General Discussion

The SCOTUS hasn't overruled first amendment precedents, especially its own preceding unanimous ruling in Hustler v Falwell.

When Flynt published a satirical parody ad in which Jerry Falwell tells of a drunken sexual encounter with his mother, Falwell sues Flynt for libel and emotional distress. Flynt countersues for copyright infringement, because Falwell copied his ad and used it to raise funds for his legal bills.
This case centered on a parody advertisement published in Hustler.
The Court ruled unanimously that public figures cannot recover damages for emotional distress from publications that contain false statements of fact unless those statements are made with "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth). The decision affirmed the importance of satire and parody as forms of free expression protected by the First Amendment,

And because
a) Matt Stone, creator of the felon's parody scenes, said live in person in front of millions of witnesses: "I'm terribly sorry" without a hint of laughter or smirk, "malice" won''t be provable against THEM in the creative process; and
b) Parker & Stone and producers went over the animated naked scenes for weeks before the episode aired, so no malice provable against their company, either.
If the felon sues, he won't even get certiorari from this SCOTUS.