Pittsburgh Headed to the Pitts

Should people be willing to sacrifice their comic entertainment for every person that is insulted by the work? It seems that at the rate movie producers, directors, etc. are being sued, the answer should be yes. However, if that was the case, the only movies made would be movies like The Notebook and The Shawshank Redemption, talk about depressing. People need a little Borat and Pittsburgh to lighten their lives once in a while. It’s a shame that both those movies got SLAPPed with a law suit.

Borat came to theaters and was a monstrous hit, the movie grossed over 250 million dollars with a budget of only 18 million! Along with all the laughter came groans from the people that were filmed. Many were put into ridiculous situations; a newscaster even lost her job for “lack of judgment” after Sacha Baron Cohen’s character Borat kissed a newscaster and interrupted a live weather report among other things. Two Chi Psi fraternity boys of the University of Southern California sued Borat for fraud, rescission of contract, common law false light, statutory false light, appropriation of likeness, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. The two boys made racist and misogynistic comments while being filmed. They claim that the movie put them in a false light and they would have never said what they did in any other circumstance in real life. The defendants are trying to use the anti-SLAPP law which does not allow individuals or corporations to sue someone because they disagree with what they have to say. This also protects the free marketplace of ideas. If a person has been SLAPPed (Strategic Lawsuits Against Political Participation), they can take it to court and will most likely win the case because almost anything nowadays can be argued as having substance in the marketplace of ideas. This protection will also help prevent a chilling effect. In the movie industry, there is always someone being poked fun at. This picking on is at the cost of the individual, but everyone makes sacrifices even if it wasn’t their own choice to make. The frat boys have their reputation to maintain and they blew it by signing the release form. Now, for the rest of their lives, they have to attempt to live down the image cast on them by the film, but some might say that it was their fault to begin with.

Another incident similar to this happened with Jeff Goldblum’s mockumentary, Pittsburgh. Debbie Sue Croyle worked as a stagehand on the set of “The Music Man” in 2004 at the Pittsburgh Civic Light Opera Production. Jeff Goldblum filmed the production telling everyone he would use it for the documentary he was making. All of the actors, stagehands, etc. had to sign release forms, but Croyle refused on one condition, the movie makers would have to donate a sum of money to a charity that helps mentally challenged children. After completing the mockumentary, Croyle appeared in it. In reality she was putting rubbing alcohol on Goldblum to attach the microphone to him, but in the movie, there was some sexual innuendo concerning her part. She sued the movie producer, director and Starz Entertainment LLC for ruining her reputation. She asked that the distribution of the DVDs be stopped and wants to inhibit the movie from airing on cable television. As of November 12, the company donated $100 to a charity, the date was conveniently the same day the suit was filed. Starz says that she never specified an end date. Croyle is suing for $4 million in damages which is a little much for a movie that didn’t become NEARLY as big as Borat. If the court rules in favor of Croyle, which it probably won’t do, from a neoliberal prespective, the court might seem like it was prohibiting content. That is not what is at stake here. Croyle’s reputation and emotional stability is what matters. The court would not be able to stop the film company from distributing the content that they wish to display. A politician is never asked if they want to be ridiculed on public television and it shouldn’t be any different for an everyday citizen.

Oh, and here is the trailer of Pittsburgh, if anyone is interested:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=4ViBAw7Pe_g

Sources:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19328

http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html

http://www.overlawyered.com/2006/11/breaking_obnoxious_frat_boys_s.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/02/08/should-a-judge-slapp-the-borat-lawsuit/

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/living/movies/s_537663.html

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,23663,21398088-7485,00.html

This is His Body

Religion, whether you are religious or not, is a very sacred idea in American policy and culture. By law, everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they please. Also, by law, each religion is protected from the outside forces of the State telling it what it can and cannot do. Religious laws are protected as long as they are not obviously immoral or directly harmful. The only things I can think of are no brain altering drug usage in religious ceremonies and no polygamy are allowed. There are rights that allow priests to keep confessions a secret, and even when called upon by the government, do not have to reiterate what happened behind that closed door. Confession is a form of speaking to God, but through an intermediary which would be the priest. However, what happens with those religions that do not require an intermediary to have a conversation with God? Do they have the right to keep their thoughts private from court analysis or does the government respect certain types of religions over others?

Janiss Varner asked exactly that question. Varner had raised her boyfriend Alvin Knight’s son and wanted custody of him after they broke up. In 1995, while she was still with her boyfriend, Varner hired a gunman to kill her boyfriend because he was abusive. Knight caught the gunman and took the gun away. However, after Varner gained custody of Knight’s son in 1997, she hired another gunman in 1998 and he successfully killed Knight. The Michigan State Court convicted her of trying to kill her boyfriend. Varner tried to take the case to the state appellate courts several times, but failed so she turned the case into a federal one and took it to the U.S. appellate court. She had been keeping a journal recounting facts from her life and there were journal entries detailing how she was attempting to kill her boyfriend. In her journal, she addresses God and uses the journal as a means to speak to God. She claims that the court had no right to use her journal as evidence. She said that it was her way of communicating to God and the government does not favor those religions that have a direct relationship with God. She argues that her journal should have been protected under the clergy-penitent evidentiary privilege. This policy says that a clergy member does not have to profess anything that he has herd in confessionals to the courts unless he is subpoenaed so the evidentiary does not provide undue protection to criminals.

The Freedom of Religion part of the First Amendment says that the government cannot establish a uniform religion or favor any one. It also separates the church and state. Varner’s case was defending her journal under the clergy-penitent evidentiary, but even if journals were to be involved under the policy, her case would not be. She cannot be included in its protection, not because she has a journal, but also because it would be hiding a criminal. It does not want to unduly protect criminals. The court ruled that journals are not protected under the clergy-penitent evidentiary. The court skeptically stated “No matter what form of faith an individual practices, the privilege does not protect journal entries, whether addressed to God or not.” In order for what she considers to be her religious rights to be protected she had to have spoken with a religious leader and not keep her motives to kill in a journal-it might have helped to keep her out of jail in the first place.

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/sep/09-08-98/news/news10.html

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3736/is_200201/ai_n9063710/pg_3

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19039

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0374p-06.pdf