Often, the most satisfying element of a good parody is seeing others mistake it for the genuine article.

Often, the most satisfying element of a good parody is seeing others mistake it for the genuine article. - A parody (pronounced /ˈpærədiː/ [1]; also called send-up or spoof), in contemporary usage, is a work created to mock, comment on, or poke fun at an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of humorous, satiric [2] or ironic [3] imitation

[4]

A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, [jokes about]... Terry Rakolta [6] [an activist who spearheaded a boycott of the show Married With Children [7], were fair comments [8]]... within the confines of her public conduct [and] protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".

To be sure, in other areas of the law, the specific intent to inflict emotional harm enjoys no protection. But with respect to speech concerning public figures, penalizing the intent to inflict emotional harm, without also requiring that the speech that inflicts that harm to be false, would subject political cartoonists and other satirists to large damage awards. "The appeal of the political cartoon or caricature is often based on exploitation of unfortunate physical traits or politically embarrassing events – an exploitation often calculated to injure the feelings of the subject of the portrayal". This was certainly true of the cartoons of Thomas Nast [9], who skewered Boss Tweed [10] in the pages of Harper's Weekly [11]. From a historical perspective, political discourse would have been considerably poorer without such cartoons.

Even if Nast's cartoons were not particularly offensive, Falwell argued that the Hustler parody advertisement in this case was so "outrageous" as to take it outside the scope of First Amendment protection. But "outrageous" is an inherently subjective term, susceptible to the personal taste of the jury empaneled to decide a case. Such a standard "runs afoul of our longstanding refusal to allow damages to be awarded because the speech in question may have an adverse emotional impact on the audience". So long as the speech at issue is not "obscene" and thus not subject to First Amendment protection, it should be subject to the actual-malice standard when it concerns public figures.

Clearly, Falwell was a public figure [12] for purposes of First Amendment law. Because the district court found in favor of Flynt on the libel charge, there was no dispute as to whether the parody could be understood as describing actual facts about Falwell or events in which he participated. Accordingly, because the parody did not make false statements that were implied to be true, it could not be the subject of damages under the New York Times actual-malice standard. The Court thus reversed the judgment of the Fourth Circuit.

http://www.disclosureproject.com [15]  TRUTH  -  EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL