‘Y.M.C.A’ Singer Says He’ll Sue If You Call It A ‘Gay Anthem.’ Legal Experts Say He’s Unlikely To Win.

Village People singer Victor Willis might be threatening to sue news outlets that describe his song “Y.M.C.A” as a “gay anthem,” but legal experts say such lawsuits would likely be a “nonstarter.”

In a social media post on Monday defending President-elect Donald Trump’s use of the iconic disco song at his campaign rallies, Willis also sharply denied that he had intended the track to be aimed at the gay community — calling it a “false assumption” and “completely misguided.”

But he also went a step further than that, warning that next month his team would “start suing each and every news organization” that refers to “Y.M.C.A” as a “gay anthem,” calling such a description “defamatory.”

“The song is not really a gay anthem other than certain people falsely suggesting that it is,” Willis wrote in the post. “And this must stop because it is damaging to the song.”

Released by the Village People in October 1978, “Y.M.C.A” eventually reached No. 2 on the Hot 100 and was emblematic of the late-1970s disco craze. The buoyant track and its trademark alphabetic dance have become one of music’s enduring phenomenons, blasted for years at sporting events, wedding dance floors and, of late, Trump rallies.

According to The Financial Times, the song has been “widely interpreted as a gay anthem” for years: “This is no great stretch for a song encouraging ‘young men’ to ‘find many ways to have a good time,’” the outlet wrote. Beyond the lyrics, the band’s 1977 debut album made clear references to gay cultural touchstones, and the music video for “Y.M.C.A” was itself filmed in front of the famed New York City gay bar The Ramrod.

“‘Y.M.C.A.’ was more than a hit record,” reads a 2021 article released by the Library of Congress. “It was a cultural milestone: a world anthem built on, for, and about gay life and sensibilities that was, nevertheless, fully embraced by mainstream audiences.”

In an oral history of the song released by Spin in 2008, members of the band argued over whether such interpretations had been behind design — with Randy Jones (the cowboy) saying it was “not intended as a gay anthem” but David Hodo (the construction worker) saying that it “certainly has a gay origin.”

Willis has long denied any such connotation to his lyrics, saying in 2017 that “it was not written to be a gay song because of the simple fact I’m not gay.” And this isn’t the first time he’s threatened to sue to prove it: In 2020, amid a similar dustup over Trump, Willis warned that he would “sue the next newspaper that falsely claim my lyrics are somehow about gay sex.” It does not appear that any case was ever filed.

With such threats now resurfaced, it’s fair to ask: Can Willis really sue news outlets over something like this? Sure — this is America, and anybody can file a lawsuit over just about anything. But top attorneys who specialize in media law say that if he does so, such claims would face serious obstacles in court.

“Mr. Willis’ threatened libel claim would be a nonstarter for numerous reasons,” says Adam I. Rich, a music and free speech attorney at the law firm Davis Wright Tremaine.

“The Media Was Put On Notice To Cut It Out”

In his Facebook post — which has an all-caps header that says the song is “NOT REALLY A GAY ANTHEM” — Willis isn’t entirely clear on exactly what he plans to sue about, or how he plans to do it.

At times, he seems fixated on the “gay anthem” label itself, saying he and his wife will sue any outlet that “falsely refers” to the song as such. At other points, he appears more concerned about the perceived meaning of his lyrics, denying that he wrote the song as a “a message to gay people” and complaining that the lyrics have been misconstrued as references to gay sex or “illicit activity” at YMCAs. Confusingly, however, he also says, “I don’t mind that gays think of the song as their anthem.”

To understand more, Billboard reached out to Karen Willis, Victor’s wife and manager, who will purportedly be filing such lawsuits. In a series of emails, she said that the threatened litigation would target any media outlet that “infers that ‘Y.M.C.A.’ is a gay anthem based on its association with illicit gay activities at the Y,” calling such a statement “defamatory on its face.”

“Victor has a right not to have his lyrics twisted outside of the true meaning of his words, especially in a manner that would bring shame or scorn to him,” she wrote. “This is especially true when he can show that the media was put on notice to cut it out. Stop it.”

Will these lawsuits target any media report that refers to the song as a “gay anthem,” even if it makes no reference to the lyrics and merely cites the song’s well-established place in cultural history? Or will they merely target articles that make direct claims about what Victor intended his lyrics to mean?

