Recorded Live at Fan Expo - The Law of 1985 Cult Classic Movies

We had a blast celebrating the movies from 1985 at Fan Expo San Francisco! Tune in for the live recording from our panel on November 30, 2025.

The Law of 1985 Cult Movies 

Great Scott! The Movies of 1985 are packed with legal issues! Goonies. Better Off Dead. Back to the Future. Pee Wee’s Big Adventure. These are just a few of the classic films from 1985. Join our panel of lawyers and judges as they break down whether 1980s kids could keep One Eyed Willy’s treasure; unfair debt collection by paperboys; facilitating international terrorism in order to build a time machine; bicycle larceny. These are just a few of the many legal issues from the cult classics of 1985. This, this is our time to break down the Law of 1985 Movies. Presented by The Legal Geeks.

Chapters

• 0:00 Welcome, Nostalgia, And 1985 Setup
• 1:36 The Goonies: Treasure Trove And Torture
• 7:30 Better Off Dead: Suicide Law And Debt Collectors
• 17:08 Back To The Future: Plutonium, Defense Of Others, Speeding
• 26:46 Pee-Wee: Bike Theft, Burglary, And Heroics
• 34:36 Godzilla Rights, Mattress Tags, And Myths
• 38:42 The Breakfast Club: Compelled Speech And School Rules
• 45:15 Thunderdome Contracts And Ethical Law
• 50:30 Justice, Mistakes, And Closing Thanks

Transcript

Joshua Gilliland: 0:00

Thank you all for attending. My name is Joshua Gilliland. I am one of the founding attorneys of the Legal Geeks. We've been doing uh con since 2014, and I absolutely love having a local con over Thanksgiving weekend. It's nice we don't have to hop on airplanes, don't have to drive six hours. We're here. And I I think it's important for every community to have a con, and I'm grateful that Fan Expo is here, providing this opportunity for all of us in the greater Bay Area. So let's talk about why we are here.

Michael Skeen: 0:35

And uh hi everyone, so yeah, I'm Michael Skeen. I'm also a local attorney in the Bay Area. Very happy to have a local convention. I still miss WonderCon and bitter that um they moved down to SoCal, but um glad to have Fan Expo here and glad to be here.

Joshua Gilliland: 0:49

And we are so back in 1985, depending on the month, I was 10 or 11 for these movies. So I have very fond memories of all of them. And I generally associate them with family members that I saw them with. So this has been a very nostalgic look down memory lane for these, and we'll we'll touch on that. So, the law of 1985, classic cult movies. Let's begin. So, this this is our time. So we're gonna hit on the Goonies, Better Off Dead, Back to the Future, Pee-Wee's Big Adventure, and a couple more wild cards. With that, Michael was extremely helpful with a bunch of these. So we'll start off with the Goonies, uh, which is uh a little hard to watch now. Um there were some, I don't know if I'm just like turning into a cranky old man, but it was like, wow, some of those kids were a little obnoxious. I don't remember behaving that way. Maybe it's just being aggressively 80s in the movie. But yeah, I think I was related to the main villain who said I hate kids. Also being of uh Italian descent, I I was was offended at the antagonist. So but let's get into the issue of like, could the Goonies keep the money? Keep all of that treasure? And the answer is I actually think they could. And we'll explain why. So looking at Oregon law, there's a concept called treasure trove, which is money or coins or gold or silver or bouillon, and that's been defined since the early 20th century. If found hidden in the earth or on a private place, that belongs to the king. But if it's found in the sea or upon the earth, it belongs to the finder. A treasure trove can be cups, chalices. Again, think of what's on a pirate ship. And a treasure trove is not like Roman coins because they were not made of gold. So coinage, modern coinage, mostly wouldn't qualify as treasure trove. But one-eyed Willie's treasure falls into a different category. Because it is reasonable to expect a court would find that under all of the circumstances the jewels would fit within the definition of a treasure trove that the finder is entitled to keep. Now, you might wonder, but the pirate ship sails off, which would be a hazard to navigation because no one's at the wheel. Under our navigation rules, every ship, every boat absolutely has to have a lookout. And so the Coast Guard would race out there and go take over on that highly booby-trapped ship that's now at sea. There's a concept under the law called marks of appropriation. Marbles are left on board. Is that a mark of appropriation? So there's a classic property case called Gen Vich. For the lawyers in the room that dealt with whaling. And so whale hunters would go out and they would kill a whale, and then they would put what's called a bomb lance onto the corpse of the whale if they could not haul it on board the ship. So this dead whale gets a bomb lance that says it belongs to Company X. Company Y comes along and takes the whale. The court says that's Company X's whale because it was marked by Company X. They did the hunting, they caught it, it's theirs. The Goonies do all the hard work to find that pirate ship. They leave a mark of appropriation on board. At least if I was a lawyer for the parents, that's what I'd be strongly arguing for my kid. Because we're not going to just save our house from the evil developers who want to build a country club. Again, aggressively 80s. Because nowadays, you would just have public figures bought off by the country club. An eminent domain would be put into place and they would all be displaced. You know, there's there's a way for evil to win. But this is we're you're not winning. We have our money, and we're now going to buy the country club and crush it. So, but that's that's my view. My goal?

