Lowering the Bar

Crime Dog, Cow Assaulted

It's been a while since we had any mascot-attack stories, but it still does not appear to be safe out there for the nation's brave mascots.

On March 1, McGruff the Crime Dog was passing out flyers to children in northwest Washington, D.C., when a city bus pulled up to the curb. The driver got out, calmly adjusted both side mirrors, and then calmly punched McGruff in the face. According to the report, "McGruff staggered, children screamed," and the attacker got back on the bus and drove away.

This did not appear to have been a premeditated attack. Had the guy meditated on it a bit, he might have realized that somebody in a McGruff costume is not unlikely to be a cop, and/or that other cops are likely to be nearby. This McGruff was in fact a D.C. police officer, and the officers working with him had the bus pulled over within three blocks. They arrested 38-year-old Shawn Brim, who was charged with assault.

McGruff was not seriously injured, but did call in sick the following Monday because of a bruised cheek. Brim reportedly told his supervisor he was "trying to be funny," but according to a D.C. Metro spokesperson, "nobody here finds it funny, believe me." (I think maybe she has not asked everybody yet.) She said Brim's career as a bus driver is "under review," a term that generally means "over."

This was at least the second mascot attack in the general area in as many weeks. On February 19, a Chick-fil-A Cow mascot was tackled in Fredericksburg, Virginia, by an unidentified man. Because of the configuration of his giant mascot head (the same reason McGruff could not see the punch coming), the cow said he had been unable to get a good look at his assailant.

Police said they had few leads.

Link: DC Examiner
Link: NBC Washington

Mascot Badgerer Pleads Guilty

I can understand not wanting to leave Shea Stadium, but don't take it out on the mascot.

A 32-year-old man who was accused of harassing "Mr. Met" at a game back in May has pleaded guilty, the NY Daily News reports.  Police said that after Christien Hansen took the unspecified anti-mascot actions -- allegedly "swatting" children out of his way to do so -- he then refused to leave the stadium when asked and took a swing at a security guard.  Hansen was ordered to pay a $500 fine, and perhaps more importantly was also banned indefinitely from Mets home games, including those at the new stadium.

Last weekend, seventeen Mets fans were arrested at Shea Stadium for trying to tear out and steal parts of the stadium after the last game was played there.

Link: AP via Findlaw.com
Link: NY Daily News

Benny the Bull In Trouble Again

An Illinois dentist has sued the Chicago Bulls after allegedly being injured by the team's mascot, Benny the Bull, in what is a rare example of a lawsuit predicated on a negligent high-five.

Don Kalant alleges he was watching a game on February 12 when he raised his arm to get a high-five from Bull.  Kalant thus admits he initiated the contact, but alleges that the high-five he solicited was delivered negligently.  According to the lawsuit, rather than merely high-fiving, Bull grabbed Kalant's arm and fell forward, hyperextending Kalant's arm and rupturing his bicep.  Kalant's attorney declared that this was not an accident, but rather "part of the shtick."

"Benny's flying down the aisle, giving everybody high-fives," Kalant's attorney, Shawn Kasserman, said Monday in a telephone interview. "When he gets to Dr. Kalant, he either inadvertently trips or, as part of the shtick, trips. . . . He grabbed Kalant's arm and fell forward."

Kalant later had surgery and allegedly will miss as much as four months of work.  (He was, however, was able to make it through the rest of the Bulls game.)  He is suing the team on the theory that it is vicariously liable for its mascot's behavior.

Benny was last in trouble (to my knowledge) in July of 2006, when he was arrested after allegedly punching an off-duty police officer who was trying to get him to stop riding his tiny motorcycle through a festival crowd.

Link: Chicago Tribune

Debate Over Free-Speech Rights of Chicken Man Rages in Colorado Town

While Europe debates whether animals are entitled to constitutional rights like human beings, here in America we are debating the constitutional rights of human beings dressed like animals.  The latest dispute over advertising in the form of "mobile signs" or "mascots" is taking place in Woodland Park, Colorado, where the city council is threatening to outlaw Chicken Man.

Chicken Man is the mascot for Wild Wings 'n' Things, a restaurant chain based in Colorado Springs.  For years, free-range Chicken Men have roamed Colorado streets, alerting motorists and others to the availability of wings (and, apparently, things) as well as beer or another beverage of their choice.  And one also patrols beside U.S. Highway 24 in Woodland Park -- for now.

Saying that Chicken Man violates a local sign ordinance, the city council told restaurant owner Lisa Branden that she would have to bring him indoors.  (Allegedly, city manager David Buttery said that the laws are designed to maintain the town's "mountain grandeur" by prohibiting "signs" like Chicken Man, although he has since denied saying that.)  Branden has refused, saying it would harm her business which is located some distance from the highway.  The city has said it will not enforce the ban for now, while it works to revise the law.  Currently, the law says nothing about mascots but does say that "All signs not expressly permitted or exempted from this regulation are specifically prohibited."  That may very well be specifically unconstitutional.  In the meantime, Branden has equipped Chicken Man with an American flag instead of the sign he normally waves, but he is still out there.

Public opinion seems to be firmly in favor of Chicken Man.  He has appeared on the front page of the local newspaper twice and Branden has collected 1,100 signatures on a petition in support.  Nearby businesspeople clearly supported the Man.  "He's not a threat to anything," said the owner of PDQ Mail and More.  "He's not a danger to anybody.  Leave the Chicken Man alone."  Tom at Great Clips for Hair thought the council was being "ridiculous" and that Chicken Man suited the town.  "It's a funky town.  It's a funky chicken."

About 80 citizens showed up for a city planning commission meeting last week, at which the proposed new sign ordinance (featuring 18 pages of regulations) was to be discussed.  Many wore T-shirts saying "Don't Choke Our Chicken."  Chicken Man, who also attended, needed no T-shirt but brought his American flag along.  Apparently, the new proposal, among many other things, specifically defines costumed characters as "temporary signs" and says they would only be permitted for 90 days a year.

Lowering the Bar's section on "Mascot Law" contains other examples showing that this kind of debate is raging all across our country, with varying results.  In September, New Jersey's appellate division upheld a fine imposed for displaying an inflatable rat at a union rally.  In 2006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a declaratory judgment in favor of "Blazing Bagels," saying the First Amendment protected its right to put an employee outside wearing a sign.  A similar dispute in McHenry, Illinois, which threatened the livelihoods of Mattress Man and Lady Liberty, was reported in the Chicago Tribune earlier that year.  And in July 2006, another Chicken Man (no relation), this one operating in Arkansas, reported that he had been repeatedly assaulted by local residents.  The attacks included thrown cans of Skoal, various frozen-drink assaults, and finally a salvo of bottle rockets that set fire to part of his suit.  (The rocketeer was later arrested.)

If the new regulations are approved by the committee, a decision is expected from the city council by late February.  If they outlaw Chicken Man, they will be made fun of here shortly thereafter.

Link: Colorado Springs Gazette.com
Link: Colorado Springs Gazette.com (update about the meeting)
Link: The Mountain Jackpot (Woodland Park, CO, local paper)

Cartoon Characters Subpoenaed

Last Friday, a court in Naples, Italy, sent trial subpoenas to Mickey Mouse, Tweety, and Donald and Daisy Duck, in what appears to have been a clerical error.

The defendant awaiting trial there is charged with counterfeiting Disney and Warner Brothers products.  Apparently, court clerks included on the witness list not only the companies' legal representatives, but also their imaginary ones: "Topolino," "Paperino," "Paperina," and "Titti" (that's apparently Tweety in Italian).  A summons went out to each of those cartoon characters care of Disney Italia.

A Disney Italia representative said none of the characters would be appearing at trial.  "Unfortunately they cannot show up, as they are residents of Disneyland," said Fiorenza Sorotto, a vice-president of the company.  Hey, smart guy -- according to this website, the Disney characters can be easily located at Disneyland Paris, which should give a court in the European Union at least transient jurisdiction over these jokers.  If they don't want to get served, they shouldn't be walking down Main Street U.S.A. in broad daylight.

Also, I'm a little suspicious of "Goofy Father Christmas," but I guess he hasn't been indicted yet.

Sorotto continued, "It certainly pleased us that the characters were considered real, because that's what we try to do."  Really?  You try to convince Italians that a six-foot duck wearing a top hat is real?  Well, then, congratulations.

A Disney lawyer said that the summons would have to be reissued, delaying the trial.  She expressed confidence that none of the characters would be prosecuted for failure to appear.

Link: CBS News

New Jersey Supreme Court Will Hear Inflatable-Rat Case

The New Jersey Supreme Court will be addressing free-speech issues in a case involving a giant inflatable rat, after an appeals court affirmed a township's decision to fine a union representative $133 for displaying the rat at an event.

New Jersey v. DeAngelo arises from the use by members of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers of the inflatable rat during a 2005 protest outside a Gold's Gym in Lawrence Township, New Jersey.  (The opinion explains that the rat "is a well-known symbol of protesting unfair labor practices."  The examples depicted here were used by IBEW in other cities.)  Gold's Gym called police and objected to the rat.  The IBEW was ordered to remove it on the grounds that it violated a local sign ordinance banning (among other things) "balloon signs or other inflated signs (excepting grand opening signs) . . . ."  They did, but the rat was back 45 minutes later, presumably after a .75-hour conference with union attorneys.  Police then issued a summons to Wayne DeAngelo, the senior union official present, who was later found guilty and fined.

On appeal, DeAngelo argued (1) that a rat with nothing written on it cannot be a "sign," and (2) the ordinance is too vague to be enforceable anyway.  The majority, however, found that the rat could qualify as a "sign" on the grounds that it "carr[ied] a symbolic message of a labor protest," and that the First Amendment was not violated partly because the ordinance was "content-neutral" -- all balloon signs are prohibited unless there is a grand opening in progress.

The dissenting judge thought that more facts were needed as to whether the ordinance was really being  enforced neutrally, and would have remanded the case.  As he pointed out, had a new Disney store opened in the township, it could legally have displayed the same rat right next door, under the "grand opening" exception, as a symbol of its movie, "Ratatouille."

Well, maybe not the same rat, but an inflatable rat of some kind.

Because there was a dissenting opinion, the defendant has the automatic right to appeal to the state supreme court, and says he will do so.

Link: FindLaw.com
Link: BNA Daily Labor Report (Sept. 17, 2007)
Link: Unionize Your Electrified Workplace

Groping Costumed Characters Declared "Inappropriate"

San Antonio columnist Cay Crow recently printed an interesting letter commenting on a March column she did about what she called “frotteurizing,” which sounded to me like something French people might do to milk but which turns out (she says) to mean “nonconsensual groping.”

To begin with, I officially hate both these terms.  The first one is French.  They may have invented groping, but there's no reason we can't describe it now in English.  But Crow's English phrase, "nonconsensual groping," doesn't seem necessary.  If groping is “nonconsensual," it's “battery,” or just "groping."  And if it’s consensual, it's “foreplay."  Isn't it?

I'm not sure if there is a gray area there or not.  Which might explain why I don't get more second dates.

Anyway, the letter was written in response to Crow’s March column, which (I assume) was critical of those who grope sans consent.  The letter went like this:

Dear Cay:

I would just like to share my own groping story with you. It's not quite like the others, but it is equally disturbing.

I am a costumed character at a well-known theme park.  [This is the point at which I began to reach for the keyboard.]  Since it is a performance, I have to stay in character. That means when people ask me if I am a boy (and all of our characters are), I have to say yes (we are not allowed to speak).

Very rude people, always adults and older teenagers, say, "I bet you aren't!" and proceed to try to grope [to find out].  I have been told by some that it "comes with the territory" of my job, but when I informed my manager, he said that it was completely inappropriate and next time it happened, I have every right to inform security and have these people escorted off the premises.

Cay, this is not only men who do this! Women do it as well! And it upset me very much. I am sure that they would not like it if I were to go grabbing right back at them!

    -- Obviously Anonymous

Cay consoled Ms. Anonymous (who, based on the very limited evidence available, I suspect was portraying Yosemite Sam at Six Flags Fiesta Texas) and put the San Antonio area on notice that nonconsensual groping/frotteurism was not okay, even in connection with cartoon characters:

Dear OA:

I am so sorry that this happened to you but I am thrilled that your manager is having those animals removed from the park.  OK, San Antonio and surrounding areas, you have been warned!  I just can't believe that people could be so insensitive and crude. . . . What does this behavior, even toward a cartoon character, teach children?

Well, it might teach them where Daddy gets his bail bonds.  Let's try to think positive.  Anyway, up to this point, Cay was making a lot of sense, but then she went on to offer a somewhat surprising explanation for the nonconsensualized gropery:

I suspect that some of these folks groping cartoon characters are either "plushies," people with strong attachments to stuffed animals, or "furries," individuals who are drawn to furry cartoon characters. . . . Within this community, there is a specific term, a "furvert" for the individuals who groped you indicating, presumably, their sexual attraction to a mascot.

I’m not sure we really need to go there in order to explain what’s happening – rudeness and stupidity are probably enough – but at least mascots in San Antonio and surrounding areas (and now the rest of you) are on notice that the person frotteurizing them may be a "furvert."

This is probably one of the few things not covered by the USA PATRIOT Act, so the public will have to protect itself on this one.  Be warned.

Link: San Antonio Express-News (Crow's column)
Link: Grope a costumed character today at one of San Antonio’s well-known theme parks!

Penguin Sought in Connection With Child Taunting

The Kansas City Star reported yesterday that authorities in the suburb of Gardner, Kansas, were investigating reports that a man showed up at an elementary-school basketball game and disrupted it by insulting the children.  He also scuffled with coaches and parents.  A city administrator was quoted as saying the event involved someone being overly aggressive and loud, and that officials were conducting interviews to determine exactly what had happened.

Among their questions may be "why the man chose to dress in a penguin suit," which the Star said was not known at press time.

Based only on the color scheme, it may have something to do with the fact that the man was a former referee for the city's youth-basketball league, who was banned from working fifth- and sixth-grade games after complaints that he let the games get too rough.  Apparently, the penguin's insults were directed at the team who had complained about him.  He was not identified in the report, but witnesses have said that they recognized the former referee when he made the poor decision to remove the head of his penguin suit.  This may have increased the effectiveness of his taunting, but it disclosed his identity.  On the other hand, you have to admire a man who will do whatever it takes to make a sixth-grader cry.

As of yesterday, the city was investigating but had not suspended the man, asked him to turn in his penguin suit, or taken any other action.

Link: Kansas City Star

Nobody Tells This Wookiee What to Do

A Chewbacca impersonator was arrested in Los Angeles last Thursday after he head-butted a Hollywood tour guide outside Grauman's Chinese Theater.  Performers dressed as movie and cartoon characters gather there in order to seek tips by posing for photos with tourists.  Reportedly, the guide had asked Chewbacca to stop harassing two Japanese tourists, which only enraged the temperamental alien.  "Nobody tells this Wookiee what to do!" he yelled, impressively staying in character, and then slammed his furry skull into the guide's forehead.

Superman reportedly was among the witnesses to the assault, but did nothing to stop it.  He did, however, call producers at the "Jimmy Kimmel Show," which unfortunately for Chewbacca is taped at a studio right across the street, which resulted in the actual arrest being caught on film:

Stormtroopers lead Chewbacca off to captivity.

The violent Wookiee was arrested and charged with misdemeanor battery, and later released on bail.  There has been at least one previous incident involving this performer, and several involving other costumed impersonators, including one that led to the arrest two years ago of Mr. Incredible and Elmo the Muppet.

Interviewed by the L.A. Times this week, Captain Jack Sparrow worried that this would lead to a crackdown by the city that would threaten his livelihood, and said that Chewbacca had a history of altercations of this kind.  Also nearby: Darth Vader, who agreed that Chewbacca had long since turned to the dark side.

A spokesman for Lucasfilm made clear that the performer in question, Frederick Young, had no affiliation with the company.  Still, she said, "we are disappointed that someone dressed as Chewbacca would behave in this way."

Link: Yahoo! News
Link: Los Angeles Times

Ninth Circuit Ruling Should Protect Advertising Mascots in Western U.S.

Here's a follow-up to the story from a couple of weeks ago about McHenry, Illinois, trying to ban costumed advertising mascots.  The Ninth Circuit actually ruled this week that a Washington city's similar attempt to ban "portable signs" violated the First Amendment.  Ballen v. City of Redmond, No. 04-35606 (9th Cir. Sept. 15, 2006).

The Redmond ordinance banned "all portable signs" with certain listed exceptions.  The plaintiff, owner of the "Blazing Bagels" bagel shop ("blazing"? they aren't supposed to be set on fire, are they?), refused to comply with the city's notice that he would have to cease and desist having an employee stand outside wearing a sign.  Instead, he sued under the federal civil rights statute seeking a declaratory judgment, and won.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed, finding that the portable sign was "pure commercial speech" and that the city's portable-sign regulation was not narrowly tailored.

Take note, McHenry: the Ninth Circuit also affirmed the grant of fees and costs to Mr. Ballen, so the failed attempt to ban portable signs has cost the City of Redmond at least $165,508.

Link: Ballen opinion (PDF file posted on FindLaw.com)