'The Babylon Bee' Joins 'The Onion' In Decrying Law That Makes Parody a Felony (reason.com) 198
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reason Magazine: The Babylon Bee this week joined The Onion in urging the Supreme Court to defend the First Amendment against an Ohio law that makes parody a felony. The case, which the Institute for Justice is asking the Court to take up, involves Parma resident Anthony Novak, who in 2016 was prosecuted for violating a state law against using a computer to "disrupt, interrupt, or impair the functions of any police, fire, educational, commercial, or governmental operations." Novak supposedly did that by creating a parody of the Parma Police Department's Facebook page. [...]
For obvious reasons, the right-leaning Bee, like the left-leaning Onion, is alarmed by the implication that people have no recourse against cops who arrest them for making fun of government agencies. "The Bee is serving a brutal life sentence in Twitter jail as we speak," says its amicus brief (PDF) in Novak v. City of Parma. "Its writers would very much like to avoid a consecutive sentence in a government-run facility." The premise of Novak's prosecution was that he had disrupted police operations by prompting calls about his parody to the department's nonemergency line. "Left in the hands of the Sixth Circuit and the Parma PD (and other like-minded law enforcement), the speech-stifling Ohio statute used to go after Mr. Novak empowers state officials to search, arrest, jail, and prosecute parodists without fear of ever being held accountable," the Bee says. "The upshot for The Bee is that, in Ohio at least, its writers could be jailed for many, if not most, of the articles The Bee publishes, provided that someone contacted law enforcement -- or another entity 'protected' by [Ohio's law] -- to tell them that the articles exist."
Consider the March 3 Bee story headlined "Donut Sales Surge as Police Departments Re-Funded." If someone "had called the Parma Police Department to let them know that The Bee had published the article," the brief suggests, the publication "could have been charged with a felony, its offices searched, and its writers arrested and jailed for days, all without consequence for the parties doing the charging, arresting, jailing, and searching." Likewise if an officer's "passive-aggressive brother-in-law had forwarded the article" to the cop's official email address, thereby "interrupt[ing]" his work. Given the broad wording of Ohio's law, which refers to "governmental operations" generally, Bee articles about federal agencies, such as its August 12 report on the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago, also could be treated as grounds for arrest. "Had a caller contacted the FBI field office in Cleveland or Cincinnati" to "express outrage over the suspicious timing of the FBI's raid on Melania Trump's Mar-a-Lago closet and Attorney General Garland's acquisition of a haute couture wardrobe," the Bee notes, that could be the basis for a felony charge in Ohio. On the First Amendment issues raised by this case, both The Onion and The Babylon Bee see eye to eye.
"The Onion may be staffed by socialist wackos, but in their brief defending parody to this Court, they hit it out of the park," the Bee says. "Parody has a unique capacity to speak truth to power and to cut its subjects down to size. Its continued protection under the First Amendment is crucial to preserving the right of citizens to effectively criticize the government."
For obvious reasons, the right-leaning Bee, like the left-leaning Onion, is alarmed by the implication that people have no recourse against cops who arrest them for making fun of government agencies. "The Bee is serving a brutal life sentence in Twitter jail as we speak," says its amicus brief (PDF) in Novak v. City of Parma. "Its writers would very much like to avoid a consecutive sentence in a government-run facility." The premise of Novak's prosecution was that he had disrupted police operations by prompting calls about his parody to the department's nonemergency line. "Left in the hands of the Sixth Circuit and the Parma PD (and other like-minded law enforcement), the speech-stifling Ohio statute used to go after Mr. Novak empowers state officials to search, arrest, jail, and prosecute parodists without fear of ever being held accountable," the Bee says. "The upshot for The Bee is that, in Ohio at least, its writers could be jailed for many, if not most, of the articles The Bee publishes, provided that someone contacted law enforcement -- or another entity 'protected' by [Ohio's law] -- to tell them that the articles exist."
