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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Laws still exist for civil suits.

Next.

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.

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

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 News leaders resigned. Colbert’s show was canceled. The AP was barred from the White House. Even Rupert…

Techdirt (www.techdirt.com)

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

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 News leaders resigned. Colbert’s show was canceled. The AP was barred from the White House. Even Rupert…

Techdirt (www.techdirt.com)

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