Fair Use: The Foundation Of Jon Stewart's Success

from the celebrating-fair-use dept

Jon Stewart's announcement on February 10 that he will be retiring from The Daily Show later this year has been met with tributes to his comic genius and his impact on political discourse. But these tributes have overlooked the legal doctrine that has enabled Stewart to be so effective: fair use. (This is my second post this week about the importance of fair use to popular culture; on Tuesday I wrote about how the Fifty Shades of Grey trilogy was first written as fair use-dependent fan fiction based on the Twilight vampire series.)

Stewart's most powerful critiques result from his juxtaposing clips of politicians and commentators on news broadcasts to demonstrate their hypocrisy. He'll contrast a clip of a Fox News commentator expressing outrage at President Obama taking a particular action with a clip of the same commentator praising President Bush for taking a similar same action. Stewart also uses montages of clips from CNN and other news networks to demonstrate their simultaneously sensationalistic and superficial coverage of disasters and trials. But for fair use, Stewart's rebroadcast of these clips would be willful copyright infringement, subject to statutory damages of up to $150,000 per clip.

Jon Stewart's heavy use of clips for the purpose of humorous political criticism has inspired other comedians to emulate him, most notably his former "correspondents" Stephen Colbert on The Colbert Report and John Oliver on Last Week Tonight. Stewart's reliance on clips no doubt has also encouraged the growth of the remix culture online, where individuals combine clips of preexisting works for the purpose of political or artistic expression.

Stewart's reliance on fair use likely made him progressive on other copyright matters. He supported fans distributing excerpts of The Daily Show online, he questioned the position of Viacom (the owner of Comedy Central, the channel that carries The Daily Show) in its litigation with YouTube, and he opposed SOPA.

Additionally, Jon Stewart's fair use of clips has had a positive impact on policymakers. The Daily Show is perhaps the easiest example to give lawmakers and their staffs of the importance of fair use. A reference to The Daily Show makes them instantly understand how fair use functions, in Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's words, as one of the copyright law's built-in accommodations to the First Amendment. Further, The Daily Show demonstrates clearly that large media companies (e.g., Viacom) rely on fair use.

Jon Stewart has not announced what he will do after he leaves The Daily Show. But it is hard to imagine that the greatest practitioner of fair use in this generation will not at some point embark on another venture that employs fair use.

Reposted from the Disruptive Competition Project

Filed Under: clips, copyright, fair use, jon stewart, journalism, news, reporting, satire
Companies: viacom

That Crazy Story About Making 'Hate Speech' A Crime? Yeah, That's Satire

from the it-sucks-you-in dept

Yesterday morning I came across an article on a site called "ThoughtCatalog" (which I'll admit I'd never heard of) after I saw some people I know discussing it on Twitter. The title is Here Is Why It's Time To Get Tough On Hate Speech In America by someone named "Tanya Cohen." It was ridiculous from the very start -- a poorly thought out attack on free speech, and inside our internal "writer's room" chat, I asked around to see if anyone wanted to write about it, including a few key quotes. But the more I read, the more I realized that it's satire. It has to be satire. Not only that, but it's damn good satire, because it's just stupid enough at the beginning to drag you in and make you believe it, and then, slowly but surely, over the course of a very long writeup, it starts tossing out ever more ridiculous ideas -- drip... drip... drip -- that just, gently, turn up the outrage-o-meter, such that many people don't even realize that it's satire. In fact, we ended up having a long internal debate on it (and others are doing the same on Twitter), with Tim Cushing writing up a Techdirt post ripping it apart as if it were serious. However, I've spiked that version and am inserting my own (because I'm the boss and can do that sort of thing) -- because this absolutely is satire, and it does a brilliant job absolutely mocking those who are attacking free speech at every turn.

Again, it starts out subtly, with garden-variety stupidity around free speech:

The recent controversy at the University of Iowa – in which an “artist” (supposedly an “anti-racist” one) put up an “art exhibit” which resembles a KKK member covered in newspaper clippings about racial violence – is a perfect example of why we need to implement real legislation against hate speech in the United States. The year is 2015 and all other countries have laws against hate speech along with laws against other forms of speech which violate basic human rights. As a matter of fact, international human rights law MANDATES laws against hate speech. Protecting vulnerable minorities from hate speech is one of the most basic and fundamental of human rights obligations, and all human rights organizations worldwide have emphasized this. But the United States refuses to protect even the most basic of human rights, firmly establishing itself as a pariah state that falls far behind the rest of the world in terms of protecting fundamental human rights and democratic freedoms.

Hate speech laws are almost always a slippery slope to censorship, but I can see why some people find them emotionally appealing. But the idea that the US is a pariah state that falls behind the world on this issue seems a bit nutty and ill-informed. There's the usual quoting and misunderstanding of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. That's to be expected.

