upworthy
Democracy

The Onion filed a Supreme Court brief. It's both hilariously serious and seriously hilarious.

Who else could call the judiciary 'total Latin dorks' while making a legitimate point?

the onion supreme court

The Onion's Supreme Court brief uses parody to defend parody.

Political satire and parody have been around for at least 2,400 years, as ancient Greek playwright Aristophanes satirized the way Athenian leaders conducted the Peloponnesian War and parodied the dramatic styles of his contemporaries, Aeschylus and Euripides.

Satire and parody are used to poke fun and highlight issues, using mimicry and sarcasm to create comedic biting commentary. No modern outlet has been more prolific on this front than The Onion, and the popular satirical news site is defending parody as a vital free speech issue in a legal filing with the U.S. Supreme Court.

The filing is, as one might expect from The Onion, as brilliantly hilarious as it is serious, using the same satirical style it's defending in the crafting of the brief itself.


The Onion filed its amicus brief in support of Anthony Novak, a man who was arrested for and prosecuted for parodying the Parma, Ohio, police department on Facebook. Citing a law against disrupting police operations, the police searched Novak's apartment, seized his electronics and put him in jail, where he spent four days before making bail. After a jury acquitted him of all criminal charges, he subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against the police for violating his First and Fourth Amendment rights. However, a federal appeals court threw out the lawsuit, ruling that the officers had "qualified immunity," which protects government officials from being sued for unconstitutional infringements.

The Onion is petitioning for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to review the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to toss out Novak's civil rights suit. As NPR points out, one primary question in this case is whether people reasonably believed Novak's Facebook page, which used the department's real name and photo but had a satirical slogan ("We no crime."), to be the department's real page.

The Onion argues that such ambiguity and potential confusion is exactly the point of parody. But the way the argument is made—using satire and parody to defend satire and parody—is making headlines.

The 23-page amicus brief can be read in full here, but let's look at some of the highlights:

First, the description of The Onion itself:

"The Onion is the world’s leading news publication, offering highly acclaimed, universally revered coverage of breaking national, international, and local news events. Rising from its humble beginnings as a print newspaper in 1756, The Onion now enjoys a daily readership of 4.3 trillion and has grown into the single most powerful and influential organization in human history.

"In addition to maintaining a towering standard of excellence to which the rest of the industry aspires, The Onion supports more than 350,000 full- and parttime journalism jobs in its numerous news bureaus and manual labor camps stationed around the world, and members of its editorial board have served with distinction in an advisory capacity for such nations as China, Syria, Somalia, and the former Soviet Union. On top of its journalistic pursuits, The Onion also owns and operates the majority of the world’s transoceanic shipping lanes, stands on the nation’s leading edge on matters of deforestation and strip mining, and proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily."

It's clear to a reasonable mind that they're not being serious here. And yet, this description is being filed in a real Supreme Court filing, setting the stage for the entire argument of how parody works.

"Put simply, for parody to work, it has to plausibly mimic the original," the brief states. "The Sixth Circuit’s decision in this case would condition the First Amendment’s protection for parody upon a requirement that parodists explicitly say, up-front, that their work is nothing more than an elaborate fiction. But that would strip parody of the very thing that makes it function. The Onion cannot stand idly by in the face of a ruling that threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purely incidentally, forms the basis of The Onion’s writers’ paychecks."

The writer of the brief clearly wasn't going to let the opportunity to demonstrate the comedic nature of satire to pass simply because this was an actual legal document being filed before the highest court in the land, nor was he going to spare the judiciary from being the object of said comedy.

It took some gumption to write this paragraph, but oh gracious is it perfection. While arguing that parody functions by tricking people into thinking it's real, the brief states:

"Tu stultus es. You are dumb. These three Latin words have been The Onion’s motto and guiding light since it was founded in 1988 as America’s Finest News Source, leading its writers toward the paper’s singular purpose of pointing out that its readers are deeply gullible people. The Onion’s motto is central to this brief for two important reasons. First, it’s Latin. And The Onion knows that the federal judiciary is staffed entirely by total Latin dorks: They quote Catullus in the original Latin in chambers. They sweetly whisper 'stare decisis' into their spouses’ ears. They mutter 'cui bono' under their breath while picking up after their neighbors’ dogs. So The Onion knew that, unless it pointed to a suitably Latin rallying cry, its brief would be operating far outside the Court’s vernacular."

