This seems like a pretty absurd ruling, what precedent could possibly indicate that the government can arrest you for making a parody page?
You're thinking about QI wrong; the question is not what precedent could indicate the government
can arrest you for that, but rather what precedent clearly indicates that the government
can't arrest you for that. The test is whether the right is "clearly established," meaning every reasonable officer in the same situation at that time would know it's a constitutional violation.
Basically, you need to go on Westlaw and find an opinion from the Supreme Court or your local circuit court of appeals that says this specific factual scenario has been heard before and held to be a constitutional violation. That's the only way you can satisfy the test, and it usually doesn't work. And since it's not "clearly established" that tasing a man soaked in gasoline and setting him on fire (
Ramirez v. Guadarrama, 5th Cir. 2021), or stealing a bunch of cash while executing a search warrant (
Jessop v. City of Fresno, 9th Cir. 2019), or shooting a kid b/c you were trying to shoot a dog (
Corbitt v. Vickers, 11th Cir. 2019) constitutes a violation of a "clearly established" right, running a parody Facebook page is also not gonna be "clearly established."
It is a nonsense doctrine that the Court made up on its own prerogative to cut down on § 1983 suits lest every municipality in America get bankrupted by police brutality suits. But the Pressley-Amash bill to fix it only got one Republican co-sponsor, so it's pretty much here to stay.