Karen Willis wouldn’t exactly say. “I think if they simply said that the song is popular in the gay community, [I] see no liability there,” she wrote. But she also repeatedly argued the only reason the song is considered a “gay anthem” in the first place is a perceived hidden meaning of the lyrics.

“The single basis for the claim that ‘Y.M.C.A.’ is a gay anthem is that the lyrics suggests such,” Willis wrote, before later adding: “If the lyrics are not wrongfully believed to be the source of the gay anthem claim, the song would not be referred to as a gay anthem.”

“Squarely Protected by the First Amendment”

If the plan is to sue for defamation, that means that Willis believes that statements linking his song to the gay community are both factually false and damaging to him. It’s easy to make those accusations in a Facebook post, but actually winning such claims in the American court system is pretty hard, thanks to the U.S. Constitution and its robust protections for free speech.

For starters, to prove such an accusation — also known as libel — Willis would need to show that an offending news outlet had made a statement of fact that’s capable of being proven false, and not merely a statement of opinion that he disagrees with — a form of speech safeguarded by the First Amendment.

While explicit statements about his lyrical intentions might cross a line, experts say that merely describing the song as a “gay anthem” is clearly the kind of broad opinion that’s shielded from defamation litigation. And even if the “anthem” label could be proven false, would Willis actually be able to do so?

“A court would almost certainly find that the label ‘gay anthem’ is nonactionable opinion, squarely protected by the First Amendment,” says Rich, the media lawyer. “And regardless of what Mr. Willis now claims to have meant when he wrote it, he would bear the burden of proving that the song isn’t a gay anthem — that is about as likely as a young man not having a fun time at the YMCA.”

That skeptical view was seconded by Dori Hanswirth, a First Amendment attorney at the law firm Arnold & Porter, who cited the Village People’s “iconic status in the gay community” and the appearance of “a gay landmark in the music video.” In his Facebook post, even Willis admitted that the group’s self-titled debut album, released a year before “Y.M.C.A.,” had been “totally about gay life.”

“Calling ‘Y.M.C.A.’ a gay anthem is an opinion,” Hanswirth says. “To the extent the reference is considered a factual statement rather than an opinion, it is probably true. And truth is a complete defense to any defamation claim.”

Another potential legal roadblock for Willis’ planned lawsuits: Is a connection to the gay community even capable of being legally defamatory? Put another way: Is it really outright damaging if someone says your song was embraced by gay listeners, or that it made allusions to gay culture?

That might have been an easy argument to make in 1978, but after decades of hard-fought progress on LGBTQ+ rights, it’s a harder one to make in 2024. For example, a New York state appeals court issued a ruling in 2021 overturning a decades-old precedent holding that falsely calling someone gay was automatically defamatory, citing a “profound and notable transformation of cultural attitudes.”

“If the songwriter is arguing that it is defamatory to say that he wrote a song that became a gay anthem, I don’t see a basis for a claim there,” Hanswirth says. “It is generally not defamatory to say that someone is gay; thus, it would not be defamatory to say that someone wrote a song that is viewed as a celebration of gay male culture.”

Another, even more basic problem for any lawsuit against media outlets is the fact that Willis is a “public figure” — a status that makes it very hard to win a defamation lawsuit. Under U.S. Supreme Court precedents, he’d need to prove that offending statement (either calling his song a “gay anthem” or claiming a hidden lyrical meaning) was not only factually false, but that the writer knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

That requirement (known as “actual malice”) has long made it extremely challenging for prominent people to sue for libel over anything but the most egregious cases. “That is a very difficult standard to meet,” Rich says. And it’s by design: if not sharply limited, defamation lawsuit could allow government officials, business execs and other powerful people to use the courts to stifle the kind of open exchange of ideas that the First Amendment is supposed to protect.

Of course, none of this is to say that Willis and his wife can’t file lawsuits come January. Everyone is entitled to their day in court, and if he wants to spend the money on lawyers and court fees, he can certainly test out his defamation theories. But experts don’t expect the courts to be sympathetic.

“I think the song has universal popularity and has also become symbolic of gay male culture from the 1970’s. Two things can be true,” Hanswirth says. “Is it a gay anthem? If you think it is, yes.”