1
00:00:03,160 --> 00:00:07,960
Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.

2
00:00:09,440 --> 00:00:13,520
Speaker 1: Vanessa Brian thanked the fans as thousands gathered to celebrate

3
00:00:13,560 --> 00:00:16,840
Speaker 1: the lives of her husband, Kobe Bryant, and their daughter

4
00:00:16,960 --> 00:00:20,799
Speaker 1: Jeanna at l A Staples Center after their deaths in

5
00:00:20,840 --> 00:00:25,560
Speaker 1: a helicopter crash in January. Of the outpouring of love

6
00:00:25,640 --> 00:00:28,120
Speaker 1: and support that my family has felt from around the

7
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:32,040
Speaker 1: world has been so uplifting. Now Bryant is taking on

8
00:00:32,200 --> 00:00:36,360
Speaker 1: Los Angeles County in federal court, saying her privacy was

9
00:00:36,400 --> 00:00:41,239
Speaker 1: invaded when sheriff's deputies and firefighters shared crash site photos

10
00:00:41,280 --> 00:00:44,920
Speaker 1: with their friends and colleagues. Join me is Warrington Parker,

11
00:00:45,280 --> 00:00:49,879
Speaker 1: a partner Crowell and Mooring, explain what her causes of

12
00:00:49,960 --> 00:00:54,680
Speaker 1: action are. She is doing over three different things. One

13
00:00:55,000 --> 00:00:58,000
Speaker 1: is the invasion of her right to privacy, that is

14
00:00:58,200 --> 00:01:00,800
Speaker 1: that people have a right to prior to see as

15
00:01:00,840 --> 00:01:05,040
Speaker 1: to photos and content of materials relating to the death

16
00:01:05,080 --> 00:01:08,840
Speaker 1: of a loved one. The second is negligent that l

17
00:01:08,880 --> 00:01:11,800
Speaker 1: a county in the Sheriff's department the fire department of

18
00:01:11,840 --> 00:01:16,120
Speaker 1: the individuals negligent may disclose these materials, which are the

19
00:01:16,240 --> 00:01:19,640
Speaker 1: photos of Kobe Bryant and his daughter. And then the

20
00:01:19,760 --> 00:01:24,120
Speaker 1: third is a statutory client. It's called the section actions,

21
00:01:24,840 --> 00:01:29,560
Speaker 1: which is that constitutional deprocess likes were violated by the

22
00:01:29,640 --> 00:01:33,920
Speaker 1: disclosure of the various photographs. Are any of these claims

23
00:01:34,080 --> 00:01:37,760
Speaker 1: unique in this kind of situation, It is certainly unique.

24
00:01:37,920 --> 00:01:41,920
Speaker 1: This doesn't happen every day, but in reading the various papers,

25
00:01:42,040 --> 00:01:45,360
Speaker 1: there appears to be cases that have dealt with these

26
00:01:45,360 --> 00:01:48,800
Speaker 1: issues before. And part of the legal tension in the

27
00:01:48,880 --> 00:01:53,040
Speaker 1: case is are these claims viable? And certainly the defendants

28
00:01:53,040 --> 00:01:56,160
Speaker 1: are saying that they're not viable. For example, defense that

29
00:01:56,200 --> 00:02:00,400
Speaker 1: they're saying it's not enough just to have a private photo. Instead,

30
00:02:00,440 --> 00:02:02,840
Speaker 1: there needs to be more publicity, such as it being

31
00:02:02,880 --> 00:02:06,720
Speaker 1: on the Internet and so on. And MS Bryant's council

32
00:02:06,760 --> 00:02:09,560
Speaker 1: has pointed out that in fact are cases where it

33
00:02:09,600 --> 00:02:12,400
Speaker 1: does not need to be made public, that this is enough.

34
00:02:12,600 --> 00:02:15,480
Speaker 1: I think that legal tension may under alive this That

35
00:02:15,639 --> 00:02:17,760
Speaker 1: may be an issue in part going to the jury,

36
00:02:17,840 --> 00:02:21,000
Speaker 1: but mainly that's going to ultimately be an issue for

37
00:02:21,040 --> 00:02:25,040
Speaker 1: the court. A primary issue in the case is whether

38
00:02:25,160 --> 00:02:29,200
Speaker 1: she suffered emotional distress as a result of the County's

39
00:02:29,240 --> 00:02:32,320
Speaker 1: actions and how much it should be compensated for that.

40
00:02:32,720 --> 00:02:35,880
Speaker 1: So Los Angeles County officials are arguing. One thing they're

41
00:02:35,960 --> 00:02:39,160
Speaker 1: arguing is that she suffered emotional distress from the death

42
00:02:39,240 --> 00:02:42,560
Speaker 1: of her husband and daughter, rather than distress that the

43
00:02:42,639 --> 00:02:47,040
Speaker 1: photos were leaked. How can a jury separate those well,

44
00:02:47,400 --> 00:02:51,400
Speaker 1: emotional distress damages are always a very difficult thing, both

45
00:02:51,480 --> 00:02:55,280
Speaker 1: to prove and to disprove. Right, it's just how much

46
00:02:55,320 --> 00:02:59,720
Speaker 1: are you hurt? And there's no clear marker for that. However,

47
00:03:00,160 --> 00:03:03,239
Speaker 1: I think the County has a difficult time with that

48
00:03:03,560 --> 00:03:08,920
Speaker 1: argument made. Certainly without any dispute. Someone suffers emotional distress

49
00:03:08,960 --> 00:03:11,480
Speaker 1: when a loved one dies. But I think it is

50
00:03:11,680 --> 00:03:15,040
Speaker 1: within the realm of experience and probability that you can

51
00:03:15,080 --> 00:03:20,840
Speaker 1: exacerbate that emotional distress by mistreating the body, mistreating the

52
00:03:20,880 --> 00:03:24,920
Speaker 1: family of loved ones, or taking photos really according to

53
00:03:24,960 --> 00:03:28,000
Speaker 1: appointness at least almost like there was a trophy hunting

54
00:03:28,120 --> 00:03:31,320
Speaker 1: type of experience. And I think think any rational person

55
00:03:31,400 --> 00:03:36,120
Speaker 1: can separate out one trauma from another. Now, does that

