The Onion’s parody isn’t a parody? β˜•οΈ Got to to sign up for Morning Brew now!

πŸš€ Watch my next video early & ad-free on Nebula!

πŸ‘” Suits by Indochino!

Send me an email:

Interested in LAW SCHOOL? Get my guide to law school!
Need help with COPYRIGHT? I built a course just for you!

Tik Tok:

Please email my agent & manager at

Sorry, occupational hazard: This is not legal advice, nor can I give you legal advice. I AM NOT YOUR LAWYER. Sorry! Everything here is for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Nothing here should be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. Also, some of the links in this post may be affiliate links, meaning, at no cost to you, I will earn a small commission if you click through and make a purchase. But if you click, it really helps me make more of these videos! All non-licensed clips used for fair use commentary, criticism, and educational purposes. See Hosseinzadeh v. Klein, 276 F.Supp.3d 34 (S.D.N.Y. 2017); Equals Three, LLC v. Jukin Media, Inc., 139 F. Supp. 3d 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2015).

Special thanks:
Stock video and imagery provided by Getty Images and AP Archives
Music provided by Epidemic Sound
Short links by (
Maps provided by MapTiler/Geolayers

You may also like...

47 Responses

  1. LegalEagle says:

    βš– Should Novak win?
    β˜• Find out on Morning Brew for free:

    • Povland says:

      We really need an update on this whenever the supreme court does(n’t) do something!

    • Vendel Kjeldsberg says:

      From everything I can understand about American law, yes he should. He has a strong case, and the PD’s is shaky at best. I am however getting quite jaded, as the courts have been doing a lot of weirds lately. That’s the best way I can put it. If he were to lose, that would give the signal that parody, particularly if it is making fun of the state, is not allowed, and the most powerful and possibly truest of oppositional rhetoric could be rendered illegal. Can y’all imagine if it was illegal to make fun of the giant oompa loompa’s misdeeds just because he was a part of the government? Not only would criticism be incredibly dry and boring, but it would lose a lot of its punch. Luckily, I don’t live in the US, so this won’t directly impact me even if it goes south, but a world where the last of the “free” big super powers goes to such a length to stifle criticism, that’s a very scary one.

    • Sphenisciformes616 says:

      This video made my day.

      I hope that Devin sees this comment though, because I need to tell him something very important:

      The doughnut pΔ…czki is pronounced pohnch-kee.

    • Tobi Won Kanogy says:

      Unfortunately copying verbatim the statement released by the PD , the defendant may be guilty of a single count of impersonation (in online format)?. Granted the judge/jury says that action is direct impersonation. The jury didn’t agree with me it seems . The page could end and the PD could frack right off.

    • Jonathon Polk says:

      I would like for him to win, but I doubt he will. As you noted, Qualified immunity has become rather broad, protecting cops and prosecutors unless they clearly violated established constitutional rights. And I think the cops relying on local laws that haven’t been ruled unconstitutional (btw, this one should be nullified, either due to vagueness or overbreadth. Similar laws in Michigan were held unconstitutional a few years ago) is sufficient ground to show that they didn’t know they were violating well established rights, as the purported basis for enforcement wasn’t speech itself but rather him using speech to interfere with police operations. So I would be surprised if scotus grants cert and reverses the COA order. But I’d be glad to be wrong.

  2. Noah Doss says:

    I love the irony of qualified immunity being the exact flip side of the β€œignorance of the law is no defense” coin. Wait, no, actually I hate it

    • Kordell Caldwell says:

      “Ignorance of the law is no excuse… unless your job is literally to uphold and enforce the law”πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚

    • D.G says:

      @John Doe oh there is most certainly a worse timeline but I’d rather not imagine it

    • embustero71 says:

      It seems as though the courts rarely want to err on the side of personal freedom and prefer to expedite the state using garbage rationalizations like “common law”, outright inventing b.s. or whatever. The former should be the default bias in a supposed government of the people, by,…etc. I mean, for instance, no one asked any of us if we have a reduced expectation of privacy just because something’s in a car (I, for one, don’t).

      Much of this stuff is in direct opposition to the bill of rights. They aren’t rights if the state actors can just side step responsibility on the excuse of “I didn’t know I couldn’t”.

    • blackosprey says:

      @Lloyd Feng so then hold the police organization liable, not just the individuals. It’s their poor training and lax attitude towards violating our rights that allows cops to get away with this nonsense.

    • Guillaume Pelletier says:

      @Colin Haney Efficiency just means you don’t use up a lot of resources (time) to achieve some final administrative outcome. If an outcome is not final (ie.: it results in further litigation) then it is not efficient. We’re not talking about violating laws, we’re talking about efficiency as a design principle when writing laws or making legal judgments. Efficiency has nothing to do with whether the outcome is good or bad, it’s purely about achieving finality while consuming few resources.

  3. Claire says:

    This is actually iconic, I love how the onion randomly pops up from time to time just to hit us all in the face with some surprisingly on point parody. so many layers of hilarity here

  4. Pen Name says:

    This entire case feels like the cops got mad for being made fun of and are just taking it out on the dude however they can

    • Peter Longprong says:

      16:38 “Yeah, you would have to be pretty dumb to believe….”
      um, you are talking about 1/3rd of the entire US population who believed Trump’s psychosis … irony?

    • Nathan Mead says:

      @pas9ify The worst bullies have the thinnest skin. And as you say, we’ve given those bullies a gun, a badge, and virtually unlimited power in pursuing whatever they’ve decided to be “their job.”

    • Phil says:

      Don’t forget prosecutors and judge allowed this to continue to trial. Imagine the stupidity that takes to try this case with a straight face.

    • Spirit says:

      @Daniel Widrick They haven’t reacted with anger here, atl not ever officially. Are there officers in the force that are manbabies? Probably, do I think it is the majority, highly unlikely.

      Ofc, I could be biased because I personally know people in the force but I would like to consider myself a neutral party most of the time.

      And let’s be fair, *no one* is emotionally mature anymore it seems. Everyone is all about reacting emotionally to this and that. It is kind boorish honestly.

      Hate this group here and hate this group that. It is like people are getting blinded by their own inherent tribalistic nature constantly of late rather than taking it from an individual perspective.

      You say things as if all police forces are some uniform entity when the reality is that the police everywhere consist of multitude of *individuals,* each with their own individual view of the subject and ideas how to approach it. But do you know what individuals always stand out? The shouty and whiny ones, just like everywhere else.

      You think most policemen are corrupt arseholes are do actually consider the probability that those are, atl if the place has proper 2-4 year education/academies for the police force, the minority?

      I heard that in lot of the US they just recently shortened the police education even more no? Ofc that is gonna reflect on the quality of people you get into the force. Why any governmental body thought _that_ was a good idea is beyond me.

    • G. Andaluz says:

      100% is what happened.

  5. BabomberMan says:

    The Onion is really the hero we need and deserve.

  6. Adam says:

    “They searched for a crime to fit the situation…” is a chilling off-the-cuff remark.

    • furiousapplesack says:

      @Adam That brings to mind “boot straps,” a phrase coined to mock the sort who now unironically use that term as if it’s some kind of valid advice. Also, “ignorant,” wherein the person calling someone else ignorant thinks it means something like “rude” because they’re ignorant of the word ignorant.

    • SomethingElse says:

      ​@skrounst The most recent example I remember was a lady leaving her 12 year old in the car while she went into Walmart. She bought a few things, and went back though the checkout and shopped for a few more minutes. Then she decided she was done and walked past the checkout with her bags and was immediately accused of shoplifting. The off duty cop working security followed her to her car and demanded her receipt. She told him to look at the camera, insisted she didn’t steal anything, and said she didn’t have to show a receipt. He threatened to take her kid because she left the kid alone in the car.

    • skrounst says:

      Yeah, I’m fairly sure every time we go out in public there is some obscure law everyone breaks every day. Its scary that if you make the wrong enemies they can just look for something you did wrong and charge you for it.

    • Snail066 Snail 06 says:

      @g just saying that argument REALLY doesn’t work, considering all of the anti cop riots that happened a few years back. Which means you’re rotten too since you share beliefs with people who burned and looted buildings.

    • omgnumbers9944 says:

      @David A. Craven it is in Parma

  7. Ziven Noorani says:

    This is the first time I’ve ever read a Supreme Court brief and I’m sad that I’ll never read any legal document as entertaining ever again

    • WarlordofBritannia says:

      Well, you never forget your first πŸ₯ΉπŸ₯Ή

    • elektricis says:

      many legal documents can be pretty funny. for example there’s a youtuber, simplynailogical, who owns a nail polish brand called holo taco. they received a humorous letter from taco bell, which they read out loud on their podcast. if you’d like, you can easily find a clip of that on youtube, it’s called “Taco Bell’s Lawyer Wrote Us A Letter”.

    • userofthetube2701 says:

      Try finding the legal complaint of Wile E. Coyote against Acme Corporation. It is pretty good.

  8. Nikki Grace says:

    I really appreciate how well they pointed out that comedy, like stage magic; is reliant on the audience not knowing the punchline, or the trick behind the illusion. It’s completely contrast to the way a lot of other things can and would be handled legally. Very interesting concept.

    • A G N O M I N A says:

      @Gary Myers that’s so plausible I’m near certain there’s precedent regarding patrons claiming a magician left them in crisis, questioning reality. Probably how event/venue tickets wound up sprinkled w/ fine print purchase agreements.

    • Gary Myers says:

      It would be like someone suing a magician. Either they’re upset that the magician was using real magic, or they’re upset that the magician fooled them.

  9. Michelle E says:

    I they said the callers “honest to god thought the page was real”, but then it turns out that wasn’t the case… didn’t whoever said that commit perjury? Was that statement made under oath?

  10. AmberAmbitions says:

    This is actually brilliant by the Onion, unironically. Brings huge amounts of attention to a case that would likely fly quietly under the radar, which is arguably doing more for the case than anything in the brief, even though the brief does make plenty of legitimate compelling arguments.

    • jorge gonzalez-larramendi says:

      the fascist “supremos” must be fuming at the idiot cops

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.