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?
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but I think you misspelled "corporations" there. :-)
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:4, Interesting)
Because the government is supposed to represent the people, and therefore not to hold any exclusive IP. As others have pointed out, though, this is not an IP issue. Using the seal is more akin to copying someone's signature than copying their trademark, and it's forbidden by other laws. That doesn't mean that the government's action in this case is right or a good use of taxpayer money, but it's necessary to understand which laws and principles are involved before we can make that determination.
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, no, that's not the case:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_713.html [findlaw.com]
Now, don't get me wrong; I don't get this law AT ALL. I think it's kinda goofy. Then again, there are goofy laws all over the world.
Anyway, satire doesn't overrule everything; if it did then people would use that as an excuse for dang near everything they do.
Some people do hide behind satire as a
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
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.
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:4, Insightful)
well... (Score:5, Funny)
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:I dunno (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I dunno (Score:5, Interesting)
Not everyone [snopes.com].
Gulp... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that your post was modded as funny makes me wonder whether I should laugh or cry
How about a disclaimer (Score:5, Insightful)
The Whitehouse thinks you're too stupid to realize this image is a satirical fake.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
This might be hard for most people to understand these days (since we don't use seals the way we used to), but let me use an analogy. Let's say that The Oninon put up a story which featured your company's CEO's signature. I'm sure that within a short span of minutes, they'd get some pretty irate calls from your executive management team. Same exact deal here. The President's signature is actually not terribly potent, as h
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
> signature. I'm sure that within a short span of minutes, they'd get some pretty
> irate calls from your executive management team.
That's a trademark issue - they *have* to defend it. No-one has to defend a presidential seal, especially on a satirical website, because you can tell from the URL that it's not really an official presidential website, and if you weren't sure you could read the content and tell straight away t
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
modifying the seal (Score:5, Insightful)
First amendment? (Score:3, Interesting)
Well they're hardly using it to promote a commercial venture, and if you can find someone who reads one of these Onion pieces and believes it suggests presidential support, could you point them in my direction, as i've got this bridge i'd like to sell them.
Wouldn't this be covered under the parody rulings made based on the First amendment?
Re:First amendment? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not necessarily. They can say the same things equally effectively without attaching the seal to them, so I don't see that it is necessary for them to have such protection.
Re:First amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
The redesign sucks anyway, I don't know who bothers reading it anymore.
Re:First amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
If that's true, they should drop the banner ads, and they should definitely stop intercepting hits to their home page to display interstitial commercials. Today the Onion is trying to get me to buy shoes, watch TV shows, eat fast food, report software pirates, wear jeans, buy belts, buy The Onion books, and go to the theater. I certainly hope they're getting paid for all that.
and if you can find someone who reads one of these Onion pieces and believes it suggests presidential support,
Okay, here you go:
http://www.weeklyradioaddress.com/ [weeklyradioaddress.com]
This is the page that made me think they may have a case. I too thought that this was just another attempt by the Whitehouse to bitchslap dissent, because I thought that they were just talking about the presidential seal graphics that might be in photos used in obvious parody articles about the President.
But look at this page. There's no info about the Onion (you'd have to have started from an Onion page [theonion.com] to find out the connection), all the links go to official whitehouse.gov pages, the style is that of the official whitehouse.gov page, the server uses local copies of their potentially copyrighted graphics, and they've got a nearly identical (it says "Resident of the United States" now) copy of the Presidential Seal in the upper left corner: large enough to recognize, but small enough that the modification (even assuming it's always been modified) isn't obvious.
Could someone listen to one of these addresses and not realize they were listening to a parody? I doubt it, but then again I knew they were an Onion parody before I ever went to the site, and I've only listened to one address so far. Since the Onion's humor is sometimes of the prescient "it's funny [theonion.com] cause it's true [theonion.com]" variety, I could definitely imagine there being addresses in there capable of fooling people.
could you point them in my direction, as i've got this bridge i'd like to sell them.
Well, I'm not buying, but there's no story so ridiculous you won't find someone to buy it. Even the Onion's regular articles have fooled the Bejing Evening News, MSNBC, and some fundamentalist Christian groups [wired.com] in the past.
