Your Honor and jurors of the court, good morning. My name is (Student’s Name), and I represent Netflix Inc., the defendant. Netflix has been unfairly charged with defamation. Because of the chilling effect that such lawsuits have on First Amendment rights, early dismissal of implausible defamation charges is advocated. We will issue a not guilty judgment at the conclusion of this trial, which is the only proper verdict in this case.
In her lawsuit, the plaintiff states that she was wrongly characterized in the series “When They See Us,” as she pushed for the conviction of the Central Park Five”, therefore, causing her anxiety about her profession. The defendant, in the process of creating a newsworthy series, acted in line with the public significance of the historical event under discussion today. The defendant, therefore, is not liable for defamation. The defendant did not act with malice in this case.
The plaintiff, a limited-purpose public figure, due to her occupation, asserts claims that are unconstitutional as a matter of law under the First Amendment. Material falsity is required to prove real malice in any defamation claim. The subject of the dispute, “When They See Us,” is an artistic depiction of disputed and debated historical events, and her claim that the series portrayed her falsely because it represents her in locations she never was and put words in her mouth that she never spoke simply does not follow. The context is clear; not every scene and line of speech is a duplication of authentic dialogues but rather contains careful scripting of real events for timing, coherence, continuity, and emotional effect.
Furthermore, falsity is a component of defamation, and the plaintiff must demonstrate how the defendant’s statement was untrue in order to survive a motion to dismiss. The assertions in the scenes about which the plaintiff complains are either (a) not defamatory in character, (b) essentially true as a matter of law, or (c) protected declarations of opinion and hyperbole utilized for narrative in the peculiar circumstances of a dramatization of disputed events.
The defendant’s right to debate contentious historical events is protected by the First Amendment, including through deeply critical portrayals that express a strong perspective, as seen in Sarver v. Chartier, et al., (2016) in which the district court ruled that using the plaintiff’s identity in the film was transformative in addressing public issues and dismissed all of Sarver’s claims. Filmmakers, like politicians and editorial writers, must be allowed to create works that critique the government and those who act on its behalf. Even harshly critical statements of opinion regarding significant public figures are protected under the Constitution. The First Amendment provides for critique and evaluation of participants involved in a public controversy; if filmmakers are not permitted to reconstruct unclear events and actions, the public debate that is critical to the sustainability of our democracy would be hampered. Whether the plaintiff considers it appropriate or confrontational, the series and storytelling are the defendant’s artistic and expressive reimagining of contested past events, articulating their belief that the conviction of the Five Boys – unquestionably spearheaded by Fairstein and consistently supported by her even now – was morally reprehensible; therefore, its transformative quality.
The complaint is not enforceable as defamation because the plaintiff is depicted as being somewhere she was not at the time or speaking words she did not express in a theatrical and artistic rendering of historical events. While some may find the portrayal of Fairstein unpleasant, others may perceive a strong, no-nonsense prosecutor pursuing justice for the victim of a terrible atrocity. It is not, however, a false statement of fact that may serve as the foundation for a defamation action.
Your Honor and jurors of the court, Netflix Inc. has committed no crime other than imaginatively dramatizing matters of public interest and concern, which is protected by the First Amendment. In deciding this case, the court must conclude that the public interest in the story outweighs the plaintiff’s interest in her reputation. Therefore, the defendant is not guilty of defamation.
Reference
Sarver v. Chartier, et al. 813 F.3d 891 (9th Cir. 2016). Web.