unlabelled satirical identity theft is identity theft
You wouldn't steal a movie
You wouldn't steal an identity
Parody. It's a crime."
A comic strip artist that I follow constantly puts fake words into famous peoples' mouths in his newspaper sections, but even tough I know it's fake I can still partake in the momentary delusion and get a good laugh
If potential readers cannot differentiate between reality and parody they're either deep in a conspiracy rabbit hole, or reality has become too crazy. Both these cases would again be a valid reason for parody to point out this fact.
Jokes work by surprising the audience. Pretending to be someone else before revealing the truth is just one method of doing this, and requiring to label it as parody is like explaining the punchline before the joke. The Onion recently wrote an actual legal document on exactly this and how required labelling of parody violates free speech.
When a comedian "impersonates" a politicians we all partake in a temporary delusion aided by the comic's ability to mimick the politician. Everyone knows it's fake but we laugh nonetheless. Making a hyper-realistic deep fake video of a politician saying absurd stuff is not free speech without appropriate labelling.
Can you point to case law that makes this clear? Intent highly matters and I don't see anyone facing legal repercussions for impersonating someone for comic intent or even politically motivated intentions. Not to mention, Twitter already has a mechanism identifying verified accounts, doesn't it?
> Making a hyper-realistic deep fake video of a politician saying absurd stuff is not free speech without appropriate labelling.
Lying is mostly not against the law and is covered under free speech. In fact in 2012 the Supreme Court ruled that lying can be Constitutionally protected under free speech. [1] Whether or not such video would be ethically wrong is another matter. But I think you are wrong is in saying it is not free speech.
https://www.npr.org/2012/02/22/147257716/is-a-lie-just-free-...
It's funny that you mention The Onion, because they are impersonating nobody since there is no legitimate news outlet named "The Onion". Their articles might mimick the writing style of legitimate ones, but they are not claiming to be CNN or Fox.
I'd appreciate hearing an argument for this being impersonation rather than hearing it repeatedly asserted, as if it weren't a fact in dispute.
Come on, everybody knows that: unlabeled parody is hate speech /s