 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
I am talking about the American magazine thriving on parody content. It has filed an amicus curiae brief (similar to intervener status for us Canadians) in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Andrew Novak who made a Facebook parody post about the Parma, Ohio, Police Department which post did not sit well with the police. His comments were along the line of the department promoting reform events for pedophiles and accepting successful candidates as honorary police officers, announcing new police hiring processes strongly encouraging minorities not to apply, and banning the feeding of homeless people in an attempt to have them leave due to starvation.
The police arrested Novak and charged him with interference with police operations. While this action may have been harsh, I suppose Novak did not expect the police to bestow upon him a citizen commendation award.
Novak was acquitted, and he sued the police for violation of his First Amendment rights. The court tossed out his claim, a major issue being whether people might reasonably believe what Novak said was real and not parody. There was no disclaimer anywhere in the post that the information was a parody.
The Onion is seeking intervention as they claim when parody is assailed we are talking big time civil rights issues. Its legal brief cites case law and other authority in defence of parody. The brief argues that First Amendment protections apply even to parodies which have no redeeming features whatsoever; i.e., good taste is not the issue.
The Onion argues that for parody to work it must plausibly mimic the original, ie., bear the tone of an Associated Press news story. By mimicking the real thing it critiques the real thing. Any disclaimer in fact comprises the parody.
Their brief notes that it should be obvious to the reasonable reader that the police were not advocating pardoning pedophiles, discriminating against minorities or starving the homeless.
The Onion also mentions Mark Twain who in discussing parody says, “The humorous story is told gravely; the teller does his best to conceal the fact that there is anything funny about it.”
The brief submits that you cannot prosecute someone for telling the joke with a straight face, noting the reasonable reader is “no dullard.” He or she can readily tell the difference between satire and reality.
Of interest are some of its parodies including one about North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un being the sexiest man alive. This story was actually taken seriously by some media outlets in China. Other outlets in Iran ran with an Onion piece bearing the title, “Gallup Poll: Rural Whites prefer Ahmadinejad to Obama.”
I guess those readers missed the parody part.
The brief had some input from The Onion’s head writer Mike Gillis. And not surprisingly in places it changes its straight face and gets a bit cheeky, calling the judges out for using foreign verbiage, referring to the federal judiciary as, “total Latin dorks.” I would expect this comment might get the judges reading the brief to raise an eyebrow. Certainly in Canada it would. I do not suggest any lawyers here try this approach here at home. It is a radical departure from “Your Honour.”
Actually this Latin comment is out of place and also erroneous. We all know our legal phrases and maxims are not all Latin. Many are French, such as “voir dire,” “demise” and “de son tort.”
A thought hit me. Given that The Onion is involved, I am wondering about the veracity of this story altogether. Is the whole news item actual or is it also a parody? Is there a real Anthony Novak out there? Did he make those Facebook posts? I never heard of Parma, Ohio. The only Parma I know of is the one in Northern Italy, which town is famous for its Parmesan cheese. Speaking of which this story is starting to smell. Maybe it’s all a big joke? If so, major media outlets including the CBC, CNN, the Washington Post and others have run with it.
And if it is a parody, I imagine these sources would be hesitant to say they fell for it believing it was true. They would certainly have egg on their faces. Then again when you have a broken egg, the best you can do is make an omelette. And an omelette does go great with some onion.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging is now available in paper and e-book versions where books are sold. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, The Lawyer’s Daily, LexisNexis Canada, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to The Lawyer’s Daily, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.