Unable to load image

The Onion and The Babylon Bee join forces for free speech

https://reason.com/2022/11/01/the-babylon-bee-joins-the-onion-in-decrying-an-ohio-law-that-makes-parody-a-felony

![](/images/16674454055116708.webp)

99
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Among other things, the fake Facebook page included a job notice saying the department "is strongly encouraging minorities to not apply," a warning that Parma [Police] had banned food handouts so "the homeless population" would "leave our city due to starvation," and an announcement of "our official stay inside and catch up with the family day," during which anyone venturing outside between noon and 9 p.m. would be arrested. The police department was not amused.

:#marseykingcrown:

After a jury acquitted him, Novak filed a federal lawsuit against several officers who were involved in the case, arguing that they had violated his constitutional rights under color of law. But last April, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled that the defendants were protected by qualified immunity, which shields cops from liability unless their alleged misconduct violated "clearly established" law.

It's such a vague bullshit excuse for unlawful piggotry.

:#marseyishygddt: :marseycop2: :marseycop2::marseycop2:

And here the Appeals Court seems to be arguing that all parody must given the \s reddit treatment:

The 6th Circuit cited two reasons why police might have reasonably believed that Novak's spoof did not qualify as constitutionally protected speech: Novak had deleted comments describing the page as fake, which he thought ruined the joke, and he had reposted a police department warning about the ersatz account, which he thought made the joke funnier. Like The Onion, the Bee takes issue with the implication. "Parody shouldn't be stripped of constitutional protection just because it's not clearly labeled as parody,"

Gooberment. :marseydisagree:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

![](https://media.giphy.com/media/3o6vXNjfKzUC3rr1sY/giphy.webp)


![](/images/16674454055116708.webp)

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Hot

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

If we got rid of qualified immunity overnight, the cops would all be shut down by being forced to hire lawyers to argue against Darrell Brooks's :marseyobjection:s. But who is really behind this?

The root problem here isn't that cops are bad in general. It's that lawyers are a parasitic racket. Our legal system is entirely oriented around their ceremonies and rituals, their pomp, and especially their creative ways of billing for the "work" that they do. Every case gets drawn out as long as possible since the lawyers are working together against their clients. They operate in complete impunity with no outside oversight. We will never be able to get shit done in courts if it's done at their pace.

I can't fricking believe how naive people are to blame cops when this stuff happens. Do you think this happened in Jerkoff, Ohio without the local prosecutors, judges, and public defenders all being part of the same organized crime ring? The cops are just their pawns.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

:#brooksannoyed:

How can you even call yourself a judge?

I am not Darrell Brooks, I am a third party intervener, here on behalf of my client

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

This! So much this! :marseyagree:

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Lawyers behave in accordance with the incentives provided by the legal system. :marseyshrug: Hate the game, not the player. :marseypixel:

Qualified immunity needs its teeth kicked in a little but not thrown away. Government employees should never be allowed to unionize, which is a major roadblock to holding them accountable.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Neighbors be like โ€œunions can do no wrong.โ€ Have you seen a police union in the past 50 years smh. Never more apparent that unions exist as a direct oppositional force to their employers on behalf of both of their constituents both good and bad as when their employers are the public.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

which shields cops from liability unless their alleged misconduct violated "clearly established" law.

The 1st amendment is not clearly established, like what about people who I disagree with should I allow them to talk?

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.



Now playing: Donkey Kong December National Anthem.mp3

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.