Originally Posted by
ezefllying
I don't think they'd have much of a case. Satire, even biting, is protected by the First Amendment when it is clearly such. Nobody believes that John Oliver, in the midst of a schtick, was reporting an actual fact about Quality Inn's pillow procedures.
For background on this precedent, enjoy the very memorable Supreme Court case of Hustler v. Falwell.
Well, I'm not a Constitutional lawyer, but the Hustler case is quite different. There, the magazine ran a parody ad in which Falwell was having sex with his mother in an outhouse. Nobody could have believed the ad was real.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustle...ine_v._Falwell
Here, Oliver was not really parodying Quality Inns -- he was parodying Trump. There is no question that Oliver could say the quality of Trump's buildings was as bad as Quality Inn's product. But, in the process, does the First Amendment allow him to make up a somewhat-real-sounding criticism about the motel chain's pillows?
Beats me. FWIW, I do think it's undeniable that this piece has damaged Quality Inn's reputation. Most of his viewing audience undoubtedly has less experience with the chain than we do, and there's little question that this piece would make these viewers believe that the Quality Inn name is a lie and that the chain has very low quality.
EDIT: If you don't believe this is slander because the pillowcase claim isn't "sufficiently believable," would it be slander if Oliver has said, "Have you ever stayed at a Quality Inn? They don't even change the sheets between guests." Is there a "believability" test in permissible parody?