Consider the March 3 Bee story headlined "Donut Sales Surge as Police Departments Re-Funded." If someone "had called the Parma Police Department to let them know that The Bee had published the article," the brief suggests, the publication "could have been charged with a felony, its offices searched, and its writers arrested and jailed for days, all without consequence for the parties doing the charging, arresting, jailing, and searching." Likewise if an officer's "passive-aggressive brother-in-law had forwarded the article" to the cop's official email address, thereby "interrupt[ing]" his work. Given the broad wording of Ohio's law, which refers to "governmental operations" generally, Bee articles about federal agencies, such as its August 12 report on the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago, also could be treated as grounds for arrest. "Had a caller contacted the FBI field office in Cleveland or Cincinnati" to "express outrage over the suspicious timing of the FBI's raid on Melania Trump's Mar-a-Lago closet and Attorney General Garland's acquisition of a haute couture wardrobe," the Bee notes, that could be the basis for a felony charge in Ohio. On the First Amendment issues raised by this case, both The Onion and The Babylon Bee see eye to eye.
"The Onion may be staffed by socialist wackos, but in their brief defending parody to this Court, they hit it out of the park," the Bee says. "Parody has a unique capacity to speak truth to power and to cut its subjects down to size. Its continued protection under the First Amendment is crucial to preserving the right of citizens to effectively criticize the government."
Cats and dogs living together! (Score:2, Insightful)
Lefties used to profess an almost absolutist belief in the freedom of expression. I suppose that dates back to the Marcuse days when they felt themselves to be the oppressed minority, making the belief a rather mercenary position, rather than a principled on.
More's the pity.
America certainly isn't perfect, and neither were our founders. But in their pursuit of petty personal gains, and amidst their individual and collective moral failings, they stumbled on something noble: freedom in the broadest sense as a
Re:Cats and dogs living together! (Score:5, Insightful)
When The Onion and The Babylon Bee agree on anything, it is time to take their opinions seriously. After all, you would not at the current time be able to find them in agreement even on whether the results of elections should be respected.
I was gobsmacked that the Sixth Circuit saw fit to support Ohio's law in this way, and I do believe the SCOTUS is likely to grant certiorari and reverse this horrible decision.
Re:Cats and dogs living together! (Score:5, Insightful)
Certainly, there are cases where that is true. However, that does not seem to be a valid criticism here. The government should not be able to send you to jail for the use of parody to get across your point. Individuals, of course, can choose to boycott media when they disapprove of its content. It is even acceptable for private entities to censor such content. However, criticism of government bodies whether in the form of parody or otherwise, is protected under the First Amendment for a reason. Any attempt to curtail it should require pretty persuasive justifications.
Re: (Score:2)
I Though it does not help tha
Re:Cats and dogs living together! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet, when Tucker Carlson (believed by millions of his viewers) was sued for defamation, his lawyers argued that a reasonable person would not take his words as factual [npr.org], and the court accepted this argument. Thus, apparently, racist and anti immigrant rants taken seriously by millions, and likely to have serious real world consequences is protected under the First Amendment. However a parody website of a police department, taken seriously by very few people, but resulting in a handful of calls to a non urgent phone line, is a crime worthy of the incarceration of its creators. Is that really how a democracy is supposed to work?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Thus, apparently, racist and anti immigrant rants"
I may disagree with your characterization, which is your opinion, I cannot deny you the right to express it.
On the other hand, Tucker, having uttered those rants, was sued for damages. His defense, I think, is more 'I was expressing my opinions. You mistake opinion for fact'. The remedy? You disagree? Listen to someone else.
Re: (Score:3)
That was not the defence's argument. They admitted that inflammatory and factually incorrect statements were used to spice up his show. Carlson was well aware that what he was saying was incendiary and non factual. His 'opinion' enters into it only inasmuch as it was his opinion that it would be good for his ratings. What he did was very similar to Alex Jones' attacking of the bereaved parents of Sandy Hook victims as crisis actors, purely a way to appeal to his audience by telling them what they want to he
Re:Cats and dogs living together! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parody is supposed to have side effects. When reality gets so dystopian that you can't tell it apart from parody, that SHOULD break things.
It's like gun ownership. When the death tolls rise despite a decrease in proliferation of ownership (the percentage of households with firearms has decreased even as the number of deaths from mass shootings has increased) you know you've got an underlying problem that's exacerbating the situation. And when the solution is "ban the guns" then you know they are not interested in fixing it. They created this problem with attacks on education — the majority of people perpetrating these shootings were either bullied or radicalized — but they don't want to fix that. They do want to make us less free, though.
When it looks like these things are causing problems, it's actually some other thing. But it's easier to decrease freedom than to solve the problems, and also much more profitable.
