Law is typically a serious business. That’s not the case for this week’s guest, Carl Unegbu, who is a lawyer, journalist and comedy editor who specialises in the legal protections and defense of comedians.   

So why should you be listening in?  

You can hear Rob and Carl discussing: 

• The legal relationship between comedy and free speech 

• Why comedians have less legal oversight than most entertainers 

• The lawsuits that comedians can become involved with  

• Comedians’ First Ammendment rights  

• The implications of AI on comedy  

Transcript

Rob Hanna 00:00 

Welcome to the legally speaking podcast. I’m your host Rob Hanna. This week I’m delighted to be joined by Colleen Ekberg. Carl is a lawyer, journalist and comedy editor Carl graduated from the University of Miami law school and studied journalism at Columbia. He is admitted to the New York bar and has experienced as a law clerk at the International Court of Arbitration in Paris. He runs his blog, oh cars law.com and was an editor at The Comedy beat.com Carl has hosted the Industry Forum comedy dialogue, a series held in Manhattan’s Upper West Side featuring stand up comedy performances. Carl also worked as a reporter in New York City and has his articles being published in world policy journal writers forum Journal, the New York County lawyer newspaper, and the Gotham Gazette. Cold recently published his second book, comedy goes to court when people stop laughing and start biting. So a very big warm welcome, Carl. 

Carl Unegbu 01:00 

Thank you. Glad to be here. 

Rob Hanna 01:02 

Our it’s a pleasure to have you on the show. And before we dive into all your amazing projects, experiences to date, we do have a customary icebreaker question here on the legally speaking podcast, which is on a scale of one to 1010 being very real, what would you rate the hit TV series suits in terms of its reality of the law? If you’ve seen it? 

Carl Unegbu 01:28 

Well, thanks for having me. And this is a wonderful opportunity to talk about my adventures, making commentaries on the law and on comedy. My brother, yeah, so. So I’m not terribly familiar with the show. But I know about the show. And I understand. From the impressions I get that it covers, you know, activities of, I guess people who practice law, whether at the office or the courts, you know, that kind of thing. But I’m not terribly familiar with that. But you know, if, if we are dealing with Lego shows, I know things like law and order, I follow all of that. And Boston, Lego, I follow so many Lego shows, but suits, you know, is a different thing altogether. I mean, I don’t I’m not terribly familiar with suits. 

Rob Hanna 02:24 

Well, that doesn’t matter. Many of our guests have not seen it or haven’t seen it. And with that, we’ll move swiftly on and give it a zero. So to begin with, Carl, would you mind telling our listeners a bit about your background and career journey? 

Carl Unegbu 02:36 

Yeah, so I am actually a lawyer in New York City. I’m also a journalist, I trained I studied journalism, formally at an institution. So I am a lawyer and journalist. And these days, I am a blogger, and an author. But my journey to comedy writing sort of began in my days as a student, or when I initially went to cover an open mic, open mic event in the city, a show that I took in and then wrote about the show for a class assignment. And I submitted that, and I got very good grades for the assignment. It was a very, no, my professor really liked it. Then subsequently, I went back to cover more shows in the city. Not for class, though, but out of general interest in the in the art form. But so but that was my exposure to John Kennedy, right. And until I graduated from Johnson Johnson School, and then I went out there to, you know, be a journalist for a while, and then went back to the law. So I kind of straddle both worlds. That was, when I went back to the law that some friends from our colleagues approached me about this idea of starting coming to a news site, yeah, a new site that covers comedy, it was called comedy bit. So we kind of rekindled my interest in comedy writing, so I, I readily agreed to work with them on that. Yeah, on data enterprise, and we began this new site, we covered comedy in the city and around the country, and you know, overseas, too. And then on the side, we had a blog role, where we wrote different blogs covering different subjects. In my own case, I made a foray into comedy, talking about law and comedians, you know, so that was the focus of that blog that I was writing. And then, you know, I got lots of feedback from readers. You know, there were so are excited about just how refreshing and how he was such a breath of fresh air they had been dying to literally dying to come across that kind of writing. Because usually the blogs, they saw it or talked about the law, you know, from entertainment lawyers, just writing about the law, I was just about people writing about comedy, just making commentaries on comedy, but nothing that brought the two worlds together, to run in the sense. And so that was where I came in, in that intersection. And, you know, people were fascinated that there could be a blog that like, writes about the law in a way that was so accessible to them, you know, the sort of language they could find, not from the lawyer, lawyers who were writing about entertainment law, which was loaded with, you know, which was riddled with legal jargons, and legal citations, and all that still are the sort of things that lawyers obsess about. That causes lawyers to simply mostly just speak to other lawyers instead of the general public. So the public, the readers were fascinated that, you know, somebody could write in such easily accessible language, you know, sort of like, what they could have seen in people’s magazine, or the world famous page six of the New York Post, you know, that sort of thing. And then folks wanted Comey, they were happy that the law could be explained to them in that kind of way, where they could easily follow what was going on without getting lost in the weeds. The weeds of legalese, you know, so yeah, so it was it was such a was so affirming to me. So validating the commentaries the back and forth that I was doing with my readers. So I continued to write the blog and it took on a life of its own. It was just very unique. And the word that comes to mind is as regenerates, you know, it was just on its own. So, and then long story short, ultimately, the blog led to the book, and the book itself, committed goes to court, when people stopped laughing, I stopped fighting. So the book itself it contest, perhaps maybe 20% or so of the sort of the contents that I had on the blog, you know, talking about the law and comedy. So, you know, that’s how the journey evolved to this point. 

