[The Onion has filed a brief in defense of parody in the Supreme
Court. "Americans can be put in jail for poking fun at the government?
This was a surprise to Americas Finest News Source and an
uncomfortable learning experience for its editorial team," the brief
opens.]
[[link removed]]

THE MAN WHO WROTE THE ONION’S SUPREME COURT BRIEF TAKES PARODY VERY
SERIOUSLY  
[[link removed]]


 

Rachel Treisman
October 4, 2022
NPR
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ The Onion has filed a brief in defense of parody in the Supreme
Court. "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. _

Mike Gillis, head writer for The Onion and author of a Supreme Court
brief on parody, Mike Gillis

 

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
[[link removed]] 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
[[link removed]]).

The Onion advises the Supreme Court's 'total Latin dorks' on parody
[[link removed]]

"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 Supreme Court will begin a new term with more contentious cases on
its docket
[[link removed]]

"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.

"To just get this many people thinking about parody, and the fact that
it adds a lot to their lives and that it's something worth defending,
was very, very satisfying for me," he says.

How the brief came to be

Gillis, who has been at _The Onion_ for about a decade, says the
opportunity to get involved in this case arose over the summer when a
mutual friend put Novak's legal team in touch with the publication.

He hadn't personally been closely following the case, but once _The
Onion_'s lawyers started looking into it and the editorial staff
started discussing it they realized it was right up their alley.

As Gillis explains, amicus briefs are often drafted by the lawyers
involved in the case, then given to the interested parties for
additional details. In this case, it was the reverse: He wrote most of
the arguments and jokes, then _The Onion_'s lawyers bulked it up with
legal precedent and historical context in what he called "an extremely
collaborative process."

"I think because the draft itself was trying to make an argument for
why parody is a really powerful form ... we thought it made more sense
for us to kind of make the brief itself an example of why this thing
is worth defending, and why parody is really interesting and grabs
people's attention," he adds.

Immediately after the first call with Novak's legal team, Gillis sat
down and wrote 1,500 words in one go — which he says was because of
how excited he was about the "fun, entertaining, attention-grabbing"
argument that he knew he could make.

His years of living and breathing satire and parody — from writing
for _The Onion_ to teaching classes at Second City and speaking with
college humor publications — also didn't hurt, since he was already
well-acquainted with the theory and importance of the form.

Gillis also consulted at times with _The Onion_'s legal team and
editor-in-chief since he found it a bit weird to be writing so
publicly about the process and value of his site's own work, which he
described as "kind of an example of why a disclaimer for parody is not
a good idea."

At Supreme Court, Mean Girls Meet 1st Amendment
[[link removed]]

One requirement of the brief is that Gillis must demonstrate
that _The Onion_ is an interested party (for starters, it was
invoked in one of the early court rulings on the subject). He says
there are two main reasons: Limitations on parody could hurt the
company's business model, and could have a chilling effect on it and
others.

There's a lot at stake, he says. There were several points Gillis
wanted to make in the brief, but he knew above all else that he wanted
it to be funny.

"It's like, everybody likes laughing," he says. "And sometimes I think
these legal officials maybe get a little bit into their own heads
about precedent and stuff, and lose track of just the function of why
comedy is great and specifically why parody is great."

Members of The Onion's editorial team attend a team meeting in their
Chicago office in 2020. Gillis says it employs about a dozen staff
writers, plus contributors.

What Gillis wants you to know

There are certain misconceptions Gillis wanted to clear up for the
Supreme Court — including why it's so important for parody to be
realistic and why labeling it as such upfront wouldn't only be
unnecessary, but unhelpful.

But he also sees the brief as an opportunity to defend the role of
parody at large. So, NPR asked, why does it matter?

The short answer is that it's an "extremely powerful rhetorical form
that can't really be mimicked by a serious, dry statement of
criticism." The longer answer goes back thousands of years, to the
etymological root of the word, and has to do with how even slightly
tweaking a form can open readers' eyes to how "this thing that had
this extremely elevated sense of itself is actually not infallible and
can be criticized easily."

Gillis points to some examples of that in _The Onion_'s archives: In
2012, the publication proclaimed North Korean leader Kim Jong-un "the
sexiest man alive," and China's state-run agency republished that as
fact [[link removed]], accompanied with
a slideshow. Closer to home, a GOP congressman believed (and warned
constituents about
[[link removed]])
a spoof story about Planned Parenthood opening up an $8 billion
"Abortionplex."

Satirists aren't actively trying to trick readers, Gillis says. But
when authoritarians fall for parody, "it really punctures their own
sense of self-importance because they're showing that they're not a
reasonable person."

These are particularly high-profile examples, because _The Onion_ is
such a prominent publication (in the brief it deadpans that it "has
grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in
human history," which employs 350,000 journalists and also "operates
the majority of the world's transoceanic shipping lanes ... and
proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily.").

But, as the brief points out, "the quality and taste of the parody is
irrelevant" to the degree of legal protection it deserves.

"First Amendment rights should cover everyone and not just people who
are able to afford large legal teams or who have an established track
record of being parodists," Gillis tells NPR. "I just think it's a
blanket law that everybody should be able to rally behind. And that is
kind of an obvious win for all people."

Satire May Be Uncomfortable, But Humor Makes Us Human
[[link removed]]

The more literacy ordinary people have about the workings of satire
and parody, the better off the conversation around it will be, he
says. People have gotten mad at satirists for thousands of years,
Gillis adds, but the current technological and political environment
means that spoofs can be interpreted and critiqued in a more personal
(and often partisan) way.

If there's one thing he wants people to know about parody, it's that
"there's nothing going wrong if, for a little bit, you're taken in by
a comedian," whether that's in the pages of a satirical news site or
in the audience of a stand-up show.

"Having a bit more space afforded to satirists to do what they have
been doing for thousands of years would be great," he says. "I think
the more people that can consider that it's OK that they're being
fooled briefly for parody to work, and to not take offense at that and
to realize that that's just part of the form, I think that would be
wonderful."

_Rachel Treisman (she/her) is a writer and editor for the Morning
Edition live blog, which she helped launch in early 2021._

_Treisman has worn many digital hats since arriving at NPR as a
National Desk intern in 2019. She's written hundreds of breaking news
and feature stories, which are often among NPR's most-read pieces of
the day._

* parody
[[link removed]]
* the Onion
[[link removed]]
* Supreme Court
[[link removed]]
* First Amendment
[[link removed]]
* freedom of the press
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]

Manage subscription
[[link removed]]

Visit xxxxxx.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]