Hey, don’t ask us. This is when we always call a lawyer. Media Orchard is guessing Tom or his publicist have already done just that.

First, here’s an excerpt of the episode in question, which was televised last month.

Now, here’s what one attorney, Julie Hilden (who is also a novelist) has to say about it:

A recent episode of the television animated comedy “South Park” mocked Tom Cruise — suggesting that he is homosexual, and lying to hide that fact. Could Cruise bring a defamation suit against the show? In the past, Cruise has sued those who have made the very same claim…

In the episode, the animated version of Cruise literally goes into a closet, and won’t come out. Other characters beg him to “come out of the closet,” including the animated version of his ex-wife, Nicole Kidman. The Kidman character promises Cruise that if he comes out of the closet, neither she nor “Katie” will judge him. But the Cruise character claims he isn’t “in the closet,” even though he plainly is.

No one could miss that the episode’s creators are taking a stance and making a statement — that the real Cruise is gay and hiding it. The use of the euphemism “in the closet” — used to refer to someone who is homosexual but who has not admitted his or her homosexuality to friends, family, or the public — is transparent…

Since the episode does indeed make a “statement of fact,” the parody exception to defamation law won’t save “South Park.” Thus, the creators’ only weapon against a possible suit by Cruise is a First Amendment defense. Fortunately for them, the Supreme Court has interpreted the defense very broadly…

The upshot, though — and courts know this, and accept this cost in the service of free speech — is that parody and satire inevitably may become a refuge for rogues who seek to defame without liability. That seems to me to be just what’s happening with respect to the “South Park” episode.

In sum, a Cruise-versus-”South Park” suit would almost certainly be dismissed on First Amendment grounds. Moreover, such a suit — depending on the way it was framed — might arguably be as ethically problematic, as it is legally problematic, at least for those who believe that bias against homosexuals is wrong.

Cruise has chosen, in the past, not only to challenge allegations that he cheated or lied to cover up his alleged homosexuality, but also to directly challenge allegations that he is gay. In 2001, Cruise’s attorney Bert Fields was quoted saying to E! Online, that “[Cruise] is a great respecter of homosexual rights, but he’s not gay, and he’s ready to prove this in court…

If Cruise is truly a great respecter of homosexual rights, then to comport with his own ethical beliefs, he should have been more careful in crafting his past suit.

Cruise already had a strong suit based on suggestions that he was an adulterer and a liar — cheating on his wife and misrepresenting the character of their marriage to the public. Did he need to also directly take aim at the statement that he was gay?…

While Tom Cruise won’t be able to successfully sue South Park for its satire, he may have the option to sue others who claim he is gay in the future. When he does have this opportunity, he may want to think twice — and, at a minimum, rephrase his suit to focus on false claims that he is a liar, not false claims that he is gay.

Once again, Media Orchard has no comment. We also have no comment about Scientology. And we’re not smirking as we write this, either. Our faces are completely blank.

We also plan to see Mission: Impossible III several times.

Please don’t sue us.

(Image via Radar Online, which had an interesting post on possible internal discussion within Viacom over the episode. Viacom owns both Comedy Central and M:I III’s Paramount.)

Technorati tags: Entertainment, PR, Public Relations, Tom Cruise, South Park