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.

@callmebelly/TikTok

An excellent reminder to show kindness and patience.

Listening to a baby cry during a flight might be aggravating, but it’s nothing compared to the moans, groans, and eyerolls that the baby's parents must endure from other passengers when it happens. No matter what tips and tricks are used to try to soothe a little one’s temperament while 30,000 miles in the air, crying is almost inevitable. So, while having to ease their own child’s anxiety, moms and dads also must suffer being the pariah of the trip. What a nightmare.

Recently, one mom was apparently trying so hard to avoid upsetting her fellow flight members that she went above and beyond to essentially apologize ahead of time if her baby began to cry on its first flight. It was a gesture that, while thoughtful, had folks really feeling for how stressed that poor mom must be.

In a clip posted to his TikTok, one of the passengers—Elliot—explained that the mom handed out small care packages to those nearby.

“She’s already so busy and took the time to make these bags for everyone,” Elliot said, before panning the camera to reveal a Ziplock bag full of candy, along with a note that made him “want to cry.”

The note read: “It’s my first flight. I made a deal to be on my best behaviour—but I can’t make any guarantees. I might cry if I get scared or if my ears start to hurt. Here are some treats to make your flight enjoyable. Thank you for being patient with us. Have a great flight.”

Like Elliot, those who watched the video felt some ambivalence at the well intentioned act. Many felt remorse that she would feel the need to appease people in this way.

“This is so sweet but also … kind of breaks my heart that we live in a world in which parents feel the need to do that.”

“Because jerk people have shamed parents into believing that they need to apologize for their kids' absolutely normal behavior. What a gem of a mom.”

“You know that sweet mom worried about this trip so much.”

“That poor mom probably spent nights awake … nervous about that flight, thinking of ways to keep strangers happy.”

"That's a mom trying so hard."

Many rallied behind the mom, arguing that making others feel more comfortable with her child being on board was in no way her responsibility.

“No mom should be apologizing. Adults can control their emotions … babies not …. Hugging this mom from a distance.”

“Dear new parents: no you don’t have to do this. Your babies have the right to exist. We all know babies cry. We know you try your best.”

Luckily, there are just as many stories of fellow passengers being completely compassionate towards parents with small children—from simply choosing to throw on their headphones during a tantrum (instead of throwing one themselves) to going out of their way to comfort a baby (and taking the load of a parent in the process). These little acts of kindness make more of an impact than we probably realize. Perhaps if we incorporated more of this “it takes a village” mindset, flying could be a little bit more pleasant for everyone involved.

@amberandjoshofficial/TikTok, Photo credit: Canva

Other parents had no idea this was a "universal experience."

Parenting looks astronomically different than it did when we were kids, and we know one of the major culprits of that is technology. Back in the day, there was no such thing as a “tablet kid,” there wasn’t an app that tracked a kid’s every move, you couldn’t get answers to your burning parenting questions from endless online forms and parent groups. Twas a different time, indeed.

Of course, these modern day conveniences have all kinds of pros and cons attached to them, as one dad, Josh (@amberandjoshofficial) demonstrated in a now-viral video posted to his TikTok. In the video, we see him try—and fail—to use the age-old parenting saying that’s always bought them juuuuust a little more time from demanding kiddos, otherwise known as “just a minute.”

That is, until now. Turns out, in the age of Alexa, “just a minute” doesn’t cut it. Because kids can and will be using that robot against you, just like his own daughter did. Poor Josh was just trying to finish washing the dishes before getting the glass of milk she requested. But unfortunately for him, as soon as he replied with “just a minute,” she immediately asked Alexa to “set the timer.” Ruthless.

“Accountability has never been higher," Josh wrote in his caption. And other parents who watched the video couldn’t help but agree.

