Scott v. The Northeast

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Good evening, gents.

I would like to file suit against the government of the Northeast Region for passing a law that contains a clause that is explicitly unconstitutional.

This law, of course, is the Northeast Recognition Omnibus bill.  The offending clause is Section 2, Subsection 2, which states, and I quote:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This is in violation of Article VI, Clause 1, which states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Though this clause may be considered appropriate censorship to some, nothing in the Constitution states that a region may ban a song.

For the aforementioned reasons, I believe this bill is unconstitutional and I ask the court to take up my case.

x Scott

[LeBron]

Thank you so much for filing against this! I second this. This song ban has absolutely nothing to do with what the bill's intent is and infringes on the public's right to listen to great songs like this one.

[Cincinnatus]

Thank you so much for filing against this! I second this. This song ban has absolutely nothing to do with what the bill's intent is and infringes on the public's right to listen to great songs like this one.

Constitutionality aside, I'm not suprised you think it's a great song.  Also, we were wondering when someone would catch on and pay attention.  Good job Scott, gold star.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

Good job Scott, gold star.

[CatoMinor]

*If* the court chooses to hear this case, I ask the Justices that I may be permitted to file an amicus brief on behalf of the Northeast.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Is the court deliberating over whether to grant cert?

(I realize that convincing the court to rule against the offending provision will be more difficult than I expected, given that one Associate Justice apparently supports it, but I just want to be acknowledged. )

[Oakvale]

I'd like to clarify that my comments in that thread were obviously humorous and facetious and I assumed that no-one had taken them seriously.

I would suggest that the petitioner first take up this matter with the Northeast regional court since the Northeast constitution, to the best of my memory, contains its own free speech clause. If the ruling in that instance is unsatisfactory he could proceed to the Supreme Court.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

With you it's hard to tell sometimes, oakvale.

I will take this case to the Northeast CJO.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Your Honors,

I have taken the above case to The Northeast CJO.  In summary, the distinguished Chief Justice concluded that while our objections to the law are valid, "they imply a stronger standard of harm than the Northeast Constitution demands," and upheld the offending provision.

I respectfully disagree with the reasoning behind the Chief Justice's decision to uphold the law and will, on the advice of my attorney, Bacon King, appeal this decision to the high court.  I urge the Court to consider my appeal.

Should a second thread be necessary to raise this appeal, I will create one as requested.

[Oakvale]

This has been seen. I will get in touch with my, er, fellow Justice, about the merits of this case. Hopefully we don't reach a split decision! The decision will be posted shortly.

[Oakvale]

Official Atlasia Supreme Court Release
Nyman, DC

Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court of Atlasia grants certiorari to hear the question of whether S2, cl. 2 of the Northeast's Northeast Recognition Omnibus bill violates the Constitution of Atlasia.

Schedule

Petitioner has one week to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 6:00PM EDT on  Tuesday, July 8, 2014.

Respondent has an additional seventy-two hours to file his brief.  It is expected no later than 6:00PM EDT on Friday, July 11, 2014.

Amicus Briefs will be accepted until 6:00PM EDT on Friday, July 11, 2014, unless the filing party can show sufficient need.

Additional time may be granted to either party upon a showing of sufficient need, and the right of either party to respond to the filed briefs may be granted upon request.

A period of argument (Q&A) will be scheduled after presentation of the briefs in case any member of the Court has any questions for the parties.

[rpryor03]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I thank Representative Rpryor03 for his brief and endorse it in full.  I do plan to submit my own brief within the coming days, either tomorrow or on July 4th (I have a fetish for writing them on the 4th).

[Bacon King]

Yo Scott I got this

BACON KINGMAN IN THE (COURT) HOUSE

The defendant correctly notes that certain specific exceptions exist to absolute freedom of speech and that these exceptions sometimes include musical lyrics. The defendant also aptly indicates that forcing someone to listen to a song on repeat against their will can bring about substantial duress and even be considered a form of torture. However, this illuminating lesson is only a distraction from the fact that the banning of "Happy" has no constitutional basis whatsoever.

The lyrical content itself contains nothing that can be construed as hate crimes in any jurisdiction, and doesn't talk about killing any Federal government officials. And while the song may be a bit obnoxious, the fact that it could hypothetically be used to torture someone doesn't mean it should be banned. The defendant references such a situation with Metallica, but Metallica songs aren't even banned for this reason.

However, even if the Northeast Government had some legitimate reason to ban "Happy", this blanket ban is far too broad to be Constitutional anyway. The response to "oh maybe it'd be torture if you're forced to listen to it for a whole day" is not "BAN IT EVERYWHERE" no matter how terrible it is.

This is also an unconstitutional violation of the Atlasian Constitution's Equal Protection Clause because Pitbull is still allowed to have music in the Northeast and let's be real here he's worse than Pharrell so until "Timber" is banned there is a gross miscarriage of justice occurring to do the inequality established in the law by this ban.

This is also a violation of the the part of the constitution that says Regional Government's can't limit interstate commerce, because the music industry is definitely commerce and this law is definitely limiting it.

I also petition the court to award financial damages to all parties who have been financially impacted by this erratic action on behalf of the Northeast, including Pharrell Williams, his record labels, the fifteen personnel associated with the production of the song itself, the fifty or so associated with the production of the music video (including celebrity guest cameos), as well as the people who made Despicable Me 2 since the song is on that movie's soundtrack. Let's add about five billion dollars in punitive damages as well because this law causes harm that could have been easily prevented so the Northeast needs to learn not to do it again

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ATLASIA

-----------------------

SCOTT
Petitioner

v.

The NORTHEAST REGION
Respondent

-----------------------
 
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF ATLASIA

-----------------------
 
BRIEF OF AMICIUS CURIAE IDS EMPEROR SCOTT
-----------------------
 


INTEREST

Scott is the Emperor of the Imperial Dominion of the South who believes that the right to free speech and expression is the right of all citizens.
-----------------------
 


REQUESTED REMEDY

INJUNCTIVE - The Court is asked to nullify Section 2, Subsection 2 of the Northeast Recognition Omnibus Act and all other such Regional or federal amendments and statutes, and require the Northeast Region to pay appropriate reparations to the affected parties.
-----------------------

ARGUMENT

May It Please The Court --

Distinguished members of the Court,

I am, nor have ever been, a fan of the music of Pharrell Williams, the man whose work is the subject of our recent controversy.  In fact, I never even knew who the guy was until I looked him up on Wikipedia, nor did I know what the song Happy was until I looked it up on YouTube and listened to a sample of it a few minutes ago.

So what was my opinion of the song I just listened to?  Well, pretty much every song on my iPod playlist is of the country variety, so naturally the song wasn't my forte.  I found the song neither catchy nor the music video visually appealing.  In fact, this is a song that I will likely never opt to listen to again.

But, I doubt that the distinguished members of this Court are interested in my musical preferences.  I respect that sentiment entirely.  However, what distinguishes my dislike of the song from Governor Dallasfan's dislike of the song is my willingness to 'live and let live,' and refrain from imposing my musical likes and dislikes on the People of this nation.  Indeed, it stands to reason that the quality of all music is subjective.  One man's Beatles is another man's Nickelback.  Therefore, it is only proper of government to take a neutral approach toward what music may be or may not be present in the public square and leave that matter to individual consumers.

The legal opinion of the side of the Plaintiff is grounded in long-standing law.  Indeed, it is Article VI, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Atlasia which states,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nowhere in our Constitution is any level of government, federal or local, permitted to ban forms of art or speech without proper justification.  Some have argued that the banning of Pharrell Williams' Happy is merely a form of censorship on a form of speech that is not constitutionally protected, but this is faulty reasoning at best and downright false at worst.

The distinguished Chief Judicial Officer of the Northeast Region, Averroes Nix, upheld the ban on the grounds that the song "inflicts a non-negligible level of harm on listeners, not only because of its aural qualities, but because of lyrics that mock the mentally ill ('It might seem crazy what I'm about to say') and spread dangerous misinformation about ballooning ('I'm a hot air balloon that could go to space with the air')."  However, it is well understood by artists and listeners that such lyrics need not be taken literally and are, indeed, hyperbolic by intent of the songwriter.

The Court is hopefully aware that numerous songs include lyrics pertaining not only to hyperbole, but violence, racism, crime, and numerous other societal ills that people in our society frown upon.  Nowhere in the song Happy are those negatives even referenced, yet the region chose this song in particular to ban outright, again with little justification.

Furthermore, The CJO cited a fatality in his opinion that was linked to the song in question.  However, this particular case serves to teach us the lesson of not texting while driving, rather than what songs we should or should not listen to.


