The brief expressed surprise at an American being imprisoned for mocking the government, as well as concern over the Sixth Circuit’s decision, and cited three reasons for the same.
The first, it said, was the obvious fact that its business model was threatened when the absurdity of actual events eclipsed what the staff at The Onion could make up.
“Much more of this, and the front page of The Onion would be indistinguishable from The New York Times,” it stated.
Secondly, comparing the domestic regime with that of Iran and North Korea , it claimed that its writers were disappointed with a legal ruling that fails to hold government authorities accountable for jailing and prosecuting a would-be humourist simply for making fun of them.
“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,” it stated.
Thirdly, it claimed that the ruling imperils an ancient form of discourse and suggested that parodists are in the clear only if they pop the balloon in advance by warning their audience that their parody is not true, and that some forms of comedy don’t work unless the comedian can tell the joke without a disclaimer.
“Parody is the quintessential example. Parodists intentionally inhabit the rhetorical form of their target in order to exaggerate or implode it—and by doing so demonstrate the target’s illogic or absurdity,” it said.
Source: Barandbench
