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 a reasonable person would not interpret as a statement of fact is protected speech under the First Amendment. Such a publication cannot form the basis for claims 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 on April 25, 1985.
- This spoof edition contained a page of fake classified ads, parodying real newspaper advertisements.
- One fake ad was for a "Whoreline," a parody of the college's real student-run telephone "Hotline."
- The "Whoreline" ad listed the name and phone number of Ann Walko, an Assistant to the Dean at Kean College, suggesting she was available for "good telephone sex."
- Ann Walko was active in the college community, and her name was known to many students and faculty.
- The same issue of the newspaper also contained serious articles, an editorial, and letters to the editor about the real "Hotline" facing a loss of funding.
Procedural Posture:
- Ann Walko and her husband, Michael Walko, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, against Kean College, various student organizations, and several individuals.
- The complaint alleged defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent supervision, false light invasion of privacy, and loss of consortium.
- After the completion of discovery, the 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 vulgar parody advertisement in a student newspaper's spoof edition, which a reasonable person would not interpret as a statement of fact, constitute actionable defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or invasion of privacy under the First Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Wecker, J.S.C.
No. A parody that no reasonable person would read as a factual statement is constitutionally protected and cannot be actionable as defamation or related torts. The context of the publication is determinative; here, the "Whoreline" ad appeared on a page of obviously fake ads within a larger, clearly marked spoof section. No reasonable reader could conclude it was a factual statement about Ann Walko's availability for sexual services, but would instead understand it as a vulgar and tasteless joke. Because the ad contains no assertion of fact, it is treated as a protected expression of opinion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, similar to the holding in Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. Consequently, claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and false light invasion of privacy must fail, as they all rely on the publication of a false statement of fact which is absent here. The court also found Walko to be a limited-purpose public figure within the college community, further strengthening the First Amendment protections afforded to the publication.
Analysis:
This decision extends the constitutional protection for parody and satire established in U.S. Supreme Court cases like Hustler v. Falwell to the state level and into the context of a student newspaper. It reinforces the principle that the dispositive question in such cases is whether a publication can be reasonably understood as asserting an actual fact. By dismissing not only the defamation claim but also the claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and false light, the court prevents plaintiffs from circumventing First Amendment protections by recasting a failed libel claim under a different tort theory. The ruling underscores that context is paramount and that even offensive, vulgar humor is protected speech if it is not presented as fact.