This is why Slashdot is going in the toilet (Score:2)
It's the beloved moderation system, which is shit all day. The whole idea that you can only moderate xor comment means that the people qualified to do either, who are the same people, can only do one or the other.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point. I'd mod you up, but my social credit score doesn't warrant my recieving any points.
Re: (Score:2)
"then you know they are not interested in fixing it."
I don't assume that. I rather believe they are incompetent at solving this (and similarly other) problems.
And that is worse.
Re: (Score:2)
still, it is important to keep in mind that things get messy when parody speech is coupled with actions.
No it doesn't. It's speech, whether parody or not, the government has no power to restrict it. Period.
Re: (Score:2)
Speech is supposed to have effect. And free speech may have effects that some find difficult, offensive, or even damaging. Unless it is maliciously harmful, intentionally so, punishing or restricting speech that merely offends others should be undertaken carefully and in a limited fashion.
And this law is not an example of that, to my thinking. This needs to be overturned.
They're one and the same. (Score:4)
Now, in an ideal sense, there would be no consequences whatsoever for voicing your opinion, but in the real world there are complicated situations where people's rights come into conflict; are you free to come into my house and speak your mind without me ejecting you? Of course not, that's silly. So there's a lot of law dealing with the balancing of rights. But generally speaking, the right for you to speak your mind without government consequence is absolute, because it has to be for free speech to mean anything. Now, when we live in a world where there are other powers that rival or in some niches exceed government power, where "deplatforming" by e.g. payment processors and ISPs and other backbone service providers is a thing? Yes, it's important to be free from consequence from more than just government power.
The only concession I'll grant here is that there is no freedom from people not liking what you said. People are free to react however they wish to your speech if they think what you're saying is wrong, and if they choose not to associate with you, well that's their choice. But I take real issue with the whole "it shouldn't mean freedom from consequence" argument. It absolutely should.
Re: Cats and dogs living together! (Score:2)
It is like this second generation racism thing. What happened to Martin Luther King Jrs dream? Judging by the color of oneÃ(TM)s skin is not it. I donÃ(TM)t understand people who accept this new found racism and new found aversion to freedoms. it is bizarre and obtuse.
You start out making sense, and then you say this. Wtf does this mean? Clearly you are referencing ideas foreign to most readers.
Re: (Score:2)
As soon as people think they have power, they want to censor. The reason is obvious: most of us don't want to listen to people we don't like. But most of us just change the channel or close the browser because we don't have more power than that.
Re:Cats and dogs living together! (Score:4, Informative)
Over the years American universities have slowly radicalized people against freedom of expression. There was a video about two years ago of a university student calling the cops over some conservative group giving a talk on the campus. The police ask him are they threatening you, he says they are threatening me with their ideals.
found it --
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
This kind of thing doesn't happen in a vacuum. The country is in for a rough ride for a decade or so.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, the guy who attacked Pelosi's husband committed no crime (he did plead not guilty after all) because he was only assaulting in... self defense. Got it. That explains so much! Thank you!
Re: (Score:3)
It's actually the opposite. Nowadays people feel more empowered to use their freedom of speech to criticise those in positions of power. The understanding of what a position of power has expanded too.
It's that empowerment that students wanted, years ago. Now they have it and some conservatives really don't like it, because they are subjected to criticism that previously they could have relied on most media outlets to avoid making.
Re: (Score:2)
The country is in for a rough ride for a decade or so.
If ONLY it were a decade.
["South Park" on how long the overly PC era will last] [youtube.com]
Re:Cats and dogs living together! (Score:4, Informative)
The real tragedy of your reply -- given your age, especially -- is not that you are equating an actual situation with a hypothetical, but that are equating a private organization that is a political party with a public unversity.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally oppose "freedom of expression" when that expression is hatred and violence. It is funny how that is being portrayed here as the problem.
I agree. People should only be free to express love and unity. I love Adolf, Joe and Heinrich! I hope to live long enough to see the world united under a global ISIS caliphate and or the nth Reich. Only positive expressions allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally oppose "freedom of expression" when that expression is hatred and violence. It is funny how that is being portrayed here as the problem.
The problem with your statement is the definition of "hatred", which is unfortunately subjective. For example Dave Chappelle has been labeled as transphobic and his jokes about the trans community as hatred, but he is quite clear that his jokes are critiquing the trans community because of how they vilified his trans friend. I've watched his specials and followed that story, and I would not define it as hatred. So should Dave be canceled because of his jokes poking fun and critiquing the trans community,
Re: (Score:2)
"The difference being, of course, that you simply imagined that."