56
00:03:36,240 --> 00:03:40,160
Speaker 1: impact your damages? Perhaps, yes, It doesn't make it impossible

57
00:03:40,400 --> 00:03:44,640
Speaker 1: to conceive that she suffered additional emotional distress because of

58
00:03:44,680 --> 00:03:49,160
Speaker 1: these photos. I don't think that's true. Bryant's expert witness

59
00:03:49,400 --> 00:03:55,080
Speaker 1: testified that Los Angeles cops and deputies keep what's called

60
00:03:55,200 --> 00:03:59,880
Speaker 1: Google books with graphic photos of dead celebrities. Isn't that

61
00:04:00,080 --> 00:04:04,840
Speaker 1: testimony about other officers prejudicial in this case? So I

62
00:04:04,880 --> 00:04:08,520
Speaker 1: think it is prejudicial, but it's it's wrongfully prejudicial. I

63
00:04:08,560 --> 00:04:11,400
Speaker 1: think is the question right? It certainly hurts in that

64
00:04:11,440 --> 00:04:14,000
Speaker 1: way it's prejudicial, but I think the question is legally

65
00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:17,480
Speaker 1: as the prejudicial. I think when the defendants opened by

66
00:04:17,560 --> 00:04:20,400
Speaker 1: saying that this is all part of a train exercise

67
00:04:20,760 --> 00:04:24,400
Speaker 1: for the distribution was necessary, I think it opened the

68
00:04:24,440 --> 00:04:28,560
Speaker 1: door to precisely this type of evidence, because it certainly

69
00:04:28,600 --> 00:04:31,400
Speaker 1: shines the light on on the truth or not of

70
00:04:31,440 --> 00:04:34,960
Speaker 1: the statement that the distribution of the taken of the

71
00:04:35,080 --> 00:04:38,680
Speaker 1: pose and in the distribution was for the purpose of

72
00:04:39,200 --> 00:04:44,320
Speaker 1: training for some necessary a rather than being a entry

73
00:04:44,400 --> 00:04:48,040
Speaker 1: in the Ghoul book. The defense wanted to show Instagram

74
00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:52,680
Speaker 1: photos of you know, Brian's social media posts that show

75
00:04:52,839 --> 00:04:57,360
Speaker 1: her and her family on lavish vacations and socializing with

76
00:04:57,440 --> 00:05:01,680
Speaker 1: celebrities since the death of her husband. It hasn't come

77
00:05:01,720 --> 00:05:04,760
Speaker 1: in so far. I don't know whether that would come

78
00:05:04,800 --> 00:05:07,240
Speaker 1: in if I had to handicap it, I would say

79
00:05:07,240 --> 00:05:11,160
Speaker 1: that's not coming in because however rich and famous you are,

80
00:05:11,400 --> 00:05:14,240
Speaker 1: and and and I understand they're playing that up. That

81
00:05:14,320 --> 00:05:20,120
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that you can't suffer emotional distress. Now, if

82
00:05:20,120 --> 00:05:25,799
Speaker 1: they're saying that these photos are inconsistent with that claim

83
00:05:25,839 --> 00:05:30,400
Speaker 1: of emotional distress, but that's different. And so as an example,

84
00:05:31,000 --> 00:05:33,880
Speaker 1: it's well known in the insurance world that if someone

85
00:05:34,080 --> 00:05:38,400
Speaker 1: is claiming back injuring collecting insurance, they'll often be photos

86
00:05:38,440 --> 00:05:42,000
Speaker 1: taken or video taken of that person lifting heavy boxes

87
00:05:42,000 --> 00:05:45,960
Speaker 1: and so on. And that's perfectly admissible. But merely to

88
00:05:46,040 --> 00:05:49,159
Speaker 1: show someone has the ability to live in a rich

89
00:05:49,240 --> 00:05:53,800
Speaker 1: lifestyle isn't sufficient to rebut a claim of emotional distress.

90
00:05:53,960 --> 00:05:57,920
Speaker 1: There is one photo of her on Halloween dressed as

91
00:05:58,000 --> 00:06:01,919
Speaker 1: Kruella de Ville. The talks about the stages of grief,

92
00:06:02,120 --> 00:06:07,240
Speaker 1: and she adds one called revenge. Might that have some bearing,

93
00:06:07,960 --> 00:06:11,479
Speaker 1: perhaps but fairly minimal. The fact that she's thinking to

94
00:06:11,560 --> 00:06:14,560
Speaker 1: vindicate her right. Whether you call it revenge or you

95
00:06:14,680 --> 00:06:18,400
Speaker 1: call it thinking to vindicate what you think is a wrongdoing,

96
00:06:18,960 --> 00:06:22,560
Speaker 1: is I think well within the norm? Which side do

97
00:06:22,640 --> 00:06:26,200
Speaker 1: you think has the better case here? Right now, I

98
00:06:26,400 --> 00:06:29,920
Speaker 1: like pointest chances, and let me tell you what I'm thinking.

99
00:06:30,160 --> 00:06:34,280
Speaker 1: You have a case where word photos were taken and

100
00:06:34,560 --> 00:06:37,400
Speaker 1: there is a history of these photos being taken in

101
00:06:37,480 --> 00:06:40,520
Speaker 1: a Google book. You have a case in which people

102
00:06:40,640 --> 00:06:45,440
Speaker 1: have at least as points painted have lied outright lie

103
00:06:45,839 --> 00:06:49,000
Speaker 1: about what they did with the photos and why. You

104
00:06:49,080 --> 00:06:52,599
Speaker 1: have the defendant saying that these photos were taken and

105
00:06:52,640 --> 00:06:56,320
Speaker 1: then distributed for the purposes of training. But you have

106
00:06:56,480 --> 00:06:59,520
Speaker 1: them distributed at a bar, you have them distributed to

107
00:06:59,600 --> 00:07:02,680
Speaker 1: a been playing a video game, you have them distributed

108
00:07:02,839 --> 00:07:06,440
Speaker 1: at an awards ceremony. That doesn't make sense. You didn't

109
00:07:06,520 --> 00:07:11,360
Speaker 1: have these arguments about foliation of evidence. And I know

