7 ms·

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 pa

by 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.
    - squeaky-clean 10y ago
      Satire is still satire even when people fall for it, but not when it is intentionally misleading people. The sharethesafety.org website looks very legitimate. It doesn't have a parody or satire disclaimer anywhere I can find, it includes copyright information for the NRA, links to the real NRA and Smith & Wesson websites, and the style mimics the real NRA website exactly. I haven't seen the video yet (at work), I'd assume it's very tongue-in-cheek, but the video was never taken down. But my first impression of the website, without knowing it is parody, is that this is a real project. It even links to a "press release" on nrapress.org, which does not seem to be a real NRA website. Though all the links on nrapress.org point to nra.org or nraila.org, which are official. Your links agree with the parent comment. From the first: > (2) the test for whether something is satire protected by the First Amendment, rather than a false assertion of fact that may be defamatory, is whether a reasonable person would take it as an assertion of fact given the entire context. From the second > In deciding whether something could reasonably be taken as an assertion of fact rather than satire, courts look to what an audience familiar with the publication and players would understand. Said the Court: > The article’s primary intended audience — that is, readers of “The Politics Blog” — would have been familiar with Esquire’s history of publishing satirical stories, with recent topics ranging from Osama Bin Laden’s television-watching habits to “Sex Tips from Donald Rumsfeld.” and > Could there be satire that is unethical because it is genuinely deceptive? I suppose so. (Hopefully not here.) But I think it would have to be a genuine attempt to deceive by a publication not known for satire
      - mikeyouse 10y ago
        The EFF disagrees and already defended The Yes Men against a similar takedown request / lawsuit: https://www.eff.org/cases/chamber-commerce-v-servin https://www.eff.org/cases/chamber-commerce-v-servin
        squeaky-clean 10y ago
        Thanks for the link. Since the case was dropped, I guess we can't know for certain. It looks like all pages on the parody website have been removed, though there are screenshots in the motion to dismiss. It seems like just the pages that look like fake press releases. I generally agree with the EFF, but not in this case. Just my personal opinion, but I can see how the text of the fake press releases are parody, but not the website. The quality of the site obscures the parody. I think the Hillary Clinton article on The Onion linked above is funny. I wouldn't find it funny if it were hosted on h-clinton2016.com The main claims were basically that the chamber of commerce parody is not a substitute for the real thing, and the parody is non-commercial. This isn't entirely the same case. This is an entire landing page made to look like a new initiative. Having a "Store coming soon" advertisements and sign up form also make this different.
- lostlogin 10y ago
  I think you are using literally correctly. This might be the only example I've seen in years.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
kstrauser 10y ago
I'm asking seriously: what makes that different from flashing the McDonald's logo and implying that McD's endorses it? Or Mad Magazine doing the same, for that matter? Or The Onion "quoting" political figures (eg http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/if-i-could-be-just-completely-honest-second-i-beli-52979 http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/if-i-could-be-just-complete... which purports to be an op-ed written by Hillary Clinton, complete with byline and photo, with no disclaimer to the contrary).
- strictnein 10y ago
  As mentioned in another comment, a key component is the likelihood of significant confusion by those that see the content. When you watch SNL or read The Onion and Mad Magazine, the vast majority of people understand that they're watching/reading satire.
- Fogest 10y ago
  As the other user who replied to you said, that is very different. When I am watching TV on a comedy network I am not confused thinking this is actually a legit McDonalds commercial while I am watching a comedy skit on a comedy network. Now when there is a full blown website and youtube video claiming association with a company that is whole different story. How do I clearly know that the company did not actually pay for it? Am I just suppose to guess because there is no way the company would do that? That isn't how it works.
  - gpm 10y ago
    > Am I just suppose to guess because there is no way the company would do that? That isn't how it works. Well yes actually, it is. But you will notice that this was posted on the Yes Men youtube channel, which is well known at this point, so you don't even have to.
    - Fogest 10y ago
      And that may be why the video is not removed, but the website itself is what I am questioning.

