I commend judges who put aside their own biases under these sorts of circumstances. See Weinberg v. Dirty World, LLC, No. CV 16-9179-GW (PJWx), 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 221759, 2017 WL 5665023, *9 (C.D. Cal. July 27, 2017) (“here the crux of the Post (and the essence of the Website as a whole) was to provide social commentary (albeit unsavory and uncouth) and criticism about many different women, including Plaintiff’s wife. This is the exact type of critique that was falls within the scope of the fair use doctrine”) (Wu, J.); see also Northland Family Planning Clinic, Inc. v. Ctr. for Bio-Ethical Reform, 868 F. Supp. 2d 962 (C.D. Cal. 2012). Let us not forget Campbell (2 Live Crew version “reasonably could be perceived as commenting on the original or criticizing it, to some degree” because “2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true, with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility.”)

The intersection of fair use and political/social views is an interesting topic to be sure (particularly vis-a-vis judicial decision-making). A few other cases that come to mind here: Peterman v. Republican Nat’l Comm., 369 F. Supp. 3d 1053 (D. Mont. 2019); Savage v. Council on American-Islamic Relations, Inc., 2008 WL 2951281 (N.D. Cal. 2008); Furie v. Infowars, LLC, 401 F.Supp.3d 952 (C.D. Cal. 2019); Henley v. DeVore, 733 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (C.D. Cal. 2010); Browne v. McCain, 611 F.Supp.2d 1073 (C.D. Cal. 2009).