White House Cease & Desists to The Onion 781
raj2569 writes "You might have thought that the White House had enough on its plate late last month, what with its search for a new Supreme Court nominee, the continuing war in Iraq and the C.I.A. leak investigation. But it found time to add another item to its agenda - stopping The Onion (soul sucking, life sapping, irritating, obnoxious, but still free registration), the satirical newspaper, from using the presidential seal." The only joke here is that our tax dollars are being spent on this.
Everyone else is clamping down on their IP rights (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously, with the recent frenzy over "intellectual property" restrictions, why shouldn't the government get into the restraining free speech business, like everyone else?
Big deal. (Score:0, Insightful)
Move on. This is a non-story.
I dunno (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is, though, that the seal is used to indicate official documents, etc. Using it on the Onion does make it look official, to the uninitiated. I'd suggest they should use a modified version, like whitehouse.org [whitehouse.org] does.
Re:Big deal. (Score:0, Insightful)
If satire doesn't cover this, then what next? Are all political cartoonists out of a job?
If you don't care about this, I can understand that. I can't make you stand up for your rights - or even accept your rights. But don't tell me what to fucking do.
The Slashdot logo? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Big deal. (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, they definitely aren't satirizing the seal itself. If they were, they'd probably be okay. But they're using the real seal.
White House Staff Reads The Onion (Score:4, Insightful)
On another note, isn't this protected under parody? If not, could they take the logo and add a triangle around it and then say it's protected under parody?
Free != non-commercial (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing I get when you go to the Onion's site is a full-screen ad. So, there is money being made. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's not commercial.
How about a disclaimer (Score:5, Insightful)
The Whitehouse thinks you're too stupid to realize this image is a satirical fake.
Endorsement? Oh please... (Score:2, Insightful)
This isn't satire, it's forgery (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously, this is not forgery with an intent to fool, but like posting unaltered dollar bill photographs on a website, it's at least uncool and asking for trouble.
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. Making fiction that includes references to a President either current or past is protected by the fact that the person is considered a "public figure", and has thus consented to having works made about them.
The problem with the Presidential Seal is that it's intended to carry the full power and weight of the office of the President and is NOT allowed to be used for anything that the President's office does not directly stand behind.
This "parody" thus places the President's office in a bit of a bind. It's not that they necessarily mind the parody, but they cannot have the seal used inappropriately, even if it seems harmless enough. Yet by requesting its removal, they look like the bad guys to the public.
The best solution I can think of is that the Onion should develop a "fake" seal that conveys the fact that it's fake in some way, shape, or form. In that way they would also parody the seal along with the President himself. This would be covered by fair use, and would not cause any confusion with the real seal.
Re:First amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The redesign sucks anyway, I don't know who bothers reading it anymore.
Here's the White House's example (Score:3, Insightful)
www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,53048,00.html [wired.com]
Re:Commercial purposes (Score:2, Insightful)
And not only NPR, but TFA.
Pretty cut and dried.
Hardly. It's political satire, exactly the sort of thing that freedom of speech is all about.
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:no (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, and the Bush Administration is saying they don't need The Onion's help to make them look foolish.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:3, Insightful)
I like how you bold "in any way" to imply no qualifications, when the phrase is immediately followed by the actual qualification "that suggests presidential support or endorsement". Was that intentional, or are you just happy to boldface whatever makes the government correct? I'm sure they'll make their case, no reason to make it for them.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, if the US Code states that the seal "is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement,"
I think it's safe to say that nobody would confuse the Onion as having presidential support or endorsement.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:4, Insightful)
I suspect that the seal itself is, for copyright purposes, in the public domain in that anybody can reproduce it. But, there are limitations on its use imposed by other laws.
Here's another example: O'Reilly uses a bunch of public domanin line drawings on the covers of their books. But, they would have a valid trademark infringement claim against anybody who used the same line-drawing of a camel on the front of a competing book about Perl. The drawing is still in the public domain, but cannot be used in certain ways because of trademark law. The government seals & logos enjoy similar protection.
