Can Dish it Out; Can't Take It
What PETA gets, and doesn't, about parodyBy: The Essayist | 22June2000
|
Devoted, vehement, willing to stand up for what they believe even if
it's unpopular: People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is all
that and more. PETA believes that animals should not be used for food,
clothing, experimentation or entertainment -- nothing except possibly
companionship.
At the same time, it doesn't bother me in the least if my neighbor chooses to consume only vegetation, no more than I would be bothered if s/he worshiped oak trees. I am an American in the Bill-of-Rights sense. To me, this means that people should be free to pursue happiness in whatever way they choose, as long as it doesn't negatively impact another's freedom to do the same. Regardless of the fact that I don't share PETA's beliefs and agenda, it hasn't been difficult for me to admire their spirit and religious zeal. They fight for the rights of animals, sometimes with civil disobedience. They do so for reasons that are similar to -- and employing some of the same tactics as -- the fight that freedom-loving people around the world have always engaged in for the rights of fellow human beings since the first tribal elder decided that someone wasn't acceptable because of the color of his/her skin. One aspect of PETA's activities that I most enjoyed was their skill in the arts of parody, caricature and lampoon. Here's some examples:
Modern market research and advertising techniques are the direct result of propaganda techniques that were developed during World War One. There's a McDonald's on every other street corner. There is no doubt that much of the meat, milk, and eggs in the grocery store are produced in factory farms, under incredibly undesirable conditions. It is good to shake up corporate America once in awhile, which is what PETA does. Besides, parody and satire are fine traditions, having been used against such lardbags as George the Third during the American revolution. PETA 'gets' parody. . . NOT!
Parody is somewhat like freedom of expression (and is a form of it) in that you don't understand its value unless you also understand that everybody should be allowed to try it out, if they so desire.
Michael Doughney was a co-founder of an Internet Service Provider called Digex. Among domain names that Doughney paid for was PETA.ORG. Doughney is not a member of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; he used the web site to publish the pages of a fictitious group called People Eating Tasty Animals, "a resource for those who enjoy eating meat, wearing fur and leather, hunting and the fruits of scientific research". Perhaps Doughney sincerely disagreed with PETA's goals and methods. Maybe he simply liked a good joke. His motives don't matter either way since, by publishing this parody site, Doughney was engaging in freedom of expression. Let's not forget, the organization that Doughney was lampooning is the same PETA that is currently using public awareness of someone else's "Got Milk?" ads for their own agenda. This is PETA, which makes liberal use of a clown that couldn't be mistaken for anybody but Ronald McDonald in a campaign to preach the evils of eating meat. Suddenly PETA itself was the object of a parody, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander, isn't it? Well, PETA didn't think so. PETA took Mr. Doughney to court. They convinced the judge that he was treading on their trademark and in violation of the new "Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act", i.e., that he had registered the name in hopes of selling it to PETA -- in spite of the fact that he said it wasn't for sale. (In PETA's press release about their "victory" in suppressing another person's freedom to parody, reference is made to Doughney wanting to see "what PETA would offer him if PETA did not like his Web site." If you offer me enough money, I'll sell you my house, but that doesn't make it for sale.)
Last week, a federal judge ordered Doughney to turn PETA.ORG over to the animal-rights group, and to not use domain names that are "confusingly similar" to PETA's. You mean, like ringlingbrothers.com? Suddenly, I am feeling very carnivorous. A PETA member slowly roasting over a fire sounds pretty delicious right now. |
I am not a vegetarian. I have hunted animals. I wear leather, drink
milk, eat eggs, and this behavior is -- to me -- perfectly moral and
normal, given my biology. So, PETA's sensibilities mean nothing to
me personally.
It doesn't hurt people -- and it's usually good for them -- to challenge
their long-held beliefs once in a while. New ideas to chew on is a
useful exercise, even if in the end, a person arrives at approximately
the same conclusions they held before the exercise. Parody and satire
are good vehicles for this. If well-executed, they dig in by appealing
to the emotions.
Parody is the great equalizer. Like gravity and the law, no public
person nor institution should be above it. The basis of parody is
humor, and like any joke, it lives or dies depending on the kernel
of truth in it. A parody that insinuated that George W. Bush doesn't
dress well wouldn't work, because he does dress well. A parody that
mocks his frequent penchant for speaking nonsense -- in the tradition
of Dan Quail -- does work, because George W's mouth does forge ahead
of his brain sometimes.
Can a person use a trademark while poking fun at the corporation or
organization to which it belongs? If not, there is no more