Speaker 5: 5:52

I will say, as a counterpoint to that, uh, I think that basically he emptied the marbles out of his bag to get rid of basically worthless you know junk to fill it with uh diamonds and rubies and other very valuable gems. I think they had no idea about this whole mark nonsense, and so they uh I don't think they ever intended to make any sort of claim on it.

Joshua Gilliland: 6:16

But that's where the lawyer and the parent says, shut up. Quiet. You worked hard, you nearly died multiple times. We want to keep that, yes. That uh probably. But you you have mouth saying goodbye marbles. So we might be, I mean, like they intended that's Willie's, they wanted the rest. And so they intended to take all that they could. They did. So yes. Pardon me? Yes.

Speaker: 6:56

So, but again, there's been talking the truth a little.

Joshua Gilliland: 7:00

Well, again, look at the totality of the situation. They risk their lives to get that treasure to save their homes. There's intent there to go get the treasure. And so you then advise the client to keep their mouth shut so they don't torpedo their own case.

Speaker 5: 7:18

Yeah, because he literally lost his marbles to get the gems.

Joshua Gilliland: 7:20

Yeah, and uh and more. Now, this is where the Italian in me is like, dude, not cool. Um, they torture a child. Like, when you're threatening to put a 12-year-old's hand in a blender to get them to talk, that's torture. And Oregon doesn't define torture directly, which is weird because California does. Federal uh cases do as well. Torture has a definition under murder in Oregon. And so the way it could play out, uh for every wrong, there's a right, and you don't get to just threaten a child with putting his hand in a blender. So I would, if if I were an assistant district attorney, I'd be highly motivated uh to go over you did what to a child?

Speaker 5: 8:19

Although I would say that said, I think that even if torture not being illegal, there's still plenty of laws they could have nailed them for. I mean, yeah, he was, you know, Chunk was held against his will, which is you know, kidnapping. And then that's actually that you know, even though they didn't put his hand in the blender, threatening to is an assault because you know it was not unauthorized touching. And so I think there's a lot that a DA could work with um even without torture.

Joshua Gilliland: 8:42

Yeah, it's uh because again, they are bad guys. Uh and again, they're counterfeiting, which has its own series of crimes. So like they're in conspiracy territory, there's felony uh issues at case both federal and state, uh, but again, they should go away for a very, very long time. Now, let's pivot to Better Off Dead. I love this movie. And when it came out when I was a kid, it was one of those movies that we saw on VHS. Throw in uh one crazy summer, and you have a bunch of preteen males who absolutely love John Cusack and this goofy humor. The first John Cusack movie I saw in the theater was Say Anything, which is not similar to the two I just mentioned. So that was a rude awakening for myself and my four buddies who was were expecting a very different film. But it does talk about the serious issue of suicide. Like the my first experience with death was in 1989 when a family member committed suicide. And so, in retrospect, watching this, it's pretty dark because we have Lane Myers' spiral because his uh girlfriend, then former girlfriend, tells him, Lane, I think it would be in my best interest if I dated someone more popular, better looking, drives a nicer car. That would suck. Like that would that's a horrible breakup and uh highlights that she's a bad person and Lane could do better. But we have laws designed to protect people because we value life and we don't want anyone to harm themselves. And while there's a lot to be said for mental health and care for those who need it, we do have what's called a 5150 hold. And I believe that was based upon a model code example, because New York has the same number. And so I'm not quite sure of the history of that, but we have rules in place designed to help people if they start spiraling in this situation. So the test is probable cause has to be established. Because we just, if you're gonna take take someone under confinement, there has to be rights attached to that. We have a Fourth Amendment, you just don't arrest people. Now, California tried very hard with our homeless population, a lot of those individuals are suffering from mental health problems. So we looked at an initiative to empower the state to take people in for treatment. There's some complex issues with that of you're taking someone under confinement because we think they're a danger to themselves and maybe medication could help them. It didn't pass, but like they were counting the votes because it was a close one, uh, because a lot of people feel weird and complicated about this. Well, pivoting to what case law says, we have to establish probable cause showing that the person is detained uh because there is a mental uh disorder and that individual is a danger to themselves or is gravely disabled. Has anyone tried getting a 5150 hold on anyone? Yeah, it's not fun. So I I had a friend who she spiraled, uh, was getting ECT for depression, and ended up um ketamine would build up in her system. And that caused a psychotic break. And I was able to convince her, let's go to the ER. So she went voluntarily, so I didn't have to kick into that. But it was it's terrifying seeing someone who's very well established and in control disassociate with reality. So we have Wayne come up with plans to harm himself, attempt at hanging, tries blowing himself up, jumps off, ends up dropping off a bridge, and all of that's dark. All of that's canon fodder for there's absolute probable cause. It should not take three attempts to get to that stage that that getting that kid the help that they need. Now, this is in the aspects of a comedy, you know, as he's being driven away in the garbage truck after falling off a freeway overpass. You know, the joke is damn shame throwing away a perfectly good white boy. It's hysterical. But if you actually think about it, this is dark and terrifying because he's spiraling and the parents are oblivious to the situation. But let's talk about collection activities. And Michael, could you take this? Oh, of course. Two dollars.

Speaker 5: 14:00

I think if there's any line from the movie that you'll remember, that will be completely burned into your memory. Um so yeah, we have uh the uh Johnny the cla the paper boy, and as we know, four weeks, 20 papers means two dollars plus tips in cash. Um so what's interesting about Johnny doing the collect trying to collect from Lane is whose actual debt really is it? Does Lane actually owe money for the paper? And uh in this case, I actually don't think my you know Lane actually owes anything. In fact, you know, if it's like most uh you know households, it's the parents who made the subscription. And it must be you know the parents who are snubbing the paperboy, probably because he keeps throwing papers through garage windows. Um so but but of course he's hassling Lane. So, you know, is this acceptable? And uh the answer is no, it's absolutely not. Under California Code, section 1788.12 V, it restricts a collector from collecting communicating with the debtor's family, except where there's you know uh judgments have been obtained, which Johnny went to a lot of lengths. As far as we know, he didn't get a judgment. You'd think that would be a simpler way than the other tactics he used, but that's not what he did. That's not how he rolled. So let's assume that it's actually Lane who does owe the debt. So, under federal law, what he's doing is illegal, you know, um doing any conduct that harasses, oppresses, or abuses. Similar, California has its own you know law basically precluding that. And so let's look at some of the tactics that Johnny uses. And so, you know, there was damaging property, keeps you know, intentionally trying to throw papers through the window. Um, you know, there's endlessly harassing and stalking Lane. I mean, you know, the movie takes place in Northern California, and he follows Lane all the way to the LA Dodgers Stadium to collect, try and still collect the $2. Um, you know, he got all those, you know, when it was prom night, he got all the other paper boys to come and you know make a very intimidating show of force. You know, when he first knocked on the door, you know, he put his foot in the door so Lane couldn't close it. And then, of course, you know, he's got the very intimidating switchblade comb, which is you know the most um you know intimidating use I've seen of such a thing. So, I mean, you know, it's reasonable for Johnny to expect to collect payment, but you know, his taxes to use are legal and he's actually going after the wrong guy. Yes.

Speaker 1: 16:15

What this kind of brings up for me is access to the law for while I agree that everything that Ryan did shouldn't be illegal. I'm wondering what is actual practical um uh uh reporting pain when it's not enough to like hire somebody and don't know about the law that powerless person a little bit of money.

Speaker 5: 16:49

Yeah, that's a really good question. I mean, I think unfortunately there's really pretty limited options. I mean, even if you go to small claims court, there's a filing fee, which is a lot more than two dollars. I think probably in this case, since he's delivering a newspaper, cutting off the service is really the only thing you can do to try and you know get them to start paying if and just not deliver.

Joshua Gilliland: 17:08

And while it's very different in 2025, big newspaper was a thing. And so the the newspaper do uh starting a collection action and the newspaper going after the parents, you know, communicating with the mail, like adults, uh would be the way to do it. So it raises the question: is Johnny an independent contractor? Like how is how are they handling this? Uh because he's clearly working for the newspaper. Right.

Speaker 5: 17:38

Well it seems that the newspaper wants him to do the collecting because then he'll get a tip. Um so yeah.

Joshua Gilliland: 17:45

Yeah, it's it's a very weird employment issue as well. Uh we have the great line, you wash your hands on the your own time. No. No, no, no. So uh California law is super clear on this. You wash your hands if you're handling food. It's like you you you wear a hairnet or a chef hat to keep hair from going into the food. You wear gloves. Uh some places you'd be wearing a mask for food prep because we don't want diseases being communicated because we don't need to have another typhoid marry situation. So, again, it's super important you wash your hands. So no food establishment can have a boss say you wash your hands on your own time.

Speaker 5: 18:41

Good way to get them shut down.