Then we get the expected (again, misguided) attack on the First Amendment. All pretty standard stuff for the playbook of those looking to chip away at the First Amendment:

Even in countries with weak hate speech laws – countries where people freely spread lies and defamation about minorities – you still cannot legally advocate or justify violence against minority groups, and absolutely nobody believes that you should ever be allowed to. But, in the US, you can. The US allows people to advocate violence, murder, terrorism, and genocide – even against minorities – all in the name of “freedom”. How is genocide “freedom”? Where in the First Amendment does it say that genocide is acceptable? How can a supposedly civilized and democratic society possibly justify allowing people to freely incite violence and murder against vulnerable minorities? As an example, there have been several cases of US preachers saying that LGBT people should receive the death penalty. In a civilized country with democracy and human rights, anyone who said something like this would receive at least ten years in prison for inciting hatred, violence, murder, and genocide against a protected minority group. But, in the US, this is allowed in the name of “freedom”. Well, guess what? Homophobes inciting the genocide of LGBT people is most definitely not “freedom” for the highly vulnerable LGBT people who already live their lives in constant fear of homophobic violence. How can the US possibly justify – from any kind of logical standpoint – allowing this sort of thing in the name of “freedom”?

Of course, "true threats" are not, in fact, protected under the First Amendment, so this is already misleading. Notice how the piece shifts easily from people saying absolutely loathsome stuff, to automatically assuming that this is incitement. That's a neat trick, and one that's used frequently. But in this paragraph is the first real hint that this is clearly satire: In a civilized country with democracy and human rights, anyone who said something like this would receive at least ten years in prison for inciting hatred, violence, murder, and genocide against a protected minority group.

That brings in the idea of criminally charging and putting people in jail for 10 years for saying bad stuff. That's nutty, but not so entirely crazy that it must be satire. But the piece is, as I mentioned, subtle. Whoever wrote it is playing the long game. You need to keep reading.

Next up is another popular trope of folks who like to smash the First Amendment: the "I"m a big supporter of free speech, but..." clause. Here's how "Cohen" does it:

Like any sensible person, I am a strong believer in the unalienable right to freedom of speech and I understand that defending freedom of speech is the most important when it’s speech that many people do not want to hear (like, for example, pro-LGBT speech in Russia). Freedom of speech is the core of any democratic society, and it’s important that freedom of speech be strongly respected and upheld. Censorship in all of its forms is something that must always be fiercely opposed. But we must never confuse hate speech with freedom of speech. Speech that offends, insults, demeans, threatens, disrespects, incites hatred or violence, and/or violates basic human rights and freedoms has absolutely no place in even the freest society. In fact, it has no place in any free society, as bigotry is fundamentally anti-freedom by its very nature. The human right to freedom of speech must always be balanced against the human rights to dignity, respect, honor, non-discrimination, and freedom from hatred.

Speech that "offends" has no place? Well, yes, there are attempts to create and pass laws that say just that, but people who understand the First Amendment and recognize the true meaning of free speech don't support that.

Okay, now we get the next "drip" of "this has to be satire" -- claiming that offensive speech is on par with murder, and just to push it over the top, a claim that, when it comes to such speech, we should suspend due process and switch the burden of proof to guilty unless proven innocent:

Civilized countries consider hate speech to be among the most serious crimes around, with many countries even placing it on par with murder. In some countries, people are automatically declared guilty of hate speech and other hate crimes unless they can absolutely prove their innocence beyond any reasonable doubt. The principle of guilty until proven innocent may seem a bit harsh to some, but it makes sense when you consider how severe the crime of hate speech is – it is a crime that simply cannot be tolerated in a democracy. Hate speech is not merely speech, but is, in fact, a form of violence and the international community has established hate speech to be a form of violence many times. Hate speech doesn’t merely CAUSE violence. Hate speech IS violence.

No serious person could claim this with a straight face and be in support of free speech. The drips here become too much. The satire has taken over.

Oh, then just for fun, the article goes political, by declaring a bunch of things fascist -- and claiming that political parties that she disagrees with are undemocratic.

But, in the US, fascist political parties like the Republican Party, the Constitution Party, and the Libertarian Party are allowed to freely exist and to spread their hateful ideology, even though these parties oppose fundamental human rights and thus have absolutely no place in a democratic society. What kind of democracy allows the free existence of un-democratic parties? No society that genuinely values democracy and human rights would allow people to oppose democracy and human rights. That simply isn’t how these things work.

At this point, if you haven't been keeping track, the drip-drip-dripping of satire is just so thick that I find it impossible to ignore, but others still aren't convinced. Still, I can't see how anyone could directly claim that a bunch of political parties, including mainstream ones, shouldn't be allowed to exist and that allowing such political parties is somehow an affront to democracy. There's no way a person could think that legitimately.

There's a lot more of this, including falsely pretending that the Innocence of Muslims video was responsible for middle east violence, which somehow transitions into support for banning Salman Rushdie's The Satanic Verses, which she calls "Islamophobic." I mean, now it's just into laughable satire territory. Figuring out a way to come out in support of Islamic fundamentalism book banning in a piece that supposedly celebrates free speech and democracy is a real trick. Only some brilliant satire can pull it off as capably as this one does.

The article then lists out "a way forward," asking for human rights legislation, with a list of types of speech that should be banned. Again, like the great satire that it is, it mixes in a bunch of ideas that some people might have sympathy for along with some absolutely batshit crazy ideas. Okay, inciting violence against people is one thing, but the proposed law here would outlaw anything that "disrespects" someone's "hair color" or "height." Also, "spreading misinformation, including climate change denial" is a punishable offense. Against immigration? Get thrown in jail. Jokes that "disrespect" the "dignity of people" are out as well. Any speech promoting "unacceptable ideas." I mean, that's straight out of authoritarian censorship handbooks.

And my favorite: "anyone saying that hate speech shouldn’t be against the law would be prosecuted, since hate speech is universally recognized as an injustice and a human rights violation."

Prosecuted how? With very long jail terms -- and the final kicker -- re-education camps:

Anyone guilty of hate speech – which should carry criminal penalties of 25 years to life – should be sent to special prisons designed to re-educate them and to instill values of tolerance, freedom, democracy, and human rights in them.

I mean, at this point, if you had any shred of belief that the article was still real, the use of re-education camps and the history they conjure should finally and totally tip the scales. But just in case you weren't convinced, one more "drip" along the way:

This new human rights law will set up state surveillance of intolerant citizens, including those who voice anti-feminist views and those who voice overt approval of a totalitarian ideology.

I love it. The sentence eats itself. Proposing a totalitarian state surveillance system, claiming to track those who approve of totalitarianism.

There are a bunch of other bits and pieces that just add some icing on the satire cake. Here are a few:

The truthfulness or factual nature of statements should not matter.

These laws would not apply to members of vulnerable minority groups.

... anger against police is something that can certainly be justified, while inciting hatred or violence against LGBT people is something that can never be justified in any way and has absolutely no place in a free and civilized democracy.

Every single man, woman, and child outside of the US strongly supports laws against hate speech.

America’s Orwellian notion of “freedom of speech"....

And, of course, it ends in a full Godwin:

Otherwise, we are truly no better than Nazi Germany was.

There are many other clues. The "author" of the piece, "Tanya Cohen," didn't exist online until the new year. Her Twitter feed is more of the same. And she also has a single post, from January 1st on Daily Kos, attacking Reddit for being "a home for numerous racists, misogynists, homophobes, transphobes, and other bigots." Thought Catalog, meanwhile, is a site that claims, proudly, that it enjoys publishing offensive content. Which would make it an odd place to go to publish a piece saying that publishing offensive content should net you 25 years in jail and re-education camps.

I recognize that some people -- including plenty I know and respect -- still aren't convinced that it's satire. But reading through the whole thing, looking for clues has to leave you convinced that it is, without a doubt, a satirical take, from a free speech supporter trying to mock all of the tropes of the "I'm all for free speech, but..." camp, while slowly dropping more and more hints that it's satire, by making it more and more ridiculous and extreme, and including increasingly insane ideas. In the classic tradition of satire, this one sucks you in. It starts with a stupid premise, but one that is plausible because we've seen it being argued. But then it keeps twisting deeper and deeper into the crazy, such that if you're not paying attention, you might actually believe it. If you don't take a second to step back, you might miss just how brilliant a satire it is.

Or, maybe it's all real and someone really is that screwed up. But you'll have to send me to prison and a re-education camp to convince me that anyone could really think such thoughts seriously.

Filed Under: first amendment, free speech, hate speech, offensive speech, reeducation camps, satire, tanya cohen

UK Party Leader Attacks Satirical Mobile Game Made By Teenagers Interested In Politics

from the well-okay-then dept

Nigel Farage, head of the British political party UKIP (United Kingdom Independence Party), is certainly an interesting character. UKIP is something akin to a vastly more organized version of the Tea Party here in the United States, in that their policies are typically further to the right of the more common conservatives within the political system. Farage is known to be controversial, to say the least, in part because of some opposition to his party's policies (which probably applies to most leaders of political parties in general), but more so because he often times enjoys getting in front of reporters and cameras and doing really stupid things, such as going ad hominem on a group of politically-minded teenagers who created a satirical mobile game jabbing at UKIP's policies.

