> Where is the distinction made between humor and libel?

The distinction a media law professor once gave me: can a reasonable person tell that it's humor and not truth? This basically means it's up to a judge to decide, but of course the context of the statement has a lot to do with it. No reasonable person would take anything that David Letterman says during his monologue as true. If Letterman, however, were to say something untrue during an otherwise serious interview outside of his show, it would be a different story. This is one of the reasons cartoonists in newspapers have so much freedom -- you're not likely to take anything in a cartoon as literal truth.

> And, can you ever get in trouble for saying a complete lie that has only good intentions towards the person or group? For instance, can I say that the CEO of Exxon has saved more baby seals than any other person in the world?
> Euge'would never tell a lie'ne

I suppose, in theory, you could. Remember, though, that for a statement to be libel or slander it must damage the person it's made about. Generally, the plaintiffs in such cases must prove that this damage hurt their pocketbooks in some way; "it made me sad" isn't going to hold a lot of weight in a court (but who knows with our sometimes off-the-wall legal system). The CEO of Exxon would probably have a tough time selling a judge or a jury that your hypothetical statement hurt his ability to make money.

Stephen