The Onion gets serious about qualified immunity

The Onion has filed an amicus brief in a Supreme Court case, arguing that the Court should hear a case challenging the doctrine of qualified immunity for civil suits involving free speech.

The case was triggered when a guy in Parma Ohio put up a fake webpage, mocking the Parma police force. They charged him with a state felony for using a computer to disrupt police operations.

After his acquittal, he sued the police force for a violation of civil rights, but lost on the ground of qualified immunity of the police.

He’s now petitioning for the Surpeme Court to hear his appeal, and the Onion has filed an amicus brief in support:

“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 brief says.

“The Onion regularly pokes its finger in the eyes of repressive and authoritarian regimes, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, and domestic presidential administrations,” the brief says. “So The Onion’s professional parodists were less than enthralled to be confronted with a legal ruling that fails to hold government actors accountable for jailing and prosecuting a would-be humorist simply for making fun of them.”

Article about it:

and link to the brief:

Steve Lehto has an excellent video on the subject. I actually read then entire amicus and like Lehto, found it brilliant.

Ok, if Steve Lehto says it’s a long video it’ll have to wait until I have a lot of patience stored up. That guy uses way more words than necessary to communicate.

Otherwise, hope the Onion wins and this is only the beginning of dialing back qualified immunity.

It’s a long video because he can’t stop laughing.

It is a very good brief. Not written by lawyers, according to footnote 1, who were no doubt conscious of contempt of court.

You’re misreading the footnote. It’s stating, as required, that the brief was not authored by attorneys for any party. The Onion isn’t a party, but seeking to appear as a friend of the court (amicus).

The brief is signed by counsel of record for the Oinion.

And yes, it’s a brilliant brief.

Ah, thanks for thé clarification!

Larry Flynt would be proud.

I’m a few minutes into racer72’s link, and I’m getting Abbie Hoffman as an inspiration for this filing.

Not a fan of a strong brew? :wink:

My iPhone sometimes corrects English spelling to French words.

I have no idea why.

I laughed very loudly when I read footnote 11.

Compliance with official bilingualism?

I am not now, and never have been, a member of the federal government.

[Extra question mark inserted in quote to scare off Discourse “you can’t quote that!” demon.]

I just figured Apple configured all Canadian iPhones for intermittent French as a precautionary measure

(Little do we realize that @Northern_Piper has been posting to us in poorly spelled French the entire time.)

My favorite part of the amicus brief is

I don’t make it a habit to read legal filings, but I have a suspicion that this is one of the most readable in the history of the Supreme Court. I hope those Latin dorks on the Court appreciate it.

For every SCOTUS law clerk who’s amused, I suspect there will be three who are affronted.

After @Northern_Piper my second favorite internet lawyer supplies his take on this topic. IMO required reading for anyone who likes legal buffoonery:
The Best Brief Ever Written Is an Amicus Brief on Behalf of The Onion – Lowering the Bar

It is truly amazing / horrifying to me how much real life now resembles what was in my youth obviously unrealistic, bordering on unthinkable, parody. By which I mean the case itself, not the Onion’s response.

Give us sarcasm or give us death!