Spring 2015

It is an innate thought to associate educational, uplifting and groundbreaking television sitcoms such as “Fat Albert,” “A Different World,” and most notably, “The Cosby Show” with the prominent comedian, actor, author and activist Bill Cosby. Since the 70’s, Cosby has impacted and influenced families and cultures in a positive light filled with levity for decades. His once popular commercial as the Jello-O Pudding Man, made him a favorite among many. Further, Mr. Cosby has given his time and funds to aid and benefit students through academic programs and scholarships at Historically Black Colleges & Universities (HBCU) such as Spelman College and Morehouse College. 

As we look to present day, there has been an insurmountable round of allegations as to whether Bill Cosby drugged, sexually assaulted, and/or raped a plethora of women between 1965-2004. In November 2014, approximately sixteen women, including model Janice Dickinson and actress Louisa Moritz, have spoken to press alleging the claims as true. Subsequently, in December, Supermodel Beverly Johnson joined the list of women by telling her story in a Vanity Fair article describing her encounter with Bill Cosby as an invite to his home and later drugged from a cappuccino drink.  “I knew by the second sip of the drink Cosby had given me that I’d been drugged—and drugged good.”  This sent a tidal wave of news correspondents, bloggers, radio shows, etc. into a pool of heightened speculation of Cosby’s innocence. Presently, at least 34 women have come to the forefront accusing Cosby of sexual assault. The outpour of women coming forward through public interviews and various media outlets has caused a round of scrutiny that gradually diminishes Mr. Cosby’s character in the public eye.

This leads to the significant question: does public opinion overshadow and tarnish one’s legacy? The probable answer to this has been exuded through the mainstream media, social media, and from Cosby’s colleagues in the industry. You can take a glance at a friends’ Facebook page and you may see a status referencing their viewpoints, continuous comments, and/or debates on why Bill Cosby is guilty or not guilty in their eyes, or why each women’s claims may indeed be truthful if so many are raising a voice. There are even instances of audience members attending Mr. Cosby’s comedic stand up shows and shouting “rapist!” or other demeaning terms toward him.  Cosby’s colleagues in the comedy and film industry have also shared their comments filled with support regarding the allegations. Actress Keshia Knight Pulliam, known as young precocious Rudy Huxtable from “The Cosby Show,” recently was a contestant on Donald Trump’s Celebrity Apprentice. After her elimination on the show, she did an interview on the “Today Show” stating, "All I can speak to is the man I know and I love the fact that he has been such an example [and] you can't take away from the great that he has done.”  His once onscreen wife, actress Phylicia Rashad also commented on her thoughts as a “destruction of a legacy.” The most important woman in his life, Bill Cosby’s wife, Camille, has released a statement supporting her husband on the matter, "He is a kind man, a generous man, a funny man, and a wonderful husband, father and friend. He is the man you thought you knew." 

On the contrary, a source close to legendary actor Sidney Poitier has recently stated, “I can tell you that Mr. Poitier is terribly disgusted by what Bill Cosby has done, and he feels sorry for him.” Actor and comedian Jerry Seinfield expressed his disdain at a red carpet event, "It's sad, and incomprehensible." The television network TV Land has even pulled reruns of “The Cosby Show” off of the air because of all the continuous news surrounding the situation, which makes it extremely difficult to win public sympathy. Is it now difficult for some to watch an episode of “The Cosby Show” or even his standup comedy engagements without a cringe-worthy reaction. Many are giving Cosby a verdict of guilty through a “court of public opinions” but we live in a country where a person is innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. In addition, a majority of the claims presented by a number of women are barred by the statute of limitations because some of the accusations happened over two decades ago. However, this does not turn a new leaf as far as how society feels after numerous women have come forth after years with stories of despair, shame, and hurt. As sides are being chosen, gradually the public is deterring away from what the great Bill Cosby has done.

Amongst all of the comments that have transcribed since the spotlight of the tumultuous claims, Bill Cosby has continued to perform standup comedy in different cities and refraining from addressing the sexual assault allegations. However, on January 16th, he praised fans for loyalty before a Denver show stating, “Hey, hey, hey — I’m far from finished.” Cosby has been able to maintain a face of optimism in a declining view of which millions of other fans once loved.

Will there always be a gray cloud over the once highly respectable man in entertainment history? It is extremely difficult to deny his contributions to society or the variety of lessons and laughs provided in homes throughout the years yet he is no longer seen in this manner. Bill Cosby’s credibility should not be at a loss but the vast amount of commentary from the public stifles it. As the numerous women stand behind their statements, the cloud continues to hover over what was once a clear sky for Cosby.