110
00:07:11,480 --> 00:07:14,160
Speaker 1: that the defendants are saying that the reason that they

111
00:07:14,200 --> 00:07:17,280
Speaker 1: immediately told people to remove it from their phones in

112
00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:21,720
Speaker 1: order to mitigate any continuing harm. But there was no

113
00:07:21,800 --> 00:07:25,680
Speaker 1: attempt to ensure that these photos were in fact destroyed,

114
00:07:26,600 --> 00:07:29,840
Speaker 1: and it looks more like they were trying to cover

115
00:07:30,000 --> 00:07:33,520
Speaker 1: up more than anything else included though in that To

116
00:07:33,640 --> 00:07:36,720
Speaker 1: have the extra spite is you have at least one

117
00:07:36,840 --> 00:07:40,240
Speaker 1: of the deputy high up deputy saying, should we really

118
00:07:40,360 --> 00:07:43,720
Speaker 1: do this? We've gotten in trouble before for this and

119
00:07:43,760 --> 00:07:47,760
Speaker 1: I'm paraporting, and so even at that time, there's a

120
00:07:47,840 --> 00:07:50,400
Speaker 1: bit of distinction about this. I would add just to

121
00:07:50,680 --> 00:07:53,920
Speaker 1: two more points. First of all, you know, Kobe Bryant

122
00:07:54,320 --> 00:07:58,120
Speaker 1: is a well known figure in Los Angeles. His wife

123
00:07:58,240 --> 00:08:00,840
Speaker 1: is a well known figure in last area, Joyce, and

124
00:08:00,920 --> 00:08:05,160
Speaker 1: no one thinks anything bad about this. Contrast that to

125
00:08:05,280 --> 00:08:08,800
Speaker 1: the Los Angeles Police Department in the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office,

126
00:08:09,040 --> 00:08:13,280
Speaker 1: where at least the Sheriff's Office has very recently been

127
00:08:13,360 --> 00:08:18,000
Speaker 1: in the news for threatening a newspaper reporter and otherwise

128
00:08:18,200 --> 00:08:22,400
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily have the best pr campaign in the world.

129
00:08:22,720 --> 00:08:26,840
Speaker 1: I think these other things that will weigh in points

130
00:08:26,880 --> 00:08:30,120
Speaker 1: favor how much money they collect, how much money is

131
00:08:30,160 --> 00:08:33,000
Speaker 1: awarded as a completely different question. But on the issue

132
00:08:33,040 --> 00:08:36,160
Speaker 1: of liability, if I were handicapping it, I would put

133
00:08:36,200 --> 00:08:38,640
Speaker 1: my money on point. And what do you think the

134
00:08:38,640 --> 00:08:43,280
Speaker 1: biggest legal hurdle is for Bryant. I think that the

135
00:08:43,320 --> 00:08:47,520
Speaker 1: biggest legal hurdle will be whether or not what happened

136
00:08:47,600 --> 00:08:50,880
Speaker 1: here is consistent with a viable claim under the law.

137
00:08:51,240 --> 00:08:54,280
Speaker 1: And defendants are certainly saying, with no exception that this

138
00:08:54,360 --> 00:08:58,360
Speaker 1: is not cognizable under the law, that it does not

139
00:08:58,600 --> 00:09:03,720
Speaker 1: fall within the scope. Prior case, Los Angeles County agreed

140
00:09:03,760 --> 00:09:06,080
Speaker 1: to pay two and a half million dollars to settle

141
00:09:06,120 --> 00:09:10,720
Speaker 1: a similar case brought by two families whose relatives died

142
00:09:10,800 --> 00:09:14,760
Speaker 1: in the crash. That indicate to you that Vanessa Briant

143
00:09:14,800 --> 00:09:18,160
Speaker 1: is asking for more than that, or there are reports

144
00:09:18,200 --> 00:09:21,000
Speaker 1: that she just didn't want to settle. I don't know

145
00:09:21,120 --> 00:09:24,920
Speaker 1: the answer, at least believe that she must have been

146
00:09:24,920 --> 00:09:28,520
Speaker 1: asking for more. Just finally, I'll ask you about the jury.

147
00:09:28,640 --> 00:09:32,800
Speaker 1: The jury includes a nun, someone who works in TV production,

148
00:09:33,040 --> 00:09:36,959
Speaker 1: a college student, a real estate investor, a pharmaceutical researcher,

149
00:09:37,200 --> 00:09:40,240
Speaker 1: a computer professor, and a restaurant host. So a real

150
00:09:40,480 --> 00:09:46,040
Speaker 1: cross section of l A. That's a very educated jury

151
00:09:46,080 --> 00:09:49,400
Speaker 1: for the commany of l A. It's a cross section. Um,

152
00:09:49,400 --> 00:09:53,280
Speaker 1: it's both educated and come with work experience. But this

153
00:09:53,440 --> 00:09:56,920
Speaker 1: is also a function of it being in federal court,

154
00:09:56,960 --> 00:09:59,839
Speaker 1: where I think the voting wills supply the names of

155
00:10:00,000 --> 00:10:02,360
Speaker 1: a jury. But in l A County or the Central

156
00:10:02,400 --> 00:10:06,000
Speaker 1: District of California, which includes more than l A County, UM,

157
00:10:06,080 --> 00:10:08,800
Speaker 1: you can get people who are much less educated and

158
00:10:08,960 --> 00:10:12,840
Speaker 1: experienced than this jury. I tend to think that that's

159
00:10:12,920 --> 00:10:15,160
Speaker 1: also weighs in favor of points if in this case,

160
00:10:15,280 --> 00:10:17,959
Speaker 1: I don't think this is the case where you need

161
00:10:18,040 --> 00:10:21,760
Speaker 1: to have a jury with less experience or less education.

