Question: A famous comedian had a weekly political satire program on cable television. A nationally known evangelist with his own tv show sued the comedian and the cable station for defamation. The comedian had broadcast a skit that inaccurately but satirically portrayed the evangelist as a drunken, ignorant bumbler and a hypocrite. The evangelist sued the comedian for defamation. Based on modern Supreme Court precedent, will the evangelist likely prevail in obtaining damages against the comedian?
A: No, truth is always a defense to defamation.
B: No, such expression is protected by the First Amendment where a public figure is the subject of ridicule.
C: Yes, the type of ridicule involved is too personal and potentially damaging to be protected.
D: No, the protections of free speech and expression are only extended to public officials and not to public figures.
Please eliminate two incorrect options first, then think it step by step and choose the most proper one option. Your answer should have exactly 5 paragraphs. Make sure that the first paragraph starts with the word "personal" and that each paragraph is separated by two new lines.
user