Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Bresso from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: Vanessa Brian thanked the fans as thousands gathered to celebrate
Speaker 1: the lives of her husband, Kobe Bryant, and their daughter
Speaker 1: Jeanna at l A Staples Center after their deaths in
Speaker 1: a helicopter crash in January. Of the outpouring of love
Speaker 1: and support that my family has felt from around the
Speaker 1: world has been so uplifting. Now Bryant is taking on
Speaker 1: Los Angeles County in federal court, saying her privacy was
Speaker 1: invaded when sheriff's deputies and firefighters shared crash site photos
Speaker 1: with their friends and colleagues. Join me is Warrington Parker,
Speaker 1: a partner Crowell and Mooring, explain what her causes of
Speaker 1: action are. She is doing over three different things. One
Speaker 1: is the invasion of her right to privacy, that is
Speaker 1: that people have a right to prior to see as
Speaker 1: to photos and content of materials relating to the death
Speaker 1: of a loved one. The second is negligent that l
Speaker 1: a county in the Sheriff's department the fire department of
Speaker 1: the individuals negligent may disclose these materials, which are the
Speaker 1: photos of Kobe Bryant and his daughter. And then the
Speaker 1: third is a statutory client. It's called the section actions,
Speaker 1: which is that constitutional deprocess likes were violated by the
Speaker 1: disclosure of the various photographs. Are any of these claims
Speaker 1: unique in this kind of situation, It is certainly unique.
Speaker 1: This doesn't happen every day, but in reading the various papers,
Speaker 1: there appears to be cases that have dealt with these
Speaker 1: issues before. And part of the legal tension in the
Speaker 1: case is are these claims viable? And certainly the defendants
Speaker 1: are saying that they're not viable. For example, defense that
Speaker 1: they're saying it's not enough just to have a private photo. Instead,
Speaker 1: there needs to be more publicity, such as it being
Speaker 1: on the Internet and so on. And MS Bryant's council
Speaker 1: has pointed out that in fact are cases where it
Speaker 1: does not need to be made public, that this is enough.
Speaker 1: I think that legal tension may under alive this That
Speaker 1: may be an issue in part going to the jury,
Speaker 1: but mainly that's going to ultimately be an issue for
Speaker 1: the court. A primary issue in the case is whether
Speaker 1: she suffered emotional distress as a result of the County's
Speaker 1: actions and how much it should be compensated for that.
Speaker 1: So Los Angeles County officials are arguing. One thing they're
Speaker 1: arguing is that she suffered emotional distress from the death
Speaker 1: of her husband and daughter, rather than distress that the
Speaker 1: photos were leaked. How can a jury separate those well,
Speaker 1: emotional distress damages are always a very difficult thing, both
Speaker 1: to prove and to disprove. Right, it's just how much
Speaker 1: are you hurt? And there's no clear marker for that. However,
Speaker 1: I think the County has a difficult time with that
Speaker 1: argument made. Certainly without any dispute. Someone suffers emotional distress
Speaker 1: when a loved one dies. But I think it is
Speaker 1: within the realm of experience and probability that you can
Speaker 1: exacerbate that emotional distress by mistreating the body, mistreating the
Speaker 1: family of loved ones, or taking photos really according to
Speaker 1: appointness at least almost like there was a trophy hunting
Speaker 1: type of experience. And I think think any rational person
Speaker 1: can separate out one trauma from another. Now, does that
Speaker 1: impact your damages? Perhaps, yes, It doesn't make it impossible
Speaker 1: to conceive that she suffered additional emotional distress because of
Speaker 1: these photos. I don't think that's true. Bryant's expert witness
Speaker 1: testified that Los Angeles cops and deputies keep what's called
Speaker 1: Google books with graphic photos of dead celebrities. Isn't that
Speaker 1: testimony about other officers prejudicial in this case? So I
Speaker 1: think it is prejudicial, but it's it's wrongfully prejudicial. I
Speaker 1: think is the question right? It certainly hurts in that
Speaker 1: way it's prejudicial, but I think the question is legally
Speaker 1: as the prejudicial. I think when the defendants opened by
Speaker 1: saying that this is all part of a train exercise
Speaker 1: for the distribution was necessary, I think it opened the
Speaker 1: door to precisely this type of evidence, because it certainly
Speaker 1: shines the light on on the truth or not of
Speaker 1: the statement that the distribution of the taken of the
Speaker 1: pose and in the distribution was for the purpose of
Speaker 1: training for some necessary a rather than being a entry
Speaker 1: in the Ghoul book. The defense wanted to show Instagram
Speaker 1: photos of you know, Brian's social media posts that show
Speaker 1: her and her family on lavish vacations and socializing with
Speaker 1: celebrities since the death of her husband. It hasn't come
Speaker 1: in so far. I don't know whether that would come
Speaker 1: in if I had to handicap it, I would say
Speaker 1: that's not coming in because however rich and famous you are,
Speaker 1: and and and I understand they're playing that up. That
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that you can't suffer emotional distress. Now, if
Speaker 1: they're saying that these photos are inconsistent with that claim
Speaker 1: of emotional distress, but that's different. And so as an example,
Speaker 1: it's well known in the insurance world that if someone
Speaker 1: is claiming back injuring collecting insurance, they'll often be photos
Speaker 1: taken or video taken of that person lifting heavy boxes
Speaker 1: and so on. And that's perfectly admissible. But merely to
Speaker 1: show someone has the ability to live in a rich
Speaker 1: lifestyle isn't sufficient to rebut a claim of emotional distress.
Speaker 1: There is one photo of her on Halloween dressed as
Speaker 1: Kruella de Ville. The talks about the stages of grief,
Speaker 1: and she adds one called revenge. Might that have some bearing,
Speaker 1: perhaps but fairly minimal. The fact that she's thinking to
Speaker 1: vindicate her right. Whether you call it revenge or you
Speaker 1: call it thinking to vindicate what you think is a wrongdoing,
Speaker 1: is I think well within the norm? Which side do
Speaker 1: you think has the better case here? Right now, I
Speaker 1: like pointest chances, and let me tell you what I'm thinking.
Speaker 1: You have a case where word photos were taken and
Speaker 1: there is a history of these photos being taken in
Speaker 1: a Google book. You have a case in which people
Speaker 1: have at least as points painted have lied outright lie
Speaker 1: about what they did with the photos and why. You
Speaker 1: have the defendant saying that these photos were taken and
Speaker 1: then distributed for the purposes of training. But you have
Speaker 1: them distributed at a bar, you have them distributed to
Speaker 1: a been playing a video game, you have them distributed
Speaker 1: at an awards ceremony. That doesn't make sense. You didn't
Speaker 1: have these arguments about foliation of evidence. And I know
Speaker 1: that the defendants are saying that the reason that they
Speaker 1: immediately told people to remove it from their phones in
Speaker 1: order to mitigate any continuing harm. But there was no
Speaker 1: attempt to ensure that these photos were in fact destroyed,
Speaker 1: and it looks more like they were trying to cover
Speaker 1: up more than anything else included though in that To
Speaker 1: have the extra spite is you have at least one
Speaker 1: of the deputy high up deputy saying, should we really
Speaker 1: do this? We've gotten in trouble before for this and
Speaker 1: I'm paraporting, and so even at that time, there's a
Speaker 1: bit of distinction about this. I would add just to
Speaker 1: two more points. First of all, you know, Kobe Bryant
Speaker 1: is a well known figure in Los Angeles. His wife
Speaker 1: is a well known figure in last area, Joyce, and
Speaker 1: no one thinks anything bad about this. Contrast that to
Speaker 1: the Los Angeles Police Department in the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office,
Speaker 1: where at least the Sheriff's Office has very recently been
Speaker 1: in the news for threatening a newspaper reporter and otherwise
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily have the best pr campaign in the world.
Speaker 1: I think these other things that will weigh in points
Speaker 1: favor how much money they collect, how much money is
Speaker 1: awarded as a completely different question. But on the issue
Speaker 1: of liability, if I were handicapping it, I would put
Speaker 1: my money on point. And what do you think the
Speaker 1: biggest legal hurdle is for Bryant. I think that the
Speaker 1: biggest legal hurdle will be whether or not what happened
Speaker 1: here is consistent with a viable claim under the law.
Speaker 1: And defendants are certainly saying, with no exception that this
Speaker 1: is not cognizable under the law, that it does not
Speaker 1: fall within the scope. Prior case, Los Angeles County agreed
Speaker 1: to pay two and a half million dollars to settle
Speaker 1: a similar case brought by two families whose relatives died
Speaker 1: in the crash. That indicate to you that Vanessa Briant
Speaker 1: is asking for more than that, or there are reports
Speaker 1: that she just didn't want to settle. I don't know
Speaker 1: the answer, at least believe that she must have been
Speaker 1: asking for more. Just finally, I'll ask you about the jury.
