4 ms·

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 webpag

by 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.
- kstrauser 10y ago
  Are you a lawyer? I've seen several conflicting arguments and I'm not sure whose authority to appeal to.
  - mikeyouse 10y ago
    The EFF already defended this very same group (The Yes Men) against the very same actions when they satirized the Chamber of Commerce (an advocacy group for big businesses): https://www.eff.org/cases/chamber-commerce-v-servin https://www.eff.org/cases/chamber-commerce-v-servin I think they're pretty trustworthy as far as free-speech advocacy goes. There wasn't a ruling but eventually the Chamber of Commerce dropped the suit.
- Fogest 10y ago
  Is this really satire or a parody though? Could almost view this as defamation. Is it really being satirical, or is it designed to make a company look stupid and like a joke? I am seeing this as being different than satire or parody like a site like the onion would do. If the onion went and created a site that looked very legitimate, linked to the real companies sites, and no where mentioned it was fake then I would also have a problem with that. But they don't. All of their jokes are within the onion, not spread across fake sites pretending to be from other companies.

by Fogest 10y ago

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.
kstrauser 10y ago
Are you a lawyer? I've seen several conflicting arguments and I'm not sure whose authority to appeal to.
- mikeyouse 10y ago
  The EFF already defended this very same group (The Yes Men) against the very same actions when they satirized the Chamber of Commerce (an advocacy group for big businesses): https://www.eff.org/cases/chamber-commerce-v-servin https://www.eff.org/cases/chamber-commerce-v-servin I think they're pretty trustworthy as far as free-speech advocacy goes. There wasn't a ruling but eventually the Chamber of Commerce dropped the suit.
Fogest 10y ago
Is this really satire or a parody though? Could almost view this as defamation. Is it really being satirical, or is it designed to make a company look stupid and like a joke? I am seeing this as being different than satire or parody like a site like the onion would do. If the onion went and created a site that looked very legitimate, linked to the real companies sites, and no where mentioned it was fake then I would also have a problem with that. But they don't. All of their jokes are within the onion, not spread across fake sites pretending to be from other companies.