Re:Wow... Just... wow (Score:2, Insightful)
Nothing new...move along (Score:4, Insightful)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:5, Insightful)
But the seal is routinely used on the cover of texts, novels and other punlications. In the case of the Onion, the seal wasn't used in in an ad, it has been used in parody articles, ones the present administration doesn't appreciate.
It shouldn't be an issue of taste or support. If the government wishes to enforce against the Onion, they need to enforce against all "unauthorized, commercial or illegal" use of the seal, supportive or not.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Pardon me but if anyone that thinks that the Onion is not a joke and the the use of Bush's picture (and seal) is anything but satire, then you need to get out more, and I have a nice east coast bridge to sell you.
That being said the syntax above includes the qualifying phrase, "in any way thatsuggests presidential support or endorsement" whis is key. The in any way in not unquailified. Political satire by its nature is not-endorsed nor suggesting of endorsment or support. On the contrary is exactly the opposite, an un sanctioned criticism. Political Satire is also protected speech. So the White House counsel clearly did not read the law he put in his letter, or he was just telling the Onion that they certainly did not have support or endorsement of the White House. So now the Onion knows that that they are really doing Political Satire that is biting a little. Good for them.
You obviously didn't read your quote or understand the English of it. I think that makes you a prime canditate for a Bush White House appointment to a top critical Cabinet level post.
It isn't treated different (Score:1, Insightful)
The changes will usually be very minor, like changing the direction the eagle is facing, swapping the arrows and olive branches, or something equivalently minor. There is no reason that the Onion could not do the same thing.
Re:Big deal. (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to listen.
You don't have to like it.
You do have to allow it.
Well, it's that or just use the U.S. Constitution for toilet paper since it's of no value if you can cherry pick why, when, and how you apply it.
Re:Wow... Just... wow (Score:3, Insightful)
The Onion is a parody. They're not seriously conveying the impression of sponsorship or approval. There was a similar law about buring the sacred flag but that was struck down as unconstitutional. I would guess the courts would say people have a right to make fun of the government and the seal.
I could be wrong.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:5, Insightful)
Your kidding of course. Showing the Presidential seal does not fall outside of the bounds of Satire, because clearly they are not implying Presidential support or endorcement. Therefore the use is acceptable. And if there is any White House that deserves Satire it is this one. But then again this White House now understands that their public ratings are so low that they can't afford any Satire that exposes the sad humor of the current administration. Go Onion, go free speech, go America, America, America.
What is the difference? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've never heard that before. Can you point to a link that explains the difference? It sounds interesting.
Re: Trademark Dilution (Score:3, Insightful)
The question should be: can for-pay encyclopedias use it at the top of articles, implying that the content of those articles is officially approved?
Answer: no, they can't.
I state no opinion of whether The Onion should be allowed to use the seal, but would rather not argue by (flawed) analogy in any case.
Re: Trademark Dilution (Score:3, Insightful)
An encyclopedia would likely be using it to refer to the owner, and not implying the trademark owner endorses them in any way. Therefore, there is no problem.
Re:Big deal. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hold on, I've got it. We need to outlaw comedy. Then the stupid people will be safe from being taken advantage of by the funny people in the world.
No! We need more that that. We must have a constitutional amendment banning anything that could be misinterpreted! We'll start a grass roots movement. We'll call it DUMBUP (Don't Use More Big Ugly Phrases). Our tag line can be ", but think about the morons." We will get universities outlawed so there won't be any more literature and rhetoric majors to say things that make our heads hurt!
Power to the Sheeple! Fight the brains! Dumb power!
modifying the seal (Score:5, Insightful)
hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:no way to stop it (Score:3, Insightful)
So I guess the phrase "a government of the people, by the people and for the people" means nothing to you? WTF is wrong with this country when the government is held to be a higher, "special", separate class from the governed? WTF happened to free speech?
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:4, Insightful)
The Onion, along with Comedy Central, are practically the only media outlets that have actually hurt the Bushists in the last five years. They are Cheney's #1 targets for vengeance.
Although he might want to hurry up. One of his little campaigns for payback is about to bear fruit as a series of indictments from a federal prosecutor. He's going to be a busy man, trying to take down the justice system.
Hurricane (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry, but I did not know that "the administration" was elected as governor of the state of Louisianna and the mayor of New Orleans. Oh wait, no... they weren't. It seems odd how they "mismanaged" this relief effort but did just fine and dandy during the most recent Wilma that hit Florida.
Sorry bub, but I happen to live in New Orleans. The governor and mayor did everything possible with the resources at their disposal, including the first ever truly successful contraflow evacuation of such a large American city. Afterward, with their resources scattered and the city under water, they begged the federal government for help. While the storm was still raging governor Blanco was on the phone with FEMA telling them what we would need -- helicopters, water, food, and tents, in more or less that order. Contrary to what you may have read in some quarters all of the paperwork was filled out properly and submitted ahead of time. The state of emergency was declared.
The Katrina disaster was much too large for the locals to handle it themselves; things like this are why we have a Federal government at all.
So what did the Feds do? Day 1: Nothing. Day 2: Nothing. Day 3: Nothing. Oh wait, not quite nothing. Blanco complained that they were very interested in "negotiating an organizational chart," e.g. figuring out who would be in charge. And by Tuesday they did get around to trying to strong-arm her into abdicating her position as our elected leader and federalizing the state resources that remained viable.
Oh, and they did manage to turn back anyone who "self-responded" like the convoy of rescuers with boats who assembled from the Lafayette area the day after the storm. They managed to turn back the trucks of water offered by Wal-Mart. Yeah, the Feds weren't entirely idle in those first few days; they managed to fucking TURN AWAY what little aid our local people managed to assemble when the government failed them. They managed to order doctors at the airport NOT to save lives because they hadn't been "federalized."
And what turned FEMA from the heroes of hurricane Charley to the rat fuckers who probably killed hundreds of my neighbors as they waited in their attics? After 9/11 they were wrapped into the department of Homeland Security and their focus shifted from disaster relief (first priority: save lives) to anti-terrorism police (first priority: establish control of the situation).
You can't blame that on Clinton or the Democrats. That reorganization was this Republican Administration's idea, passed by this Republican congress. And while the newly cop-oriented FEMA was polishing their guns and turning away help that didn't arrive with the right paperwork, my neighbors died. For that reason alone they all deserve to be tossed out of office and charged with malfeasance.
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:3, Insightful)
"...for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title..."
So where is this not the case? I don't see anyone excepting a single reporter in China a few years back taking The Onion seriously... And the commercial clauses would have to show that The Onion purposely used the seal to gain profit. Not a lawyer, but I think that'd be hard to prove in most cases of use of the presidential (etc.) seals. I think they'd have a better case against book publishers and movie makers who seem to use the seal often on political thrillers because the medium the seals are conveyed on are specifically on items that are not free access. You have to buy your ticket, book, whatever.
I get your point, but unless The Onion can't defend itself in court somehow I don't see this lawsuit going very far. Especially with the negative repercussions in an already poor public opinion atmosphere at the White House. It's not enough of a smoke-screen issue to distract the public from the current scandals there, so this is really a puzzling move. Carl Rove must be slipping. :D
Re:Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
I call BS - and the usual 'conservative' attempt to rewrite history. The two sides went at it and the budget was balanced. You so called conservatives will soon be saying Reagan balanced his budgets.
>As opposed to Bill Clinton's invasion of two "wrong" countries Haiti and Kosovo... a "quagmire" I think we're still stuck in. Not to mention his poor execution of the efforts in Somalia and his indifference to the people of Rwanda.
More US soldiers died last month than in above mentioned actions. Also, Clinton didn't personally profit from his military adventures, unlike the current administration.
Rwanda I (and Clinton) will grant you, but imagine the Republican stink if Clinton had called out the troops.
And when some righty lies about national security it's ok because
>Hrmmm maybe it wasn't FEMAs fault afterall.
Take responsability for nothing, ever. Shout traitor. Stuff your fingers in your ears and mumble: "Lewinski, Lewinski" over and over. Your entire movement is morally bankrupt and incompetent. Your guys even make Clinton look good, and that takes some doing. Fiscally, conservatism has been a fraud since Reagan.
Gulp... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that your post was modded as funny makes me wonder whether I should laugh or cry
Re:What's this all about (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Insightful)
I also find it amusing for a White House that has spent so much time, energy and political capital badmouthing lawyers that they have initiated so much frivilous lawyering themselves. If the Bush White House doesn't want to be made fun of, my personal suggestion is that they stop being such a laughable administration.. But, I won't hold my breath. Why do that when you can sue your critics into oblivion? If that doesn't work.. I hear outing spouses' classified status to the news media for retaliation can work wonders, too.
History correction (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's do some "history correction".
Sure, lets.
Now this administration may be able screw up the invasion of the wrong country...
As opposed to Bill Clinton's invasion of two "wrong" countries Haiti and Kosovo... a "quagmire" I think we're still stuck in. Not to mention his poor execution of the efforts in Somalia and his indifference to the people of Rwanda.
I am no fan of Clinton, but you can't seriously be comparing the scope of Haiti and Kosovo to Iraq.
leak the names of CIA agents...
At this point unfounded speculation at best. Besides, it's not a crime to "leak" the names of CIA agents unless the intent was to expose them. In this case, it was hardly the intent to expose an undercover CIA operative (which Mr. Wilson's wife was not), but simply to disclose how Mr. Wilson got the assignment. But speaking of breaking laws, who was it that lied to a Grand Jury abou a blow job? Oh yes, that was Bill Clinton.
First off, yes, it is a crime to leak the name of an undercover agent (or any other classified information) regardless of intent. And yes, despite the administrations carefully worded talking points she was undercover, and the information was classified as "secret" in the memo the CIA provided to the WH.
And the "intent to disclose how Mr. Wilson got the assignment" fib has been sunk by the time lines--unless you are claiming they began an organized campaign to clarify a statement three weeks (mid June) before the statement was made (early July) and are intending to split hairs about the distinction between why Wilson in particular was send (selected by the CIA, after being suggested by his wife) from the real question of why anyone was sent on this particular assignment (do obtain more information, as requested by Cheney).
As for the "unfounded speculation" aspect, you may want to catch up on the news. We now know that the administration has repeatedly lied about this issue, including the claim that Rove & Libby had "nothing to do with it" which was changed to "first heard about her from reporters" and then to "were acting alone, not as part of any organized campaign" and that they were doing it "in response to Willson's NYT opinion piece" but started weeks before the piece was even written and did so in an amazingly unified and coherent fashion. We were told that "Cheney knew nothing about it," even though today we learn that Libby's hand written, dated notes of a meeting with Cheney in the days before the campaign started include the salient details.
But I guess all this overshadows the fact that the 9/11 commission says Mr. Wilson lied about the Nigeria-Iraq connection, which is what the liberals want.
Stripping the political baggage from your statement (facts don't care who "wants" them), Wilson was disputed on a single point; he said he "saw" that the documents were forgeries, but had not in fact personally "seen" the original documents. Understandable as a miscommunication, and hardly discrediting, especially as (IIRC) he clarified the point as soon as he was called on it. He has been proven correct and Dick "We know they have WMD" Cheney has been proven incorrect on every substantive point.
--MarkusQ
P.S. For the record, I was up in arms about Clinton and the BJ too. Both for the perjury and (perhaps more importantly) for the effect on his family. Hillary can take care of herself, but imagine the effect that must have had on his daughter. Not to mention that the Democrats would have been up in arms, crying sexual harassment if a CEO or the president of a university had done something similar.
