Megyn Kelly’s exclusive interview with Infowars.com head Alex Jones aired on Sunday night on NBC News, but ultimately faced more criticism than praise.

The much-anticipated interview drew 3.5 million viewers, according to Nielsen ratings, putting it even with a rerun of “America’s Funniest Home Videos” and two million viewers behind a rerun of “60 Minutes.” Kelly’s two previous shows earned 0.7 and 4.9 million viewers respectively.

Kelly and NBC faced plenty of criticism prior to the airing from those upset with the national platform given to Alex Jones, a famous right-wing personality who is often accused of spreading false facts and conspiracy theories. He is perhaps most infamous for claiming that the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a hoax.

Critics accused Kelly of promoting Jones, a man who many blame for spreading fake news and riling up his angry, right-wing supporters. These complaints were only fueled by the fact that the interview aired on Fathers Day. Many pled with NBC to not air the segment, but only NBC affiliates in Connecticut, where the Sandy Hook shooting occurred, elected not to show the interview.

Kelly, a former Fox News host, has long been under public scrutiny and her transition to NBC has made her more mainstream. Many at NBC put their faith in Kelly, believing she was destined to be a “super star” but one anonymous television executive believes her ceiling is as a “cable star,” according to CNN. So, many were upset that she was using her new platform to normalize Jones and his radical, oftentimes racist, theories.

Plenty of advertisers withdrew their sponsorship in response to the interview, including JPMorgan Chase, according to The Hill. On a local scale, several ads were pulled from the air, according to CNN. JPMorgan Chase CMO Kristin Lemkau “requested that its local and digital ads not be placed adjacent to any broadcast or stream of the segment,” according to Jezebel.

As an advertiser, I’m repulsed that @megynkelly would give a second of airtime to someone who says Sandy Hook and Aurora are hoaxes. Why? https://t.co/luwyCwP7Ti

— Kristin Lemkau (@KLemkau) June 12, 2017

In order to make up for this issue, NBC ran several public service announcements, normally reserved for less desirable time slots, according to Variety. Additionally, there were an unusual number of NBC promotions and repeated advertisements during the broadcast, indicative of the network’s scramble to fill ad breaks.

Those upset with the interview were emboldened when Jones released audio of Kelly promising him that the interview wouldn’t be a “gotcha hit piece” and that it would leave “the left” impressed. But it’s traditionally against journalistic ethics to promise interview subjects that you will make them look as good as possible.

In the end, Kelly’s interview with Jones may have caused more trouble for NBC than it was worth. Now it will matter if these ramifications will have a long term effect. Will big advertisers, like JPMorgan Chase, return to NBC and Kelly’s show specifically? As for Kelly’s ratings, they peaked with her pilot episode and haven’t come close to those levels since.

NBC expected big things out of Kelly when she moved from Fox, but after a tumultuous first month she may be in more trouble than expected. Nowhere to go but up…right?

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Megyn Kelly’s Interview with Alex Jones Sparks Negative Reactions appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Do you read every article you can find about the Tidal lawsuits? Are you fascinated by the legal effort to recover art stolen by the Nazis during World War II? Do you have strong feelings about the legal side of “Deflategate?” Do you want a legal career that’s dynamic, fast-paced, and challenging? If you answered yes to any or all of those questions, a career in Entertainment, Arts, or Sports law may be something to consider.

These specialties incorporate a wide range of legal disciplines, including IP and Copyright law, Contract law, and Labor law. And without the behind-the-scenes work of the lawyers who specialize in these fields, our favorite music, TV shows, movies, sports, and art would be unrecognizable. So, how do you get started? The University of Miami School of Law, home to the unique Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law LL.M program, has the answer. Read on to learn more.

A Primer on Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law

First things first: what are we talking about here? These fields, while distinct, are certainly related. But it’s still important to understand some of the nuances.

What is Entertainment Law? 

There’s no set-in-stone definition of exactly what Entertainment law constitutes, but in many ways it involves the application of legal concepts to real world problems. Entertainment lawyers deal with a myriad of legal issues arising from the entertainment and performing arts industry, including TV, movies, radio, theater, and publishing. It can include anything from working on contracts for performers or employers, to filing trademarks, confronting First Amendment issues, and dealing with lawsuits involving those in the entertainment industry. According to Miami Law:

Although entertainment lawyers might represent ‘talent,’ such as directors, actors or musicians, they more often advise companies that produce and distribute entertainment content, license celebrity brands, purchase and sell motion picture or music publishing catalogues, raise or invest debt and equity capital, and purchase and sell companies engaged in one or more of such activities.

Entertainment law is fast-paced and multi-dimensional, and can incorporate many legal questions that a lot of us probably don’t even think about on a daily basis. For example, imagine some of the legal issues that go into creating a movie:

• Actors, writers, and workers on the movie will need contracts to be negotiated. The presence of unions–for example the Screen Actors Guild–may also mean that labor law considerations are in the mix.
• Music used in the movie will need to be properly licensed.
• Marketing materials for the movie, including catchphrases, may need to be trademarked.
• Say the movie involves a “real life story” or biography–an attorney may be needed to deal with any defamation lawsuits that arise.

