Supposing I wanted to publish a setting around the suggestion that Ross Perot's election in 1992 led to a nationalistic (near-fascistic) atmosphere throughout the 90s. How much danger am I in? How do I push the content safely into constitutionally protected "satire" territory? Would I better off using "Joss Repot" or some similar sellout?

Yes, I'm entirely serious above.

I mean, I'm not serious about the realworld outcome of a Pres. Perot, but that's also irrelevant. <g>

Not a lawyer, and all that. Oh, and I work for a company that competes with his, just to be completely candid.

But if you don't say anything that's not true about the man, I don't see how you can be sued. So, if it's a revelation of a timeline that's obviously ficitonal, then I don't see how you can be in trouble. OTOH, if you were to portray his character in that timeline as other than he could claim it to be, then he might have a case.

OTOOH, if you're creating an intentional parody, that's actually directly protected speech for a public figure (interestingly a "private" person might be able to sue you). It's interesting the rights that people lose when they become "public" people.

Mike

I think the real issue is steering clear of making him want to sue you. It doesn't really matter what the law says or what you should be able to say. All that really matters is that by spending such a small amount of money that he wouldn't even notice it, he could rain lawyers on you like flies on shit. Some people like that kind of risk, but if you were that, you wouldn't be asking.

Chris

I'd make a point of changing the name completely, although "Josh Repo" jumped immediately to mind. For that matter, so did "G. W. Shrub", but that's not nearly as funny, not being entirely fictional.

This is all more or less registering with my (delayed) common-sense, so I'll probably not bother with the Perot thing anyways; it's just not worth the effort.