“I had no idea this was a universal experience 😂”

“No this is literally verbatim my life 😂😂😂”

"Oh so it’s not just our house. It’s relieving and also scary to know we’re not alone 😂”

“Haha this is so accurate. I’ve had the conversation with my kids that it’s a figure of speech – they still do it 😂”

“NOT MY ALEXA RESPONDING WHILE I WATCHED THIS VIDEO”

A few fellow parents chimed in with some lighthearted “tips,” such as explaining that “one minute is more of a vibe than a unit of time,” or swapping it for “one more moment” instead.

Another suggested that he “keep that same energy when they want more time on their game.”

And hey, maybe higher accountability isn’t totally a bad thing. It didn’t exactly instill trust when our parents stretched “just a minute” into eternity, especially when it turned into not actually doing what they said they would.

That's apparently not the only way Alexa has potentially helped parents, either. A study conducted by Kantar for Amazon found that 95% of parents agreed that having Alexa at home has helped reduce screen time, while another 90% felt Alexa helped their kids stay mentally active, learn new things, and become more independent. As with all technology, it can be easy to develop too much of a reliance on this gadget, but (when used responsibly) there are some definitive perks, it seems.

So there you have it, folks. Let’s just chalk it up to being more thing that’s a relic of a bygone era. But hey, change is the only constant, right?

By the way, Josh and his wife Amber have even more wholesome and fun family content where that came from on their TikTok. Check it out here.

Joy

MoonPie renames Florida 'MoonPieTown' because apparently 'We can just do this now!'

A tweet from the company says the change is "effective immediately."

MoonPieTown? Might as well.

When the President of the United States changes the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America as one of his very first actions in office, you know we're living in unprecedented times. The fact that the world has called the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Mexico for 400 years and that the name change only affects people in the U.S. doesn't matter. Changing the name of a major geographical feature by executive decree was clearly seen as a vital, first-day-in-office priority.

Why? Excellent question. Another excellent question is how have we found ourselves in a version of the U.S. where there's a bill—an actual, official, "sitting here on Capitol Hill" bill—introduced to the House of Representatives "to authorize the President to enter into negotiations to acquire Greenland and to rename Greenland as 'Red, White, and Blueland?'” Taking over Greenland and renaming it Red, White, and Blueland. This is where we are. Might as well rename ourselves The United States of Absurdity at this point.

One of the ways people cope in unprecedentedly absurd times is humor, which is why a tweeted announcement from MoonPie, the famous chocolate-covered marshmallow cookie company of all places, has grabbed people's attention.

"Effective immediately," the tweet reads above a screenshot of a branded letter from the company.

The letter says:

To whom it may concern,

Thanks to recent geographical updates, we are excited to announce that the land mass previously known as Florida will now be referred to as MoonPieTown.

"But Florida is a state," you say. No, Florida was a state. Now it's MoonPieTown. We can just do this now!

Please continue to enjoy our delicious marshmallow sandwiches and don't think too much about it. :)

MoonPie

MoonPieTown is cute, but the "We can just do this now!" is the funny bone punch. It was a risky move, though. Some people found the announcement hilariously on point, while others vowed that they would never eat a MoonPie again. Apparently some were downright offended by the company's little jab at the executive branch.

In some ways, tweets like this are filling the void left by the loss of political cartoons, which served as an outlet for political parody and snark for centuries but have largely fallen by the wayside with the demise of print media. Political cartoons are still around, but the average person is far more likely to see a viral social media post making a political statement with humor than they are a cartoon these days. And humor, for better or for worse, has long been a vital coping tool for people dealing with political upheaval.

political cartoon of two men cutting up the earthA political cartoon from 1805Public Domain

"In the 19th century, the main form of political humor would be cartoons, and some were quite brilliant, biting, and powerful,” says Dr. Patrick Giamario, associate professor of political science at University of North Carolina Greensboro. “In the 20th century, we saw late night TV hosts and a few comedians doing HBO comedy specials. That brings us to where we are now. Everyone can engage in X memes and trolling. They can make funny videos on TikTok."

Giamario explores how political humor has evolved in his book “Laughter as Politics: Critical Theory in an Age of Hilarity” and says laughter over the political landscape is "a symptom of this time we’re in, with a lot up for grabs."

Humor in politics has long been a source of controversy, prompting questions about whether political issues should be taken more seriously. Some may argue that laughter in the face of authoritarian power diminishes it. Others argue that humor runs the risk of trivializing serious issues. Giamario warns of another issue in the modern era where humor meets capitalism.

"A lot of humor becomes mere entertainment,” he says. “A late-night TV show host making fun of the president may sound subversive or transgressive because they’re making fun of the most powerful person in the country. But they’re also trying to sell tickets or advertising. It can be quite cynical. Unfortunately, I think that’s where a lot of political humor has gone in the last decade.”

Jimmy Fallon Snl GIF by Saturday Night LiveGiphy

However, he says, approaching political humor with intention and introspection can help people analyze its impact.

“What’s promising about laughter is its aesthetic effect,” says Giamario. “It shakes people, quite literally, in a physical sense. It shakes the body out of conventional, existing ways of thinking, whether it’s social, political, religious, or something else.”

Does a silly little tweet about MoonPieTown shake people's thinking? Maybe, maybe not. It does, however, provide a little comic relief for those who feel overwhelmed by the political tsunami washing over America, and maybe that's all we need from a cookie pie company.

A curious sign in the Dallas-Forth Worth International Airport.

A brilliant LGBTQ rights advocate in Texas found a clever way to skewer the state’s anti-trans politicians by creating a fake sign stating that the state government was verifying people’s genitals through AI. The signs were posted in bathrooms at the Dallas Fort Worth International Airport. The prank was a great way to show travelers that when trans rights are under fire, everyone's rights are, too.

The signs look precisely like a government warning and infer that the toilet's flushing sensor holds some device to photograph bathroom user’s genitals. Taking pictures of someone’s genitals is a massive violation of people’s privacy, but if the state wants to monitor if trans people are using the bathroom, how else could it tell?


The prank warning sign has a phone number for people to call to have their photos removed from the database, and it goes to Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick's office. Back in 2016 and 2017, Patrick pushed for a law that would limit transgender people's ability to use the bathroom that matches their identity.

Here's what the prank sign reads:

Electronic Genital Verification (EGV)

Your genitalia may be photographed electronically during your use of this facility as part of the Electronic Genital Verification (EGV) pilot program at the direction of the Office of the Lieutenant Governor. In the future, EGV will help keep Texans safe while protecting your privacy by screening for potentially improper restroom access using machine vision and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in lieu of traditional genital inspections.

At this time, images collected will be used solely for model training purposes and will not be used for law enforcement or shared with entities except as pursuant to a subpoena, court order or as otherwise compelled by a legal process.
Your participation in this program is voluntary.

You have the right to request removal of your data by calling the EGV program office at (512) 463-0001 during normal operating hours (Mon-Fri 8AM-5PM).

Michael Dear, a security camera expert, posted about encountering one of the signs at the airport.


The prank even caught the attention of the DFW airport. “This is not a DFW-produced or authorized sign, and we have no information about its origins,” DFW media relations manager Cynthia Vega told Snopes. “However, we are investigating to ensure that none is posted, and we will remove any unauthorized signs if found.”

The idea of the government inspecting its citizen's genitals seems outlandish and totalitarian. However, a bill that made it through the Ohio State House of Representatives in June 2022 calls for just that. The bill would have required high school athletes to prove their gender by submitting to intrusive inspections of their genitalia and other invasive tests. Although the bill was never signed into law, it begs the question: What poses a more significant threat to high schoolers, transgender female athletes (less than 100 people nationwide), or statewide government genital inspections?

Sometimes, the best way to expose hysteria is not to shout back even louder but to encourage everyone to laugh at it. Kudos to the creator of the genital verification prank for using humor to make an essential point about privacy.