That's the difference? You are suggesting that only the OP would imagine that outcome? LOL. That outcome would be certain, the only imagination requires is to consider the hypothetical.
Issues are rarely this simple. (Score:2)
Was this site only a parody, or did it go so far as to misrepresent itself as the actual police departments Facebook page? Making fun of it is one thing, whereas confusing people into believing it is actually THE police department page and is expressing official messages from the police department is quite another.
I read previously that this was the actual crux of the issue, however, I don't know all the facts myself and so I am not forming an opinion. I am just saying this might not be a simple case of r
Re:Issues are rarely this simple. (Score:5, Insightful)
He announced an "official stay inside and catch up with family day" to "reduce future crimes," during which anyone caught outside would be arrested.
If anyone believed that was serious, they should be the ones arrested.
Most people who called the police were "tattling" on Parma and knew his site was not real.
When he was arrested, he was jailed for four days. That is a ridiculous abuse of police power. A satirist is not a physical danger to the public.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's not trash it.
We still have a long way to go before we even live up to it. We have "only just" legally recognized homosexual marriage, and recreational use of non-addictive herbs remains illegal. The legality of civilian gun ownership is under constant threat, and the option to terminate an unwanted pregnancy just went out the window.
And then there is that pesky issue of government-sanctioned slavery in times of war. Any government that must resort to force to convince its people to stand up and fig
Re:Cats and dogs living together! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not "lefties". It is left-wing extremists. All extremists are against freedom of expression, because it can be used to show how massively they are wrong on other issues. Left, right, religious, political, etc. makes no difference, extremists are the enemy of any halfway decent person.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes.
But also, not all extremists are the same. Left-wing extremism is a nuisance, this kind of extremism ultimately works against progressive goals. For example, "reverse racism" is a term for a kind of racism directed backward at traditional sources of racism, it ultimately slows the rejection of racism. Left-wing extremism serves to hamper its own causes. Right-wing extremism, however, literally wants to murder people. While both are enemies of reasonable people, they are not the same.
Re: (Score:2)
"Lefties used to profess an almost absolutist belief in the freedom of expression."
Classic projection.
Re: (Score:2)
> Lefties used to profess an almost absolutist belief in the freedom of expression.
Thus proving the fallacy of absolutist anything.
Look, freedom of speech is a great idea theoretically. Then social media came along. Now, barstool Bob in deep east Texas has a megaphone to shout his 9th grade ideas to the world and bring other 9th grade level folks (with guns) to his cause.
So now, we have a situation where:
1) Suppression of free speech leads to political manipulation of naÃve people, possibly leading
Re: (Score:2)
It should also be said that this "political manipulation" is being done by enemies of the state including foreign governments. It is an incredibly serious, even existential, problem. There should be no question that a solution to the problem of social media creating unrestrained propaganda must be found.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The Paradox of Tolerance [wikipedia.org] explains why many on the left support censorship. The theory is that if you censor "bad" people who are intolerant, you increase tolerance. Oppression leads to freedom. I have had conversations with several otherwise intelligent people who believe that nonsense and use it to justify the ACLU's policy change.
That take on the paradox is dumb, though (Score:3, Interesting)
I know you're just reporting the take that I also see a lot of, but that take is a really dumb one that just name drops Popper on the assumption that nobody will bother to read it. Popper said that you have a right of self-defense against people who shut down speech with physical violence, "fists or pistols" in his words, instead of resorting to words.
It has often been turned on its head by people claiming a right to be the first to resort to physical violence on the basis of hurtful words or the belief th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You are misreading what Popper is saying.
"We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
He equates disagreeable "preaching" with murder and advocates using the criminal justice system to oppress his opponents.
He also advocated the initiation of violence against tho
Re:That take on the paradox is dumb, though (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but Popper is only referenced by the left to rationalize their intolerance and censorship.
What I can't figure out is why anyone would bother quoting randos like Popper when they can quote Jefferson instead. At least Jefferson knows how to coherently communicate ideas.
"If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."
"Error indeed has often prevailed by the assistance of power or force. Truth is the proper and
Re: (Score:2)
He advocates force, not violence.
"Force" is violence or the threat of violence.
Re:That take on the paradox is dumb, though (Score:4, Insightful)
It is useful to have a word for the just use of external compulsion (e.g. arresting a suspect, defending a country suffering aggression), and the unjust use of external compulsion (e.g. summary execution, the act of aggression against a foreign country). The first tries to maintain a just order, the second tries to subvert it.
There is a lot of philosophical literature that separates force (vis) from violence (violentia) on these grounds, where violence is understood as disordered force (especially in the Aristotlean school exemplified by Thomas Aquinas). Elsewhere in "The Open Society and its Enemies," Popper refers approvingly to certain Thomistic positions:
"I believe with some medieval and Renaissance Christian thinkers who taught the admissibility of tyrannicide that there may indeed, under a tyranny, be no other possibility, and that a violent revolution may be justified,"
so I sure he is at least aware of this distinction. However, you can see that he here uses violent where I would expect "armed," and he continues to do so. I hold that this is an oversight in Popper, and that his continual attempt to qualify what he means by violence and its use would have easily been solved but fully adopting the distinction above, and which he alludes to in the Wikipedia passage quoted concerning force.
I am in fact writing a book on this distinction from a contemporary perspective (and not limited to, or even concentrating on, Popper).
Re: (Score:2)
the just use of external compulsion (e.g. arresting a suspect
Can you guess what happens when you refuse to comply? The threat of violence turns into actual violence.
And "arresting a suspect" is often NOT a "just use" of force. Popper advocates arresting people for "preaching" ideas he doesn't like or refusing to listen to his "rational arguments." Do you believe that is "just"?
Re: (Score:3)
This is /. and not a treatise, so I did not bother to qualify the arrest to account for all possible situations. Of course many arrests are unjust, either materially or formally; but in the West we generally have justice systems in place to account for these, which are supported by a free press - the police are held accountable. Clearly not always, but what system is perfect? Abuse is the omnipresent sibling of use.
I hold that any compulsion necessary to carry out the obligation to justice remains "force."
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it's not censorship. It's not wanting to associate with people, not wanting to provide them with a free platform and free publicity.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that it's not censorship. It's not wanting to associate with people, not wanting to provide them with a free platform and free publicity.
You should read what Karl Popper wrote before commenting. If you believe he was not advocating censorship, then you profoundly misunderstand him.
He advocated arresting people for "preaching" ideas he disagreed with. That is exactly what censorship is.
He also advocated arresting people who refuse to listen to his "rational arguments." That is the exact opposite of what you claim: He wanted to compel his adversaries to provide him with a free platform.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that it's not censorship. It's not wanting to associate with people, not wanting to provide them with a free platform and free publicity.
People do indeed have freedom to censor others. Whether it is kicking someone out of their home, business or company town for communicating ideas they disapprove. People have the right to excluding or punish others in various ways because of their dissonant ideas.
It can even take the form of creating a massive online platform where any member of the public may communicate except for those the operator disfavors.
ALL of these things are examples of censorship. People have a right to censor others in some r
Onion Brief (Score:3)
Parodists ca
Re: (Score:2)
The point of all this is not that it is funny when deluded figures of authority mistake satire for the actual news—even though that can be extremely funny. Rather, it’s that the parody allows these figures to puncture their own sense of self-importance by falling for what any reasonable person would recognize as an absurd escalation of their own views.
Not exactly authority figures, but I do remember how surreal it was to see people marching in solidarity with Osama Bin Laden carrying posters with images of him with an evil version of Bert from Sesame Street. Obviously they just did a google image search for Osama Bin Laden and came up with a picture and did not realize it was coming from a parody site (I think it was bertisevil.com) that depicted Bert photoshopped with various dictators, criminals, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"While it's nice to see the Onion taking this stance, it's likely just a case of their ox being gored."
So?
Re: (Score:3)
Quoting the Unabomber, quite remarkable.
When any group gains power, they become conservative so as to retain their advantage. That is literally what being conservative is. For that reason, the idea of "leftism" becoming "dominant in society" is an open contradiction in the context of how this pathological criminal uses it. I'm glad you are openly willing to associate yourself with this position, though. It's always nice when people tell us who they are.
funniest brief ever filed (Score:5, Informative)
The Onion's amicus brief in the case may be the single funniest thing ever filed with the court.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/D... [supremecourt.gov]
A sample (Score:3)
This is the opening paragraph of the Onion's brief:
Tu stultus es. You are dumb. These three Latin
words have been The Onionâ(TM)s motto and guiding light since it was founded in 1988 as Americaâ(TM)s Finest News Source, leading its writers toward the paperâ(TM)s singular Purpose of pointing out that its readers are deeply gullible people.
The Onionâ(TM)s motto is central to this brief for two
important reasons. First, itâ(TM)s Latin. And The Onion
knows that the federal judiciary is sta
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The 6th circuit is overwhelmingly dominated by conservative-appointed Judges, with the plurality being Trump appointees.
Re: funniest brief ever filed (Score:2)
Hey Look (Score:3, Insightful)
The Simpsons called it. (Score:5, Funny)
"This kind of thing doesn't happen in America. Maybe Ohio, but not America. Must. Tell. President. McCain."
Re: (Score:2)
Was pretty worthless around 17-20, but after those seasons it started getting better again.
Re: (Score:2)
Legal Eagle on YT did a good job detailing (Score:3)
The Onion amicus brief. [youtube.com]
parody, satire and revolutionary standup (Score:4, Funny)
If parody is a felony, just claim that it's satire.
If satire is criminalized then outsource it to a foreign service.
I can see an America, in about ten years, when a plane load of standup comics claim reverse asylum and risk their lives and liberty by trying to make you laugh again.
Re: (Score:2)
Vive la résistance.
We live in weird times (Score:5, Interesting)
I posted in a mmorpg blog (massivelyop.com) what I thought was the relatively innocuous thought that people should be able to paint their spaceships whatever color or colors they want.
(The discussion was about the backlash when an online video game gave out rainbow ship skins, probably for pride month.)
Where I went wrong was then asserting that this right of freedom of expression (no matter who it offended) actually belonged to anyone whether they wanted to paint a rainbow or MAGA on their ships.
I was frankly mobbed by the (young) crowd of posters insisting that offending the sensibilities of homophobes was right and good, but that daring to offend THEIR sensibilities was inexcusable.
The very idea that people are entitled to their own views whether or not they run in parallel to modern sensibilities is apparently anathema and incomprehensible.
I'm getting too old for this world.
Re: (Score:3)
I was frankly mobbed by the (young) crowd of posters insisting that offending the sensibilities of homophobes was right and good, but that daring to offend THEIR sensibilities was inexcusable.
Good.
The MAGAts want to harm people, and that's what not just their rhetoric but also their very iconography is about. Make America Great Again is about turning back the clock to a time when it was better for white nationalists. It was worse for everyone else, and violently so, and their forebears (and in some cases themselves) were the ones perpetrating the violence — in many cases, against the people who are flying the rainbow flag now. What you're suggesting differs from suggesting that games shoul
Re: (Score:2)
and you are a FAGAt
If I were queer, everyone would know. It would be in my sig, and there would be landing lights on my ass. But then, I live in California, where that's reasonably safe due to the relative paucity of MAGAts and their ilk.
Re:We live in weird times (Score:5, Insightful)
"Freedom of expression" isn't a constitutional right. It's a term being used here pretty consistently to gaslight.
Fundamentally, the issue you are referring to has nothing to do with anyone's rights because private companies can do as they wish. Instead, it's a conversation of what might be right or wrong. There may be good or bad decisions but it's not a question of legality.
It should also be understood that rainbow decorations are affirmative expressions directed to traditionally victimized groups, MAGA ones are not. Because of that clear distinction, there is no reason to admire your position. According to you, if we're gonna support MLK then we must be fine with Hitler. The actual content matters.
Re: (Score:2)
The amount of censorship now is substantially less than it has been in the past. What you are seeing is a more vocal decrying of any attempt at quieting by private entities.
If you think things are getting worse you weren't paying much attention in any previous decade to the groups being censored (ie you weren't one of them).
What have we come to (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What have we come to when Onion articles are cited as though they were real news articles by one political party to trigger outrage? The humiliation these people suffer when they look in the mirror.
Institute for Justice (Score:3)
This foundation fights a lot of cases of this kind. Think of it as being like the ACLU, but for the entire Bill of Rights rather than just the First Amendment.
I donate heavily to it, and have included it in my will.
While it might seem really wonderful and all... (Score:2)
A decision in their favor may benefit people for a while, but be aware that a future Supreme Court can overturn it at any time.
