>The First Amendment protects artistic expression, even when it is crude, offensive, and uses shocking materials to convey a message. While a tribute may be viscerally unsettling, it should be analyzed as a form of transformative parody or social commentary.
>Allowing users to express themselves "in their own corner or domain" of the internet is harm reduction.
>These users will have a place to express themselves and not have to express these urges or desires in person or on 'main stream' platforms.


The correct analytical framework is the centuries-old tradition of defiling a public effigy. This is a recognized form of symbolic, often political, speech directed not at a private individual to cause fear, but at a public symbol to communicate a message to a public audience. The act of burning a politician in effigy is protected not because it is polite, but because its meaning is understood as symbolic condemnation, not a credible threat of arson or murder. Its purpose is to express an idea—be it contempt, opposition, or in this case, a form of grotesque commentary on the nature of celebrity worship.

>when will people actually stand up for the 1st amendment?