Last week we spoke about how unhinged Star Wars author Chuck Wendig became when he decided to look at some Twitter trends. In the latest Chuck Wendig Twitter meltdown, he went so far as to call critics of the current SJW-fueled Star Wars universe “white supremacists.” Because as we all know, if you don’t one hundred percent love what’s being done to the franchise, then you’re a racist monster.

Yes, this is what they think. Just ignore writes ups such as this that point out painful mistakes and missteps.

Now it seems that Chuck Wendig isn’t quite done yet. A satirical website called Faking Star Wars decided to make light of his habit of blocking people on Twitter who disagree with his worldview. The two people running the site, Willybob and Link Voxmillian, decided to offer a t-shirt making fun of his Twitter habits on their online teepublic shop.

As from Chuck’s past history, we could expect he’d take the joke like a champ and not overreact! Nope, that didn’t happen. He thought the best approach to satire was to threaten the Faking Star Wars pair and go after the t-shirt site.

Aaaaand now I guess I have to lawyer up. What fun! Shirt with my likeness posted to harass me by Star Wars “fans” @LinkVoximilian and @fakingstarwars. I mean, really, guys? @TeePublic, be advised, they’re profiting off my likeness, which is against your submission guidelines. https://t.co/51H7JdvSR8 — Chuck Wendig (@ChuckWendig) June 5, 2018



Well, there is a problem with Chuck’s theory. First, he’s a public figure known for writing arguably for the world’s most well-known brands. He’s also using social media to promote himself in the public sphere. He should be more than fair to parody.

Disney Star Wars is Dumb did a great job of compiling why Mr. Wendig is wrong in his interpretation of the law regarding likeness.

The First Amendment protects satire and parody as a form of free speech and expression.

Section 107 of the Copyright Act is the section that provides for fair use, a doctrine which allows certain actions which otherwise would amount to copyright infringement. The Section lists several examples of fair use, including uses of copyrighted works “for purposes such as criticism [or] comment.” Both parody and satire employ humor in commentary and criticism, but the key distinction, and the reason that parodies are more likely to be considered fair use than satires, is the purpose each serves. Satire is defined as “the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.” Compare that to the definition of a parody: “a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule.” While both parody and satire use humor as a tool to effectuate a message, the purpose of a parody is to comment on or criticize the work that is the subject of the parody. By definition, a parody is a comedic commentary about a work, that requires an imitation of the work. Satire, on the other hand, even when it uses a creative work as the vehicle for the message, offers commentary and criticism about the world, not that specific creative work. Therefore, parodies use copyrighted works for purposes that fair use was designed to protect. As the Supreme Court explained in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., “Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim’s (or collective victims’) imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing.”

As you’d expect, a fact like this didn’t stop Chuck from continuing his crusade against parody. He even went after an obvious joke done by Willybob last week, calling it gross:

And then @fakingstarwars does comments like this, which are extra-gross: https://t.co/pcpUm7ycmZ — Chuck Wendig (@ChuckWendig) June 5, 2018

Here’s the Tweet Wendig was upset about:

They’re non-binary and Pansexual friendly! One size triggers all, especially Chuck! — Willybobo (@fakingstarwars) June 5, 2018

He went even further:

I know they’ve already sold some too as part of this “monetizing harassment” campaign. pic.twitter.com/ldlXutX3pU — Chuck Wendig (@ChuckWendig) June 5, 2018



All of this while ignoring that Faking Star Wars met several of the requirements to be protected under the First Amendment. They altered the original image, which changes the meaning. It’s fairly easy to see in the shirt. Let’s not forget this is coming from a page called Faking Star Wars.

Finally, it cannot pose a direct threat to the market of his original work. The publicly available image that Faking Star Wars used and altered again meets this requirement, especially since it was Wendig himself who offered the image to the public using a public space such as Twitter.

All of these reasons protect Faking Star Wars and Teepublic. But that didn’t stop him nor his fans from going after the online store.

His fans even offered up their own families to help him with the dispute with copyright:

My dad has done quite a bit of work in copyright/fair use law. Let me know if your attorney would like to be put in touch. I can see them trying to use the “fair use” defense in this case. — A Tweet Too Far ??☘☀ (@chickenboo23) June 5, 2018



Others were encouraging Wendig to use “all the firepower” he could. Isn’t this an example of “targeted harassment,” besides? Unfortunately TeePublic finally did bow to pressure from Chuck and his SJW Gungans.

This design has been removed. — TeePublic Support (@TeePublicHelp) June 5, 2018



Not all hope is lost. Though their t-shirt merchant bowed out, Faking Star Wars still kept their heads high.

Thanks, but we’re hanging in there. — Willybobo (@fakingstarwars) June 5, 2018



Public figures like Chuck Wendig cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect to comment and use their platform as an artist to express themselves without someone out there making fun of them. If Chuck’s interpretation of that law was accurate, we’d have a major hole in comedy today.

For example, Saturday Night Live would be missing well over half of their content. And how many memes would be outlawed? This isn’t a major thought experiment if you think about it. If they had their way and the law was interpreted the way Chuck Wendig wants it to be, then fair use wouldn’t be a thing. Movies such as Young Frankenstein couldn’t have been made.

This neo-progressive/fascist thought policing isn’t new, and shouldn’t shock anyone. Just listen to them when they talk about censorship and “de-platforming” people. It seems that an ever-growing segment of the political left in the west have taken the new mantel of 21st-century puritans.

One which puts them on the wrong side of history and freedom.

As for Chuck, I doubt this will be the last we hear of him. I believe his saga will only continue.

(Visited 3,021 times, 1 visits today)