Thread: Changes Because of Negative Writing

When you are writing about an Administration (or any mainstream business or Corporation), should one change the name if what you're writing is negative about that Administration etc?

For example. The FDA are the bad guys in my story. They're going to be judge, jury, and executioners if you oppose their beliefs.

Are you afraid the FDA or FBI or CIA will sue you for badmouthing them?

They've seen worse, believe me. Since you are in the position to change things, you are talking about fiction. It's not a problem. Think about how many evil government agents you've seen in films and literature.

Some people say things like "some government agency so secret they didn't have inititals" or some such in order to get vague...but that's so they can be unrealistic, not escape lawsuits or assassins or whatever.

Originally Posted by lin

Are you afraid the FDA or FBI or CIA will sue you for badmouthing them?

They've seen worse, believe me. Since you are in the position to change things, you are talking about fiction. It's not a problem. Think about how many evil government agents you've seen in films and literature.

Some people say things like "some government agency so secret they didn't have inititals" or some such in order to get vague...but that's so they can be unrealistic, not escape lawsuits or assassins or whatever.

Alright. Thanks Lin.

I mostly agree with Lin. Administrations (or government departments) have been written about so much that there's very little you could put down that will anger them in any way. You also mentioned mainstream businesses or corporations and although not pertinent to your story (from what you have said) I believe this is worth mentioning.

Branches of the government or law enforcement services do not have to worry about there reputations. We are not in a situation where people will stop using the police force, for example, because one book portrays them as all corrupt alcoholics. If you are mentioning a real individual (a member of the government perhaps) you might want to think about renaming them so as not to be defamatory. The same is true for corporate institutions. Both individuals and corporations will, ultimately, trade on there reputations. People will buy products based solely on there opinions of the companies. It is entirely possible that McDonnalds would sue if they were mentioned in a book in a way that could hurt there company. They probably wouldn't have a leg to stand on if they were mentioned in passing:

"He pulled in to the McDonalds drive through."

You might be standing on a little shaky ground if you used the following, however:

"He pulled in to the McDonalds drive through. The food was appalling but he had to curb his appetite or risk falling in to a coma."

Even though the line is opinion, you could be said to be condoning the view that McDonald's food is appalling. Of course, that could be argued but isn't my place to comment about. Especially since I have eaten more than my fair share of them in the past. Finally you would have complete libel:

"He ate the McDonalds, knowing they were responsible for the deaths of thirty-six thousand migrant workers each year"

... which of course they aren't!

It might be great for the story but that could end up getting you sued. Speaking of which, obviously all of the above examples are for illustration only and are in no way meant to defame McDonalds, a company which I frequent fairly regularly. Other fast food giants are available.

Was any of that useful? Probably not, I'm rather tired and I'm not sure I'm making much sense anymore. Anyway, it's there just in case someone feels they need clarification.

I wouldn't be concerned. I'm more worried about the people in my life who are going to recognize themselves in my novel, should it see the light of day. I think I might prefer that the FDA or CIA or whoever have it in for me.

Then there are the people who think they recognise themselves. I have spent a lot of time saying "It's only a story, I made it up" and hearing people say "But ... " trying to prove to me it was about them, idiots.

"He ate the McDonalds, knowing they were responsible for the deaths of thirty-six thousand migrant workers each year"

Still not suit-bait. It's a character in a work of fiction.

To sue, a company has to prove tangible loss expressly because of the piece. McDonald's can't sue unless you hurt their sales by a pretty good margin or have it set up as a work of non-fiction exposing an untrue crime (like using migrant workers as meat patties).

This sort of thing crops up on writer sites a lot.
There is a sort of accelerated concern for dangers of writing, fed by people who like to one up things.
So you end up reading that agents get together and blacklist writers who submitt simultaneously, that publisher search diligently to see if part of a work has been posted on the internet so they can spike the submission, that you can get sued for virtually anything.

In point of fact... it's an extremely negligible concern. And one more of Unk Lin's List of Stuff Writers Should Totally Ignore.

Here's one quick test. Have you ever heard of a writer being successfully sued for damages stemming from mention in a novel?

Here's the clincher: if you don't publish your story, it's not an issue. If you do get it published, the publisher will determine the degree of legal liability they might face.

Originally Posted by seigfried007

To sue, a company has to prove tangible loss expressly because of the piece. McDonald's can't sue unless you hurt their sales by a pretty good margin or have it set up as a work of non-fiction exposing an untrue crime (like using migrant workers as meat patties).

Close, but ...
There is an old adage in the legal world... "Anyone can sue anyone for anything. Doesn't mean they are right."
In that light, were you to say something grossly negative about a well-known (or even less well-known) entity, they can sue you and they have a variety of causes from which to choose. The simplest of which would be slander and/or libel. Even in a work of fiction, you have to tread lightly to avoid stepping on toes. Furthermore, an entity such as McDonald's (since we're using that company) Doesn't have to prove that you have put their company in a bad light in order to sue you. Now, in all likelihood, a court would tell them to go home, wipe their collective snotty noses and get over it. But you would still be put in the position of having to defend yourself along with the incumbent legal costs. So, in a case where you are dealing with hamburger joints, you might want to steer clear of mentioning Mickey D's by name if they are going to be grinding people up and turning them into McYuckies.

Again, can you cite a single instance of this?

Some pertinent links:

http://www.thestar.com/entertainment...iter-for-libel
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7...blic-good.html
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publicatio...d/fiction.html
http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/...n-fiction.html

Well, no they aren't pertinent at all. The first two refer to instances of publishing purported fact in information sources.
The third is some wool-gather about ethics, not law.
The last is actually about libel in fiction, and it was dismissed as frivolous.

I repeat the question: Have you ever heard of a writer being successfully sued for damages stemming from mention in a novel?

Sorry Lin, but they are all pertinent in some way:

The first story, even though not about fiction, does illustrate that you can sue literally anyone, even if you don't know who they are.
Story two serves to outline some of the problems in the British system, passages like the one below:

A study by Oxford University found that English libel cases cost over one hundred times more than those on mainland Europe. This is even more shocking when you bear in mind that defendants can still be £100,000 out of pocket even if they win because there are always legal costs that cannot be recouped from the other side. And, of course, nobody ever recovers the lost time.

Which is an important point to make. Don't think that this is irrelevant if you're not in another country. Although our libel laws are tough, they are not a million miles behind those in the US.

From the third story, not just "wool-gather about ethics":

Harper’s Magazine recently has been serializing John Robert Lennon’s Happyland, a zany satire about Happy Masters, the founder of a doll company who uses her fortune to finance the renovation of Aurora, New York, home of an all-female Wells College. The problem was that a woman named Pleasant Rowland, the founder of the American Girl line of dolls, sold the line to Mattel for $700 million and formed a foundation to oversee renovations in Aurora, New York, and Wells College, her alma mater. Happyland was originally scheduled for publication by Norton, but in an August 27 New York Times article Lennon claimed that when he “handed in the final draft in mid-January 2005, ‘I wasn’t in touch with my editor anymore, I was in touch with a lawyer . . . They were asking me to remove any reference to dolls or a doll company. I basically refused.’” And Norton backed out, as did Lennon’s British publisher, Granta. Was it that Pleasant Rowland cannot be considered a public figure, or that thirty years after the appearance of The Public Burning we are a far more litigious society in which uncomplimentary resemblances in print are sure to invite a subpoena?

And in the last story; the "The Red Hat Club" case was not dismissed as frivolous:

A Georgia jury has ruled that Haywood Smith, author of the bestselling novel "The Red Hat Club," libeled a former friend who had served as inspiration for a character portrayed as a sexually promiscuous alcoholic. The jury awarded $100,000 in damages to the plaintiff, Vicki Stewart.

I repeat the question: Have you ever heard of a writer being successfully sued for damages stemming from mention in a novel?

I put it to you that it doesn't matter whether someone has been successfully sued or not if you can be left out of pocket just from the trying of the case.

No apologies necessary.
They are NOT pertinent to the matter.
The fact that you can file a lawsuit has nothing to do with what I said.. Cite me one single case of somebody being successfully sued for mentions in fiction.

And no, you don't have to be out of pocket. I've been sued three times for various bullshit. I walked into court on my own, told them the story and they laughed it out of court and I walked.

This is just not something anybody needs to worry about.

I don't understand where there's this whole internet cottage industry of trying to get young writers filpped out about things that are non-existent or totally inapplicable.