During a 1995 episode of “The Simpsons” television series, one-year-old Maggie Simpson accidentally shoots the tightfisted tycoon Mr. Burns after he steals her lollipop. When Burns finally recovers enough to reveal his assailant’s identity, he demands that police arrest the infant Maggie.
Police Chief Wiggum laughs at Burns’ request, saying, “Yeah right, pops. No jury in the world’s going to convict a baby. Mmm?maybe Texas.”
This week, both Texas and The Simpsons find themselves locked in legal battles that typify the current attitude of the American legal system: Everybody is hyper-sensitive, nobody is at fault, and if you have a bone to pick, contact your legal advisor. After all, there’s no place like court.
On April 8, Rio de Janeiro’s tourism agency, Riotour, asked its legal counsel to sue the Fox television network after a March 31 episode of “The Simpsons” tainted Rio’s image. According to Yahoo news, several parts of the episode upset Riotur representatives, including when a cab driver holds Homer hostage for a $50,000 ransom; Brazilian police sexually harass Marge when she reports a crime; a boa constrictor swallows Bart; and crazed monkeys attack the Simpson family.
In addition, the depiction of Brazilians as “Spanish accented, thick-mustachioed conga dancers” also angered Brazilians, who speak Portuguese (and also do not necessarily wear mustaches).
Riotour claims that the show’s disparaging portrayal of Rio will ruin the more than $18 million the agency spent in 2001 advertising for the city. As of April 8, Fox executives had not responded to the claim, and Riotour had not officially filed a lawsuit.
In Austin, the Texas Supreme Court is spending its resources deliberating over a high school academic competition. In a March contest, Lubbock High School defeated J. Frank Dobie High School in the state’s academic decathlon?or so it thought.
After the competition, Dobie’s coaches discovered that one student’s test scores had been excluded from the final total because he had not turned in his test sheet as instructed, thus disqualifying the score. Naturally, Dobie called for an audit.
When decathlon officials destroyed the test results?after they had certified Lubbock as winner, and as decathlon protocol mandates?Dobie representatives resorted to suing. Now, after several appeals, Texas’ highest court will spend time and money determining which high school in the Lone Star State is indeed the smartest. Really.
Both of these cases exemplify the current state of affairs of America’s legal world. The Simpsons situation reflects the acute sensitivity of many. As society has sought to become more tolerant of differences in cultures and beliefs, it has also become more keenly aware of these distinctions. Somewhere along the line, somebody decided the way to erase differences would be to highlight them?eradication through promulgation, or so it would seem.
The net result has been heightened sensitivity to anything that might in the least way offend the most thin-skinned of individuals. Society should be happy for this increased kindness?it certainly creates a kinder, gentler nation (the vision of George Bush?). But as Washington Post columnist George Will has said, good things are only good “up to a point.” Then it gets ridiculous.
If Brazilians can complain about the Simpsons makers’ treatment of the country and culture, so can just about everyone. Japanese, Australians, French, British, white males (just look at Homer) and leprechauns have all been featured?and not flattered?on the program. Should Utah’s Mormons have been offended when two aliens knocked on the Simpsons’ door and Homer greeted them by saying, “Oh great, Mormons”? They probably should have just laughed.
The predicament in Texas highlights the “no-fault” attitude of many plaintiffs. The decathlon case rests on one point: The student who incorrectly handed in his test didn’t follow directions, and therefore was penalized. Losing an entire competition by the most minute of errors would be agonizing for any teenager?you have to feel for the guy. But the harsh truth is he made a mistake, and the consequences should therefore surprise no one.
Officials at both schools had a golden opportunity to teach their students the sometimes difficult results of personal responsibility. Instead, they chose to teach the students that losing means appealing in court.
The no-fault-of-my-own attitude contributes to absurd lawsuits like the one raised by a New Hampshire man who got drunk at a party and then went four-wheeling in a sand pit, killing a friend. He sued the couple who threw the party for allowing him to become intoxicated and the pit owner for not telling him about the dangers of four-wheeling while plastered.
Or the lawsuit filed against a San Diego little league coach by one of the team member’s parents, who wanted $2,000 when the team didn’t qualify for a major competition.
Ultimately, the American public is the real loser of such legal action. Insurance rates and the cost of goods and services swell as more lawsuits of less validity and importance enter litigation and the courts.
At the same time, the community suffers when baseball coaches have to get legal counsel, and parents dread letting their children’s friends play in their yards because an accident might mean getting sued.
In a 1994 Simpsons episode, the owner of an all-you-can-eat restaurant throws Homer out because he eats too much. Homer seeks legal advice from lawyer Lionel Hutz, who says of the restaurant’s all-you-can eat claim: “This is the most blatant case of fraudulent advertising since my suit against the film, ‘The Never Ending Story.'”
As long as hyper-sensitivity and a no-fault attitude prevail, America’s never-ending story may be a legal system marred by invalid litigation and frenzied profit seeking.
Michael welcomes feedback at: [email protected] or send letters to the editor to: [email protected].