No reg link (Score:4, Informative)
It is not a joke! (Score:5, Funny)
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Now this administration may be able screw up the invasion of the wrong country, leak the names of CIA agents, mismanage hurricane disaster relief efforts, funnel billions to Haliburton, put scientific research back decades, and turn the country into a joke in general, but they'll be *damned* if they're going to let some satire magazine use the Presidential seal in an article with a headline such as "Bush: Vacation ruined by 'Stupid Dead Soldier'".
Bravo!
Re:Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps they might have a special dislike for The Onion too. Their headline the day after the 2000 election:
"Bush - our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over!"
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
- In Kosovo and Haiti, the death toll has been much lower than Iraq. In addition, in Kosovo, Clinton used this thing called 'the international community', which can be beneficial when conducting 'police actions'.
- FEMA did so well in Florida because they were, well, f'n embarrassed by Louisana (one n, thanks). In the case of LA, when your state is so devastated that the local infrastructure collapses, you have a right to expect federal help. There are documented cases where FEMA told police officers in various parts of LA to *email* them requests for help, when police stations and power stations were completely flooded and useless. Good job Brownie!
- Blowing about a blow job, understandable. Blowing the cover of a CIA agent because you're pissed that they uncovered one of your major lies for going to war, understandable but kind of much worse than the blowjob thing.
FYI, Bush != Conservative. I never thought a tax and spend Democrat would be preferable to a borrow and borrow and borrow and spend and spend and spend Republican.Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Business Week, 5/19/97: "Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
Goldman Sachs, March 1998: "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
U.S. News & World Report, 6/17/96: "President Clinton's budget deficit program begun in 1993... [led] to lower interest rates, which begat greater investment growth (by double digits since 1993, the highest rate since the Kennedy administration), which begat three-plus years of solid economic growth averaging 2.6 percent annually, 50 percent higher than during the Bush presidency."
Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Audacity, Fall 1994: "The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that... and I think we're seeing some benefits."
While we're on the topic, the government shutdown was as much the fault of the Republican Majority in Congress and Clinton's. Alexis de Tocqueville once said that it is the nature of American Democracy to "view as virtuous an incomplete conquest." The willingness of BOTH the Republican Congress and the Democratic Whitehouse to ignore this sage wisdom was the cause of the shutdown. It takes two to tango.
While you're quite right that some of the actions taken by the Clinton administration militarily didn't turn out for the best, those actions were not unilateral invasions of a sovereign country with neither the backing nor support of the UN or NATO. Moreover, our involvement did not turn into the most costly and deadly American overseas deployment since Vietnam. As to Rwanda -- it was a tragic failure, and one for which I'll never forgive the Clinton Administration. It's good to see that Bush learned from that failure and is responding in the Sudan.... oh... wait....
Your depiction of the Plame case goes from evasive to outright lies, so we'll clear that up.
1 - You're right, no crime has technically been committed if no one was aware that Plame was undercover at the time since you can't expose someone who you don't know to be undercover.
2 - Plame WAS undercover at the time, according to ABC News [go.com].
3 - Even presidents are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Clinton was never convicted of perjury. That said, what he did smacks of dishonesty and was unquestionably wrong. Speaking of perjury -- it's interesting that the testimonies of Rove, Cheney, and Bush, and the various reporters being questioned are not only divergent, but don't even line up from session to session. You might see some GOP perjury indictments before this is all over.
Final Correction -- Your mischaracterization of Katrina is fairly misleading as well. A hurricane breaching New Orleans levees was on the FEMA list of nightmare scenarios. Bush's budget priorities transferred funds away from the Corps of Engineers levee projects, contributing to the collapse.
Also, don't forget that you can heap blame upon the state of Louisiana as much as you want - but the failure to Federalize the National Guard rests with one man alone. Bush had the authority to act and failed to. Did the state government screw up? Yes. But Bush -=LET=- them screw up. That matters.
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
The following is paraphrased from what I've heard on radio or TV, so any clarifications/contrary evidence is most welcome.