This list is by no means dispositive, but it goes to show that there are a lot of moving parts that go into what we see as final products in entertainment–and many of them require lawyers.

What is Arts Law?

Like Entertainment law, Arts law exists at a large intersection of legal issues, largely focused on the creation, ownership, and business of art. Intellectual Property law plays a large part–as art depends on the creation of unique work–but Estate and Property law, Contract law, Torts, and other areas factor in as well.

According to Miami Law:

Today, art lawyers work in law firms, museums, auction houses, and financial institutions. Works of art are bought and sold, implicating issues of good title and authenticity; loaned from museums to galleries and other museums, implicating insurance and contract matters; travel internationally for both commercial and private purposes, implicating international treaties and customs laws and regulations; and are often important assets in decedents’ estates, implicating tax and estate planning concerns. An art lawyer must be able to navigate this complex terrain of legal concepts and practical strategies.

Let’s look at an example, like we did with Entertainment law. What might you need to consider if you’re providing legal counsel to an artist?

• Contract law comes into play if the artist wants to be represented in any galleries.
• The artist may be able to receive royalties if their art is used for commercial purposes, or if someone uses the artist’s art without their permission, intellectual property rights could protect them.
• Artists sometimes become involved in performance art as public protests–First Amendment considerations may be at issue.

If any of those hypothetical issues piqued your interest, maybe Arts law is a discipline that you would want to consider.

What is Sports Law?

Sports law, like its Entertainment and Arts law counterparts, also sees a mix of legal principles and factors. Sports lawyers can represent players in the sports industry, including professional and amateur athletes, venues, organizations and teams, and companies that work with athletes or teams.

According to Miami Law:

Sports lawyers usually require knowledge of various areas of law including: contracts, labor, antitrust, tax, intellectual property and media law. To represent sports industry clients, a lawyer also needs strong contract negotiation and drafting skills in addition to an understanding of the arbitration process. Other areas of law, like immigration, can also come into play for foreign athletes and international leagues or clubs.

Let’s try our “day in the life” exercise with Sports law. Let’s say that you represent a team. Here are some questions that could come up:

• You’ll be needed to draft contracts for the athletes who join the team.
• In the cases of international athletes, you may need to deal with Immigration law to ensure that they are able to work in the United States.
• If an athlete gets injured in the course of a game, he may sue the organization he’s playing for.
• A team’s logo and mascot can be trademarked, and you may need to deal with infringing uses on unlicensed merchandise.

Needless to say, there’s no guarantee that any given sports lawyer will deal with those exact issues. But it’s important to note that Sports law, just like Entertainment law and Arts law, requires lawyers who enjoy working in an unpredictable and quickly evolving field.

You’ve Convinced Me–I want to be an Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Lawyer. Where do I start?

Miami Law’s LL.M in Entertainment, Arts, and Sports Law can help you make that dream a reality. The program is designed for working lawyers who want to narrow their focus on one of these specialties or students who have already received their law degrees abroad. An LL.M can provide the leg up you need in a competitive environment. The clients you’ll represent–whether it’s an actor, artist, athlete, venue, or company–need to know that you have the wide breadth of legal knowledge to help confront whatever problem they run into. A focused LL.M could make it clear that you have that expertise.

Why Miami Law?

Miami Law’s LL.M program offers some unparalleled perks to get you on the right track.

Location, Location, Location 

Miami is a vibrant, bustling city that serves as an epicenter for entertainment, art, and sports. Miami is home to a number of entertainment production companies, including Telemundo, Univision, HBO Latin America, Viacom International, Sony, and BBC Latin America. The art scene in Miami features many galleries and museums; the city has traditionally been known for its art deco flair. And don’t forget–Miami is home to the Miami Heat, the Miami Dolphins, and the Miami Marlins, in addition to countless amateur and college teams.

Connections are Key 

Who are some Miami alums in the fields of Entertainment, Arts, or Sports law? Take, for example, Horacio Gutierrez, class of ’98. He now serves as General Counsel for Spotify, one of the fastest-growing music streaming services in the world. In the field of Sports law, Dennis Curran is a Miami Law alum, class of ’75. He currently serves as the Senior Vice-President and General Counsel for the NFL Management Council, which represents the 32 teams in the NFL. And Professor Stephen K. Urice, the Director of the Arts law track, comes from a background in arts and museum law–at one point he directed the national culture program at The Pew Charitable Trusts. Miami Law’s faculty, staff, and alumni can help you bridge the gap between your education and getting involved in the job of your dreams.

Hands-On Experience

Miami Law provides its LL.M students with unparalleled hands-on experience. Each of the three tracks–Entertainment law, Art law, and Sports law–requires a practicum component that will give them experience in the field. For example, Maria Jose Rivera, a student in the LL.M program, is completing her practicum requirement at the NBC Universal Telemundo. She describes her work as a fall legal intern to the Telemundo Network with Music Affairs, saying:

I want to get to counsel and represent television and motion picture productions in all legal aspects. Whenever I walk into a studio set, I get thrills by seeing it and hearing in all in real life. I see the drafting of agreements as creating the safeguards to making those audiovisual productions come strong from a legal standpoint.

