Keslowitz 29 6

KESLOWITZ.FINAL.
VERSION 5/25/2008 4:56:25 PM
THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW:

HOW HOMER SIMPSON AND JACK BAUER
INFLUENCE CONGRESSIONAL LAWMAKING
AND JUDICIAL REASONING
Steven Keslowitz*
INTRODUCTION
Although Homer Simpson’s hometown of Springfield, USA is

reportedly the town with the nation’s lowest voter turnout,1 at least two
of its residents are extremely politically active. On October 12, 2007,
the United States’ House Energy and Commerce Committee minority
staff published a press release devoted entirely to summarizing the
remarks at a press conference featuring Springfield residents Mayor
Diamond Joe Quimby and wealthy nuclear power plant owner C.
Montgomery Burns. The pair expressed bipartisan support for the
reauthorization of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program
(SCHIP), a source of great conflict between President Bush and
Congress.2 Appearing at the end of the press release was the disclaimer
*Incoming Executive Editor, Cardozo Law Review, J.D. Candidate (June 2009). First and
foremost, I would like to thank my parents, Alan and Helene, for their constant support,
inspiration, and unconditional love. Thank you also to my brother, Justin, for his support and
eagerness to discuss The Simpsons and 24. Special thanks to Professor Minzner, Professor
Bierschbach, and Professor Goodrich for their invaluable advice and encouragement throughout
law school as well as their comments during the Note writing process. Thank you also to Daisuke
Beppu (Senior Articles Editor extraordinaire) for his invaluable comments on the Note and
insights into both television shows, some of which found their way into this Note. Thank you to
Joseph Mueller, Timothy Yip, Carrie Maylor, Laura Barandes, Deric Behar, and the other
members of the Cardozo Law Review for their support for the Note as well as the time spent
commenting on drafts. Finally, a special nod to both Homer Simpson and Jack Bauer—without
you this Note simply could not have been written.
1 In The Simpsons season seven episode entitled Two Bad Neighbors, Former President
George H.W. Bush moves to Springfield upon his return to private citizenry. Former first lady
Barbara Bush cited the fact that Springfield has the lowest voter turnout in America as one of the
couple’s main reasons for moving to the town. The Simpsons: Two Bad Neighbors (Fox
television broadcast Jan. 14, 1996); see James A. Cherry, The Simpsons Archive, Two Bad
Neighbors, http://snpp.com/episodes/3F09.html (last visited Oct. 27, 2007).
2 Press Release, House Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans, Bipartisanship on
SCHIP! (Oct. 12, 2007), available at http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/News/
PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=6636 (last visited Oct. 27, 2007).
2787
KESLOWITZ.FINAL.VERSION 5/25/2008 4:56:25 PM
2788 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6
“Actual facts and events may vary, but really, how much?”3
Similarly, Justice Antonin Scalia referenced fictional super-agent
Jack Bauer from the television show 24 when debating the legal
defensibility of torture with a group of judges in Ottawa, Canada in June
2007.4 The relevance of both The Simpsons and 24 in the legal and
policymaking arenas is demonstrated by numerous references to these
shows in law journals, Congressional hearings, and judicial opinions.5
On a broader scale, the references to these shows within contemporary
legal discourse mirror a tendency of legal professionals to be influenced
by aspects of popular media.
The influence of popular culture on law is pervasive. Popular
culture’s impact on the development of specific areas of the law is
demonstrated, for example, by legislators’ use of Hollywood movies as
points of reference for the enactment of anti-stalking legislation in
California. As scholar Orit Kamir documents, reliance on depictions of
stalkers in popular movies adversely affects the way anti-stalking
legislation develops.6 If the public is influenced by popular culture’s
inaccurate portrayals of both the functions and purposes of law, and
legislatures (in order to please their constituents) respond to the public’s
desires for reforms based on those depictions, the legislature will enact
legislation tailored not to real-life situations but rather those created by
the entertainment industry. Because both The Simpsons and 24 address
legal issues and influence the viewing public’s conceptions of the
purposes and functions of law, both shows, based on the stalker
legislation paradigm, can potentially influence the enactment of
legislation. Both shows lay the groundwork for real influence in both
the legislative and judicial contexts.
*****
Alexis de Tocqueville observed that “[t]he spirit of the law . . .

infiltrates through society right down to the lowest ranks, till finally the
whole people have contracted some of the ways and tastes of a
magistrate.”7 As law and popular culture scholar Richard K. Sherwin
pointedly notes, however, Tocqueville’s insight tells only part of the
story.8 The reverse of Tocqueville’s observation rings true in the
3 Id.
4 See infra note 171.
5 See infra notes 92-100, 117-23, 141-60 and accompanying text.
6 See, e.g., Gad Barzilai, Culture of Patriarchy in Law: Violence from Antiquity to Modernity
38 LAW & SOC’Y REV. 867, 871 (2004) (reviewing ORIT KAMIR, EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE:
STALKING NARRATIVES AND THE LAW (2001)). See generally ORIT KAMIR, FRAMED: WOMEN
IN LAW AND FILM (2006) (discussing the impact of Taxi Driver on anti-stalking legislation).
7 ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA 268-70 (Doubleday 1969) (1835).
8 Richard K. Sherwin, Foreword: Law/Media Culture: Legal Meaning in the Age of Images
2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2789
context of contemporary American legal discourse. While the law

shapes the way society functions, it is also true that popular perception
of the law—as evidenced by critical interpretations of contemporary
popular culture9—influences the way law develops.10
Public perception of the law is heavily influenced by the images
shown and ideas expressed by the mass media,11 television in
particular.12 This Note challenges the notion that popular television
shows mainly impact perceptions of the law held by the general public
and have little impact on the legal community at large, in particular
judicial reasoning. The Note provides a new perspective on emerging
studies of the influence of television shows on the law by arguing that
judicial, legislative, and scholarly references to two prime-time
television shows—The Simpsons and 2413—adversely affect the legal
reasoning employed by judges, legal academics, and policymakers.
Part I draws upon specific examples of manifestations of the law in
both The Simpsons and 24, and analyzes the ways in which each series
uses the law to express ideas about the world. Part II examines the
relationship between legal culture and popular culture, specifically
Symposium, 43 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 653, 653 (2000).

9 Law and popular culture scholar Lawrence M. Friedman defines “popular culture” as “the
norms and values held by ordinary people, or at any rate by non-intellectuals” as communicated
in works “whose intended audience is the public as a whole.” Friedman defines “legal culture as
“ideas, attitudes, values and opinions about law held by people in a society.” Finally, “legal
popular culture” consists of those “attitudes about law which ordinary people or more generally
lay people hold.” Lawrence M. Friedman, Law, Lawyers, and Popular Culture, 98 YALE L.J.
1579, 1579 (1989).
10 See Austin Sarat, Living in a Copernican Universe: Law and Fatherhood in A Perfect
World, 43 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 843, 847 (2000) (“[T]he proliferation of law in film, on television,
and in mass market publications has altered/expanded the sphere of legal life itself.”).
11 See, e.g., David A. Harris, The Appearance of Justice: Court TV, Conventional Television,
and Public Understanding of the Criminal Justice System, 35 ARIZ. L. REV. 785, 786 (1993)
(today, “popular culture virtually creates the picture people have of criminal justice); Sherwin,
supra note 8, at 654-55 (“American law cannot be, and historically speaking never has been,
insulated from American popular culture.”).
12 See, e.g., Dr. Kimberlianne Podlas, “The CSI Effect”: Exposing the Media Myth, 16
FORDHAM INTELL. PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 429, 448 (2006) (exploring the contours of the
argument that “people who watch a great deal of television will come both to perceive the real
world to match the one on TV and adopt attitudes conforming to that visage”); Maurice Vergeer
et al., Exposure To Newspapers and Attitudes Toward Ethnic Minorities: A Longitudinal
Analysis, 11 HOW. J. OF COMM. 127, 130 (2000); Thomas C. O’Guinn & C. J. Shrun, The Role Of
Television In The Construction Of Consumer Reality, 23 J. CONSUMER RES. 278, 280 (1996). A
number of articles have examined the palpable effects of television shows on public perception of
the law. See, e.g., Steven D. Stark, Special Issues and Topics: Perry Mason Meets Sonny
Crockett: The History of Lawyers and the Police as Television Heroes, 42 U. MIAMI L. REV. 229,
230 (1987) (“Prime time television drama has the power to change—and has in fact changed—the
public’s perception of lawyers, the police, and the legal system.”).
13 I have chosen 24 and The Simpsons as my focus in this Note because of both the popularity
of these television shows and their hypothesized influence in American society. Furthermore, I
believe that it will be interesting to discuss both shows because of the fundamental differences in
the ways in which each series tackles legal issues and influences law in society.
focusing on the cultivation theory and the influence of popular culture

on public perception of the law. Part III argues that the influence of The
Simpsons and 24 has crept into the reasoning process of contemporary
American legal discourse, particularly judicial reasoning. This is
demonstrated by judicial reliance on both Homer Simpson and Jack
Bauer as primary frames of reference in the contexts of employment and
terrorism cases, respectively. Finally, this part argues that judicial
reliance on these extralegal sources has adverse consequences, and,
from a normative standpoint, impedes the proper functioning and
development of the law.
I. 24, THE SIMPSONS, AND THE LAW
A. The Simpsons and the Law
No television show in history has tackled as many important issues

within contemporary society as The Simpsons has over the course of its
20-plus year run.14 With more than 400 episodes and a full-length
feature movie, The Simpsons has come to both define a generation and
document important changes in society.15 Most importantly, however,
The Simpsons, through its unabashed use of satire to depict society, has
helped to forge a new way of thinking about the world in which we
live.16 Despite The Simpsons’ frequent commentary on the legal
14 For a thorough analysis of many of the issues addressed by The Simpsons over the course
of its prime-time run, see infra note 96. In documenting both the success and the influence of The
Simpsons, New York Times film critic A.O. Scott writes that “Nothing has summed up the
promise and confusion of American life in the post-cold war era better than The Simpsons.
Nothing else has harnessed the accumulated energies and memory traces of the civilization with
so much intelligence and originality.” A.O. Scott, Homer’s Odyssey, N.Y. TIMES, Nov. 4, 2001
(magazine), at 43. And, as Time Magazine’s James Poniewoznik rhetorically asks, “Is there any
situation without a suitable Simpsons quote?” James Poniewoznik, 100 Best TV Shows of All-
TIME, TIME, Oct. 2007. See STEVEN KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS:
WHAT OUR FAVORITE TV FAMILY SAYS ABOUT LIFE, LOVE, AND THE PURSUIT OF THE PERFECT
DONUT 27 (2006) [hereinafter KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS] (“It is
certainly possible to ignore the influence of The Simpsons, but it is more difficult to deny the very
existence of this influence.”).
15 See KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at 27.
16 Id. at 15-27. Like Socrates, who proclaimed that “the unexamined life is not worth living,”
The Simpsons constantly questions the status quo, undermines figures of authority, and urges fans
to think critically about the world. In this way, The Simpsons utilizes satire in order to bring
about social changes. Despite these observations, however, The Simpsons often does support the
status quo. Id.; see also Kevin K. Ho, Comment, “The Simpsons” and the Law: Revealing Truth
and Justice to the Masses, 10 UCLA ENT. L. REV. 275, 288 (2003) (The Simpsons “ventures into
the realm of socially corrective satire; it is not only reflective of a flawed legal system, but also
represents an attempt to change the system as well.”). Ho continues: “‘The Simpsons’ uses the
age-old form of satire to convey modern and relevant messages regarding the failings of
American society, especially with regard to the legal system.” Id.
system,17 there has not been a great deal of literature specifically

addressing The Simpsons and its relationship with the law.18
Law and the pursuit of justice are central themes explored by The
Simpsons.19 The series has devoted entire episodes to contested legal
issues such as gun control, gay marriage, the viability of prohibition
during the 1930s, the viability of the necessity defense in the context of
American criminal law, capital punishment, and many others.20 Thorny
legal issues have appeared on The Simpsons since the series first aired
as shorts on the Tracey Ullman Show in 1987,21 and then as a prime
time cartoon in 1989.22 These legal dilemmas range from the
mundane23 to highly theoretical problems.24 There have been countless
17 Various characters on The Simpsons have provided commentary on the legal profession. In
one episode, for example, C. Montgomery Burns expresses his disdain for lawyers, referring to
his highly paid legal team as “vipers” and declaring that they “live on personal injury . . .
divorces . . . and pain and misery.” The legal team then validates Burns’s points regarding the
coldness of lawyers, by advising Burns to offer Homer Simpson a small settlement amount,
which will cause Homer to “be so dazzled [that] he’ll sign anything you shove under his nose.”
The Simpsons: Brother, Can You Spare Two Dimes (Fox television broadcast Aug. 21, 1992). In
another episode, a lawyer who is on the verge of death advises onlookers to remember him “as a
drain on society.” The Simpsons: My Mother the Carjacker (Fox television broadcast Nov. 9,
2003).
18 Some writing has been devoted to The Simpsons and the law, though most of the literature
in this area provides a largely descriptive account of legal references on The Simpsons. See, e.g.,
Ho, supra note 16; Larry M. Wertheim, The Law of The Simpsons, BENCH & BAR OF MINN., Feb.
2003, available at The Simpsons Archive, http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/ lawsimpsons.html
(last visited Sept. 9, 2007).
19 On The Simpsons, the law is sometimes seen as both an equalizer and a vehicle to achieve
justice; this has angered Mr. Burns, who once exclaimed that “[t]his is America—justice should
favor the rich!” Burns has used the legal system to his advantage as well: he has threatened to use
his ten high priced lawyers to stave off potential lawsuits from angry employees, such as when
Marge Simpson alleged employment discrimination when Burns fired her as a result of her
refusal to date him. The Simpsons: Marge Gets a Job (Fox television broadcast Nov. 5, 1992).
20 See generally KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14;
Ho, supra note 16, at 275; Wertheim, supra note 18.
21 KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at 277.
22 Id. at 279.
23 Mundane legal issues constantly arise on The Simpsons. See, e.g., The Simpsons: Realty
Bites (Fox television broadcast Dec. 7, 1997) (real estate law). Sometimes, the characters engage
in certain actions specifically to circumvent the legal system. See, e.g., The Simpsons: The
Twisted World of Marge Simpson (Fox television broadcast Jan. 19, 1997) (a franchisor advised
Marge to stage a fake ticker-tape parade in order to escape littering laws); The Simpsons: The
Mansion Family (Fox television broadcast Jan. 23, 2000) (Homer avoided local prohibitions on
alcohol consumption by sailing to international waters).
24 Some of the more theoretical legal issues on The Simpsons have arisen in the context of
American criminal law. See, e.g., The Simpsons: Homer Badman (Fox television broadcast Nov.
27, 1994). (Groundskeeper Willie’s cultural defense); The Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror IX:
Hell Toupee (Fox television broadcast Oct. 25, 1998) (degree of efficacy of capital punishment);
The Simpsons: Sideshow Bob Roberts (Fox television broadcast Oct. 9, 1994) (viability and
fairness of fundamental aspects of American law); The Simpsons: Trash of the Titans (Fox
television broadcast Apr. 26, 1998); The Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror XV: The Ned Zone (Fox
television broadcast Nov. 7, 2004) (viability of the necessity defense in the context of American
criminal law).
references to the legal profession on The Simpsons,25 and the American