Joshua Gilliland: 18:42

Yep. Sorry, your mom blew up. Uh so while I'll highlight, yeah, mom is creepy. You don't have exchange students as a form of human trafficking. Not okay. Um she's horrible. And you know, they come over, I think it's for a dinner, and might be a holiday dinner. And this is one of Lane's suicide attempts. He had planned to light himself on fire. And uh, you know, uh the mother's drinking, and she thinks she's getting a liqueur when it's more like you know, uh something highly flammable for Lane to light himself on fire with. And she puts a cigarette in her mouth because you know, classy people smoke at the dinner table, and lights herself, you know, ignites and blows up dinner. And she is the the ignition source, she's ground zero. And would the Meyer family be liable? Well, you have invitee liability, and you have to, if you're inviting people into your house, you need to make sure it's safe. And I think she could recover uh for that because they put, you know, a primer was put out on the table that she then drinks. Now, could you say there's some contributory negligence? Because why are you smoking at dinner? Why didn't you like look at what you're drinking? So, again, having contributory negligence uh is good, but their homeowners insurance would probably have to get off the checkbook on this one.

Speaker 5: 20:25

Well, I do think there was I think there is a strong case for me for contributory negligence. Because I mean it's well, one, she couldn't smell it until it was. Actually, it technically wasn't offered to her. He did put it down on the table, but she just helped herself to it, probably saying, Oh, booze, cool. And um, but it's so I think that she definitely contributed to her getting the injury. Yeah, it's yeah, 80s it was a thing lighting up uh at a kitchen table or a dining room table, and you know, that was tolerated.

Joshua Gilliland: 20:55

For the young people in the audience, you used to be able to smoke on airplanes. It was a weird time.

Speaker 5: 21:01

Yeah. I always seem to get a seat in the row right in front of where the smoking lanes start, so like, oh great.

Joshua Gilliland: 21:06

It's all over now. It's a safe place. All right, so let's talk about back to the future in plutonium. So, Michael, let's take it away.

Speaker 5: 21:17

So, uh of course we all know the flux capacitor needs 1.21 gigawatts to you know create time to get allowed for time travel. And so to do that, the quickest, you know, he didn't have access to Mr. Fusion from you know 2015 where we all have flying cars. Um, and so he needed plutonium. And so the way he got it was he worked with some terrorists and promised to make them a bomb. And if they in exchange for them getting plutonium, which if you watch from the movie, actually, in the movie credits, you hear about the theft and that the FBI ultimately writes it off as a clerical error. Um, but yeah, so he gets the plutonium. Um so any issues with owning plutonium? And it turns out quite a bit. It's uh great Scott. It actually is illegal to own plutonium. Um so you know, under 18 USC section 831, uh it's a crime for anyone who intentionally receives nuclear material in circumstances that are likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to any person. And you could it's punishable after 20 years in prison. And so he promised to make them a bomb. I mean, admittedly he never intended to, and he sent him what like a sort of bomb casing with a lot of, I think, pinball spare parts or something. Yeah, it was never gonna you know be the actual a bomb, and it certainly had no plutonium in it, but still it's it's receiving that could make it a crime. And then also it's you know, it's um another 42 USC section 2122 makes it unlawful to participate in the development of any atomic weapon. So again, that's what he promised to do. And um, but is there any kind of defense that you might say, well, but wait, I'm actually trying to make a time machine. You know, that's I wasn't trying to make a bomb. And that might get him out of you know, one of the statutes of making a bomb, but you know, the fact is that you've got plutonium and you're using it, there's always huge risk of exposing people. And you know, as you saw from Doc Brown's other experiments, they weren't all perfect and they didn't all work the way it was they were supposed to. So it was huge risk to people. So uh it is possible that he that he could get in trouble. But the good news is that we need to think fourth dimensionally. He built a time machine, so the police come after him, just go back in time or forward in time or whatever, and you know, wait for it to all blow over.

unknown: 23:28

Yeah.

Joshua Gilliland: 23:30

So I saw this movie in Ann Arbor, Michigan, visiting my paternal grandparents. So I have a strong affinity for thinking about them when this is on. And it was a pack theater that summer. People loved this movie. And there's a giant cheering scene throughout it of hey, you, you get your damn hands off her. I'll say this right. Or right, you know, George was right. George did the right thing. In addition to growing a backbone and learning to stand up for himself and others, what he did was legally right. Because there's a concept of the defense of others. It's the same family as self-defense. If someone's threatening you, you can use proportional force to save yourself. That includes third parties. Well, what does George walk in on? Sexual assault. You know, like he stops sexual assault from happening. Imagine him being prosecuted. How that plays out. Did you hit him? Yes. Why? He was trying to commit a rape. Okay. Good. Did you hit him hard? You know, it's like dAs won't bring this.

Speaker 5: 25:00

Well, you saw how all the fellow classmates had reacted to George after he'd punched him out, so I think he wouldn't have any credibility issues.

Joshua Gilliland: 25:07

Yeah, it's just it'd be like, no, you absolutely did the right thing. And which is, you know, the law, the law cares about that. Like, you know, we want people to care about each other and not let horrible things happen to others. Because we do not have a general duty of rescue. So there are cases where horrible things happen and people see it and they just keep going about their day because there's no general duty of rescue. And people might think that's dark, but like you don't have to save someone drowning. So again, yes, ma'am. Special relationship.

unknown: 25:53

Like if you're married to somebody marrying required to save it.

Joshua Gilliland: 25:56

So there are for the special relationships, it can be contractual and it can also be defined by law. So like a parent's uh liable uh responsibility for saving a kid is there. Uh they're not married yet, so again, it's she's not giving him the time of day uh because he he's a nerd. Um but nerds are people too, uh, and realizes that oh he does step up. Uh and it's not just dad ran him over, because that is a horrible way to meet someone. Um. But uh like firefighters and law enforcement can have a duty to do their job. Uh so again, there are different spins on this. But general public, no duty to rescue. This is a simple one. Uh, you cannot drive 88 miles per hour basically any place. So that's exhibition of speed. Uh there are different categories of like if it says you're in a 25 mile an hour per zone and you're going like 40, that's serious trouble. When Doc drops Marty off, that's a residential neighborhood. That speed limit would definitely be 20 at maximum 25, and he punches it up to 88 to drop them off at like 1.30, 2 o'clock in the morning. That's just not good. Um, that's how you get a ticket and a big one if you're going that far over the speed limit. Yes, sir.

Speaker 1: 27:28

Well, when they were the mall parking lot and that private property could be possibly had permission.

Joshua Gilliland: 27:33

Uh he would not have had permission. Parking lots do get weird because there's no shortage happening right now across the United States of a parent or an uncle or an aunt teaching a 15 and a half year old how to drive. That happens in parking lots all over the United States as we speak on a holiday weekend. Um that said, you um you can still have public streets like within a parking lot. Um could be private property, yeah, but there's still laws of general applicability.

Speaker 5: 28:14

Yeah, well, I think also uh the police could always like cite reckless driving. Yep. Uh it doesn't matter if they're in a parking lot or not.

Joshua Gilliland: 28:20

Yeah. So Pee-We Herman. Um my mother loved Pee-Wee Herman. I don't fully understand why that was happening in the 80s, where that was a thing. Uh but Paul Rubens was pretty darn adorable. And this movie is I mean, it's fantastic to watch. Uh it's it's a it's a wonderful cultural timestamp of how he pulled this off. Uh, because he he convinced the studio, let's do this, and they went for it. Uh but Tim Burton's Dave You. Yeah. Correct. Yeah, because of the success of this movie, Tim Burton will get Batman. Yeah. 89 Yeah, Beetle, Beetlejuice, and then Batman. And without the that series of events, we would not have the superhero movies that we have today. It's all connected. And uh, but Larceny could be you know something that's over $900, $950 in value. Well, that bicycle with all the tripped-out factors that it has on it is probably worth over a grand. Uh and 1985 money and I think in dollars today as well, because he adds lots of things to it. Uh there are generally um like three categories of taking property. Intent is required. So if somebody like there are some weird cases with bicycles. Like a kid takes another kid's bike to like punish that kid to send him a lesson, but he didn't have the intent to keep it. Therefore, it's not larceny. Mainly the kid's just a brat, and there should be other legal remedies at play. But again, bicycle theft is a real thing. I went to Davis. They were very serious about bicycles there. So did Pee-Wee have a duty to rescue the snakes? So Pee-Wee's going into that pet store on fire. And he's saving all the cute, adorable animals first, which is I'm gonna go for the puppies. Kittens, okay, they they could be a lot of like clawing action, but we're gonna go save the kittens too, because they're adorable. And each time he passes the s the snakes and like sneers at them because this does not look like a good day. And he still goes back and he gets the snakes and he comes out with a look of object terror on his face. I don't know if I could go in and save the snakes. And he's having like the full freak out, and he's viewed as a hero because of it, and thus he gets a movie deal. Uh, and the studio doesn't prosecute for what happens. He didn't have a duty to save the snakes. Now, the rule is that like if you if you're going out to rescue someone, like you can't abandon the rescue. You can't go like this dude's heavy, I'm letting go now. Like that, you've now put them in a worse situation. So you don't get to put somebody in a worse situation. But he went back for the snakes, that makes him a hero.

Speaker 4: 31:52

Yeah, yeah.

Joshua Gilliland: 31:54

Because all right, Michael, let's talk about it. I don't know why, but yes. And I my uh friend tried that in court and saying, like, hey, can we do this? And the judge paused and went, No, and I don't know why. Just just the gut feeling of mm-mm, no. All right, let's talk about retrieving a bicycle from Francis.

