305
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 274 points 7 months ago
[-] taanegl@lemmy.world 83 points 7 months ago

One of my favourite legal disclaimers of all time. It reads like Bukowskian legalese.

[-] sonovebitch@lemmy.world 45 points 7 months ago

That's it? You just need to say "you know this actor character we call Tom Cruise in our show, and does the same stuff as the real actor Tom cruise in real life, it's actually a fictional character unrelated to the real Tom Cruise in real life" and you Gucci?

[-] CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com 76 points 7 months ago

Keep in mind that a celebrity can send you and me, regular joes, a C&D and we'd likely comply simply because we lack the resources to sustain a challenge in court.

What stops celebrities and organizations from suing South Park creators is likely the opposite: they have money and a legal team.

The same thing happened with John Oliver when he talked shit about some coal mine owner that was notorious for suing people. The mine owner served them from a court that had friendly laws but they were ready. And they had insurance to pay for it.

[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 42 points 7 months ago

Eat shit, Bob.

Full story, the guy really is an awful piece of shit.

[-] towerful@programming.dev 12 points 7 months ago

That is fantastic

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] NoIWontPickAName@kbin.earth 20 points 7 months ago

Pretty much, satire is protected

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world 17 points 7 months ago

This is really only to prevent them from suing and claiming that the show is representing the actions of celebrities on the show as true fact. If I publish a newspaper article saying "Donald Trump strangled a baby" without evidence then that could be actionable, as it's a factual claim. But if I showed Donald Trump strangling babies as part of an obvious parody, then that would be protected speech. So their disclaimer is basically just to make it obvious that it's a parody. It's not a requirement, but they want to cover their asses.

[-] FrostyTheDoo@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

If it's all stuff he really does in real life, how could he sue over it? If it's factual, you can't sue. Well you could but you'd lose because South Parks lawyers would say "show me what we said that wasn't true"

If it's its fictional and they clearly state at the beginning of the episode that it's fictional and you should not assume it's true, it's going to be really hard to convince a judge that they were trying to trick people into thinking something was true in order to harm you.

The first amendment allows you to make fun of people, especially if you say "we're just being silly and none of this is serious" beforehand

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 179 points 7 months ago

In the United States, parody is protected by the First Amendment as a form of expression.

[-] Pacmanlives@lemmy.world 110 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yuuuup, and a lot of times the people that get parodied love it. It’s like fuck me! We made it to the point where South Park makes fun of us. Only person I know of that got pissed was Kanye but fuck that guy anyways

[-] MolochAlter@lemmy.world 86 points 7 months ago

The best thing is he apparently actually didn't get the fish sticks joke which, if true, makes Parker and Stone the best satirists of all time on merits.

load more comments (22 replies)
[-] Tolstoshev@lemmy.world 45 points 7 months ago

Nirvana famously said they knew they had made it when Weird Al did a parody of Smells Like Teen Spirit.

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 19 points 7 months ago

If I recall, Weird Al tries to get permission for all his parodies too, just further adding to the point that people mostly are good with that kind of attention.

[-] Tolstoshev@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

That he does. The only snafu he had was with Coolio for Gangster’s Paradise. Apparently the label said yes but didn’t actually check with Coolio and he wasn’t happy about it. Weird Al apologized for the mixup and they made peace with it later. Weird Al said the only star that has consistently turned him down was Prince, who didn’t find the whole parody thing funny.

[-] Got_Bent@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

Many years later, Coolio said that he regrets his reaction and that he realizes it's an honor to get a Weird Al parody.

[-] TrickDacy@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago

That warms my old cynical heart just a little

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

George Clooney liked the show so much he wanted to be on the show but they rejected his request initially since they don't let famous people play themselves. They in turn offered him the non-speaking role of Stan's gay dog. Clooney showed up and gave a full performance of barks.

[-] Moobythegoldensock@lemm.ee 11 points 7 months ago

George Clooney was instrumental in getting the show made in the first place. He liked their second Christmas short so much that he made hundreds of copies and gave them to all his friends, which helped them pitch the show.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Delphia@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago

And most of the ones who arent ok with it are aware of the "Streisand effect" and know that their best course of action is to either ignore it or pretend they are ok with it and wait for everyone to move on.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 18 points 7 months ago
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.world 164 points 7 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Parody is protected under US law.

People can (and do) sue, but they lose every time because it's easy for their well resourced corporate legal team to prove the show is (obviously) parody and thus, protected free speech.

[-] crypticthree@lemmy.world 90 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Also public figures have to prove "actual malice" in a defamation or libel case. Actual malice is an incredibly hard thing to prove.

