[Ukv]

> In these circles, false quotes have been repeated as true again and again for years.

Even if people did go on to repeat it as if it were a real quote (can't find evidence of this, from a quick search), I don't feel the fact that not everybody got the satire should turn it into defamation, so long as a reasonable person would recognize it as satire and the intent is humor opposed to deception. Should the fact that The Onion/Clickhole articles and quotes have often been circulated by people believing them to be real result in sentences for their editors?

> A simple “satire” in the article would not have been enough, but it would have had the same effect.

Confused by what you mean here. To my understanding Bendels posted the meme on X/Twitter, not in an article. By "would not have been enough" do you mean that even if it were explicitly labelled as satire, it would've still been defamation?

[croes]

A journalist posted a altered photo not a meme.

The photo is based on a real photo of her holding a paper with „we remember“ written on it.

Sorry by article I meant the tweet. A journalist should mention if his posts are facts, an opinion or a satire especially when he knows his audience.

Those satires have lead to insults and death threats in the past and people like him know that.

As a journalist he has to be held to a higher standard when it comes to public posts. Newspapers already have a trust problem

[Ukv]

> A journalist posted a altered photo not a meme.

When there's a blank template of someone holding a sign, and people are adding on messages intended to be humorous/satirical (e.g: https://x.com/Wrdlbrmpfd_Wrdl/status/1618755937355063296) then spreading it on social media, that'd generally be called a meme.

> The photo is based on a real photo of her holding a paper with „we remember“ written on it.

I linked the original and edited version above, yeah.

To be pedantic, Bendels' edit appears to be based on a blank template used by other posts (e.g: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FnrNpDzXgAEsmtI.jpg) and not directly on the original photo itself.

> Those satires have lead to insults and death threats in the past and people like him know that.

People sending death threats or calling for violence should be prosecuted. But I do not think it's reasonable to criminialize satire like this on the basis that it might "lead to insults" from other people.

Or at the very least, if you do hold that view, you should see why others would consider it an impediment on free speech.

[ZeroTalent]

As mentioned above, journalists with a wide reach should be held to different standards, similar to doctors who are anti-vaxxers, facing massive consequences and an immediate cancellation of their licenses. They are endangering people's lives.

Context matters a lot. It's different if we talk crap at home with our friends vs. broadcasting a message to 10M people.