Speaker 5: 32:36

Yeah, so Pee-wee does some self-help, and of course he blames Francis for stealing the bike. And so he goes and he sneak he does, he's not invited to go into the house. He literally just sneaks into the house past you know the butler. And so, you know, under California Penal Code number 459, provides that any person who enters any house with intent to commit Grin or petty larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary. And so in this case, you know, he's going to reclaim his bike, he can make an argument that it's well, it was his bike, so he's not really trying to get larceny. And it's like, well, in this case it's so unique that probably would be a pretty good defense. But on the other hand, he was willing to do whatever it took to get that bike back, and including assaulting Francis in the tub. And assault is a felony, so it's quite possible that he could get hit with first-degree burglary. Fortunately, the dad, you know, was uh you know was very generous enough that he agreed that with an apology and handshaking Francis's and a handshake with Francis, that was going to be all it took. Um so fortunately that so he dodged a bullet there, but it's possible he could have been charged with burglary. Um so what about when he goes to Warner Brothers to claim his bike? Um so that's actually would be considered a second degree burglary because nobody it's not Warner Brothers studio is in what's considered inhabited, which means someone doesn't live there. Yeah, because it's a how because it's somewhere where someone lives, that's a lot more serious crime, and so it would still be would not be so it would still be serious, but it wouldn't only be second degree. And again, he got lucky because the studio decides to actually get his life story, and we got a great inside, you know, uh movie within a movie starring James Brolin. Um by the way, his son, you know, his movie debut was Goonies. And um, you know, so it all worked out again, you know. Um so that that was very fortunate.

Joshua Gilliland: 34:26

And this also the fact that we get a Godzilla uh King Ghidorah like cameo in this is pretty phenomenal because Toho's very protective of Godzilla's IP rights. In the mid-80s, there was an attempt to make an American Godzilla movie, Godzilla vs. Griffin. And it was William, not Nolan, um oh golly, I'm blanking. Uh he's done lots of famous art, um, lots of storyboards, cover art for albums. Um Stout, William Stout. Uh so he was he was leading that charge. Uh Too Many Williams. And uh it failed, and it was about this time. So the first American Godzilla movie is not until 1998, to which the Japanese properly come back and do Millennium and 2000 because of the unpleasantness. Yeah, because it was such a great movie. Yeah, it's like it was so close. And so seeing this, because again, one crazy summer has a Godzilla suit cameo as well. So again, it's it's fun to see where Godzilla pops up in American culture uh because there was it's highly protected. We're not it we're in a golden age right now. This is the best time to be a nerd loving Marvel or Godzilla kaiju. Uh we've even had a camera anime, so like this is a golden age. Yes, sir.

unknown: 35:53

That movie Godzilla 1985, was that one?

Joshua Gilliland: 35:56

It was. And so, now granted, so you have the American version of so Godzilla SideQuest, so Godzilla, Return of Godzilla or Godzilla 1984 is the what comes out in Japan. And so, and following what they did with the uh first Godzilla movie, you get the Raymond Burr version, and which does get some changes because Raymond Burr is then added as reporter Steve Martin to that. And so there are some story differences, like in the original version, the Soviet agent is trying to stop the missile launch. In the American version, he's executing the missile launch, and so there's some weird Cold War overtones to it, but uh it's still uh again, it's it's a fun rights issue. Uh and and in that birthday I had in '85, my mother did a Godzilla cake.

Speaker 4: 36:57

Nice.

Joshua Gilliland: 36:57

Yes. So let's talk about mattresses.

Speaker 5: 37:02

So probably one of the most, you know, kind of infamous laws, or at least most misunderstood laws out there, is that you know it's uh illegal to cut off a tag on a mattress. I know that like growing up, we all had these urban legends about if you cut it off, they're gonna send you to jail. And so, you know, can you really actually get sent to jail for doing that? And so in this case, really what the statute's meant for is has nothing to do with us the consumer, and it's basically the manufacturer and whatever middle middleman that's you know selling it. And the reason for the tag's existence is the what materials were used to go into a mattress. So if you want to buy a mattress that's got specific materials, that's the tag kind of ensures that has it. So when you go to like say, you know, um, you know, one of those, you know, a store to go buy a mattress, you know, you can say, This is what I want. You can see the tag, it's there, and so not an issue. Um, but then when you take it home, like I said, it's it's about prior to the product being sold and delivered to the ultimate customer. So you can take it home and cut off that tag as much as you want. Um, you know, don't worry about that. And the other thing about this is I can't imagine anybody would actually get sent to jail for violating this. It's probably a big penalty fine that will be assessed against whatever company. So I'm a feeling I'm a feeling Mickey was locked up for something else. He just wasn't being an honest with Pee-Wee.

