Graphics Pro here. Those artifacts are standard issue when using .jpg compression. Either the image is legit, or the ‘Artist’ pasted in entirely different sign(s).
Bottom line is. The commentary is consistent with what is commonly heard and seen at these type of gatherings. As such, it’s a nonissue.
IMHO.
“Bottom line is. The commentary is consistent with what is commonly heard and seen at these type of gatherings. As such, it’s a nonissue.”
Truth is never a non issue. This does not look like a real pic. Not consistent writing. Not consistent pixelization. Not consistent anything. while I agree it is probably a truthful rendition of the sentiment, if it isn’t a true pic, why use it?
Zoom way in. So you can only see a couple of words. Compare the top, in black, sign, to the bottom, in red, sign. Totally different, artifact-wise. See all the pink smearing on the bottom portion, with no smearing on the top? The top “may” be legit, but the bottom is not. Now scroll down the sign’s handle. Notice that the girl behind the sign has a small portion of her hair in front of the handle. Scroll down further to the area of the handle right above the guy’s hand. I still say Photoshopped, although I wouldn’t doubt the sentiments expressed.
Fake, but accurate?