by Fogest 10y ago

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.
  - squeaky-clean 10y ago
    Satire is still satire even when people fall for it, but not when it is intentionally misleading people. The sharethesafety.org website looks very legitimate. It doesn't have a parody or satire disclaimer anywhere I can find, it includes copyright information for the NRA, links to the real NRA and Smith & Wesson websites, and the style mimics the real NRA website exactly. I haven't seen the video yet (at work), I'd assume it's very tongue-in-cheek, but the video was never taken down. But my first impression of the website, without knowing it is parody, is that this is a real project. It even links to a "press release" on nrapress.org, which does not seem to be a real NRA website. Though all the links on nrapress.org point to nra.org or nraila.org, which are official. Your links agree with the parent comment. From the first: > (2) the test for whether something is satire protected by the First Amendment, rather than a false assertion of fact that may be defamatory, is whether a reasonable person would take it as an assertion of fact given the entire context. From the second > In deciding whether something could reasonably be taken as an assertion of fact rather than satire, courts look to what an audience familiar with the publication and players would understand. Said the Court: > The article’s primary intended audience — that is, readers of “The Politics Blog” — would have been familiar with Esquire’s history of publishing satirical stories, with recent topics ranging from Osama Bin Laden’s television-watching habits to “Sex Tips from Donald Rumsfeld.” and > Could there be satire that is unethical because it is genuinely deceptive? I suppose so. (Hopefully not here.) But I think it would have to be a genuine attempt to deceive by a publication not known for satire
    - mikeyouse 10y ago
      The EFF disagrees and already defended The Yes Men against a similar takedown request / lawsuit: https://www.eff.org/cases/chamber-commerce-v-servin https://www.eff.org/cases/chamber-commerce-v-servin
      - squeaky-clean 10y ago
        Thanks for the link. Since the case was dropped, I guess we can't know for certain. It looks like all pages on the parody website have been removed, though there are screenshots in the motion to dismiss. It seems like just the pages that look like fake press releases. I generally agree with the EFF, but not in this case. Just my personal opinion, but I can see how the text of the fake press releases are parody, but not the website. The quality of the site obscures the parody. I think the Hillary Clinton article on The Onion linked above is funny. I wouldn't find it funny if it were hosted on h-clinton2016.com The main claims were basically that the chamber of commerce parody is not a substitute for the real thing, and the parody is non-commercial. This isn't entirely the same case. This is an entire landing page made to look like a new initiative. Having a "Store coming soon" advertisements and sign up form also make this different.
lostlogin 10y ago
I think you are using literally correctly. This might be the only example I've seen in years.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

kstrauser 10y ago

I'm asking seriously: what makes that different from flashing the McDonald's logo and implying that McD's endorses it? Or Mad Magazine doing the same, for that matter? Or The Onion "quoting" political figures (eg http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/if-i-could-be-just-completely-honest-second-i-beli-52979 http://www.theonion.com/blogpost/if-i-could-be-just-complete... which purports to be an op-ed written by Hillary Clinton, complete with byline and photo, with no disclaimer to the contrary).

strictnein 10y ago
As mentioned in another comment, a key component is the likelihood of significant confusion by those that see the content. When you watch SNL or read The Onion and Mad Magazine, the vast majority of people understand that they're watching/reading satire.
Fogest 10y ago
As the other user who replied to you said, that is very different. When I am watching TV on a comedy network I am not confused thinking this is actually a legit McDonalds commercial while I am watching a comedy skit on a comedy network. Now when there is a full blown website and youtube video claiming association with a company that is whole different story. How do I clearly know that the company did not actually pay for it? Am I just suppose to guess because there is no way the company would do that? That isn't how it works.
- gpm 10y ago
  > Am I just suppose to guess because there is no way the company would do that? That isn't how it works. Well yes actually, it is. But you will notice that this was posted on the Yes Men youtube channel, which is well known at this point, so you don't even have to.
  - Fogest 10y ago
    And that may be why the video is not removed, but the website itself is what I am questioning.