AFAIK, there is a rule of handling this type of information, which is part of the set of documents everyone with certain types of clearance signs. The rule is that no confirmation (negative or positive) of a CIA employee's status can be made, unless it is known that they are not undercover operatives. There is a specific form that has to be sent to the CIA for a status inquiry, and until a response is received, no discussion is allowed, period.
In other words, if you don't know the status, but discuss/confirm CIA affiliation, it is still a crime...
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: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.
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:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
It was FEMA who turned away Wal-Mart trucks with water and supplies.
It was FEMA who told Amtrak they didn't want evacuation help.
It was FEMA who did not use available Navy ships and sent away the Coast Guard with diesel fuel.
It was FEMA who turned away volunteers with boats and hovercraft.
The recent Florida situation doesn't count because FEMA is trying to overcompensate now. Also your conspiracy theorist will tell you to look at who is Governor of Florida...
The fact is both governments screwed up, but FEMA is looking worst in this because they are the ones who are suppose to have the resources to provide aid. I point you to about 1/2 the way down the story here [phxnews.com]. An example of government preventing aid, and why I think (as a libertarian) that FEMA is nothing more then a unnecessary entity that has only gotten in the way of volunteer efforts.
I can probably find a few local and state government screw ups too (there was a Doctor licensing issue involving the state govt. I think). There is plenty of blame to go around, the fact is FEMA does share a lot of blame and to ignore that fact is pure ignorance.
Commercial purposes (Score:5, Informative)
no way to stop it (Score:3, Interesting)
The Onion should be able to get around this by the smallest of photoshops to make the seal different. And if it's done in a parodic manner (like everything over there), then there's just nothing that can be done.
As someone else posted already, your tax dollars at work! (not that it matters, this'll be a drop in the bucket compared to everything else)
Re:no way to stop it (Score:5, Informative)
As for the mis-use of it congress put it rather high, 6 months jail time [cornell.edu].
Over all not that much of a big issue, someone complained, the customized form letter was sent out as required by federal law, and as you mention the onion will have to make some changes and will probably get a few funny articles out of it.
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: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:no way to stop it (Score:3, Interesting)
Trademark Dilution (Score:5, Interesting)
The great point, which the NYT dutifully points out, is that someone in Washington with access to powerful ears reads The Onion. Whether or not this individual has a sense of humour is another story entirely.
-theGreater.
Re: Trademark Dilution (Score:5, Interesting)
So, for-pay encyclopedias can't include it in an article?
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: Trademark Dilution (Score:5, Informative)
That use is expressly provided for via executive order.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u
Re:Trademark Dilution (Score:3, Informative)
From:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_713.html [findlaw.com]
Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of
the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the
President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal
of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House
of Representatives, or t
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?
Re:White House Staff Reads The Onion (Score:3, Informative)
But, if you want to think that way, the feds got there in three days for Katrina, and Clinton took five days to get anything going for Andrew. Maybe you're right. Clinton was definately to blame for that.
The Onion crosses political borders... (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless of the legal issue - as I am not a lawyer and cannot claim to speak to the limits of Satire and protected speech - many people who read the Onion are so called "Independents." Now, in this day and age, when the country is looking polarized, it can only further reinforce those who may only drift to the Democratic side into becoming much stronger Partisans.
With the 2006 midterms coming up, and considering that it's those with strong partisan feelings who vote in midterm elections, this is really a part of a larger trend that may drive people away from the Republican party.
...wait, I'm a Democrat. Keep suing Bush! Keep suing!
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.
Two points (Score:5, Informative)
and paste
2) The Onion may be free, but it *is* commericial - it has a lead in ad as well
as ads on its pages.
3) The government does this all the time.. they are just glacially slow in doing anything about it.
D'oh (Score:4, Funny)
He went on to state that the White House staffer that found it is actually a closet libertarian, doesn't really like Bush, and kept shaking his head when his supervisor insisted they "look more into this satan-worshipping-pinko-commie-hippie-website".
The Presidential Seal (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, cause that's what you want to do (Score:5, Funny)
Alert your friends: The Onion might actually start getting funny again.
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.
