Home Blog Page 75

Please Vote For The Legal Geeks for Best Podcast

0

Voting is now open in The Geekie Awards. It is time to vote early and vote often for The Legal Geeks for Best Podcast. We ask for your vote every day for Best Podcast until August 31, 11:59pm PST.

Please help us show the world that lawyers love not just the law, but comic books too. Please go to http://vote2015.thegeekieawards.com/ and cast your vote for The Legal Geeks.

Can The Thing be Charged with Indecent Exposure?

0

The Thing is naked in the new Fantastic Four movie. Heck, even San Francisco has an ordinance against public nudity. What happened here?

I fondly remember John Byrne’s run on Fantastic Four with excellent adventures across space and time. Since the earliest days of the comic,  the cover declared, “The World’s Greatest Comic Magazine.” The reviews of the new movie do not honor the comic characters so many love.

Ben Grimm being naked in no way lives up to the comic brought to life by Jack Kirby. Parents potentially have to explain to kids where is The Thing’s “thing.” The FF deserve a Netflix series where they take on the Mole Man with an army of monsters and advance technology; or the Sub-Mariner declaring war on the surface for pollution; or Rama-Tut/Kang seeking to conquer time. Hopefully Marvel can get the rights back and give the world the Fantastic Four it deserves.

Fanboy rage aside, could The Thing be charged with indecent exposure for being naked (assuming a war-hero pilot from New York would suddenly become a nudist Ken-doll-like super-hero)?

New York defines public lewdness as when someone “intentionally exposes the private or intimate parts of his body in a lewd manner or commits any other lewd act (a) in a public place, or (b) in private premises under circumstances in which he may readily be observed from either a public place or from other private premises, and with intent that he be so observed.” NY CLS Penal § 245.00

New York defines exposure when a person “appears in a public place in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his body are unclothed or exposed.” NY CLS Penal § 245.01. New York law has an exception for exposure, which states, “Nothing in this section shall prevent the adoption by a city, town or village of a local law prohibiting exposure of a person as herein defined in a public place, at any time, whether or not such person is entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment.” Id.

If Ben Grimm were charged with either public lewdness or exposure, a defense attorney could argue that the law does not apply to Ben Grimm as The Thing, because Grimm no longer has a human body with “intimate parts.” A prosecutor might counter that Grimm is still a human being, protected by the Constitution, Federal, and state law; therefore, Grimm has to also follow the law.

Just as Ben Grimm’s older brother would never abuse him, Ben would never give up his claims on his humanity in order to escape criminal prosecution. Comic stories over the last 35 years had The Thing travel in time and give his past self an antidote to the Cosmic Rays in an alternative timeline to regain his humanity. Moreover, Ben Grimm stayed on the first Secret Wars world where he could change back into a human body. If you have not read those stories, be sure to check them out.

The Thing simply walking around in public would also not be lewd by itself, which would demonstrate that a core element of the law was not broken. However, exposure would be harder to challenge, because Grimm is entering public places “in such a manner that the private or intimate parts of his body are unclothed or exposed.” As such, The Thing would be violating the plain text of the statute.

The best way for a man turned into a rock monster to not be charged with exposure is to AT LEAST wear blue shorts. Pants and boots would also be great. A shirt would also ensure Ben Grimm would be served at most restaurants (assuming their seating could support his weight).

Ant-Man’s Giant Sized Legal Issues

0

Jess and I both loved Marvel’s Ant-Man. We discussed all things Ant-Man on our podcast, from comic history to the many faces of Hank Pym.

We also explored the number of crimes Scott Lang committed and how many years could he have served in prison. After all, Scott’s time San Quentin could not have exceed Cassie Lang’s life.

We entered the micro-verse on whether vigilantes could legally fight arms dealers selling to international terrorists, and course, whether Cassie Lang could have a giant ant as a pet.

The Legal Implications of Performance Enhancing Drug Use in eSports

0

Performance enhancing drug (“PED”) use in eSports has long been an issue whispered about within the eSports community.  These PEDs are not steroids and human growth hormone as we know from other sports, but are instead prescription drugs known as psychostimulants or neuroenhancers.

These kinds of drugs (Adderall, Ritalin, Selegiline, etc.) are abused by players as a means of enhancing focus, calmness, or to otherwise act as a stimulant.

However, due to the lack of drug testing by professional eSports leagues and tournament bodies, there have been very few instances of confirmed PED use during matches. Unfortunately, there is now an example of such drug use.

On July 12, 2015, a Youtube video was posted where professional Counter Strike: Global Offensive player Kory “Semphis” Friesen asserted during an interview that he and his team took Adderall during a major tournament hosted by ESL, the world’s largest and oldest eSports tournament provider. The relevant portion of the interview is as follows:

Friesen: “The ESL [team communications] were kinda funny in my opinion. I don’t even care, we were all on Adderall [laughs]”
Interviewer: “Really? [laughs]”
Friesen: “I don’t even give a fuck, like its pretty obvious if you listen to the [team communications]. I don’t know, people can hate it or whatever.”
Interviewer: “Everyone does Adderall at ESEA Lan right?”
Friesen: “Yea”
Interviewer: “Just throwing that out there for the fans, that’s how ya get good

In addition to the disappointing language encouraging others to violate tournament rules and abuse prescription medications, such PED use can impact the player and team’s contractual relationships.

Many contracts, especially sponsorship agreements, contain morals clauses. This type of clause allows a contracted party the opportunity to cancel their remaining obligations under the contract should the other party act in a way that is harmful or damaging to its own brand.  The reasoning behind such a clause is that by cancelling the contract, a party can protect themselves from being associated with the brand damage caused by the other party. In the sponsorship context, this allows a sponsor to exit a sponsorship should the sponsee player or team be engaged in a scandal or otherwise illicit activity.

Although there has not been a reported contractual exodus in this matter like when Lance Armstrong was found to have been using PEDs, the use of PEDs in eSports can trigger a contract’s morals clause in the following ways:

  • The player does not have a prescription for said neuroenhancer, which is likely a criminal offense
  • The player illegally obtains a prescription, which is criminal
  • The player legally obtains a prescription which the athlete uses illicitly
  • The player legally obtains a prescription and distributes the PEDs to others, which is criminal

It is unknown whether or not Friesen and his team obtained the Adderall licitly and for a valid medical purpose. However, in the event that the individuals obtained the substance for an illicit purpose such as those described above, that action would likely be enough to satisfy a morals clause. Importantly, a morals clause can also be placed in a player-team contract, thus putting the players’ livelihood at stake should they utilize PEDs.

Additionally, the team itself could face legal backlash over its players’ PED use from sponsors, as sponsorship agreements routinely contain morals clauses.  Depending on how the morals clause is drafted in the team’s sponsorship agreements, the actions of all players (or even a substantial number of them) may be sufficient to trigger the morals clause and permit the sponsor to cancel the sponsorship agreement. As Friesen’s admission has caught the attention of many people in the eSports industry at large, time will tell if there is any sponsor backlash.

Although sponsors have yet to take action, the ESL has already begun to establish an anti-doping program in the wake of Friesen’s statements. The tournament organizer announced a partnership with the Nationale Anti Doping Agentur and the World Anti Doping Agency to help create an anti-PED policy and to implement and enforce said policy. However, unlike professional sports where such policies are collectively bargained between the leagues and the players unions, the ESL policies are being imposed upon the players as they are not unionized. The lack of player input raises the potential for serious players’ rights violations. Although little information has been shared publically about what ESL’s policies will entail, enforcement is to begin at the ESL One Cologne tournament this month. At the very least, one tournament provider is taking steps towards eliminating PED use in eSports.

Time will tell if ESL’s anti-doping program has an effect on eliminating, or limiting, the use of PEDs in the eSports industry while still respecting players’ rights. However, in order to more substantially limit the use the PEDs in the industry, other tournament providers will also have to implement anti-doping policies and procedures. Regardless of the policies in place, teams should keep in mind that any PED use can impact the sponsorships that they have worked hard to obtain, and thus discourage any PED use by its players.  No team or player would want to lose their contracts because a morals clause was triggered in an effort to gain a competitive advantage.  Even worse, potential sponsors or teams may be hesitant to sponsor or employ a player and/or their team due to past PED use.  Statements referring to taking Adderall as how you “get good” are not only irresponsible for encouraging activities that may cost players and their teams contracts, but also because they effectively encourage criminal behavior.

(Photo used under Creative Commons from chrisjtse)

Please Nominate The Legal Geeks for the ABA Journal Blawg 100

0

It is the time of year again, when attorney bloggers start barnstorming across Iowa and New Hampshire to win the hearts of readers at pancake breakfasts and state fairs.

Nominations for the ABA Journal Blawg 100 are now open. If you enjoy our blog, we would be honored if you took two minutes and “cast a vote” for us.

You can cast your vote to nominate The Legal Geeks by visiting the ABA Journal and submitting 1) your name and email; 2) our website www.thelegalgeeks.com; 3) a link to your favorite recent post; and 4) say why you like our blog with up to 500 words.

Nominations are due by 11:59 p.m., Central Time, on August 16, 2015. Please visit http://www.abajournal.com/blawgs/blawg100_submit for more information.

Thank you for reading our blog. Let’s “Geek the Vote.”

 

Monster Party Guest Podcast at SDCC!

0

I am a huge fan of Monster Party. I have known Matt Weinhold since my mother owned Rooster T. Feathers back in the mid-1990s. We caught up at San Diego Comic Con and I was able to join Matt, Larry Strothe, James Gonis, and Shawn Sheridan, for their special Monster Party Comic Con podcast.

MonsterParty_SDCC_3654
Getting to podcast with the Monster Party team was like getting invited to the “grown-ups table” at Thanksgiving. These guys (along with their awesome wives) set a high bar for being a geek, having dedicated their lives too all things Godzilla, Star Trek, comic books, aliens, and monsters. It was truly an honor to hang out with them and “talk geek.”

I hope you enjoy the podcast. It was a blast to record and I wear my Monster Party hat with pride.

Can Cassie Lang Have a Giant Ant as an Exotic Pet?

0

Cassie Lang has a very special pet at the end of Ant-Man: An ant that is larger than a Rough Collie. Would she be legally able to have such an exotic pet in San Francisco?

The state of California and cities have very specific rules on the kinds of animals that can be pets. California prohibits a long list of animals from being imported, possessed, or released live in the state without a revocable, nontransferable permit, including any animal from Manatees to all species of Crocodilidae. Cal Fish & G Code § 2118. This list does not include any inspects.

The City and County of San Francisco prohibit animal owners from letting animals run at large around the city, other than domestic cats. San Francisco Health Code section 41.12. It is illegal to sell wild or dangerous animals in San Francisco, which are defined as animals that are “wild by nature and not customarily domesticated in the City and County of San Francisco and which, because of its size…that could constitute a danger to human life.” San Francisco Health Code section 51. These animals include wolves, jaguar, elephant, orangutan, Gila monster, and others, to name a few. Id. Moreover, wild animals must have a permit, or be taken by animal control up to 14 days before being sold or destroyed. San Francisco Health Code section 65.

San Francisco’s laws do not specifically address insects. By way of comparison, Alameda pet restrictions include insects. Alameda, California Code of Ordinances Sec. 7-9.6.

Pet ordinances are not designed for insects to be artificially enlarged. The City and County of San Francisco would likely require a license for a giant ant based on its “size” as a wild animal that could pose a danger to a person.

There is not a rich body of law for “ant farm” liability. At common law, an owner of a wild animal is absolutely liable for any injuries caused by that animal. By way of comparison, owners of domesticated such as dogs or cats are not subject to liability under common law unless the owner knew the animal was abnormally dangerous. Drake v. Dean (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 915, 935. However, California statute states that dog owners are liable for damages if a dog bites someone if the victim is in a place where they can lawfully be, regardless of knowledge of whether or not the dog is vicious. Cal Civ Code § 3342.

AntieComeHome

Would the same be true of a giant pet ant? Most likely yes, given the exotic nature of the pet and an active plaintiff’s bar if the ant bites anyone. Moreover, ants can lift 1000% their weight. As such, “Antie” should be able to overturn cars, rip doors off hinges, and cause general mayhem on a rampage. However, it seems highly unlikely Cassie would employ her pet ant to terrorize first graders. That being said, it is a good thing Cassie has a police officer as a soon-to-be step-father to help with the permitting process.