She'll gore him enough in the future.

Love it...Rec

Does it show the swastika tattoo on his ass?

Seriously - maybe one of the ex-wives will validate

Do artists have less rights than magazines?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/485/46

Syllabus

Respondent, a nationally known minister and commentator on politics and public affairs, filed a diversity action in Federal District Court against petitioners, a nationally circulated magazine and its publisher, to recover damages for, inter alia, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement "parody" which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not "reasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events," but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitioners' contention that the "actual malice" standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. Rejecting as irrelevant the contention that, because the jury found that the parody did not describe actual facts, the ad was an opinion protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the court ruled that the issue was whether the ad's publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with "actual malice," i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The State's interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a "public figure" for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courts' finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. "Outrageousness" [p47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurors' tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57.

797 F.2d 1270, reversed.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 57. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Is no better than those Muslim terrorists they always go on about.

Same thing that will happen to his voters in the GE.

Elaine Benes

I just took a shower, now I need eye bleach!

( small penises of American) are tired of being made fun of! We demand equal rights for small peckers and pecker heads like the Donald!

If anything I suspect she was being generous, there.

But not very much.

Wealthy plaintiffs with crack shot lawyers can really draw a case out and cost the defendant oodles in legal fees.

I clicked on the link and am now en route to the ER

over that painting! Now there's something you just can't un-see. There are some things better left to the imagination and then there are things you shouldn't even imagine. I think this painting covers both of those categories.

when did this happen? gotta check it out.

thanks

when you don't watch much TV you miss a few things you wouldn't want to miss. Looks like I found one.

Ever read the book? Wyndham was quite the sci fi author.

I'm still fond of the old Howard Keel version, probably because it scared me when I was a kid.

Thanks again, much appreciated

n/t

I can only imagine that those who go to see it are there to point at the sensitive part and have a riotous laugh!!

He can't sue her over a piece of art, if it were a photo he would have had to sign a release for it to be used in public but I don't think that applies to a painting! Bugger off, Donald!

Guess this also proves that he really IS a short-fingered vulgarian!!

Hilarious

I suspect it's happened before. And then, lest we forget what he did to an entire community in Scotland... he thinks that because he is driven by $$ and narcissism, that anyone can be bought or bullied with $$.

I hope that painting sells for $2million pounds and is on display every time he darkens the skies of the island by going there. In fact, I hope it is reproduced in post card format and spread widely, I'd buy a small stack and send them to him, one a month, with the teenyweeny circled in gold pen and asking, "Which head is smaller?"

Postcards are great! Hope there will be some soon!

Unless she filed it against herself, in which case she's freakin brilliant.

Maybe the national debt of Lichtenstein.

Or so I have heard.

censored by social media.

I'm still trying to erase the image from my memory...

Last edited Sun Apr 17, 2016, 07:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Eat with his pecker.


Q..What can Donald Trump do that a bird can't do?

A. Make an ass out of himself every time he opens his stupid, ugly, racist mouth.

Donald the Potty Mouth

http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2015/nov/30/donald-trump-triggered-artistic-overload-republican

make sport ot the Dieties, especially the small ones.

I would like a tiny Donald avatar please.

.... a bit derivituve - in the style of Lucien Freud.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucian_Freud

https://www.google.com/search?q=lucian+freud

sadly true.

It's a little chilly.

...so I do not have to explain to my 94 yr old mom, whom I am visiting, just what I am laughing at.

She is a retired nurse, who has seen and done a lot, so she might actually get a few chuckles out of it, too.

Did you ever, ever, EVER think that penis size would come up, so to speak, in a presidential debate? SMH!!!

followed him into that gutter

instead of being GOP prim and proper

There seem no boundaries anymore

doesn't mean it will be heard. They aren't too keen on him and his antics. I'd sell it anyway, F him. It's not his, it's not a photo, he has absolutely no say in what happens to the painting. I hope she makes enough out of it tolife in comfort the rest of her life.

Let us know how that works out for ya, Drumpf.

Yes an artist named Dan Lacey a pro-life right wing conservative was spitting them out at a record pace making a buck ya know free market capitalism and all that . Oh did I mention his pseudonym was Freeper Dan at Free Republic!



More here.....
https://www.etsy.com/shop/DanLacey?search_query=Obama

Quite accurate for the guy.

Trump exhibits detailed attention to good metro sexual style grooming.

Go ahead... sell that picture. It's obvious who would be doing the suing.

The artist though probably could counter sue who is trying to block them from potentially selling the painting as a parody of Trump which is protected.

Trump's penis is the LAST thing I'd like to think about. And people are threatening lawsuits? Ridiculous.

the hands are too big!

You have got to admit he has balls.... Wait, I just looked at the painting, I take that last part back

"...due to its resemblance to the Republican presidential hopeful."






What resemblance might that be, one wonders.

Would that be misogyny?

Or would I flunk a basic anatomy course?

...distress and loss of appetite?

boy for it.

Now I have an image of a naked donald trump. And I was eating at the time. I've lost my appetite.