The Onion (Score:5, Funny)
Here's the White House's example (Score:3, Insightful)
www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,53048,00.html [wired.com]
The Law (Score:4, Informative)
The Secretary of State shall have the custody and charge of such seal. Except as provided by section 2902 (a) of title 5, the seal shall not be affixed to any instrument without the special warrant of the President therefor.
The Onion is obvioulsy a parady which is surely covered by the First Amendment. This is basically a sacred-symbol-protection law which didn't work for flag burning and probably won't for the seal. Be interesting to hear what the courts have to say.
Nothing new...move along (Score:4, Insightful)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
Next Weeks Broadcast... (Score:5, Funny)
Recently, mi staff have informed me about a grave misuse of a seal. Apparently, this website, The Onion, is misusing the Presidential Seal of the United States of Merica. Now, I have not seen this seal - and I hope it's doing well, with all those hurricanes in Florida and whatnot, but to misuse a seal? Now that's nnanimal cruelty.
Now, I have talked to all my friends at Hallyburton about this, and we agree. Seals should be clubbed as babies to be used as coats. If the Seals are not going to be used as coats, they should be allowed to live out their natural lives at Seaworld and the like. You know, preforming tricks for the kids. Ya gotta member the children, they're our most precious resource. But I digress.
This website, The Onion, is misusing the Presidential Seal and it's got to stop. Our staff has sent a letter to The Onion, and they just made fun of us. How terrble is that? Even worse, some people have suggested that the seal be changed at The Onion. That's not good. How would you like it if we changed you?
Anyways, seals are great creatures. Make good coats, preform tricks for kids. Kids important. Onion misusing seals. Onion's bad, make kids cry. Now go out there and tell those bad liberals at The Onion to stop misusing seals and making kids cry.
Good night, and God Bless you.
Yer President
Similar thing happened with nasa (Score:3, Interesting)
At the time, nasa.com was a porn site, so visitors got quite an eyeful. The real NASA invoked some government edict from the 1960s that stated the acronymn NASA was reserved for use by their agency, and were able to unseat them. Yet when I go to nasa.com today, I find some sort of private detective agency, I am not sure what happened in the meantime...
Update - breaking news flash (Score:5, Funny)
hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Thin Skinned (Score:3, Informative)
I can't wait..... (Score:4, Interesting)
Oh wait.
other official documents (Score:5, Interesting)
__________________________________________________ ___________
My "It would be funny but it happened to me too" story:
I was driving through South Dakota when I was pulled over for having a headlight out. This was about a year ago, and the police were still worked up about that little Sept 11 thingy.
A little background first: I have a bad habit of not throwing anything away, and happened to be playing/running a Live action vampire game when I lived in Houston. Certain Individuals and I created some items as "Props"
that looked pretty authentic, especially to the untrained eye. If the individual in question wants to tell ya what we made he can do it. The only hint I'll give is that they definitly looked official.
So, anyways, I got pulled over by this SD state trooper, K-9 no less. My hair was about 2 feet long, shaved on the sides and back, pulled into a pony-tail. I was wearing my "Fuck 'em if they can't take a joke -- God"
shirt. Ratty assed blue jeans, with a pile of trash in my backseat. He takes one look at me and says, "Sir, I am going to need you to step out of the vehicle."
Well, like I said, I used to live in Houston. So, I unbuckeled my seatbelt and put my windows up (Second nature when I get out of my car). In one fluid motion, I took my keys out of the ignition, locked the door and slammed it shut. As I did this he yelled at me to "leave the car running and the doors unlocked." After slamming the door shut, he told me to unlock it. Being the good subversive asshole I am, I said, "Nope."
Then he asked if I had any weapons on me, luckily I had already taken my pocket knife outta my pocket to open a bag of beef jerky and it had fallen on the passenger side floor. I said no, and he told me to empty my pockets.
Seems I had a weapon after all, fingernail clippers, in my pocket. Then he asked me to step into his SUV.
As soon as I got in, his dog went apeshit and he asked, "Do you have any contraband in your vehicle?" To which I replied, "What do you mean by contraband?" Chalk one up to being either stupid or an asshole who really had no plans to get home that evening. He explained, "Drugs, Weapons, other illegeal things." My smartassed reply, "Do you mean illegeal in the state of South Dakota, or just plain illegeal." Then he asked, "May I search your car?" I figured that I am already fucked right now, so I say, "Hell no."
