Post

Mike Masnick
@masnick.com

Prof. @jmiers230.bsky.social points out that the latest South Park "Trump PSA" with a deepfake naked Trump could violate the TAKE IT DOWN Act, which Trump himself announced he was eager to use to censor content critical of himself.

Techdirt@techdirt.com

Oh My God, TAKE IT DOWN Kills Parody Donald Trump is a notorious media bully. He uses lawsuits, executive power, and political pressure to punish critics and bend institutions to his will. Disney, Meta, and Paramount have since paid out multi-million-dollar settlements over content disputes. CBS…

techdirt.comOh My God, TAKE IT DOWN Kills ParodyDonald Trump is a notorious media bully. He uses lawsuits, executive power, and political pressure to punish critics and bend institutions to his will. Disney, Meta, and Paramount have since paid out multi-million-dollar settlements over content disputes. CBS News leaders resigned. Colbert’s show was canceled. The AP was barred from the White House. Even Rupert Murdoch is now being sued…

54 reposts293 likes

BadJohnBrown
@badjohnbrown.bsky.social

"To qualify, the depiction must appear, in the eyes of a reasonable person, indistinguishable from a real image." I'm sorry, but a talking penis with eyes is not "indistinguishable" from reality. This is not a good analysis. variety.com/2025/tv/news...

variety.com‘South Park’ Creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone Battled Comedy Central Over Showing Trump’s Genitals, Refused to Blur His PenisAt San Diego Comic-Con, "South Park" creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker briefly addressed this week's episode -- and the debate over Trump's penis.
Jess Miers 🦝
@jmiers230.bsky.social

I encourage you to read the full analysis! Remember that a trump friendly DOJ has immense prosecutorial discretion. There are several instances where it's just his penis without the talking or the smiley. Out of context screenshots could very well be subject to the law.

BadJohnBrown
@badjohnbrown.bsky.social

I did read it all. I agree with you that this law could easily be misapplied by the Trump DOJ. I just do not agree with your statement that "Ultimately, whether the PSA violates the law will come down to whether it’s a matter of public interest." Anyway, it's just a different opinion. That's all.

Jess Miers 🦝
@jmiers230.bsky.social

Totally! Which, you're highlighting exactly the problem btw. This is so classically First Amendment protected speech. The fact that you can have one take and I can have another is inherently problematic. We shouldn't have to play this guessing game.

BadJohnBrown
@badjohnbrown.bsky.social

You're right. There were other flawed parts of the analysis I did not speak to in my short post. I didn't think it necessary to point out all the flaws. Nonetheless, I stand by my point. This was not good legal analysis of the issue at play.

Fat Man in a Skirt
@fmias.bsky.social

At the least, they have a very strong 1A argument here that could handicap the law. And they have the money to fight it. Probably insurance, too. Skydance's libel and skander insurance premium is about to shoot to the moon.

branewave.bsky.social
@branewave.bsky.social

If this was 1A protected speech prior to the law being passed, it's 1A protected speech after the law was passed. A law can't chip away at constitutional protections. If the fact that it's AI-generated somehow makes it not Matt & Trey's speech, then Matt & Trey can't be the people who get sued.