Speaker 1: The jury includes a nun, someone who works in TV production,
Speaker 1: a college student, a real estate investor, a pharmaceutical researcher,
Speaker 1: a computer professor, and a restaurant host. So a real
Speaker 1: cross section of l A. That's a very educated jury
Speaker 1: for the commany of l A. It's a cross section. Um,
Speaker 1: it's both educated and come with work experience. But this
Speaker 1: is also a function of it being in federal court,
Speaker 1: where I think the voting wills supply the names of
Speaker 1: a jury. But in l A County or the Central
Speaker 1: District of California, which includes more than l A County, UM,
Speaker 1: you can get people who are much less educated and
Speaker 1: experienced than this jury. I tend to think that that's
Speaker 1: also weighs in favor of points if in this case,
Speaker 1: I don't think this is the case where you need
Speaker 1: to have a jury with less experience or less education.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being on the show. That's Warrington Parker, a
Speaker 1: partner Crowell and Mooring. There has been a dramatic uptick
Speaker 1: in banning books, book bands, and challenges doubled from one
Speaker 1: according to the American Library Association, and it seems to
Speaker 1: reflect the growing polarization in our country. Joining me is
Speaker 1: First Amendment expert Eugene Polk, a professor at u c
Speaker 1: l A Law School. Eugene tell us about the one
Speaker 1: Supreme Court case about school libraries where the split was
Speaker 1: four for one. Well, let's just first step back. One
Speaker 1: thing that the said in that case. Basically all the
Speaker 1: justices agreed that curriculum decisions what to include in the
Speaker 1: reading materials for a class are basically up to the school.
Speaker 1: So the school can say we just don't think this
Speaker 1: book is suitable for a class for whatever reason. We
Speaker 1: just don't think this is the kind of book we
Speaker 1: should be studying it in class. So that's one thing,
Speaker 1: just to make clear. The other thing that that the
Speaker 1: court actually never did he has used the word ban
Speaker 1: with regard to remove of books from the library school library,
Speaker 1: because it's not a ban, it's a choice about which
Speaker 1: books to include in which books to exclude, in a
Speaker 1: situation where of course, the library has to be making
Speaker 1: these choices all the time, right First of all, it
Speaker 1: has only limited space, and second, unlike a public library,
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be focusing on books that are special
Speaker 1: interest in value to children. So the court understood that
Speaker 1: it wasn't a ban of a book, it was a
Speaker 1: choice to remove a book from the library. And the
Speaker 1: other thing that basically everybody on the court agreed on
Speaker 1: is that if the removal was on grounds that it
Speaker 1: was not age suitable, for example, because it was pervasively vulgar,
Speaker 1: which is to say view by the school is pervasively vulgar.
Speaker 1: Obviously people disagree on such matters or otherwise not age appropriate,
Speaker 1: that the school would be entitled to remove. The issue
Speaker 1: on which the court split four four is whether a
Speaker 1: library once and by the way, pretty much everybody also
Speaker 1: agreed that a library can decide what books to get
Speaker 1: in the first place, based on more or less whatever
Speaker 1: criteria the library wants. But the courts split four four
Speaker 1: on this question of whether a library can rem or
Speaker 1: a school system can remove a book from the library
Speaker 1: because of the book's ideology. Could it say this book
Speaker 1: is unpatriotic or perhaps today it would be questioned, is
Speaker 1: it anti gay or is it unduly pro gay, or
Speaker 1: setting aside whether whether there's explicit sexual discussion there, or
Speaker 1: whether it's racist, or whether it's for trays smoking in
Speaker 1: a positive light, although maybe that's also a matter of
Speaker 1: age appropriateness. So in any event that the court split
Speaker 1: on four four, how did that happen? Why four four
Speaker 1: when there were nine justice? Well, for Justice is basically
Speaker 1: said the school can't discriminate based on ideology more or
Speaker 1: less in removing books. And because there's a dispute on
Speaker 1: the real reason why they discriminated based on ideology, this
Speaker 1: case should be sent back down for further fact finding
Speaker 1: on what the real reason that was. For Justice more
Speaker 1: or less the liberal justice then the more or less
Speaker 1: conservative justices, four of them said school is perfectly free
Speaker 1: to discriminate based on ideal that you may be not
Speaker 1: in extreme situations like if it's actually partisan, we won't
Speaker 1: have any books by Republican writers or any books by
Speaker 1: democratic writers. But setting aside extreme situation like that a
Speaker 1: school is free to discriminate based on ideology, so therefore
Speaker 1: there's no need to send the case back. Justice White
Speaker 1: was the swing vote. And here's what he said. There's
Speaker 1: this factual dispute as to what the reason was why
Speaker 1: the school removed the books. If it turns out that
Speaker 1: it removed the books because they were pervasively vulgar otherwise
Speaker 1: not inappropriate, then no constitutional problem. Everybody agrees. If it
Speaker 1: turns out they did it for ideological reasons, then there
Speaker 1: might or might not be a constitutional problem. Could be
Speaker 1: that the liberal justices are right, could be conservative justice right.
Speaker 1: I don't have to decide it. We don't have to decide.
Speaker 1: The better route is to wait until we figure out
Speaker 1: the real reason for the removal and then resolved this
Speaker 1: First Amendment question of whether that reason is a permissible reason.
Speaker 1: And that's why he agreed with the liberals solely on
Speaker 1: the question whether the case should be sent back down
Speaker 1: for further fact find So he expressly declined to go
Speaker 1: along either with the descent position on the substantive issue
Speaker 1: or with the liberals. Hesited called a plurality explurality often
Speaker 1: means the opinion that got the most votes but actually
Speaker 1: got the same number of votes as the descent for basically, so,
Speaker 1: White concluded that he didn't didn't agree with either of
Speaker 1: them because he didn't agree that this issue should even
Speaker 1: be decided until necessary. So then do you agree? In
Speaker 1: a case in Missouri, a judge rejected the student's request
Speaker 1: for a preliminary injunction, and he questioned their reliance on
Speaker 1: Justice Brennan's plurality opinion in that case, So do you
Speaker 1: agree with that that there really isn't a majority opinion
Speaker 1: to rely on there? There definitely is not a majority
Speaker 1: opinion to rely on in Pico, And in fact, quite
Speaker 1: a few lower courts have taken that view that basically
Speaker 1: there's nothing in Pico to follow. I mean, there are
Speaker 1: arguments that we should pay attention to, but they do
Speaker 1: not resolve this issue. He's having been said there was
Speaker 1: an Eighth Circuit opinion, of course, but he said, even
Speaker 1: under that opinion, which might be said to kind of
Speaker 1: go along with the liberals position, even if that opinion
Speaker 1: is still binding, it's an old case. Even so, books
Speaker 1: could be removed because of their pervasive vulgarity, which is
Speaker 1: a pervasive sexual content, or let even the pervasive because
Speaker 1: of substantial sexual content. And these particular three books sure
Speaker 1: did have sexual cunt and a school is entitled to say,
Speaker 1: we're not banning it. Students can get them in lots
Speaker 1: of other ways, but we're not going to be providing
Speaker 1: to our students books with that kind of sexual content.
Speaker 1: So besides sexual content, as you refer to, a lot
Speaker 1: of books are being challenged because they deal with LGBTQ
Speaker 1: issues or racism. Well, let's say just a school board
Speaker 1: camp chigns if we want to take these books off
Speaker 1: the shelves, what would be the reasons that you would
Speaker 1: say are legally substantial? Would hold in court? Sure, So
Speaker 1: I would say, look, if you want to not include
Speaker 1: them in your curriculum, if you want to not include
Speaker 1: them as assigned or recommended readings, you're perfectly free to
Speaker 1: do that. Setting aside a few situations under the establishment clause.
Speaker 1: I suppose if they insist that everybody read the Bible
Speaker 1: as devotional materials, that's not allowed. But that's not free
Speaker 1: speech issue. That's an establishment close issue. So setting that aside,
Speaker 1: if you think this is a bad history book, then
Speaker 1: you shouldn't assign it to have it be assigned in
Speaker 1: your placess If you think that this material is highly
Speaker 1: sexually themed, and if you think for good reason it's
Speaker 1: highly sexually themed, you're not just making that out. But
Speaker 1: but if it is highly sexually themed or otherwise, you
Speaker 1: can show his age inappropriate. Maybe because it describes things
Speaker 1: are very gra violent in a very graphical way, and
Speaker 1: it's an elementary school library left there some such then
Speaker 1: in that case you're also free to remove it. If
Speaker 1: you think that these are kind of portray or convey
Speaker 1: ideas that you disapprove of, whether ideas one or or
Speaker 1: the other about sexual orientation or about gender identity, or
Speaker 1: about American history, about race, or about the environment, or
Speaker 1: about whatever else, then you know it might be unconstitutional
Speaker 1: for you to remove them from public school library shelves.
