Sadly, “shocking” racist or bigoted celebrity tirades no longer make for shocking news. Even if the Constitution can’t protect them in the court of public opinion, celebrities like Mel Gibson, Michael Richards, andTracy Morgan are lucky enough to live in America, where the First Amendment protects them from legal consequences for the absurd things that come out of their mouths. John Galliano, on the other hand? Not so lucky. He could face jail time for his recent anti-Semitic and racist rants.

The former creative director of French fashion house Christian Dior was arrested in February for allegedly shouting anti-Jewish and racist insults at a couple at a bar in Paris. He also allegedly exchanged slaps with the couple. Galliano was immediately fired from his position at Christian Dior and ostracized from the fashion community. Shortly after the incident, Galliano ended up in rehab (which is now apparently a cure for everything from alcoholism to racism to not being able to stop once you pop). In court, Galliano claimed that he was an alcoholic and drug addict, and that these addictions caused him to make the racist rants (of which he supposedly has no memory). Galliano is being charged with making “public insults based on origin, religious affiliation, race or ethnicity” — a type of prohibition which was widely adopted throughout Europe in the aftermath of the Holocaust — and could face up tosix months in prison.

Although Galliano is, in practice, unlikely to see a jail cell even if he’s convicted, the fact that it’s a possibility at all is more-than-mildly perplexing to us Americans who are used to having free reign to make comments like that — usually either on a stand-up stage, while being arrested for something else, or on Fox News — without the threat of prosecution. So when can you go to jail for speech in America? Continue reading the full story . . . »

Megan Rivetti

Contact Megan

I’m a sucker for any show that involves singing (except for, perhaps, this one). So, of course I watched the latest American Idol knockoff to hit the airwaves — The Voice. During one of the show’s episodes, Maroon 5 took the stage to debut their new single titled “Moves Like Jagger.” (CAUTION: Clicking on this hyperlink may result in a semi-ridiculous/incredibly catchy song getting stuck in your head.) Much like the title suggests, “Moves Like Jagger” pays homage to Mick Jagger’s iconic dance moves (luckily, not these dance moves).

After I heard this song for the first time (which turned into hundreds of hundreds of times as it played on loop in my head for about two days), I wondered whether Mick Jagger had any legal remedies to prevent Maroon 5 from using his name in the song title (assuming Mick did not authorize them to use his name in this way). Let’s see what Sir Michael Jagger could do if he decided to do his cocksure strut down to the courthouse. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Jesse Saivar

Contact Jesse

Q: I’m a documentarian. If I were to record a live show as part of a documentary — audio and visual — am I free to use it even if there’s live music being played in the background?

A: Look, I’m no math magician, but one of the things I always liked about math is that it’s a world of definitive answers. In my simplistic view, the world to a mathematician is one big black and white cookie. It may be a complicated black and white cookie, but it’s black and white nonetheless.

I, for some reason, chose to be a lawyer. In the world of law, nothing is black and white. It’s all grey. And if we’ve learned anything from grey goo, May Grey, people who spell grey “gray,” and Grey’s Anatomy, it’s that grey sucks.

Unfortunately for us lawyers, most people assume that the law is black and white… that there are simple yes and no answers to legal questions. But there rarely are. Lawyers are paid big bucks to always find a counterpoint to every point raised by their opponent — and counterpoints usually exist. To make matters worse, sometimes legality and reality diverge. Even if you find yourself on the right side of one of those rare black and white legal situations, it may not matter unless you’re willing to pay a lawyer to enforce your rights, or defend you, in court. Proving you’re right, even when it’s painfully obvious that the law is on your side, can be an expensive endeavor, especially if the party on the other side has money and a bad attitude. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Rachel Wilkes Barchie

Contact Rachel

Last year, after Big Love star Chloe Sevigny trash-talked her show’s season, calling it “awful,” we took our dear readers through the ins and outs of non-disparagement clauses in celebrity contracts, and how they can (or can’t) prevent stars from criticizing a show or movie while simultaneously making bank on it. (Along the same lines, stay tuned for our much anticipated analysis of the dispute between Charlie Sheen, CBS/Warner Bros., and showrunner Chuck Lorre. Sneak preview: we will not be able to restrain the urge to make extremely obvious and ubiquitous “tiger blood” and “Adonis DNA” references.)

But what happens when a star makes comments that are not disparaging to the star’s current project or boss, and instead are just generally perceived by certain people (or everybody) as offensive or insensitive? Surely the First Amendment must protect this kind of speech!

Not so fast, Dr. Laura. Because as we like to say around these parts, the right to free speech is not the right to consequence-free speech. Continue reading the full story . . . »

Matt Falley

Contact Matt

While buying a present for my son recently at a local surf-and-skate shop, I decided to check out the current crop of skateboard decks. For those not into skating (or who don’t have kids into skating), the underside of boards — you know, the part that no one will ever see if you are actually riding the board successfully — have striking graphics that are a big part of why you choose, and how much you pay for, a particular board. (Well that makes perfect sense — you’re welcome, fellow confused parents.)

One deck immediately stood out: a drawing of E.T. and Michael Jackson in an embrace, below the caption “Alien vs. Predator.”

The board is pretty hilarious, but also risky. Because I am a lawyer, and because lawyers must check their unfettered-by-legal-obsession senses of humor at the law school gate, I couldn’t help thinking about numerous potential legal claims that several plaintiffs might be able to bring. Continue reading the full story . . . »