In Historic Ruling of Man v. Food, Man Won

After a case steeped in controversy, the Supreme Court ruled the case of Man v. Food in favor of the petitioner Man. Man had sued on the grounds that his 1st Amendment rights were being violated. Man was attempting to state his superiority over food by eating it. Food had introduced a recently passed Congressional bill that prohibited the arbitrary consumption of food. Man argued that the arbitrary consumption of food was allowed as symbolic speech. The lawyer for the petitioner, Attorney Richman, stated that if flag burning is a constitutionally protected right, then consuming food must be as well, as long as the gluttony in question was making a statement. The lawyer for the respondent, Attorney Quadruple Mole Burrito Death Platter, stated that free speech is not an unlimited right. Incitement of violence against food or other tempting platters is not constitutionally protected. The respondent held that Man’s gluttonous determination to finish everything that’s put in front of it did incite violence towards other foods, especially dessert items.

Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion:

“Man brings forth the case that the prohibition of arbitrary consumption violates his right to free speech. He maintains that the said consumption is by no means arbitrary; it is a victorious expression that Man uses to affirm his dominance over dinner. If that means of expression was taken away from him, he would be unable to show this dominance with less meaning. While this sounds harsh, it has been established across our history that Man is superior to Food, as we are the ones who prepare it and then consume it. Food is also a non-sentient entity, and therefore its rights are suspect at best. Its questionable rights are disregarded only because of Congress’ right to regulate interstate commerce.

“Food, however, holds that the consumption of it is indeed arbitrary. Man has often eaten past satiety. He has taken several attempts to eat more than he should; some examples of this are the removal of one’s belt or the consumption of Alka-Seltzer to ease the pain of an overflowing stomach. Food holds that anyone who carries on dinner in such a nonsensical manner is not truly capable of symbolic speech. If this was the case, then the consumption of this food would indeed be arbitrary and therefore illegal. Congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerce, and the food industry is perhaps the most interstate of all of our industries.

“However, I find that Food’s assumption that Man is not capable of symbolic speech to be implausible. Man has, in several humiliating ways, demonstrated his capability to speak symbolically. Flag burning is one such case, one that we passed in favor of symbolic speech. As the two cases are so similar, I, under the interests of stare decisis, rule in favor of the petitioner.”