12 Context matters, but even a “poorly executed” par- 11 ody is ordinarily susceptible to the intellectual grasp of the reasonable reader. Farah, 736 F.3d at 535, 539. Reasonable readers do not need to be told explicitly what they have no serious trouble figuring out for themselves. Id. at 537. And until the Sixth Circuit’s decision, that is what most courts have held. Some courts have expressly held that disclaimers aren’t required for parody to be protected. Campbell, for example, noted that “there is no reason to require parody to state the obvious (or even the reasonably perceived).” 510 U.S. at 582 n.17; see also, e.g., Cliffs Notes, Inc. v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Pub. Grp., Inc., 886 F.2d 490, 496 (2d Cir. 1989) (“There is no requirement that the cover of a parody carry a disclaimer that it is not produced by the subject of the parody, and we ought not to find such a require- ment. . . .”). Other courts have held that parody published without a disclaimer is nonetheless protected speech. For example, in NYSE v. Gahary, 196 F. Supp. 2d 401 (S.D.N.Y. 2002), the district court found it “entirely plausible” that “no one in their right mind” would be- lieve that the defendant—who posted obscene and vulgar messages online under the persona “Richard Grasso”—was the real-life Richard Grasso, the CEO of the New York Stock Exchange. Id. at 406–07. The court in New Times similarly rejected the notion that the 11 See Gulliver’s Travels and A Tale of a Tub from aforemen- tioned hack and rejected Onion freelancer, Jonathan Swift.