it is crude and offensive. It establishes that the dispositive question in such defamation cases is whether the work can be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts. By deeming impossible or wildly exaggerated claims as non-factual as a matter of law, the court creates a constitutional safe harbor for authors of fiction and satire, making it more difficult for public figures identified in such works to win defamation suits. The case sets a precedent for courts to dismiss claims based on works that are clearly unbelievable on their face, thereby protecting expressive works from being stifled by libel litigation.
