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. I

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