The White House responds to episodes of Trump-Satan in South Park
The White House calls South Park the “fourth rate” after the episode showed Trump in bed with Satan.
- The fourth episode of the current season of the series premiered on September 3rd, continuing the storyline that united Trump and Satan.
- Experts said political speeches have the highest First Amendment protections, and it is more difficult for public figures like Trump to win in defamous or defamous litigation.
27 “South Park” fourth episodeth The season continued to have a tendency to laugh at President Donald Trump and his administration.
The September 3rd episode, “Wok Is Dead,” continued the story of Trump, who has a romantic relationship with Satan. However, this time, Satan says that the pair “we’ve been together for months and I want to leave him, but I can’t do it because I’m pregnant.”
The White House previously said the show was “unrelated for over 20 years,” but the season’s premiere set the rating record that continued in the second episode.
USA Today has reached out to Paramount and the White House for comment.
Satire is protected by the first right to amend free speech. Experts told USA Today that political satire like “South Park” has some of the biggest constitutional protections, but there are still restrictions.
Let’s take a look at the meaning of the first revision of “South Park” criticism of Trump.
What happened in the previous episodes?
Each episode of the previous season refers to the Trump administration.
The premiere episode entitled “The Sermon of Mount” showed cards in bed with Satan. It also includes scenes where the YouTube channel points out that it uses “synthetic media,” showing an AI-generated deepfark of Trump wandering naked in the desert. Trump’s genitals are depicted with jagged eyes and a high-pitched voice. The creators of “South Park” later said it was added to avoid censorship of the network.
The second episode once again linked Trump to Satan. This time, Vice President JD Vance also called in. It showed Homeland Security Director Christie Noem’s shooting dog – a reference to her 2024 admission in the book about her shooting and killing a dog from her “untrainable” family named Cricket.
That third episode made a laugh at the deployment of hundreds of National Guard troops Trump to crack down on Washington, DC’s crime.
In addition to Satan’s pregnancy, the fourth episode refers to the trend against Lovebus, a gorgeous toy that has been viral on social media in recent months, showing that it is being used in rituals summoning Trump and Satan.
Can South Park creators do that?
The first amendment was Nadine Strosson, a law professor at New York Claw School and a senior fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (Fire), who said it would protect even the most “active, controversial, profane, and profanity” speeches.
Many fans of the show seem to agree, like in the YouTube comment that the desert scene said “the first fix was made” gave around 40,000 thumbs.
“This certainly would be the case if we had to choose one of the main objectives of the first amendment that has many very important objectives,” Strosun said.
It is that political speeches are “always at the top of the First Amendment hierarchy,” she said.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed the concept, including a 2011 ruling in favour of Westborough Baptist Church members accepting military funerals, and a 1976 case in which candidates banned their own money to contribute to the campaign.
In the latter case, the court said, “the discussion of public issues is… crucial to the operation of the government system established by our constitution.”
Can Trump take legal action?
Some speeches are outside the First Amendment, and experts said there is nothing technically stopping Trump from trying to sue “South Park,” but he may face a successful, difficult battle.
Trump has managed to file a honour-defeat lawsuit, as he has done many times in the past, but his status as a public figure means it’s harder to win such a case than if he were a civilian.
“You’re expected to have thick skin,” Strosun said. “This is the price you pay to get into public office.”
To win in an honor loss case, the public figure must prove that the defendant is in fact malicious. This is a legal term that describes someone who knowingly publishes a false statement or recklessly publishes a statement without concern about whether it is true or not.
The Supreme Court has just asserted in a 1988 ruling involving televangelist Jerry Falwell. The incident revolves around a fake ad in the November 1983 issue of Hustler magazine, claiming that Falwell is “a home to a drunken incest rendezvous and a mother.”
Falwell sued for infringement of privacy, honorific loss and intentional emotional distress. The first two charges were dropped, and the Supreme Court decision overturned the lower court’s decision, which was third to grant Falwell’s damages.
“The state’s interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is patently offensive and is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection against speeches intended to cause emotional injury when the statement cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved,” the court said.
Though the portrayal of the naked Trump as “South Park” was a hyper-realistic Deep Fark, the fact that Show added absurd details to his body makes it even more clear that it was not presented as a de facto statement about Trump, said Professor Mary Ann Frank of George Washington University Law School.
Also, there are indecency that is not protected by the First Amendment, but it is a historically narrow legal category without a clear definition.
When determining whether it counts as indecency, the court will consider whether the content is “sexually proud” without educational, scientific, artistic or other value, Frank said.
Some argue that political satire like “South Park” is worthless to not count as indecent, but Frank said it still “can cross that line.”
“We don’t necessarily know beforehand until the court tells us what it is, so we don’t know much of it beforehand,” Franks said.
Ultimately, the First Amendment protects “even truly crude and offensive speeches,” she said.
Have people got troubled by a satirical speech about Trump?
Comedian Kathy Griffin found himself at the heart of an investigation by the US Secret Service that ultimately didn’t result in criminal charges after posing in 2017 with a fake decapitated head similar to a bloody Trump-like one.
Griffin said the photo was intended as a political satire in response to Trump’s comments about Fox News host Megin Kelly in 2015.
Griffin initially apologized for the photo and said it had “got too far,” but she later regained her apology, saying “the whole thing was very unbalanced.”
How did the Trump administration respond?
Following the season premiere, White House spokesman Taylor Rogers calls it “South Park” and “sticks to threads with ideas that have not been relevant and not attracting attention for over 20 years.”
Vance responded to his portrayal of South Park in the X-Post on August 7, saying, “Well, we finally made it.”
Noem said he had not seen the episode in an interview with the “Glenbeck Program” podcast, but he called an attack on his appearance in the second episode of the season, “Lazy.”
“If they want to criticise my work, go ahead and do it, but obviously they can’t,” she said. “They just choose something like that.”
The next episode of “South Park” is scheduled to air on Comedy Central on September 17th.
Contribution: Brendan Morrow
Brieanna Frank is the first amendment reporter for USA Today. Contact her at bjfrank@usatoday.com.
Reports on the First Amendment issue for USA Today are funded through collaborations between the Freedom Forum and Journalism’s fundraising partners. Funders do not provide editor input.