legal system has been portrayed in both positive and negative lights.26
Characters on the series often find themselves in legal quandaries and
seek the advice of lawyers such as Lionel Hutz, whose law firm is
named “I Can’t Believe It’s A Law Firm.”27 The Simpsons has also
employed some legal terminology in certain episodes, thereby teaching
definitions of certain legal terms to its audience.28
B. 24 and the Law
24 has also examined a number of cutting edge legal ideas,

including the legality of torture, detainment centers, racial profiling, the
viability of the necessity defense in criminal law, the viability of self-
defense and duress defenses, the proper definition of treason, proper
treatment of prisoners, and many other legal issues pertaining to striking
the proper balance between maintaining civil liberties and protecting the
nation from harm.29 As the pre-eminent post-9/11 drama/thriller, 24 has
tackled dilemmas on the television screen that had generally (with some
exceptions) been confined to the pages of scholarly articles and books.30
25 For a satirical critique of the judicial role in an overloaded court system, which does not
really solve problems at all, but simply allows litigants to go home only to have them often return
for future transgressions, see The Simpsons: The Parent Rap (Fox television broadcast Nov. 11,
2001).
26 See, e.g., The Simpsons: Das Bus (Fox television broadcast Feb. 15, 1998) (perceived
injustices and bright spots of the American legal system explored through a mock trial put on by
Springfield schoolchildren); The Simpsons: Bart Gets Hit By a Car (Fox television broadcast Jan.
10, 1991) (legal and medical professionals’ manipulation of the court system); see generally Ho,
supra note 16; Wertheim, supra note 18.
27 Hutz has been shown not to be familiar with legalese; in one instance, for example, Hutz
moved for a “bad court thingy,” only to be informed by the presiding judge that the proper name
is a “mistrial.” Hutz also claimed to have argued “in front of every judge in the state—often as a
lawyer!” The Simpsons: Burns’ Heir (Fox television broadcast Apr. 14, 1994). Other
Simpsonian satire with respect to lawyers and judges abound. C. Montgomery Burns, for
example, keeps 10 high-priced lawyers stored away in the closet of his office. Jurors, like Homer
Simpson, have been shown to be sleeping during the trial, mildly reflecting the alleged juror
misconduct in the U.S. Supreme Court Tanner case. See Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107
(1987); The Simpsons: The Boy Who Knew Too Much (Fox television broadcast May 5, 1994).
28 In the episode The Boy Who Knew Too Much, Homer Simpson, after demonstrating his
boredom while on jury duty, requested definitions of the words “sequestered” and “deadlocked.”
As Kevin K. Ho writes, “[t]his scene draws its humor from the common perceptions that jury
duty is a bore and a burden, that jurors do not take their duty seriously, and that laypeople do not
understand legal jargon. Thus, it calls into question the integrity of the jury system itself.” Ho,
supra note 16, at 287. The Simpsons: The Boy Who Knew Too Much (Fox television broadcast
May 5, 1994).
29 See generally Steven Keslowitz, The Tao of Jack Bauer (Dec. 16, 2007) (unpublished
manuscript, on file with author).
30 24 adds an important visual element to many of the ongoing debates regarding the pros and
cons of legalizing torture. See id. at 30-50 (discussing 24’s visual depiction of the “ticking time
bomb” torture scenario in the context of the debates between Harvard law professor Alan M.
Moral and ethical quandaries abound on the series, inspiring much

debate as to the possible connection between law and morality.31
Viewers are expected and urged to think critically about the
diverse points of view with respect to these controversial areas.32 As a
result of fictional federal agent Jack Bauer’s frequent use of torture,
Bauer has testified in front of 24’s (fictional) Congress regarding the
legality of his actions.33 Real-life politicians have professed their love
for the series.34
Episodes aired during the second and sixth seasons have explored
the statutory interpretation of the fourth provision of the 25th
Amendment.35 When lawyers appear on the series, they are generally
portrayed as meddlers, as they attempt to prevent the controversial (and
possibly illegal) actions that federal agents seek to take in order to save
the nation from harm.36 Lawyers are also shown to work to prevent the
racial profiling of minority groups.37 While engaged in an intense
debate regarding the practicality of the employment of specific security
measures during season six, Chief of Staff Tom Lennox told Sandra
Palmer that her views would make for a “wonderful Law Review
Dershowitz and Harvey A. Silvergate).

31 Id. at 79-101.
32 A healthy, well-functioning legal system requires that our citizenry remain educated with
respect to the justifications for and underpinnings of the law. See Harris, supra note 11, at 786
(“Accountability requires accurate information” on the part of the citizenry). An open, vibrant
discussion of diverse viewpoints is vital to maintaining a system of accountability with respect to
our institutions. Because torture is a subject that is hotly contested among scholars and engulfs
the passions of debaters, we can all benefit from intellectual discussions regarding its possible
use. And 24 serves as a remarkable springboard for engaging in the debate. But cf. Sam Kamin,
How the War on Terror May Affect Domestic Interrogations: The 24 Effect, 10 CHAP. L. REV.
693 (2007) (arguing that 24 glorifies the use of torture).
33 Fox Broadcasting Co., 24: Season 7 Trailer, http://www.fox.com/24 (last visited May 3,
2008).
34 Senator and presidential hopeful John McCain (R-AZ), an opponent of the legalization of
torture, is reportedly a devoted fan of 24, and even made a very brief cameo appearance on the
series. Upon Kiefer Sutherland’s arrest and imprisonment following a 2007 DUI charge, McCain
joked “[i]f I know my Jack Bauer, he’s gonna be out of there in a New York minute! I’ve never
seen him held captive for more than five minutes in any episode.” Mark Murray, A Heartbroken
McCain, MSNBC, Oct. 11, 2007, http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/11/
406947.aspx. (last visited Oct. 26, 2007). Senator McCain also listed 24 as his favorite television
show on his MySpace page. See http://www.myspace.com/johnmccain (last visited Feb. 2, 2008).
He has jokingly compared himself to Jack Bauer. See John McCain or Jack Bauer, May 3, 2007,
http://uncutvideo.aol.com/videos/85fb39cc4117a41d7f2aa52dc2a5de5c (last visited Feb. 2,
2008).
35 24 explored the constitutional issue regarding the removal of the President of the United
States from office if he is unable to fulfill his duties. See U.S. CONST. amend. XXV, § 4. See
also Gregory F. Jacob, 7 GREEN BAG 2D 23 (2003) for an analysis of the accuracy of the
interpretation of the 25th Amendment on both 24 and The West Wing. The author concludes that
24 did not accurately use the law in its plotlines, while The West Wing’s implementation of the
law was much closer to being accurate.
36 Keslowitz, The Tao of Jack Bauer, supra note 29, at 47.
37 24: Season 6, 7:00 AM – 8:00 AM (Fox television broadcast Mar. 12, 2007).
article.”38 This exchange served as a classic example of the interplay

between law and popular culture.
II. LAW AND POPULAR CULTURE
Contemporary popular and legal cultures are closely intertwined.39

Lawrence M. Friedman and William P. MacNeil, scholars on the
subject, argue that this relationship engenders new methods of
perceiving both law40 and popular culture.41 Sometimes the legal
system, as portrayed, largely echoes contemporary American
jurisprudence. At other times, however, popular culture’s depictions of
the law in specific contexts undermine the efficacy, if not legitimacy, of
aspects of the law.42 Orit Kamir, a scholar in this field, has explored
this phenomenon in the arena of law films, and concludes that the legal
values in the real world and fictional worlds can both reinforce and
undermine the values existing in the other.43 Law and film scholar
38 24: Season 6, 6:00 AM – 7:00 AM (Fox television broadcast Jan. 14, 2007).
39 See, e.g., Friedman, supra note 9, at 1579 (explaining the interrelationship between legal
culture, popular culture, and popular legal culture. Friedman argues that legal culture and popular
culture reflect and influence each other); Orit Kamir, Cinematic Judgment and Jurisprudence: A
Woman’s Memory, Recovery and Justice in a Post-Traumatic Society, J. MEDIA & CULTURAL
STUD. 271 (2005); Naomi Mezey & Mark C. Niles, Screening the Law: Ideology and Law in
American Popular Culture, 28 COLUM. J.L. & ARTS 91, 93 (2005) (“American popular culture is
saturated with legal themes.”).
40 See WILLIAM P. MACNEIL, LEX POPULI: THE JURISPRUDENCE OF POPULAR CULTURE 1
(2007) (“Contemporary pop culture has something important to say to and about jurisprudence,
above and beyond what the mainstream legal academy has to offer.”).
41 See Friedman, supra note 9, at 1579 (“In the first place, legal culture acts as an intervening
variable, a mechanism for transforming norms of popular culture into legal dress and shape. In
the second place, legal and popular culture, as images of each other, help explicate and illuminate
their respective contents.”); see also Kamir, supra note 39, at 257 (observing that both law and
film invite “participants—viewers, legal professionals, parties to legal proceedings and/or
members of the public—to share its vision, logic, rhetoric and values”).
42 MacNeil argues that the depictions of the law in popular media “not only reach a much
larger audience than standard legal texts, but potentially, and even more democratically, they also
help restore topics of jurisprudential import—justice, rights, ethics—to where they belong: not
with the economists, not with the sociologists, not even with the philosophers, but rather with the
community at large.” MACNEIL, supra note 40, at 2. Thus, even if it is true that popular
culture’s depictions of the law undermine its efficacy in certain respects, it is important to
acknowledge the argument that popular culture has also served to expose the public to various
aspects of the law, and in this way encourages individuals to critically examine the ways in which
the law functions.
43 In the context of law films, Kamir argues that:
[I]n its cinematic judgment, a law-film may echo the worldview encoded in its fictional
legal system, allowing legal and cinematic mechanisms to reinforce each other in the
creation of a community and a worldview. Alternatively, a law-film may constitute a
community and value system that criticizes or undercuts those supported by its
fictional legal system. Moreover, as a rich, multi-layered text, a law-film can perform
both of these functions concomitantly, through different means and on different levels,
evoking complex and even contradictory responses towards social and legal issues
William I. Miller argues that the cinematic conception of equity

provides a sense of justice, balance, and closures that the passionless
law fails to deliver.44 Both Kamir’s and Miller’s observations ring true
in the arena of television shows. 24’s break from the strict constraints
of the law in desperate situations, for example, serves as an equitable
contrast to the constraints of existing law.45
Miller’s observations with respect to film are particularly relevant
to an analysis of the portrayal of the law on 24. On 24, a desire to
comply with the law rarely serves a deterrent function with respect to
Jack Bauer, as Bauer is willing to break the law in order to perform
those actions that he believes are necessary to save the United States
from imminent harm. On 24, the law is portrayed as weak and
inflexible, as Bauer is often unable (and unwilling) to conform his
actions to the requirements of the law. But the fact that Bauer does
often break the law serves to placate the perceptions that the law is so
constraining as to serve as a watchdog over the actions of federal agents
in desperate situations. In one episode, a lawyer associated with the
fictional Amnesty Global stops by the Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) in
order to prevent the torture of a suspected terrorist.46 Bauer then
requests that he be stripped of his title and, now acting as a civilian,
secretly tortures the suspect. In the context of Miller’s argument, Jack
Bauer’s actions serve to placate viewers by demonstrating that even if
our legal system lacks the flexibility to deal with a particular situation,
fearless federal agents will find a way to skirt the law in order to
achieve vengeance and protection. This equitable contrast has not been
lost on members of the federal judiciary.47
presented on screen.
Kamir, supra note 39, at 269.
44 William I. Miller, Clint Eastwood and Equity: The Virtues of Revenge and the
Shortcomings of Law in Popular Culture, in LAW IN THE DOMAINS OF CULTURE 161 (A. Sarat &
T. R. Kearns eds., 1998).
45 The equitable function of popular culture in this context should not be understated. Film
and television can serve to fill in gaps left open by the law, and create a pervasive sense of equity
when the law does not provide such equity. More importantly, however, is the idea that popular
culture can “accommodate the human desire and need for vengeance, which is no longer
honoured and served by the law.” Id. at 161. In the context of law films, William I. Miller
argues that “[f]ilms thus constitute a popular-cultural, much-needed system of equity,
complementing the common law. This cinematic notion of equity offers a sense of justice,
balance and closure, that the legalistic, calculated, passionless law fails to deliver.” Id.
46 Season 4, 12:00 AM – 1:00 AM (Fox television broadcast Apr. 18, 2005).
47 Part II of this Note outlines the tenets of cultivation theory and examines the manifestations
of this theory by specifically analyzing the impact of The Simpsons and 24 on the general public’s
perception of the law. Part III both extends this analysis by arguing that both shows serve as
concrete examples of manifestations of cultivation theory in the arenas of legal academia,
lawmaking, and judicial reasoning and provides a normative perspective on this phenomenon.
A. Influence on the General Public
The influence of television and movies on the general public—