Just jaw-droppingly irreverent, and yet immediately following is a totally cogent and reasoned argument about the nature of parody, complete with citations and footnotes:

"The second reason—perhaps mildly more important—is that the phrase 'you are dumb' captures the very heart of parody: tricking readers into believing that they’re seeing a serious rendering of some specific form—a pop song lyric, a newspaper article, a police beat—and then allowing them to laugh at their own gullibility when they realize that they’ve fallen victim to one of the oldest tricks in the history of rhetoric. See San Francisco Bay Guardian, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 464, 466 (Ct. App. 1993) ('[T]he very nature of parody . . . is to catch the reader off guard at first glance, after which the ‘victim’ recognizes that the joke is on him to the extent that it caught him unaware.').

"It really is an old trick. The word 'parody' stretches back to the Hellenic world. It originates in the prefix para, meaning an alteration, and the suffix ode, referring to the poetry form known as an ode.3 One of its earliest practitioners was the first-century B.C. poet Horace, whose Satires would replicate the exact form known as an ode—mimicking its meter, its subject matter, even its self-serious tone—but tweaking it ever so slightly so that the form was able to mock its own idiocies."

The brief is a brilliant defense of parody wrapped up in perfect parodic packaging, which is even pointed out in the arguments to drive home the point, as on page 15:

"This is the fifteenth page of a convoluted legal filing intended to deconstruct the societal implications of parody, so the reader’s attention is almost certainly wandering. That’s understandable. So here is a paragraph of gripping legal analysis to ensure that every jurist who reads this brief is appropriately impressed by the logic of its argument and the lucidity of its prose: Bona vacantia. De bonis asportatis. Writ of certiorari. De minimis. Jus accrescendi. Forum non conveniens. Corpus juris. Ad hominem tu quoque. Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Quod est demonstrandum. Actus reus. Scandalum magnatum. Pactum reservati dominii.

"See what happened? This brief itself went from a discussion of parody’s function—and the quite serious historical and legal arguments in favor of strong protections for parodic speech—to a curveball mocking the way legalese can be both impenetrably boring and belie the hollowness of a legal position. That’s the setup and punchline idea again. It would not have worked quite as well if this brief had said the following: 'Hello there, reader, we are about to write an amicus brief about the value of parody. Buckle up, because we’re going to be doing some fairly outré things, including commenting on this text’s form itself!' Taking the latter route would have spoiled the joke and come off as more than a bit stodgy. But more importantly, it would have disarmed the power that comes with a form devouring itself. For millennia, this has been the rhythm of parody: The author convinces the readers that they’re reading the real thing, then pulls the rug out from under them with the joke. The heart of this form lies in that give and take between the serious setup and the ridiculous punchline."

The Onion has outdone itself many times, but this amicus brief may be its best work yet right up to the end.

"The Onion intends to continue its socially valuable role bringing the disinfectant of sunlight into the halls of power…," the argument section concludes. "And it would vastly prefer that sunlight not to be measured out to its writers in 15- minute increments in an exercise yard."

Definitely give the full brief a read. You'll certainly never read another Supreme Court filing like it.

Mel Robinson making a TED Talk.

Towards the end of The Beatles’ illustrious but brief career, Paul McCartney wrote “Let it Be,” a song about finding peace by letting events take their natural course. It was a sentiment that seemed to mirror the feeling of resignation the band had with its imminent demise.

The bittersweet song has had an appeal that has lasted generations and that may be because it reflects an essential psychological concept: the locus of control. “It’s about understanding where our influence ends and accepting that some things are beyond our control,” Jennifer Chappell Marsh, a marriage and family therapist, told The Huffington Post. “We can’t control others, so instead, we should focus on our own actions and responses.”

This idea of giving up control, or the illusion of it, when it does us no good, was perfectly distilled into 2 words that everyone can understand as the “Let Them” theory. Podcast host, author, motivational speaker and former lawyer Mel Robbins explained this theory perfectly in a vial Instagram video.