But just as I hold the Democrats responsible for their actions, I expect the leaders of my own party to behave themselves in a way that brings credit, not shame, on the party. And this cabal of nincompoops is doing more damage to the Republicans than any Democrat could dream of doing.
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:3, Insightful)
You are entirely correct, in large part because the government cannot hold copyright. Or a trademark. Or a patent. IP law does not come into play here.
it is a matter of CRIMINAL law
It's also a matter of the 1st Ammendment, particularly as it relates to political satire. The Supreme Court has been pretty clear on that issue -- not only is satire protected free speech, but political satire is given the widest berth. This could certainly be viewed as an attempt to suppress that free speech, and I doubt the high court would allow it.
And this is particularly true if The Onion can show that they are being singled out here. That shouldn't be hard. Unless the WH or AG office sent C&D letters to every other prominent media outlet that uses the Seal (or a likeness thereof -- note that it doesn't have to be identical) then The Onion can show that they are being targeted specifically. Did NBC (The West Wing, Saturday Night Live), ABC (Commander in Chief), Fox (24), and Comedy Central (The Daily Show) receive letters, or do they have pre-exisiting allowances to use the seal? What about the movie studios that have produced movies such as Air Force One, Independance Day, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, or any other movie that involves the President, the VP, or either house of Congress and shows the appropriate seal?
No, I think that if The Onion was to go to court on this that the eventual ruling would be clearly on their side.
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:2, Insightful)
We're screwed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:5, Insightful)
So, in fact, this story is entirely about free speech, as is perfectly obvious. And it's about the most important speech that's protected by our laws: criticizing the government. The government isn't just some corporation with a product, it's us, it's ours. Especially right now, while this government is run by people under indictment for suppressing info, attacking legitimate dissenters, publishing lies unchallenged by most media, violating conflict-of-interest restraints on commercial communications, secret deals to launder money for illegal advertising. We need more speech, more criticism of the government. And satire lets us do that without the truth drowning us in numbing cynicism. Hail to The Onion, America's Finest News Source.
Using is not abusing (Score:2, Insightful)
This cease and desist letter is just what most are... a scare tactic. The only difference here is that when the govenment trys to scare you is called a Civil Rights Violation and the person who sent it should be imprisioned.
Compare and Contrast (Score:1, Insightful)
Person 1: "I did not take that cookie!"
Person 2: "I did not push that button setting off that nuke!"
Obviously, they're both fucking lying scumbags and should be hanged for their crimes.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:2, Insightful)
School Buses (Score:3, Insightful)
If Katrina had spared us that probably would have been the next thing on the agenda. Of course there's a lot more to it than cranking up the buses and driving them toward Houston; you have to have destinations lined up, and because you have to also plan for the hurricane NOT to hit you also have to have a plan for getting the buses back. Of course it's easy to forget little details like that if you're back-seat driving and ragging on the locals to deflect attention from the high-level failures.
A pretty thorough roundup (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Endorsement? Oh please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hurricane (Score:3, Insightful)
Like drowning the school buses intended for the evacuation?
Let's go over the timeline.
3 days before the storm, Blanco declares a state of emergency.
A day later, she asks for a federal declaration of same, which she receives immediately along with federal funding and FEMA support to coordinate the relief effort.
At 9:30 am the day before the storm hits, the mayor orders an evacuation. The evacuation is called for with under 20 hours until the hurricane hits, which is less than 50% of the minimum amount of time that they'd been told NO would require to clear out its people.
An empty Amtrak train leaves New Orleans, with room for hundreds of potential evacuees. "We offered the city the opportunity to take evacuees out of harm's way...The city declined," said Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black. The train left New Orleans no passengers on board. The city denied that this ever happened.
Brownie orders relief workers sent to NO 5 hours after the hurricane hits, but diverts them to other states for training first.