A phone app made by school students and featuring a character called Nicholas Fromage kicking immigrants off the white cliffs of Dover has been criticised by the Ukip leader, Nigel Farage. Farage claimed the game, developed by a group of sixth-formers from Canterbury Academy, was “risible and pathetic” and that it had “crossed the line”, despite saying he welcomed the opinions of young people.

The game, which is again clearly parody, is a cartoonish jab at some of UKIP's policies with regards to immigration. Without taking any stand on the issues being discussed by the game, it seems almost too facile to point out that Farage's taking on of the students, particularly going so far as to call their efforts "risible and pathetic", is ill-conceived at best. To leave those attacks with a footer claiming to welcome the input of younger generations simply serves to spotlight how dumb this is. Open dialogue ought to be a politician's best friend, particularly for the leader of a self-ascribed libertarian-leaning party. The school where the teenagers developed the game, thankfully, has the children's backs.

But the school’s principal, Phil Karnavas, has defended the app, which he says is a bit of fun to celebrate “brilliant, traditional British satire”.

"It’s a bit rich, bearing in mind some of the things the members of Ukip have said, for their leader to say they have crossed the line. Mr Farage can’t have it both ways. He cannot expect young people to engage in politics and then criticise what they say when they do.”

Imagine instead if the footer had been the entirety of Farage's response. What if he had simply said that he welcomes the input of younger Brits and suggested that political interest from the young is a good thing? After all, for all of the ribbing in the game, some of it quite sharp, the whole thing was framed by a disclaimer that the point was to create political dialogue. For Farage to pretend like some kind of line was crossed simply makes him look more childish than the children he attacked.

[Farage] said: “Those elements are risible and in many ways pathetic. I think I’m quite well known for having a sense of humour."

Pro-tip: if you have to tell a reporter about how everyone knows you have a great sense of humor, you don't have a great sense of humor.

Filed Under: apps, children, humor, immigration, nicholas fromage, nigel farage, satire, teenagers, ukik, ukip

Yet Another Study Shows US Satire Programs Do A Better Job Informing Viewers Than Actual News Outlets

from the honey-makes-the-medicine-go-down dept

By now it's sadly clear that the nation's satirical news programs do a significantly better job at reporting the news than most of the nation's actual news outlets, despite a fraction of the budget and experience. John Oliver's recent analysis of Miss America scholarship claims, for example, contained more original reporting in a fifteen minute segment than most Apple regurgitation blogs manage to stumble through in an entire year's worth of gadget lust. Not only are satirists now doing a better job unearthing the truth, they're doing a better job explaining complex issues. Case in point: a study earlier this year out of the University of Pennsylvania suggested that Stephen Colbert explained campaign financing more effectively than most beat reporters. Of course a 2012 Pew study suggested many cable news viewers were less informed than those who watched no news at all, suggesting it's not too difficult to beat many modern news outlets at their own game when the standards bar is set ankle height.

Satire's continued rise as one of the country's most effective and influential original reporting platforms was again on display courtesy of John Oliver's fantastic net neutrality rant, which not only explained the issue in effective detail, it captured the attention of the dingo-staffed FCC itself (as these recent FOIA-obtained internal FCC memos indicate). It also helped spur the lion's share of the four million net neutrality comments filed with the agency, blurring the line between not only satire and journalism, but consumer advocacy and activism.

This month a new study (pdf) out of the University of Delaware once again highlights how viewers of satirical programs are significantly better informed on the subject of net neutrality than those who watch traditional news programs:

"The survey also reveals that viewers of satirical shows such as John Oliver's Last Week Tonight and The Colbert Report are far more aware of the issue than consumers of traditional news sources...Opposition to the creation of "fast lanes" is strongest (86%) among those who say they have heard a lot about the proposed rules, but most Americans say they have heard little or nothing about the topic. The University of Delaware research found that only 10% of Americans have heard a lot about how "the U.S. government is considering new rules for ISPs." Another 39% have heard a little, whereas fully half (50%) have heard nothing at all about the topic."

Of course a big reason major news outlets aren't adequately informing their viewership on net neutrality is because they're simply not mentioning it. A Pew study from earlier this year studied net neutrality coverage among twenty-three major newspapers and cable news networks, and found most simply didn't discuss the issue this year. That trend continued this month when the President's clear support of Title II rules barely made a dent on major networks like Fox News and CNN, and when it did -- often saw either misleading and inaccurate analysis, or an over-emphasis on inane aspects of the discussion (like what Donald Trump has to say about the issue).