“I just heard about this thing called the ‘Let Them Theory,’ I freaking love this,” Robbins starts the video.

“If your friends are not inviting you out to brunch this weekend, let them. If the person that you're really attracted to is not interested in a commitment, let them. If your kids do not want to get up and go to that thing with you this week, let them.” Robbins says in the clip. “So much time and energy is wasted on forcing other people to match our expectations.”

“If they’re not showing up how you want them to show up, do not try to force them to change; let them be themselves because they are revealing who they are to you. Just let them – and then you get to choose what you do next,” she continued.

The phrase is a great one to keep in your mental health tool kit because it’s a reminder that, for the most part, we can’t control other people. And if we can, is it worth wasting the emotional energy? Especially when we can allow people to behave as they wish and then we can react to them however we choose.

@melrobbins

Stop wasting energy on trying to get other people to meet YOUR expectations. Instead, try using the “Let Them Theory.” 💥 Listen now on the #melrobbinspodcast!! “The “Let Them Theory”: A Life Changing Mindset Hack That 15 Million People Can’t Stop Talking About” 🔗 in bio #melrobbins #letthemtheory #letgo #lettinggo #podcast #podcastepisode

How you respond to their behavior can significantly impact how they treat you in the future.

It’s also incredibly freeing to relieve yourself of the responsibility of changing people or feeling responsible for their actions. As the old Polish proverb goes, “Not my circus, not my monkeys.”

“Yes! It’s much like a concept propelled by the book ‘The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F**k.’ Save your energy and set your boundaries accordingly. It’s realizing that we only have “control” over ourselves and it’s so freeing,” 60DaysToLive2012 wrote.

“Let It Be” brought Paul McCartney solace as he dealt with losing his band in a very public breakup. The same state of mind can help all of us, whether it’s dealing with parents living in the past, friends who change and you don’t feel like you know them anymore, or someone who cuts you off in traffic because they’re in a huge rush to go who knows where.

The moment someone gets on your nerves and you feel a jolt of anxiety run up your back, take a big breath and say, “Let them.”


This article originally appeared last year.

Education

Never know how to answer the 'What do you do' question? This simple formula can help.

How many times have you been asked, "What do you do?" and not known what to say?

Let's face it, our answers to this question are usually a bit blasé.

We’ve all been there. The moment we’re face to face with a stranger and the ice breakers begin rolling in. During this little tête-à-tête, one question is sure to be as inevitable as Thanos himself: “What do you do?”

Even for the most skilled small talkers among us, this is not always a particularly easy question to answer. Not without sounding overly vague, sterile, or, yes, even dull. But as CNBC contributor and author Jessica Chen will tell you, there is a tried-and-true method that not only provides an answer for the “What do you do?” question but inspires authentic connection with others.

Her formula, which is included in her book Smart, Not Loud: How to Get Noticed at Work for All the Right Reasons, is pretty simple and definitely gives you more to work with than just saying your job title, which, barring any astronauts or Grammy award winners reading this, can sound pretty bland for most of us.


Without further ado, here are the 3 points to hit in your answer, according to Chen.

1. Talk about the issues you solve

This can help paint the picture that anyone can relate to, even if they have zero familiarity with your industry. Chen advises putting this in the form of a rhetorical question.

Examples:

  • “You know how cyberattacks are getting more frequent and sophisticated?”
  • “You know how you see ads when you scroll through a news story?”

2. Share the solutions you offer

Now’s your chance to clearly explain how your work addresses the issue you set up in step one. Chen notes that it’s important to think about “real-life implications" of what you do every day:

Examples:

  • “What I do is create software systems that alert companies when a suspicious user tries to access their platform.”
  • “What I do is research the best places to put ads so that they have maximum visibility.”

3. Drop some proof

This is where you tie it all together, using a story or other pertinent company details, in order to solidify your credibility.

  • “In fact, our organization is one of the largest cybersecurity companies in the world with clients like [well-known company].”
  • “In fact, the click-through rate of our ads is around 3%, which is much higher than the industry average.”