162
00:10:22,080 --> 00:10:25,200
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the show. That's Warrington Parker, a

163
00:10:25,320 --> 00:10:30,120
Speaker 1: partner Crowell and Mooring. There has been a dramatic uptick

164
00:10:30,200 --> 00:10:36,000
Speaker 1: in banning books, book bands, and challenges doubled from one

165
00:10:36,360 --> 00:10:40,000
Speaker 1: according to the American Library Association, and it seems to

166
00:10:40,040 --> 00:10:43,839
Speaker 1: reflect the growing polarization in our country. Joining me is

167
00:10:43,920 --> 00:10:47,240
Speaker 1: First Amendment expert Eugene Polk, a professor at u c

168
00:10:47,440 --> 00:10:50,200
Speaker 1: l A Law School. Eugene tell us about the one

169
00:10:50,280 --> 00:10:54,200
Speaker 1: Supreme Court case about school libraries where the split was

170
00:10:54,320 --> 00:10:59,080
Speaker 1: four for one. Well, let's just first step back. One

171
00:10:59,160 --> 00:11:04,000
Speaker 1: thing that the said in that case. Basically all the

172
00:11:04,080 --> 00:11:09,320
Speaker 1: justices agreed that curriculum decisions what to include in the

173
00:11:09,559 --> 00:11:14,280
Speaker 1: reading materials for a class are basically up to the school.

174
00:11:14,400 --> 00:11:16,840
Speaker 1: So the school can say we just don't think this

175
00:11:16,880 --> 00:11:19,400
Speaker 1: book is suitable for a class for whatever reason. We

176
00:11:19,480 --> 00:11:21,040
Speaker 1: just don't think this is the kind of book we

177
00:11:21,040 --> 00:11:23,559
Speaker 1: should be studying it in class. So that's one thing,

178
00:11:23,640 --> 00:11:26,080
Speaker 1: just to make clear. The other thing that that the

179
00:11:26,080 --> 00:11:29,400
Speaker 1: court actually never did he has used the word ban

180
00:11:29,640 --> 00:11:33,720
Speaker 1: with regard to remove of books from the library school library,

181
00:11:33,720 --> 00:11:37,560
Speaker 1: because it's not a ban, it's a choice about which

182
00:11:37,679 --> 00:11:40,920
Speaker 1: books to include in which books to exclude, in a

183
00:11:41,040 --> 00:11:43,520
Speaker 1: situation where of course, the library has to be making

184
00:11:43,559 --> 00:11:46,080
Speaker 1: these choices all the time, right First of all, it

185
00:11:46,120 --> 00:11:49,760
Speaker 1: has only limited space, and second, unlike a public library,

186
00:11:49,800 --> 00:11:51,880
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be focusing on books that are special

187
00:11:52,000 --> 00:11:55,600
Speaker 1: interest in value to children. So the court understood that

188
00:11:55,640 --> 00:11:58,360
Speaker 1: it wasn't a ban of a book, it was a

189
00:11:58,440 --> 00:12:01,880
Speaker 1: choice to remove a book from the library. And the

190
00:12:01,960 --> 00:12:05,400
Speaker 1: other thing that basically everybody on the court agreed on

191
00:12:05,840 --> 00:12:09,040
Speaker 1: is that if the removal was on grounds that it

192
00:12:09,160 --> 00:12:13,880
Speaker 1: was not age suitable, for example, because it was pervasively vulgar,

193
00:12:14,040 --> 00:12:16,560
Speaker 1: which is to say view by the school is pervasively vulgar.

194
00:12:16,600 --> 00:12:20,760
Speaker 1: Obviously people disagree on such matters or otherwise not age appropriate,

195
00:12:21,080 --> 00:12:23,440
Speaker 1: that the school would be entitled to remove. The issue

196
00:12:23,440 --> 00:12:27,320
Speaker 1: on which the court split four four is whether a

197
00:12:27,480 --> 00:12:30,440
Speaker 1: library once and by the way, pretty much everybody also

198
00:12:30,480 --> 00:12:33,439
Speaker 1: agreed that a library can decide what books to get

199
00:12:33,480 --> 00:12:35,760
Speaker 1: in the first place, based on more or less whatever

200
00:12:35,840 --> 00:12:39,760
Speaker 1: criteria the library wants. But the courts split four four

201
00:12:40,160 --> 00:12:43,679
Speaker 1: on this question of whether a library can rem or

202
00:12:43,760 --> 00:12:46,800
Speaker 1: a school system can remove a book from the library

203
00:12:47,120 --> 00:12:50,840
Speaker 1: because of the book's ideology. Could it say this book

204
00:12:51,200 --> 00:12:55,560
Speaker 1: is unpatriotic or perhaps today it would be questioned, is

205
00:12:55,600 --> 00:13:00,000
Speaker 1: it anti gay or is it unduly pro gay, or

206
00:13:00,440 --> 00:13:04,320
Speaker 1: setting aside whether whether there's explicit sexual discussion there, or

207
00:13:04,400 --> 00:13:07,920
Speaker 1: whether it's racist, or whether it's for trays smoking in

208
00:13:07,920 --> 00:13:10,240
Speaker 1: a positive light, although maybe that's also a matter of

209
00:13:10,240 --> 00:13:14,439
Speaker 1: age appropriateness. So in any event that the court split

210
00:13:14,480 --> 00:13:16,920
Speaker 1: on four four, how did that happen? Why four four

211
00:13:16,920 --> 00:13:19,520
Speaker 1: when there were nine justice? Well, for Justice is basically

212
00:13:19,559 --> 00:13:24,800
Speaker 1: said the school can't discriminate based on ideology more or

213
00:13:24,840 --> 00:13:27,400
Speaker 1: less in removing books. And because there's a dispute on

214
00:13:27,480 --> 00:13:31,160
Speaker 1: the real reason why they discriminated based on ideology, this

215
00:13:31,240 --> 00:13:34,040
Speaker 1: case should be sent back down for further fact finding

216
00:13:34,040 --> 00:13:36,760
Speaker 1: on what the real reason that was. For Justice more

217
00:13:36,800 --> 00:13:38,840
Speaker 1: or less the liberal justice then the more or less

218
00:13:38,840 --> 00:13:42,959
Speaker 1: conservative justices, four of them said school is perfectly free

219
00:13:43,000 --> 00:13:45,200
Speaker 1: to discriminate based on ideal that you may be not

220
00:13:45,320 --> 00:13:49,120
Speaker 1: in extreme situations like if it's actually partisan, we won't

221
00:13:49,160 --> 00:13:52,240
Speaker 1: have any books by Republican writers or any books by

222
00:13:52,240 --> 00:13:56,599
Speaker 1: democratic writers. But setting aside extreme situation like that a

223
00:13:56,679 --> 00:13:59,920
Speaker 1: school is free to discriminate based on ideology, so therefore

224
00:14:00,000 --> 00:14:02,439
Speaker 1: there's no need to send the case back. Justice White

225
00:14:02,480 --> 00:14:05,000
Speaker 1: was the swing vote. And here's what he said. There's

226
00:14:05,040 --> 00:14:08,760
Speaker 1: this factual dispute as to what the reason was why

227
00:14:09,160 --> 00:14:14,080
Speaker 1: the school removed the books. If it turns out that

228
00:14:14,640 --> 00:14:18,400
Speaker 1: it removed the books because they were pervasively vulgar otherwise

229
00:14:18,400 --> 00:14:22,880
Speaker 1: not inappropriate, then no constitutional problem. Everybody agrees. If it

230
00:14:22,920 --> 00:14:26,720
Speaker 1: turns out they did it for ideological reasons, then there

231
00:14:26,800 --> 00:14:29,320
Speaker 1: might or might not be a constitutional problem. Could be

232
00:14:29,480 --> 00:14:32,240
Speaker 1: that the liberal justices are right, could be conservative justice right.

233
00:14:32,560 --> 00:14:34,840
Speaker 1: I don't have to decide it. We don't have to decide.

234
00:14:35,120 --> 00:14:39,360
Speaker 1: The better route is to wait until we figure out

235
00:14:39,360 --> 00:14:43,320
Speaker 1: the real reason for the removal and then resolved this

236
00:14:43,440 --> 00:14:46,520
Speaker 1: First Amendment question of whether that reason is a permissible reason.

237
00:14:46,760 --> 00:14:52,000
Speaker 1: And that's why he agreed with the liberals solely on

238
00:14:52,080 --> 00:14:54,640
Speaker 1: the question whether the case should be sent back down

239
00:14:54,680 --> 00:14:58,680
Speaker 1: for further fact find So he expressly declined to go

240
00:14:58,760 --> 00:15:01,520
Speaker 1: along either with the descent position on the substantive issue

241
00:15:02,080 --> 00:15:06,920
Speaker 1: or with the liberals. Hesited called a plurality explurality often

242
00:15:07,000 --> 00:15:09,840
Speaker 1: means the opinion that got the most votes but actually

243
00:15:09,880 --> 00:15:12,800
Speaker 1: got the same number of votes as the descent for basically, so,

244
00:15:13,360 --> 00:15:17,080
Speaker 1: White concluded that he didn't didn't agree with either of

245
00:15:17,120 --> 00:15:19,120
Speaker 1: them because he didn't agree that this issue should even

246
00:15:19,160 --> 00:15:22,840
Speaker 1: be decided until necessary. So then do you agree? In

247
00:15:22,880 --> 00:15:29,240
Speaker 1: a case in Missouri, a judge rejected the student's request

248
00:15:29,280 --> 00:15:32,800
Speaker 1: for a preliminary injunction, and he questioned their reliance on

249
00:15:33,000 --> 00:15:37,320
Speaker 1: Justice Brennan's plurality opinion in that case, So do you

250
00:15:37,360 --> 00:15:40,200
Speaker 1: agree with that that there really isn't a majority opinion

251
00:15:40,240 --> 00:15:43,200
Speaker 1: to rely on there? There definitely is not a majority

252
00:15:43,200 --> 00:15:46,360
Speaker 1: opinion to rely on in Pico, And in fact, quite

253
00:15:46,360 --> 00:15:49,560
Speaker 1: a few lower courts have taken that view that basically

254
00:15:49,640 --> 00:15:51,880
Speaker 1: there's nothing in Pico to follow. I mean, there are

255
00:15:52,000 --> 00:15:54,360
Speaker 1: arguments that we should pay attention to, but they do

256
00:15:54,440 --> 00:15:57,280
Speaker 1: not resolve this issue. He's having been said there was

257
00:15:57,320 --> 00:16:00,160
Speaker 1: an Eighth Circuit opinion, of course, but he said, even

258
00:16:00,200 --> 00:16:02,760
Speaker 1: under that opinion, which might be said to kind of

259
00:16:02,800 --> 00:16:05,800
Speaker 1: go along with the liberals position, even if that opinion

260
00:16:05,840 --> 00:16:09,000
Speaker 1: is still binding, it's an old case. Even so, books

261
00:16:09,000 --> 00:16:12,520
Speaker 1: could be removed because of their pervasive vulgarity, which is

262
00:16:12,680 --> 00:16:17,440
Speaker 1: a pervasive sexual content, or let even the pervasive because

263
00:16:17,440 --> 00:16:21,320
Speaker 1: of substantial sexual content. And these particular three books sure

264
00:16:21,360 --> 00:16:25,520
Speaker 1: did have sexual cunt and a school is entitled to say,

265
00:16:25,680 --> 00:16:27,880
Speaker 1: we're not banning it. Students can get them in lots

266
00:16:27,880 --> 00:16:30,840
Speaker 1: of other ways, but we're not going to be providing

267
00:16:30,880 --> 00:16:33,840
Speaker 1: to our students books with that kind of sexual content.

268
00:16:34,040 --> 00:16:37,720
Speaker 1: So besides sexual content, as you refer to, a lot

269
00:16:37,760 --> 00:16:41,240
Speaker 1: of books are being challenged because they deal with LGBTQ

270
00:16:41,520 --> 00:16:44,680
Speaker 1: issues or racism. Well, let's say just a school board

271
00:16:44,720 --> 00:16:47,160
Speaker 1: camp chigns if we want to take these books off

272
00:16:47,280 --> 00:16:50,040
Speaker 1: the shelves, what would be the reasons that you would

273
00:16:50,080 --> 00:16:55,280
Speaker 1: say are legally substantial? Would hold in court? Sure, So

274
00:16:55,320 --> 00:16:59,160
Speaker 1: I would say, look, if you want to not include

275
00:16:59,160 --> 00:17:02,480
Speaker 1: them in your curriculum, if you want to not include

276
00:17:02,480 --> 00:17:06,800
Speaker 1: them as assigned or recommended readings, you're perfectly free to

277
00:17:06,800 --> 00:17:10,600
Speaker 1: do that. Setting aside a few situations under the establishment clause.