CONCLUSION

By now, it should be clear to the Court that none of the reasons cited by the CJO in his opinion are valid from an objective standpoint.  The Defendant carries the heavy burden of proving how the song poses a real and direct danger to its listeners or otherwise should be considered a form of 'torture,' and thus how an outright ban of it meets the standards set by our Constitution.

With respect to remedies, I echo the demands set by a previous brief filed by Northeast Representative rpryor03:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Signed,

Scott
Emperor of the Imperial Dominion of the South

[#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?

[Oakvale]

That's fine, extension granted.

[#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.

[Oakvale]

Thank you Governor. The submission period is now closed and no further briefs will be accepted. The case is under discussion.

[Oakvale]

Supreme Court of Atlasia
Nyman, DC

Scott v. The Northeast

Opinion of the Court.

(Senior Associate Justice Oakvale delivered the opinion of the Court.)

After consideration of the submitted briefs and the facts of the case, the Court has come to a unanimous, but qualified, decision in favour of the petitioner, Governor Scott, in regards to the Northeast region's ban on the song Happy.

At question in this case is the power of the regional government to censor media if it is judged to be in the public interest. The Constitution of Atlasia of course, in Art. VI  c.1, guarantees all citizens

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The question before the Court then, is the power of regional governments to reconcile this constitutional guarantee of free speech and expression - in this case, personal preferences expressed through playing or listening to a morally objectionable piece of music - and the desire to maintain the general public welfare.

Perhaps the most obvious comparison to Pharrell William's Happy is Andre Serrano's Piss Christ. This extremely controversial 1987 artwork consisted of photograph depicting a crucifix contained in a jar of human urine. Despite some popularity among critics and aritstically-minded audiences, in an inverse of the way that Happy is popular among a certain segment of listeners of dubious taste, Piss Christ proved hugely controversial, with Christian activists and politicians expressing outrage and disgust at the perceived blasphemy. One can imagine that local governments considered the implications of banning or censoring this obscene artwork in, of course, the public interest.

Happy, any reasonably impartial observer would agree, lacks artistic merit almost entirely. Contrary to Piss Christ's intriguing commentary on societal ills and the rejection of Christ's supposed message, Happy contains very little that could conceivably be argued to add anything of worth to society. The lyrics are vapid, the music grating and intolerable, and the near-constant repetition in virtually all public places throughout Atlasia is tantamount to noise pollution or, indeed, a form of mild audio torture.

But the Court must concede that a lack of artistic merit even more blatant than that argued by opponents of Piss Christ does not reasonably give the regional government grounds to legislate on the basis of taste, no matter how objective the question of taste in this instance may seem. Happy is clearly not by any measure a 'good' song. It may even be morally offensive and plausibly damaging to some notion of cultural integrity. But, like Piss Christ, the public must be allowed to display and enjoy art, no matter the content, as the right to free expression remains sacrosanct.

While no one can doubt Governor Dallasfan's noble intentions, and indeed the laudable efforts by the former regional justice, Averroes Nix, in their fight against this distasteful cultural artefact, the constitutional conflict is clear. As we stated in the slightly more significant Snowstalker vs. The Midwest, speech, no matter how distasteful, offensive or lacking in artistic merit (as in this case) is protected. If you will pardon the pun, the Court has little choice but to strike down the ban, allowing Happy to be once again foisted on the Northeast region's radio stations by judicial... phiat.

However, the Court must reject entirely the petitoner's request for monetary restitution to the supposedly injured parties in this case. Crucially, the law in question provided for no enforcement mechanism whatsoever, and there is no reason to suggest the ban ever actually took effect. Indeed, it is entirely possible that Happy received a significant increase in airplay and sales as a result of both the increased publicity surrounding the ban and the subsequent litigation, and indeed as a form of protest against the perceived injustice. We cite in evidence of this citizen A Person's request that protestors blare the song outside the Northeast capitol as a result of the ban.

§2, c. 2 of the Northeast Recognition Omnibus Act is in violation of the Constitution of Atlasia and is hereby struck down. However, no fines or monetary penalties shall be levied on the Northeast government, the federal government, or former Governor Dallasfan as a result of this case.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I would like to thank the Court for its time and attentiveness to this important topic.

I am confident that this case will be used as precedent should, heaven forbid, a similar conflict comes to the public eye.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a victory speech to give at a rally outside the courthouse.  Do excuse the Happy song looping in the background.  If I were you, I would get home as soon as I can.

[bgwah]

I concur with Oakvale.