And she described her experience with the LL.M program as a whole, saying:

The program has helped me get there by not only placing me into the real practice but by granting me the privilege to work with and learn from these role models I look up to professionally. I’m drafting and negotiating agreements for the first time while being challenged to develop the skills that are in demand when becoming an effective lawyer in the entertainment industries.

So, are you ready to make a change, and work on something you’re truly passionate about? Consider Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Law. It’s a growing and exciting field, and it’s time for you to take the plunge.

Resources

Primary

Miami Law: LL.M. in Entertainment, Arts and Sports Law

Miami Law: Entertainment Track

Miami Law: Art Track

Miami Law: Sports Track 

Additional

LexisNexis: Researching Entertainment Law

ABA: What Is Sports Law and Who Is a Sports Lawyer?

Lawyers for the Creative Arts: Legal Issues in Film Production

University of Miami School of Law

The University of Miami School of Law’s mission is to foster the intellectual discipline, creativity, and critical skills that will prepare its graduates for the highest standards of professional competence in the practice of law in a global environment subject to continual–and not always predictable–transformation; to cultivate a broad range of legal and interdisciplinary scholarship that, working at the cutting edge of its field, enhances the development of law and legal doctrine, and deepens society’s understanding of law and its role in society; and to fulfill the legal profession’s historic duty to promote the interests of justice. Visit www.law.miami.edu for more information. The University of Miami School of Law is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

The post What Does it Take to Become an Entertainment, Arts, or Sports Lawyer? appeared first on Law Street.

Frank Ocean’s estranged father is suing him…again. According to a TMZ report, Ocean’s father, Calvin Cooksey, is filing a defamation lawsuit against his son. The $14.5 million lawsuit is a response to a Tumblr post that Ocean wrote after the Orlando nightclub shooting that had the “Blonde” singer, who infamously took to Tumblr to discuss his sexuality in 2012, recounting the time his dad used a homophobic slur. In the post that led to the defamation lawsuit, Ocean wrote:

I was six years old when I heard my dad call our transgender waitress a f****t as he dragged me out a neighborhood diner saying we wouldn’t be served because she was dirty. That was the last afternoon I saw my father and the first time I heard that word, I think, although it wouldn’t shock me if it wasn’t.

Cooksey, who considers himself to be somewhat of a multihyphenate, claims that the story never happened, and that it has caused damages to his aspiring career in film and music. This isn’t the first time Cooksey has filed a lawsuit–in fact, it’s not even the first time he’s filed a lawsuit against his son.

In 2012, Ocean took to his since-deleted Twitter account to reveal that his father was suing him for $1 million. “Father wanna sue me for a million. Like I owe him back child support. Weak individual bought me a swiss knife at 6yrs old then dipped on me,” Ocean tweeted.

In 2014, TMZ reported that Cooksey hit rap mogul Russell Simmons with a $142 million lawsuit, claiming that Simmons’ hip-hop culture website GlobalGrind unfairly painted him as horrible father. Like his current lawsuit, Cooksey sued Simmons for damages to his future income. In the lawsuit, according to TMZ, Cooksey claimed that Ocean’s “Money Grubbing mother” hid his own son from him and didn’t give Cooksey the chance to be a father. Ocean, who is notoriously private, maintains a close relationship with his mom. In October, Ocean brought her as his date to the final Obama White House state dinner.

This isn’t the first time a celebrity has been sued by their own father. Just last year, actor Christian Slater was involved in a $20 million lawsuit that his father, who is also an actor, filed against him for defamation of character. In the suit, as Entertainment Tonight reported, Slater’s father claimed that comments his son made in an interview claiming that he suffered from mental health issues “ruined his career in the stage, motion picture, and television industry.” The lawsuit was tossed out in July.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Frank Ocean’s Father Sues Him for Defamation appeared first on Law Street.

Aside from all the gifs and memes that resulted from Gen-X icon Winona Ryder’s facial expressions, the biggest story of last night’s Screen Actors Guild Awards was the many winners who used their acceptance speeches as a platform to rebuke President Trump’s executive order banning travelers from seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The night opened on a political note when Ashton Kutcher, presenting the night’s first award, welcomed “everyone at home and everyone in airports that belong in my America. You are part of the fabric of who we are, and we love you and we welcome you.”

#sagawards pic.twitter.com/3BGDGa0FLC

— SAG Awards® (@SAGawards) January 30, 2017

The night continued with “Veep” star Julia Louis-Dreyfus, accepting the award for outstanding performance by a female actor in a comedy series. In her speech, she called Trump’s immigration ban “un-American” and told her story of being the daughter of an immigrant who fled religious persecution in Nazi-occupied France.

The political focus continued throughout the night. William H. Macy thanked Trump for making his “Shameless” character Frank Gallagher–a perpetually drunk and irresponsible man with a proclivity to go on extended rants–seem normal. “Orange is the New Black” actress Taylor Schilling called on Hollywood to “keep telling stories that show what unites us is stronger than the forces that seek to divide us.” “The People v. O.J. Simpson” star Sarah Paulson requested that everyone donate to the American Civil Liberties Union. And “Stranger Things” actor David Harbour pointed to art’s ability to “cultivate a more empathetic and understanding society.”

The most emotional and perhaps most resonant moment of the night came from Mahershala Ali, who accepted the award for best male actor in a supporting role for his performance in the movie “Moonlight.” “We see what happens when you persecute people. They fold into themselves,” Ali said.

He added:

When we kind of get caught up in the minutiae, the details that make us all different, there’s two ways of seeing that. There’s an opportunity to see the texture of that person, the characteristics that make them unique, and then there’s the opportunity to go to war about it, say, ‘that person is different from me and I don’t like you, so let’s battle.’ My mother is an ordained minister, I’m a Muslim. She didn’t do backflips when I called her to tell her I converted 17 years ago. But I tell you now, we put things to the side, I’m able to see her, she’s able to see me, we love each other, the love has grown. That stuff is minutiae. It’s not that important.

Politics taking a prominent place during awards season has a rich history–one that includes Marlon Brando refusing to accept his Academy Award for “The Godfather” to protest the film industry’s treatment of Native Americans and Michael Moore using his Oscar speech to shame President George W. Bush. If last night was any indication, President Trump is in for a bruising couple of weeks.

Austin Elias-De Jesus

Austin is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. He is a junior at The George Washington University majoring in Political Communication. You can usually find him reading somewhere. If you can’t find him reading, he’s probably taking a walk. Contact Austin at Staff@Lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Screen Actors Guild Awards Get Political appeared first on Law Street.

A lawsuit against their future sister-in-law is the cherry on top of an eventful few months for the Kardashians.

Khloe, Kourtney, and Kim have filed legal documents to prevent Blac Chyna (whose actual name is Angela Renée White) from being able to trademark the Kardashian name for her own personal brand. In case you haven’t been “keeping up,” Chyna is the fiancée of Rob Kardashian, and she took legal action back in May to secure her future family’s name for business purposes.

The legal action taken by the Kardashian family cites that the sisters “will suffer damage including irreparable injury to their reputation and goodwill if the Opposed Mark is allowed to register.”

The relationship between Chyna and the Kardashians has been a tumultuous one, but they seemed to be on good terms recently. However, after being accused of “deliberately seeking to profit from the goodwill and popularity” of the Kardashian name, family relations are sure to get a little awkward.

TMZ reports that the sisters assured Chyna the filings were not meant to single her out and were just “standard” procedures taken by their lawyers.

The Kardashian name itself is an important part of the various businesses owned by the family, which include products such as clothing, fragrance, makeup and home goods, among others. Additionally, the money they make off of self-promotion in the form of personal appearances and social media depend a lot upon the value of the Kardashian name.

Kris Jenner herself considered changing her name back to Kardashian in the past, and cited business purposes for doing so.

Chyna’s lawyer told People that his expectations are that it will be a “clear case win, because it’s actually her name, it’s not a poaching.”

Regardless of the intentions, it should be interesting to see how this all plays out as the family prepares to welcome Chyna into the family.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post The Kardashians Try to Prevent Blac Chyna from Legally Using Their Name  appeared first on Law Street.

Actor Brad Pitt was cleared of alleged child abuse after being investigated by the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services.

The accusation stemmed from an incident on a private plane in September–occurring one day before Angelina Jolie filed for divorce from Pitt after two years of marriage.

A representative for Angelina Jolie told FOX411 that the actress was relieved Pitt had been cleared:

The job of the [Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services] is to make sure the children are in a safe and secure situation. As we said earlier this week, childcare professionals encouraged a legal agreement accepted and signed by both sides that was in the best interest of the children. Angelina said from the beginning that she felt she had to take action for the health of the family and is relieved that after their 8-week involvement, the DCFS is now satisfied the safeguards are put in place that will allow the children to heal.

Jolie is seeking sole physical custody of the couple’s six children–currently, she has full custody and Pitt is following an agreement that allows him “therapeutic visits” with his children.

A source familiar with the situation told Vanity Fair that some reports may be misrepresenting the situation:

Angelina has never accused him of child abuse, she wasn’t the one who asked for the D.C.F.S. to become involved. All she’s ever said is that she was concerned about the health of the family. If you take a look at the facts, they are indisputable. D.C.F.S. was involved for eight weeks. Child abuse is kind of the ceiling; the fact that he was cleared for child abuse doesn’t mean that nothing happened on the plane. Something required the safeguards that were put in place . . . If nothing happened, why would the current legal agreement that was encouraged by child-care professionals keep the kids in custody with therapeutic visits from Brad.

Pitt filed paperwork with the Los Angeles Superior Court last Friday seeking joint and physical custody. On Tuesday, Pitt appeared at a public event for the first time since the split was reported. The event promoted his new film “Allied” which will hit theaters nationwide on November 23.

Bryan White

Bryan is an editorial intern at Law Street Media from Stratford, NJ. He is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor’s degree in Broadcast Journalism. When he is not reading up on the news, you can find him curled up with an iced chai and a good book. Contact Bryan at BWhite@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brangelina Divorce Watch: Brad Pitt Cleared in Child Abuse Investigation appeared first on Law Street.

