The most recent South Park episode, featuring a naked Donald Trump, may have violated the law.

  • CmdrShepard49@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 days ago

    Where are all those liberals at who just recently defended Dems for voting with Republicans to pass this law?? Where are all their bullshit justifications now?

  • ramble81@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    77
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The fucker put out an AI generated video of Obama being arrested in the Oval Office. There’s no standing.

  • Uninvited Guest@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    ·
    2 days ago

    To qualify, the depiction must appear, in the eyes of a reasonable person, indistinguishable from a real image.

    So if the act is used to criminalize this depiction, in doing so it acknowledges that tiny pecker is indistinguishable from Trump’s penis?

    • jj4211@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      Frankly, while the general depiction is realistic, the actual penis doesn’t look like any real penis, regardless of size. It shouldn’t fall in the scope of the law.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    104
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    While this article is technically correct on some things, it’s somewhat missing the entire point of what Matt and Trey did very intentionally. They want Trump to try and sue them.

    Trump has inappropriately promoted and used various AI depictions of some seriously fucked up shit, and therefore would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws. In fact, they never showed Trump’s dick. They just alluded to it being his dick…with AI.

    I would FUCKING LOVE for Trump to try and sue them, because Matt and Trey will make it the circus it deserves to be, get some amazing stuff in discovery, and they can fucking afford not only defending themselves and their content from frivolous lawsuits, but then countersue and fuck Trump and all of his cronies up when it comes out who has been pulling the strings with the absolutely batshit insane stuff that gets posted on his accounts, and government accounts being misused in an official capacity to push dogshit.

    I look forward to this with a shwaybone.

    • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      67
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Matt and Trey really don’t give a fuck. They tried to show Muhammed in multiple cartoons, and when the network vociferously shouted them down about it (because it might get them killed or their offices attacked), they snuck him in anyway in multiple places and just didn’t tell anyone. When one of the foundational members of their cast didn’t want them to trash Scientology, they trashed it ten times harder and told him not to let the door hit him on the ass on the way out. They made out with each other for a long time in “Baseketball.”

      However valuable or not you feel like their message / their humor is, they are among the very few voices in mainstream media who are simply unafraid and doing their own thing, completely without reservation.

      • PlasticExistence@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        46
        ·
        2 days ago

        Agreed, except Isaac Hayes never wanted to quit. The fucking Scientologists did it “for him” while he was incapacitated in the hospital. Reportedly, Hayes loved doing the show and wouldn’t have quit on his own.

        Trey and Matt have simply said that they miss their friend.

        • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Jesus Christ, I didn’t know that. That’s worse.

          I highly recommend watching the Joe Rogan interview with David Miscavige’s dad, it’s just wild and weird.

          Also, where’s Shelly? Where did she go?

    • Ulrich@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Trump has inappropriately promoted and used various AI depictions of some seriously fucked up shit, and therefore would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws.

      Yeah, that makes zero sense.

      1. The Supreme Court has ruled that the President can’t be charged from crimes committed while in office. That’s why he’s walking free today instead of rotting in a fucking jail cell where he belongs.

      2. The commission of a crime does not suddenly excuse everyone else from committing said crime.

      • just_another_person@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        2 days ago

        Are you out of the loop?

        Trump had posted to his own Truth account a week ago an AI generated video of Obama being arrested in the White House.

        Are you a fucking bot, or just ignorant?

        The way this works in a legal sense is that Trump would be fucking foolish to try and sue a CABLE show (not under FCC purview) that did what he did. Present an obviously fake depiction of something as fact.

        Not only will he lose in court because Trump set the precedent for doing so, he will be open to countersuit just because of that fact.

        • Ulrich@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          I am not out of the loop. #2 was referring to that incident. Your personal insults are unwarranted.

          • just_another_person@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            2 days ago

            Your post does not cover CIVIL SUITS, which is where this all would lie in the courts.

            Trump will lose, open himself up to discovery, and allow an entire binge by legal process into every little part of what is going on right now, which his lawyers will not allow.

            I think you’re commenting on something you don’t understand, no offense.

            • Ulrich@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              Your post does not cover CIVIL SUITS

              You’re the one who’s referring to criminal law:

              would immediately lose in court if trying to sure based on the existing laws

              The defense of “nuh-uh, he did it first” will simply not hold water in a court of law.

              Discovery does not work the way you think it does.

              I think you’re commenting on something you don’t understand, no offense.

  • TerHu@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 days ago

    i find it very interesting how suddenly trump loves a law that focuses on consent. so, he does understand what that means?

  • FauxPseudo @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    34
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Matt and tray so loved America they were willing to burn $1.5 billion to save it.”

    • PhilipTheBucket@quokk.au
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      I have a feeling they’re going to be fine moneywise whatever happens. Their personal safety is probably fine. Maybe not, but probably they don’t have to worry too much.

      It’s still courage that they’re doing it.

  • atticus88th@lemmy.world
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    25
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    According to the article im a Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate fan. I’ve only seen Rogan a few times from Fear Factor and no idea who Andrew Tate is, so I guess they fucked up there.

    • Übercomplicated@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      What do you mean? The article just points out that the show’s demographic may somewhat overlap with, for example, Rogan’s demographic:

      The show’s core demographic—predominantly men aged 18 to 49—overlaps meaningfully with the audiences of figures like Joe Rogan and, to a lesser extent, Andrew Tate.

      They are not saying that Rogan listeners also watch South Park, or that South Park is republican. The article is just pointing out that this demographic of men aged between 18 and 49 overlaps with “Joe Rogan[’s] and, to a lesser extent, Andrew Tate[’s demographic].”

      They even frame this as a potential advantage, saying that

      South Park holds a rare cultural position in that it can potentially speak directly to groups adjacent to the MAGA movement without preaching, pandering, or being immediately dismissed [emphasis added].

      I don’t know about you, but it didn’t feel like it was calling South Park fans like us Joe Rogan listeners. It felt more like the article was pointing out that some, maybe even a majority, of fans could also be Rogan fans, which would make the audiences that South Park reaches with this anti-Trump episode especially influential.

      Idk; I certainly didn’t feel offended or anything like that, but I might be misunderstanding you here.