We sat in silence for about 20 minutes, then he got out with the dog and had it sniff the car. He got back in and asked, "Where are you headed?" My reply of "Home" didn't seem to improve our relations much. Then he asked, "Where is your home?" To which I said, "South."
"Where were you comming from?"
"The east."
About 20 more minutes of silence. Then, "Can I search your vehicle?"
"Nope, Am I being detained?"
"Uh, no sir."
This went on for about 3 hours, eventually I was able to spot the in vehicle camera and noted that it was still recording. So he asked to search again.
Finally I capitulated! I said extremely clearly and loud, "Since I have now been detained against my will for 3 hours and I am very tired, I will, under duress, consent to an illeagle search of my car at this time." Then he asked me for my keys, and I told him they were on the trunk. He was a little pissed as he took the dog outta the SUV.
He tore the hell outta my vehicle, finding the item in question along with several wanted posters from a certain federal agency. Sadly these posters had my pic on them and Zeds pic too. *sigh* So this cop calls in the, according to him, "Forged items".
I explain to him back in the SUV that I did not attempt to impersonate anyone, nor did I identify myself as belonging to any organization. He said I was going to jail. I asked to sp
Re:Opympic Rings (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Opympic Rings (Score:3, Interesting)
Neither did this bank. [integrabank.com]
I'm sure there are more out there. But I'm not sure you are accurate on this. Check out the International Trademarks Association site for more information found here. [inta.org]
Re:What's this all about (Score:3, 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.
Re:Big deal. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Big deal. (Score:3, Funny)
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
Re:Wow... Just... wow (Score:5, Informative)
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 33 713
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, 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 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(c) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Senate, or the Secretary of the Senate on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Senate, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(d) Whoever, except as directed by the United States House of Representatives, or the Clerk of the House of Representatives on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(e) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Congress, or the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Congress, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(f) A violation of the provisions of this section may be enjoined at the suit of the Attorney General,
(1) in the case of the great seal of the United States and the seals of the President and Vice President, upon complaint by any authorized representative of any department or agency of the United States;
(2) in the case of the seal of the United States Senate, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate;
(3) in the case of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, upon complaint by the Clerk of the House of Representatives; and
(4) in the case of the seal of the United States Congress, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly.
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 hav
You kids... (Score:5, Informative)
Let me help you.
If you're writing satire, you can use this kind of stuff. And particularly political satire is given wide latitude. So if I were the Onion, I would relish a court fight here. It would give them even more notority, and they would win.
This proves to me that the White House is actually manned by monkeys. No the smart ones, either.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:4, Informative)
As a work of the federal government, isn't the seal in the public domain? Wikipedia certainly think so [wikipedia.org]. If that's the case, the government can't do much of anything to stop the Onion from doing whatever they want with it.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:4, Informative)
But that's not the rule. The rule is about commercial use that implies endorsement, as in selling "Presidential" Hair Care Products with the seal on them, or putting the seal on an ad for your product to lend your product credibility (ha, not that that would be implied with this administration). The Onion is obviously satire, and it should be obvious to any reader that the seal is not implying any endorsement of The Onion or what is written in it. Satire is protected by the first amendment, and they shouldn't have any difficulty making a case here, if they wish to do so.
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: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.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:5, Informative)
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," then that pretty much paves the way for the White House to decide where the seal can be used.
Looks like the Onion is out of luck. (And out of humor too, starting about a year and a half ago, IMHO.)
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:3, Funny)
The truth is ALWAYS leaking out - and now we know - The Onion was secretly supporting the president. All the anti-Bush remarks were designed as part of a psych-ops campaign to increase sympathy and support for the White House among core republicans, while making the anti-Bush crowd look juvenile. Its only now, when the campaign is no longer working, that they've decided to pull the plug.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't be so sure. [mit.edu]
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: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.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, no, they don't. The government gets to pick where they spend their law-enforcement resources and the executive branch makes the call. (Another example of this is the consistent case law declaring that the police have no obligation to protect any given individual from a crime or threat, no matter how grave or obvious in advance.)