Emma Donoghue‘s novel “Room,” and subsequent movie of the same name, is allegedly inspired by real-life criminal Josef Fritzl, who imprisoned and raped his daughter, Elisabeth Fritzl, for twenty-four years. The novel and movie feature Ma and her son Jack as prisoners of Old Nick–Ma’s kidnapper and rapist. When Jack turns five, Ma executes a successful escape plan.

A 2010 article written by Sarah Crown, and published on The Guardian’s website, quotes Donoghue as saying her book was not based on the Fritzl case but, rather, “triggered” by it. Similarly to Ma, Elisabeth Fritzl was imprisoned, raped, and impregnated. The major differences include:

• Fritzl’s captor and rapist was her father.
• Fritzl was imprisoned for 24 years.
• Fritzl’s prison was in her home’s cellar–Ma’s prison was in a garden shed.
• Fritzl had multiple children in her prison while Ma raised one child.

People accused Donoghue of taking advantage of the shocking case for self-gain in the form of a book deal. Donoghue states she did not intend this and views the book, partly, as a reflection on the complexities of parenthood.

Since the trial, Elisabeth Fritzl and her family withdrew from society, adopted new identities, and began “anonymous” lives. So, it’s hard to imagine she is glad that her story has regained notoriety with the film’s creation and award nominations.

But when “fiction” lives so close to reality, it’s not strange to wonder: did the film and the book need to purchase Elisabeth Fritzl’s life story rights? Seemingly not, as most courts recognize that there is a difference between retelling a true story and being inspired by one to create a work of fiction. There are significant differences between Donoghue’s stories and the real crimes, therefore it is not viewed as a true depiction of the Fritzl case.

While the use of Elisabeth Fritzl’s trauma as literary and cinematic inspiration may feel distasteful to some, Donoghue’s works do not use the crime’s details for shock factor, but rather as a way to explore how strength and family function. In fact, the most gripping part of Donoghue’s screenplay is the intelligence and resilience of major, and minor, female characters. For example, how a woman could endure a constant trauma for seven years and raise a son, without breaking down mentally is unimaginable even when it is performed in front of you. What motivated Ma to maintain a daily routine for Jack? Perhaps the love and sense of responsibility she had for her son surpassed the atrocities she endured. Or perhaps it was the hope she would one day see her mother and father again and return to her childhood home, which she describes to Jack in an attempt to explain the outside world to him.

Another extraordinary woman appears in the female police officer who responds to the 911 call when Jack escapes. While she only emerges in one scene, her ability is striking. She patiently questions Jack in an attempt to learn his story. While gentle in tone and manner with Jack, she does not back off from her questions when he refuses to speak. Instead she pushes him to give her all the information he can. The male officer, her partner, only gets in her way, telling her she won’t get anything out of the boy and to give him time. But she ignores the other officer and from Jack’s disjointed tale of escape is able to deduce the location of Jack’s prison and rescue Ma quickly. Her part may have been meant to move the plot along rather than to applaud women who excel at their jobs, but, still, her heroism is lasting.

Despite privacy concerns, the story of “Room” remains important. It’s important that two such heroic, female characters exist as recognitions of real, strong women and as role models for every person. And finally, it’s important that this story features women doing the saving rather than being saved.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post The Real Woman in the “Room” appeared first on Law Street.

“Bob’s Burgers” is a show that boasts positive female role models with the “strong, smart, sensual” Tina, driven, witty, entrepreneurial  Louise, and determined, bright Linda. But, despite its feminist females, the show sometimes includes passing jokes alluding to sexual assault. The problem is that jokes like these encourage lax attitudes about sexual assault in a society that already ignores victims too often.

When a popular show goes on its winter hiatus, it’s time to fill the void by binge watching old episodes on Netflix. Revisiting past episodes reveals that the mostly feminist-friendly “Bob’s Burgers” has some sexist hiccups, which are alarming for such a progressive show. Season 2, episode 8 deals with Bob’s new found love for pat-a-cake. He convinces his friend, Teddy, to “cake,” and almost immediately Teddy begins to protest. He shouts that the hand game hurts him and he doesn’t want to do it anymore. But Bob continues slapping Teddy’s hands and yelling at him to keep his hands up.

The scene’s humor makes Teddy, a large, grizzly man, play the vulnerable role. The joke is that the dialogue (which would normally be spoken by a man and the woman he is sexually assaulting) comes from two men, who are friends, in a non-sexual situation.

Teddy’s line, “I don’t like it! I don’t like it! Stop!” and Bob’s aggressive behavior are meant to spoof an abusive relationship. But, what’s so funny about sexual assault?

The scene is fundamentally not politically correct, a concern that gained strength during last year’s discourse on trigger warnings. The New York Times and The Atlantic weighed in on collegiate trigger warnings this past fall to examine whether they encourage “coddling” or respect–and that debate will probably be continued in 2016.