Joshua Gilliland: 38:20

Yeah, I don't think the FBI or local law enforcement has mattress squads kicking down doors with warrants. I just I mean that would mean we solved all other crime. Like we're now at the low end of like, well, we're bored. What do we do here? All right, so let's talk about the Breakfast Club. So again, I I'm turning into the dad from from um Footloose because watching the beginning of this, like when they're all in there, there are a couple of the kids who are just so obnoxious. Like, and I will say, throughout elementary school, middle school, and high school, I never had detention. I was that boring kid. Did not get in trouble. So we have all these kids at Saturday school, and they're given the assignment to write a thousand-word essay saying, Who are you? Is that compelled speech? Can a school require kids to write an essay on who am I? And the answer is yes. Because uh there are some really unique First Amendment issues with schools and with students. So uh the First Amendment prohibits compelled speech, and I'll get into an example of that. Schools can compel some speech, or else there would be no consequences for the students refusing to do homework. You know, a kid can't say, math hurts my feelings, so I will not do algebra. And it's like, sorry, dude, like you're gonna have to learn what a vowel is. You're gonna have to conjugate a verb. Uh this is what you have to do. And then when you get into the issue of compelled speech, is courts consider whether school compelled speech serves a legitimate educational purpose uh and that they've recognized that it depends on the age and the maturity of the students involved and their ability to learn the lessons uh uh you know uh assigned for the for the instruction. So there was a wild case about 15 years ago where high school girls were sending topless photos, and a DA decided to uh have them arrested, and he threatened, he brought all the girls in and their parents, and he threatened to prosecute them and that they would be uh convicted as sex offenders unless they wrote essays about the dangers of what they were doing and also throw in random drug testing because you wouldn't send a topless photo unless you were on drugs. And um uh that was really dumb of the DA to deal uh because the parents went, screw you, and they called the ACLU. And the ACLU curb stomped the DA because that was compelled speech, and the random drug testing was just being vile. And uh so they it was like they weren't actually brought into court and arraigned, it was a threatened prosecution, which also has problems associated as well. And so uh justice won, and I hope that DA lost re-election. Uh, because it was just like you're vile, you're horrible. But if you cut class and you get brought in, writing an essay on who are you, that's gonna be permissible.

Speaker 5: 42:04

Well, let me ask you a question, Josh. Yes. So um, with the exception of Judd Nelson's character, we know it's probably gonna be in detention until forever. Yeah, the side was they're each supposed to write an essay, but actually one guy wrote an essay for all five of them. Would that be would the principal be justified saying nope, none of you complied with detention and you're all coming back next next week?

Joshua Gilliland: 42:26

Yeah, I mean again, I'm I'm turning into the the turning into the principal, they're turning into the uh from Footloose. Because like, or you know, again, the the you know, teacher in you know fast times at Ridgemont High, you don't get to order a pizza in class. You just don't get to do that. Like you're here to learn, and we want you to have good character, we want you to make good life choices, we want you to succeed in life. And there are lots of ways for creative expression and to be yourself and to have adventures and to be you. That's radically important. That's the purpose of America. But we also want people to be educated because having a democracy requires the public to know what's going on and have critical thinking skills. That's going to require reading. That's gonna be require understanding what's fake news and a deep fake versus reality. And that starts young. So I would say you guys skip the assignment. But again, I'm getting grumpy and old. Yes, sir.

unknown: 43:30

Would the teacher get in trouble for not properly supervising the other?

Joshua Gilliland: 43:33

Would the teacher get in trouble for not properly supervising? Yeah.

Speaker 5: 43:39

Well, remember, he had to pay off the janitor because he was going through personnel files he shouldn't be.

Joshua Gilliland: 43:44

Yeah. Yeah, and it's uh again, it's like there's some aggressive 1980s motifs that happen in these movies. It's like, I remember the 80s. That didn't happen. Yeah.

Speaker 5: 43:57

Also, I mean, just that actor, I mean, um, I'm sure he's a perfectly nice person, but has anyone seen him in a role where he's actually likable? I mean, he's pretty much, you know, consistently villain.

Joshua Gilliland: 44:06

Yeah, it's like there are those some who are like always the bully.

Speaker 5: 44:08

But I'm sure he's the nicest guy around.

