I think the op overstates the power of these statements. Take the south park intro. It doesn't provide absolute cover for libel. If they make statements about people that to a normal person's understanding are not clear parody, they can still be sued. If it looks like Tom Cruise, and talks like Tom Cruise, and you tell the audience with a strait face that it rapes people, expect lawyers.
> Finally, the court will look at the statement from the perspective of the audience to which it was directed, taking that audience's knowledge and understanding into account. (Seelig v. Infinity Broadcasting Corp. (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 798, 809-10.)
> That's why satire and parody are protected even when directed at a fairly narrow audience. For instance, when the proprietors of WorldNetDaily sued Esquire for a parody suggesting they were withdrawing one of their birther tomes, Esquire won because the piece was viewed from the perspective of someone familiar with Esquire's history of satire and WorldNetDaily's history of nuttery, not from the perspective of a person encountering all these figures for the first time. Similarly, my post about the case is protected satire even though I made up excerpts from the D.C. Circuit opinion suggesting that WorldNetDaily staff routinely molests walruses.
Most watchers of South Park know it has a history of satire, including last year's "Where My Country Gone?" depicting Trump being raped to death, or years ago "The China Probrem" portraying Spielberg and Lucas raping Indiana Jones and a stormtrooper.
Comedy Central's own lawyers have a solid defense against the libel case you describe.
A lawyer with background enough to know that parody and libel are not opposites. I mostly deal with security and IP issues, but I do teach slander/libel in some of my classes. SouthPark's reliance on parody and the assertion of fiction aren't absolute defences, especially since much of their comedy isn't meant as parody nor fiction (See the episodes on Scientology and Mormonism which while parodic also rely on other defences.)
My apologies. I used the wrong term. It's not "parody" but "satire".
No, satire isn't an "absolute defense." I never claimed it was. Nor did I say they were opposites. I was making a comment about a satire defense specific to the Tom Cruise and rape scenario you presented.
You wrote: "If they make statements about people that to a normal person's understanding are not clear parody, they can still be sued"
That is not the criterion. It isn't a "normal person's understanding", but a viewership who is aware of South Park's history of satire, including straight-faced satire.
Yes, Comedy Central/South Park could still be sued, but to win it would need to be a scenario where it's not understood as satire even to South Park's audience.
That really depends on the jurisdiction. The UK famously has very different libel rules, and judges that are much less willing to tolerate satire, hence the "I'll sue you in England" line in SouthPark's Scientology episode.
Satire/parody-related defences can fall apart when saying something that is allegedly true (ie "Tom Cruise is gay"). Truth is a defence in the US, but not in England and other jurisdictions that place privacy above "the public's right to know". SouthPark has in the past run some serious risks in this regard, but they seem more restrained lately.
When you wrote "If they make statements about people that to a normal person's understanding are not clear parody, they can still be sued" were you primarily talking about the UK system?
I see that you write 'defences', instead of the American 'defenses', so I think the answer is "yes."
The Slate article was talking about a case in the US system (and the HN readership is US-centric), so I think it's fair to expect that comments which refer to some other jurisdiction would mention that change.
I ask that you make this context shift more explicit in the future.
One of the more philosophical points in that essay applies to British law. The Defamation Act 2013 requires serious harm to the reputation of the claimant. Do you, as a lawyer, wish to defend the belief that it's harmful to call someone gay when they are not gay?
Reading about that new(ish) law, it seems the updated line should be "I'll sue you in Belfast."
When you encounter an opinion you don't agree with, the first thing you try to do is discredit the person speaking that opinion. That is EXACTLY the correct, adult way to handle things.
The best part about your method is that it's impossible for you to be wrong! If someone ever says something you don't agree with, all you need to do is find out how you are smarter than that person, and then use that as evidence for why their opinion can't possibly be true.