[-] Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works 33 points 7 months ago

I imagine if it were easier, there would be like another couple hundred of thousand lawsuits against Trump lol

[-] KnowledgeableNip@leminal.space 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

And by Trump, too. He'd definitely try and cash in if it were possible.

[-] Hugin@lemmy.world 117 points 7 months ago

Simple answer is they are careful about what they say and have good lawyers that review it.

A few examples.

Calling Tom Cruise a fudge packer in the context of him being in a bathhouse could eaisly open them up to liability for calling him gay. But doing it in a fudge factory while showing him putting fudge in a box gives them a clear defense that they meant it literally.

Simmaraly telling him to come out of the closet while he is actually in a closet provides cover.

Making things so absurd that a reasonable person wouldn't believe it and know it's a joke also works. So having Barbara Streisand aquire an artifact that makes her into a giant robot monster works but something plausible wouldn't.

Having Kanye open up and admit he is a gay fish is absurd enough to provide protection. However they probably couldn't get away with him simply coming out as gay.

Of course the genius of south park is they use these legal protections in ways that make the story funnier and not just for cover.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] tourist@lemmy.world 104 points 7 months ago

Reminds me that Scientology sent "private investigators" after Matt and Trey to find dirt on them, but ended up with nothing

https://www.avclub.com/scientologists-spent-a-long-time-investigating-south-pa-1798228087

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 63 points 7 months ago

You can't damage the credibility of people who don't claim to have any. And, in attempting to do so, you can only increase their credibility.

Matt and Trey don't claim to be any more than a few jackass comedians with a TV show. Scientology's MO really doesn't work against guys like that.

[-] olicvb@lemmy.ca 40 points 7 months ago

They demolished Scientology, before people were "afraid" of them.

This video talks about the whole story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMrN5nWuh_s

[-] maynarkh@feddit.nl 11 points 7 months ago

Are all youtube videos so epileptic nowadays? Does this appeal to people? Am I out of touch?

[-] edgemaster72@lemmy.world 18 points 7 months ago

Am I out of touch?

No, it's the children who are wrong.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today 77 points 7 months ago

They do get sued pretty often, but the law is on their side. The more absurd the circuimstances the easier it is to get away with as Parody, the only time you're in hot water is if the viewers in any sizable metric would be fooled into thinking the things portrayed in the show were true when in reality they weren't. In fact, when South Park revealed everything about Scientology's internal beliefs they were almost sued but Scientology backed down because what South Park said in the episode was actually verifiable truths that could be backed up with evidence in court.

[-] RIP_Cheems@lemmy.world 43 points 7 months ago

Southpark isn't sued as far as I know, but they have received massive criticism and even death threats from terrorists organizations.

[-] Jumi@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago

They must be doing something right then

[-] FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago

keep in mind, we're talking about the show that toppled Scientology.

just, for the record.... part of how it's able to make fun of shit is because they're usually correct about the stuff they're mocking.

Saying 'Biden is a baby-sacrificing pedophile' is defamation. saying 'trump is a rapist and a fascist' is not.

further, both parody and satire are in fact protected speech. at least, for the moment.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] Wanderer@lemm.ee 36 points 7 months ago

I always find it funny that this got them in trouble

This didn't

But I'm still pissed this didn't get aired:

https://youtu.be/mDmOGN-x0ls?si=yzsO2Fh_d-tc-fP-

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 23 points 7 months ago

It's a very fine line they would have to walk. It must be believable to the average person that the claims are true. It must not actually be true. It must be done with (the appearance of) malice. It must not be done as a criticism/satire of the target and their actions.

And on top of that, their publicist/PR must think a lawsuit will get them more than they lose. Once it's aired, it is out there forever. It could then be the one that everyone seeks out and shares with friends, as "the one that Tom Cruise sued to get rid of". This is known as "The Streisand Effect".

[-] RegalPotoo@lemmy.world 20 points 7 months ago

As others have pointed out, US first amendment laws generally protect shows like South Park because it's generally understood that the characters in the show that resemble real people are parodies, and the show runners aren't stating a fact that the real person said or did a thing in reality.

Funnily enough, the UK has much stricter laws about defaming people - the country has a strict class system, and it wouldn't do if poor people could embarrass rich people - there is a significant carve out for "vulgar abuse". If I was to go on TV and (for sake of example) called Boris Johnson three shit-stained jugs of fetted piss wearing a trench coat, that would be ok, because people understand that to be a euphemistic insult, not a literal statement of fact. If I went on TV and said that he was a drunk, that wouldn't be - unless I can prove that he is an alcoholic, he could sue me for libel. The outcome of this is that an equivalent show to South Park could be made in the UK, it would just have to be utterly filthy

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 12 Apr 2024
305 points (97.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35755 readers
565 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS