It's very funny. And I respect the court for allowing it to be filed (as I understand it, amicus briefs need permission to be filed).
"...The Onion intends to continue its socially valuable role bringing the disinfectant of sunlight into the halls of power... And it would vastly prefer that sunlight not to be measured out to its writers in 15- minute increments in an exercise yard..."
"...The petition for certiorari should be granted, the rights of the people vindicated, and various historical wrongs remedied. The Onion would welcome any one of the three, particularly the first..."
Just to clarify though, the case isn't exactly about the right to parody, it's whether an officer of the government should receive qualified immunity if he/she tries to arrest someone who is clearly parodying the government's speech or website. And although the case itself is laughably "small town offended police chief overexercising his power", it's a clear test case.
The intro really sets a great tone right from the start:
> The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered cover- age of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily read- ership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human his- tory.
Who knew Supreme Court briefs were so funny? Definitely don’t read this while eating. I almost choked to death from trying to eat while laughing so hard.
It’s totally backwards to suggest that all information should be assumed to be true, and that false statements this need disclaimers, and parodies need to be so obvious as to cease to be a parody. The public should confront all claims - no matter the source - with ample skepticism and indeed an assumption that the information is likely false unless proved otherwise.
Liability for slander, libel, etc. should only arise if the speaker has gone out of their way to state that their views / claims are true and should be relied upon, or if there’s another special reason why consumers should believe the speaker (eg it’s their doctor, lawyer, etc).
Should is rarely as important in these cases as what actually happens.
There was a recent case before the Supreme Court where a guy who was legally innocent was still in prison. As in the government’s position was yes he is in prison for something that isn’t illegal, but he had already used up his appeals.
One of the Justices started asking if the government was concerned about the number of appeals should this be allowed. The court cares about such things because they are effectively above the rules and could do a great deal of damage.
Isn't it a bit more subtle than that? The guy was convicted of multiple offenses related to firearms possession while a felon, under laws and interpretation that were not in dispute at the time. He is not "innocent" of possessing firearms, not that it matters, but let's make that clear. The part in dispute (I believe) is that one of the counts was duplicative, and then, that SCOTUS subsequently ruled that you have to "knowingly" possess the firearm. (which might set him free)
His current appeal is that under the laws at the time of his conviction, he exhausted the opportunities for appeal (back then), but then the interpretation changed after that time. So ordinarily now, he would have had the opportunity to make a claim for being not guilty under the new standard.
I liken it to (if we had to make a tech analogy), changing the version of something while a system was still in operation with a long process pipeline, and some users were stranded in limbo between 2 versions of a policy.
Reading the cert brief, I can understand why SCOTUS might want to make clear what to do in cases like this. But I imagine that the ruling might be short and clear, befitting a "correction" to a legal process that let something slip through the cracks.
If it is/does resolve it, the defendant still may be in prison, not "innocent" because this just resolves the one duplication of charges or knowing possession standard. It's not like "an innocent man is in prison for something he didn't do". Again, not that that matters to the principle.
It’s important to understand what is and isn’t being considered here.
He is considered legally innocent, that doesn’t mean he is actually innocent only that the courts are treating him as if he where innocent of this crime.
It’s the same situation as someone getting convicted of breaking a law that came into effect after they had done it. They bring a Habeas corpus appeal that says based on the facts accepted at trial and the date of the law went into effect I committed no crime rather than saying I didn’t do it.
> As in the government’s position was yes he is in prison for something that isn’t illegal, but he had already used up his appeals.
This is the position of the Eighth Circuit and seems to be the likely eventual position of the conservative Supreme Court justices, but the government's position is actually a bit more nuanced: yes his existing conviction would no longer be upheld under more recent statutory interpretation, and he should be granted an extra appeal if he could actually demonstrate his innocence under the new interpretation, but what he did would probably still be considered illegal when all available facts on the record are considered and so he wouldn't satisfy what the government considers a reasonable threshold for an extra special appeal.
Are you concerned that every federal prisoner who wants to bring a successive motion is going to claim that this falls within the traditional scope of habeas, and this would be an escape clause that would be invoked again and again and again, and all the district judges are going to have to analyze the traditional scope of habeas to see whether the claim actually falls within that?
Feigin responded that he was not concerned with overburdening the federal courts because, in his view, it is rare that a case would fall within the narrow parameters suggested by his position in Jones’ case. Feigin told Alito that Jones’ case constitutes “probably a category of one” in which “somebody is in prison for something that Congress never made a crime.” https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/justice-alito-concerne...
> Liability for slander, libel, etc. should only arise if the speaker has gone out of their way to state that their views / claims are true and should be relied upon
Regarding slander and libel: The appellant wasn't charged with any sort of defamation. Criminal defamation has been quite thoroughly ruled unconstitutional.
In the civil context, defamation in general requires one to have knowingly made a false statement with reckless disregard of the truth. You also have to prove that it damaged you in some material way. (Intentional infliction of emotional distress is very, very difficult to prove.)
The bar is even higher if it's against a public figure or a so-called "limited-purpose public figure" adding the requirement of actual malice.
So I'd say the requirements for civil defamation are already quite strict.
> The public should confront all claims - no matter the source - with ample skepticism and indeed an assumption that the information is likely false unless proved otherwise.
I'm 100% for parodies, but this is a nearly impossible burden for the public.
For example, if you don't have medical training, how would you go about proving a medical fact? You could spend years educating yourself and doing experiments, or like most people you could find a source that someone else recommends (a friend, Google, etc.) and choose to trust it. We don't prove the fact ourselves, we just assume that someone else before us proved it, but we can't verify their proof as we often don't have the knowledge, time or tools to do so.
The inflection point sometime in the past two years when the Bee became funnier than the Onion was a pretty sad one for us long-time fans of the latter. The McSweeneysization of formerly good humor sites is one of the great tragedies of our ongoing culture war.
It’s interesting how this happened, too. First, there’s that the Babylon Bee is independent and The Onion has been just one of several brands under Gizmodo, then Univision, then a PE firm. Independence is an asset when trying to be funny since executive notes have never been known for being creatively freeing.
Second, the Bee has a big pool of writers because it has a membership tier that allows pitching headlines. And their membership has grown as they’ve become a news story for things like their suspended Twitter account. So while The Onion’s parent corp was laying off staff, the Babylon Bee was growing its writers and also making more money, which let it hire more editors and producers and hire some of the headline-writing members who had proven themselves. All that led up to being able to produce a high volume of headlines and stories.
What you describe sounds like the old Cracked model, which worked for a surprisingly long time.
The Onion was funny for a long time after they sold out; what seems to have tanked their comedy is an editorial decision in the last few years to become more politically engaged, and to start "punching up". You can date this to the time when they ditched the absurdist persona of Biden as a washed-up drifter they'd been building up all through the Obama years.
I can reccomend the LA Hard Times! Absolutely terrific stuff. Onion is a little sad, just more boring than anything and their website layout is somehow still bad at showing new articles. Was incredible at their peak tho.
If that’s what you find “most amusing”, then of course you’ll like a site like that; it’s mostly neofascist regurgitations served on a plate they call satire.
Edit - allow me to substantiate: a quick visit to their site has everything from anti-worker sentiment, anti-LGBT+, election conspiracies, COVID denialism, and an obvious support of right-wing talking points. Did they used to be more even keel? Sure, but they’ve changed their tone for the worse in the last few years.
that’s okay, I’ll continue trying to make it an uncomfortable place for them.
I’ve already had the pleasure of off-boarding a neo-nazi from an old job, and spent a year in a country fighting both kinetically and ideologically against the dominant religious authoritarians. This is just a Saturday.
I'm glad you're able to. back when the supreme court was stripping rights and the hn opinion was "well it's not tecccchnically in the constitution" I had to leave. This is my first time back in a few months and it's the same reactionary anti-woke panic as before. it just makes me too sad
keep up the good fight, it's a shame seeing the comment section in such a state. see you in another 4 months maybe
It may make more sense to assume that I've always been a fan of passionate debate; now, I just don't have to carry a firearm or worry about federal oversight for public comments.
Life's much better now, albeit a little less surprising ;)
I guess I can only wonder what's it like to never put your life on the line for a selfless cause and only argue online, though. Any insights there?
Calling people "right wing" just because they do not agree with a given narrative is one of the motors behind the polarisation of society. Just because someone acknowledges the veracity of the (small-s) science of biology and thus recognises the fact that sexually reproducing mammals like us come in two sexes [1] does not mean they are 'right wing´, they could be social democrats or communists and still realise this to be the case. Just because people see the race-baiting profiteers who make a living pushing 'critical race theory' for what they are does not make them 'right wing', there are plenty of liberals who recognise Robin diAngelo and Ibram Henry Rogers (who calls himself 'Ibram X Kendy' nowadays) for the frauds they are.
The word 'right wing' does not mean 'evil' or 'wrong' nor does 'left wing' mean 'good' or 'right'. These terms have meanings which are not at all related to 'wrong', 'right', 'good' or 'bad'. They are also rather imprecise indicators of a person's political leanings since many people do not fit neatly into a 'left' or ´right' shaped box.
[1] yes, yes, yes, except for the 0.18% who suffer from intersex conditions
gender is not the same as sex, and critical race theory is nothing more than how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity.
being intentionally ignorant of those differences and definitions isn't making a great point.
I did not mention anything about gender (not discussing linguistics) so why bring it up?
For more on critical race theory - and critical theory from which it derives - may I suggest a visit to New Discourses' explanation of the origins and essence of this movement?
> "Just because someone [...] recognises [sic] the fact that sexually reproducing mammals like us come in two sexes [...] does not mean they are 'right wing'."
Yeah super weird, why would I bring up the most-often conflated term in right-wing discourse regarding transgender rights when you repeat their views almost verbatim? SUPER weird.
I've read the New Discourses assessment, thanks for sharing. Unfortunately, it didn't really shed light on any new topic or idea, but finding the author to be a self-professed nationalist was of little surprise.
If I may suggest some reading, pick up a copy of The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. I wouldn't mind lending mine, either - I'll even cover shipping charges.
Please stop throwing labels and start talking substance.
On that book suggestion I have another pointer for you to read which poses a number of questions related to the use of the "Jim Crow" moniker for explaining problems with the American justice system. You can download the PDF, no postage needed:
Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow
look, the label is only used because it is logical and reasonable to assume someone using the rhetoric of one group is likely to hold their views. I notice you have not said your own opinion on transgender issues, only tried to deflect it as "labels and not substance"
and as for your article, that sort of discussion is important to have (both the book which I like and your article which is well written and academic and better than I was expecting ). Talking the issue is doing CRT
The banning crowd wants to make this sort of discussion illegal in schools
I have not mentioned my own views on "transgender" issues or "racial justice" issues or any other issues as these are of no concern to the issue here, that being the question whether any issue is ripe for satire no matter who does the satirising. I do not mention my views so as not to muddle the issue, not because they are secret. We're talking about satire, not about sex or religion or ideology.
My views on humour and satire are relevant so I'll give them: anything is ripe for satire and humour is in the eye and ear of the beholder. That does not mean everything makes for good satire and everything which is deemed humorous by some is good humour but it does mean the limits to humour and satire are to be set by the laws of the land, not by a self-styled thought police. The Onion is free to satirise anything they want and so is the Babylon Bee. You do not have to find their satire funny nor do you have to read or watch it, that is up to you. As long as they do not violate the law - which, at least in theory, is shaped through a democratically (or in the case of the USA a representational republic-ally - they are free to wander where they want.
Extraordinary; all this discussion just to get back to square zero. No one has advocated that the government step in and censor the Bee because what they’re doing is illegal.
People are being critical because the content they publish legitimizes lies and punches down on marginalized groups. If you enjoy that kind of content, you should feel free to go where those views are welcome; I am making it plain that it is not welcome here.
While you may not like what the Bee or the Onion or any other publication satirises that does not mean it is "not welcome here". Others find the same satire a welcome relief from a narrative which is being pushed hard, often with the threat of unemployment and social ostracisation as a threat for disobedience.
Just because you call it a narrative doesn’t mean it’s false; just because people are worried about being unemployed doesn’t mean we need to listen to the hypotheses of morons.
Neo-nazis should worry about losing their job. People that promote misinformation about public health should be pilloried. People who want to remove rights from women, transgender people, minorities, immigrants, etc. and treat them as anything less than human deserve social ostracization.
exactly what Boston said -
the conversation started with someone (you?) saying it's ironic Onion fans hate the bee.
It's not ironic, the bee is hated because it's in favor of Big Lie conspiracies, anti trans hate, and anti gay hate.
Nobody was saying they should be illegal.
You posting pro - Bee content makes me feel unwelcome here, since it's advocating for direct harm. Again, not illegal, no real world consequences, but I don't want to be on this site anymore.
I can only hope stronger people make you uncomfortable enough to move to truth social or mastodon or something and I will be able to return to a site I used to love.
What makes you feel "unwelcome" and what do you mean with "direct harm"? As far as I'm concerned this place is where anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity can be discussed. While there are plenty of occasions where I come across opinions which I do not agree with this does not "harm" me nor does it make me feel "unwelcome". Not even the direct calls you just made to make me uncomfortable enough to move to truth social or mastodon or something - a direct call to make me unwelcome in other words - makes me feel unwelcome since I know this is only the opinion of one person. Others may agree with you, others will not. As far as I'm concerned we are both welcome here as long as we keep within the rules of this site [1]. Agree to disagree and we'll hopefully live long and prosper?
[1] ...which we're surely close to violating given the inherently political nature of this subject
critical race theory is nothing more than how laws, social and political movements, and media shape, and are shaped by, social conceptions of race and ethnicity.
“The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” ~Ibram X. Kendi, explaining critical race theory
You are misrepresenting (Kendi’s approach to) antiracism with CRT. Antiracism (in general or any specific approach) is not the same thing as CRT. CRT is an analytical approach to description of what is. Antiracism is a mix of normative judgement of what ought ought to be and beliefs and descriptive theory about what actions will get from what is to that goal. CRT or other analysis of what is may inform antiracism, but they remain very different things.
They are inseparable. No reason to gaslight. Anybody who believes in treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT), supports racial discrimination by definition.
They are quite separable, both logically and in practice; Kendi’s approach to antiracism is not uncontroversial even among people who accept CRT as a correct approach to analyzing the status quo.
In fact, in regard to the particular quote you see as emblematic, CRT tends to see the problem of the status quo situation of marginalized racial groups not as being a past discrimination which needs correction by present discrimination, but currently-existing structures which prevent progress which need dismantled. While Kendi’s statement isn’t logically excluded by CRT, it is far from the most natural conclusion from it. Generously, CRTs observation of the scope and breadth of subtle systemic discrimination through superficially race-neutral policies might lend support to a
idea of compensatory overt discrimination as an easier stopgap while those systems are identified and dismantled, which is rather different from what Kendi articulates but similar in policy recommendation.
> treating people differently based on the color of their skin (which is a core tenet of CRT)
That’s not a tenet of CRT at all. CRT is an analytical approach to how racial inequality occurs and is preserved through law and institutional structure. While people interested in it naturally tend to have views on a desired end-state and also be interested into policy prescriptions as to how best to achieve that, those are beyond the scope of CRT.
You claim that, and yet ALL of the most celebrated CRT authors and "experts" all espouse the need to institute racially discriminatory policies in the interests of racial equity.
So if every single proponent of CRT espouses support for racial discrimination, it's fair to draw the conclusion that they are inseparable.
