10 ms·

It's important to note this is not just controversial content, it's outright libel claiming false official sponsorship from real organizations. The parody video

It's important to note this is not just controversial content, it's outright libel claiming false official sponsorship from real organizations. The parody video says: “Paid for in part by the National Rifle Association of America with additional support from Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation." [1] Conversely, I could imagine a parody video created by extreme conservatives mocking Planned Parenthood by happily and cheerfully promoting "baby murder" and "baby parts harvesting for the good of medical science", and quoting the text "This advertisement sponsored and paid for by Planned Parenthood." Independent of your political views, claiming false official sponsorship of a parody is wrong. Slanderous impersonation of a person or organization is not inherently protected by freedom of speech. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8punyPP-bs

amyjess 10y ago
Not only is it defamatory, but in many states it's actually a crime. For example, here's the law in Texas: > A person commits an offense if, with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election, the person enters into a contract or other agreement to print, publish, or broadcast political advertising that purports to emanate from a source other than its true source. Source: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.255.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.255.htm
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  Except free speech protections preempt state law and satire / parody is absolutely a protected form of speech.
  - amyjess 10y ago
    Fraud and defamation have never been protected speech.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      Those words have actual legal meanings, neither of which apply to the Yes Men making silly videos. I'd love to see the NRA prove actual damages. Or as Popehat put it, The First Amendment Protects Satire Even When Reckless, Stupid, Or Ideology-Addled People Fall For It https://popehat.com/2013/11/26/the-first-amendment-protects-satire-even-when-reckless-stupid-or-ideology-addled-people-fall-for-it/ https://popehat.com/2013/11/26/the-first-amendment-protects-...
kstrauser 10y ago
Saturday Night Live has been running parody advertising purporting to originate from real organizations for decades. I'm not a lawyer, but no one here has satisfactorily explained why this group running a fake NRA ad is a different animal from SNL running a fake McDonald's ad. Also, assume nothing about my political views. I'm not an NRA member, but I have spent a couple of nice Saturdays shooting skeet with my son and his Boy Scout troop. My position would be exactly the same if this were a Planned Parenthood parody or if it spoofed any other politics-heavy organization.
- Fogest 10y ago
  But are they saying that it is paid for by McDonalds to run such an ad? Because that makes it sound like McDonalds would support the ad. But if they are just parodying a McDonalds commercial and not saying McDonalds paid for it then it is very different.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    It literally isn't any different. Satire is satire. Protected in the US.
    - Fogest 10y ago
      It "literally" is different. It isn't satire unless it is obviously satire. A comedy network is pretty obviously doing comedy. A random youtube video and webpage all faking being supported by a company is very different.
      - mikeyouse 10y ago
        I take it you're not a lawyer? From the DC Circuit of the US Court of Appeals; But it is the nature of satire that not everyone “gets it” immediately. For example, when Daniel Defoe first published The Shortest Way with the Dissenters, an anonymous satirical pamphlet against religious persecution, it was initially welcomed by the church establishment Defoe sought to ridicule. See JAMES SUTHERLAND,ENGLISH SATIRE 83–84 (1958). Similarly, Benjamin Franklin’s “Speech of Miss Polly Baker,” a fictitious news story mocking New England’s harsh treatment of unwed mothers, was widely republished in both England and the United States as actual news. See MAX HALL, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN & POLLY BAKER:THE HISTORY OF A LITERARY DECEPTION 33–35, 87–88 (1960). Or a little more entertainingly written: The First Amendment Protects Satire Even When Reckless, Stupid, Or Ideology-Addled People Fall For It (https://popehat.com/2013/11/26/the-first-amendment-protects-satire-even-when-reckless-stupid-or-ideology-addled-people-fall-for-it/ https://popehat.com/2013/11/26/the-first-amendment-protects-...) Satire Is Satire Even When People Fall For It, Mr. Jarvis (https://popehat.com/2016/04/27/satire-is-satire-even-when-people-fall-for-it-mr-jarvis/ https://popehat.com/2016/04/27/satire-is-satire-even-when-pe...) The Courts have found that Satire and Parody have extremely broad First Amendment protections -- for good reason.
gpm 10y ago
Whether it's wrong or not is debatable I suppose, whether it's illegal really isn't. Given the entire context (including who the yes men are) this is clearly parody. As such it is protected speech under the first amendment. As such it is not illegal.
timmytokyo 10y ago
>It's important to note this is not just controversial content, it's outright libel claiming false official sponsorship from real organizations. Are you a lawyer?
- dnm 10y ago
  I think this kind of gets to the nut of the whole discussion here on HN. Everyone's talking about whether or not what the Yes Men did was legal, but IMO, the question is why did DO take them down over a legal threat ("...the NRA sent a legal complaint...")? The vice article was pretty ambiguous, but if this was a suit or court order, CloudFlare wouldn't be able to "pass." This apparently wasn't a court order, nor was it a DCMA takedown (or Vice's writing is just really bad). And it looks like youtube told them to come back with a court order.
allemagne 10y ago
I for one would be pretty embarrassed not to have recognized a "baby murder" PP commercial as satire. It's safe to call this libel after legal proceedings or an established expert consensus, but not before.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
kafkaesq 10y ago
Slanderous impersonation of a person or organization is not inherently protected by freedom of speech. This is technically correct, but you're putting the cart before the horse. By definition, "slander" is basically an act of false attribution (or impersonation) that is clearly without merit (i.e. does not promote legitimate discourse) and causes egregious harm (to specific individuals). The Yes Men's video is clearly satire, and as such, is just as protected of a form of free speech in the U.S. as donning a mask of Trump or Clinton, standing atop a milk crate in Union Square, and "impersonating" those figures. Of course, Cloudfare apparently chose not to offer any "back" to the Yes Men once they got the nasty note from the NRA's legal people -- but that was just a business decision; it has no bearing on whether the content they were hosting was legally protected or not.

amyjess 10y ago

Not only is it defamatory, but in many states it's actually a crime. For example, here's the law in Texas: > A person commits an offense if, with intent to injure a candidate or influence the result of an election, the person enters into a contract or other agreement to print, publish, or broadcast political advertising that purports to emanate from a source other than its true source. Source: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.255.htm http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/EL/htm/EL.255.htm

mikeyouse 10y ago
Except free speech protections preempt state law and satire / parody is absolutely a protected form of speech.
- amyjess 10y ago
  Fraud and defamation have never been protected speech.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    Those words have actual legal meanings, neither of which apply to the Yes Men making silly videos. I'd love to see the NRA prove actual damages. Or as Popehat put it, The First Amendment Protects Satire Even When Reckless, Stupid, Or Ideology-Addled People Fall For It https://popehat.com/2013/11/26/the-first-amendment-protects-satire-even-when-reckless-stupid-or-ideology-addled-people-fall-for-it/ https://popehat.com/2013/11/26/the-first-amendment-protects-...

kstrauser 10y ago

Saturday Night Live has been running parody advertising purporting to originate from real organizations for decades. I'm not a lawyer, but no one here has satisfactorily explained why this group running a fake NRA ad is a different animal from SNL running a fake McDonald's ad. Also, assume nothing about my political views. I'm not an NRA member, but I have spent a couple of nice Saturdays shooting skeet with my son and his Boy Scout troop. My position would be exactly the same if this were a Planned Parenthood parody or if it spoofed any other politics-heavy organization.

Fogest 10y ago
But are they saying that it is paid for by McDonalds to run such an ad? Because that makes it sound like McDonalds would support the ad. But if they are just parodying a McDonalds commercial and not saying McDonalds paid for it then it is very different.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  It literally isn't any different. Satire is satire. Protected in the US.
  - Fogest 10y ago
    It "literally" is different. It isn't satire unless it is obviously satire. A comedy network is pretty obviously doing comedy. A random youtube video and webpage all faking being supported by a company is very different.
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      I take it you're not a lawyer? From the DC Circuit of the US Court of Appeals; But it is the nature of satire that not everyone “gets it” immediately. For example, when Daniel Defoe first published The Shortest Way with the Dissenters, an anonymous satirical pamphlet against religious persecution, it was initially welcomed by the church establishment Defoe sought to ridicule. See JAMES SUTHERLAND,ENGLISH SATIRE 83–84 (1958). Similarly, Benjamin Franklin’s “Speech of Miss Polly Baker,” a fictitious news story mocking New England’s harsh treatment of unwed mothers, was widely republished in both England and the United States as actual news. See MAX HALL, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN & POLLY BAKER:THE HISTORY OF A LITERARY DECEPTION 33–35, 87–88 (1960). Or a little more entertainingly written: The First Amendment Protects Satire Even When Reckless, Stupid, Or Ideology-Addled People Fall For It (https://popehat.com/2013/11/26/the-first-amendment-protects-satire-even-when-reckless-stupid-or-ideology-addled-people-fall-for-it/ https://popehat.com/2013/11/26/the-first-amendment-protects-...) Satire Is Satire Even When People Fall For It, Mr. Jarvis (https://popehat.com/2016/04/27/satire-is-satire-even-when-people-fall-for-it-mr-jarvis/ https://popehat.com/2016/04/27/satire-is-satire-even-when-pe...) The Courts have found that Satire and Parody have extremely broad First Amendment protections -- for good reason.

gpm 10y ago

Whether it's wrong or not is debatable I suppose, whether it's illegal really isn't. Given the entire context (including who the yes men are) this is clearly parody. As such it is protected speech under the first amendment. As such it is not illegal.

timmytokyo 10y ago

>It's important to note this is not just controversial content, it's outright libel claiming false official sponsorship from real organizations. Are you a lawyer?

dnm 10y ago
I think this kind of gets to the nut of the whole discussion here on HN. Everyone's talking about whether or not what the Yes Men did was legal, but IMO, the question is why did DO take them down over a legal threat ("...the NRA sent a legal complaint...")? The vice article was pretty ambiguous, but if this was a suit or court order, CloudFlare wouldn't be able to "pass." This apparently wasn't a court order, nor was it a DCMA takedown (or Vice's writing is just really bad). And it looks like youtube told them to come back with a court order.

allemagne 10y ago

I for one would be pretty embarrassed not to have recognized a "baby murder" PP commercial as satire. It's safe to call this libel after legal proceedings or an established expert consensus, but not before.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

kafkaesq 10y ago

Slanderous impersonation of a person or organization is not inherently protected by freedom of speech. This is technically correct, but you're putting the cart before the horse. By definition, "slander" is basically an act of false attribution (or impersonation) that is clearly without merit (i.e. does not promote legitimate discourse) and causes egregious harm (to specific individuals). The Yes Men's video is clearly satire, and as such, is just as protected of a form of free speech in the U.S. as donning a mask of Trump or Clinton, standing atop a milk crate in Union Square, and "impersonating" those figures. Of course, Cloudfare apparently chose not to offer any "back" to the Yes Men once they got the nasty note from the NRA's legal people -- but that was just a business decision; it has no bearing on whether the content they were hosting was legally protected or not.