particularly on the way in which people perceive the law—has been the
subject of many scholarly articles.48 This is not to suggest that
television and movies are the only important fountains of information,49
but rather that the impact of television and movies on perception of the
law should not be ignored. The influence of both news and
entertainment programming has affected not only the way in which the
public perceives the structure and functioning of the court system,50 but
also the ways in which legal issues impact the world around them.51
This phenomenon is not surprising if we consider the pervasive
influence of television in our lives and its effects on our collective
psyche.52 In our “public opinion” society, public perception of the law
48 See, e.g., Harris, supra note 11, at 797 (“[M]uch of the information television viewers get
about the legal system comes not in the form of news, but in the form of entertainment
programming.”). Harris observes that “[f]or most people, television has become and important
(and for some, the only) source of information. Almost nowhere is this more true than in the field
of law.” Id. at 796. Harris writes that “popular culture virtually creates the picture people have of
criminal justice.” Id. at 786; Elliot E. Slotnick, Television News and the Supreme Court: A Case
Study, 77 JUDICATURE 21, 22 (1993) (concluding that most people get most or all of their
information and news from television); Brian Lowry, In King Trial Wake, News Media Will be
the Message, DAILY VARIETY, Apr. 7, 1993 (reporting that a Roper Organization study indicates
that “69 percent of Americans, the highest percentage yet, view television as their primary source
of news and information”).
49 See, e.g., KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at 129
(observing that while television alters the messages that the public (as consumers of news and
information) receives, the print medium remains a vital source of information and is arguably still
the cornerstone of information); Peter Clarke & Eric Fredin, Newspapers, Television, and
Political Reasoning, 1978 PUB. OPINION Q. 143, 145 (the public depends on newspapers
“somewhat more than television” for political information); see also GEORGE COMSTOCK,
TELEVISION IN AMERICA 120-21 (1980); Doris A. Graber, Evaluating Crime-Fighting Policies:
Media Images and Public Perspective, in EVALUATING ALTERNATIVE LAW-ENFORCEMENT
POLICIES 179-188 (Ralph Baker & Fred A. Meyer eds., 1979).
50 See, e.g., Podlas, supra note 12.
51 Harris, supra note 11, at 796-97. George Gerbner and Larry Gross argue that viewers who
watch a great deal of violent programming overestimate their own chances of being involved in
violence. George Gerbner & Larry Gross, Living With Television: The Violence Profile, 26 J.
COMM. 173, 191-93 (1976); George Gerbner et al., TV Violence Profile No. 8: The Highlights, 27
J. COMM. 171, 176 (1977). Gerbner and Gross also opine that because fear is “easy to exploit . . .
[television violence] may cultivate exaggerated assumptions about the extent of threat and danger
in the world and lead to demands for protection.” Id. at 193. These demands can influence
viewers to head to the voting booths and vote for candidates espousing such “tough on crime”
views. Harris points out that a causal connection between watching violent programming and
developing exaggerated fears of being involved in violence cannot be assumed. Harris, supra
note 11, at 797. Friedman opines that it might be that viewers with a predisposition towards
violent attitudes watch more of this violent programming, and it may not be the case that their
attitudes with respect to crime and violence are influenced by television programming. See
Friedman, supra note 9, at 1580.
52 See, e.g., Ronald K. L. Collins & David M. Skover, Pissing in the Snow: A Cultural
is crucial because it can influence the way in which the law develops.53
Politicians, for example, often respond to public reaction to the judicial
system by enacting or modifying specific laws, reforms, and changes.54
Some movies and television shows have even led to specific changes
and shifts in legislation.55 This phenomenon is largely attributable to
the “disinformation” that the public frequently receives on television.56
Specific episodes of both The Simpsons and 24 have influenced
legislation.57
Both Jack Bauer and Homer Simpson are consistently tried in the
court of public opinion. When Homer, for instance, purchases a
handgun in order to protect his family (The Cartridge Family) or
performs gay marriage ceremonies (There’s Something About
Marrying), the audience is encouraged to consider whether Homer is
acting both morally and within the confines of our legal system.58 It is
here that The Simpsons urges viewers to formulate normative
conclusions with respect to how American society should deal with
fundamental moral and legal issues. If legislatures respond to the
enactment of such legislation by passing laws which reflect the public’s
Approach to the First Amendment, 45 STAN. L. REV. 783, 785 (1993) (reviewing JAMES B.
TWITCHELL, CARNIVAL CULTURE: THE TRASHING OF TASTE IN AMERICA (1992)) (“TV talk is
the talk of our times. . . . So much of who we are, what we think, how we express ourselves, and
how we perceive and react to our world are tied to television.”).
53 The importance of popular culture with respect to its influence on legal culture stems from
its ability to shape the way in which people think about the law. Harris writes that “what people
think about the law is important because this is a ‘public opinion’ society, which makes heavy use
of referenda, and in which government does not lift a finger or move a muscle, without reading
the tea leaves of public desire.” Harris, supra note 11, at 796.
54 See Harris, supra note 11, at 796 (“[P]opular culture may have a direct effect on the
institutions of justice themselves. The public’s perception of justice therefore influences courts,
laws and judges because popular culture influences the democratic process.”).
55 See infra note 101.
56 See generally NEIL POSTMAN, AMUSING OURSELVES TO DEATH: PUBLIC DISCOURSE IN
THE AGE OF SHOW BUSINESS (1985) (introducing the concept of “disinformation,” a phenomenon
whereby erroneous information is transmitted to the public, who subsequently come to rely on its
veracity); see also KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at
142-46 (discussing the dangers of disinformation in a democracy). Keslowitz argues that
disinformation is more dangerous than misinformation because the possession of disinformation
creates the false expectation that viewers have accurate information when heading to the voting
booths. In this way, disinformation can lead individuals to vote for politicians who espouse
particular views (similar to the views held by the voting public as a result of disinformation)
pertaining to the enactment of specific legislation.
57 See Part III.A for a detailed discussion of the influence of both shows on legislation.
58 Even in episodes of The Simpsons in which there is no judge or jury trial, we, as viewers,
try Homer Simpson in our own courts. Discussing this phenomenon in legal films, Carol Clover
writes that “the narrative machine underneath the manifest plot, whatever its label, is the trial.
There may be no trial in the movie, but there is a trial underneath and behind it; the movie itself
mimics the phases, the logic, and the narrative texture of the trial.” Carol Clover, Law and the
Order of Popular Culture in LAW IN THE DOMAINS OF CULTURE 110 (A. Sarat & T. R. Kearns
eds. 1998).
Indeed, many plots in episodes of The Simpsons foster thinking about the issues presented
in a similar manner as we would think about such issues in a jury trial.
misunderstanding of legal issues as portrayed on The Simpsons, laws

will be tailored not to the needs of contemporary society but rather to
the perceived insufficiencies of the fictional society in which Homer
Simpson resides.
So, too, with 24. When Jack Bauer tortures a suspected terrorist,
the television audience is expected to debate the legality and morality of
torture in “ticking-time bomb”59 scenarios. Furthermore, when we
watch characters on 24 attempt to invoke the 25th Amendment60 in
order to unseat a sitting President, we ask pointed questions: Does the
25th Amendment really permit this—and if so, should it? Such public
scrutiny of the actions of both Homer Simpson and Jack Bauer lead to
normative evaluations of the law as portrayed in both Springfield and
the world of 24.61 As demonstrated by Kamir’s stalking legislation
studies, such evaluations can lead to a real influence in terms of the
development of law.
B. Cultivation Theory
Scholars have addressed the ways in which inaccurate world

models with respect to incidences of crime on television influence
public perception of the law.62 The most popular theory63 to posit a
59 The “ticking time bomb” scenario occurs when a terrorist suspect knows of the
whereabouts of a dangerous weapon set to go off within a very short period of time and refuses to
reveal the location of the weapon. The issue is whether it should be permissible to torture the
suspect in such a scenario. See Keslowitz, The Tao of Jack Bauer, supra note 29, at 72.
60 See U.S. CONST. amend. XXV, § 4.
61 Evaluations of the law on fictional television shows can have an influence on public
perception of the law in the real world. If the law is inaccurately portrayed on television shows,
we can begin to see deleterious effects in contemporary society. As David Harris argues,
“erroneous information in popular culture may damage the ability to make correct assessments of
institutions and policies, and may even affect the law itself.” Harris, supra note 11, at 786.
62 See, e.g., Sarah Eschholz, The Media and Fear of Crime: A Survey of the Research, 9 U.
FLA. J.L. & PUB. POL’Y 37, 38 (1997) (observing that both the print media and television “greatly
exaggerate the incidence of crime in the United States, particularly violent crime . . . and convey a
more violent and dangerous view of our world than exists in reality”). Eschholz argues that
“[b]ecause most of us lack direct experience with many social problems, such as violent crime,
television and newspapers serve as our primary frame of reference for these issues. Such
“exaggerated emphasis on violent crime. . . may produce a distorted image of what is important
and how social policy should be developed.” See also id. at 42 (discussing George Gerbner’s
seminal Cultural Indicators Project, in which Gerbner and his associates developed the
“cultivation hypothesis” which predicted that television viewing, irrespective of the specific types
of television programs watched, would inevitably produce an image of the world as a scary place.
The researchers concluded that television series’ use of violence to resolve conflicts may be
incorporated into the viewing public’s assumptions regarding incidences of crime in the real
world and therefore lead to increased levels of public fear).
63 Podlas points to the existence of a few less popular theories, including Albert Bandura’s
social learning or cognitive theory, and mental processing models such as heuristic processing
model of cultivation effects. Podlas, supra note 12, at 447; see, e.g., ALBERT BANDURA, SOCIAL
relationship between television viewership and attitudes, behaviors, and

beliefs is cultivation theory.64 Cultivation theory hypothesizes that
viewers’ perceptions of reality are cultivated in a manner consistent
with the programming to which they are exposed.65 In this context, it is
important to consider the observation that 24 serves as the primary
frame of reference66 for many Americans with respect to issues such as
torture, terrorism, and even presidential politics.67 Because 24 presents
a hyper-dangerous world, it is highly probable, based on the television
crime studies,68 that 24 has a palpable effect on public fears of
terrorists.69 The media plays a large role in engendering the perception
LEARNING THEORY 64-68 (Prentice Hall 1977); L.J. Shrum, Media Consumption and
Perceptions of Reality: Effects and Underlying Processes, in MEDIA EFFECTS, ADVANCES IN
THEORY AND RESEARCH 43, 78 (Jennings Bryant & Dolf Zillman ed., 2002); Hyung-Jin Woo &
Joseph R. Dominick, Acculturation, Cultivation, and Daytime TV Talk Shows, 80 JOURNALISM &
MASS COMM. Q. 109, 112 (2003).
64 See Podlas, supra note 12, at 447.
65 Id. at 447. Cultivation theory posits that “the overall pattern of television programming to
which viewers are exposed cultivates in them common perceptions of reality.” Id. Podlas writes
that under cultivation theory, “[t]his ‘reality’ tends to mirror what viewers see on the TV screen.
Therefore, people who watch a great deal of television will come both to perceive the real world
to match the one on TV and adopt attitudes conforming to that visage.” Cultivation theory
“divides the world into ‘heavy’ and ‘light viewers,’ and investigates the influence of media
messages on society as a whole.” Podlas observes that “cultivation is not an incremental
influence, but a presumed effect of significant viewing.” Id. at 447-48.
66 In other contexts, scholars have argued that the jurors are likely influenced by the ways in
which popular culture portrays serious issues. With respect to Fatal Attraction’s perceived
influence both on stalking legislation and how a juror will understand the legal standard regarding
stalking, Mathieson observes that “[s]ince the stalking victim in Fatal Attraction . . . is a fairly
normal, empathetic, rational person, it is easy for the jury to use that fictional character as a
model for the fictitious legal standard they are supposed to apply.” Anna-Rose Mathieson,
Survey: V. Gender and the Law 101 MICH. L. REV. 1589, 1599 (2003) (reviewing ORIT KAMIR,
EVERY BREATH YOU TAKE: STALKING NARRATIVES AND THE LAW (2001)) (“Kamir argues that
by asking the jury to evaluate what an ill-defined ‘ideal average man’ would feel, the reasonable
person standard ‘invites uncritical import of cultural images into the legal discourse, thereby
potentially allowing moral panic to penetrate the law.’” Id. at 1599. Because the general public
has little exposure to visual depictions of torture outside of television, 24, as the most popular
television show depicting terrorism serves as a primary frame of reference for Americans. See
Keslowitz, The Tao of Jack Bauer, supra note 29, at 45. See infra Part III for an argument that
Jack Bauer serves as the primary frame of reference in a number of judicial opinions.
67 Dennis Haysbert, the actor who portrayed the first African American president on 24
argues that his character influenced many members of the 24 audience to support presidential
hopeful Senator Barack Obama. Haysbert argues that “[a]s far as the public is concerned, it did
open up their minds and their hearts a little bit to the notion that if the right man came along . . .
that a black man could be president of the United States. . . People on the street would ask me to
run for office . . . when I went to promote [24].” Haysbert also noted that he and Obama “have a
similar approach to who and what we believe the president is. . . . Barack doesn’t get angry.
He’s pretty level. That’s how I portrayed President Palmer: as a man with control over his
emotions and great intelligence.” Obama and Palmer were senators and campaigned for president
in their mid-40s. Lisa Claustro, Haysbert Says 24 Role Paved the Way for Presidential Hopeful
Barack Obama, http://www.buddytv.com/articles/24/haysbert-says-24-role-paved-th-15880.aspx
(Jan. 22, 2008).
68 See supra note 58.
69 The themes engendered by the media, Eschholz observes, “often give the viewer . . . the
that certain crimes occur more frequently than they do in reality.70 One
might go so far as arguing that 24 has the capability of inducing a
“moral panic,”71 which Sarah Eschholz argues is driven largely by fear
of criminal activity and requires public participation to sustain its
viability.72 Furthermore, 24 (like much of the rest of popular media) has
a tendency to link together individual incidences of, say, torture in order
to create a recurring theme.73 Because the general public is largely
unfamiliar with torture outside the context of its depictions in popular
culture, it is likely that 24’s creation of this recurring theme influences
the ways in which jurors view torture.74 Juror reliance on 24 as a
primary means of information regarding the use of torture will have the
likely (adverse) effect of causing individual jurors to give less credence
to countervailing considerations presented at trial.
With respect to 24, we can unmask a danger lurking beneath the
inaccurate portrayal of law and justice on the show. By presenting its
audience with a visual depiction75 of the highly improbable “ticking
time bomb” scenario,76 24 presents an image of terrorism that the law
impression that the behavior emphasized in a particular crime . . . is increasing.” Eschholz, supra
note 62, at 50.
70 Eschholz argues that the media play a significant role in “energizing public fear by
decontextualizing crimes and publicizing certain crimes in disproportion to their actual
occurrence.” Id. at 50.
71 It is debatable whether 24, through its frequent depictions of terrorism, has created a
“moral panic” in America. If 24 has in fact engendered such a state, we can expect that the public
response to the themes expressed on 24 may create their own “lasting repercussions for society in
terms of drastic changes in laws and social policy.” Id. at 48. See also Mathieson, supra note 66,
at 1593 (“Kamir argues that our society is currently in the midst of one of these moral panics”
with respect to stalking.); see generally STANLEY COHEN, FOLK DEVILS AND MORAL PANICS
(3rd ed. 2002).
72 Eschholz, supra note 62, at 50.
73 Mathieson observes that “[o]ur societal narratives are a key reference point whenever we
are asked to determine the appropriate action in an unfamiliar situation.” Mathieson, supra note
66, at 1599.
75 24’s visual depictions of torture have an undeniable impact on the torture debate. USA
Today reports that “Alistair Hodgett of Amnesty International credits 24 . . . with realistic
depictions that provide ‘a clearer idea of what torture involves. . . . They do more to educate than
desensitize.’” Bill Keveney, Fictional 24 Brings Real Issue of Torture Home, USA TODAY, Mar.
13, 2005, available at http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/news/2005-03-13-24-
torture_x.htm. Hodgett’s argument is a tricky one, and it is not entirely clear, on the surface,
whether the primary effect of 24’s depictions of torture serve to objectively educate viewers, to
desensitize viewers, or to promote a particular political agenda. Documenting the upsurge in the
frequency of the use of torture on more recently aired seasons of 24, Douglas L. Howard writes
that “[w]here Bauer’s violent interrogation of a non-compliant witness or terrorist contact once
seemed shocking and frightening, as we become used to the show, we now expect it as part of
Bauer’s and CTU’s protocol in such situations.” See Douglas L. Howard, Torture and Morality
in Fox’s 24, in READING 24: TV AGAINST THE CLOCK 140 (Steven Peacock ed., 2007).
76 24 has played a significant role in the recent upsurge of torture scenes on television. The
Parents Television Council, a television watchdog group, counted 102 scenes of torture on prime
time television during the five years prior to September 11, 2001. See The Parents Television
Council, http://www.parentstv.org/ (last visited May 1, 2008). In the following three years, that
has no effective way of dealing with. Under a cultivation theory

analysis, it is expected that 24’s vast audience77 will perceive terrorists
as extremely capable of causing harm to Americans—in a way that
exaggerates the true threat.78 Similarly, because of these exaggerated
depictions of terrorists’ capabilities on 24, the law is shown to be
largely ineffective with respect to preventing attacks on American soil.
In his position as federal super-agent, Jack Bauer serves the role of a
gap filler with respect to perceived insufficiencies in the law and in its
ability to protect the country from harm.79 In reality, however, terrorist
capabilities to attack America are not as developed as they are presented
to be in the show.80 Furthermore, the ticking-time bomb scenario is
highly idealized and rare in real life.81 Although writers have
number increased to 624, with 24 leading the way with such depictions. See Tom Regan, Does
24 Encourage U.S. Interrogators to ‘Torture’ Detainees?,” CHRISTIAN SCI. MONITOR, Feb. 12,
2007, available at http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0212/p99s01-duts.html. Sixty-seven scenes
depicting torture were broadcast during the first five seasons of 24. This figure translates roughly
to one torture scene per every two hours. The New York Times noted that “[v]ery little public
scrutiny—much less protest—of violent interrogation is depicted” on the show. Adam Green,
Normalizing Torture on 24, N.Y. TIMES, May 22, 2005, available at
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/13/torture-on-24/. It is also worth noting that the degree of
intensity of interrogation techniques used on 24 has increased since the show’s inception.
Howard observes that during the earlier seasons of 24, Jack Bauer more frequently spoke about
torture as opposed to actually resorting to its use against suspects. See Douglas L. Howard,
Torture and Morality in Fox’s 24, in READING 24, supra note 75, at 134. For an argument that
Americans have become blasé with respect to torture, see Rosa Brooks, Opinion, America
Tortures (Yawn), L.A. TIMES, Feb. 23, 2007, available at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/
la-oe-brooks23feb23,0,6489262.column?coll=la-opinion-center. Other critics, however, have
argued that 24 reflects, but does not necessarily influence ideas in contemporary society. Larissa
Dubecki, TV’s Torturers May Be Making the Unspeakable Acceptable, AGE, Mar. 2, 2007,
available at http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/tvs-torturers-may-be-making-the-
unspeakable-acceptable/2007/03/01/1172338792224.html (arguing that 24 mines the seam
“between illusion and reality,” which supports “the fact that popular entertainment doesn’t inhabit
a vacuum but is very much a product of its time”).
77 During 2006, 24 had weekly viewership of close to 14.0 million fans. See 24 (TV series),
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/24_(TV_series) (last visited Dec. 18, 2007). At one point in 2006,
ratings peaked at 16.3 million viewers. Id.
78 In contrast to the frequency of terrorist attacks depicted on 24, New York City mayor
Michael Bloomberg stated that an individual is more likely to be struck by lightening twice than
be killed in a terrorist attack. Marcia Kramer, Bloomberg on JFK Plot: ‘Stop Worrying, Get a
Life’, WCBSTV.COM, June 5, 2007, http://wcbstv.com/topstories/Terrorism.New.York.2.244966.
html. See also BARRY GLASSNER, THE CULTURE OF FEAR: WHY AMERICANS ARE AFRAID OF
THE WRONG THINGS (2000) (documenting the ways in which the fears of Americans are
misguided as a result of media influences).
79 Jack Bauer arguably represents justice. If the audience views his illegal actions as
constituting justice, their perceptions of the law (and their perceived vision of what the law
should look like) will unfortunately be based on highly improbable situations and thus improperly
formed. As Harris writes, “[t]he appearance of justice in popular culture may influence legal
culture, and in turn the law itself; thus appearance may have substantive impact upon laws and
legal institutions.” Harris, supra note 11, at 789.
81 See id. at 80 (discussing Harvey A. Silvergate’s argument pertaining to the rarity of the
“ticking time bomb” scenario).
previously argued that 24 provides a springboard for urging viewers to

debate critical issues,82 the idea that 24 helps to shape the debate (and
viewers’ perceptions) is undeniable.83 24, however, largely departs
from the mold created by other television shows in that the show often
portrays the law as an unfortunate barrier to effectively remedying
situations and creating a pervasive sense of justice.84
The Simpsons makes extensive use of satire in order to convey
messages and poke fun at specific groups and individuals as well as
society in general.85 Satire, by definition,86 exaggerates circumstances
in society in order to set forth a specific conception of reality. On The
Simpsons, for instance, corruption among politicians, lawyers, doctors,
nuclear power plant owners, and police officers is rampant.87
Conditions in Springfield often require that harsh laws be passed in
order to solve specific societal problems. In The Cartridge Family, for
example, the National Rifle Association is portrayed as completely
absurd, and might galvanize viewers, under a cultivation theory
analysis, to protest the existence of the organization.88 And when anti-
gay marriage advocates watch Ralph Wiggum marry a tiger,89 they are
provided with support for their position that there should be certain
limitations on what constitutes marriage.
Indeed, if The Simpsons’ audience watches specific episodes
without an appreciation for the satire and instead believes that The
Simpsons accurately presents social problems and the ability of the law
82 See generally id.; READING 24, supra note 75.

83 Popular culture and the mass media often offer interpretations of how to interpret the
themes that they present. See Eschholz, supra note 62, at 39.
84 See generally Podlas, supra note 12 (exploring the veracity of the existence of the “CSI
Effect,” which some scholars argue engenders idealized viewer expectations with respect to the
efficacy of the law and the ability of police and federal agents to extract and gather evidence).
Harris observes that “[w]hile the portrayal of police in conventional television has often been
sympathetic, it has conditioned viewers to expect much more of law enforcement, prosecutors,
and courts than they can realistically deliver.” Harris, supra note 11, at 813. 24 breaks from this
conventional television format in that federal agents are consistently shown to have great
difficulty garnering evidence and must resort to measures not sanctioned by the legal system in
order to acquire such evidence. Furthermore, courts and the legal system on 24 are perceived as
too slow and inefficient to adequately deal with the complex, time-sensitive situations that arise
on the show.
85 See generally KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14.
86 Cultural critic Chris Turner, discussing the underlying goals of satire, notes that “satire
has . . . ambitious goals: it starts from a belief that the ideas and things it mocks—usually ideas
and things invested with authority—are wrong and that exposing this fact through satire will
erode their authority and precipitate change. Satire is in this sense inherently optimistic.” CHRIS
TURNER, PLANET SIMPSON 238 (2005).
87 See KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at 19-22.
88 Id. at 204-06.
89 At the close of the episode There’s Something About Marrying, The Simpsons portrayed
Ralph’s decision to marry a tiger as a logical extension of the idea that if gay marriage is
legalized, unexpected consequences will result as society slides down a slippery slope. The
Simpsons: There’s Something About Marrying (Fox television broadcast Feb. 20, 2005).
to handle such problems, cultivation theory provides that the audience

will have an inaccurate perception of justice and the law.90 This has led
to a documented influence of The Simpsons in the legal world: specific
episodes of The Simpsons have been cited by fans in discussions of how
best to reform the law. When New York Senator Charles Schumer
visited a high school to speak on the subject of school violence, for
example, one of the students responded to the question of gun control
that arose by invoking an episode of The Simpsons.91 Specific
inaccuracies with respect to the application of fundamental common law
doctrines—such as Nelson Muntz’s declaration that the Halloween
tradition of ‘trick or treat’ represents a binding oral contract between the
parties to the transaction92 and Springfield’s use of local law to deport
an illegal immigrant93—buttress the argument that reliance on The
Simpsons for legal knowledge can create misconceptions of the state of
the law.94
Such misconceptions can influence the ways in which jurors view
cases involving similar legal issues, thus increasing the likelihood that
they will decide such cases based on their understanding of the way in
which the law functions on fictional television shows. The dangers of
juror reliance on both The Simpsons and 24 in specific legal contexts,
however, pale in comparison with the prospect of judicial and
legislative reliance on these extralegal sources when enacting laws or
deciding cases.
III. POPULAR CULTURE’S REACH INTO THE LEGAL ARENA
Although scholars have largely focused their attention on the

influence of popular culture on the general public,95 legal scholars,
90 Because The Simpsons is multilayered in nature, the show can be watched and appreciated
on many different levels. Inaccurate presentations of social realities—including the capability of
the law to contend with such realities—are a given on The Simpsons.
91 The student observed: “It reminds me of a Simpsons episode. Homer wanted to get a gun,
but he had been in jail twice and in a mental institution. They labeled him as ‘potentially
dangerous.’ So Homer asks what that means and the gun dealer says, ‘It just means you need an
extra week before you can get the gun.’” KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE
SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at 10-11.
92 The Simpsons: Treehouse of Horror XVIII (Fox television broadcast Nov. 3, 2002).
93 In Much Apu About Nothing, Springfield residents pass Proposition 24, which orders the
deportation of illegal aliens. One Springfield resident, Groundskeeper Willie, is deported at the
end of the episode, despite the fact that in the real world, federal law controls these immigration
issues. The Simpsons: Much Apu About Nothing (Fox television broadcast May 5, 1996).
94 Part III.C.4, infra, provides a brief normative assessment with respect to judicial reliance
on extralegal sources and also presents the argument that these television shows are exerting a
largely undocumented influence on the ways in which individuals with varying degrees of
exposure to the law both perceive and apply the law in specific circumstances.
95 See supra Part I.
lawmakers, and judges have been influenced by the ways in which law
has been portrayed on television. This Part uses The Simpsons and 24
as specific examples of cultivation theory’s reach into the legal arena
and provides a normative evaluation of this phenomenon.
A. Influence on Legal Scholars
Scholars and authors have devoted serious academic attention to

both The Simpsons and 24, specifically with respect to the storylines
that in some ways mirror legal problems and issues in contemporary
society.96 In an essay appearing in the Fordham International Law
Journal, for instance, James R. Silkenat and Peter M. Norman use
specific scenes from 24 to examine the complex legal idea of
extraordinary rendition.97 Professor Walter Sharp at the Georgetown
University Law Center teaches a course entitled The Law of 24.98 In an
article appearing in the Fordham Law Review, Saul Cornell and Nathan
DeDino use a classic scene from The Simpsons season nine episode The
Cartridge Family to explore the intricacies of gun control doctrines.99
In an article entitled Proving Homer Simpson Wrong, published by the
Chicago Bar Association, Michael B. Hyman argues that members of
the legal profession are responsible for ensuring that the general public
understands that Homer Simpson was mistaken when he remarked,
“When will people learn? Democracy just doesn’t work!”100 Legal
96 A number of academic books and thesis articles have been devoted to critical analyses of
The Simpsons. See, e.g., JOHN ALBERTI, LEAVING SPRINGFIELD (2003); ALAN BROWN & CHRIS
LOGAN, THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE SIMPSONS (2005); PAUL HALPERN, WHAT’S SCIENCE EVER
DONE FOR US (2007); WILLIAM IRWIN ET. AL, THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE SIMPSONS: THE D’OH
OF HOMER (2001); KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14;
MARK PINSKY, THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS (2001); CHRIS TURNER, PLANET
SIMPSON (2005). College courses exploring the academic relevance of The Simpsons have been
taught at a number of universities, including Tufts, Carnegie Mellon, University of Colorado at
Denver, Drew University, University of California at Berkeley, and many others. Books have
also been devoted to critical analyses of 24. See, e.g., Keslowitz, The Tao of Jack Bauer, supra
note 29; READING 24, supra note 75. The fact that legal scholarship has devoted serious attention
to debunking the perceived abuses of law on 24 demonstrates the influence of the series on public
perception of the law. See, e.g., Harold Hongju Koh, War, Terrorism, and Torture: Limits on
Presidential Power in the 21st Century: Can The President Be Torturer in Chief?, 81 IND. L.J.
1145, 1164 (2006) (exposing perceived abuses of the law on 24).
97 James R. Silkenat & Peter M. Norman, Jack Bauer and the Rule of Law: The Case of
Extraordinary Rendition, 30 FORDHAM INT’L. L.J. 535 (2007).
98 Georgetown University Law Center, The Law of 24 (Spring 2008)
http://www.law.georgetown.edu/curriculum/tab_courses.cfm?Status=Course&Detail=1534
99 Saul Cornell & Nathan DeDino, A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of
Gun Control, 73 FORDHAM L. REV. 487 (2004). The authors refer to the exchange between
Homer and Lisa as “remarkable.” Id. at 489.
100 Michael B. Hyman, President’s Page: Proving Homer Simpson Wrong, 20 CBA REC. 12,
12 (2006).
scholars have also argued that depictions of lawyers on The Simpsons

reinforce negative public perceptions of practitioners.101
Other examples of significant references to both of these television
shows abound.102 Some of these references pertain specifically to legal
policy and the current state of the law,103 as well as providing
commentary on specific statutes.104 Homer Simpson’s quotations have
been referenced to rebut quotations from legal and philosophical
scholars.105 The use of these references by legal scholars in specific
legal contexts—such as gun control (The Simpsons) and extraordinary
rendition (24)—demonstrates the ability of these shows to strike a chord
with lawyers by pinpointing specific legal issues and providing
101 See Tim A. Baker, Professionalism and Civility: A Survey of Professionalism and Civility,
38 IND. L. REV. 1305, 1310 (“Recurring media images such as [portrayals of lawyers and law
enforcement officers on The Simpsons], repeatedly broadcast into homes throughout the country
by way of a hugely popular or long-running television series, reinforce negative views of the law
and those who operate in the legal system.”).
102 See, e.g., Anthony J. Fejfar, Corporate Voluntarism: Panacea or Plague? A Question of
Horizon, 17 DEL. J. CORP. L. 859, 934, n.172 (1992) (using the relationship between Bart and
Homer to discuss inadequate child-rearing strategies); Lawrence M. Friedman, Lexitainment:
Legal Process as Theater, 50 DEPAUL L. REV. 539, 556 (2000) (discussing a news columnist’s
argument that legal ramifications rarely result from tortious actions in sitcoms or cartoons, noting
that “a hundred anvils can fall on Homer Simpson’s head and no lawsuit will emerge”); Clifford
J. Rosky, Force, Inc.: The Privatization of Punishment, Policing, and Military Force in Liberal
States, 36 CONN. L. REV. 879, 973 n.330 (2004) (discussing a Simpsons episode in which Homer
Simpson starts a new private security force, Springshield, Inc).
103 See, e.g., Scott B. Kitei, Is the T-Shirt Cannon “Incidental to the Game” in Professional
Athletics?, 11 SPORTS L.J. 37, 53-54 (2004) (discussing The Simpsons episode in which Maude
Flanders is killed as a result of falling over a railing after being hit with a T-shirt fired out of a
cannon); Christine Alice Corcos, “Who Ya Gonna C(S)ite?” Ghostbusters and the Environmental
Regulation Debate, 13 J. LAND USE & ENVTL. L. 231, 232 n.4 (1997) (observing that The
Simpsons contains “environmental message[s]”); Cornell & DeDino, supra note 99, at 489 (citing
to The Simpsons in their discussion of their gun control arguments); Jonathan M. Gutoff, Part
Three: Naval Warfare: The Law of Piracy in Popular Culture, 31 J. MAR. L. & COM. 643, 647
(2000) (discussing The Simpsons in the context of piracy law, and referencing the episode entitled
The Mansion Family, in which Homer takes Mr. Burns’ yacht more than 12 miles out of the
state’s boundaries in order to circumvent the state’s prohibition on buying beer in the morning).;
Lee Kovarsky, Note, Tolls on the Information Superhighway: Entitlement Defaults for
Clickstream Data, 89 VA. L. REV. 1037, 1072 (2003) (“The threat to which law must respond is
no longer merely that of people like Homer Simpson slandering celebrities and pawing through
their trash, but that of highly organized companies systematically collecting and selling data
about ordinary people.”).
104 See, e.g., Mary LaFrance, Nevada’s Employee Inventions Statute: Novel, Nonobvious, and
Patently Wrong, 3 NEV. L.J. 88, 105 (2002) (discussing a Nevada statute regarding inventions,
the author writes that “[r]ather than rewarding employees who develop better ways to accomplish
their assigned tasks, the Nevada statute leaves them bereft. They are no better off, it seems, than if
they had emulated Homer Simpson, bringing minimal effort and no inspiration whatsoever to
their assigned duties.”).
105 See, e.g., Anthony T. Kronman, Precedent and Tradition, 99 YALE L.J. 1029, 1037 (1990)
(arguing that “[t]he idea that we are bound, within whatever limits, to honor the past for its own
sake, to respect it just because it is the past we happen to have, is an idea that is at war with the
spirit of philosophy”), and then using a “But see” signal to quote Homer Simpson. See Homer
Simpson, The Quotable Homer Simpson, available at http://www.people.virginia.edu/
<diff>der7s/homer.htm. (last visited Sept. 6, 2001).
commentary on emerging legal ideas. The fact that legal scholars have
chosen to make use of these references in law journals demonstrates that
The Simpsons and 24 have both made more than fleeting references and
comments; rather, this demonstrates that these shows provide (or are at
least perceived to provide) serious and noteworthy commentary on
specific legal ideas.
The use of these references in the areas of gun control, child-
rearing strategies, private security, piracy law, and alcohol consumption
laws demonstrates both the diversity and breadth of Simpsonian
references to law and legal scholars’ utilization of these examples in
their research. Scholars have used The Simpsons in a variety of legal
contexts, thus demonstrating its impact on the way in which the series is
used by legal scholars on a broad scale.
B. Influence on Policymakers
There have been a few studies documenting Hollywood’s influence

on the passage of specific legislation. Kamir, for example, has argued
that California’s anti-stalking legislation was influenced by
Hollywood’s construction of stalking.106 Kamir documents the dangers
resulting from using television and movies in passing stalking
legislation, specifically decrying Hollywood’s focus on “fictional
archetypal images”107 of stalkers as opposed to real-life stalkers.
Despite the scholarly discussion108 generated by Kamir’s studies, the
106 See Kamir, supra note 39, at 264 (observing that Hollywood’s “stalking characters . . .
served as points of reference and role models” and that “when legislators resolved to define
stalking . . . Fatal Attraction (1987) and the many Dracula films influenced the legislation against
stalking more than the actual social phenomenon that required attention”). See generally ORIT
KAMIR, FRAMED: WOMEN IN LAW AND FILM (2006) (discussing the impact of Taxi Driver on
anti-stalking legislation).
107 Kamir, supra note 39, at 265. Kamir concludes that the California anti-stalking legislation
largely influenced by Death and the Maiden:
had in mind fictional archetypal images rather than the actual offenders; no attempt
was made to investigate and analyse the real social phenomenon of stalking. As a
result of addressing cinematic, mythological images rather than social reality, the
legislature did not adequately conceptualize the prohibited behaviour, and the
‘panicky’ drafting rendered an imperfect law. Most states followed suit and adopted
California’s formulation. Hollywood, in turn, quickly responded to the legal
formulations, moulding the fearsome serial killer accordingly.
Id.; see also Barzilai, supra note 6, at 871 (observing that the California legislature, reacting to
public hysteria regarding stalking, defined stalking in a very narrow way, and noting that “most
anti-stalking legislation in the United States reflected the public panic concerning serial killers,
while much more frequent and non-murderous incidents of male stalking were neglected in state
law. Anti-stalking legislation was affected by public panic and hysteria, and did not respond to
the sources of women’s subjugation to violence.”).
108 See Mathieson, supra note 66, at 1590 (noting that Kamir’s stalking analysis provides
arguments supporting the notion that “stalking narratives fuel the fear of stalking that leads
perception that cultivation theory’s reach does not extend beyond the
public’s views with respect to the law persists.109
Both 24 and The Simpsons have had considerable influence on
policymakers and legislation. Because each of these shows has
penetrated previously insuperable barriers in terms of both content and
the messages conveyed,110 policymakers have been quick to respond to
the ideas presented on both The Simpsons111 and 24.112 With respect to
24, President Bill Clinton, for instance, has spoken about the actions of
Jack Bauer.113 On NBC’s Meet The Press, Clinton discussed the “Jack
society to criminalize it, and even affect the definition of the crime itself”). Mathieson observes
that “[s]ince the legal definition of stalking uses the ‘reasonable person test’—assessing the fears
and reactions of a typical person to determine whether actions constitute criminal stalking—
stalking stories affect the scope of stalking statutes by shaping the subconscious fears of the
‘average’ member of the community”). Id. Mathieson argues, however, that Kamir’s
observations with respect to the perceived under-inclusiveness of California’s anti-stalking
legislation might well be misguided: “The fact that stalking laws do not punish everyone whom
Kamir has labeled as a ‘stalker’ does not in itself prove that the legislature negligently drafted
underinclusive laws; it could instead be a legislative judgment that some ‘stalkers’ are better dealt
with under existing murder and assault statutes.” Id. at 1594.
109 This is evidenced by the fact that virtually all scholarly articles regarding cultivation theory
pertain to the influence of specific aspects of popular culture (or popular culture generally) on the
general public.
Keslowitz, The Tao of Jack Bauer, supra note 29.
111 The Simpsons’ extensive use of satire to convey messages is also arguably directed at
influencing the implementation of changes in society. See generally KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD
ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14.
112 24, as the first post-9/11 television show to regularly air scenes of torture as well as raise
legal issues pertaining to national security and civil liberties, has engendered mixed responses
from politicians. In 2007, for example, a Republican Presidential candidate lauded the actions of
Jack Bauer. At a Republican national debate, Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado stated: “You say
that nuclear devices have gone off in the United States, more are planned, and we’re wondering
about whether waterboarding would be a bad thing to do? I’m looking for Jack Bauer at that
time! . . . We are the last best hope of Western Civilization. When we go under, Western
Civilization goes under.” Joe Kovacs, ‘Jack Bauer’ Called on at Republican Debate,
WORLDNETDAILY (May 16, 2007),
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55722. In another Republican
debate, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) similarly invoked the name of Jack Bauer in the context of
discussing torture, arguing that “life is not 24 and Jack Bauer.” Romney, McCain Spar on
Waterboarding and Torture at GOP Debate, DEMOCRACY NOW!, (Nov. 27, 2007),
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/11/29/romney_mccain_spar_on_waterboarding_and.
113 Clinton specifically pointed to 24, noting that “if you look at the show, every time they get
the president to approve something, the president gets in trouble, the country gets in trouble. And
when Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always
seems to work better.” See Meet the Press (Sept. 30, 2007), transcript available at
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21065954/page/3/; see also Michael McAuliff, Torture Like Jack
Bauer’s Would Be OK, Bill Clinton Says, N.Y. DAILY NEWS, Oct. 1, 2007, available at
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/2007/10/01/2007-10-
01_torture_like_jack_bauers_would_be_ok_bil.html. (last visited Oct. 7, 2007).
The fact that a former President—and the spouse of a Presidential candidate—referenced
24 during a discussion about national security and torture speaks volumes about the series’s
influence on the ways in which politicians formulate ideas and consider serious issues.
Bauer moment,”114 and argued that a formal exception permitting

torture in limited circumstances should not be created.115 Instead,
Clinton argued, “the Jack Bauer person” should be provided with the
opportunity to explain the specific reasons for his actions in court.116
President Clinton argued that “the Jack Bauer person’s” actions should
be judged according to what ultimately turns out to be the truth with
respect to the circumstances of the situation.117 Additionally, a
Pentagon official acknowledged that Jack Bauer provided inspiration
for specific ways in which to deal with suspected terrorists.118 The
Simpsons was singled out by President George H. W. Bush when
outlining his plans for the proper direction for the country to take in
terms of morals and family values, declaring that the nation needs more
families like the Waltons and less like the Simpsons.119
24, as the quintessential post-9/11 television series, has had—and
continues to have—a palpable influence on policymakers. Influential
policymakers, for example, participated in an event sponsored by the
Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. entitled 24 and America’s
Image in Fighting Terrorism: Fact, Fiction, or Does it Matter?120 The
June 2006 event featured Michael Chertoff, Rush Limbaugh, and
writers and producers from 24.121 Homeland Security Secretary
Michael Chertoff praised 24 for its “reflect[ion] of real life.”122 Michael
Chertoff, the Director of the United States Department of Homeland
Security, is a fan of 24, and recently visited Jack Bauer while the cast
114 Meet the Press, supra note 113.

115 Id.
116 Id.
117 Id.
118 Diane Beaver, a lawyer who worked underneath Major General Michael Dunlavey, the first
commander at Guantánamo Bay, stated that “The first year of Fox TV’s dramatic series 24 came
to a conclusion in spring 2002, and the second year of the series began that fall. An inescapable
message of the program is that torture works. . . . We saw it on cable. People had already seen
the first [season]. It was hugely popular.” Adding that Jack Bauer had many friends at
Guantánamo, Beaver noted that “[Bauer] gave people lots of ideas.” Phillippe Sands, The White
House: The Green Light, VANITY FAIR, May 2008, available at http://www.vanityfair.com/
politics/features/2008/05/guantanamo200805?printable=true&currentPage=all.
119 See KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at 228.
Barbara Bush once remarked that “The Simpsons is the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen.” Id. She
later apologized for the comment by writing a letter to Marge Simpson, in which she explained
that her comment was made from a misinformed perspective. Mrs. Bush also observed several
similarities between her husband and Homer Simpson. William Bennett also expressed his
qualms with The Simpsons, only to later retract a disparaging statement which he had made about
the series. Id. British Prime Minister Tony Blair appeared in an episode of The Simpsons. Id.
120 See The Heritage Foundation, http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev062306.cfm (last
visited Sept. 23, 2007); see also Michael Brendan Dougherty, What Would Jack Bauer Do?, AM.
CONSERVATIVE, Mar. 12, 2007, available at http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/
cover.html. The cover of this magazine featured a picture of Jack Bauer and asked “Why Can’t
Bush Be More Like Bauer?”
121 See The Heritage Foundation, supra note 120.
122 Id.
was filming in Washington, D.C.123 The show’s influence on global

politics is also evidenced by the serious attention that it has received by
those in the United States Armed Forces.124 In 2007, for instance,
newspapers received confirmation from the United States Military
Academy at West Point that Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan
recently traveled to California to meet producers of 24.125 He reportedly
informed the producers that the scenes of torture depicted on 24 were
influencing United States soldiers to mistreat (and potentially torture)
enemy soldiers.126 Brigadier General Finnegan requested that the
writers air fewer scenes of torture in the future.127
Both 24 and The Simpsons have been referenced by representatives
in Congressional hearings.128 More important, however, is the influence
of both of these shows on debates regarding the enactment of specific
123 Richard Johnson, Page Six: Chertoff Meets Jack Bauer, N.Y. POST, Nov. 8, 2007,
available at
http://www.nypost.com/seven/11082007/gossip/pagesix/chertoff_meets_jack_bauer_33039.htm.
124 It was also reported that Kiefer Sutherland, the actor who plays the role of Jack Bauer on
24, spoke to a class of West Point students in order to influence them not to torture or mistreat
prisoners. It was further reported that soldiers’ 24 DVDs were blown up in a recent attack on
U.S. soliders stationed in Iraq. Posting of Faiz, U.S. Military: Television Series ‘24’ Is Promoting
Torture In The Ranks, to Think Progress (Feb. 19, 2007 12:10 EST),
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/13/torture-on-24/. It is, of course, difficult to prove with any
degree of certainty that 24 contributed to and/or influenced soldiers to harshly interrogate and/or
torture enemies. Still, television does indeed have an impact on actions. Others have disagreed
with Finnegan’s assessment regarding the influence of 24; Rick Moran, writing for the blog
American Thinker wrote that “to posit the notion, even tangentially, that the actions of Jack Bauer
on a fictional TV show somehow contributed to this state of affairs strains credulity.” Rick
Moran, Stranger Than Fiction: Does 24 Inspire Real Life Torture?, AM. THINKER, Feb. 10, 2007,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/ stranger_than_fiction_does_24.html. Aware of the
prodigious influence of 24, Human Rights First has launched a “Primetime Torture Project”
designed to educate “junior soldiers about the differences between what they see on TV
and the way they ought to act in the field. Human Rights First is also working to
encourage those with control over creative content in Hollywood to consider portraying
torture in a more nuanced, more responsible fashion.” Human Rights First, Prime-Time
Torture: Torture on TV Rising and Copied in the Field,
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/primetime/ (last visited May 1, 2008).
125 Moran, supra note 124.
126 Id.
127 Id.
128 There have been a number of off-hand references to The Simpsons during Congressional
hearings. See, e.g., 141 CONG. REC. H1472 (daily ed. Feb. 9, 1995) (statement of Rep. Quillen)
(Representative Collins of Illinois remarking, “In the words of Bart Simpson, Mr. Speaker, ‘Ay
Carumba!’”). The Simpsons has also been referenced in the titles of Congressional remarks. See,
e.g., 142 CONG. REC. H6292 (daily ed. June 13, 1996) (statement of Rep. Tiahrt, titled Bart
Simpson and the White House: ‘I Didn’t Do It.’) (referencing and quoting from The Simpsons in
order to analogize the White House’s alleged withholding of Travelgate documents to Bart
Simpson’s defense that “I didn’t do it, nobody saw me, you can’t prove anything”). The
Simpsons has been cited by Congressmen when exploring the state of U.S.-Russian relations.
See, e.g., 140 CONG. REC. H2208 (daily ed. Apr. 12, 1994) (statement of Rep. Gingrich) (Newt
Gingrich, recounting a trip to Russia in which he explained that the Russian community’s
infatuation with Bart Simpson speaks volumes about U.S.-Russia relations).
legislation.129 Some Congressmen have cited The Simpsons in attempts

to curtail the perceived moral decline of American society resulting
from television.130 Because The Simpsons and 24 tackle the most
pressing issues of the day,131 references to these shows by legislators in
various contexts is expected. More surpringly from a legal perspective,
however, is the fact that legislators have referenced these shows in order
to shape legal and public policy debates.132 The actions of both Homer
129 In the House of Representatives, for example, Representative Frank Pallone, Jr., (D-NJ)
began a three minute statement with a reference to The Simpsons and argued that a specific scene
from an episode “really sums up the way the American people will react to the tax bill being
pushed by our Republican colleagues.” Pallone also observed that Homer Simpson’s character is
a “symbol for the middle class,” while his boss, Mr. Burns is a “representative of the rich.” The
Simpsons, by presenting this dichotomy between wealthy and middle class Americans, offers a
great deal of fodder for Congressmen. 143 CONG. REC. H4225-03 (daily ed. June 24, 1997)
(statement of Rep. Pallone). Scholars have documented the influence of other television shows
and movies on the enactment of specific legislation. See supra note 101.
130 The Simpsons has also been cited in an effort to curtail the perceived moral decline in
American society. Rep. Gorton (R-WA), addressing the President of the United States, argued
that the lack of proper educational standards for learning national history was due in large part
because of popular culture. Rep. Gorton began his remarks by asking: “what is a more important
part of our Nation’s history for our children to study—George Washington or Bart Simpson? Is it
more important that they learn about Roseanne Arnold, or how America defeated communism as
the leader of the free world?” Calling for a revision of the standards for learning national history
in the public school system, Rep. Gorton argued that if the current standards are not abolished,
students will be “asked to spend their evenings studying Bart Simpson instead of Benjamin
Franklin’s discovery of electricity.” 141 CONG. REC. S1025 (daily ed. Jan. 18, 1995) (statement
of Rep. Gorton); see also Robert K. Dornan, (R-CA), citing from Michael Medved’s article The
War on Standards, while addressing the House of Representatives (“With Bart Simpson regularly
turning up on all lists of the most admired Americans, we’ve certainly come a long way from the
Andy Hardy model, with young Mickey Rooney learning life’s lessons from his father, the stern
but kindly judge.”). 137 CONG. REC. H6040 (daily ed. July 30, 1991) (statement of Rep.
Dornan). Senator Paul Byrd (PA), lamented the fact that polls indicate that “59 percent of
Americans can name the three Stooges, but only 17 percent of the American people can name
three Supreme Court Justices; only about 50 percent of the American people could identify the
Vice President of the United States, but 95 percent could identify Homer, Bart, and Marge
Simpson.” 147 CONG. REC. S3970, (daily ed. Apr. 26, 2001) (statement of Sen. Byrd).
132 During the 101st Congress’s Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions, Homer
Simpson was referenced in order to demonstrate that workers can be adversely affected by toxic
substances while transporting such substances on their clothing and person. The humorous
circumstances surrounding Homer’s frequent mishaps with toxic chemicals provided a
springboard for discussing the serious health and environmental risks associated with harmful
chemicals at both work and in the home. 136 CONG. REC. S16830 (daily ed. Oct. 23, 1990)
(statement of Rep. Reid). Beyond providing fodder for Congressmen debating serious issues, 24
has a palpable influence on the perspectives and viewpoints on lawmakers. In a Congressional
hearing regarding the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2008, Rep. Chaka
Fattah (D-PA) of the 110th Congress, for example, invoked the name of Jack Bauer and
acknowledged that the public’s fears regarding the detonation of a nuclear bomb on American
soil were influenced by fictional events on the television show 24. By failing to decry specific
elements of 24 for its likely inaccuracies, Rep. Fattah gave his implicit approval to the ways in
which issues pertaining to national security are addressed on the series. Indeed, by equating
watching 24 with other forms of information, Rep. Fattah’s words provided 24 with an air of
legitimacy. 153 CONG. REC. H6347-01 (daily ed. June 13, 2007) (statement of Rep. Fattah).
Simpson and Jack Bauer have also served as a standard against which
the actions of employees133 and federal agents,134 respectively, are
judged. In the arena of taxes, Homer Simpson and Mr. Burns have
come to represent the divergence of class interests in America—as
evidenced by Congressional invocation of their names during a
hearing.135 In the arena of nuclear safety, Homer Simpson serves as the
paradimatic example of the incompetent employee.136 In the context of
national security, Jack Bauer has come to represent the quintessential
federal agent.137 The references to The Simpsons and 24 in the
legislative context demonstrate that lawmakers have not ignored
relevant legal references on these shows. Because neither The Simpsons
nor 24 are designed specifically to either examine the state of the law in
contemporary society138 or mirror the precise social conditions at a
given point in time139, policymakers’ unrestrained reliance on these
shows while debating the enactment of specific legislation is both
dangerous and unwarranted.
C. Influence on the Judiciary
Evan R. Seamone, discussing the theory of judicial mindfulness,140
133 See infra text and footnotes at Part III for the argument that Homer Simpson serves as a
primary frame of reference in a number of judicial opinions addressing issues relating to
employee work ethic and incompetence.
134 See, e.g., 153 CONG. REC. H11645, H11651 (daily ed. Oct. 17, 2007) (statement of Rep.
Rogers) (arguing that federal agents will not be adversely influenced by the actions of Jack Bauer,
but rather will “err on the side of the United States Constitution every time”).
138 While The Simpsons, for example, aims to satirize elements of our society, the Simpsonian
approach is arguably too broad to tackle legal issues in a manner that can help inform
policymakers at a specific level of government. While The Simpsons tackles many legal issues,
the Simpsonian analysis often takes the form of a general critique of a particular policy at some
unidentifiable level of government, rather than targeting a specific level of either federal or state
government. Indeed, Springfield is designed as an amalgamation of an urban city and a small
town. While many of the elements of the town are unmistakably reminiscent of a small town,
other elements help to identify Springfield as a large city (such as the observation that it serves as
home to Hollywood-type movie studios such as Krusty-Lu Studios, and movie stars such as
Rainer Wolfcastle). For this reason, The Simpsons’ analysis of specific legal issues, though
useful from a broad perspective, serves less of a purpose when a real life legislature attempts to
incorporate Springfield’s laws as part of the legal agenda at a particular level of government,
which often faces specific challenges and limitations that differ from Springfield’s
multidimensional society.
139 Each season of 24, for example, is set several years in the future from the year in which the
series airs on television.
140 The theory of mindfulness, proposed by Professor Ellen Langer, makes a distinction
between different types of thinking. She observes that mindful thinking involves “drawing novel
distinctions, examining information from new perspectives, and being sensitive to context,” while
mindless thinking is characterized by “treat[ing] information as though it were context-free-true
argues that judges are sometimes influenced by extralegal sources.141