[1] Beverly Johnson, Bill Cosby Drugged Me. This is My Story., Vanity Fair (Dec. 2014), http://www.vanityfair.com/unchanged/2014/12/bill-cosby-beverly-johnson-s....

[2] Id.

[3] Robyn Ross, Keshia Knight Pulliam Weighs in on Bill Cosby Scandal After Awkward Celebrity Apprentice Premiere, TV Guide (Jan. 5, 2015, 10:16 AM), http://www.tvguide.com/news/keshia-knight-pulliam-1091395/.

[4] Bill Cosby’s Wife Camille Releases Statement in Support of Husband, FOX News (Dec. 15, 2014), http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/12/15/bill-cosby-wife-camille-....

There has been a lot of discussion about Seth Rogen and James Franco’s new movie, The Interview, regarding First Amendment protections and freedom of speech. Funny enough (no pun intended), a heightened discussion of Sony’s perceived negotiations with cyber-terrorists became front-page news. Privately owned movie studios are not responsible for setting or applying U.S. foreign policy, which is the President’s responsibility. It has been observed that certain media outlets and movie studios have protected aspects of free speech and press despite that this is the job of the Legislature. As much as the United States or Kim Jong-Un would like us to believe that the movie is a groundbreaking piece of anti-dictator propaganda… it is just a movie that parodies a current hot-button issue. Sure, it highlights both real and perceived human rights issues, cultural dichotomies, real anti-American sentiments, and a damn good impersonate-Un (pun intended), but all of these topics have already been exhaustively discussed in many documentaries through the years. For a man who reportedly loves so much of what America has to offer, he knew, or should have known that a movie like this would probably be made…if anything, the making of this movie was at least plausible.

This presents an interesting quandary: Why after so many public indictments by the U.S. government and trusted media sources, would Kim Jong-Un decide that this outrageous slap-stick comedy is more deserving of his wrath? The answer, I believe, is that this movie is so well made that Franco and Rogen inadvertently presented an extremely plausible situation where covert agents could infiltrate North Korea and assassinate Kim Jong-Un (a la: Dennis Rodman?).

[Spoiler Alert] A quick breakdown for those of you who do not have internet access, or maybe don’t have a friend with a Netflix account: Seth Rogen produces a nightly celebrity news show called Skylark Tonight, which James Franco hosts.  Tired of reporting on issues like actor Rob Lowe’s hidden male-pattern-baldness, Franco’s character tells Rogen’s character that Kim Jong-Un is a huge fan of the show, and that this would be the perfect opportunity to interview him and subsequently, vault both men into journalistic superstar-dom.  After the FBI learns about the interview, an FBI agent tells them that the FBI would like the men to use the interview as an opportunity to assassinate Kim Jong-Un using a Ricin laced band aid, to be applied when Franco and Un first shake hands.  Eventually, Kim Jong-Un is killed in a fiery helicopter crash due to the ineptitudes of the two “journalists.” 

No matter how you feel about Kim Jong-Un, Franco and Rogen, or freedom of speech, the keyword-takeaway from the movie itself, as well as the ensuing commentaries is: plausibility. From beginning to end and every nuance in between, the movie is a series of plausible circumstances played out in a classic Franco-Rogen-esque style. Take for example the opening scene where rapper Eminem “comes out” as a homosexual on Skylark Tonight.  It is only because of Eminem’s sarcastic and perceived mean-spirited song lyrics regarding homosexuality that make the moment so funny, and subsequently, why so many fans and critics alike actually thought it was a real admission. Perhaps the most telling scene is when Franco’s character dim-wittedly presents a hilariously ridiculous escape scenario to the FBI agents, which comes to fruition and leads to Un’s assassination. 

This plausibility is essentially what has inflamed the passions of the Supreme Leader of North Korea. We have after all, covertly attempted to assassinate the likes of Fidel Castro through covert CIA operations such as Operation Mongoose. We have learned in law school thus far, that knowledge, desire, and apparent ability to effectuate harm are sufficient to make a variety of tort claims, and this situation is no different. I have already dropped Dennis Rodman’s name, and if you were to replace Franco’s character with Rodman (the only American in recent memory to actually be invited to North Korea), what you have is a wholly plausible assassination scenario, not lost on the Supreme Leader. I am not advocating sympathy towards Kim Jong-Un or his seemingly oppressive regime, nor am I vindicating Rogen and Franco from over-lampooning the man, but Chris Rock said it best when discussing the Orenthal James Simpson case: “I’m not sayin’ he shoulda’ done it…but I understand.”

