All the rest of the surrounding context of the case will matter too: precisely the laws he was accused of violating, and how sane those laws are, &c. Maybe, regardless of how they feel about QI, the fact pattern here is just messy; they're not going to put a case that boils entirely down to the legality of Facebook parodies on their docket.
And in the second case (involving retaliatory arrest): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lozman_v._City_of_Riviera_Beac...
> At oral arguments, justices expressed both sympathy for Lozman and hesitance to issue a ruling that might hinder law enforcement. Their eventual ruling in Lozman's favor was very narrow, holding that the Mt. Healthy test was appropriate "on facts like these",[1] based on the alleged "official municipal policy"[2] of retaliation and the importance of the right to petition.
If the guy in the case at hand had spent $875 thousand in suing the Ohio police I wonder if they would have taken up the case. Or perhaps you're right and the court is just loath to pick up any case touching qualified immunity. If anything I'd guess that they just don't have much sympathy for satire against law enforcement (especially when it's not immediately obvious that it's satire).
I edited in a possibility into my comment as your were posting this reply.
Honestly why does anyone think this is not wrong?
In a private context, you could probably sue, but we're talking about public emergency services here. He's literally impersonating a Police department, a wing of the Justice system.
If it was a totally clear 100% parody so that nobody would be confused, fine, but I don't get that gist.
Finally, even if it was theoretically legal, it's not like people aren't arrested for things and then let go because they were innocent. So long as the Judiciary has sufficient cause, well, people get arrested.
If this guy was truly impersonating the police force and it was not clear it was a satire, I think there was 'injustice' that he probably ought to have been slapped on the wrists and told to take it down ASAP. If it was an absolutely clear South Park parody well then maybe it's a bit more complicated.
Probably because they think they're such superior detectors of satire that they will never themselves be hookwinked, and then Just-World-Fallacy away anyone who is.
While also, of course, bragging about all the places they got into by carrying a clipboard, and what an extreme injustice it is every time someone is falsely identified as an intruder.
https://fox8.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2022/10/AD65F49...
It said the department was hiring, asked minorities not to apply, and said that passing a hearing test and a short multiple choice vocabulary test guaranteed employment.
https://fox8.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/2016/03/3.png?w...
That seems pretty clearly parody to me.
Evidently a jury presented with the facts of the case disagrees with you since he was acquitted of all charges at trial.
Go ahead and find out yourself: make a 'parody' account of your local police office by using their logo, badge etc. and then some fun posts. Have people call 911 out of confusion. See what happens.
Even more concerning is that the protected speech was criticism of the police force itself. It begs the concerning question of whether someone can be arrested and held for 4 days for criticism of the police at all. Could the police arrest someone for a Facebook post or webpage telling people not to talk to police without a lawyer? What about accusations that the police department is corrupt?
Any charges are unlikely to stick, but spending 4 days in jail is life ruining for a lot of people. People who have jobs could be fired. Single parents may have their children sent to CPS if they can't find someone else to take care of them. People on parole could have that parole revoked.