278
00:17:10,640 --> 00:17:13,000
Speaker 1: I suppose if they insist that everybody read the Bible

279
00:17:13,480 --> 00:17:16,280
Speaker 1: as devotional materials, that's not allowed. But that's not free

280
00:17:16,280 --> 00:17:20,080
Speaker 1: speech issue. That's an establishment close issue. So setting that aside,

281
00:17:20,320 --> 00:17:24,040
Speaker 1: if you think this is a bad history book, then

282
00:17:24,520 --> 00:17:26,639
Speaker 1: you shouldn't assign it to have it be assigned in

283
00:17:26,640 --> 00:17:31,000
Speaker 1: your placess If you think that this material is highly

284
00:17:31,080 --> 00:17:34,080
Speaker 1: sexually themed, and if you think for good reason it's

285
00:17:34,119 --> 00:17:36,800
Speaker 1: highly sexually themed, you're not just making that out. But

286
00:17:36,960 --> 00:17:40,600
Speaker 1: but if it is highly sexually themed or otherwise, you

287
00:17:40,640 --> 00:17:45,119
Speaker 1: can show his age inappropriate. Maybe because it describes things

288
00:17:45,119 --> 00:17:49,080
Speaker 1: are very gra violent in a very graphical way, and

289
00:17:49,160 --> 00:17:52,640
Speaker 1: it's an elementary school library left there some such then

290
00:17:52,640 --> 00:17:55,560
Speaker 1: in that case you're also free to remove it. If

291
00:17:55,960 --> 00:17:59,960
Speaker 1: you think that these are kind of portray or convey

292
00:18:00,600 --> 00:18:04,040
Speaker 1: ideas that you disapprove of, whether ideas one or or

293
00:18:04,040 --> 00:18:07,399
Speaker 1: the other about sexual orientation or about gender identity, or

294
00:18:07,400 --> 00:18:10,080
Speaker 1: about American history, about race, or about the environment, or

295
00:18:10,119 --> 00:18:14,800
Speaker 1: about whatever else, then you know it might be unconstitutional

296
00:18:14,880 --> 00:18:17,880
Speaker 1: for you to remove them from public school library shelves.

297
00:18:17,880 --> 00:18:20,960
Speaker 1: So that's so then you're worried, and you should be

298
00:18:21,000 --> 00:18:23,840
Speaker 1: worried about a lawsuit in this kind of situation, because

299
00:18:23,840 --> 00:18:27,640
Speaker 1: there is a plausible claim against that. Then just keep

300
00:18:27,680 --> 00:18:30,600
Speaker 1: them on the shelves. Presumably your most students don't go

301
00:18:30,720 --> 00:18:33,000
Speaker 1: down to the library these days to read just right

302
00:18:33,000 --> 00:18:35,400
Speaker 1: and them say history books, maybe it would be good

303
00:18:35,440 --> 00:18:37,920
Speaker 1: if more students did. But my sense is that the

304
00:18:38,280 --> 00:18:40,240
Speaker 1: problem most schools of students are reading too few of

305
00:18:40,240 --> 00:18:42,240
Speaker 1: them are other than too many or the wrong kinds.

306
00:18:42,280 --> 00:18:44,760
Speaker 1: And if it's not in the curriculum, it's probably not

307
00:18:44,800 --> 00:18:47,399
Speaker 1: going to be much of an issue unless you try

308
00:18:47,480 --> 00:18:50,639
Speaker 1: to exclude them and make it an issue, and then

309
00:18:50,680 --> 00:18:52,719
Speaker 1: people will fail a lot more attention to them. Like

310
00:18:52,760 --> 00:18:57,360
Speaker 1: my understanding is that when this school to in Tennessee,

311
00:18:57,800 --> 00:19:00,560
Speaker 1: try to remove I think, not from the library shelves,

312
00:19:00,600 --> 00:19:03,240
Speaker 1: but from actual the curriculum, which are perfectly free to do.

313
00:19:03,640 --> 00:19:07,200
Speaker 1: Remove Mouse the graphic novel because there were a few

314
00:19:07,600 --> 00:19:12,000
Speaker 1: relatively mild vulgarities there. There was that, and there was nudity.

315
00:19:12,080 --> 00:19:15,199
Speaker 1: You know, this is nudity of a mouse. I mean

316
00:19:15,240 --> 00:19:18,640
Speaker 1: the pomorphic mouse, to be sure about a mouse um

317
00:19:18,920 --> 00:19:20,960
Speaker 1: who I'm told in the state of nature tend to

318
00:19:21,000 --> 00:19:25,399
Speaker 1: be nude. I think so from everything I know exactly.

319
00:19:25,840 --> 00:19:28,000
Speaker 1: So the result was a lot more attention to mouse

320
00:19:28,040 --> 00:19:30,360
Speaker 1: and a lot more people buying mouse, I am told. So.

321
00:19:30,680 --> 00:19:33,560
Speaker 1: I think it's a mistake for school boards to remove

322
00:19:33,720 --> 00:19:37,000
Speaker 1: things from library shelves because of their ideas. I think

323
00:19:37,000 --> 00:19:39,640
Speaker 1: it actually sends a bad message in many ways to students,

324
00:19:39,920 --> 00:19:42,600
Speaker 1: and I think it practically has very little effect in

325
00:19:42,640 --> 00:19:46,360
Speaker 1: the symbolic effect may in fact be bad relevant good,

326
00:19:46,400 --> 00:19:49,280
Speaker 1: and the practical effect may be contraproductive. Because of this,

327
00:19:49,440 --> 00:19:52,400
Speaker 1: I guess what's called the band in Boston phenomenon. I'm

328
00:19:52,440 --> 00:19:54,680
Speaker 1: told that back in the day when there really were

329
00:19:54,800 --> 00:19:58,520
Speaker 1: bands and not just exclusives from library shelves, bands of movies,

330
00:19:58,640 --> 00:20:02,199
Speaker 1: movies couldn't be shown if the local sensors forbade it,

331
00:20:02,400 --> 00:20:04,880
Speaker 1: and I think maybe even books couldn't be sold. Boston