A private individual or company has an obligation to take some action if his mark is being infringed to avoid it going public domain. But even there the requirement is not to pursue every infringer.
The closest argument to "must pursue all" is the requirement for equal protection. But even that only comes into play if there's a consistent pattern of only going after a suspect class of infringers, rather than making the pick in a way that doesn't discriminate, or discriminates only on some rational basis (such as biggest ones get the hit) with other things (like race) only present, if at all, as a side effect.
However, as a separate issue, satire is protected speech. If the seal was used in a clearly satirical way the Onion has legs to stand on. (I haven't seen the article in question yet, but given that it's the Onion it seems likely that's what they were doing.)
The problem with satire is that sometimes it looks too much like what it's satirizing and confuses people. I suspect that's what happened here - either because some functionary didn't get that it was satire, or thought others wouldn't.
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. Po
Re:Endorsement? Oh please... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Endorsement? Oh please... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:5, Informative)
Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, 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 or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. (Emphasis mine)
Seems like this wouldn't apply to The Onion as a satirical piece.
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:5, Informative)
Read on:
(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by
the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly
manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either
separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness
of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part
thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official
use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
And those regulations were specified by Richard Nixon (later amended by Gerald Ford):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u
Ex. Ord. No. 11649. Regulations Governing Seals of President and Vice President of United States
Ex. Ord. No. 11649, Feb. 16, 1972, 37 F.R. 3625, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 11916, May 28, 1976, 41 F.R. 22031, provided:
By virtue to the authority vested in me by section 713 (b) of title 18, United States Code, I hereby prescribe the following regulations governing the use of the Seals of the President and the Vice President of the United States:
Section 1. Except as otherwise provided by law, the knowing manufacture, reproduction, sale, or purchase for resale of the Seals or Coats of Arms of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or any likeness or substantial part thereof, shall be permitted only for the following uses:
(a) Use by the President or Vice President of the United States;
(b) Use in encyclopedias, dictionaries, books, journals, pamphlets, periodicals, or magazines incident to a description or history of seals, coats of arms, heraldry, or the Presidency or Vice Presidency;
(c) Use in libraries, museums, or educational facilities incident to descriptions or exhibits relating to seals, coats of arms, heraldry, or the Presidency or Vice Presidency;
(d) Use as an architectural embellishment in libraries, museums, or archives established to house the papers or effects of former Presidents or Vice Presidents;
(e) Use on a monument to a former President or Vice President;
(f) Use by way of photographic or electronic visual reproduction in pictures, moving pictures, or telecasts of bona fide news content;
(g) Such other uses for exceptional historical, educational, or newsworthy purposes as may be authorized in writing by the Counsel to the President.
Sec. 2. The manufacture, reproduction, sale, or purchase for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, of the Seals of the President or Vice President, or any likeness or substantial part thereof, except as provided in this Order or as otherwise provided by law, is prohibited.
Richard Nixon.
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:I thought this was all public domain (Score:3, Informative)
Given the LAW, the Onion is wrong on this one. Besides, it really wouldn't kill the Onion to make a parody seal instead of trying to co-opt the real seal.
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:3, Informative)
The Onion is not using the seal, "...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..." If the Onion went to court over this, there is a good chance they would win.
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:5, Informative)
I will repeat myself. The Onion is WRONG. If they want to pursue this, it could become a matter of imprisionment for the Onion editors and/or writers. They do NOT want to mess with this.
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.
Domestic ones too... (Score:3, Interesting)
Sadly, there are lot of people within the USA who think articles in the Onion are real.
I heard Carol Kolb, the Onion's head writer, comment on NPR that their office gets a LOT of snail mail from church groups in rural Texas. Not as a reaction to the Onion's offensiveness, mind you: The Texans sincerely believe the content.
Case in point, one of my favorite headlines: "Chinese Woman Has Septuplets: Has One Week to Choose". You get the idea, right? Some poor fictitious mom in China has to choose one child d