Satire v. Tyrannosaurusrocks.com

May 30, 12:30 PMLA Comedy ExaminerAndrea Kittelson

Previous Next

1 comment Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the LA Comedy Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

SATIRE v. TYRANNOSAURUSROCKS.COM

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

No. 08–592X. Argued May 30, 2009—Decided May 30, 2009

Petitioner Satire filed a complaint against Defendant tyrannosaurusrocks.com for defamation, claiming that the Web site is too complex to be satirical and is hence a misrepresentation of Satire, which according to the Petitioner, has had a lasting defaming effect on Satire. Satire has become shy about going outside. When Satire has ventured out, it has been ridiculed, told it isn’t good enough, belied to be all washed up.

With this newfound pressure to include in its scope enhanced, extended metaphor, allegory, irony and other forms of literary might frequently used by tyrannosaurusrocks.com – all at once, Satire has endured sleepless nights (and days), fewer work offers, and diminished interpersonal relationships. The cost of this particular defamation on Satire has been, among other things, material and spiritual.

If tyrannosaurusrocks.com is allowed to call itself Satire, then the pressure on Satire is simply too great. Satire would prefer to keep its definition simple, which Satire argues is more sustainable. More people could write it; more people could read it; and Satire could then easily maintain its impish public image.

It was the ruling of the lower Court that while tyrannosaurusrocks.com might have been on occasion mocking Satire, it was not defaming Satire. Satire should not feel compelled to hold its head the highest when its definition is the simplest and most common. The Court’s decision was almost unanimous. [The lone dissenter was afterward brought into the lavatory and given a ‘swirly.’ A separate assault case is currently pending. The issue at hand in that case is whether or not the dissenter was assuming a certain amount of risk by showing up for work that day as a petite woman of unnamable descent.]

Held: Labeling tyrannosaurusrocks.com as “satire” does not defame Satire; it enriches Satire. If Satire is nervous about the increasing complexity of its genre and the pressure to measure up, it should look to the case of The Presidency v. Moral Integrity. After the judgment in that case was rendered on the side of the Defendant, the Plaintiff stopped bellyaching, grew some balls, read a few self-help books, watched The Secret, and ultimately made the defining choice to live up to its strangely new and all-encompassing position. In fact, since that decision, The Presidency and Moral Integrity have become quite close. It has been rumored that they might eventually, one day, marry.

JUSTICE SOUTER delivered the opinion of the Court:

While defamation is “a false written or oral statement that damages another’s reputation…” (Black’s Law Dictionary) the issue at play here is: “Is altering the definition of an entity which henceforth challenges this entity to become more than it once was and which makes life for this entity in the interim a bit difficult ‘Defamation’?” The answer is “No.”

It is the opinion of the Court that the world is becoming more labyrinthine and also more evolved, and rather than fight it, we should all simply get on board the Evolution Train.

Because of institutions like Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Wikipedia and the University of Phoenix and the replacement of hard copy news with rogue-but-ready online news and additional fast-moving information vehicles that force us all to play an incessant game of intellectual dodge ball wherein we must decide in an instant which balls to catch and which to let fly; because there is more low-quality dung out there, yes, but also, paradoxically, greater access to power and information; and because The Times, They are A-Changin’ , the human mind has become increasingly agile and hence able to fathom the same enriched complexity about which our Plaintiff Satire complains.

The old should not sue the new.

Did the Dutch oven sue the Crock Pot? Did the telegram sue the text message? Did the old Cher sue the new new Cher?

It is our belief, then, that as the definitions of terms evolve, we should all evolve.

Original decision upheld.

SOUTER, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Even though the decision was unanimous, GINSBERG, J. filed a dissenting opinion – “just for fun,” she quipped, while wearing THOMAS, J.’s robe. She’s such a kidder!  

For other Supreme Court decisions, visit the United States Supreme Court.