|
|
Join us each Tuesday as Bob Ingersoll analyzes how the law
is portrayed in comics then explains how it would really work.
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
THE LAW IS A ASS for 03/19/2002
DOCKET ENTRY
"The Law is a Ass" Installment # 137
Originally written as installment # 124 and published in Comics Buyer's Guide issue # 734, December 11, 1987 issue
Here's the behind the scenes secrets to this column: I had this wopping huge sack of fan mail questions which I started answering in the column which ran last week and which I finished in the column which runs today.
Hey, can I help it if sometimes the scenery ain't worth looking behind?
******
"The Law is a Ass"
Installment # 137
by
Bob Ingersoll
Last time, you remember, I told you about this little tradition I have with Don and Maggie. Every year, at the July Chicago Convention, I give them an installment of this column. You may also recall that I told you how this year Don and Maggie reciprocated by giving me a package of fan mail.
Package? The Dead Letter Office gets less mail at Christmas time than Don and Maggie gave me. I am presently in the process of answering that mail. I started last week. I'll finish this week.
I'm going into the sanitarium next week.
Jol Silversmith of Rockville, Maryland sent me two letters with two questions. First he wanted to know if he could sue both Warner Brothers and his local theater for advertising Police Academy IV as having the original cast, when several cast members from the original movie weren't present. I'll answer Jol's question, if he answers one of mine: why did you go to Police Academy IV? Some of the original cast were smart enough to bail out of this series, why weren't you?
No, you can't sue. The term, "original cast" is nebulous enough that having some of the original stars is good enough to satisfy it.
You'll notice, however, that no one billed the movie itself as, "original." Given that it was nothing more than a re-tread of every other movie in the series, not to mention ninety-odd per cent of the Three Stooges two-reelers, if they had billed it as original, you would have had a case.
Question Two: in the old Batman TV series, there was a cliff-hanger where Penguin binds and gags Batman and Robin behind two big targets, then tricks Commissioner Gordon and Chief O'Hara into shooting at the targets, so the bullets will pass through and kill the Caped Crusaders. After the Dynamic Duo escape by placing their bulletproof bat-boot soles against the target (Plate metal on the shoespractical for industrial strength tap dancers, perhaps, but how many times does a guy get shot in the bottom of his foot?) Batman says Penguin can't be prosecuted for attempted murder, because he didn't actually fire the shots.
Jol says he's "99% sure" this is wrong.
Jol can add the extra one per cent. Attempted murder is committed when someone does an act which, if successful, would purposely cause the death of another. Just as I would be guilty of murder, if I gave you a gun, ordered you to kill someone and you dideven though I didn't myself, commit the crime, so, too, is Penguin, as an aider and abettor. If there's anyone out there who doesn't believe what the Penguin did doesn't qualify as attempting an act which, if successful, would cause the death of another, please come to Cleveland. I need free thinkers like you on my juries.
Don Schenk of Allentown, Pennsylvania wrote about my column on Adventures of Superman # 429 and asked why I felt Catherine Grant's decision not to fight a court order denying all visitation rights to her son showed she didn't really love her son much. I don't know, Don, it has something to do with fighting for the ones you love. I know if some judge ruled I couldn't even see my child because I'd had extra-marital affairs, I'd sell my entire comic book collection in order to raise the money to fight the order. (Aside to my lovely wife, who is even now looking in the Yellow Pages under "Divorce Attorneys": That was only a hypothetical, dear. I don't have extra-marital affairs.)
David Noll of Gainesville, Florida wondered why my column analyzing the Illinois v. Pope decisionin which the United States Supreme Court modified its definition of obscenitycalled the decision a victory for free speech. I called it that, because the decision makes it harder for some backwater prosecutor to prove that something is pornographic. That, in turn, makes it harder for said prosecutor to convict the alleged pornographer. That, in turn, means that artists can use more freedom of expression with less fear of being convicted as pornographers. I call that a victory.
Admittedly, it's not as clear cut a victory as the native Americans at the Little Big Horn, but it's still a victory for those who support free speech.
(I figure that comment is good for some mail.)
