Slashdot Mirror
White House Cease & Desists to The Onion
raj2569 writes "You might have thought that the White House had enough on its plate late last month, what with its search for a new Supreme Court nominee, the continuing war in Iraq and the C.I.A. leak investigation. But it found time to add another item to its agenda - stopping The Onion (soul sucking, life sapping, irritating, obnoxious, but still free registration), the satirical newspaper, from using the presidential seal." The only joke here is that our tax dollars are being spent on this.
why not the government?
Seriously, with the recent frenzy over "intellectual property" restrictions, why shouldn't the government get into the restraining free speech business, like everyone else?
I mean... they could find somebody dull enough to believe the Onion was actually a real presidential announcement.
The point is, though, that the seal is used to indicate official documents, etc. Using it on the Onion does make it look official, to the uninitiated. I'd suggest they should use a modified version, like whitehouse.org does.
Besides, they definitely aren't satirizing the seal itself. If they were, they'd probably be okay. But they're using the real seal.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
I heard this on NPR this morning on the way to work. The reason why the White House office even knows about it is because their own staff reads The Onion because at least they have a sense of humor.
On another note, isn't this protected under parody? If not, could they take the logo and add a triangle around it and then say it's protected under parody?
The first thing I get when you go to the Onion's site is a full-screen ad. So, there is money being made. Just because it's free doesn't mean it's not commercial.
Like a red semi-transparent banner across the seal, with the following words;
The Whitehouse thinks you're too stupid to realize this image is a satirical fake.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Thought that the Presidential Seal was also in the public domain.
Not really. Making fiction that includes references to a President either current or past is protected by the fact that the person is considered a "public figure", and has thus consented to having works made about them.
The problem with the Presidential Seal is that it's intended to carry the full power and weight of the office of the President and is NOT allowed to be used for anything that the President's office does not directly stand behind.
This "parody" thus places the President's office in a bit of a bind. It's not that they necessarily mind the parody, but they cannot have the seal used inappropriately, even if it seems harmless enough. Yet by requesting its removal, they look like the bad guys to the public.
The best solution I can think of is that the Onion should develop a "fake" seal that conveys the fact that it's fake in some way, shape, or form. In that way they would also parody the seal along with the President himself. This would be covered by fair use, and would not cause any confusion with the real seal.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
IANAL. But, if they took down the ads and got rid of the registrations then it would not be a commercial venture. However, since they are using the articles to drive traffic to the ads and they are being paid for ad placement, it _is_ a commercial venture.
The redesign sucks anyway, I don't know who bothers reading it anymore.
www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,53048,00.html
Sometimes I doubt your committment to SparkleMotion!
Because the government belongs to . . . (drumroll please) . . . the citizens of the United States!
Yes, and the Bush Administration is saying they don't need The Onion's help to make them look foolish.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
You took "in any way" out of context... Let me revise for you:
Moreover, if the US Code states that the seal "is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement,"
I think it's safe to say that nobody would confuse the Onion as having presidential support or endorsement.
Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
Argh. Generally, government-created works are considered to be in the public domain and are not subject to copyright. Just as in trademark law, you can't put up your own website and use the FCC logo, the EPA logo or any of a number of other government logos in a way that might confuse people. Under the Necessary and Proper clause the government has the power to do exactly this sort of thing.
I suspect that the seal itself is, for copyright purposes, in the public domain in that anybody can reproduce it. But, there are limitations on its use imposed by other laws.
Here's another example: O'Reilly uses a bunch of public domanin line drawings on the covers of their books. But, they would have a valid trademark infringement claim against anybody who used the same line-drawing of a camel on the front of a competing book about Perl. The drawing is still in the public domain, but cannot be used in certain ways because of trademark law. The government seals & logos enjoy similar protection.
What's new about this? This law has been on the books for years:
/ parts/i/chapters/33/sections/section_713.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
You're correct that the US Code states the seal is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures, etc.
But the seal is routinely used on the cover of texts, novels and other punlications. In the case of the Onion, the seal wasn't used in in an ad, it has been used in parody articles, ones the present administration doesn't appreciate.
It shouldn't be an issue of taste or support. If the government wishes to enforce against the Onion, they need to enforce against all "unauthorized, commercial or illegal" use of the seal, supportive or not.
...carrier dead.....
But, for it to be satirical for that moron, he would have to say NICE things about them. That wouldn't bother me at all. That said, even if it was for his asinine and hateful reasons, it should be protected. The first amendment is supposed to protect political speech, and not just the speech you or I like. Even the village idiot gets a voice.
You don't have to listen.
You don't have to like it.
You do have to allow it.
Well, it's that or just use the U.S. Constitution for toilet paper since it's of no value if you can cherry pick why, when, and how you apply it.
"Satire will only cover you so far."
Your kidding of course. Showing the Presidential seal does not fall outside of the bounds of Satire, because clearly they are not implying Presidential support or endorcement. Therefore the use is acceptable. And if there is any White House that deserves Satire it is this one. But then again this White House now understands that their public ratings are so low that they can't afford any Satire that exposes the sad humor of the current administration. Go Onion, go free speech, go America, America, America.
If someone is stupid enough to be fooled by "Study Reveals Pittsburgh Unprepared For Full-Scale Zombie Attack" or "Bush Disappointed To Learn Chinese Foreign Minister Doesn't Know Karate" then something tells me a slight modification to the presidential seal isnt going to make any difference.
The seal is used in movies, too. No one seems to care about that, either.
The Onion, along with Comedy Central, are practically the only media outlets that have actually hurt the Bushists in the last five years. They are Cheney's #1 targets for vengeance.
Although he might want to hurry up. One of his little campaigns for payback is about to bear fruit as a series of indictments from a federal prosecutor. He's going to be a busy man, trying to take down the justice system.
Sorry, but I did not know that "the administration" was elected as governor of the state of Louisianna and the mayor of New Orleans. Oh wait, no... they weren't. It seems odd how they "mismanaged" this relief effort but did just fine and dandy during the most recent Wilma that hit Florida.
Sorry bub, but I happen to live in New Orleans. The governor and mayor did everything possible with the resources at their disposal, including the first ever truly successful contraflow evacuation of such a large American city. Afterward, with their resources scattered and the city under water, they begged the federal government for help. While the storm was still raging governor Blanco was on the phone with FEMA telling them what we would need -- helicopters, water, food, and tents, in more or less that order. Contrary to what you may have read in some quarters all of the paperwork was filled out properly and submitted ahead of time. The state of emergency was declared.
The Katrina disaster was much too large for the locals to handle it themselves; things like this are why we have a Federal government at all.
So what did the Feds do? Day 1: Nothing. Day 2: Nothing. Day 3: Nothing. Oh wait, not quite nothing. Blanco complained that they were very interested in "negotiating an organizational chart," e.g. figuring out who would be in charge. And by Tuesday they did get around to trying to strong-arm her into abdicating her position as our elected leader and federalizing the state resources that remained viable.
Oh, and they did manage to turn back anyone who "self-responded" like the convoy of rescuers with boats who assembled from the Lafayette area the day after the storm. They managed to turn back the trucks of water offered by Wal-Mart. Yeah, the Feds weren't entirely idle in those first few days; they managed to fucking TURN AWAY what little aid our local people managed to assemble when the government failed them. They managed to order doctors at the airport NOT to save lives because they hadn't been "federalized."
And what turned FEMA from the heroes of hurricane Charley to the rat fuckers who probably killed hundreds of my neighbors as they waited in their attics? After 9/11 they were wrapped into the department of Homeland Security and their focus shifted from disaster relief (first priority: save lives) to anti-terrorism police (first priority: establish control of the situation).
You can't blame that on Clinton or the Democrats. That reorganization was this Republican Administration's idea, passed by this Republican congress. And while the newly cop-oriented FEMA was polishing their guns and turning away help that didn't arrive with the right paperwork, my neighbors died. For that reason alone they all deserve to be tossed out of office and charged with malfeasance.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
"...for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title..."
So where is this not the case? I don't see anyone excepting a single reporter in China a few years back taking The Onion seriously... And the commercial clauses would have to show that The Onion purposely used the seal to gain profit. Not a lawyer, but I think that'd be hard to prove in most cases of use of the presidential (etc.) seals. I think they'd have a better case against book publishers and movie makers who seem to use the seal often on political thrillers because the medium the seals are conveyed on are specifically on items that are not free access. You have to buy your ticket, book, whatever.
I get your point, but unless The Onion can't defend itself in court somehow I don't see this lawsuit going very far. Especially with the negative repercussions in an already poor public opinion atmosphere at the White House. It's not enough of a smoke-screen issue to distract the public from the current scandals there, so this is really a puzzling move. Carl Rove must be slipping. :D
> Bill Clinton did not balance the budget, the Republican Majority balanced it. In fact, Bill Clinton vetoed the budget causing the longest shutdown of the federal government. He then went on to sign it as he was practically forced into.
...?
I call BS - and the usual 'conservative' attempt to rewrite history. The two sides went at it and the budget was balanced. You so called conservatives will soon be saying Reagan balanced his budgets.
>As opposed to Bill Clinton's invasion of two "wrong" countries Haiti and Kosovo... a "quagmire" I think we're still stuck in. Not to mention his poor execution of the efforts in Somalia and his indifference to the people of Rwanda.
More US soldiers died last month than in above mentioned actions. Also, Clinton didn't personally profit from his military adventures, unlike the current administration.
Rwanda I (and Clinton) will grant you, but imagine the Republican stink if Clinton had called out the troops.
And when some righty lies about national security it's ok because
>Hrmmm maybe it wasn't FEMAs fault afterall.
Take responsability for nothing, ever. Shout traitor. Stuff your fingers in your ears and mumble: "Lewinski, Lewinski" over and over. Your entire movement is morally bankrupt and incompetent. Your guys even make Clinton look good, and that takes some doing. Fiscally, conservatism has been a fraud since Reagan.
Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
Let's do some "history correction".
Sure, lets.
Now this administration may be able screw up the invasion of the wrong country...
As opposed to Bill Clinton's invasion of two "wrong" countries Haiti and Kosovo... a "quagmire" I think we're still stuck in. Not to mention his poor execution of the efforts in Somalia and his indifference to the people of Rwanda.
I am no fan of Clinton, but you can't seriously be comparing the scope of Haiti and Kosovo to Iraq.
leak the names of CIA agents...
At this point unfounded speculation at best. Besides, it's not a crime to "leak" the names of CIA agents unless the intent was to expose them. In this case, it was hardly the intent to expose an undercover CIA operative (which Mr. Wilson's wife was not), but simply to disclose how Mr. Wilson got the assignment. But speaking of breaking laws, who was it that lied to a Grand Jury abou a blow job? Oh yes, that was Bill Clinton.
First off, yes, it is a crime to leak the name of an undercover agent (or any other classified information) regardless of intent. And yes, despite the administrations carefully worded talking points she was undercover, and the information was classified as "secret" in the memo the CIA provided to the WH.
And the "intent to disclose how Mr. Wilson got the assignment" fib has been sunk by the time lines--unless you are claiming they began an organized campaign to clarify a statement three weeks (mid June) before the statement was made (early July) and are intending to split hairs about the distinction between why Wilson in particular was send (selected by the CIA, after being suggested by his wife) from the real question of why anyone was sent on this particular assignment (do obtain more information, as requested by Cheney).
As for the "unfounded speculation" aspect, you may want to catch up on the news. We now know that the administration has repeatedly lied about this issue, including the claim that Rove & Libby had "nothing to do with it" which was changed to "first heard about her from reporters" and then to "were acting alone, not as part of any organized campaign" and that they were doing it "in response to Willson's NYT opinion piece" but started weeks before the piece was even written and did so in an amazingly unified and coherent fashion. We were told that "Cheney knew nothing about it," even though today we learn that Libby's hand written, dated notes of a meeting with Cheney in the days before the campaign started include the salient details.
But I guess all this overshadows the fact that the 9/11 commission says Mr. Wilson lied about the Nigeria-Iraq connection, which is what the liberals want.
Stripping the political baggage from your statement (facts don't care who "wants" them), Wilson was disputed on a single point; he said he "saw" that the documents were forgeries, but had not in fact personally "seen" the original documents. Understandable as a miscommunication, and hardly discrediting, especially as (IIRC) he clarified the point as soon as he was called on it. He has been proven correct and Dick "We know they have WMD" Cheney has been proven incorrect on every substantive point.
--MarkusQ
P.S. For the record, I was up in arms about Clinton and the BJ too. Both for the perjury and (perhaps more importantly) for the effect on his family. Hillary can take care of herself, but imagine the effect that must have had on his daughter. Not to mention that the Democrats would have been up in arms, crying sexual harassment if a CEO or the president of a university had done something similar.
But just as I hold the Democrats responsible for their actions, I expect the leaders of my own party to behave themselves in a way that brings credit, not shame, on the party. And this cabal of nincompoops is doing more damage to the Republicans than any Democrat could dream of doing.
No, free speech means saying anything you want, no matter who said it (or thought it) first, or any other qualification. Practical free speech means some limits necessary to running a working society are imposed, like the proverbial "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater' (except from the stage, or when there's a fire). Those limits do not prohibit satirical speech, because private commercial interests are overbalanced by the public interest in commentary. Especially where the government is concerned, satire is more important. There's no prohibition on profiting from satire - the profits enable the satirist to satirize.
So, in fact, this story is entirely about free speech, as is perfectly obvious. And it's about the most important speech that's protected by our laws: criticizing the government. The government isn't just some corporation with a product, it's us, it's ours. Especially right now, while this government is run by people under indictment for suppressing info, attacking legitimate dissenters, publishing lies unchallenged by most media, violating conflict-of-interest restraints on commercial communications, secret deals to launder money for illegal advertising. We need more speech, more criticism of the government. And satire lets us do that without the truth drowning us in numbing cynicism. Hail to The Onion, America's Finest News Source.
--
make install -not war
I guess that the people at the Onion aren't creative enough to make up a satirical seal...
People who don't vote for these animals don't have to feel as bad. People who vote for someone better get to feel good about our part. People who get other people to vote for someone better get to feel even better. And when we get people who actually manage our government in the interest of our citizens, we get to feel like real Americans - the best feeling in the world.
--
make install -not war