Mercer and Black on Inspired Filth: Working Blue in Vaudeville America @UTKLaw @UMemLRev @UBSchoolofLaw

William Davenport Mercer, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Department of History; College of Law, and Joel Black, University at Buffalo Law School, are publishing Inspired Filth: Working Blue in Vaudeville America in volume 53 of the University of Memphis Law Review. Here is the abstract.

The common law long held that words could be punished if their utterance might cause a breach of the peace. This article thus examines a seemingly simple question: When did American law transform this long-standing rule as it pertained to vulgar, filthy, or “blue,” words and begin to consider the simple utterance of those words as criminal actions in and of themselves? To answer that question, we looked to stand-up comedy and discovered a tradition of regulating filthy words that reached back to the post-Civil War era. There, the regulation of words as obscene coincided with the emergence of sanitized entertainment spaces, epitomized by vaudeville and the increased presence of women and children in public spaces. On these stages “blue” words were illicit; resistance from performers such as Sophie Tucker and Russell Hunting would only confirm the prevalence of this legal regulation. These performers and their regulation invite us to observe a post-war legal transition that was not just about citizenship and individual rights and to recognize that filthy words also underpinned a new legal order. A century before George Carlin, Richard Pryor, and Lenny Bruce famously pushed the boundaries of comic expression, “blue” language stood at the center of efforts to separate ordinary people from their words; the legal protections for speech were made contingent on their capacity to protect, and even generate, the profits of owners, managers, and investors. This post-war transformation of filthy words from common law to statute reminds us that the right to speak has long been subject to an economic hierarchy in which the interests of the wealthy are paramount. As vaudeville reveals, in modern America access to this right has been strongest when words reinforced this hierarchy and weakest when they threatened it.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Meyer @pmeyer6104 on The Uses of Comedy In the Courtroom

Check out Philip Meyer's new ABA Journal column "Don't Underestimate the Value of Comedy in the Courtroom." Link here.

Papke on American Lawyer and Courtroom Comedies

David Ray Papke, Marquette University Law School, is publishing American Lawyer and Courtroom Comedies in Oxford Research Encyclopedias (forthcoming). Here is the abstract.

This essay surveys the surprisingly large amount of law-related American popular culture that is comedic. Comedies in general are narratives in which the characters’ dilemmas will work themselves out, and readers and viewers of comedies know in advance that no great disaster will interfere with their enjoyment of a comedic work. Comedies featuring portrayals of amusing lawyers and/or accounts of hilarious trials are common in inexpensive literary works, Hollywood films, and television series, although these media have different imperatives and proffer various types of comedy. Overall, lawyer and courtroom comedies are intended to entertain and distract, but some lawyers and courtroom comedies also appreciate the public’s resentment of the legal profession and the courts and intentionally satirize these important and much-valorized legal institutions.

Download the essay from SSRN at the link.

Unintended Consequences--Censorship and Humor

Laura E. Little, Temple University School of Law, is publishing Laughing at Censorship in the Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities. Here is the abstract.

Comedians know from experience, and research supports the proposition, that an audience will predictably laugh when observing a censored statement (whether bleeped or otherwise obscured) – at least where the audience has been primed by the context to interpret the statement as comedic. In a society that condemns censorship as the enemy of our cherished right of free expression, one might reasonably ask how this can be: why is censorship funny? This article begins by canvassing the various forms of censorship humor flourishing throughout United States culture in print, film, television, music, and internet entertainment. The article then probes mainstream condemnation of censorship – observing that individuals, law, and society all benefit from line drawing – even in the context of something as special as freedom of communication. Through the lens of interdisciplinary humor studies as well as First Amendment doctrine, the article explores the notion that the laughter emerging from comedy featuring censorship might be a “tell” that exposes this truth. Many censorship jokes simply ridicule the censor. Others, however, are more nuanced, suggesting that censorship humor might provide unique emotional rewards ranging from a spark emitted from the benign danger of a censored joke, the creative enterprise of imagining what message was – to the comfort of mapping the line between the proper and improper. Audience laughter at censorship humor often appears to derive primarily from pleasure. It might also include a measure of anxiety, fear, and anger. That complexity, however, does not mitigate the possibility that humans occasionally see and enjoy some inherent value of censorship as separating “right” from “wrong.”

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Professor Little's comments on censorship humor remind me of one of my favorite passages from The Innocents Abroad. In it, Mark Twain discusses his visit to the Jardin Mabille and his experience of that scandalous dance, the "can-can."  "The dance had begun, and we adjourned to the temple. Within it was a drinking saloon, and all around it was a broad circular platform for the dancers. I backed up against the wall of the temple, and waited. Twenty sets formed, the music struck up, and then—I placed my hands before my face for very shame. But I looked through my fingers." Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad (Hartford, CT: American Publishing Co., 1869), Chapter 14.



 

Come and Knock On His Door (Now)--He's Been Waiting For You

A U.S. District Court judge has ruled that a young playwright did not infringe the copyright of DLT Entertainment in his work, 3C, which resembles the popular 1970s sitcom Three's Company. Judge Loretta Preska found that in spite of numerous similarities pointed out by DLT,  David Adjmi's play is a parody and a "drastic departure" from the original. It is also not a competitor in the same market as the original.  All sweet vindication for Mr. Adjmi, who has been waiting for three years (since he received a cease-and-desist letter from DLT's attorneys), to be able to pursue marketing opportunities for his work.

More here from the New York Times. Recap of the court's analysis here from Rebecca Tushnet at 43(B)log.

How Many Law Professors Does It Take To....

James A. Lynch and Hershy H. Friedman, both of the Department of Finance and Business Management, Brooklyn College, have published Using Lawyer Jokes to Teach Business Ethics: A Course Module. Here is the abstract.

Most of us will agree that the legal profession gets little respect in the United States. There are scores of websites dedicated to lawyer jokes and almost all the humor is negative. Indeed, the humor is not only negative but is often is filled with hate and anger towards attorneys. In many of the jokes, it is clear that the only good lawyer is one who is dead. For example, try this joke with any other profession and it does not work. “What do you call 5000 dead________ at the bottom of the ocean? A good start!” It only works with lawyers. Why are lawyers so hated? One doubts that there is any other profession that has resulted in so many vicious jokes. This paper discusses how lawyer jokes can be used to teach the importance of ethics. Scores of lawyer jokes are provided for educators who teach business law or ethics to use in the classroom. 

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Any other profession that is quite so hated? Well, maybe not, although I think used car salespeople, the insurance industry, and Congress are right up there. (And I would point out that some people make really nasty jokes about putting an end to cats, which they do not do about dogs, except perhaps particular breeds). What's your favorite lawyer joke? 

No Laughing Matter, Your Honor

From the ABA Journal, a story about a judge who moonlights as a stand-up comedian. But this jurist, South Hackensack Municipal Court Judge Vince Sicari, who uses the name Vince August when he practices as a jokester, is in trouble with the New Jersey Advisory Committee on Extra-Judicial Activities. The Committee says he shouldn't be clowning around; doing such brings the judiciary into disrespect. According to the Columbus Telegram, Judge Sicari says he doesn't mix his two personas--judge and comedian. The New Jersey Supreme Court is hearing an appeal from the judge over whether he should be allowed to continue making people laugh--outside the courtroom.