Joshua Gilliland: 44:10

Yeah. Probably a sweetheart. So, Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome. Because let's face it, Tina Turner is pretty awesome. Uh, but yeah, who needs another hero? Um, but we have the contract remedy of bust a deal, face the wheel. And when you seek damages from contract, you want the benefit of the bargain. Like if the contract was for replacing the tires on your car, the remedy is replacing the tires on your car or getting new tires. Like that's the purpose of that contract. Well, we have a performance contract here. Now, there were some mitigating circumstances on whether that contract would violate public policy when it's like go kill someone, because we don't enforce that. But the idea of we're gonna spin and wheel to find out what the remedy is, that's not how contract law works. There's nothing predictable about that. You're not getting the benefit of the bargain, you're getting something random. And that game of chance is not how contract disputes are solved.

Speaker 5: 45:22

Uh if we go past you know making the sausage, uh, arguably some of the settlements that happen, they might as well have spun the wheel.

Joshua Gilliland: 45:28

Yeah. And again, it's just one of the beautiful parts of this movie is the ending where it just says, for Byron. Who was that? And so we now want to live in an age with Google, so we could figure that out. But it's just like somebody loved that guy, and they dedicated a movie to him, and it was just that simple goodbye of for Byron, which is a beautiful way to remember someone. Yes. Spinning the wheel. That's an interesting question of w if you put in spinning the wheel as a remedy. I would hope that the the wheel options are then listed so that way it's predictable. I think that I think that's a colorful argument.

Speaker 5: 46:23

I think all as long as all well we're within public policy, and you know, um, yeah, I think that that's yeah, because it's it's you go in knowing the risks.

Joshua Gilliland: 46:31

Yeah. Other questions? Yes, ma'am.

unknown: 46:37

Um I have more question that you kind of touched on it a little bit.

Speaker 3: 46:42

Um so this center is not a lawyer. Uh but um I did have to take a uh long non-profit class.

unknown: 46:54

And uh I literally don't remember any of the actual. Um but my biggest takeaway from that class was just because it's legal doesn't mean it's possible. And uh like, you know, and the big example are like, you know, slavery wasn't equal, and it wasn't equal.

Speaker 3: 47:14

Uh well, yeah, but yeah.

Joshua Gilliland: 47:16

Yeah, natural law would disagree, but go on.

Speaker 3: 47:19

Uh but like uh so like when you have lay people who don't, and I also feel like a lot of times people think they know the law and they don't, and it's like they're like, no, you can't know that the law it is actually quite a law a lot. And um, so like where where does the test come to make law and ethics match?

Joshua Gilliland: 47:46

So the question is where does the ethics come from making law and ethics meet? So the uh thoughtful question, the way I look at it is uh history bends towards justice. And just because what the Nazis did and saying anyone who has one-sixteenth Jewish blood should be put to death, or what the South did in saying anyone with one-thirty second African blood should be enslaved, notice one-thirty-second they were auctioning white people off before the Civil War. Uh, that doesn't make it right. And that's why we had war crimes trials for the monsters in Germany. And why we paid a heavy toll with a civil war because of gross injustice taking place. Just because people pervert the law for their own ends does not mean that it's just. And it means that there will be those called lawyers. It will take a hell of a fight to make sure that right makes right as opposed to might makes right, because might doesn't make right, it just makes bullies. And sometimes you need might to fight back. Uh, but again, this is very much Lincoln on you do not get to do that. So, uh, but again, thinking back to Lincoln and Gettysburg and the second inaugural is left for the living to make sure that you know the our great experiment does not perish from the face of the earth. So that's why we have laws. That's why we do things to make sure people get fed, that's why we do things to protect people, and that people can live free. That's the entire purpose of law for a civil society. Because we're not agrarian, we're not just all living out in the woods. We have laws so we can be a civil society.

Speaker 5: 49:45

That's also where the you know checks and balances are supposed to work. I mean, because you know the courts, you know, generally move very slowly. Um, you know, but we've got you know the you know, Congress that makes the laws, the courts to say what the law is, and the executive branch that executes the law. Usually Congress is probably the quickest it can act by you know impassing laws, but then it's you know, what if it's a wrong law? That's where we go to the courts, and then also also where the executive branch comes into play, and if it's you know, there's unethical issues which we've seen in history, they're like, we're not gonna enforce this law the way you know you say it's supposed to be enforced.

Joshua Gilliland: 50:20

Yeah. And we've also made mistakes, lots of them, with the best of intention.

Speaker 5: 50:25

Yeah.

Joshua Gilliland: 50:26

So after after the horror of the Indian Removal Act in 18 uh 32, we tried making amends back in the you know 1880s. And the we thought, well, let's make reservations. Again, horrific outcome with the best of intentions trying to correct a prior wrong. So we make mistakes, that's who we are, but we then try to rise up and do the right thing afterwards. So again, never give up. Look ahead. And when you think of the law in those terms that we're supposed to make a more perfect union. It doesn't say make a perfect union. Uh we're gonna do our best. So with that, our time's up. We'll hang up outside. Thank you all for attending. Yeah, thank you very much. Enjoy the rest of your time.