According to the avid Yahoo News readers in my Facebook feed, a few weeks ago the Supreme Court decided on some "landmark" cases. Yet, I noticed the following important decisions were ignored by both the public and the mainstream media.
Hedgehogs United v. Buzzfeed
In a landmark case that could dramatically change the Internet, and by extension our lives, Hedgehogs United v. Buzzfeed pit the most powerful hedgehog-lobbying group against Ryan Gosling-captioning titan, Buzzfeed. Hedgehogs United (HU) feels that Buzzfeed has undermined millennia of evolution and R&D that HU's members spent developing a patented spike defense system to make hedgehogs seem fierce. Therefore the ruthless "NRA of hedgehog lobbying groups" is suing for defamation over Buzzfeed's many articles whose sole purpose is to portray the animals as "cute, cuddly and loveable." In response, Buzzfeed's lawyers released a brief titled "24 Reasons Why the First Amendment Protects Adorable Pictures of Animals." To add insult to injury each legal reason had an accompanying picture of a cute hedgehog reading a large legal textbook. Insiders on the court worry that Buzzfeed will sway the judges by threatening to release articles such as "15 Pictures of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in a Bikini" and "9 Gifs of Clarence Thomas Sighing." Animal lobbying groups such as Cats Against LOLs and the Puppy Defense League are watching closely if the Court decides Buzzfeed's case is a "Win" or a "Fail.
AFLU v Gredunson
This case deals with the already highly litigated question of wearing socks with Sperrys. As decided by the Rehnquist court in 1987, it is already considered a violation of public decency laws for anyone to wear Sperrys with socks. (See Phi Kappa Sigma vs. Leeverson) However, the court later found a "no show sock exception" for socks lower than the shoe line because discovering the socks would require foot searches that would not only violate 4th amendment principles but also subjugate law enforcement to feet with what Justice O'Connor termed "noxiously high levels of stank." (See Gibbons v Ogden Golf Course and Yacht Club) Now, plaintiff seeks to carve out another exception for Sperrys with dress socks and worn with pants. The suit occurred after a 22-year-old man's girlfriend (Martha Gredunson) called the police on him for attending the wedding of a friend with the aforementioned footwear combination. The American Footwear Liberties Union has taken up the case on behalf of the hapless boyfriend. The decision will hinge on Justice Scalia's interpretation of what he feels is the Founders definition of what a dress shoe and sock were during the time period of the Constitution's writing.
Ke$ha v. Minnesota
In an unprecedented mixture of glitter, and the First Amendment, Minnesota has sued Ke$ha for breaking obscenity laws after a particularly painful concert in the Twin Cities area. Despite the fact that almost every constitutional precedent since Roth v. United States in the fifties would side with Ke$ha, the musical artist has lost in every lower court and has been forced to appeal to the Supreme Court to fight a permanent injunction stopping any future performance of her music. Almost all of KeSha's legal problems stem from her insistence on representing herself in court, which have proven an utter disaster. In one instance she screamed at Minnesota Judge Taylor Matthews "Do you have the balls to nail this," while gesticulating and thrusting erratically. Judge Matthews is a sixty-three year old woman with five grandchildren. Oral arguments in the Supreme Court did not go much better with Justice Roberts repeatedly asking "would counsel please refrain from performing her material in the courtroom," and "would counsel please put down the whisky bottle and refrain from drinking beverages in the courtroom" and "would counsel please note that "jello shots" do count as a beverage and that I will not be sticking my gavel anywhere." Despite the over two hundred year storied history of the 1st Amendment, it may prove illegal to sneer, "tic tock" in a crowded theater.