332
00:20:05,080 --> 00:20:08,240
Speaker 1: was known as being a place that would ban a

333
00:20:08,240 --> 00:20:10,159
Speaker 1: lot of things in the grounds of their selations, and

334
00:20:10,280 --> 00:20:14,000
Speaker 1: those places proudly labeled their items as banned in Boston

335
00:20:14,119 --> 00:20:17,040
Speaker 1: in other cities because that sort of showed that they

336
00:20:17,040 --> 00:20:22,399
Speaker 1: were racy. In Virginia, there's a different situation of former

337
00:20:22,840 --> 00:20:26,840
Speaker 1: congressional member is trying to seek a ban on the

338
00:20:26,920 --> 00:20:30,800
Speaker 1: sale of certain books that he says are obscene. So

339
00:20:30,840 --> 00:20:33,840
Speaker 1: this would be stripping the right to sell a book

340
00:20:34,119 --> 00:20:36,679
Speaker 1: from a Barnes and Noble, or you can't sell this

341
00:20:36,760 --> 00:20:39,879
Speaker 1: book to a minor. Is that different? Yes? It is?

342
00:20:40,000 --> 00:20:42,280
Speaker 1: I mean that really is there we are talking about banning,

343
00:20:42,640 --> 00:20:44,720
Speaker 1: We're talking and not just about the government choosing what

344
00:20:44,800 --> 00:20:48,040
Speaker 1: to include in its school library, much less school curriculum.

345
00:20:48,040 --> 00:20:50,879
Speaker 1: It's choosing what private parties can distribute to other private

346
00:20:50,880 --> 00:20:54,560
Speaker 1: parties in public places. So my understanding of the Virginia

347
00:20:54,640 --> 00:20:58,600
Speaker 1: lawsuit is that there's already a law I think in

348
00:20:58,680 --> 00:21:04,600
Speaker 1: Virginia that pre inhibits bookstores from selling material that's obscene

349
00:21:04,600 --> 00:21:07,480
Speaker 1: as to miners to miners, So you don't need a

350
00:21:07,520 --> 00:21:10,000
Speaker 1: specialized lawsuit for that, I think. Of course, then the

351
00:21:10,080 --> 00:21:12,000
Speaker 1: question is what is obscene as to minors, and the

352
00:21:12,040 --> 00:21:16,280
Speaker 1: answers has to be pretty pornographic. Simply, something that has

353
00:21:16,320 --> 00:21:20,800
Speaker 1: as part of a novel some sexual elements is not

354
00:21:20,920 --> 00:21:23,359
Speaker 1: going to make the work o scene. So I think

355
00:21:23,640 --> 00:21:26,880
Speaker 1: he's trying to get the stuff removed from the shelves

356
00:21:26,960 --> 00:21:30,600
Speaker 1: even where miners could browse. So he actually got a

357
00:21:30,680 --> 00:21:34,200
Speaker 1: court to issue restraining order finding there's probable cause to

358
00:21:34,240 --> 00:21:36,920
Speaker 1: believe that a court of mist and fury is obscene

359
00:21:36,960 --> 00:21:40,600
Speaker 1: for unrestricted viewing by miners. So there it's not just

360
00:21:40,720 --> 00:21:43,720
Speaker 1: at the checkout counter they have to card the buyer.

361
00:21:44,040 --> 00:21:46,480
Speaker 1: It sounds like this was actually an attempt to try

362
00:21:46,480 --> 00:21:49,520
Speaker 1: to get to the material from being even put on

363
00:21:49,560 --> 00:21:51,560
Speaker 1: the shelves where miners could browse it, which is a

364
00:21:51,640 --> 00:21:55,560
Speaker 1: much more serious bird. So the general rule is that

365
00:21:55,960 --> 00:21:59,040
Speaker 1: a law that says you can't distribute so called harmful

366
00:21:59,080 --> 00:22:02,840
Speaker 1: to miners, or more precisely obscene as to miners material

367
00:22:03,480 --> 00:22:07,600
Speaker 1: two miners is constitutional the Supreme Court so held fifty

368
00:22:07,640 --> 00:22:11,600
Speaker 1: plus years ago. But to be obscene as to minors,

369
00:22:11,640 --> 00:22:14,920
Speaker 1: it has to lack serious artistic or literary or scientific

370
00:22:15,000 --> 00:22:18,280
Speaker 1: or political value for miners. Taken as a whole. It

371
00:22:18,359 --> 00:22:21,359
Speaker 1: has to appeal to the shameful or morbid interest in

372
00:22:21,440 --> 00:22:24,440
Speaker 1: sex of miners. Again, taken as a whole, and it's

373
00:22:24,480 --> 00:22:28,520
Speaker 1: got to be patently offensive under community standards when distributed

374
00:22:28,840 --> 00:22:31,200
Speaker 1: to miners because of the way it described sex or

375
00:22:31,240 --> 00:22:35,680
Speaker 1: pass excretion. So you can imagine let's say some porn

376
00:22:35,760 --> 00:22:39,840
Speaker 1: magazine which is allowed for adults, but can't be distributed

377
00:22:39,880 --> 00:22:43,680
Speaker 1: to miners under that standard. However, if it's a well

378
00:22:43,760 --> 00:22:48,439
Speaker 1: received novel that, in the process of describing what happened

379
00:22:48,520 --> 00:22:52,200
Speaker 1: to the characters, has sex scenes, then I think taken

380
00:22:52,240 --> 00:22:54,800
Speaker 1: as a whole, this reviewed as having serious value, especially

381
00:22:54,840 --> 00:22:57,520
Speaker 1: for older miners, and taken as a whole reviewed does

382
00:22:57,640 --> 00:23:01,200
Speaker 1: not appealing to the shameful or morbid interested sex. So

383
00:23:01,240 --> 00:23:03,560
Speaker 1: I think that as a practical matter, that kind of

384
00:23:03,760 --> 00:23:06,720
Speaker 1: law is actually quite narrow, and it looks like that

385
00:23:06,800 --> 00:23:10,680
Speaker 1: lawsuit is trying to actually apply it too books that

386
00:23:10,880 --> 00:23:13,679
Speaker 1: do not fit that narrow definition, and on top of

