> The student alleged that Wallace’s satire “defamed” the Stanford Federalist Society, causing “harm” to the student group and to the “individual reputations” o

> The student alleged that Wallace’s satire “defamed” the Stanford Federalist Society, causing “harm” to the student group and to the “individual reputations” of the officers. This reminds of me of the case of 'Hustler Magazine v. Falwell', detailed in the film 'The People vs. Larry Flynt'. The court affirmed, unanimously, that with regard to public figures and organizations, people_do_ have the right to try to cause harm and damage to their reputations. And why shouldn't we? In the case of satire, that's exactly the point.