Image credits: Public domain (left) Zoran Veselinovic (right)

There's nothing like a power key change to take a song to the next level.

Music affects us emotionally and psychologically in so many ways. A minor key can make us sad and wistful, a dissonant chord can trigger fear, and a joyful, jaunty tune can pull us out of a funk. But a musical device that used to be a staple in pop music has largely fallen by the wayside, much to the dismay of everyone who's ever raised a finger to the sky when Whitney Houston belted out, "Don't…make…me…CLOOOOSE one more doooor."

That's right. The power key change. Bon Jovi did it in "Livin' on a Prayer," Michael Jackson in "Man in the Mirror," and Celine Dion in "My Heart Will Go On." Taking a verse or a chorus up a notch by modulating the key was a way for pop stars to give their songs extra oomph for decades. We loved it because it made us feel things. And some of us are realizing just how much we miss the chills and thrills those modulations gave us.

Self-proclaimed "geriatric millennial" Chrissy Allen posted an impassioned plea to "bring back key changes" with examples from popular songs of the 80s and 90s, and it's resonating with those who remember.

Her movements are so familiar and people in the comments felt it in their bones.

"Ah yes! The classic last chorus modulation (or if you're Michael Jackson, like 8x). Expected and unexpected all at once."

"Key changes make you feel like life is worth it, the future is bright and nothing is going to stop your fearless heart! Such a dopamine boost 🔥 Other songs can't compete with that."

"This is pure dopamine. Like, just the good stuff, all lean no fat, pharmaceutical grade brain chemicals. 🤌🏽"

"If there is no key change, when do they stand up from their stool?"

"And the beat dropping WITH the key change is the *chef’s kiss*"

"Total goosebumps the whole time."

For real, though. Watch Whitney pull this key change out of her hat and see if it doesn't give you goosebumps.

Whitney Houston's key change in "I Have Nothing" is legendary.youtu.be

It's not that nobody does the key change anymore, but it's definitely fallen out of favor. As Chris Dalla Riva writes in Tedium, "The act of shifting a song’s key up either a half step or a whole step (i.e. one or two notes on the keyboard) near the end of the song, was the most popular key change for decades. In fact, 52 percent of key changes found in number one hits between 1958 and 1990 employ this change. You can hear it on “My Girl,” “I Wanna Dance With Somebody,” and “Livin’ on a Prayer,” among many others."

But something happened in the 90s that shifted musicians away from key changes. The rise of Hip-Hop music, which Riva explains "focuses more on rhythms and lyricism than on melody and harmony," was one change. Another was the way music is written, recorded, and produced. Computer programs have fundamentally changed the way music is made, and those changes don't lend themselves to changing a key mid-song.

Riva gives an example:

"Imagine that I’m Sting and I sit down to write a song in the early ’80s for my group The Police. While composing, it’s likely that I’ll work linearly. What this means is I’ll write section-by-section. First, I’ll write a verse, then a chorus, then another verse, and so on. One way to create intrigue as I get to a new section is to change something. Maybe the lyrics. Maybe the melody. Or maybe the key.

"Every Breath You Take" changes key at the bridge.youtu.be

On “Every Breath You Take,” Sting does the third. Most of the song is built around a laid back groove in Ab major, but then on the bridge, the energy kicks up as the song shifts to the key of B major. Because songwriters in the pre-digital age were writing linearly, shifting the key in a new section was a natural compositional technique.

"But in the computer age, this linear style doesn’t make as much sense." Riva explains that "digital recording software generally encourages a vertical rather than linear songwriting approach."

Some people say the key change is for singers who can actually sing as they lament the popularity of autotune technology. But there are some genuinely incredible singers in this day and age. We cannot live in the era of Kelly Clarkson and Pink and Ariana Grande and complain about a loss of singing ability. Maybe those pop divas will join the movement to bring key changes back in full force. We need those dopamine hits now more than ever.