Rob Hanna 07:20 

Yeah, it’s been a great journey, I have to say, and let’s talk a little bit more about your book because it has seven chapters hashing out the deal for comedy jobs, the right comedians to free speech copying the work or appearance of somebody else, comedians getting in trouble onstage and offstage, when the funny goes silly, divvying up the dollars from comedy work and the intersection crisis, comedy and other people’s lives. So would you mind just telling us why you chose to focus on those particular topics? 

Carl Unegbu 07:51 

Yes. So thanks. Look, the book for comedian some of the reviewers of the book have described the book as a must read for comedians. And it should read for the rest of us who are not practising comedians, now, obviously, for comedians is a 360 degree coverage of their life, sort of like a cradle to grave, you know, kind of, you know, coverage of what they do like, again, like, which is so obvious from the arrangement or the book, hashing out the deal, which enables you to get to work in the candidate space, to what you can say, or cannot say, than to how you can protect your joke, which I mean, your job today as a comedian is like money in your pocket. Because what you sell is a product, a service, the comedy itself, people pay to come see the joke, so is the, that’s the product itself. So to get your joke stolen is sort of like somebody’s stealing your money. This is something comedian has done, it usually is not immediately obvious that these jokes actually money. You know, some of that money that you possess, that you need to God, as jealously as he would God other aspects of your money. So, so. So that’s that. That was the next phase, how you protect how you protect your joke. And then we go into, like, you know, sort of like, what you can think comedians do on stage and off stage that could get them in trouble. You know, and then I get to the next chapter, dealing with, you know, just things that are considered sort of funny and silly that happens, you know, you know, comedians don’t, they didn’t invite didn’t invite these things, but this has just happened to them because, you know, they operate in a crazy space in a litigious society. So you know, this lawsuits, trouble finds them so to speak. So that’s one chapter. In that chapter. I’ll discuss it when people are done. Trump when a comedian and people like, you know, John Oliver getting sued by you know, individ. So yeah, you know, just, you know, things that comedians do things that get into things that are brought to them. Yeah. And then then I get into like the money, how the money is divvied up in like, say, people who run sitcoms, let’s say the sitcom ends and there are merchandising revenues, there are syndication money rolling in, even after the show has officially ended. Now, how does that money get divvied up? Again, it gets back to the whole conversation about protecting comedians money, you know, whether you’re still on on the game, or whether you’re still on the comedy circuit, or you are now outside, you know, like retired, or maybe moved on to something else about the product you created is still resonance, you know, with the public, still bringing in revenues, maybe merchandise and, you know, marks, T shirts, all sorts of stuff. Maybe syndication? So yeah. How do you protect your right to still get the kind of money that should be do you from those residuals? And then finally, I get to what I call the intersection crisis. In other words, the relationship between comedians and individuals who are not comedians, and I have two cases from your country there, actually, you know, I mean, so I guess the point is hard to know, that when you’re with a comedian, say, in a romantic relationship, or something, or you’re married to a comedian, it’s not like being married to a doctor comedian is a different thing altogether. I mean, a lot of times, you may not want them to talk about your life with them on stage, but they do. And there is precious little that you can do to stop them from doing that. I mean, two of the cases I cover in the book, in that on that subject comes on your country. There’s this one, this guy named Steven grant that comedian. Well, so he was getting, I mean, he was going through some divorce, and there was this separation agreement that was being hammered out. And then his soon to be ex wife, sort of like tried to insist that he not that he not talk about their failed marriage on stage. And he flatly refused. He sort of said, well, no, no, no, I’ve been dying for two years, literally, to talk about this failure. This failure marriage that has now failed, so yeah, so. So she didn’t succeed in getting him to agree not to talk about that relationship on stage. And then I get another case where it was now. I think, Louis ray or something. He was not the comedian, who was talking about how fake marriage on stage she was saying something about, like, how her husband abused her during the marriage. And the guy turns around, and Sue’s her for defamation. And then she sets up a GoFundMe page and comedians rally behind. There were all these issues about free speech and all that jazz. Well, I won’t say how it ended, you might have to read the book to find out but but anyway, that’s British. And then I come back to America. Again, a case intercession crisis, where the comedian was talking about how, what it was like to be married into a Jewish family, and all the relationship and all the you know, all the things that happen with the in laws and stuff. So the in laws turn around and sue her for embarrassing the family in her comedy acts. Funny thing is her husband, Jewish guy, he’s a lawyer himself, he defended his wife in the lawsuit brought by his family against him. And then I guess the other one I talked about, too, was a case a case we had a guy who was actually a judge in a courtroom was moonlighting as a comedian. And when he moonlights as a comedian, he will talk about things like not wanting children, he will talk about race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, national origin, in a sense that, you know, created some vulnerabilities or concerns and people. So after a while, some people figured they felt well look, you know, if this judge is behaving this way, as a comedian talking about distance, showing his biases, if I can before he’s caught, if I can before him in this courtroom, I may not get a fair shake. So, you know, there were complaints and concerns and then some people tried to remove him from, you know, being a judge, you know, get him out of that place. And then the case went all the way to the New Jersey Supreme Court. They came down with a judgement. I didn’t exactly agree with the judgement but I mean, I thought, you know, things could be accommodated, you know, with proper precautions, but I guess that they saw the thing differently, but you know, a lot of people have one But whether a judge should be able to a judge should be able to work as a comedian. Well, is, is a debate that continues, but I cover that in the book. So that’s like the intersection crisis, you know how comedy intersects with non comedians and the world outside committee itself. So those are the seven chapters. But the biggest chapter in the book would be the chapter on free speech. 

Rob Hanna 15:25 

I love that and you give some really, really good good examples, actually, of, you know, some interesting and topical discussions, like you say, on the moonlighting of someone who’s who’s a judge, and I’m sure that brings a lot of interesting debate. So yeah, thank you for sort of raising some some thought provoking thoughts for myself, I’m generally our audience. So I want to ask, you know, another question around, you know, seeing in the news, comedians, behaviours, resulting them in trouble, and ultimately, expensive lawsuits. What are some of the legal implications of this? 

Carl Unegbu 15:58 

Well, the thing is, if you live in America, for instance, you can practice committed to a very extensive there’s a lot of breadth and depth to how far you can go to swing your arms freely, you know, widely, and say, all sorts of things, even things that are very offensive to people in this country, because of the First Amendment, you are still allowed to say those things to be as offensive to be as edgy, as rule breaking as you want to be. So there is a lot of leeway room for, you know, like an aggressive comedian to really, you know, let it rip until you get to the line, which is drawn at incitement you don’t There is no right to engage in speech that incites people to violence, you know, there is no First Amendment protection for that sort of speech, or speech that they’re called fighting words. You know, words that could provoke imminent a negative reaction, and maybe physical attack and from the person to whom it’s addressed. And obviously, things like obscenity, there is no First Amendment value to obscenity. So if, if your material is obscene, then the first amendment will not, you know, would not protect you. So But beyond that, I mean, that’s a very high bar. So you have a long distance to travel before you actually, you know, get to the red lines. So comedians have a lot of room for manoeuvre in this country, at least. But there are also things that could get you in trouble. If you then instead of just speaking, you start to act out in ways that sort of break the law result in maybe an assault on people or something. And then you get in trouble. Like, one of the cases I cover in the book, I think, chapter four, we’re talking about what comedians do on and off stage, there was this comedian Andy Dick, a very famous comedian. I mean, he gets in trouble a lot. But you know, he’s a pretty well known comedian, in this country, at least. So he was performing in Texas at the comic Comedy Club, and then, you know, things got hot and heavy people got excited. Now, he was wearing a skirt, and the black shirt, blouse and a skirt. He wasn’t wearing any underwear, you know, be on beneath discuss. So he was performing. So he started to walk down the aisle, and then somebody’s sitting in the audience, a comedy fan. You know, acts like ask for his autograph. So he stopped, grabbed the guy’s head and shoved it in his bare crotch. You know, which was like completely unexpected. And then he continued to work while by finished his show there, but this comedy fan just wasn’t gonna have it. He was so pissed off so offended that this behaviour was just so beyond the pale. So he sues the comedy club. He Sue’s on the deck. he sues anybody he could see he Sue’s everybody in sight literally. Well, obviously, the liability therefore the comedian is very clear. On his face, I mean, he can return a battery. You know, I saw Danbury. Now, what is the responsibility of the comedy club? Well, the comedy club didn’t have much responsibility, which is surprising, but which is maybe surprising to people. But really, the art was so unforeseeable, that there was no way you could say that the comedy club took steps or failed to take steps to prevent that kind of thing. So yeah, so that’s sort of like where lines are drawn. If you’re a comedian and you commit acts of assault, or bury on people die, and the First Amendment doesn’t protect you against those kinds of physical acts. It may protect you against words, words, you oughta onstage, but not those kinds of physical Will actions that violate or oppose rights. So yeah. So that’s sort of like the suit the kind of situation where, you know, you can’t rely on the First Amendment, a comedian could get in trouble for what he does, then again. Now, the other case, our cover concerns a situation where a comedian then was put in trouble by the negligence of the venue like this comedian George Wallace that I have in the book where he was performing, he had a residency, a residency at the Bellagio in Las Vegas, and then, so one time he was performing at an event, and then he tripped over a wire and fell and injured, you know, his Achilles heel, and you know, he got seriously injured, which took him out of work for a while. Well, he turns around and sues the venue. And the venue, obviously was negligent, because they were liable, because it was foreseeable, again, we come back to foreseeability. If the damage is foreseeable, then