• taanegl@lemmy.world
      841·
      7 months ago

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

    • sonovebitch@lemmy.worldOP
      461·
      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.comEnglish
        76·
        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.

      • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
        17·
        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·
        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

      • neptune@dmv.socialEnglish
        6·
        7 months ago

        Celebrities don’t really win anything by suing. First, they look like a cry baby. Second, the bar for slander/libel against a public figure is enormous.

      • Wanderer@lemm.ee
        14·
        7 months ago

        Apparently they actually had to have him packing fudge to call him a fudge packer and to have him in the closet.

        They couldn’t just call him a fag or they would get sued.

    • Pacmanlives@lemmy.world
      110·
      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
        871·
        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.

      • Tolstoshev@lemmy.world
        45·
        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.worldEnglish
          19·
          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·
            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.

      • MeatsOfRage@lemmy.world
        29·
        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·
          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.

      • Delphia@lemmy.world
        16·
        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.

        • Pacmanlives@lemmy.world
          6·
          7 months ago

          The Mormon church did this when the play Book of Mormon came out! Also amazing play if you have not seen it please do!!! There is a reason it won a Tony!

      • jaybone@lemmy.world
        31·
        7 months ago

        I have to doubt a lot of people love being parodied on that show. They are pretty harsh.

        • Pacmanlives@lemmy.world
          12·
          7 months ago

          I take it you don’t have a brother or any close guy friends. It’s kind of what we do. We rip on each other and buy each other a beer. Same with competitive sports. At the end of the day we respect each other but can make fun of each other and live laugh and love

          • jaybone@lemmy.world
            3·
            7 months ago

            This is not like ripping on each other with your guy friends.

            And this is not like Weird Al doing a parody of one of your songs, which most musicians do see as a badge of honor.

            These are pretty damning (and accurate) personal attacks. Pretty sure j-lo, Paris Hilton and Britney Spears were not happy with their portrayal.

        • BrikoX@lemmy.zipEnglish
          10·
          7 months ago

          In terms of parody as a whole, sure, but in cases that involve trademarks it’s huge. They completely killed the test that was set by the prior precedent case.

    • RightHandOfIkaros@lemmy.worldEnglish
      84·
      7 months ago

      It should be noted that that really only applies to citizens being protected from the government (and primarily was created to protect the printing presses and media from the government). There is no legal precedent to indicate that it would apply between citizens.

      • peto (he/him)@lemm.eeEnglish
        9·
        7 months ago

        There comes an issue when a private citizen seeks to use the engines of state to punish those whose speech offends them.

        It’s one thing to withdraw society and business from someone who offends you, quite another to demand that the state crush them for you. Of course, most states will do that to a greater or lesser degree. No state extends an absolute freedom of speech.

      • Azzu@lemm.ee
        4·
        7 months ago

        But all kinds of other laws protect citizens from other citizens. You can’t hurt them, can’t slander them, etcetc so there’s really not much most people can do. The most of it is saying “they did a terrible parody of me” and not deal with them anymore.

      • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.caEnglish
        3·
        7 months ago

        That concept doesn’t really apply very well here.

        The government can’t make laws restricting speech(with very limited exceptions) therefore other citizens can’t legally go after you for protected speech. They’re allowed to tell you you’re an asshole, they’re allowed to ignore you, but they don’t have a court case.

  • FartsWithAnAccent@lemmy.worldEnglish
    164·
    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.

  • Hugin@lemmy.world
    117·
    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.

    • mke_geek@lemm.ee
      104·
      7 months ago

      Simmaraly

      You meant “Similarly” (like “similar” but with an “ly” at the end).

      • Hugin@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 months ago

        I did. My mobile keyboard sucks and changes things when I start a new word. I often miss it.

    • model_tar_gz@lemmy.world
      5·
      7 months ago

      Telling people to suck on Chef’s Chocolate Salty Balls was one of my favorites parts of my fucked up childhood.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      63·
      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.

      • maynarkh
        11·
        7 months ago

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

        • NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de
          5·
          7 months ago

          What do you mean by epileptic? It’s a video essay, the majority of the substance is the words spoken by the guy making the video. And yes, I occasionally watch and enjoy this kind of video, and I even saw this one about s month ago and liked it. It tied up some loose ends in my head and gave me context I wouldn’t otherwise get.

          The term video essay is really a perfect description for this.

            • Agrivar@lemmy.world
              6·
              7 months ago

              Wow, I had to check it out myself and you are not wrong! WTF was the editor of that video thinking? It starts fine and then becomes like a nightmare of overlapping audio streams.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    77·
    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.

  • Dr. Coomer@lemmy.worldEnglish
    43·
    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.

  • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
    455·
    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.

    • PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee
      1·
      7 months ago

      IANAL, but I’m pretty sure calling someone a rapist who hasn’t been convicted in a court of law of being a rapist could get you into trouble. Now the fascist part is completely subjective so you could probably get away with it.

      • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        7 months ago

        According to the defamation lawsuit Trump committed sexual assault. And since common parlance doesnt differentiat between sexual assault and rape you could probably call him a rapist.

        • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          7 months ago

          And according to the counter suit, carol is allowed to call him a rapist.

          Remember, you don’t have to be convicted of rape to be a rapist, you are not innocent and then magically guilty. It is merely a presumption of innocence until proven so, but that’s a procedural thing to prevent the courts from infringing on rights. It has absolutely nothing to do with the true facts of guilt.

          It’s not defamation.

        • PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee
          1·
          7 months ago

          All rape is sexual assault, not all sexual assault is rape. Calling all sexual assault rape dilutes the term.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        7 months ago

        Nope. I sincerely believe Trump is a rapist.

        That’s not defamation because I have good reason to believe that.

        Remember, the presumption of innocence is not a matter of fact- it’s an assumption that dictates procedural principles until it is in fact proven. But, if you rape some one… your a rapist. Period.

        • PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee
          11·
          7 months ago

          Simply believing a thing is true will not protect you from a defamation suit. You have to know he is, not just believe it. I suppose this varies from country to country.

          I’m not obsessed with Donald Trump like most people seem to be, so I don’t follow his news much. I don’t have good reason to believe he’s a rapist, and prefer to wait until he’s convicted in a court of law, and would hope others would give me the same benefit of the doubt.

          • nyctre@lemmy.world
            1·
            7 months ago

            No, the fact that a judge ruled that he raped someone is what protects one from a defamation suit. At that point you’re just quoting the judge

            • PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee
              11·
              7 months ago

              Jury. A jury in 2023 found him liable for sexual abuse/defamation where Carol was awarded $5 million.

              https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db

              The verdict was split: Jurors rejected Carroll’s claim that she was raped, finding Trump responsible for a lesser degree of sexual abuse.

              This year, another jury awarded her an additional $83 million for defamation.

              I read three articles, and watched an NBC video, not one of them stated he was found liable for rape.

                • PlainSimpleGarak@lemm.ee
                  11·
                  7 months ago

                  We don’t need something to “sound like rape”. If he was guilty of it, meaning there was sufficient evidence, in the jury’s opinion, the jury would have found him guilty of it. I’m sure they weren’t looking to do him any favors. Obviously the defense failed to prove their case relative to rape.

                  Now, did he do it? Probably. He’s a career criminal. But the line has to be drawn somewhere, and for me, if you’re found guilty of it, be it a criminal court room, or a civil one, that’s when I can safely say a person is what they’ve been found guilty of being.

                  Take emotions and opinions out of it, and just stick to the facts. He’s guilty in a civil case of defamation and sexual abuse.

      • Passerby6497@lemmy.worldEnglish
        15·
        7 months ago

        Mohammed was in there. There’s a big thing about Mohammed not being able to be down, so they have to hide him any way they can. The official release has a censor over the “lesson speech”, which is dumb AF given the message they’re censoring.

    • Ginger666@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      7 months ago

      It got aired, the entire speech at the end was just bleeped out. I remember watching this live after all the hype, and in was pissed at cc for doing this. Buncha pussies

  • Nollij@sopuli.xyzEnglish
    23·
    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.worldEnglish
    211·
    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

      • Skua@kbin.social
        1·
        7 months ago

        Spitting Image seems like the most immediately obvious one. It’s older, of course, but I think the point stands

    • Nollij@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      5·
      7 months ago

      In Penn & Teller: Bullshit, they did something similar. They pointed out very early they would be more vulgar than most people expect. This is because words like fraud, quack, scammer, etc were specific allegations that could land them in court. But words like asshole were not, and were much safer.

    • dhork@lemmy.worldEnglish
      4·
      7 months ago

      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

      I never wanted to see a hypothetical show as badly as this

    • RobotToaster@mander.xyz
      109·
      7 months ago

      the country has a strict class system

      Yanks pretending their country doesn’t have a class system on the internet has to be one of my favourite delusions.

      • imaqtpie@lemmy.myserv.oneEnglish
        162·
        7 months ago

        Nobody said the US doesn’t have a class system? Also the person you’re responding to appears to be a kiwi, not an American.

        Non-Americans making fools out of themselves while trying to casually denigrate the US is one of my favorite internet traditions. It’s especially entertaining because there are plenty of valid criticisms, but people often seem to go for the most lazy, inaccurate generalizations and reveal their ignorance.

      • BakerBagel@midwest.social
        10·
        7 months ago

        Our class system is based entirely on how much money you have. The UK still has a legal aristocracy based on how much land your direct ancestor owned 800 years ago.

  • geography082@lemm.ee
    65·
    7 months ago

    South Park true understanding is only for people that achieved thinking out of the box.

  • email@sh.itjust.works
    215·
    7 months ago

    In the other country that starts with US you would be tortured and then send to a camp for political prisoners