Array
The long-running First Amendment case of an Ohio man is suddenly getting a lot of attention, thanks to the satirical news site The Onion.
And that’s not because it’s been spoofed. It’s because the publication has gotten involved directly, submitting a brief to the Supreme Court in defense of parody itself.
The 23-page amicus brief was filed on Monday in support of Anthony Novak, who is asking the Supreme Court to take up his civil rights lawsuit against the police officers who arrested and prosecuted him for creating a parody Facebook page of their department (more on that here).
«Americans can be put in jail for poking fun at the government? This was a surprise to America’s Finest News Source and an uncomfortable learning experience for its editorial team,» the brief opens.
It goes on to defend the purpose and power of parody in society before explaining that successful satire comes from being realistic enough that it initially tricks readers into believing one thing, only to make them «laugh at their own gullibility when they realize that they’ve fallen victim to one of the oldest tricks in the history of rhetoric.»
None of this would work if it were preceded by a disclaimer, the brief argues, noting that most courts have historically shared this view — except for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals which, in this instance, sided with the police officers. The Onion’s brief urges the Supreme Court to take up the case and rule in Novak’s favor. It also wants «the rights of the people vindicated, and various historical wrongs remedied,» by the way.
«The Onion cannot stand idly by in the face of a ruling that threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purely incidentally, forms the basis of The Onion’s writers’ paychecks,» it reads.
The document quickly started making the rounds on social media and in straight news headlines, both for its unusual form of intervention — this is its first such legal filing — and trademark humorous approach to a serious topic.
In classic The Onion fashion, it is snarky — one subheading reads «It Should Be Obvious That Parodists Cannot Be Prosecuted For Telling A Joke With A Straight Face» — and self-referential — it says the story sounds like a headline right out of The Onion, «albeit one that’s considerably less amusing because its subjects are real.»
It also appeals directly to its audience, sprinkling in numerous Latin phrases (at one point, a whole paragraph full — see page 15) because it «knows that the federal judiciary is staffed entirely by total Latin dorks.»
Some of the brief’s more academically minded fans have said it should be taught in law schools, according to its author (who jokes this might be the first time his own father, a workers’ compensation attorney, has used an exclamation mark to praise any of his writing). But it also seems to have struck a chord beyond the legal world.
Mike Gillis, head writer for The Onion and author of the brief, told NPR in a phone interview that he hopes the filing won’t just help convince the Supreme Court to take on the case, but also show the public why parody matters so much.
