WASHINGTON, DC
In what could be the most controversial decision of this fall’s judicial season, the Supreme Court of the United States is set to begin hearings to review whether the highly-contested pro-Death Magnetic opinion delivered by the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit in US v. Metallica should be overturned on purely aesthetic grounds. In a lengthy opinion delivered by Circuit Judge Jon O. Newman, the lower court ruled that new material from Metallica did not serve the interests of the “common good” and that the inclusion of a third chapter of “The Unforgiven” was unacceptable “even for fans of St. Anger.”
Almost immediately, Metallica’s legal team petitioned for a writ of certiorari to urge the Supreme Court of the United States to review the lower court’s ruling. After skimming the latest issue of Kerrang!, Chief Justice John Roberts rearranged the docket for the October 2008 term to accommodate a case that promises to dramatically alter how America thinks about “abortions and the death penalty.”
According to Jack Sebring, a senior staff reporter at the Capitol Hill-based Roll Call, there is no legal precedent for US v. Metallica and Justice Anthony Kennedy — a Reagan appointee — could be the swing-vote in any decision. “John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer are united in beliving that Metallica were captured after …And Justice for All and replaced by robot replicas. But John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are obsessives and completists and even enjoy that collaboration with Ja Rule. US v. Metallica hinges on Kennedy’s vote — he has admitted in past interviews that St. Anger ‘wasn’t so hot,’ but is committed to listening to it again to rule out ‘knee-jerk reactions’ that could hamper justice… for all.”
In Roth v. United States (1957), the Supreme Court attempted to define obscenity as “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest.” Washington insiders and pundits assume that the Roberts-led court will invoke the Roth test in determining whether Death Magnetic constitutes obscene or pornagraphic material unprotected by the First Amendment.
Unfortunately, Supreme Court Justices are barred from commenting on ongoing proceedings, but according to Federal Prosecutor Mary L. Dutton, “Metallica’s legal team was unsuccessful in recovering the Grammy in Metallica v. Jethro Tull, but recovered to kick Napster’s ass in 2000. Here’s a case with even greater stakes, and it isn’t only a question of Free Speech; this is an opportunity for the only court higher than the court of public opinion to make a determination on whether or not this truly sucks.”
http://www.thedeciblog.com/?p=901Who says metalheads don't do satire? :rofl:
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
