Onion Supreme Court brief author explains why parody is worth defending: NPR

onion editor Mike Gillis submitted an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court this week. He says he hopes this will convince the court to take up an Ohio man’s First Amendment case while educating the general public.

Mike Gillis

hide caption

toggle caption

Mike Gillis

onion editor Mike Gillis submitted an amicus brief to the US Supreme Court this week. He says he hopes this will convince the court to take up an Ohio man’s First Amendment case while educating the general public.

Mike Gillis

An Ohio man’s long-running First Amendment case is suddenly getting a lot of attention, thanks to the satirical news site onion.

And it’s not because it was usurped. That’s because the publication got directly involved, submitting a brief to the Supreme Court defending the parody itself.

The 23-page amicus brief was filed Monday in support of Anthony Novak, who is asking the Supreme Court to resume his lawsuit against the officers who arrested and prosecuted him for creating a parody Facebook page of their department (more on it is here).

“Americans can be jailed for mocking the government? It’s been a surprise for America’s top news source and an uncomfortable learning experience for its editorial staff,” the filing opens. .

He goes on to defend the purpose and power of parody in society before explaining that successful satire comes from being realistic enough to initially trick readers into believing a thing, only to have them “laugh at their own credulity when they realize they have fallen victim to one of the oldest sleight of hand in the history of rhetoric.”

None of this would work if preceded by a disclaimer, the brief argues, noting that most courts have historically shared this view – with the exception of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. who, in this case, sided with the police. The Onion’s brief urges the Supreme Court to take up the case and rule in favor of Novak. He also wants “the rights of the people to be vindicated and various historic wrongs to be righted”, by the way.

“The Onion cannot stand idly by in the face of a judgment that threatens to disembowel a millennial form of rhetoric, particularly powerful in the field of political debate, and which, by pure coincidence, onionwriters’ paychecks,” it read.

The document quickly began to make the rounds on social media and headlines, both for its unusual form of intervention – this being its first legal filing – and for its characteristically humorous approach to a serious subject.

In classic onion mode, it’s sarcastic – a subtitle says “It should be obvious that parodists can’t be sued for telling a joke with a straight face” – and self-referential – it says the story sounds like a title from the exit of Onion, “albeit considerably less amusing because its subjects are real.”

He also appeals directly to his audience, sprinkling in numerous Latin phrases (at one point, an entire paragraph – see page 15) because he “knows the federal justice system is made up entirely of total Latin dorks.”

Some of the memoir’s more academic fans have said it should be taught in law school, according to its author (jokingly, this may be the first time his own father, a car accident lawyer work, use an exclamation mark praise his writings). But he also seems to have struck a chord beyond the legal world.

Mike Gillis, editor for onion and author of the brief, told NPR in a phone interview that he hopes the filing not only helps convince the Supreme Court to take up the case, but also shows the public why parody is so important.

“To have so many people think about parody, and the fact that it adds so much to their lives and it’s something worth fighting for, was very, very satisfying to me,” says- he.

How the brief was born

Gillis, who has been to onion for about a decade, says the opportunity to get involved in the case arose over the summer when a mutual friend put Novak’s legal team in touch with the publication.

He had not personally followed the case closely, but once onionLawyers started looking into it and the editorial team started discussing it, they realized it was fine with them.

As Gillis explains, amicus briefs are often drafted by the attorneys involved in the case and then given to interested parties for additional details. In this case, it was the other way around: he wrote most of the arguments and jokes, and then Novak’s lawyers fleshed it out with legal precedent and historical context in what he called “an extremely collaborative”.

“I think because the draft itself was trying to make the case for why parody is a really powerful form…we thought it made more sense for us to kind of make the memoir itself an example of reason. why this thing is worth fighting for, and why the parody is really interesting and gets people’s attention,” he adds.

Immediately after the first call with Novak’s legal team, Gillis sat down and wrote 1,500 words at a go – which he said was due to his enthusiasm for the “fun, entertaining and catchy” argument. “which he knew he could do.

His years of living, breathing satire and parody – from writing for onion lecturing at Second City and speaking with college humor publications – didn’t hurt either, as he was already well versed in the theory and importance of form.

Gillis also occasionally consulted onionthe legal team and editor of , because he found it a bit bizarre to write so publicly about the process and value of his own site’s work, which he described as “sort of an example of why which a parody disclaimer is not a good idea.”

One of the requirements of the thesis is that Gillis must show that onion is an interested party (for starters, it was invoked in one of the first court decisions on the subject). He says there are two main reasons: the parody limitations could hurt the company’s business model and could have a chilling effect on it and others.

There’s a lot at stake, he says. There were several points Gillis wanted to make in the memoir, but he knew most of all he wanted it to be funny.

“It’s like everyone likes to laugh,” he says. “And sometimes I think those legal people can get a little bit in their heads about precedents and stuff and lose sight of the function of why comedy is great and specifically why parody is great.”

Members of The Onion’s editorial team attend a team meeting in their Chicago office in 2020. Gillis says she employs a dozen editors, as well as contributors.

Mike Gillis

hide caption

toggle caption

Mike Gillis

Members of The Onion’s editorial team attend a team meeting in their Chicago office in 2020. Gillis says she employs a dozen editors, as well as contributors.

Mike Gillis

What Gillis wants you to know

There are some misconceptions that Gillis wanted to clear up for the Supreme Court — including why it’s so important that the parody be realistic and why labeling it as such from the get-go would not only be pointless, but pointless.

But he also sees the brief as an opportunity to champion the role of parody writ large. So, NPR asked, why does it matter?

The short answer is that it’s an “extremely powerful form of rhetoric that can’t really be emulated by serious, dry criticism.” The longest answer goes back thousands of years, to the etymological root of the word, and has to do with how even slightly tweaking a shape can open readers’ eyes to how “that thing that had that meaning extremely high of itself is in fact not infallible and can be criticized easily.”

Gillis gives some examples in onionArchives: In 2012, the publication proclaimed North Korean leader Kim Jong-un “the sexiest man alive”, and the Chinese state agency reposted it as fact, along with a slideshow. Closer to home, a GOP congressman believed (and warned voters) of a parody story about Planned Parenthood opening an $8 billion “Abortionplex.”

Satirists don’t actively try to mislead readers, says Gillis. But when authoritarians fall into parody, “it really shatters their own self-esteem because they show they’re not a reasonable person.”

These are particularly publicized examples, because onion is such a significant publication (in short that it is deadpan) that it “has become the most powerful and influential organization in human history”, which employs 350,000 journalists and “also exploits the majority of the world’s transoceanic shipping lanes…and proudly tests millions of animals daily.”).

But, as the brief points out, “the quality and taste of the parody is irrelevant” to the degree of legal protection it deserves.

“First Amendment rights should cover everyone and not just people who can afford large legal teams or who have established histories as parodists,” Gillis told NPR. “I just think it’s a general law that everyone should be able to go along with. And that’s sort of a clear win for everyone.”

The more ordinary people know about how satire and parody work, the better the conversation around it will be, he says. People have been angry at satirists for thousands of years, adds Gillis, but today’s technological and political environment means parodies can be interpreted and criticized in more personal (and often partisan) ways.

If there’s one thing he wants people to know about the parody, it’s that “it’s okay if, for a little while, you’re fooled by a comedian,” whether in the pages of a satirical information site or in the public. of a stand-up show.

“Having a little more space given to satirists to do what they’ve been doing for thousands of years would be great,” he says. “I think the more people who can take it for granted that they’re duped briefly to make the parody work, and not take offense to it and realize that it’s just part of the form , I think that would be wonderful.”