387
00:23:13,680 --> 00:23:16,920
Speaker 1: that also bar them from even being available on the

388
00:23:16,960 --> 00:23:21,320
Speaker 1: normal shelves, which may be constitutionally permissible against some at

389
00:23:21,400 --> 00:23:24,320
Speaker 1: least obstatist of minors material, but it's surely an even

390
00:23:24,359 --> 00:23:28,080
Speaker 1: more clear burden on constitutional rights when applied to these

391
00:23:28,160 --> 00:23:31,000
Speaker 1: kinds of novel, precisely because then that interferes with adults

392
00:23:31,040 --> 00:23:34,800
Speaker 1: ability to privately look at those books, as well as

393
00:23:34,800 --> 00:23:37,560
Speaker 1: the miners built in this age where you can get

394
00:23:38,200 --> 00:23:41,320
Speaker 1: almost anything on the internet, why do you think the

395
00:23:41,400 --> 00:23:46,639
Speaker 1: request to remove materials from schools or libraries hit a

396
00:23:46,680 --> 00:23:50,320
Speaker 1: record since they've been counting it since two thousand one?

397
00:23:50,520 --> 00:23:55,360
Speaker 1: Is it politics? So let me broaden this question. Given

398
00:23:55,480 --> 00:23:58,600
Speaker 1: that it's so easy to get things on the internet,

399
00:23:58,880 --> 00:24:02,680
Speaker 1: you might imagine a people would say, what's the point

400
00:24:02,680 --> 00:24:05,919
Speaker 1: of removing it from the library. It's still so easily accessible.

401
00:24:06,359 --> 00:24:09,520
Speaker 1: And you might also say people would say, why should

402
00:24:09,560 --> 00:24:11,719
Speaker 1: we care if someone removes it from the library. It's

403
00:24:11,760 --> 00:24:14,359
Speaker 1: still easily accessible. So you might ask, why are both

404
00:24:14,480 --> 00:24:19,280
Speaker 1: advocates of these removals and enemies of these removals adversaries

405
00:24:19,280 --> 00:24:23,000
Speaker 1: of these removals? Why are they so concerned about it?

406
00:24:23,440 --> 00:24:26,320
Speaker 1: And I think the answer is that it is at

407
00:24:26,359 --> 00:24:30,840
Speaker 1: least partly symbolic. I think a lot of people are

408
00:24:30,880 --> 00:24:34,400
Speaker 1: really upset not just that there is this highly sexually

409
00:24:34,440 --> 00:24:38,760
Speaker 1: explicit material out there, but that their tax dollars in

410
00:24:38,840 --> 00:24:43,440
Speaker 1: the schools that they run, that supposedly their representatives run,

411
00:24:43,720 --> 00:24:47,760
Speaker 1: are being used to distribute what they view as material

412
00:24:47,840 --> 00:24:52,320
Speaker 1: that's highly inappropriate for their children. And this is perfectly understandable.

413
00:24:52,320 --> 00:24:56,040
Speaker 1: I mean, imagine, for example, there was a library had

414
00:24:56,600 --> 00:25:00,560
Speaker 1: Mind comproments shop, public school library a Mind for the show.

415
00:25:01,000 --> 00:25:03,800
Speaker 1: I think nothing wrong with that. It's an important work

416
00:25:04,000 --> 00:25:06,679
Speaker 1: of world politics. I certainly don't want any to be

417
00:25:06,720 --> 00:25:09,400
Speaker 1: persuaded by it. But if you want a really rich

418
00:25:09,440 --> 00:25:13,520
Speaker 1: and deep understanding of Nazi era history, surely you have

419
00:25:13,600 --> 00:25:16,800
Speaker 1: to read that. Of course, most high school students don't

420
00:25:16,880 --> 00:25:19,600
Speaker 1: want a really rich understanding, but if they knew, more

421
00:25:19,600 --> 00:25:21,880
Speaker 1: power to them. Would it shock me if somebody says

422
00:25:21,880 --> 00:25:24,600
Speaker 1: it's outrageous that we have Mind come not just in

423
00:25:24,640 --> 00:25:27,440
Speaker 1: a library, but on a school library, and it wouldn't

424
00:25:27,440 --> 00:25:29,360
Speaker 1: shock me, wouldn't surprise me. And if there somebody were

425
00:25:29,400 --> 00:25:30,880
Speaker 1: to say, well wait a minute, you could probably Google

426
00:25:30,920 --> 00:25:34,679
Speaker 1: for my company find all of these free copies that say, well, okay, fine,

427
00:25:34,760 --> 00:25:37,040
Speaker 1: let them find it on Google. Let them not come

428
00:25:37,119 --> 00:25:39,879
Speaker 1: up with it in the school library with kind of

429
00:25:39,920 --> 00:25:44,399
Speaker 1: the school's impromoter. So I could totally understand that. So likewise,

430
00:25:44,400 --> 00:25:47,560
Speaker 1: with regard to situations where people think, you know, not

431
00:25:47,760 --> 00:25:51,280
Speaker 1: only is there talk in these books about kind of

432
00:25:51,320 --> 00:25:54,720
Speaker 1: sexual behavior that we would rather our children not engage in,

433
00:25:54,880 --> 00:25:57,520
Speaker 1: but on top of that, it's really highly graphic. It's

434
00:25:57,560 --> 00:25:59,920
Speaker 1: the kind of thing that we wouldn't want in our house.

435
00:26:00,240 --> 00:26:03,520
Speaker 1: Is just because of the review those passages is actually pornographic,

436
00:26:03,600 --> 00:26:06,080
Speaker 1: But I think the main reasons are symbolic on both

437
00:26:06,119 --> 00:26:09,280
Speaker 1: sides of the debate. Thanks so much, Eugene. That's Professor

438
00:26:09,320 --> 00:26:12,280
Speaker 1: Eugene Wallak of u c l A Law School, And

439
00:26:12,320 --> 00:26:14,520
Speaker 1: that's it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.

440
00:26:15,200 --> 00:26:17,639
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on

441
00:26:17,680 --> 00:26:21,959
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,

442
00:26:22,080 --> 00:26:27,120
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast, Slash law.

443
00:26:27,320 --> 00:26:29,639
Speaker 1: I'm June Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg