Opinion ID: 3029627
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Slang v. Dictionary Definition of Term “Pimp”

Text: The Majority concludes that the definition of the word assigned by Plaintiffs is not the only definition and therefore that the term is not capable of defamatory meaning. See Majority Op. at III.B.2. Rather, the Majority reasons, in slang commonly used today, calling someone a pimp is not necessarily an insult and can be a compliment. See Majority Op. at III.B.2. & n. 8 (“[t]oday [pimp is] a very ambiguous term, used either as a compliment or an insult towards a male. In its positive form, it means that the person is ‘cool.’ In its negative form, it insults their attitudes, clothing, or general behavior”). This analysis is a classic example of circular reasoning. To conclude that the slang definition is the correct reference point is to decide the issue. Not so fast. Even were the hip usage—a sharp-dressing dude—widespread, even ESPN does not claim such meaning is unanimous amongst “average persons.” Norse v. Holt & Co., 991 F.2d at 567. That is as it should be, since “pimp’s” pejorative meaning made it into Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, but not Appellees’ hip offering nor, with respect, the Majority’s application of the term.6 6 According to Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition), “pimp” is defined as: “Pimp. n [origin unknown] (1600): a man who solicits clients for a prostitute.” See also Oxford English Dictionary (Second Edition): “Subject [Origin obscure] a. One who provides means and opportunity for unlawful sexual intercourse; a pander, procurer.” Webster’s New International (Second Edition): “n. 1. A procurer, pander.” American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (Third Edition): “Pimp, n. One who finds customers for a prostitute; a procurer.” “Pimp, n. a go-between in illicit sexual affairs; especially, a prostitute’s agent; a pander.” 58 KNIEVEL v. ESPN As noted above, courts can look at any reasonable construction of a word to determine whether its use was defamatory. See Flowers v. Carville, 310 F.3d 1118, 1127-28 (9th Cir. 2002) (Kozinski, J.). For example, in Flowers, the court held that a statement by a presidential candidate’s campaign aide that plaintiff had “doctored” documents was capable of defamatory meaning where a dictionary definition provided that “doctor” is a crime. The court reasoned: [d]efendants argue that “doctor” can also be used in a neutral sense; Webster’s does define it alternatively as “to adapt or modify for a desired end by alteration or special treatment,” as in “[doctored] the play by tightening its whole structure and abridging the last act.” Id. We doubt, though, that anyone would understand the statement in this sense — just as we doubt that anyone would assume Flowers “doctored” the tapes by nursing them back to health. At the very least, it isn’t the only reasonable construction; if a statement is “susceptible of different constructions, one of which is defamatory, resolution of the ambiguity is a question of fact for the jury.” Flowers, 310 F.3d at 1127-28 (internal citations omitted). All the more here. In Flowers, a non-defamatory meaning of “doctor” had made its way into Webster’s. A non-defamatory meaning—indeed any other meaning—of “pimp” has yet to do so. Even so, the use of allegedly “slang” language does not negate the fact that the statement is susceptible to different constructions — both of which are reasonable. Indeed, in a recent case, the California Court of Appeals held that the term “pimp,” allegedly used “in jest” was reasonably capable of defamatory meaning. See Hughes v. Hughes, 122 Cal. App. 4th 931 (Sept. 28, 2004). In Hughes, the plaintiff alleged that he was defamed by his sons’ statement, published in the Vanity Fair magazine, that “[o]ur dad’s a pimp.” Id. at 934. The court concluded that the term “pimp” KNIEVEL v. ESPN 59 was capable of defamatory meaning and the case was properly tried to a jury. In so holding, the court noted that “the dictionary definition of pimp is a man who solicits clients for a prostitute” and reasoned that, “[s]o long as the statement ‘our dad’s a pimp’ can reasonably be understood to mean that plaintiff had at one time engaged in pimping activity, it was for the jury to determine if that is how the statement should be understood.” Id. at 936-937 (citing Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary (2004) at ).7