Why can't the Catholic Church sue Dan Brown (of Da Vinci Code) for defamation? Is supposed fiction exempt?

Question

If fiction is exempt from defamation laws, what distinguishes something as a work of fiction? Are religions and governments exempt from filing claims of defamation?

Answer 1

Why would the catholic church bother to sue?



The church (and most people) know it is a work of fiction using the classic 'alternate history' approach.



That there is a religious theme means nothing. Brown is hardly the first to write books in this theme. In a few years there will be another. And another. And another.

Answer 2

P_Reysner is correct, though whether a corporation can be defamed is dependent upon local jurisdictional law. Corporations have filed suits for defamation in several states, and California does allow corporations bring defamation actions. See Sources below.



Defamation requires showing harm to reputation for some individual, or for a corporation if the corporation is named as the party who committed certain acts.



Brown is talking about what some people did 2000 years ago, and what some fictional people have done since then. He has formally disclaimed, saying that he's not talking about any current living individual. Nor, from what I have read, has he made any claims that the actual Catholic Church as a whole has actually done certain things.



Since there is no possibility of reputational harm to any single living individual's reputation, no person has standing. Also, since he has never claimed the real Catholic Church has actually done things (since he calls it a work of fiction) there is no way to show reputation harm to the organization.



It's not defamation to say something that someone else doesn't agree with. And the church's main problem is that they consider his work heresy, even though it's fiction. But heresy is not (Thank the Gods) against mundane law.



Also, given that the Catholic Church is a public (famous) entity, consitutional protections would kick in. This would be the same for any large church, corporation or government agency, since all would count as public/famous entities.



Thus for the Catholic Church to succeed at a defamation claim as plaintiffs, they would have to prove (1) that the statements Brown made were _objectively_ false, (2) that Brown knew the statements were objectively false, and (3) that Brown intended people to believe the statements were true. Number 2 is easy: he claim's it is a work of fiction. But that makes proving #3 almost impossible.



And good luck proving #1 as objectively false in a court of law, since that would require a witness to the events or the original author of a document that was recognized by the court as being literally valid under rules of evidence.

Answer 3

Defamation, by definition, includes anyt statements that injure ones reputation. Courts have determined that fictional works are not defamatory because anyone reading the work would know that it is a work of fiction and therefore the subject of the work cannot be harmed. This is a simplistic explanation but you get the point.



Furthermore, only a person can be defamed. Companies and organizations cannot. As the Church is an organization, they cannot be defamed.



Furthremore, even assuming that the Catholic Church had legal standing to sue for defamation, the Church is so ubiquitous and "famous" that one can say just about anything about it, even things that are factually incorrect. As long as there is no actual malice intended, then the Church could not prosecute. (See N.Y. Times v. Sullivan (1954) 376 U.S. 254.)

Answer 4

Just about. "Defamation" is so vague that any kind of comment that the supposed defamed entity doesn't agree with could be prosecuted, and that is why it is so dangerous a concept and why it is used by tyrants. You could be sued because you defame the writer by saying he defames the Catholic Church.



Even if the guy claims he did not write fiction, that it is true that this Jesus survived the crucifixion and got married and moved to France and that the Church covered this up, he is allowed to advance his views.



What's more, the more Christians rant on about the indignity of it all and try to supress the book/movie, the more it looks like they have something to hide, and so the more credibility the book/movie takes on...

Answer 5

I don't understand the HRCC even giving the DaVinci Code any notice at all. Any intelligent person could instantly tell that the 'facts' in the book were as empty as Al Capone's Vault. And do they really want all those gullible and foolish people to be their supporters?



Let's face it, there are plenty of gullible and foolish people, who cannot tell fact from fiction, garbage from gold. Look at all the people who think socialism and communism are good ideas, despite the well-documented unending misery both inflict upon billions of souls.



So, why would the Church waste their time trying to get fools to be wise? Proverbs tells them it's a waste of time.

Answer 6

The Catholic Church views this as an interesting piece of fiction. That's all. Why sue?

Answer 7

Now I am not sure about this but I think it is because of the first amendment... freedom of press. that book (movie) is a work of fiction and not defamation... otherwise everyone would be sueing authors over what they wrote.

Answer 8

fiction is exempt. Check movies like Stigmata. Catholics need not bristle in the face dime store novels or or sideshow conjurers.

Answer 9

Its like suing Donald Duck for Quacking

Answer 10

They did the same thing to Galileo.



Besides, freedom of speech and the fact that they are in different contries.



Also, suing would show they have something to hide.

Just ignore it.

Answer 11

I'm not sure about da vinci code, but if he has something bad to say about catholic's, then it can't be all bad...

Answer 12

freedom of speech

Answer 13

Its a book?



If catholics know its balony, why are they so scared?

Answer 14

that would set a dangerous precedent