[1] The Interview (Point Grey Pictures & LStar Capital 2014).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

On Thursday, January 29th, SBA and TJSL partnered with the San Diego Blood Bank for our first annual blood drive. TJSL registered 22 people and collected 18 units, which will touch the lives of at least 54 people. Additionally, the majority of the blood collected from our drive has already been distributed to patients. It is great that blood drives like these can keep San Diego blood recipients alive and able to enjoy their lives.

TJSL had 17 people that donated blood for the very first time. We encourage new donors to support our next blood drive on Friday, March 6th, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. At least 400 donations are required daily to meet the need for our San Diego community, so the San Diego Blood Bank is very appreciative of our lifesaving efforts.

To schedule your appointment for our March 6th blood drive log onto www.mysdbb.org and under donate blood and appointments type “TJSL” as the sponsor code. If you have any questions please email sepulvj@tjsl.edu.

On January 7, 2015, France fell victim to a vicious terrorist attack.  Three suspects attacked the weekly satirical newspaper, Charlie Hebdo, leaving 12 people dead.  Two of the suspects, brothers, were self-proclaimed Islamist gunmen and the third suspect, an 18 year old, surrendered later that day.  The attack was in response to the newspaper republishing a satirical cartoon, which had a controversial depiction of, what some people perceived as, the Prophet Muhammad – others believe it was only a Muslim fighter.  Michael Morell, former Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, said the motive of the attack was “absolutely clear: trying to shut down a media organization that lampooned the Prophet Muhammad.” 

The assault on Charlie Hebdo raises the issue of freedom of speech in light of religious sensitivity. This attack, like all other terrorist attacks, forces us to consider the social consequences of our actions. Before I address this, let me be clear, there is no justification to open fire in an office building to make a religious or political statement. Still, there may be something we can learn.

Freedom of speech in the United States is sacred and, despite certain constitutional exceptions, Americans enjoy great freedom in this area. However, European nations do not have such clear standards for free speech. For example, the French Constitution does not have an article explicitly protecting the freedom of speech.  Does this mean that French journalists should be silenced if their publications are used as a justification for terrorist attacks? Certainly, the answer must be no.

The right to freedom of speech goes beyond what government allows. Human rights are inherent and do not come from a government document. However, governments, rulers, and tyrants all make justifications to limit speech. In the United States, Congress has limited speech that is found to have little political or societal benefit, such as “fighting words” and “true threats.” Islam uses a different standard. Generally known is that the Islam religion proclaims that no person, Muslim or not, may portray a visual depiction of the Prophet Muhammed. Many people agree that we must respect certain religious tenets even though we are not of that religion. A portrayal of the Prophet Muhammed may strike the same cord in a Muslim as the burning of a Bible to a Christian. Even many non-Christians would be offended by seeing a Bible in flames. Perhaps we should consider the idea that some religious satyrs strike with the same conviction as burning of religious items.

Regardless of your philosophy, violence does not solve the purported problem of unbridled free speech. It certainly did not with Charlie Hebdo. Surely the assault was intended to prevent Charlie Hebdo from continuing to create satyrical work involving the Prophet Muhammed. In fact, it has had the opposite effect. Charlie Hebdo is now a publication known round the world. Allegedly, Charlie Hebdo is expected to print one million copies of its next issue. Prior to the attack, sixty thousand copies were sufficient for each publication in order to meet consumer demand. Using violence has only created an outstanding support for the victim.

Freedom of speech is a universal right that applies to all humanity. Problems arise when that speech conflicts with what other people consider holy. Perhaps Charlie Hebdo was reckless with their article. It was certainly insensitive to the principals of others. But at the end of the day, we cannot expect people to know or care about every religious tenet. Al-Qaeda successfully destroyed any chance of a possible debate that may have resulted in France opposing the actions of Charlie Hebdo in a civil forum. At the end of the day, violence has not solved anything.

[1] See Dan Bilefsky & Maïa de la Baume, Terrorists Strike Charlie Hebdo Newspaper in Paris, Leaving 12 Dead, New York Times (Jan. 7, 2015), http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-paris-shoot....

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] 1958 Const. art. 1-89 (Fr.).