Traditionally, folks like Jon Stewart have denied that satire can be journalism, largely because while clinical presentation of facts easily offends the nation's roaming partisan-cheerleader zombie hordes, a humorous presentation of those same facts magically defuses, creating a narrow-minded stupidity firewall through which truth can function (or as my less verbose grandmother used to say, honey makes the medicine go down). In a New York Times article posted over the weekend, Oliver follows Stewart's lead, stating that what his show is doing is not journalism:

"So, I asked Mr. Oliver: Is he engaging in a kind of new journalism? He muttered an oath, the kind he can say on HBO for comic emphasis, but we don’t say here, adding, "No!" "We are making jokes about the news and sometimes we need to research things deeply to understand them, but it’s always in service of a joke. If you make jokes about animals, that does not make you a zoologist."

While Oliver's presentation of the facts utilizes satire and humor, Oliver's staff has had previous stints at New York Times Magazine and ProPublica, and what they're doing is absolutely and undeniably investigative journalism. Unless of course you're an iron-headed, old guard news industry employee who still believes only Walter Cronkite's talking head has been mystically ordained with the authority to inform the lowly plebeians.

In the end though who really cares if you call this flavor of reporting "journalism," "investigative comedy," or "donkey walnuts." The sole purpose of journalism is to accurately inform and deliver the truth. That's something that has been increasingly lost with the rise of tepid, he said, she said news reporting that sacrifices truth for the bland, unoffensive illusion of balance -- in the process helping to make stupidity fashionable and facts negotiable. It really doesn't matter if it's satirists, comedians, or male strippers stepping up and trying to fix the broken news industry -- just as long as somebody, somewhere is trying to.

Filed Under: journalism, net neutrality, satire

Facebook To Ruin Our Good Time With 'Satire' Disclaimer; The Onion Responds With Satire

from the peeling-away-the-layers dept

Satire: some people just don't get it. More specifically, some folks out there don't have the capacity to read what is an obviously satirical news piece and/or headline and recognize it as such. You all know what I'm talking about: you jump on Facebook and see an article shared by a "friend" that contains the headline, "Barack Obama Admits To Being A Muslim Terrorist Puppy-Puncher" and the accompanying "I told you so!" commentary from your friend sends you into a snigger as you see that it's a link to The Onion, Clickhole, or Infowars. You know, sites that are clearly filled with joke articles that nobody in their right minds would believe. This is one of the great joys of Facebook and social media in general: watching your friends fall for bullshit. In fact, I'm pretty sure that's what Facebook is for.

But Facebook doesn't agree, apparently, as the site is now experimenting with tagging links from these kinds of sites with a "satire" notification.

We can only assume this was implemented as a reaction to users believing that Onion links are nonfiction reports (you can lose hours flipping through Literally Unbelievable, a site that catalogs such boneheaded moments), but we're not sure what compelled Facebook to go so far as to assert editorial control. What's more confusing is this limited implementation, which itself takes a while to explain. Original posts on friends' feeds and The Onion's official Facebook page don't come with a tag. If users save the article to a read-later list, the tag will vanish as well. And other satiric sites, particularly The Onion's newest sibling site, Buzzfeed-spoof Clickhole, are immune to the tag.

Forget confusing, this is yet another inch down the slippery slope in the war on humor and me-getting-to-make-fun-of-people, and I won't stand for it, damn it. People I haven't seen since high school getting fooled by The Onion has been one of the great pleasures in my life and it's just not right for Facebook to chip away at that fun just because it appears to have finally acknowledged that its users are, by and large, idiots.

For what it's worth, The Onion itself appears to concur with this assessment in an article reacting to Facebook's move.

DOYLESTOWN, PA—Describing him as frequently frustrated and overwhelmed, sources confirmed Monday that local Facebook user Michael Huffman is incredibly stupid. “I need stuff easy,” said the absolute dipshit, adding that he finds many things confusing, and that those things must be changed so that they make sense to him. “I like looking at things on Facebook, but I don’t understand a lot. Help, please.” At press time, someone had reportedly fixed everything for the goddamn imbecile.

Funny, but here's an idea. Instead of ruining everyone's righteous good time by tagging satire articles for people, how about instead we work on some kind of integration between Facebook and Snopes? That would be twice as useful and none of the nonsense I regularly combat with Snopes on Facebook makes me laugh, so no harm no foul. Guys? Yes?

Filed Under: algorithms, fooling people, satire
Companies: facebook, the onion

Tom Wheeler: 'I'm Not A Dingo.' John Oliver: 'Prove It!'

from the indeed dept

The John Oliver on net neutrality saga lives on. Following John Oliver's segment on net neutrality, in which he said we should all really be calling it preventing cable company fuckery, the FCC's servers melted down, and suddenly Oliver himself was a story. While the FCC had offered some boring acknowledgement of Oliver's piece, Wheeler was finally caught on the record having to respond to the piece, and he noted something about how it was satire, but also, "I would like to state, for the record, I am not a dingo."

And, of course, how could Oliver resist responding to that challenge. As Oliver jokingly notes, he had only really said that hiring a former cable industry lobbyist to run the FCC was merely like hiring a dingo to babysit your kids. He'd never actually said he was a dingo -- but, of course, now that Wheeler is denying it, Oliver is asking for proof that Wheeler is, in fact, not a dingo.

Filed Under: dingo, fcc, john oliver, net neutrality, satire, tom wheeler

Health And Human Services Apparently Unable To Recognize Satire; Sends Bogus Legal Threat

from the because-shut-up dept

Another day, another story of someone with skin way too thin not comprehending satire and dashing off an angry legal threat. In this case, it's worse than usual because the bogus legal threat is coming from the US government. Popehat has the full story of how some of the legal geniuses at the Department of Health and Human Services have sent a bogus cease-and-desist letter over a pair of obviously satirical posts on the site AddictionMyth.com. While we've long been skeptical of the medical profession's desire to label all sorts of things "addictions," that particular site takes it to extreme levels, arguing that there's nothing that's addictive, and all talk of addictions (including drug and alcohol addictions) are just a big scam "perpetrated by law enforcement, rehab groups and the entertainment industry." I think that's nuts, but they certainly have their right to say so.

They also have the right to post a satirical conversation with a so-called "addiction guru." As Ken at Popehat points out, there's no way to read this without realizing it's satire:

AM: According to your research, blackouts occur not just in middle age alcoholics, but in young college students who may not have built up much tolerance for alcohol. Their drinking often ended up in unprotected sex, vandalism, and fights, of which they had no memory until cued by a friend. What was their response to their memory? Regret? Horror? Delight? Glee? A little of each?

AW: I wasn’t the author of the research. But I would say a little of each, at least based on my own experience. I suspect they remembered more than they wanted to admit. Though one time I got really drunk at a party and my friend told me that I was talking to his sister in French, and I had absolutely no recollection of that. It was surprising to me as a brain scientist because alcohol has been shown to suppress activation of the inferior frontal region (Broca’s area also known as the ‘language center’). I probably shouldn’t have been able to talk at all, let alone French, given my BAC. But what was really weird was that I don’t even know French!

Following this, AddictionMyth posted a bogus mocking satirical cease-and-desist, which pretends to be angry about the satirical interview. This too, is obvious satire. I mean, the letter includes this line:

Do you realize how psychotically insane that sounds? In my field we have a term for it: CRAY-CRAY!

Either way, this bogus cease-and-desist appears to have stirred up the attention of a lawyer at the real US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which apparently has some extra time on its hands now that Healthcare.gov's website is kinda, sorta working. Lawyer Dale Berkley sent a cease-and-desist in which he argues both that (1) the interview is clearly not true and (2) that it might be defamatory. You can't really have both of those things be true.

We recently became aware of two items that you posted on your website directed to two employees of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (“NIAAA”)--one which purports to be an interview with NIAAA Project Manager Dr. Aaron White, and the other a letter from NIAAA Director Dr. George Koob.

Of course Dr. White did not in fact participate in the interview and Dr. Koob did not write the letter attributed to him.

We are concerned that, especially with respect to the mock interview, the public could be deceived and misled into believing that Dr. White in fact contributed to the interview. Those items are defamatory, and expose you to potential liability.

We therefore request that you either remove the articles from your website, or provide a prominent disclaimer indicating that Dr. White and Dr. Koob did not participate in the interview or write the letter.

As noted above, by admitting it's obviously fake, Berkley undermines his own legal argument. Ken White summarizes it nicely:

When the target of satire complains that it is defamatory, the relevant question is whether the satire can reasonably be taken as a statement of fact about its subject. Dr. Berkley, by saying that "of course" the satirical articles do not reflect the actual words of the subjects, has just proclaimed that the satire he is complaining about cannot be taken as a statement of fact.

You paid taxes for that.

White goes into a more in-depth legal analysis of just how preposterously bogus the letter from HHS is, and questions if Berkley was even remotely aware of the law before sending the letter, or if any other lawyer at HHS bothered to look it over. In the meantime, we're wondering if HHS has any programs for helping with the tragically satire-impaired?

Filed Under: addiction, cease and desist, defamation, free speech, health and human services, hhs, satire, threats

Mayor Ardis Defends Police Raid, Complains That Parody Twitter Account Used Up All The Free Speech

from the i'd-find-something-else-to-spend-the-reelection-fund-on dept

As we recently covered, Jim Ardis, the absurdly thin-skinned mayor of Peoria, IL, got the boys in blue to raid a house over a parody Twitter account that portrayed him as a.) a possible drug user, b.) a possible patron of the world's oldest profession and c.) "trill as fuck." Peoria's Finest have never been finer, deploying seven plainclothes officers to nail a dangerous tweeter whose Ardis-mocking account had been shut down by Twitter weeks before. Bonus: drugs were discovered during the raid, which meant the cops could at least declare victory over marijuana use, if not the internet itself.

Now, the fact that the account was already suspended suggests Ardis had previously contacted Twitter about the unflattering parody. So, this next move was overkill. Why would a mayor do such a thing? Because Mayor Jim Ardis believes the First Amendment is zero sum.

"I still maintain my right to protect my identity is my right," Ardis said in an interview with the Journal Star before the council meeting.

"Are there no boundaries on what you can say, when you can say it, who you can say it to?" Ardis said. "You can’t say (those tweets) on behalf of me. That’s my problem. This guy took away my freedom of speech."

Presumably prior to this awesome show of force, the mayor had been forced to sit quietly with his hands folded on his desk. But now that he's stomped on someone else's First Amendment rights, he can finally freely speak.

But those official bootprints across the back of five Peoria residents aren't going to leave lasting marks. The Peoria Journal Star reports that no charges will be brought against the Twitter account holder.

A review of state law indicates the account holders of now-shutdown Twitter account, @peoriamayor, didn’t break the law because the actual crime alleged, “false personation of a public official,” has to be done in person, not over the Internet or other electronic media, said State’s Attorney Jerry Brady.

"At this time, no, because subsection (b) doesn’t include the use of electronic media," he said.

There are also questions as to whether the unrelated drug charge will stick because, well, it's completely unrelated. The warrant used to raid the house appears to be on legally shaky ground already, and its supposed purpose was to effect arrests and seize evidence related to a Twitter account, not root around until something better presented itself. But it could be weeks before that part is sorted out. The States Attorney says it's not uncommon for search warrants and affidavits to take "several days to weeks" to arrive at his office. (Must send these via trans-Atlantic steamer, I guess...) One imagines documents related to this case will take longer than usual.

Meanwhile, the population of Peoria, along with the city council, is extremely angry that Ardis abused his position. A long, heated discussion of this incident included members decrying Ardis receiving preferential treatment from the Peoria PD, as well as generally lamenting how his actions have turned Peoria into a national laughingstock.

Ardis, however, seems unfazed. He still firmly believes he did nothing wrong. The problem here is everyone else, starting with the media.

"You’re the ones responsible for getting full information, but not to spin it in the way you want to spin it," Ardis said to a Journal Star reporter. "To make us look stupid."

"It’s your responsibility to put actual information out there and cover both sides. Not to opine. And that didn’t happen. Clearly, that didn’t happen."

Hey, Ardis. Only one person can make you look stupid, and he's that person up there claiming the First Amendment can't be evenly divided among several people. The actual information is out there. And it all adds up to Ardis not being able to take a joke, ordering cops to arrest people he doesn't find funny, and complaining about "suddenly" being universally reviled.

Filed Under: defamation, free speech, illinois, impersonation, jim ardis, parody, peoria, satire

Aretha Franklin Doesn't Get Satire: Plans To Sue Satirical News Site Over Joke Story

from the sock-it-to-me dept

You would think that, at some point, people are finally going to get that there are such things as satirical news organizations and that they're not serious in what they write. Yet it seems not a week goes by in which someone isn't either fooled by a parody story or railing against it as some kind of funny-demon that ought to be destroyed. The latest to be caught up in this web of barely-veiled humorous deception is the Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, who has threatened to sue satirical news site News Nerd over a fictional story about Patti LaBelle opening up a can of aged whoop-ass on her.

“The stories were not presented as satire or humor,” Franklin said through her publicist, Gwendolyn Quinn. “It was presented as a serious news story intended to depict me in a slanderous and derogatory way — defamation of character.”

And for that, she's suggested she wants $10 million whole American dollars. The story that was not presented as satire or humor, according to Franklin, included such totally not funny or satirical lines as:

Onlookers say Labelle quickly removed her wig and earrings as she approached Franklin. Aretha, knowing that the removal of earrings is a tell-tale sign that a fight is about to ensue, attempted to prepare herself for the confrontation. Franklin was quickly struck with a Mayweather style right and left and stumbled backwards, landing awkwardly.

If you aren't now laughing, check yourself into the nearest mental health center and ask them what happened to your sense of humor. If you don't immediately realize that this is fictional, we, the people, politely request you promise us never to procreate and thereby poison the gene pool with your lack of basic comprehension and common sense. Or you could, you know, just check the bottom of any News Nerd page you might land upon, where it reads:

The stories posted on TheNewsNerd are for entertainment purposes only. The stories may mimic articles found in the headlines, but rest assured they are purely satirical.

And that should take care of that. It's worth noting that no actual law suits yet appear to have been filed, so perhaps Franklin's likely-frustrated lawyers have talked some sense into her. On the other hand, Franklin has been known in the past to demand respect, and that you think about what you're trying to do to her. Meanwhile, the story has gone viral because of course it has, countermanding her wish entirely.

Filed Under: aretha franklin, defamation, joke, parody, patti labelle, satire, whooosh

Rep. Polis Asks Treasury To Ban Dollar Bills, Mocking Senator's Request To Ban Bitcoins

from the you-win dept

Last week, we wrote about the technologically clueless grandstanding Senator Joe Manchin's bizarre request to the Treasury Department and the Fed that it figure out a way to ban Bitcoin. Almost everything in Manchin's letter was ill-informed, right down to his ridiculous assertion that we need to copy Thailand and China (who haven't really banned Bitcoin) to get ahead of this "trend." Of course, as we noted, along with a whole bunch of factual inaccuracies, almost all of Manchin's complaints applied equally to cash.

So, in response to a totally technologically clueless elected official, up steps Rep. Jared Polis, perhaps the most technologically knowledgeable elected official out there, with a counterproposal. He basically rewrote Manchin's letter, but replaced Bitcoin with the dollar bill, highlighting the sheer absurdity of Manchin's request.

I write today to express my concerns about United States dollar bills. The exchange of dollar bills, including high denomination bills, is currently unregulated and has allowed users to participate in illicit activity, while also being highly subject to forgery, theft, and loss. For the reasons outlined below, I urge regulators to take immediate and appropriate action to limit the use of dollar bills.

By way of background, a physical dollar bill is a printed version of a dollar note issued by the Federal Reserve and backed by the ephemeral “full faith and credit” of the United States. Dollar bills have gained notoriety in relation to illegal transactions; suitcases full of dollars used for illegal transactions were recently featured in popular movies such as American Hustle and Dallas Buyers Club, as well as the gangster classic, Scarface, among others. Dollar bills are present in nearly all major drug busts in the United States and many abroad. According to the U.S. Department of Justice study, “Crime in the United States,” more than $1 billion in cash was stolen in 2012, of which less than 3% was recovered. The United States’ Dollar was present by the truck load in Saddam Hussein’s compound, by the carload when Noriega was arrested for drug trafficking, and by the suitcase full in the Watergate case. 

Unlike digital currencies, which are carbon neutral allowing us to breathe cleaner air, each dollar bill is manufactured from virgin materials like cotton and linen, which go through extensive treatment and processing. Last year, the Federal Reserve had to destroy $3 billion worth of $100 bills after a “printing error.” Certainly this cannot be the greenest currency.

Printed pieces of paper can fit in a person’s pocket and can be given to another person without any government oversight. Dollar bills are not only a store of value but also a method for transferring that value. This also means that dollar bills allow for anonymous and irreversible transactions.

The very features of dollar bills, such as anonymous transactions, have created ubiquitous uses from drug purchases, to hit men, to prostitutes, as dollar bills are attractive to criminals who are able to disguise their actions from law enforcement. Due to the dollar bills’ anonymity, the dollar bill market has been extremely susceptible to forgers, tax fraud, criminal cartels, and armed robbers stealing millions of dollars from their legitimate owners. Anonymity, combined with a dollar bills’ ability to finalize transactions quickly, makes it very difficult, if not impossible, to reverse fraudulent transactions.

Many of our foreign counterparts already understand the wide range of problems that physical currencies can have. Many physical currencies have enormous price fluctuations, and even experience deflation.  20 years ago Brazil had an inflation rate of 6281%.  In 4 years (2001 to 2005), the Turkish Lira went from 1,650,000: $1 to 1.29 to $1. In 2009, Zimbabwe discontinued it’s dollar. Before it was eliminated, the Zimbabwe dollar was the least valuable currency in the world and their central bank even issued a $100 trillion dollar banknote. A person would starve on a billion Zimbabwe dollars and it took an entire wheelbarrow full of $100 billion dollars in notes to purchase a loaf of bread.

The clear use of dollar bills for transacting in illegal goods, anonymous transactions, tax fraud, and services or speculative gambling make me wary of their use. Before the United States gets too far behind the curve on this important topic, I urge the regulators to work together, act quickly, and prohibit this dangerous currency from harming hard-working Americans.

Sincerely,

Jared Polis
Member of Congress ​

This is, to put it mildly, absolutely hilarious. I imagine that we'll see some traditionalists bitch about a Congressional rep using satire to mock a colleague, but that's just silly. This makes the point better than any boring letter or speech would ever do. And, considering that Rep. Polis has no problem wearing this on the House floor, I get the feeling he really doesn't care at all what "traditionalists" think of his actions around Congress.

Filed Under: bitcoin, currency, jared polis, joe manchin, parody, satire