https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf)
The brief begins with the claim that the Onion is "the single most powerful and influential organization in human history."
Background: this is an amicus ("friend of the court") brief; the Onion is not a party to the case, they just want to weigh in as an interested bystander. The case (Novak v. City of Parma) involves a man who was arrested after posting a parody page on Facebook making fun of the local police department. He was arrested and actually tried for interfering with the operations of the police; a jury found him innocent.
Nearly everyone agrees the City's actions were outrageous and vindictive and a travesty of justice. The chief legal issue is not whether the officer is in the right or the wrong, but the issue of qualified immunity--whether the police can be sued at all when acting in a discretionary capacity. For that reason, the Onion's brief is probably mostly beside the point. But it's still a great defense of satire.
The conservative Onion imitator Babylon Bee also filed a similar brief.
The police will likely get away with it.
Wasn't the right to satire already protected in the '80s thanks to Misters Falwell and Flynn?
Quote from: ER on October 31, 2022, 09:07:12 AM
Wasn't the right to satire already protected in the '80s thanks to Misters Falwell and Flynn?
That's why the Onion brief is off topic; the issue is qualified immunity, not satire. I.e., can the police act vindictively, if they technically have probable cause to make an arrest?
Quote from: ER on October 31, 2022, 09:07:12 AM
Wasn't the right to satire already protected in the '80s thanks to Misters Falwell and Flynn?
Wow, you have a good memory, I heard of that case too. But it was Jerry Fallwall and Larry Flynt. Woody Harrelson played him in a movie years back.
Quote from: Morpheus, the unwoke. on October 31, 2022, 04:38:20 PM
Quote from: ER on October 31, 2022, 09:07:12 AM
Wasn't the right to satire already protected in the '80s thanks to Misters Falwell and Flynn?
Wow, you have a good memory, I heard of that case too. But it was Jerry Fallwall and Larry Flynt. Woody Harrelson played him in a movie years back.
Autocorrect. I knew Larry's brother, so, yeah. But it's Falwell. One l.
Quote from: Rev. Powell on October 30, 2022, 09:06:17 AM
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242292/20221003125252896_35295545_1-22.10.03%20-%20Novak-Parma%20-%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf)
The brief begins with the claim that the Onion is "the single most powerful and influential organization in human history."
Background: this is an amicus ("friend of the court") brief; the Onion is not a party to the case, they just want to weigh in as an interested bystander. The case (Novak v. City of Parma) involves a man who was arrested after posting a parody page on Facebook making fun of the local police department. He was arrested and actually tried for interfering with the operations of the police; a jury found him innocent.
Nearly everyone agrees the City's actions were outrageous and vindictive and a travesty of justice. The chief legal issue is not whether the officer is in the right or the wrong, but the issue of qualified immunity--whether the police can be sued at all when acting in a discretionary capacity. For that reason, the Onion's brief is probably mostly beside the point. But it's still a great defense of satire.
The conservative Onion imitator Babylon Bee also filed a similar brief.
So long as it isn't any briefs that belong to me, they can submit all the briefs they want :wink: