As I see it, part of the problem comes from the attitude taken about enforcement when laws are written compared to actual enforcement a decade later. I've had it with statements like, "this is meant for corporations" or "on one would try to enforce this against a private citizen because there's no money in that" because those laws always end up turned against mom & pop operations. Patent and copyright trolls have put the lie to such claims.

IIRC Satire isn't legally protected, just Parody. There's a distinct difference. I think Hustler was a Parody ruling.

What you're failing to recognize is that the coffee shop owners are, for lack of a better term, profiting from the music being played in their establishment. In a more direct case I can speak to, I frequently purchase beer from the places where I've played open mics. They directly profit from hosting the event, and feel that they should be exempt from paying the compositing artist association dues...why?

Now, for street performers, they are providing a service akin to radio, insofar that they are publicising a song, not charging a cover, and further advancing the arts and society's respect for them (putting aside the quality of the performer). That's why my local city has ordinances actively supporting busking - provided no solicitation for compensation is put forward - because it makes life better. In turn, performers are allowed to have a tip jar or accept compensation as they are benefitting society and the arts through the "practice and performance of their craft" as the ordinance describes it.

Satire is a defense to defamation, which was what Falwell sued over, and Edward Norton, playing Larry Flint's attorney, did such a swell job of depicting in the movie, People vs. Larry Flint.

Ah! Nice to have that input. I'm with you in spirit, for sure. That stated, I think we are both on-track with some of the difficulties relating to Speech vs. Fair Use. Freedom of Speech seems to be the tenent by which Flint won against the Defamation charge. However, in Fair Use, where Parody has very clear protections, it seems Satire is not as supported as grounds for Fair Use. The Wikipedia citation regarding Campbell notes that Satire may be protected, but yet again, we run into erratic outcomes on the subject. Phew!!

From the American Bar Association:

The Satire/Parody Distinction in Copyright and Trademark Law— Can Satire Ever Be a Fair Use?

Supreme Court also ruled that Satire/Parody is Fair use protected due to their verdict in Campbell v. AcuffRose Music, Inc

https://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/intellect...

Someone should make a parody radio broadcast of the NFL:

"And, fatty at the 1 yard line taken down by bad-teeth"