IANAL, but (Score:2)
IANAL, but this
"an Ohio state law against using a computer to disrupt, interrupt, or impair the functions of any police, fire, educational, commercial, or governmental operations"
sounds to me totally different from
"an Ohio law that makes parody a felony"
The former sounds quite reasonable to me, unlike the latter. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Is it possible that both the Onion and the "babylon bee", whatever this is, are trying to beat a straw man? Attacking a hypothetical law (which is not even proven that it ex
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"...that would be considered a disruption"
By an unreasonable person. It's well down the slippery slope.
Local governments choose whether or not to respond to your complaint, they are not compelled to do so. Local police ignore complains ALL THE TIME. Furthermore, their very existence is justified by these complaints. A complaint you make would potentially bind them to do their job, not to interfere with it. To call that a "disruption" would require far more than it mere existence.
It should also be noted
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, you are not a lawyer. Those are respectively "A law on the books." and a "Law created by precedence.".
They're not the same law, nor do they have any direct relation, other than one being used to create case law.
Left-leaning Onion (Score:5, Insightful)
It is sad that it is just accepted that The Onion is "left-leaning". What does it say when mere observational humor appears so biased that it becomes easy to criticize the authors as partisan? The fact is that parody sites like The Onion are not left-leaning but that the right-wing is so vulnerable to parody. Worse yet, the public simply accepts this garbage.
Free speech is not absolute, and parody is not an absolute guarantor of free speech protection.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact is that parody sites like The Onion are not left-leaning but that the right-wing is so vulnerable to parody.
The Onion has been consistently left-leaning because the right has been consistently easier to mock, and more in need of mockery. They have always mocked both the left and the right, but they have always had more to mock the right for.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, we are in agreement except for terminology. The content generally favors left-leaning viewpoints; I say not because The Onion itself is left-leaning but because of modern politics (or perhaps because of the very nature of conservatism). I don't care that others say otherwise as long as the distinction is made. That the truth is left-leaning is a point that gets made often.
And this is true for basically all parody news for a long time. Interestingly, the right has tried a number of times to mimic pa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Extremist (so-called) 'right' is humorless (Score:3)
Can we get an Onion vs Bee softball game? (Score:2)
We need these two groups to broadcast an annual friendly softball game. That would be great to see.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That would be just about everyone here.
Re: (Score:2)
Because their website is a parody of a pro-right satire website. That's not how they started, but it turned out to be the most profitable so they went with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Aaaah now that's a brilliant pivot! Elon should talk to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why AC this?
Say it loud and say it proud -- Bill Maher's Realtime is funny as fuck and more on point than most other weekly comedy review shows these days.
Oh yea... worried about your karma I bet...
Grow a set my dude. It's just Slashdot -- Where the opinions flame wild and the points don't really matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Why are conservatives so lacking in humour? It's not as if political correctness and the far left don't offer plenty of material for satirists.
I'm old enough to remember when the left had all the good comics. Bruce, Sahl, and Reiner were the oft-censored satirists of a time when the right took itself far too seriously. Today the clown shoe is on the other foot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
I don't see him hiring lawyers and filing lawsuits in a sad and pathetic attempt to keep him from testifying under oath, unlike certain other cowa(R)ds who I don't need to name.
Why do you think one group is happy to give sworn testimony and the other is not?
Re: (Score:2)
I’ll let everyone guess who appointed the judge who allowed that case to go forward.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Remember that you can't post AC without being logged in to your account.
This asshole doesn't want to even associate his Slashdot username with this bullshit. It's pathetic.
Re:Censorship is all the rage these days (Score:5, Insightful)
Not being given a free platform for you to spread your bullshit isn't censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Not being given a free platform for you to spread your bullshit isn't censorship.
Being denied access to the town square because the people who own it disagree or disapprove of what you have to say is indeed censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Correct, and being downmodded on Slashdot or Reddit is also censorship, because the purpose of downmodding is to suppress a person's voice.
The only reason I bother posting anything at all here is that Slashdot moderation system is designed to support free speech.
There is no mod for "This comment is incompatible with my ideology" , "I disagree", "This person is flat out wrong", "This person is an asshole", "This person is an idiot"...etc.
The only available reasons to down mod someone is when they are intentionally taking actions to fuck with people rather than expressing thoughts and ideas. This takes the form of trolling, flamebait...etc.
Unfo
Re: The headline needs to be corrected (Score:5, Informative)
You are free to disagree (as do I) on the decision made by the courts, but by ruling the Ohio courts have created law.