Speaker 1: So that's so then you're worried, and you should be
Speaker 1: worried about a lawsuit in this kind of situation, because
Speaker 1: there is a plausible claim against that. Then just keep
Speaker 1: them on the shelves. Presumably your most students don't go
Speaker 1: down to the library these days to read just right
Speaker 1: and them say history books, maybe it would be good
Speaker 1: if more students did. But my sense is that the
Speaker 1: problem most schools of students are reading too few of
Speaker 1: them are other than too many or the wrong kinds.
Speaker 1: And if it's not in the curriculum, it's probably not
Speaker 1: going to be much of an issue unless you try
Speaker 1: to exclude them and make it an issue, and then
Speaker 1: people will fail a lot more attention to them. Like
Speaker 1: my understanding is that when this school to in Tennessee,
Speaker 1: try to remove I think, not from the library shelves,
Speaker 1: but from actual the curriculum, which are perfectly free to do.
Speaker 1: Remove Mouse the graphic novel because there were a few
Speaker 1: relatively mild vulgarities there. There was that, and there was nudity.
Speaker 1: You know, this is nudity of a mouse. I mean
Speaker 1: the pomorphic mouse, to be sure about a mouse um
Speaker 1: who I'm told in the state of nature tend to
Speaker 1: be nude. I think so from everything I know exactly.
Speaker 1: So the result was a lot more attention to mouse
Speaker 1: and a lot more people buying mouse, I am told. So.
Speaker 1: I think it's a mistake for school boards to remove
Speaker 1: things from library shelves because of their ideas. I think
Speaker 1: it actually sends a bad message in many ways to students,
Speaker 1: and I think it practically has very little effect in
Speaker 1: the symbolic effect may in fact be bad relevant good,
Speaker 1: and the practical effect may be contraproductive. Because of this,
Speaker 1: I guess what's called the band in Boston phenomenon. I'm
Speaker 1: told that back in the day when there really were
Speaker 1: bands and not just exclusives from library shelves, bands of movies,
Speaker 1: movies couldn't be shown if the local sensors forbade it,
Speaker 1: and I think maybe even books couldn't be sold. Boston
Speaker 1: was known as being a place that would ban a
Speaker 1: lot of things in the grounds of their selations, and
Speaker 1: those places proudly labeled their items as banned in Boston
Speaker 1: in other cities because that sort of showed that they
Speaker 1: were racy. In Virginia, there's a different situation of former
Speaker 1: congressional member is trying to seek a ban on the
Speaker 1: sale of certain books that he says are obscene. So
Speaker 1: this would be stripping the right to sell a book
Speaker 1: from a Barnes and Noble, or you can't sell this
Speaker 1: book to a minor. Is that different? Yes? It is?
Speaker 1: I mean that really is there we are talking about banning,
Speaker 1: We're talking and not just about the government choosing what
Speaker 1: to include in its school library, much less school curriculum.
Speaker 1: It's choosing what private parties can distribute to other private
Speaker 1: parties in public places. So my understanding of the Virginia
Speaker 1: lawsuit is that there's already a law I think in
Speaker 1: Virginia that pre inhibits bookstores from selling material that's obscene
Speaker 1: as to miners to miners, So you don't need a
Speaker 1: specialized lawsuit for that, I think. Of course, then the
Speaker 1: question is what is obscene as to minors, and the
Speaker 1: answers has to be pretty pornographic. Simply, something that has
Speaker 1: as part of a novel some sexual elements is not
Speaker 1: going to make the work o scene. So I think
Speaker 1: he's trying to get the stuff removed from the shelves
Speaker 1: even where miners could browse. So he actually got a
Speaker 1: court to issue restraining order finding there's probable cause to
Speaker 1: believe that a court of mist and fury is obscene
Speaker 1: for unrestricted viewing by miners. So there it's not just
Speaker 1: at the checkout counter they have to card the buyer.
