Trump Would Have Slim Chance in Court Against Trevor Noah, Experts Say; The New York Times, February 2, 2026

Benjamin Mullin, The New York Times ; Trump Would Have Slim Chance in Court Against Trevor Noah, Experts Say

Legal experts said that jokes like the one told by Mr. Noah at the Grammys on Sunday were protected by the First Amendment.

"President Trump early on Monday added Trevor Noah to the long list of high-profile individuals and institutions in his legal cross hairs after the comedian made a joke while hosting the Grammys about Mr. Trump’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein.

But legal experts say that Mr. Trump’s threat to sue Mr. Noah, whom he called a “poor, pathetic, talentless, dope of an M.C.” on social media, has very little chance of succeeding in a courtroom.

“Trevor Noah is pretty clearly protected by the First Amendment,” said Jameel Jaffer, the executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “The fact that Noah was hosting the Grammys and not writing a news story in The Washington Post has constitutional significance,” he added.

Mr. Noah said on Sunday evening’s broadcast, which was aired on CBS, that Mr. Trump’s pursuit of Greenland made sense “because Epstein’s island is gone, he needs a new one to hang out with Bill Clinton.” Though Mr. Trump had been a friend of Mr. Epstein’s until the early 2000s, there is no evidence that he visited Mr. Epstein’s private island."

One more lesson from Charlottesville: Our comedians are more ethical than our president; Salon, August 19, 2017

Sophia A. McClennen, Salon; One more lesson from Charlottesville: Our comedians are more ethical than our president

"This week we have now seen another key feature of satire: It offers ethical responses to unethical actions.

The ethics of satire is often hard to see, especially because comedy can so often be crass and crude...

This is all to say that comedians are unlikely moral leaders. And yet in the Trump era, when literally every value in our nation seems to have been turned upside down, we are now seeing comedians play an increasingly larger role as champions of good versus evil.

This is why as Meyers ended his monologue he directly went after Trump for failing to uphold his moral obligations as president of our nation:

The leader of our country is called the president because he’s supposed to preside over society. His job is to lead, to cajole, to scold, to correct our path, to lift up what is good about us and to absolutely and unequivocally and immediately condemn what is evil in us. And if he does not do that, if he does not preside over our society, then he is not a president. You can stand for a nation or you can stand for a hateful movement. You can’t do both. And if you don’t make the right choice, I am confident that the American voter will.

Meyers wasn’t just scolding Trump for failing at his job; he was also showing his audience what real leadership looks like." 

Can You Copyright Your Dumb Joke? And How Can You Prove It's Yours?; NPR, May 17. 2017

Laurel Wamsley, NPR; 

Can You Copyright Your Dumb Joke? And How Can You Prove It's Yours?

"In 2008, law professors Dotan Oliar and Christopher Sprigman published a paper that explored the norms comics had established to protect their intellectual property: their jokes...

Can you really copyright a dumb joke?

"The question really focuses on originality, and there is no freestanding barrier to copyright extending to a joke on any topic ... so long as that joke meets the fairly minimal requirements for originality," says Perzanowski. "That means it has to demonstrate some low level of creativity and importantly that it not be copied from some other source."

"Copyright will give you protection for this specific arrangement of words," he says, but not for a whole subject matter.

When it comes to topical comedy, he says, the question is whether one can separate an idea (which can't be copyrighted) from its expression (which can).

Judge Sammartino agrees. "[T]here is little doubt that the jokes at issue merit copyright protection," she writes, citing the relevant case law, "noting originality requires only independent creation of a work that 'possess[es] some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be.'"

However, she adds, the jokes here "are similarly constrained by their subject matter and the conventions of the two-line, setup-and-delivery paradigm."

The result is that for O'Brien's jokes to infringe on Kaseberg's copyright, they must be "virtually identical," one step below verbatim."