Desecration of a Corpse in Ultraman

By

-

March 6, 2022

The original Ultraman series introduced “The Monster Graveyard,” in the episode of the same name in 1967 (season 1, episode 35). The premise is that there is a realm in space where the souls of Kaiju defeated by any of the Ultra Warriors go for their eternal rest. This rest is hard earned, as many of the Kaiju are mutilated by Ultraman in battle.

The story followed a test flight of a rocket that entered the Monster Graveyard and returned to Earth with the soul of the Kaiju named Seabozu. This raises the issue, did the rocket entering the graveyard, colliding with Seabozu, and bringing his soul back to Earth, amount to desecration of a corpse?

This is problematic, since corpses do not cry out in agony if disturbed [recognizing that every haunted house story might beg to differ].

The definition of desecration of a corpse varies across the United States and international law. International Humanitarian Law follows the long held rule that “Each party to the conflict must take all possible measures to prevent the dead from being despoiled. Mutilation of dead bodies is prohibited.” See, Rule 113. Treatment of the Dead. This is based off many treaties, including the 1907 Hague Convention (X).

State law uses different descriptions, but the theme is the same: leave dead bodies alone. For example, Mississippi law states:

Every person who shall knowingly and willfully dig up, except as otherwise provided by law, obliterate, or in any way desecrate any cemetery where human dead are interred, or cause through word, deed or action the same to happen, shall upon conviction be imprisoned for not more than one (1) year in the county jail or fined not more than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00), or both, in the discretion of the court. In addition to any penalties that the court is otherwise authorized to impose the court may, in its discretion, order such restitution as it deems appropriate.

Miss. Code § 97-29-25(1)(a).

Texas has similar prohibitions, stating that “abuse of a corpse” is “intentionally or knowingly disinters, disturbs, removes, dissects, in whole or in part, carries away, or treats in a seriously offensive manner a human corpse.” TEX.PENAL CODE ANN. Sec. 42.10(a)(1) (Vernon 1989). Mclain v. State, 831 S.W.2d 815, 818 (Tex. App. 1992).

Alabama also follows these legal protections with their extensively defined law, which states:

Any person who willfully or maliciously injures, defaces, removes, or destroys any tomb, monument, gravestone, burial mound, earthen or shell monument containing human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts, or other structure or thing placed or designed for a memorial of the dead, or any fence, railing, curb, or any enclosure for the protection or ornamentation of any tomb, monument, gravestone, burial mound, earthen or shell monument containing human skeletal remains or associated burial artifacts, or other structure before mentioned, or for any enclosure for the burial of the dead, or any person who willfully and wrongfully or maliciously destroys, removes, cuts, breaks, or injures any tree, shrub, plant, flower, decoration, or other real or personal property within any cemetery or graveyard shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Ala. Code § 13A-7-23.1(a)

Was Seabozu removed from his grave? Yes. There is no doubt his remains were distributed. However, that does not mean the space agency is legally responsible, because all of the state legal examples require that the desecration be done knowingly. The scientists had no knowledge of the “Monster Graveyard,” so there was no intent to bring Seabozu back to Earth. Moreover, that would be a strange project for any government or private actor to fund. Furthermore, even if the rocket launch was done recklessly, that is not the standard, because even that presumes there would be knowledge of a foreseeable risk of hitting the soul of a Kaiju. Furthermore, all of the laws at issue require the corpse to be that of a human being, so there is a Kaiju size technicality for applicability.

The only cause for possible legal jeopardy comes in the form of a war crime for mutilating a body or have a human requirement. There is no stated intent requirement, but mutilations do not happen by accident. Someone is taking an affirmative act to mutilate a corpse.

Even considering all of the above, the Science Patrol and the space agency were right to return Seabozu back to the Monster Graveyard. This episode was one of the few times where a Kaiju was seen as suffering and the Science Special Search Party sought to right the wrong done to the spirit.

Answering the Uchiha Genocide

By

Gage Dabin

-

March 2, 2022

0

Itachi Uchiha is probably one of the most famous characters in all of Naruto. His actions both in the shadow and in the forefront of Naruto helped shape the direction of the entire Village of the Hidden Leaf (Leaf Village). And frankly, Itachi was a central catalyst in the development of Sasuke Uchiha and his innate Uchiha abilities. So then, who is Itachi to the Hidden Leaf?

Who is Itachi Uchiha and what did he do?

Itachi Uchiha is a member of Uchiha Clan which falls under the umbrella of the Leaf Village and is the older brother of Sasuke Uchiha. This is one of the Five Great Nations within the Naruto universe and plays key roles in the great ninja wars. Itachi is considered a child prodigy and from a young age shows mastery of special Uchiha jutsus that sets milestones that Sasuke Uchiha seeks to break. Because of his abilities, Itachi is recruited into the ANBU Black Ops, a clandestine arm of the Leaf Village, and performs classified missions.

Itachi Uchiha gains his initial infamy for his actions against his own clan. When Itachi was 13 he killed almost every member of the Uchiha Clan including his own parents. Itachi only spared his brother from the massacre and it seemed for awhile that Itachi committed these actions solely to force Sasuke to advance his capabilities through hate. But this isn’t really true.

The massacre was done to prevent internal harm to the Leaf Village. Itachi, when he was a member of the ANBU Black Ops, learned that his clan was planning a coup d’état of the current leadership of the Leaf Village. Why? Because his clan was accused of working with the Nine-Tailed Fox, one of the legendary tailed beasts that wreak untold havoc, during its attack on the village. Having had his youth marred by conflict, Itachi sought to end the cycle of violence by eliminating it before it manifested. After providing intelligence on his clan to Leaf Village leadership, Itachi received the order to commit the massacre from his ANBU Black Ops Commander. The result from this order is that he publicly became a wanted fugitive but privately remained a valuable asset for the Leaf Village. Despite his utility, Itachi must be seen for what he is…a war criminal.

What is genocide?

Itachi committed genocide for what he perceived was the “greater good.” He was wrong.

Genocide is not a term that is loosely thrown around. It carries a heavy weight. When uttered, genocide ushers images and horrors ranging from Nazi Germany to the cleansing of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda in the 1990s. It encompasses the worst of humanity and rightfully deserves to be criminalized by all. We know what the term tends to invoke but legally how do we approach and classify actions as genocide?

Genocide falls under the umbrella of crimes against humanity in international law and finds its origins in the Nuremburg Trials at the conclusion of World War II. In 1951, the United Nations (UN) ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Treaty) thus making it punishable by all states under international law. Under Article 1 of the Genocide Treaty, the crime of genocide has the potential to take place within armed conflict, international/non-international armed conflict, and also within peaceful situations. This is intentionally expansive to ensure that genocide does not go unpunished.

Next, Article 2 of the Genocide Convention establishes that “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Combining the information above, Article 2 tells us that for genocide to be proved we need to satisfy two elements: one mental and one physical. For the mental element, we need to see if the party committing the action had the intent to cause the stated harm. For the physical element, we have the listed actions from subsection A to E that a party must have committed. If we only satisfy one element, then genocide is not established.

Itachi’s “noble” intentions

Now, that we have both the facts surrounding Itachi’s actions and the law outlined for what genocide is we can approach and see if his actions rise to that level.

The Mental State

As noted above, we have to first consider the mental state of the person committing the actions. We have to see if they had the intent to cause destruction to the target racial, ethnic, racial or religious group either partially or totally.

Itachi Uchiha acted with the requisite intent required by the convention. He was given orders by ANBU Black Ops of the Hidden Leaf to attack his clan, the Uchiha clan, which is a smaller subset of the population. Notably, the Uchiha clan is distinct from the other clans within the Hidden Leaf based on its cultural, jutsu, and bloodline differences.

So, when Itachi attacked his clan he had the knowledge that his mission was to completely eradicate the Uchiha Clan. He also knew that the Uchiha clan was distinct and a subset of the Hidden Leaf. With this knowledge, we can see that the first element is satisfied.

The Physical Action

For the second element, we need to see whether the actor committed any of the harmful actions that are laid in subsections A through E.

Itachi’s attack on his clan satisfies multiple subsections of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. Notably, subection A is satisfied as Itachi literally killed his entire clan sans his younger brother – Sasuke Uchiha. Subsection C is then satisfied because Itachi deliberately took these actions to eliminate the active threat that was perceived to exist to the Leaf Village.

With the satisfaction of the physical action, Itachi Uchiha’s actions have passed the requisite thresholds and confirms that genocide had been committed against the Uchiha Clan.

Should Itachi Uchiha be punished?

Itachi Uchiha without a doubt should be punished for the genocide that he committed against his own clan. Although a coup d’état was perceived to be in preparation against the Leaf Village’s current leadership, many members of the Uchiha clan should have been protected and only combatants targeted. Itachi deliberately killed everyone without any discretion to whether they were combatants or civilians. The safety of the village was/is paramount to Itachi, as he continues to try and be its ward from the shadows via the Akutsuki, but his actions of genocide cannot be defended under the auspices of “protection.” Despite how he perceived his actions to be for the “greater good of the village” he is still a war criminal and must be held accountable as one.

Book of Boba Fett Video and Podcast Series

By

Josh Gilliland

-

January 17, 2022

0

The Book of Boba Fett is a cacophony of legal issues with crime lords, political graft, extortion, and all the joy of Star Wars. Below is our weekly analysis of each episode.

Chapter 1: Stranger in a Strange Land

Chapter 2: The Tribes of Tatooine

Chapter 3: The Streets of Mos Espa

Chapter 4: The Gathering Storm

Chapter 5: The Return of the Mandalorian

Chapter 6: “From the Desert Comes a Stranger”

Chapter 7: “In the Name of Honor”

Prosecuting Jawas for Robbery and Battery of Boba Fett

By

Josh Gilliland

-

January 4, 2022

0

Boba Fett escaped the Sarlacc Pit only to have his armor stripped from his body by Jawas..one of whom smashed an ionization blaster butt against Boba’s face.

There is a lot of things with the Jawas’ actions.

The Jawas Committed Robbery

If the sands of Tatooine had laws similar to California, the elements of robbery are easily met for the vexus Jawas. Robbery is defined as follows:

“Robbery is the felonious taking of personal property in the possession of another, from his person or immediate presence, and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear.”

Cal. Pen. Code § 211.

Boba Fett was injured with acid burns after being in the Sarlacc’s stomach. In his weakened state, Jawas discovered him and began removing his body armor. One of them struck him when he resisted. The body armor was Boba Fett’s personal property that was literally on his body. The Jawas took it from him against his will. Smashing Boba Fett’s face with a rifle butt is the textbook definition of “force.” All the elements are met for convicting the Jawas of robbery.

The Jawas Committed Battery of Boba Fett

Battery is “any willful and unlawful use of force or violence upon the person of another.” Cal. Pen. Code § 242. The Jawa who struck Boba Fest with the ionization blaster butt committed a willful and unlawful use of violence upon Boba Fett.

There is the legal maxim that members of a criminal conspiracy are liable for each act of the conspiracy if it was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. In re Thompson, B270387, at *8-9 (Cal. Ct. App. Sep. 5, 2017).

The Jawas had a criminal conspiracy to take Boba Fett’s armor from his person. The Jawa who struck Boba Fett did so in furtherance of taking his armor. As taking his armor was the goal of the conspiracy, all the Jawas in the conspiracy would be liable for the battery.

Attempted Murder of Boba Fett

The Jawas robbers and battered Boba Fett before leaving him to die in the desert. Was that enough to convict them of attempted murder?

Murder is the “unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.” Cal. Pen. Code § 187(a). First Degree Murder includes a murder that was committed in the perpetration of a robbery. Cal. Pen. Code § 189(a). A person can be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime. Cal. Pen. Code § 663.

If Boba Fett had died in the sand after being robbed and battered by Jawas, they could be charged with First Degree Murder. However, the fact he survived means there was not a death while being robbed. As such, the elements to elevate a robbery to murder are not met. Consider a case from Louisiana, which is not the Dagobah of the United States, but does offer helpful analysis:

A specific intent to kill is an essential element of the crime of attempted second degree murder. A specific intent to inflict great bodily harm is sufficient to find a defendant guilty of murder if the victim dies, but is not sufficient to find him guilty of the attempt if the victim survives. In such a case, the defendant’s intent to inflict great bodily harm would be sufficient only to find him guilty of a battery .

State v. Latiolais, 453 So. 2d 1266, 1268-69 (La. Ct. App. 1984), citing State v. Butler,322 So.2d 189 (La. 1975).

What was the specific intent of the Jawa? If the intent was only to cause harm, the most he could be charged with is battery. However, a prosecutor could argue the intent was to kill based on the circumstances of the encounter: Boba Fett was found severely injured; he offered resistance to having his armor taken from him; he was struck in the face, and then left to freeze in the night or be cooked under the twin suns of Tatooine.

That sounds like an intent to kill.

Bob Cratchit’s Right to Paid Time Off in a A Christmas Carol

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 24, 2021

0

George C. Scott’s portrayal of Ebenezer Scrooge had a dimension to the character that is sometimes missed: He did not like giving paid time off for legal holidays. After Bob Cratchit asked for Christmas Day off, Scrooge retorted with the following:

“It is not convenient. And it it’s not fair. If I were to hold back half a crown from your pay for it, you’d think yourself ill-used, I’ll be bound. But you don’t think me ill-used when I pay for a day’s wages for no work.”

“Poor excuse for picking a man’s pocket every 25th of December.”

That….really misses the point of having holidays. While there are differences between employees paid hourly (non-exempt employees) vs salary (exempt employees), countries have many recognized holidays. In the United States, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure define a “legal holiday” as follows:

(A) the day set aside by statute for observing New Year’s Day, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Birthday, Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Veterans’ Day, Thanksgiving Day, or Christmas Day;

(B) any day declared a holiday by the President or Congress; and

(C) for periods that are measured after an event, any other day declared a holiday by the state where the district court is located.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6.

Business, Federal, State, and Local Governments, have long recognized Christmas Day as a holiday with paid time off. In a case where a plaintiff claimed her First Amendment Free Exercise rights were violated by a county that had a facially neutral policy of designating Christmas as a paid legal holiday. Edelstein v. Stephens, No. 1:17-cv-305, at *12-13 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 16, 2018). The Court found the plaintiff had not shown any facts of discriminatory conduct, as the law did not discriminate against a particular religion or set of religious beliefs. Id.

Is Scrooge missing the point of the holidays? Where is the peace, love and goodwill towards fellow people? If Scrooge consults with his general counsel, is he on solid legal footing to give his employee a paid day off during a holiday such as Christmas?

Yes, actually, if we look at California state law. According to the California Department of Industrial Relations, California law does not require that an employer provide its employees with paid holiday, that it close its business on any holiday, or that employees be given the day off for any particular holiday.

From the California Labor Commissioner’s Website:

There is nothing in state law that mandates that an employer must close its business on any particular day, if at all. It is up to your employer to select which days, if any, it chooses to be open and closed for business, and if your employer is open on a holiday and schedules you to work that day, there is nothing in the law that obligates your employer to pay you anything but your regular pay and any overtime premium for all overtime hours worked.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_holidays.htm

So Bob Cratchit may be out of luck under California law. The law will not stop Scrooge. Tiny Tim will have a sad Christmas, doom and gloom will rule the day, and we may even fall into the calamity contemplated by Ghostbusters of 10 years of darkness and Cats and Dogs living together.

However, all may not be lost. There may be other possibilities, for example many companies still recognize the value in giving employees time off during the holidays. It can improve morale, help with team building, and also encourage loyalty to the company. So even if Scrooge can legally refuse to give his employees paid time off during the holidays, it may still be a wise decision for him to do so. There is also the reality of business competition: companies that refuse to give their employees paid time off during the holidays may soon find themselves hard pressed to retain workers when some competing companies do offer paid holiday time off.

Scrooge’s general counsel may be well advised to tell him: “yes sir, you can refuse to give any paid time off during the holidays, but . . . you may also be visited by a fourth ghost during your life changing experience tonight, the ghost of employees past, or the ghost of employment lawyers strongly urging you to adopt more friendly policies your your employees.”

Perhaps Tiny Tim may yet have a happy holiday.

Happy Holidays to all.

The Legal Status of Pizza Dog

By

Stephen Tollafield

-

December 22, 2021

0

Kate Bishop makes a death-defying rescue of a brave golden retriever in Episode 1 of Hawkeye. The two quickly bond and Pizza Dog/Lucky becomes the best good-boy superhero ever. But given that Pizza Dog is a stray, what ownership interest, if any, does Kate have in her new sidekick?

Generally, animals are regarded as the property of the owner, so lost animals may trigger property law duties and obligations for people who find the lost animal. As an initial observation, this property right in one’s domesticated pets has been around only since the late 1800s. Back then, dogs were regarded as “qualified” property given their limited utility to the owners when compared to livestock like cattle or horses. For example, in 1897, a U.S. Supreme Court case described dogs as having “no intrinsic value” and not useful “as beasts of burden, for draught, nor for food.” Sentell v. New Orleans & C.R. Co., 166 U.S. 698, 701 (1897). I think we can all agree that Pizza Dog has obvious intrinsic value, which calls into serious question the validity of this Supreme Court case authority.

In any event, modern law views dogs as property. So when a person finds and takes possession of lost chattels, the common law creates an implied bailment in the property. Therefore, as of Episode 1 of Hawkeye, Kate Bishop is a gratuitous bailee of Pizza Dog. This is a contractual agreement between Kate and Pizza Dog’s previous owner, and Kate now owes a duty to take reasonable care of Pizza Dog and, if possible, return him to his true owner. It’s questionable whether feeding a dog a bunch of cheese pizza is taking optimal care of him, but at least Kate has provided him with shelter and other basic necessities, including generous pats.

So when it comes to Kate’s property interest, the first question is whether Pizza Dog was lost or whether he counts as abandoned property. If Pizza Dog was abandoned, then the owner has relinquished their property rights and Kate now has title to him.

On the other hand, if he was merely lost or ran away, then Kate’s title is superior to everyone but the true owner. As in most jurisdictions, the remedy in New York to recover lost personal property or chattels from a wrongful possessor is a replevin action, Gates v. Bowers, 169 N.Y. 14, 61 N.E. 993 (1901), so if Pizza Dog is lost, Kate may have to relinquish him if sued for replevin.

But as with all equitable actions, the recovery would be subject to equitable defenses, including unclean hands or laches if the true owner unduly delays their efforts. And these equitable defenses may be of significance given that Kate and Pizza Dog rapidly form a strong emotional bond, and the harm of losing possession may outweigh the true owner’s interest in recovering him. Ultimately, I would argue that the scales of justice tip strongly in favor of preserving the superhuman and superdog connection, and Kate and Pizza Dog can hopefully look forward to a long, happy future of fighting bad guys together.

Peter Parker vs The Daily Bugle for Defamation

By

Josh Gilliland

-

December 20, 2021

0

Spider-Man Far From ends, and Spider-Man No Way Home begins with, news broadcaster J. Jonah Jameson of the Daily Bugle playing a video that depicted Spider-Man ordering a drone attack in London, being responsible for Mysterio’s death, AND then revealed that Peter Parker is Spider-Man.

Peter needs a very good lawyer to sue the Daily Bugle and J. Jonah Jameson.

New York Defamation Law

Defamation is a “false statement about a person that ‘tends to expose the p[erson] to public contempt, ridicule, aversion or disgrace, or induce an evil opinion of him [or her] in the minds of right-thinking persons, and to deprive him [or her] of their friendly intercourse in society,'” Ava v. NYP Holdings, Inc., 64 A.D.3d 407, 411-12 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009), citing Rinaldi v Holt, Rinehart Winston, 42 NY2d 369, 379, cert denied 434 US 969; see Golub v Enquirer/Star Group, 89 NY2d 1074).

Defamation can be spoken (slander) or written (libel). Libel has two forms:

Libel per se: where the defamatory statement appears on the face of the communication; and

Libel per quod: where no defamatory statement is present on the face of the communication but a defamatory import arises through reference to facts extrinsic to the communication

Ava, at *411-12, referencing 2 NY PJI2d 3:23, at 197, 3:24, at 275; see also Hinsdale v Orange County Pubis., 17 NY2d 284; Cole Fisher Rogow, Inc. v Carl Ally, Inc., 29 AD2d 423, 426 [1968, Stevens, J.], affd 25 NY2d 943).

A statement is defamatory on its face if it “impute the commission of a serious crime . . . or if they affect the plaintiff in his trade, occupation, or profession…” Oluwo v. Hallum, 2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 51761 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007), citing Sterling Doubleday Enterprises, L.P. v Marro, 238 AD2d 502, 503; Warlock Enterprises v City Center Assocs., 204 AD2d 438, 438.

New York law on libel per se rule on damages and news media organizations require that “damage may not be presumed in the absence of Times malice but must be proved,” which means that a plaintiff does not need to establish either actual malice or special damages before they may recover. Hogan v. Herald Company, 84 A.D.2d 470, 480-81 (N.Y. App. Div. 1982).

Accusing Peter Parker of Murder and Terrorist Attack

J. Jonah Jameson played an edited video from London that appeared to show Spider-Man ordering a drone attack with the command “execute them all.” The video purported to show Spider-Man being responsible for Mysterio’s death. The video was from an “anonymous” source. At no point in the video is Spider-Man’s face visible. Jameson states the video as “conclusive proof” that Spider-Man was responsible for the “murder of Mysterio.”

Jameson’s use of the video implies Spider-Man (and thus Peter Parker) committed two series crimes: a terrorist attack with drones and murder.

The claim that video was “conclusive proof” of Spider-Man committing murder is defamation, because it outright accused him of a crime. The video also imputes Spider-Man ordered a drone attack that could have had mass casualties.

If the Daily Bugle had any lawyers on staff, they should have paused before allowing an “anonymous” source to supply a video that clearly was edited. Publishing the video was reckless at best, intentional at worse.

The action of publishing the video can demonstrate it was done with “actual malice,” which is when a statement is made with “knowing its falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.” Dykstra v. St. Martin’s Press LLC, 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 31813, 9 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2020), citing Suozzi v Parente, 202 AD2d 94, 101-02 [1st Dept 1994] [internal citations omitted].

Reckless disregard for the truth is when there is a “high degree of awareness of . . . probable falsity[,]” Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., 418 US 323, 332 [1974]). Alternatively, recklessness can mean the defendant “must have entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication.” Dykstra, at *9, citing Prozeralik v Capital Cities Communications, Inc., 82 NY2d 466, 474 (1993), citing Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v Connaughton, 491 US 657, 667 (1989). However, failing to conduct further investigation is not enough to establish actual malice; the issue is the subjective state of mind of the defendant. Dykstra, at *9, citing [citing St. Amant v Thompson, 390 US 727, 731-33 [1968]; Time, Inc. v Hill, 385 US 374, 387-88 [1967]; Herbert v Lando, 441 US 153, 170 [1979].)

Discovery would be important in establishing that J. Jonah Jameson acted with the reckless disregard for the truth or that he knew the video was not an actual depiction of events in London. Requests for production would focus on the source of the video, whether the video was edited by the anyone at the Daily Bugle, and discussions about airing the video. Moreover, the deposition of J. Jonah Jameson would be an opportunity to capture his vindictiveness towards Spider-Man on the record, which would go to showing his state of mind. Or simply make the jury hate him in a trial. On the flip side, if Jameson refused to participate in discovery, there is the possibility of securing a default judgment against the Daily Bugle as a sanction.

The Importance of Actual Malice

Actual malice is needed to successfully bring a defamation claim against a news publisher for public figures. Spider-Man arguably is a public figure, because he has “assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society,” “occupy positions of . . . persuasive power and influence,” and have achieved “general fame or notoriety in the community.” Matthaus v. Hadjedj, 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 30855, 6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2018), citing Gertz v Robert Welch, Inc., supra at 345, 352; see Yiamouyiannis v Consumers Union of U.S., 619 F2d 932 (2 Cir. 1980).

Spider-Man took affirmative steps to “attract personal attention or striving to achieve a measure of public acclaim,” with his crime fighting and saving half of all life in the universe. See, Maule v. NYM Corp., 54 N.Y.2d 880 (N.Y. 1981). However, he took those affirmative steps as Spider-Man, not as Peter Parker.

Peter Parker as a Private Individual

The entire point of having a secret identify while being a superhero is so your family members do not get killed, stalkers do not follow their every steps, and they can have a “normal” life without bomb throwing super villains trying to kill them. The Daily Bugle deciding the secret identify of Spider-Man was of public interest raises serious privacy torts.

The issue of whether Spider-Man was involved in a terrorist attack and murder arguably is one of public concern (provided there is no actual malice). However, the fact Peter Parker’s identify was disclosed and alleged he committed murder thrust Peter into a fight with a news media corporation. Peter could recover for the damages he sustained from bricks being thrown through his window to attacks if he could show the Daily Bugle “acted in a grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” by a preponderance of the evidence. Chapadeau v. Utica Observer, 38 N.Y.2d 196, 199 (N.Y. 1975).

Did the Daily Bugle act in a “grossly irresponsible manner without due consideration for the standards of information gathering and dissemination ordinarily followed by responsible parties” by publishing an edited video that claimed a 17 year old was a murderer? I think a jury would agree.