Speaker 1: It sounds like this was actually an attempt to try
Speaker 1: to get to the material from being even put on
Speaker 1: the shelves where miners could browse it, which is a
Speaker 1: much more serious bird. So the general rule is that
Speaker 1: a law that says you can't distribute so called harmful
Speaker 1: to miners, or more precisely obscene as to miners material
Speaker 1: two miners is constitutional the Supreme Court so held fifty
Speaker 1: plus years ago. But to be obscene as to minors,
Speaker 1: it has to lack serious artistic or literary or scientific
Speaker 1: or political value for miners. Taken as a whole. It
Speaker 1: has to appeal to the shameful or morbid interest in
Speaker 1: sex of miners. Again, taken as a whole, and it's
Speaker 1: got to be patently offensive under community standards when distributed
Speaker 1: to miners because of the way it described sex or
Speaker 1: pass excretion. So you can imagine let's say some porn
Speaker 1: magazine which is allowed for adults, but can't be distributed
Speaker 1: to miners under that standard. However, if it's a well
Speaker 1: received novel that, in the process of describing what happened
Speaker 1: to the characters, has sex scenes, then I think taken
Speaker 1: as a whole, this reviewed as having serious value, especially
Speaker 1: for older miners, and taken as a whole reviewed does
Speaker 1: not appealing to the shameful or morbid interested sex. So
Speaker 1: I think that as a practical matter, that kind of
Speaker 1: law is actually quite narrow, and it looks like that
Speaker 1: lawsuit is trying to actually apply it too books that
Speaker 1: do not fit that narrow definition, and on top of
Speaker 1: that also bar them from even being available on the
Speaker 1: normal shelves, which may be constitutionally permissible against some at
Speaker 1: least obstatist of minors material, but it's surely an even
Speaker 1: more clear burden on constitutional rights when applied to these
Speaker 1: kinds of novel, precisely because then that interferes with adults
Speaker 1: ability to privately look at those books, as well as
Speaker 1: the miners built in this age where you can get
Speaker 1: almost anything on the internet, why do you think the
Speaker 1: request to remove materials from schools or libraries hit a
Speaker 1: record since they've been counting it since two thousand one?
Speaker 1: Is it politics? So let me broaden this question. Given
Speaker 1: that it's so easy to get things on the internet,
Speaker 1: you might imagine a people would say, what's the point
Speaker 1: of removing it from the library. It's still so easily accessible.
Speaker 1: And you might also say people would say, why should
Speaker 1: we care if someone removes it from the library. It's
Speaker 1: still easily accessible. So you might ask, why are both
Speaker 1: advocates of these removals and enemies of these removals adversaries
Speaker 1: of these removals? Why are they so concerned about it?
Speaker 1: And I think the answer is that it is at
Speaker 1: least partly symbolic. I think a lot of people are
Speaker 1: really upset not just that there is this highly sexually
Speaker 1: explicit material out there, but that their tax dollars in
Speaker 1: the schools that they run, that supposedly their representatives run,
Speaker 1: are being used to distribute what they view as material
Speaker 1: that's highly inappropriate for their children. And this is perfectly understandable.
Speaker 1: I mean, imagine, for example, there was a library had
Speaker 1: Mind comproments shop, public school library a Mind for the show.
Speaker 1: I think nothing wrong with that. It's an important work
Speaker 1: of world politics. I certainly don't want any to be
Speaker 1: persuaded by it. But if you want a really rich
Speaker 1: and deep understanding of Nazi era history, surely you have
Speaker 1: to read that. Of course, most high school students don't
Speaker 1: want a really rich understanding, but if they knew, more
Speaker 1: power to them. Would it shock me if somebody says
Speaker 1: it's outrageous that we have Mind come not just in
Speaker 1: a library, but on a school library, and it wouldn't
Speaker 1: shock me, wouldn't surprise me. And if there somebody were
Speaker 1: to say, well wait a minute, you could probably Google
Speaker 1: for my company find all of these free copies that say, well, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: let them find it on Google. Let them not come
Speaker 1: up with it in the school library with kind of
Speaker 1: the school's impromoter. So I could totally understand that. So likewise,
Speaker 1: with regard to situations where people think, you know, not
Speaker 1: only is there talk in these books about kind of
Speaker 1: sexual behavior that we would rather our children not engage in,
Speaker 1: but on top of that, it's really highly graphic. It's
Speaker 1: the kind of thing that we wouldn't want in our house.
Speaker 1: Is just because of the review those passages is actually pornographic,
Speaker 1: But I think the main reasons are symbolic on both
Speaker 1: sides of the debate. Thanks so much, Eugene. That's Professor
Speaker 1: Eugene Wallak of u c l A Law School, And
Speaker 1: that's it for the edition of the Bloomberg Law Show.
Speaker 1: Remember you can always get the latest legal news on
Speaker 1: our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
Speaker 1: and at www dot Bloomberg dot com. Slash podcast, Slash law.
Speaker 1: I'm June Grasso and you're listening to Bloomberg