Select Page

Don't Tread On My Site

Indian Tribes, Like Other Government Entities, Can’t Sue for Libel; Lawsuit Over Billions Episode Thrown Out

Load WordPress Sites in as fast as 37ms!

Friday’s decision by New York Judge Kathryn E. Freed in Cayuga Nation v. Showtime Networks Inc. involves a lawsuit over an episode of the Showtime TV series Billions. The show depicted possible bribery and blackmail by the leaders of a “Cayuga Iroquois” tribe, including a council member named “Jane Halftown.” Plaintiffs, Cayuga Nation and tribal council member Clint Halftown, claim the show libeled them, but the court said no:

[1.] There can be no claim for libel of a government entity (as opposed to a government official); that’s a lesser-known holding of New York Times v. Sullivan, and the court concluded that it applies to tribal governments as well.

[2.] Clint Halftown lost his defamation claim because the show would be perceived as fiction that doesn’t make any claims about real people (even ones who share the same last name and job description as a character):

Here, there has been no demonstration that Jane’s character is “of and concerning” plaintiff such that the description of Jane’s fictional character “is so closely akin to [Mr. Halftown that a viewer of the episode who knew him] would have no difficulty linking the two.” … Moreover, … a disclaimer is played during the credits of each episode of the series representing that “[t]he events and characters depicted in [the series] are fictitious” and that “[a]ny similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or to actual events, is purely coincidental.” …

[3.] Plaintiffs lost their right of publicity claim: The New York right of publicity statute is “to be narrowly construed and ‘strictly limited to nonconsensual commercial appropriations of the name, portrait or picture of a living person.'”

Since the Cayuga Nation is clearly not a living person, the claim against it pursuant to section 51 must be dismissed. Additionally, since “works of fiction and satire do not fall within the narrow scope of the statutory phrases ‘advertising’ and ‘trade'”, the claim by both plaintiffs pursuant to section 51 must be dismissed. Hampton v Guare (1st Dept 1993)….

This post has been republished with permission from a publicly-available RSS feed found on Reason. The views expressed by the original author(s) do not necessarily reflect the opinions or views of The Libertarian Hub, its owners or administrators. Any images included in the original article belong to and are the sole responsibility of the original author/website. The Libertarian Hub makes no claims of ownership of any imported photos/images and shall not be held liable for any unintended copyright infringement. Submit a DCMA takedown request.

-> Click Here to Read the Original Article <-

About The Author

Eugene Volokh

Founded in 1968, Reason is the magazine of free minds and free markets. We produce hard-hitting independent journalism on civil liberties, politics, technology, culture, policy, and commerce. Reason exists outside of the left/right echo chamber. Our goal is to deliver fresh, unbiased information and insights to our readers, viewers, and listeners every day. Visit

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.