But, trigger warnings and PC standards leave comics with a dilemma because jokes are designed to not be safe or appropriate. Should there be a line comedy can’t cross or does that ruin the art form? Jokes will push that PC line as far as an audience will allow. For example, comedy has evolved from eventual audience rejection of offensive practices like black face. In this case, the show has plenty of funny material so why can’t it evolve away from jokes like this one? For a show like “Bob’s Burgers” that is often heralded for its feminism, it may be time to consider that evolution.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Political Correctness and Comedy in “Bob’s Burgers”: Where’s the Line? appeared first on Law Street.

Season four of “The Mindy Project” featured Mindy Lahiri battling her traditional fiancé (Danny Castellano) to continue working as an OBGYN rather than becoming a stay at home mother. In the United States, stay at home mothers are still far more common than stay at home fathers–so the couples’ fight, although fictional, reflected our national gender expectations.

In the second-to-last episode Mindy finally says the things to Danny that had probably come to the wealthy, New York doctor’s mind the minute she had first heard of his desire for her to give up her career and her new fertility clinic.

Here is an excerpt from the climactic argument:

Danny: Oh, yeah, right, right, your career.  You’re too busy getting half of Manhattan knocked up, and Leo, he’s just out there by himself alone, playing pat-a-cake against a wall while his Mom’s working?…
Mindy: Every time that you disagree with something that I do, it’s a referendum on my character. If I want to go to work, it means I’m a bad mother. If I want to have a second glass of wine, it means I’m out of control.…In your eyes every single thing I do is more evidence that I’m a bad person.
Danny: You’re not a bad person. You want me to help you make good decisions, don’t you?
Mindy: Yeah, I thought I made good decisions, and now you’re just making all the decisions for me.
Danny: So what, if it’s the right decision?…You are an amazing mom…Why not do it again?
Mindy: I’m also a good doctor. I don’t want to have to give up any more to have more kids.
Danny: That’s selfish.

And don’t worry, the fight does not end there. Mindy makes clear, in no uncertain terms, that her desire to keep her career, which she has invested at least 11 years of her life just to be trained in, does not make her selfish. At last she stands up for herself. After Danny’s season-long agonizingly belittling utterances, to the mother of his child, Mindy’s rational, valid points are more than welcome. She even throws in some impressive diction (i.e. “referendum”). But the one thing Mindy doesn’t say to her partner is: Why don’t you be the stay at home parent?

The season finale takes viewers back to Mindy and Danny’s introduction. Mindy is able to perform a difficult delivery that Danny had scheduled as a C-section. The plot suggests Mindy is the better doctor because she performed a difficult maneuver so the patient could have her preferred natural birth plan, instead of Danny’s preferred C-section plan. So, from a logistical stand point, why should the better doctor stop working just because she is a mother?

Working moms are nothing new to American television or American reality. In 2012, 29 percent of mothers, with underage children, stayed at home and did not work. Meaning that, in the United States, working mothers are the norm. But despite the power of those numbers, 51 percent of participants in a 2013 Pew Research Center survey said children were better off if they had mothers who stayed at home rather than worked, while only 8 percent said the same about fathers.

So, in 2015, is it too radical to suggest, on television or in reality, that the man occupy the domestic sphere? Too radical for even Mindy to utter? Apparently so.

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg

Ruby Hutson-Ellenberg is a 2016 Hunter College graduate, where she majored in English with a concentration in Creative Writing. As a native New Yorker, Ruby loves going to the theater and writing plays, which have been particularly well received by her parents. Contact Ruby at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post What’s Wrong With a Mr. Mom? “The Mindy Project” Explores the Working Mom’s Conundrum appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, “Empire” star Terrance Howard confessed that he hit his first ex-wife, describing that he “lost his mind” and “slapped her in front of the kids.” This confession isn’t exactly coming out of left field. Over the last couple of years in his various marriages, Howard has been accused of slapping, punching, and strangling his partners, living up the dark nature of his character on “Empire,” Lucious Lyon. Howard attempted to justify his deplorable, violent behavior with his first wife Lori McCommas by saying that she was talking to him “real strong.” With his second wife, Michelle Ghent, Howard claims that she tried to “mace him” and that he didn’t mean to hurt her, he was just trying to get her away. Howard’s relationship with his most recent wife, Mira Pak, appeared to be healthy and strong, until she mysteriously filed for divorce earlier this year.

Although Howard’s relationships have all been multi-cultural, this situation still brings up important issues of black love and the relationship between black men and women. The media’s coverage of black celebrity figures’ violence against women opens up different conversations about dynamics within relationships, but black relationships are the least discussed.

But they shouldn’t be. Black women have notoriously been at the forefront of movements standing up for issues that plague black men. Black women have historically fiercely defended the rights and desires of black men. During the civil rights movement it was women–wives, daughters, sisters, cousins, mothers, and grandmothers–who stood up for not only their own issues but those of their brothers, friends, fathers, and husbands. During the 1992 Rodney King riots, we saw black women weeping for black men, and accepting the harsh reality that the police were their enemy. Even now with the Black Lives Matter movement, we see black women leading the charge to remedy this social issue that directly attacks black men. Black women have taken on the social issues that have plagued black men for the last couple of decades.

However, this support is not reciprocated. Hardly ever do you see black men standing up for issues regarding and experienced by black women. Black men often do not speak up for issues of beauty, professional advancement, abuse, assault, and general vulnerabilities that are unique to the black female community.

