Walko v. Kean College of New Jersey
235 N.J. Super. 139, 561 A.2d 680 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A parody or spoof that no reasonable person would interpret as a statement of fact is protected speech under the First Amendment and cannot form the basis for a claim of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or false light invasion of privacy.
Facts:
- The Kean College student newspaper, the Independent, published a seven-page spoof insert titled the Incredible in its April 25, 1985 edition.
- The spoof insert contained a page of phony classified ads, one of which was a parody of the school's legitimate student-run telephone 'Hotline'.
- The parody ad was titled 'Whoreline' and listed the name and phone number of Ann Walko, offering 'good telephone sex'.
- Ann Walko was an Assistant to the Dean and an Instructor at Kean College at the time of publication.
- The ad also listed the names of two students active in the real Hotline and another college administrator.
- The same issue of the newspaper that contained the spoof section also featured serious articles and editorials about a funding controversy surrounding the real student Hotline.
Procedural Posture:
- Ann Walko and her husband, Michael Walko, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union County.
- The plaintiffs sued Kean College, the Student Organization of Kean College, and several individual administrators and students.
- The complaint alleged counts of defamation, negligent supervision, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false light invasion of privacy, and loss of consortium.
- After the completion of discovery, the various defendants filed motions for summary judgment to dismiss all claims against them.
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 parody advertisement in a spoof section of a student newspaper, which is not reasonably believable as a statement of fact, constitute actionable defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or false light invasion of privacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Wecker, J.S.C.
No. A parody advertisement that cannot reasonably be interpreted as a factual statement is protected speech and cannot be the basis for tort liability. The court determined that the 'Whoreline' ad was not defamatory because its context—appearing on a page of fake ads within a clearly labeled spoof section—would signal to any reasonable reader that it was a joke, not a statement of fact. Citing Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, the court extended this protection to the claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, holding that a publication not actionable as defamation cannot form the basis for an outrage claim. This constitutional shield cannot be circumvented by recasting the claim as false light invasion of privacy, as that tort also requires a statement that can be taken as factual. The court also found that Walko qualified as a limited-purpose public figure within the Kean College community, reinforcing the application of First Amendment protections.
Analysis:
This case extends the principles of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, applying its protection for parody and satire beyond defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress to related torts like false light invasion of privacy. It establishes that if a publication is constitutionally shielded because it lacks a believable assertion of fact, that shield protects against various tort claims arising from the same publication. The decision strongly reinforces the 'reasonable reader' standard and the critical role of context in distinguishing protected opinion and parody from actionable defamatory statements. Furthermore, it provides a clear application of the 'limited-purpose public figure' doctrine to an individual within a specific, limited community like a college campus.