Later that afternoon, at least 11 hours after the hurricane hits, Blanco asks for "everything you've got" from the federal government.
The day after the storm, the Army Corps of Engineers examine the failed levees and begin repairs. Blanco is asked about the potential for a "toxic soup" of floodwaters, and says, "It's water from the lake, water from the canals. It's just, you know, water."
Two days after the storm, the mayor calls off search and rescue operations in favor of cracking down on looters. During the last few days, the President is still on his regular schedule of talks and speeches before heading to Crawford. On day Katrina+2, he heads to DC to relief efforts. 25 S&R teams are deployed at this point, and buses from Houston are heading to N.O. to help evacuate survivors.
3 days after the storm, the Red Cross is denied permission to enter the city with relief supplies by Louisiana state officials. The National Guard troops begin to trickle in, and most do not arrive for several days. Buses arrive at the Superdome. The drowned buses in NO are discovered in aerial photography. Brown double-talks about the convention center, spreading FUD. Nagin blames the crisis on Blanco and Bush in a radio interview.
4 days after, the Red Cross reviews its request to enter the city. Louisiana Officials refuse, citing that they need a 24-hour notice to assemble an escort and prepare for their arrival. The Red Cross never does reach the city to help. Bush doubletalks about FEMA and "Brownie." The National Guard arrives en masse.
7 days after, the Army Corps of Engineers completes the first levee repair.
8 days after, Nagin orders law enforcement to remove everybody not involved in recovery efforts. Many residents still refuse to go.
Afterward, with their resources scattered and the city under water, they begged the federal government for help.
Seems to me they got it as quickly as it could be mobilized. The federal government isn't known for its blazing speed in reacting to problems, under any president.
While the storm was still raging governor Blanco was on the phone with FEMA telling them what we would need -- helicopters, water, food, and tents, in more or less that order. Contrary to what you may have read in some quarters all of the paperwork was filled out properly and submitted ahead of time. The state of emergency was declared.
It was declared three days before the hurricane struck in the state, and two days before at the federal level.
The Katrina disaster was much too large for the locals to handle it themselves; things like this are why we have a Federal government at all.
Yes, it is. Because state resources are exhausted within days. But they are expected to hold out for that long until federal help arrives. It's generally considered unwise to position your relief effor
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:4, Insightful)
Experience (Score:3, Insightful)
I may not be an expert in DP/DR planning, but I happen to live here and I have seen the process. I have watched things improve a little every time the city tries this. It is fucking annoying to watch a bunch of nerds sit in their mother's basements and pronounce how they would have handled the situation so much better and what a bunch of morons a bunch of people they never heard of before are.
We actually succeeded in getting more than a million people out of the city -- about 90% of the population -- in less than 48 hours. The people who are ragging on Nagin and Blanco for what they didn't do should actually be on their fucking knees thanking them for their efforts. This required coordination between more than 10 parishes and counties and two state governments.
I have been in these traffic jams. I have stayed at times because I weighed the traffic jam potential against the hurricane. I have watched them get better at it every time they try. What in the name of Bob makes you think they haven't been looking and learning?
For Katrina nearly every existing plan at the local level actually went smoothely, many for the first time ever. To complain that such-and-such other plan wasn't in place is stupid and rude. Maybe a few more cycles down the road there would have been bus evacuations. There was no infrastructure for that this time nor was there any sane reason for such infrastructure to have been introduced. It's very easy to show pictures of the flooded buses and yell "Nyahh nyaah" but there are damn good reasons those buses stayed where they were. A lot of this bullshit is propaganda that was deliberately constructed to deflect blame from FEMA, which did not content itself with merely not showing up in time to save hundreds of lives but actively thwarted the efforts of people and agencies that did show up. Do not talk to me about what Nagin and Blanco didn't do when FEMA was turning away rescuers and aid and ordering doctors not to work on dying people because their papers weren't in order.