Thankfully, we are starting to see a shift in a lack of misrepresentation of black women in the media. Viola Davis, star of the thrilling ABC television series “How to Get Away with Murder,” just won an Emmy for her incredible portrayal of her character, Annalise Keating, giving a spectacular speech on the difficulties and lack of opportunities black women face. Taraji P. Henson, Kerry Washington, and Megan Good are also changing the game, proving that black women are leading women too. This positive representation directly affects black relationships and love. The more it is widely understood that black women are real, strong people who are overcoming yet still dealing with issues that are a part of their identity, the quality of these relationships and communication within them will be transformed. The media plays such a pivotal role in this transformation, and it is so exciting seeing the growth of positive representation of black women in television and film, regardless of the actions of some of Hollywood’s leading men like Terrence Howard.

Hopefully this growth will motivate black men to act proactively in supporting the advance of black women in society. It is going to take more than black women speaking up to start to change the nature of not only black relationships, but society in general. Silence and inaction is the equivalent of destruction. Support can only lead to success for all.

Kui Mwai

Kui Mwai is a junior at American University, studying Law and Literature. She is from Nairobi, Kenya. Contact Kui at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Terrence Howard Reveals Domestic Violence: Do Black Men Support Black Women? appeared first on Law Street.

We have all seen them, whether we are sitting in a doctor’s office in the middle of the day, home sick during the week, or just because they’re kind of fun. Either way, court shows like “Judge Judy” and “Judge Joe Brown” seem to have captured the world’s attention. Recently, Judith Sheindlin–Judge Judy–signed on for her eighteenth season of the show, earning herself $47 million a season for what is famously known as just “52 days of work a year.”

Judge Judy, and all of the others–Brown, Lane, Mathis, Hatchett, Alex, Rinder, etc.–are all practicing lawyers. Most were retired or on the way to retirement when they were discovered by a television producer. But that still begs the question: how exactly do TV courts work, what are their legal implications, and are they at all real?

 What are Court TV shows?

Court television shows are usually on in the middle of the day, often right when people are getting home from work and starting to cook dinner. The topics usually aren’t heavy things like murder, drugs, or assault cases. Instead they consider lighter issues like rent problems, car damages, or theft. Judges tend to be funny and lash out with zingers toward the people involved in the case. It is all about entertainment, not a real legal process.

However, the shows are among the highest watched for their time slot, which means that if one judge isn’t connecting with the audience, another one is right in line to take that spot.

Infographic courtesy of Online Paralegal Programs.

 How do you end up on TV court?

Getting onto a court show is actually one of the smartest things a person can do, even if he ends up being portrayed as the “villain” in the narrative. Why? Participants all stand to make money.

In general, most of the cases that end up going on to TV shows are cases that would otherwise be heard in small-claims court. According to FindLaw, there’s only a certain amount of money litigants can receive. For example, individuals who appear on “Judge Judy” would be able to receive a maximum of $5,000. It’s safe to assume that the rest of the shows have relatively similar limits.

According to FindLaw, regardless of the outcomes on any of the shows that play nationally, there are benefits to both parties in the case. The shows actually pay for the arbitration awards, which may be why people don’t always seem to be too worked up at the end in the cool down interviews. They also pay for the litigants’ airfare and hotel expenses.

In other cases, there have been situations where producers have found people who were popular or characters already and they have actually been courted into doing the show. For example, local Cleveland celebrity Colin Dussault was asked to be part of a newer judge show called “Hot Bench.”

A Hollywood producer contacted Dussault after “field researchers” came across his small-claims lawsuit against his sister, which he filed in Lakewood Municipal Court in January. In a nutshell, they’ve got issues with who should pay the ongoing bills for a double they inherited and both live in. (Double Trouble?)

In addition to prompt payment of any settlement, the producer promised, Dussault would get an additional “guaranteed minimum payment” just for being on the show!

 What happens on a TV court show?

Court shows like Judge Judy aren’t actually court cases, but instead they are an arbitration process, which is a way to resolve disputes without actually going to court. An arbitrator, always some sort of neutral party, hears a case and makes a binding decision. It’s less formal than a court case, but it does require training

The shows are all filmed at studios in Los Angeles near many different studios that also happen to film television shows. In fact, “Judge Judy” is filmed right next to “Judge Joe Brown.” In order to ensure a full audience, the producers of all of the shows will hire extras who comprise the entire gallery and who sign waivers to stop the disclosure of any details. However, they also take visitors who are willing to sign similar forms.

What happens after the show?

As a general rule, arbitration awards cannot be appealed. But there have been a few cases in which, according to The New York Times,  TV judge rulings have been overturned through other court systems. This can be because the artbitration didn’t cover everything necessary or if the case was found to be beyond the scope of arbitration.

According to FindLaw:

For example, a New York family court in 1999 overruled part of a “Judge Judy” decision because it went beyond the scope of the arbitration, the New York Law Journal reports. The parties in that case had agreed to arbitrate a dispute over personal property — but Judge Judy’s ruling also granted child custody and visitation rights.

