Scott v. The Northeast

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

Good justices of the court, I am working on a brief (despite whatever odds beset me.)

However, could I have an extension until 11:59 PM EST, July 11th?

[#CriminalizeSobriety]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The same could be said of Mark Knopfler's Money for Nothing. When we reexamine the offending clause in question:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

One could easily argue the point that Mark Knopfler was merely deprecating the homophobia of the maintenance worker in question. It must also be taken into account the cultural sensibilities of the 1980's - "f****t" was hardly a controversial word at the time. By comparison, we're more acutely aware of mental disorders now than ever before, which makes Pharrell's ridicule of the mentally ill even more tasteless and vulgar.

On justification of the band, I cite the Federal Communications Commission's guidelines:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

citation

While I don't know of any contexts in which this could be taken sexually, I contend that Happy is completely devoid of any artistic value. In addition, I cite Justice Averroes' opinion in Scott v. The Northeast, that demonstates that the song is unscientific, and thus not of scientific value:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I submit to the court, the song itself in all of its horror:
Happy - Pharrell

I know Scott to be an upstanding Atlasian, and I'm sure his heart is in the right place. However, I'm not convinced that he's actually listened to the song, or surely he'd have arrived at a different conclusion. I don't know of what goes on in the dark and twisted mind of one who would concoct the whirlwind of diahrrea that is Happy. The icing on the proverbial urinal cake is that Pharrell has released 24 Hours of Happy, an orgy of excess and is obscene by almost any objective measure. Merriam-Webster's website offers some definitions for "obscene:"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Happy in it's short/radio version is certainly repulsive, and in its 24 hours version it's excessive. As has been established before, it's commonplace for songs to be censored (or 'bleeped out') and receive radioplay. Some of our more reserved activists might suggest that Happy is merely indecent, as opposed to obscene. However, in my opinion, Happy is problematic because there isn't a conceivable way that the song could be altered to make it not obscene.

There are other precedents of inhibiting one's constitutional rights to freedom of expression, religion, et cetera. There is the oft-cited clause in Schenck v United States, of which Holmes' opinion upheld that it was illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. To further ellaborate:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

citation

Setting all of that aside, it isn't as if this is an outlier on inhibitions of freedoms protected by Article 6th in the Constitution. My next exhibit for the court is the Native American Ghost Dance. What is the Native American Ghost Dance?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

citation

The Ghost Dance is indisputably an exercise of the freedom of religion, which would seemingly be protected by Article 6. Perhaps more relevant, the Ghost Dance was seen as an uplifting exercise to make Natives happy in times of distress. However, what was the reaction of the United States military in response to the Ghost Dance?

Not very nuanced.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In short, the Lakota people were merely exercising a free expression of religion, and heavy-handed policy by the United States Government (whose Constitution is the foundation of our own) resulted in hundreds of deaths, simply out of fear that the Ghost Dance was going to incite violence. By comparison, the Northeast's ban does not call for any such arrests or executions, and the risk that Happy poses to incite violence is arguably far worse.

For the third prong of my defense, I would like to cite SPC vs. Atlasia

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For reasons that are unfathomable to any person of good taste, Happy is quite ubiquituous on radio stations, to the point where those on the lower rungs of employment and labor skill could not conceivably find employment without being subjected to it at least once a day:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

citation

In other words, Happy is every bit as common as smoking in the workplace, if not moreso.

In short, I appeal to the good musical tastes and general decency of the Atlasian Supreme Court to uphold this ban, in the name of protecting the general welfare from the tender mercies of Pharrell's phascism.