Defamation usually rest upon the reasonable person standard. Should a reasonable person read or see this information would they believe that it's true when in f

Defamation usually rest upon the reasonable person standard. Should a reasonable person read or see this information would they believe that it's true when in fact it is not. A suitably modified image could fool a reasonable person into believing it was true and harm the reputation of another. Of course satire is protected or labeling it as not true therefore a reasonable person could not believe that it was true. One of the problems is is there's no unified standard as the supreme Court has not heard of many cases that delve into this especially in relation to underage or possibly underage images. Of the cases that they usually hear when it is not in fact a real thing they usually strike the statue down as being overly broad. There are other cases that they just flat out refuse to hear and therefore the lower courts rulings will stand. Lower courts are influenced much more by local community standards which can vary depending on which part of the country you're in. Overall I really think this is more of a growing pains of a society and we should focus on maturing as a society more than trying to restrict behaviors with Draconian laws.