Andrew Jones of Vincentown, New Jersey, took me to task because in another column on a similar topic, I stated without additional comment that the Supreme Court had ruled not all speech was protected by the First Amendment and that pornography had been specifically exempted from coverage. Andrew felt my silence was a tacit expression of my agreement with this ruling. Moreover, as my opinion is respected as a reputable source of information, such tacit agreement would discourage others from fighting censorship.
Andrew, please do not ascribe to my silence any words which I, myself, did not say and which I did not mean. My silence meant only that I had correctly stated the present Supreme Court rule on pornography and that my personal opinion as to the validity of said rule had no bearing on the subject about which I was writing. My silence was not intended as, nor should it have been read as, an agreement, tacit or otherwise, with the principle that not all speech is protected by the First Amendment.
As to your other point, Andrew, I think you give me and my column far more credit that it's due. I can't honestly believe that anyone who was actively fighting to protect the First Amendment actually gave up the fight, because something I wrote seemed like a tacit agreement with the principle that not all speech should be accorded First Amendment protection. Anyone who did give up for that reason could not have been committed to the fight anyway.
However, since my personal opinion has been called into question, and in case there actually are Ingephiles who have refrained from acting because of my silence, let me state it in letters so large that Fat George will be able to read it without his glasses. I believe that all speech is entitled to First Amendment protection. Not some speechALL SPEECH! If we can say some form of speech isn't entitled to protection, because it is sexually offensive to some; we can also say some form of speech isn't protected, because it's politically offensive to some. Both positions are indefensible.
(And I'll bet that's good for even more mail!)
Rudy Minger of Red Bluff, California sent me three items, Flippity and Flop # 28, Top Cat # 4, and something from an unknown issue of National Lampoon entitled, "Doctor-Lawyer."
Funny animal comics? National Lampoon? What's going on? I run a serious forum for detailed discussions on the present status of the American system of jurisprudence (or lack of prudence). You don't see me making jokes about it.
I make my jokes in the privacy of my office. You read them weeks later. So how could you see me make them? Ha! Got you on a technicality.
Flippity and Flop # 28 contains a story in which the black cat, Flop, tries to catch and eat the yellow song bird, Tweetie er Flippity. He sets a trap. He's caught by Flippity's dog friend, Sam, after Flippity is trapped, but before Flippity is eaten. (Damn!) Sam is about to, as he puts it, "bop" Flop. He is stopped, when Flop points out that Sam can't prove that Flop did anything wrong.
Boys and girls, these were not trained professionals. But you still shouldn't try this stunt at home. It won't work.
There was sufficient circumstantial evidence present for Sam to have made a reasonable inference that Flop had trapped Flippity. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient to support a conviction, when it is such that a reasonable man could find a reasonable theory of guilt while excluding every reasonable theory of innocence.
Sam, take it from the top, and do not stop, go ahead and bop that mean old Flop.
Top Cat # 4 had a story where T.C. performed as a stand-up comic. He was threatened with a law suit by Whackie Fleason's attorney for stealing Fleason's act. T.C. settled one panel later, which must set some land speed record. T.C. blew it. Me, I would have fought.
The material in question was this, "I just flew in from Hollywood! Boy, are my arms tired," and "This is a little step I picked up on the coast! I don't know who dropped it!" I don't think Fleason would have had the courage to come into open court and take credit for writing that. Not as long as Henny Youngman was still alive. And even if Fleason did write it, he'd never be able to prove damages. Anyone who'd steal that act did Fleason a favor.
The National Lampoon piece, "Doctor-Lawyer" was about a graduate of Harvard Law School and Medical School whose misdiagnosis kills someone and who then sues himself on behalf of the survivors. I didn't like it. Not because it wasn't funny--it was mildly amusing--but because it used an old idea I had for a sequel to the popular mini-series, Rich Man, Poor Man. I figured a show about a Doctor, Lawyer it was a natural for TV combining the drama of Perry Mason with the pathos and excitement of Marcus Welby, M.D. Now I can never pitch the concept.
With my luck, that litigation-happy Whackie Fleason wrote the National Lampoon story, too
Bob Ingersoll
<< 03/12/2002 | 03/19/2002 | 04/02/2002 >>
Discuss this installment with me in World Famous Comics' General Forum.
Recent Installments:
Current Installment >>
Installment Archives |
About Bob |
General Forum
|
|
|
Anything Goes Trivia