the venue will be liable. So in the in the anti deck case, it wasn’t foreseeable that he could suddenly behave in that way to have fun just taking in a show. But in the other case, with George Wallace, it was very foreseeable that unless you, you know, nuclear, you keep the place clear of wires and other things that people could trip on. That, you know, unless you do that, if people actually trip on those things, they could get injured. So that kind of injury was foreseeable. So those are the two extremes where in one case, it was foreseeable, and the venue was liable. In the other case, the art wasn’t foreseeable, and the venue wasn’t liable. Now, people have asked me, Well, what if a comedian just finishes a show and then he got mugged in the parking lot, walk into his car to leave the venue? Well, obviously, if he got mugged is a security problem. And the venue would be liable in that instance, because you know, again, people who are lawfully on your premises, lawful invitees, and other folks with legitimate business on your premises, they are entitled to protection from every foreseeable injury that could happen. So if they get mugged in your parking lot while trying to, you know, go and get into their car and drive off, then, you know, the basis of liability in that case is obvious. It was foreseeable. And if nothing was done to eliminate that danger, then liability attaches. So those are some of the cases I get to. Yeah, 

Rob Hanna 22:34 

I just love the sort of like breadth of of cases that you cover and very interesting stories. And, you know, it’s slightly different for us on the show, because we haven’t really gone into the world of comedy too much before. And like you say, there’s quite a lot to unpack. And I guess, coming at it from a legal perspective, again, how are the interactions of comedians with lawsuits, different from experiences with lawsuits, say, with other entertainers, actors, or magicians say? 

Carl Unegbu 23:03 

Oh yeah, well, yeah, I think, see, comedians are a different sort of community. Actors are different in the sense that you can’t really know the law pertaining to comedians from simply knowing the law pertaining to entertainer entertainers more broadly, because comedy is sort of unique in itself, because fundamentally, comedians work a lot on like, actors, musicians who work in groups, and you know, they, if you’re producing a movie, for instance, it takes a while before the movie, as before the movie is released. I mean, there’s a long gestation period from production of the movie. No, they shouldn’t have the thinner editing, and other sorts of functions that go into creating a movie. Now, they’re working group, they have a longer gestation period. And they have teams of lawyers literally, looking over the product handling things like defamation concerns, handling things like privacy rights licencing for, you know, publicity rights, you know, so those kinds of fans this or they have lawyers coming through somewhat so much of the work well, like I said, comedians walk along. They don’t, they don’t have the luxury to have a lawyer looking over their shoulders, trying to like, prevent them from saying something that could be perceived as defamatory, invasive or somebody’s privacy rights. So, right there. It’s a whole other game when you deal with comedians. So I mean, if something something is funny, they’ll go there. They don’t want lawyers telling them you know, you can say this, you can call us to them as sort of like, you know. killjoys, if you will, killjoys if you will, so they can there is no there is not that kind of logic. So those, that is the fundamental difference between a comedian and the way comedians work and the way other people walk entertainers who work in groups with longer gestation periods for their products. So yeah, there is this role of lawyers, which, you know, is different in, in each case, in each case, in the first indura case, with the folks who work in groups, lawyers are in on the ground floor front, from the front, from the very get go. From the very get go lawyers are there working with them, you know, during troubleshooting with comedians, no, a lot of times the nature of their work, their creative process, doesn’t allow for lawyers to be part of the team. A lot of times lawyers get involved. Later on down the road, especially when the trouble has arisen. When the trouble has arisen on like in the other situation with movies, and musicians and things where, you know, the collaborative, collaborative art forms where, you know, lawyers do a lot of troubleshooting before the product is even released to the public. So there is that distinction there with respect to the role of lawyers in the process. So that creates a real dividing line. But so they face they do and defence comedians do, you know, are different? And fundamentally, because like I said, you know, there’s just that situation that comedians walk alone, they can’t have lawyers just looking over their shoulders.  

Rob Hanna 26:42 

Yeah, no, it’s a very, very good point, isn’t it? You know, it is a sort of solo profession, if you like, and, yeah, maybe they don’t have all of that, you know, infrastructure support and teams looking out for the moment, you know, a lot of a lot of them perhaps, you know, get a little bit lonely as well at times. But I want to talk about the First Amendment because some of our listeners listening all around the world may not be familiar. So you know, can you explain what the First Amendment is, which you referenced earlier? And how can this first amendment protect comedians particularly?  

Carl Unegbu 27:12 

Yeah, thank you for bringing up the First Amendment. I get into that a lot in the second chapter that covers free speech. And the first amendment makes a huge, huge difference in terms of where somebody would rather be a comedian. Is it America? Or is it in Britain or Australia or some other places? Well, you know, the first amendment makes a huge intervention into in that question. Now. The whole point behind the First Amendment is the whole idea of free being able to express yourself freely. And the superior courts have said that the First Amendment the principle behind the First Amendment is that conversations about matters of public policy should be uninhibited, robust and wide open, quote, unquote. So that’s like the defining principle there uninhibited, robust and wide open, which means that it’s not even enough that what somebody has said about a public official or a public figure is not true. It may not be true, but it still doesn’t mean that you’re going to become liable for defamation. In America, or like Britain, if you say something that is false, if you make a false statement of fact, whether you did it negligently or intentionally, you know, it could render you liable for defamation. It’s like that in Canada to other places in this country in the United States. No, you have to actually show that the person had malice, what they call actual malice. That’s the standard. It was established in 1964, in a case involving the New York Times, so yeah, so since then, you know, the standard in this country, for liability for defamation, when it comes to public figures, and public affairs, and that kind of stuff, is actual malice, which means you have to show that the person made that false statement of fact, intentionally knowing it was false, without intent to hurt and wound. In other words, you know, if it was so intentional, that you knew that it was a lie, and you did it anyway, then the First Amendment doesn’t protect that kind of bad faith behaviour. Oh, if you did that, recklessly. In other words, you knew that there was a strong probability that this thing is probably false, but you said it anyway. In a reckless spirit is sort of like somebody’s trying to point point you to something that exists. You’re looking at where that kind of thing. So that kind of reckless disregard for the truth could get you in trouble. So the standard is very high. There are lawsuits that you could win in other countries that you cannot win here. For instance, you probably know a guy well, I don’t know how much you follow up comedy in your country, but you was British audiences when a guy named Frankie Boyle? Yeah. A comedian Frank Ybarra very acerbic and you know, controversial guy. So he’s one time he saw that the Daily Mirror, I think it was in 2011 for defamation that they called him a racist offence. Well, ultimately, the Daily Mirror tried to come up with this defence that would have been more appropriate in an American courtroom, rather than a British courtroom. They were saying something about well, you know, it’s a public is a matter of public interest, you know, here’s ratio, his racist behaviour, things of that. And this suggests that he got fired from a show, I think, mock the week or something. And then Tramadol nights, because of his racist behaviour, and all that kind of stuff. Well, ultimately, the court ended up saying no, and then the court said, Well, no, actually, just because he was saying those things doesn’t mean that he was racist. That was just an art form, you know, what he was doing in his art, different from, you know, what is important? So they caught, the court concluded that, no, he wasn’t, in fact, racist. And then they find the Daily Mirror a big, you know, big money, many, you know, like, about 60,000 pounds, or something about 50 or so 1000 pounds in damages for defamation, because ended up just being a false statement of fact, now, if that would have been in an American caught, for instance, it would have been that much, it would have been so much harder for the comedian to win because the First Amendment brings in this talk about actual malice. Just because, you know, it may not be true in all respects, again, it doesn’t mean that they become liable for defamation. In other words, they have to be intentionally intent, they have to intentionally mean, haha, he was right. So yeah, so the actual malice standard, which is the first amendment thing would have made it more difficult for the comedian who was a public figure to prevail. And that was also a discussion about the public interest in matters of racism and, you know, relations between communities in any society. So yeah, it would have made a big difference in that case. And, you know, I, if I had to, if I had to opine as to where that case would have gone, I would have said, it would have been the reverse of what happened in Britain, you know, that case would have been lost. And, frankly, because of this consideration, he probably wouldn’t have the Commedia probably wouldn’t have brought the suit in the first place against the media house because of the First Amendment because you know, the huddle, huddle on the path of winning that case is so high sky high that, you know, a lot of times, that consideration becomes a disincentive to even launching that kind of lawsuit in the first place. But in Britain, where there is no First Amendment, once you say it, and it’s not true, and it happens to be a false statement of fact, that damages somebody’s reputation, you’re paying for it, you go down for it. Same thing in Australia, same thing in Canada and other places. So you know, the first amendment makes a huge difference here. Now, there is a case I cover in the book from Canada, just across the border here, where a comedian attacked a kid that was disabled, the kid had this something they called Treacher Collins syndrome, that kind of, you know, deformed his face is the shape of his car, you know, everything was like, different. So this comedian attached to this kid talking about how he wanted the key to die, how the kid was so ugly, and everything. Well, the Human Rights Commission in Canada. So that imposed a serious fight against this comedian for attacking the dignity, quote, unquote, dignity and confidence of this kid in his singing ability. I mean, this kid was a super celebrity kid, because of his, you know, he sang before the Pope, he sang with Celine Dion. So he was, you know, a celebrity of sorts for a while, and then these comedians that said, Well, look, he sympathised with the kid, because he believed that the kid was going to die that a lot a long time has gone by the kid hasn’t died, that the whole thing was a scam and a fraud so he attacks the kid well, so they find them well in this country, the United States, nobody who impose a fine on you for attacking somebody’s dignity and somebody’s confidence and so he sort of said, well, you know, if you could if you could impose a fine on a comedian for making a joke, that he was sort of like giving a speeding ticket to Vin Diesel for driving too fast in the movie Fast and Furious, you know, that kind of reference? Well, if you don’t about the movie Fast and Furious, you may not get the reference but you know was expedient movie. And, you know, he said well to give a comedian a spirit, you know, to find a comedian for making a joke or sort of like to give a speeding ticket to the act of driving fast in that movie, but anyways, in this country, that wouldn’t happen ever because you know the First Amendment, you are allowed to be as offensive as you wish to be. Without any there are no Human Rights Commission’s so any, you know courtrooms courthouse got caught then you’ve got houses that would sanction you for saying something people find now the one that’s actually more outrageous from an app from an American perspective is the case of Germany. There was this comic who did did a satirical show on their TV station, I think he’s a young Bama man. So one time he did a show where he attacked the leader of Turkey, Erdogan, you know, he said something that like no one watched child porn and had sex with goats, you know, some really sick stuff that he said about Erdogan? Well, the Government of Turkey protests that the German government and for a while there, there were like frictions in interstate relations over that,over a scale that the guy made the comedian made, and then the German government actually looked into whether to prosecute this comedian or not, because in Germany, there is actually a law that could result in the violation of which could send it to prison, if you insult a foreign leader, that kind of thing. But eventually, they kind of contorted their way out of it, you know, prosecuting them saying that, Oh, he really didn’t mean, what he said, What he said was, you know, what could have happened if he would have meant it, but he didn’t mean it. So they kind of found a way to slide out of that matter, and then the diplomatic tensions, you know, cooled off, but I put that case in there to drum up to, I guess, demonstrate that, you know, these are cases that to an America will seem very strange and outrageous, because it could never happen here. You cannot have a law in this country to punish anybody for making insulting a foreign leader. I mean, it’s sort of like the comedian Jay Leno. One other case I have in this book, where he was talking about Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate in 2012. He was comparing, he was making a reference to how wealthy some of them were. So he was comparing Mitt Romney’s vacation home in New Hampshire, to the Golden Temple in Amritsar, India, that was such a temple of such spiritual significance to the Sikh community in India. So some Indian American lawyer, some Indian American here, sued him for racism for insulting the sacred religion and the Indian Country, Indian Nation generally. So he sued Jelena. And then the Indian Foreign Affairs Ministry contacted the US Department to lodge a formal protest. And then the State Department told him well, you know, look, you know, this is America, the First Amendment allows him to say, that kind of thing. We don’t endorsed what he said, but there is nothing we can do to him. So I guess I bring this up, because there are situations where foreign countries could like, the government could sanction somebody for what they said that you could never have in this country. And there are no official bodies here that could punish a comedian for you know, what he said, like what happened in Canada or the situation in Germany, we descend between the Indian Government and the State Department. So the command in this country is different like that. There are so many things you could do in other places that could get you in trouble. But if you did them here is nothing. Nobody would even think to sanction you or put any kind of penalty on you. So So yeah, so the first amendment makes a huge, huge difference here, in terms of what a comedian can do, or cannot do. 

Rob Hanna 39:05 

Yeah, no, thank you for giving, you know, some some context around that and some art, some some interesting examples. And I want to before we finish up talk a little bit about AI because you talk about in your blog, oh calls law.com. In one particular article, Sarah Silverman Sue’s chat gptc owner, should comedians be worried about AI you explore the challenges AI is presenting in society and for comedians in the legal sector. Some lawyers are wondering whether technology and AI will replace their jobs. Is AI a threat to the careers of comedians? What do you think?  

Carl Unegbu 39:49 

Yeah, well, yeah, is obviously a big problem. But I have to say that comedians will be the last group of people to be given the hook by AI, as things evolve, because comedy is sort of like very personalised, and there is a new genre of comedy that has become sort of prevalent today, observational comedy where people relate their experiences. So a lot of times, if it’s not coming from the person with experience, it wouldn’t be authentic. The authenticity factor, oftentimes, would be missing in such a scenario. It’s like, what you cannot, if you’re George Carlin is very interesting, because we have a certain situation now where George Carlin, you know, his family, you know, they’re like, so in some AI company, you know, over, claimed, you know, misappropriation of his likeness and things, but that’s a separate thing. But the thing is coming to is the last guest, though, there will be the last people standing when it comes to AI taking down, you know, people who deliver personal services, you know, maybe actors could be taken down first. But, you know, comedians, even lawyers will be taken down first before comedians. So comedians, their job is more personalised than if somebody else is doing it, or some AI creation is doing the thing, it wouldn’t be that authentic. Unless you tell people ahead of time that this is what they are coming to see, well, then you lose the surprise factor. And then, you know, it wouldn’t be the same. Against but you know, can I try? Of course, a I would try, but I don’t see how you can displace comedians with that kind of thing, because the relationship between comedians and their audiences again, it’s also sort of possible, you know, you people, like, people, I build a relationship with that, you know, favourite comedy stars and that kind of thing. It’s hard to replicate that kind of dynamic, you know, by some AI intervention. So, yeah, I would, I wouldn’t worry so much about AI. If I were a comedian, a lot of times when a comedian sues them the idea is that AI, maybe they’re like, pirating the work of a comedian, maybe. Yeah, but you know, that’s a different thing from like aI displacing a comedian, you know, like taking away their jobs, like out of Atos, we are worried at some point that, you know, AI could be used to, you know, take away their jobs and displace them. No, you can exactly displace comedians, because of the personalised nature and the observational nature of what they say. I mean, only George Carlin could relate. What happened to George Carlin is hard to come across to the audiences in the same way, if you’re using some AI model or some product to do the same thing. So yeah. Well, with respect to lawyers, I mean, I can’t tell you that there are some legal aspects of operations that could easily be displaced with AI, there are some repetitive tasks that you could find in what they call Legal discovery, you know, people make a discovery request, they are looking for documents, and you could like, have aI sift through, you know, the universe of documents, you know, there might be markers that could indicate, tends to be segregated. So yeah, I mean, it’s easier for AI to do things like that. But when it comes to more creative aspects of the law, litigation and things, I don’t see how AI could do an effective cross examination or, you know, do a fine closing statement, AI could not get things like that. But so those are higher order functions, but the lower order functions that that are replicable by machines and other devices of that nature. Yeah, it could happen, I can see that happening. But if you’re a lawyer who is into the more creative aspects of finance than AI is not, is not going to come that far.  

Rob Hanna 44:04 

Well watch this space, because, you know, ultimately, you know, it’s going to be a exciting time for AI in the right hands used in the right ways. But I think your point on comedians, in terms of you know, that human human connection, and that authenticity point, I absolutely understand and you know, you don’t want to lose that through a AI. I mean, Carl, I’ve loved learning about your stories and your book and what you’re getting up to. It’s been a fascinating discussion. Before we finish up what would be just one piece of advice you would give for aspiring lawyers, as well as aspiring comedians, fast, fast power in lawyers. 

Carl Unegbu 44:41 

If you want to practice in this area, there is a growth area. Committee has become a big today. I mean, it’s not a generation ago. If you wanted to be a comedian, your parents would probably discourage you. They might tell you to Get a job where you actually get paid them, I tell it to go become a lawyer, a doctor, a school teacher, something else. But today, comedy has come a long way, it’s not a thing in itself a career option, that could lead to a lot of money and fame if you succeed at it, like all other careers, so, so it has become a big fan. And then comedians today have become like, rockstars. When it comes to audiences, I mean, this has, you know, sold out shows what I call arena comedy. You know, in London, for instance, there’s the auto arena, here we have the Madison Square Garden, there is the there is the Mohegan Sun, I mean, these are venues that used to be the exclusive preserve of rockstars. Today, comedians could command a Ha, that kind of attention with that the money. So and then comedians now have a lot of lawsuits that have become a cost of doing business, in their careers, which is what this book is about. And this is a phenomenon that has been in place since since the 1970s, to about 1525 years ago, since 2000. of let’s say 2000. Until now, so. So it has become a growth area, so to speak, is an area that can support a full busy practice, busy, lucrative practice. So they get sued a lot, because they’ve become the new the shiny new object today, especially in a place like America, but in other societies, too. So for a lawyer, aspiring lawyer, if you like entertainment law and those kinds of subjects, yeah, this would be a wonderful area to consider, because there is a lot of work. There is a lot of work in this area. Now for comedians, what would they if you’re a new comedian? Yeah, first of all, you want to read this book to at least get a sense of how you can structure your deals, you know, sense of what you can or cannot say, and how you can protect your material, which is so crucial to your survival in your profession. So yeah, so these are the things that will be necessary to consider. I mean, like I really, really, really, really, really, this book is a must read for comedians, in that way, as some observers have described. And I chose to illustrate this book with the life stories of so many of the famous comics that people can relate to, whether it is Jerry Seinfeld, you know, John Oliver, or, you know, Jimmy Kimmel, Jay Leno, Michael O’Shea. How what Stan, did you just name it, it’s like everybody is here with their story on free speech and other sorts of things. You know, one of the reviewers one time said, if your name is not in this book, that somehow you may not be important in comedy. I mean, I wouldn’t go so far as to say that, but you know, maybe if you’re if you’re not covered in this book, you’ve been so lucky, so far not to have been sued in this all encompassing phenomenon of comedians getting sued so much. So I mean, it’s a lawsuit culture is a lawsuit culture that has arisen, and lawsuits have become a cost of doing business in comedy. So if you wish to, you know, protect yourself, your material and all that stuff, you probably want to be abreast of the legal situation with respect to what is possible and what is not allowed. So yeah, so for comedians, and for lawyers, yeah. Like I said, is a 360 degree coverage, this book for comedians, like the crowd, a credit to grave, you know, kind of coverage? 

Rob Hanna 48:49 

Yeah. And I think it’s a must. It’s an interesting book for people to definitely sort of check out and get some really great insights from and if people want to learn more about your general career journey, or indeed, oh, Kyle’s law.com. Where are the best places for them? To find out more? Also, what are some of your best sort of social media handles websites? We’ll also make sure we share them with this episode. 

Carl Unegbu 49:14 

Yeah, so obviously, they can go on my blog, overcast law.com. For my, from what I said, the blog inspired this book, and this book, if you like, the sorts of stuff this book covers, then there is more of that on the blog. Like I said earlier, this book has only like 20% At most of the sort of stuff that are on the blog. So the blog is like it gives you a welter of information on these kinds of subjects. I mean, it’s such a it’s a place to really have a field day, reading all these stories about comedians and their adventures and misadventures and what the Lord does to them and all that stuff. So I mean, and is written, but have to entertain people To give them a sense that maybe they are in a comedy club watching a show, or watching comedy roast on Comedy Central. Yeah, so this book can sort of give them that impression. You know, make them feel that way, if they don’t want to go to an actual Comedy Club, this story is so titillating and fascinating that, you know, you could make them feel that way is a good vacation, read something you could read on a couch, you know, places where you hang out. So yeah. So the blog, and then the Facebook post and the LinkedIn, you know, you can just, we can put it in the chat. But yeah, but the most obvious place is the blog. And under blog, you can learn more about other places where you could find my material. So Cass law.com will be the place to start. And of course, this book is available on Amazon, and at your local bookstore. So all you have to do is ask for it. And yeah, it’s all yours. But the book was written. The book was written as a service to the industry, also as an entertainment sort of product. And I hope people will take the book in that spirit to entertain them and then to learn about the law as well.  

Rob Hanna 51:15 

And I’m sure they will. And it was a you know, fascinating discussion, learning more about your stories and what comedians are getting up to. So I just want to say thank you so much, Carl. It’s really a real pleasure having on the show wishing you lots of continued success with your career and future pursuits. But for now, from all of us on legally speaking podcast, over and out.