In 2000, Judge Judy had one of her decisions overturned…In the case B.M. v. D.L., the parties appeared in front of Sheindlin to solve a personal property dispute. Sheindlin ruled on that dispute, but also made a decision on the parties’ child custody and visitation rights. One of the parties appealed in court, and the family court overturned the custody and visitation part of the decision because they weren’t covered by the agreement to arbitrate.

Ethical Concerns

For people who have never really been in a court room, it can seem like there aren’t really any ethics that exist when it comes to television court. For one, there are no lawyers even present on the television shows. There are problems, of course, with the editing and the way people are portrayed by the producers of the show.

Recently a committee was formed to discuss the problems with court television shows and the impact they have on the lives of those who appear–often people who are young and trying to avoid paying costs that they can’t afford. The committee, comprised of retired judges, said:

In this modern media culture once the taping is done and it is released into the public domain it is there forever and can come up from time to time during this defendant’s entire life. It could be used against this person in a personal, political, economic or social situation to his or her extreme detriment. Your recitations that the videos in your court are a number one rated show broadcasted to 200,000 households in three counties speak volumes in this regard. How might it appear to a defendant that he or she must be asked by the judge to waive any objection to appear on television? Would they be intimidated by the question knowing that the judge encourages this production?

These cases are often straight forward, but played up for laughs, drama, and a clear-cut decision. There have been many questions about the fates of people who end up on reality shows, and that is a question that exists with the “reality” of court shows as well.

Conclusion

So yes, the decisions on TV court shows are a reality–someone has to pay (usually the show) and someone is in trouble (usually younger-skewing teens or adults who can’t afford much else). You’re getting, in essence, a half-truth of what the court process is actually like.

One final word of caution to anyone who found this on a search: Appearing on a TV court show like “Judge Judy” involves signing off on a lot of legal fine print. You may want to consult an attorney to make sure your rights are protected before you pursue your 15 minutes of fame.

 Resources

Futon Critic: Ethics Panel Rips TV Drug Court

Mental Floss: What Legal Authority Does Judge Judy Have?

Cleveland.com: Playing Hard to Get When Courted by Reality TV Court Show

Fact: Judge Judy Overruled by Judge Jeffrey

Futon Critic: Judge Judy Sheindlin, Host of Syndication’s #1 Rated Show “Judge Judy,” Signs Multiyear Deal Through 2020

Frugal Confessions: It Pays to Have Your Small Claims Case on a Court Television Show

Washington Post: The Lasting Appeal of TV’s Top Woman: Judge Judy

Vice: These Guys Made Up a Fake Case to Get on ‘Judge Judy’

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to FindLaw. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What’s the Verdict? The Truth Behind TV Court Shows appeared first on Law Street.

The legal industry is changing and law schools are no exception. Applications and enrollment are both down, and the value of the traditional legal education with its current price tag is the subject of continual debate. Law Street Specialty Rankings are a detailed resource for prospective law students as they consider the many law schools across the country. Law Street Specialty Rankings blend the quantitative and qualitative in a way that accurately highlights the top law schools based on specialty programs.

Entertainment Law
Full List: Top Law Schools for Entertainment Law
—
1. Southwestern Law School
2. Columbia Law School
3. Loyola Law School, Los Angeles
4. UCLA School of Law
5. USC Gould School of Law
6. Fordham Law School
7. NYU School of Law
8. Villanova Law School
9. Vanderbilt University Law School
10. Stanford Law School

Environmental & Energy
Full list: Top Law Schools for Environmental & Energy Law
—
1. Lewis & Clark Law School
2. New York University School of Law
3. Pace University School of Law
4. Georgetown University Law Center
5. The George Washington University Law School
6. UC Berkeley School of Law
7. Tulane University Law School
8. UMD Francis King Carey School of Law
9. Harvard Law School
10. Stanford Law School

Business
Full list: Top Law Schools for Business Law
—
1. New York University School of Law
2. Harvard Law School
3. Columbia Law School
4. Northwestern University School of Law
5. University of Chicago Law School
6. Fordham University School of Law
7. Georgetown University Law Center
8. UCLA School of Law
9. Loyola University Chicago School of Law
10. Yale Law School

Healthcare
Full list: Top Law Schools for Healthcare Law
—
1. Loyola University Chicago School of Law
2. Georgetown University Law Center
3. University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
4. Case Western Reserve University School of Law
5. Georgia State University College of Law
6. Harvard Law School
7. Yale Law School
8. Boston University School of Law
9. University of Houston Law Center
10. University of Virginia School of Law

Intellectual Property
Full List: Top Law Schools for Intellectual Property
—
1. The George Washington University Law School
2. University of New Hampshire School of Law
2. Santa Clara University School of Law
4. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
5. New York University School of Law
6. The John Marshall Law School
7. Columbia Law School
8. Fordham University School of Law
9. University of California Berkeley School of Law
9. Stanford Law School

—

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Anneliese Mahoney, Brittany Alzfan, Erika Bethmann, Matt DeWilde, and Natasha Paulmeno. Click here to read the 2015 Law School Specialty Rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Specialty Rankings 2014 appeared first on Law Street.