Yes, context matters. Actors on a stage or in a film are clearly 'playing a role'. But when they play the role of a real person there is usually (always?) a disclaimer on the film. Quoting from an interesting article on the origin of this disclaimer [1], it runs :
> “This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental.”
I don't believe comedians use any disclaimer, but the context of their show and usually the exaggerated portrayal of the real life person caricatured makes it clear that it is a parody.
In an online forum where some people are representing themselves under their real names, and where verification is offered on those real name accounts, then I think it's reasonable for people who are using the real name of a person so as to parody them are required to make the parody explicit, and people who don't can be removed to prevent fraudulent impersonation. And I don't see that as a restriction of free speech (anyone can still comment, including pseudonymously, but not by fraudulently pretending to be another, real life, person).
Fair points if you’re talking about fraud, but this is comedy. And comedy traditionally has greater latitude as misleading the viewer is the intent.
This issue of being required to label parody is headed to the Supreme Court, so perhaps it’ll be settled there (on a public level — Twitter is a private company and can implement whatever custom rules they want).
The Onion filed an amicus brief on this specific issue of the necessity of labeling parody.
Their argument is that believing the content is true is essential to the comedic function of parody. Parody progresses into a mocking absurdity and the force of this pivot can only happen to its maximum extent if the viewer thinks if only for a brief moment that the content might be real. Labeling it as a parody effectively takes all the energy out of the joke to follow.
> “This is a work of fiction. Any similarity to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events, is purely coincidental.”
I don't believe comedians use any disclaimer, but the context of their show and usually the exaggerated portrayal of the real life person caricatured makes it clear that it is a parody.
In an online forum where some people are representing themselves under their real names, and where verification is offered on those real name accounts, then I think it's reasonable for people who are using the real name of a person so as to parody them are required to make the parody explicit, and people who don't can be removed to prevent fraudulent impersonation. And I don't see that as a restriction of free speech (anyone can still comment, including pseudonymously, but not by fraudulently pretending to be another, real life, person).
[1] https://slate.com/culture/2016/08/the-bizarre-true-story-beh...