Put all those together and you’ve got: “You know how [talk about issues you solve]? So what I do is [share the solutions you offer]. In fact, [drop some proof].” Badda bing, badda boom, a concise, yet well-thought out and impactful answer that actually provides a snapshot of what you do for a living. Side effects might include nods of interest and response in the form of, “Wow, cool!”


If you’re struggling with all things small talk, having a go-to approach, much like this one, isn’t a bad idea. Having things like the FORD method, which is essentially a list of ice breaker questions that will get virtually anyone talking, in the back pocket can really help offset any social jitters that get in the way in the heat of the moment.

Basically, it’s totally okay if you don’t naturally have the gift of gab. But since you will likely have to engage in conversations throughout a good chunk of your life, it might behoove you to find ways to make it less stressful. And even for those of us who are extroverted and can chat with anyone, there are ways in which we can make our communication more impactful.

Nolan Reid / TikTok

There's an old joke slash meme that goes something like this: "Guys literally only want one thing and it's disgusting." Its used to imply, obviously, that men are shallow and crude creatures. TikTok creator and simple-life advocate Nolan Reid, however, has a different idea of what men really want.

Nolan recently made a video about "Little things in life that make men happy."

The hilarious list includes:

  • A fridge full of beer.
  • Drinking said beer in the garage. With your dog. And a good buddy.
  • Finding a cool stick.
  • Kicking a rock.
  • Staring at water.
  • Dropping rocks into said water.

As a fellow man, I would say: Yeah. That pretty much covers it.

It really doesn't take much! Watch Nolan's full video to see the rest, and just appreciate how much joy and satisfaction he gets from these simple thing.




People loved Nolan's list – so much so that they began adding their own ideas of "simple things men love."

The video racked up hundreds of thousands of views across TikTok and Instagram.

One commenter wrote, "He just described my whole personality." Another added, "This guy gets it."

Others chimed in with their own additions to the list, like staring at a fire for hours. Or just peace and quiet.

But most of the nearly 200 comments were just people chiming in to say one thing:

"Hell yeah."

Finally, someone who understands us.

Nolan's ultra-relaxed vision of "masculinity" is honestly so refreshing.

Men on social media are usually bombarded with the Andrew Tates and Jordan Petersons of the world, influencers who constantly berate us to make more money, lose weight and add muscle, sleep with more women, take charge, relentlessly self-improve.

I like Nolan's much chiller idea of masculinity. It reminds me of being a kid, taking pleasure in the simple things, not racing to be anywhere, not trying to impress anyone or prove anything.

Nolan's entire account is a breath of fresh air, an antidote to hustle culture. His videos find joy in:

  • Breaking down cardboard boxes
  • Driving at sunset
  • Going fishing
  • Throwing a frisbee
  • Wearing t-shirts
A daily visit to his page is almost like a meditation. I highly recommend giving him a follow to add a little counterprogramming to your social media feed.

Nolan says in another recent video that he started making TikToks and Instagram reels just for fun, but discovered along the way that he was really passionate about the message.

"I never thought that my simple living and love for little things would resonate with so many of you."

He said he hopes to inspire people to "take a step back and enjoy the good simple things in life."

I suddenly have the urge to go chuck a rock into a river, so I would say: Mission Accomplished!

This article originally appeared last year.

A woman can't believe who just texted her.

It’s funny to think that text messaging has only been a common form of communication for about 25 years. It began to take hold in the late 1990s, but most phones didn’t have full keyboards. You had to multi-tap a number on the handset to get to the correct letter. Needless to say, it took a long time just to get your thoughts out. It could also be expensive. Unlimited text wasn’t a thing back then, so you got dinged for 10 to 20 cents for every message you sent.

In 1998, Donovan Shears of Coventry, England, was so excited to get his first mobile phone for his 18th birthday that he texted a bunch of random numbers while hanging out at a pub where he worked. "I started sending out random text messages, showing off to my friends. I picked the first four digits the same as mine, then the last three digits randomly—it was probably about five or six different numbers—and then didn't think anything of it,” he said, according to the BBC.

But one person responded to his text, an 18-year-old girl named Kirsty in Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire, 100 miles away, who wrote, “Who’s this?” Donovan responded with a simple “Don.” Kirsty had just got a mobile phone, so she figured the text was from someone she had recently given her phone number to. Remember, those were the wonderful days when you didn’t get spam texts randomly saying, “Hi, how are you?” Today, Donovan’s text probably would have been blocked and marked as SPAM.

Donovan and Kirsty then began a conversation that has continued ever since. "That single moment led to over 20 years of love, laughter, and partnership," they said. They began texting each other daily, but after getting £250 ($311) phone bills, they started calling one another. Donovan immediately fell in love with Kirsty's Scottish accent.

Six months after the first text, Kirsty drove to Coventry to meet Donovan in person. "I said to my stepsister, I've got to go and meet this guy, and she was like, 'He could be anyone,' and I was like, 'Yes, I know,' but I was 18 and didn't really think about consequences. I just got on a train and came to Coventry."

The couple danced the night away at a club and then, in pure English tradition, capped the night off with a kebab. "I remember coming back from our first night out, and we just cuddled up; it was kind of magical in a way,” Donovan said, according to Grimsby Live.

The couple married four years later and have two children, Alora, 6, and Stirling, 9. Donovan has nothing but praise for Kirsty: "She is an amazing woman. She's so intelligent, and we know each other so well. She's my best friend as well as my wife."

The story is an incredible example of how the most important relationships in our lives sometimes come together just out of random chance. A meeting at a bar or an interaction at the supermarket can change our lives forever. It’s also a touching example of how the excitement over the ability to send a text message in 1998 brought together two people who never would have met without it. For all the pain that technology brings us in the modern world, there are still many reasons to love its ability to bring people together.

Photo credit: Canva, Note via @nightsayni/Reddit

He's sorry. He didn't mean to be mean.

For the most part, mood swings are pretty normal for kids. But man, can it be a challenge for parents to ride those emotional rollercoasters. After all, to stay completely regulated as someone goes from sweet giggles to unintelligible rage in .0002 seconds takes the tolerance of a trained monk. Still, even a little patience goes a long way with this herculean task.

Take this dad for instance, who recently shared two wildly different handwritten notes from his 5-year-old son, spanned only 10 minutes apart. For context, the dad explained that his son has gotten furious at him for “reading something to him instead of slowly sounding out the sounds for him to read himself.” What a monster, right?

During a time out his son took to cool off, he managed to write this sick burn: “You’re the worst dad in the world. I don’t even like you.”

The little fella must have immediately regretted his choice, because he also wrote another note, which read: “Sorry, sorry. I did not mean to be mean to you,” along with a sad picture of himself for good measure.


Have many, many, many parents been in this exact same boat? Judging by the comments, most certainly. One person wrote, “Kids are... interesting when it comes to mood swings; my 2 year old had a total meltdown this weekend because I opened his yogurt for him (he wanted to open it, but I didn't think he wanted to do it). A few minutes of crying and he popped back together and just ate his yogurt and was happy again.”

Another echoed, “Father of two 5y/os here. This is 100% normal and happens multiple times a week in our home. Lots of emotions at this age.”

One parent even shared how having safe spaces to process those big emotions can help kids develop into pretty emotionally stable adults, writing, “My son at that age would put himself into timeout (I never once put him into timeout but his kindergarten had that system).. so he would go into his room after he said something mean to me.. sit in a corner for 5-10 min and then come out and apologize and say he didn’t mean it.. he is almost 21 now and still the most thoughtful person I know, always considering how his words impact others.”

One person could even relate to the kiddo’s dilemma, saying, “Emotions are big and overwhelming! Sometimes I want to do the dang thing myself and sometimes I just want it done when I think about it. Thankfully in my decades on earth I'm better at recognizing and communicating the difference, but I totally get his frustration.”

gif of man throwing a tantrumIf we don't teach our kids to regulate their emotions early, workplaces might look like this in 20 years.media.giphy.com

But of course the best comment goes to the person who simply appreciated that “Lil bro had a whole character arc.”

It’s funny to see in plain writing the kind of emotional whiplash that every parent experiences once in a while. But this story is also a nice reminder to not take any of it personally. Because sometimes all it takes is ten minutes, and a little compassion, for things to go back to normal again.

Hopefully the dad holds onto these notes to re-read aloud one day. At his son’s wedding perhaps. Or his 21st birthday.