If there is a body of law that is ripe for reappraisal in light of changing times, it is defamation law. Changes in how news is reported and entertainment is produced have blurred some of the traditional legal rules regarding the distinction between actionable fact and nonactionable fiction. At the same time, advances in technology and changes in society have caused some—most notably Supreme Court Justices Thomas and Gorsuch—to question whether the traditional New York Times Co. v. Sullivan standard used in defamation cases should remain good law. Indeed, it is fair to question whether modern defamation law is equipped to deal with a news and entertainment landscape that increasingly blurs the lines between fact and fiction. This Article suggests that courts need to update their approach when dealing with defamation claims stemming from political commentary, parody, works of fiction based on real events, reality TV, and similar publications. In doing so, they might consider looking to one area of popular entertainment that has long blurred the line between reality and fiction: professional wrestling. This Article explores a defamation claim brought by Hulk Hogan years ago and how the decision in the case illustrates some of the shortcomings of the courts’ approach to defamation cases involving publications that blur the line between reality and fiction.