Judicial reliance on such sources is not surprising if we consider the
nature of the profession,142 generally applicable universal aspects of
human nature,143 and cultural influences in the world at large.144
Psychological factors are also at play when judges make decisions.145
Even if a decision is deemed to be rational and legitimate from a legal
standpoint, reliance on extralegal sources, insofar as it influences
“premature information processing”146 during the judicial decision-
making process, can pose societal problems.147 Indeed, judicial biases
resulting from an array of factors can impede the broad societal goal of
deciding cases in the optimal manner.148 The types of judicial bias can
take several forms.149 Despite this outside bias, judges have the ability
regardless of circumstances.” Seamone argues that Professor Langer’s theory of mindfulness is

relevant to an analysis of judicial decisions with respect to judicial bias and reliance on extralegal
sources. Evan R. Seamone, Judicial Mindfulness, 70 U. CIN. L. REV. 1023, 1071 (2002) (internal
citations omitted).
141 Seamone argues that “judges are human beings, and as a result, are motivated by influences
originating beyond the scope of their immediate comprehension.” Seamone observes that this
phenomenon is an “essential element of reality.” Id. at 1029 (internal citations omitted).
142 Seamone observes that “[a]lthough judges are well respected, judging is one of the most
stressful professions known,” since “judges are often torn between the mandate of the law as
opposed to their own conscience.” Seamone also writes that the “major difficulty that results
from [judicial] stress is increased difficulty recognizing the presence of unwanted thoughts.” Id.
at 1026-27; see also C. Robert Showalter & Tracy D. Eells, Psychological Stress in the
Judiciary, 33 CT. REV. 6, 6 (1996) (pointing to the National Judges Health-Stress Project’s
findings that “judges are over-represented in . . . ‘high stress’ categor[ies] compared to other
professionals”); James L. Gibson, Personality and Elite Political Behavior: The Influence of Self
Esteem on Judicial Decision Making, 43 J.L. & POL. 104, 114 (1981) (“Although American
judges . . . are subject to the expectation that they ‘follow’ precedents in making decisions, they
are just as obviously expected, by others and by themselves, to ‘do justice.’”).
143 See generally Seamone, supra note 140, for an analysis of psychological factors and
aspects of human nature in the context of judicial reasoning.
144 For a discussion of judicial references to extralegal sources from diverse cultural arenas,
see id. at n.191 (listing some judicial references to television shows, children’s nursery rhymes,
paintings, and sculptures); see also William Domnarski, Shakespeare in the Law, 67 CONN. L.J.
317, 323 (1993).
145 See, e.g., Chris Guthrie et al., Inside the Judicial Mind, 86 CORNELL L. REV. 777, 783
(2001) (observing that “judges make decisions under uncertain, time-pressured conditions that
encourage reliance on cognitive shortcuts that sometimes cause illusions of judgment”).
146 Seamone, supra note 140, at 1059.
147 Id.
148 Id. at 1059. Seamone argues that
[O]n a grand scale, when such biases go unchecked during the process of legal
interpretation, there exists a risk that the optimum answer will not be given. It is a
danger that judges may not consider all of the relevant arguments and will thus achieve
a result that-albeit certainly legally legitimate-still falls short of the best answer in the
given situation, or, at the very least, a better answer. One can base this result on the
fact that continuing review and reflection might have resulted in a more informed
decision. And, quite possibly, the more informed decision could have altered the
outcome of the case and thus could have transformed the law into a more responsive
body of authority capable of meeting the challenges of an ever-changing society.
Id. at 1059-60.
149 Seamone identifies five types of bias which serve to influence judges: “advocacy,” in
to disregard misleading information which would otherwise adversely

affect their decision-making ability in individual cases.150 With respect
to both The Simpsons and 24, judges have the option of using scenes
from those shows as a point of comparison with existing law without
using the scenes to influence their reasoning in specific cases. Because
judges often shape law, they have a responsibility to be particularly
wary of being unduly influenced by inaccurate portrayals of societal
conditions and the functions and purposes of law in the fictional worlds
created by both The Simpsons and 24.
Judicial reference151 to fictional characters is not an entirely new
phenomenon. Classic television shows, such as Leave it to Beaver and
Father Knows Best have been referenced in the family law context in
judicial discussion of family norms, particularly with respect to
monetary exemptions for the head of the household.152 Some of these
references have been highly influential in a string of judicial opinions.
which a judge selectively uses and incorporates particular evidence in order to support a
hypothesis, without blatant concealment or fabrication of these efforts; “fraud,” defined as
“intentional, conscious efforts to fabricate, conceal or distort evidence, for whatever reason—
material gain, enhancing one’s professional reputation, protecting one’s theories, or influencing a
political debate;” “cold bias,” which largely operates at an “unconscious” level “even when the
judge is earnestly striving for accuracy”; “hot bias,” which, like “cold bias” is unintentional, but
rather “directionally motivated,” and occurs in situations in which “the judge wants a certain
outcome to prevail”; and “skeptical processing,” where a “judge interprets the evidence in an
unbiased manner, but [his or her] conclusions may differ from those of other judges because of
[his or her] prior probability estimate, his asymmetric standard of proof, or both.” Seamone,
supra note 140, at 1045-46 (quoting Robert J. MacCoun, Biases in the Interpretation and Use of
Research Results, 49 ANN. REV. PSYCHOL. 259, 268 (1998)).
150 Seamone observes that
[j]udges can choose to forgo useless or misleading information. They can adjust their
responses—if not internal representations—in light of information about non-
representativeness. They also have a third option: They can make different use of the
non-representative information. More specifically, they can use such information not
as a basis for judgments, but as a standard of comparison. Judgments thereby acquire a
comparative, relative quality, yielding a contrast effect.
Seamone, supra note 140, at 1053.
In this manner, judges can use references to fictional texts not as a means of interpreting
the law or deciding the ultimate outcomes of cases, but rather citing laws as portrayed in fictional
television shows as a point of comparison with existing interpretations of the law in contemporary
society.
151 Judges are not the only courtroom participants who have referenced popular television
shows. In Guy Chemical Co. v. Romaco AG, defense counsel compared a law firm to “‘Eddie
Haskell . . . the specious brownnosing character from . . . Leave it to Beaver.’” Guy Chem. Co. v.
Romaco AG, No. 3:06-96, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31832, at *10 (W.D. Pa. 2007).
152 See In re Townsend, 344 B.R. 915 (W.D. Mo. 2006). In Townsend, the judge wrote that
according to the early decisions on the head of a household exemption, the head of a
family is the one who controls, manages and supervises the home. But this definition
is dated. “Father Knows Best” and “Leave it to Beaver” are off the air, and the modern
household is far more egalitarian than the ostensibly autocratic, male-dominated
households of yore. Nevertheless, only one party may claim the moniker and benefits
of head of household for exemption purposes.
Id. at 918.
A particular reference to Archie Bunker of the 1970’s television show

All in the Family, for instance, has been quoted by at least fourteen
federal judges in the employment discrimination arena.153 His character
has been used as a standard by which judges guard against forms of
prejudice and discrimination.154 Archie Bunker’s influence on judicial
perceptions of prejudice and bias is evidenced not only by Judge Carl B.
Rubin’s statement that “we refer to [racist] persons as “Archie
Bunkers,’”155 but by the fact that this perspective was echoed by more
than a dozen federal judges.156 Scholars have also observed that Justice
Earl Warren was influenced by Perry Mason.157 Judicial reliance on
these non-academic sources while deciding cases in specific legal areas
is dangerous, since these sources were created largely—if not
exclusively—for entertainment purposes. Such sources did not consider
accuracy in terms of deconstructing the legal environment as it exists in
the real world a primary objective.
In a similar manner, the actions of both Homer Simpson and Jack
Bauer have become the standard by which a number of judges view the
actions of individuals in the employer-employee and national security
contexts, respectively. Like Archie Bunker and Ward Cleaver, both
Homer Simpson and Jack Bauer have exerted an influence on public
perception of relevant political and social issues, and thus it is not
surprising that judges have not been immune to such influence.
1. Homer Simpson Has His Day in Court: Judicial Perceptions of

Homer Simpson as America’s Everyman
Judges and scholars have recognized the relevance of The

Simpsons to contemporary legal doctrine. Many judicial opinions,
particularly those within the employment arena, have used Homer
Simpson as a primary frame of reference with respect to determinations
regarding whether an employee has engaged in misconduct or has
153 See, e.g., Torres v. Pisano, 116 F.3d 625, 633 (2d Cir. 1997).
154 See id.
155 Judge Rubin wrote the following:
In the past three years we have even adopted as a part of our folk lore a character who
is prejudiced and biased against all persons other than of his own neighborhood,
religion and nationality. We refer to such people now as “Archie Bunkers.” The
Archie Bunkers of this world, within limitations, still may assert their biased view. . . .
The defendant in this case is charged by law with avoiding all discrimination; the
defendant is not charged by law with discharging all Archie Bunkers in its employ.
Howard v. Nat’l Cash Register Co., 388 F.Supp. 603, 606 (S.D. Ohio 1975).
157 See Stark, supra note 12, at 230 (“Did Perry Mason pave the way for the Warren Court’s
criminal procedure decisions? Though it would be preposterous to suggest that he did it
singlehandedly, it would be equally foolish to pretend that he played no role at all.”).
displayed incompetence. In a Seventh Circuit case in which a bank

chose a decidedly unsuitable individual to direct its trust operations,
Judge Terence T. Evans likened this misinformed decision to “Mister
Burns’ determination that Homer Simpson would make a fine nuclear
safety inspector.”158 While legal scholars might be tempted to dismiss
this reference as “fleeting” or “ornamental,” a close reading of the
analogy to The Simpsons suggests that it served as a point of reference
upon which Judge Evans relied in order to analyze the perceived
incompetence of the director of trust operations. Furthermore, the
Simpsonian reference in this case has been cited in at least one other
case,159 suggesting that use of this reference has had an influential effect
in more than one courtroom. More importantly, however, is the fact
that references to Homer Simpson have consistently been made in
judicial opinions addressing employment-related issues.
The influence of The Simpsons in judicial opinions discussing
nuclear safety160 norms also merits serious attention. Judicial reliance
on Homer Simpson in this context was perhaps most pronounced in
Local 97, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, A.F.L.-
C.I.O. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, a case in which the
conduct of a Nuclear Security Officer (NSO)161 at a nuclear power plant
was at issue.162 Judge Howard G. Munson, sitting in the Northern
District of New York, faulted the NSO’s attempt to conceal his “Homer
Simpson-like conduct.”163 Judge Munson’s reference to Homer
158 Citizens First Nat’l Bank of Princeton v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 200 F.3d 1102, 1105 (7th Cir.
2000).
159 In Hicks v. Midwest Transport, Inc., a case in which an individual was accused
of mismanaging corporate assets, Judge Phil Gilbert quoted Judge Evans’s reference to Homer
Simpson in Citizens First. Thus, there is evidence that these popular culture references are
having a precedential effect with respect to the ways in which judges view particular issues.
Hicks v. Midwest Transport, Inc., No. 2004-cv-4263, 2005 WL 1267463, at *1 (S.D. Ill. May 16,
2005).
160 It is not surprising that judicial references to The Simpsons appear in the nuclear safety
regulation context. Many episodes of The Simpsons address issues relating to nuclear safety, and
some episodes have parodied the context of specific nuclear incidents, such as the Three Mile
Island accident in 1979. See The Simpsons: Homer Defined (Fox television broadcast Oct. 17,
1991).
161 It is noteworthy that Homer Simpson serves as Springfield’s Nuclear Safety Inspector at
the Springfield Nuclear Power Plant.
162 In Local 97, the NSO failed to monitor alarms at the nuclear power facility, which the court
described as an “inexplicably baffling, lackadaisical response to the alarm.” Local 97, Int’l Bhd.
of Elec. Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., No. 96-cv-728, 1997 WL
793137, at *6 (N.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 1997). The failure of the NSO to properly monitor alarms is
strikingly similar to Simpsons episode plots in which Homer failed to properly perform his job
duties.
163 Id. at *6. The court noted that “[t]he NRC regulations require [the NSO] . . . to be
‘trustworthy and reliable’; his employment cannot ‘constitute an unreasonable risk to the health
and safety of the public.’” Id. (quoting 10 C.F.R. § 73.56(b)(1)). Under this standard, Homer
Simpson should absolutely be fired. In the episode Homer Goes to College, Homer feared the
prospect of losing his job, and declared, “Oh, I’m going to lose my job just because I’m
Simpson was not dismissed as a popular culture aside by Judge Thomas

J. Meskill of the New York Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
who quoted the reference in his opinion on appeal in the case.164
Additional references to The Simpsons in judicial opinions
addressing issues regarding human behavior buttress the argument that
Homer Simpson, a cultural icon165 often characterized as America’s
Everyman,166 is an influential figure in the context of engendering
judicial formulations of an incompetent or negligent employee.167
Judge Edith H. Jones, for instance, cited both The Simpsons and All in
the Family as points of reference when she compared the conduct of an
alleged harasser to Homer Simpson and Archie Bunker.168 The fact that
references to Homer Simpson most often appear in the context of
employment-related issues supports the argument that the references
should not be dismissed as “ornamental” asides, but rather should be
understood as exerting an influence on the ways in which judges define
the behavior of a reasonable employee. Such reliance on Homer
Simpson as a point of reference for defining an incompetent employee
is somewhat disturbing given the fact that the writers of The Simpsons
have as a goal the creation of the most incompetent employee
imaginable. Creator Matt Groening would be surprised to learn that an
employee may not be liable in a particular courtroom unless her actions
reach the degree of negligence exhibited by Homer Simpson.
dangerously unqualified.” The Simpsons: Homer Goes to College (Fox television broadcast Oct.
14, 1993).
164 Local 97, Int’l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, A.F.L.-C.I.O. v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp., 196
F.3d 117, 124 (2d Cir. 1999); see also Dyno Nobel, Inc., v. United Steel Workers of Am., 77
F.Supp. 2d 307, 310 (N.D.N.Y 1999) (deriding employee’s “Homer Simpson-like response” to an
incident which placed others in great physical danger). This case cited Local 97 in the context of
discussing standards for workplace safety and employee conduct, suggesting that his reading of
Local 97 may have contributed to his decision to include a reference to Homer Simpson. Id. at
309-10.
165 The popularity of Homer Simpson is demonstrated by a 2003 BBC poll asking respondents
to choose the “greatest American of all-time.” Homer Simpson topped the list, receiving 40.83%
of the total votes, beating out influential leaders such as Bill Clinton (3.92%), Martin Luther
King, Jr., (10.06%), Abraham Lincoln (10.28%), and George Washington (5.10%). KESLOWITZ,
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at 1.
166 See id.
167 The aforementioned judicial references to Homer Simpson in the employee-related context
suggest a deep judicial familiarity with and recognition of The Simpsons. There are particular
episodes of The Simpsons, for example, that explicitly address Homer’s negligence. See, e.g.,
Homer’s Enemy (Homer purposely spilled a pitcher of water on his workstation in an ill-advised
attempt to resolve a dangerous situation. Homer also almost drank a beaker of sulfuric acid in
this episode.) The Simpsons: Homer’s Enemy (Fox television broadcast May 4, 1997); Homer
Defined (Homer, faced with imminent crises on two separate occasions while working at the
power plant, saves the town from destruction by sheer luck. As a result, Homer Simpson’s
picture is entered into the dictionary next to the phrase “to pull a Homer,” which is defined in the
dictionary as “to succeed despite idiocy.”). The Simpsons: Homer Defined (Fox television
broadcast Oct. 17, 1991).
168 DeAngelis v. El Paso Mun. Police Officers Ass’n, 51 F.3d 591, 595 (5th Cir. 1995).
2. Jack Bauer Has His Day in Court
Given the use of popular fictional television characters in specific

legal contexts, references to fictional federal agent Jack Bauer in the
judicial arena do not come as a surprise. They are most pronounced in
the area of national security. Jack Bauer serves as the primary frame of
reference for cases involving the controversial actions of federal agents.
In the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Don v. Gonzales, for
example, a dissenting judge discussed Jack Bauer’s actions in the
context of the permissibility of controversial actions performed by
federal agents.169 In outlining a training session for the Homeland
Security Department, the Executive Director wrote that his objective
was not to try to make “Jack Bauers out of assistant district
attorneys.”170 In a recent argument with other judges, United States
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made reference to Jack Bauer.171
3. Broader References
Specific plot scenarios on The Simpsons have also been invoked by

judges as a means of understanding specific legal issues. New York v.
FCC,172 for instance, involved the FCC’s purported exercise of
169 Judge Wardlaw noted:

I cannot even imagine to which television shows the IJ is referring. In one of the most
highly-rated series on television, 24, Jack Bauer, a federal agent at the Counter
Terrorism Unit, located in Los Angeles, has never once had the opportunity to ‘sit
down at a table’ and ‘straighten it out’ at any time during its past five seasons. Perhaps
the IJ was imagining an idealistic world that exists only in his own mind—but that
would be speculation, and my dissent does not depend on that.
Don v. Gonzales, 476 F.3d 738, 751 n.3 (9th Cir. 2007) (Wardlaw, J., dissenting).
170 41-APR Prosecutor 9, at 10 Prosecutor, Mar./Apr., 2007, Message from the Executive
Director, Homeland Security Training Announced, 2007, National District Attorneys Association.
171 One commentator, lamenting “Supreme Court justices citing Hollywood for constitutional
principles,” reported on the statements of Justice Scalia in front of a gathering of judges in
Ottowa:
‘Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,’ Judge
Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent’s rough interrogation tactics
saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the
sand. ‘Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?’ Judge Scalia, challenged his fellow
judges. ‘Say that criminal law is against him? You have the right to a jury trial? Is any
jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so. So the question is really whether
we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.’
Susan G., Scalia: The Jack Bauer Torture Test, DAILY KOS, June 19, 2007,
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/6/19/11445/8105 (last visited Sept. 7, 2007). On
October 4, 2007, Slate magazine featured a parody of Justice Scalia and his reference to Jack
Bauer entitled “Nino Scalia is Jack Bauer.” See SLATE, http://www.slate.com, Oct. 4, 2007.
172 267 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001).
jurisdiction over local telephone dialing and the legality, under the 1996
Telecommunications Act, of its imposition of mandatory 10-digit
dialing in New York resulting from a shortage of local telephone
numbers.173 Similarly, in The Simpsons episode entitled A Tale of Two
Springfields,174 the residents of Springfield are angered by the
imposition of a 10-digit dialing code also resulting from a shortage of
local telephone numbers.175 Judge Parker of the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals, recognizing the relevance of The Simpsons episode,176 cited
it in the course of his observation that the increase in communications
options, such as fax machines, cellular phones, pagers and modems, has
created a situation in which society must overcome the obstacles that
have resulted from a pervasive shortage of telephone numbers.177 Judge
Parker’s perception of the hardships caused by the imposition of the
dialing code was arguably shaped by his exposure to such problems in
popular culture.178 Citing specifically to The Simpsons episode, Judge
Parker further observed that the addition of the new area codes in New
York City has caused anxiety for many people.179 While the popular
173 Id.
174 The Simpsons: A Tale of Two Springfields (Fox television broadcast Nov. 5, 2000).
175 Id.
176 Judge Parker also referenced an episode of Seinfeld, in which the character Elaine was
angered that she received a “646” area code as a result of a shortage of “212” codes. New York,
267 F.3d at 94.
177 Id.
178 Certain mediums within popular culture can serve to elicit strong emotions from viewers.
Kamir observes, for example, that “[f]ilms have a unique way of touching people’s hearts and
allowing them to employ their emotions in the processes of seeing, listening, understanding,
discussing and analysing.” Kamir, supra note 39, at 275. For an analysis of emotional influences
in the context of the judiciary, see Karl Georg Wurzel, Methods of Judicial Thinking, in SCIENCE
OF LEGAL METHOD 286, 298 (1921) (“The judge is exposed more than any other thinker to
emotional influences,” which can lead to errors in judgment.).
With respect to television, Judge Parker’s reference to The Simpsons, when placed in
context with the factual scenario of the case, is attributable to his emotional response to the
hardships endured by the residents of Springfield following the imposition of the new dialing
code.
Often, however, judicial opinions lack the type of emotional response elicited from
elements of popular culture. In this way, popular culture, as John Denvir argues, can provide an
important contrast and/or complement to the law as articulated in judicial opinions. In his
discussion of viewing certain films as jurisprudential texts, Denvir writes:
[W]e can study movies as “legal texts”. . . . Frank Capra’s film, It’s a Wonderful Life,
provides an important complement, or perhaps antidote, to Chief Justice William
Rehnquist’s legal discussion of the reciprocal duties we owe each other as citizens.
Not only do both “texts” treat the difficult legal issue of the claims of community,
Capra’s treatment brings out an emotional ambivalence toward community that
Rehnquist’s legal prose ignores.
JOHN DENVIR, LEGAL REELISM: MOVIES AS LEGAL TEXTS xii (1996).
One of the virtues of popular culture is its ability to elicit emotions in a way in which
words on a paper cannot. This is especially so in the context of the torture debate. 24 has
enabled the general public to visualize realistic images of torture, and has expanded the scope and
breadth of the torture debate.
179 New York, 267 F.3d at 94.
culture references could plausibly be dismissed as an immaterial

aside,180 it is noteworthy that the reference to The Simpsons episode was
made at the very start of Justice Parker’s opinion. The fact that Judge
Parker approached the case with these pre-conceived ideas in mind
speaks volumes about the influence of aspects of popular culture on the
judiciary.181 While many scholars have argued that the media’s
influence on perceptions of legal issues and dilemmas is limited to
members of the general public who are unfamiliar with the workings of
the legal system, this example highlights the fact that federal judges,
too, can be influenced by what they watch on situational comedies.
There is little reason to believe that ideas culled from and expressed by
mainstream popular culture escape the members of the federal judiciary.
If we believe that jurors enter certain cases with a particular
predisposition as a result of popular culture,182 it should also be
expected that judges may also enter their courtrooms with a
predisposition with respect to cases at hand as a result of outside
popular culture influences. Based on Judge Parker’s reference, there is
little reason to believe that cultivation theory’s application does not
extend beyond the general public.
Because we live during a time period in which television shows—
particularly socially relevant television shows such as The Simpsons and
24—both reflect and influence social realities,183 references to specific
plots and characters from these shows in legal literature and judicial
opinions suggest a departure from the merely decorative and ornamental
references to staples of children’s literature, paintings, and sculptures.184
180 A report conducted by M/A/R/C(R) Research concluded, for example, that “all forms of
media, such as television news, local newspapers, radio news, and even television dramas are
significantly more important to people with less knowledge than to people with more knowledge.
This clearly suggests that the media can and does impact some people’s knowledge base.”
Symposium, American Bar Association Report on Perceptions of the U.S. Justice System, 62
ALB. L. REV. 1307, 1315. This finding seems to suggest that popular culture’s main sphere of
influence is on the general public as opposed to those who have more intimate knowledge of the
law. This Note argues to the contrary.
181 Widely-cited studies conducted by Maurice Vergeer “advance the proposition that
exposure to fictional and entertainment programming, rather than general programming,
cultivates attitudes consistent with that programming.” Podlas, supra note 12, at 449, (citing
Maurice Vergeer et al., Exposure To Newspapers and Attitudes Toward Ethnic Minorities: A
Longitudinal Analysis, 11 HOW. J. OF COMM. 127, 130 (2000)). There is no reason to suspect that
judges, despite their intimate knowledge of legal doctrine, are better positioned to ignore the
influence of the mainstream media with respect to specific factual circumstances and the harm
that may result in certain situations. Indeed, cultivation theory, discussed infra, makes no
inherent distinction between the creation of “common perceptions of reality” among the general
public on the one hand, and the judiciary, on the other. See, e.g., Podlas, supra note 12, at 447-
48.
182 See generally Podlas supra note 12.
184 For a sampling of judicial references to fictional texts, see Seamone, supra note 140, at
n.191.
Consistent with the tenets of cultivation theory,185 the messages

conveyed on these intelligent, highly influential television shows are
exerting a demonstrable effect on the ways in which some judges view
legal issues and policy considerations, particularly with respect to the
potential public policy effects of their decisions.186
4. Normative Implications of Judicial Reliance on Extralegal Sources
The significance of the influence of The Simpsons and 24 is

demonstrated by the shift in the manner by which lawyers, litigants, and
members of the general public read judicial opinions. Presumably, if
litigants and their lawyers were aware that Justice Scalia has relied on
24 in the torture context,187 they would seek to exploit such judicial
preference to their advantage. Such manipulation of elements of
popular culture is hardly unprecedented in the judicial arena.188
A determination of whether judicial reliance on extralegal sources
has adverse implications for the law depends largely on both the nature
of the particular source and the way in which it is being used. From a
normative perspective, judicial reliance on both The Simpsons and 24
during the decision-making process is particularly troublesome, given
the underlying goals of both shows.189 The writers of The Simpsons, for
instance, have as their primary goal the production of humorous
situations.190 On 24, the writers’ main objective is to maintain a
constant sense of fear and suspense, which is partially achieved by
creating highly unlikely scenarios that fail to accurately reflect real-
world events.191 In order to achieve their respective objectives, both
shows often distort the functions and purposes of the law.192 The
adverse implications of public reliance on police and crime television
dramas193 are magnified when legislators and judges rely on extralegal
sources that do not aim to portray the law in an accurate manner.
Inaccurate portrayals of the law can lead to the enactment and
enforcement of misguided legislation.194 Public and judicial

186 See, for example, New York, 267 F.3d at 94, where Judge Parker referenced an episode of
The Simpsons when discussing the potential effects of instituting a change to the method of
dialing telephone numbers in New York.
188 See generally Seamone, supra note 140.
190 KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at 3.
192 See id.; KESLOWITZ, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO THE SIMPSONS, supra note 14, at 3.
193 See generally Stark, supra note 11.
194 See supra note 106 (discussing the enactment of stalking legislation based on Taxi Driver).
consciousness of this phenomenon is important and can serve as a check

against extralegal intrusions into the law.
CONCLUSION
In addition to the importance of references to popular culture with

respect to how judges and legal scholars view the law, judicial
juxtaposition of law and popular culture is relevant in terms of its
influence on the way in which the general public reads judicial
opinions. Bloggers on The Wall Street Journal website, for example,
responded to Judge Boyce Martin’s195 Simpsonian reference in a recent
case196 by posting other law-related quotes from The Simpsons and
commenting on the judicial use of the quote. While many fans would
view the reference as purely comical—Homer, as offeror, enters into an
oral contract with God, an offeree who Homer believed accepted the
terms of the contract by means of his silence—legal professionals
responded to the news of the reference by posting other law-related
quotes from The Simpsons and offering insights on the judicial
invocation of the quote. While judicial reliance on popular culture in
the context of considering legal ideas might be interpreted in a manner
that suggests that the judicial system is being undermined, judicial use
of such references can also serve to lessen the generational and
educational gaps between judges and the general public.
This Note has shown that two popular television shows—The
Simpsons and 24—have exerted an influence not only on the way in
which the general public perceives the law, but also on the ways in
which laws are made and cases are decided. These examples
demonstrate that cultivation theory’s reach extends beyond the general
public. Despite intricate familiarity with law and policy, some judges
and lawmakers are influenced by the events and ideas expressed on
fictional television shows. The popular culture references in the context
of both judicial reasoning and federal lawmaking demonstrates that law
is not informed solely through library books; conversely, some
lawmakers and judges lend at least one ear to the volume on their
195 See Posting of Peter Lattman to Wall St. J. Law Blog, Footnote of the Day: Homer’s
Unilateral Contract with God, http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/11/13/law-blog-footnote-of-the-day-
doh/ (Nov. 13 2007, 14:55 EST).
196 Id. The following reference was made in a footnote to Judge Martin’s discussion of the
elements required to form a unilateral contract. Homer Simpson talking to God:
Here’s the deal: you freeze everything as it is, and I won’t ask for anything more. If
that is OK, please give me absolutely no sign. [no response] OK, deal. In gratitude, I
present you this offering of cookies and milk. If you want me to eat them for you,
please give me no sign. [no response] Thy will be done.
The Simpsons: And Maggie Makes Three (Fox television broadcast Jan. 22, 1995).
television sets. Consciousness of this phenomenon on the part of the

public, lawmakers, and judges can serve as a check against the adverse
consequences that may emanate from such reliance.

Keslowitz 29 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Keslowitz 29 6

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Keslowitz 29 6

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

KESLOWITZ.FINAL.

VERSION 5/25/2008 4:56:25 PM

THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW:

Although Homer Simpson’s hometown of Springfield, USA is

2788 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

Alexis de Tocqueville observed that “[t]he spirit of the law . . .

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2789

context of contemporary American legal discourse. While the law

Symposium, 43 N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 653, 653 (2000).

2790 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

focusing on the cultivation theory and the influence of popular culture

I. 24, THE SIMPSONS, AND THE LAW

A. The Simpsons and the Law

No television show in history has tackled as many important issues

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2791

system,17 there has not been a great deal of literature specifically

2792 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

references to the legal profession on The Simpsons,25 and the American

B. 24 and the Law

24 has also examined a number of cutting edge legal ideas,

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2793

Moral and ethical quandaries abound on the series, inspiring much

Dershowitz and Harvey A. Silvergate).

2794 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

article.”38 This exchange served as a classic example of the interplay

II. LAW AND POPULAR CULTURE

Contemporary popular and legal cultures are closely intertwined.39

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2795

William I. Miller argues that the cinematic conception of equity

2796 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

A. Influence on the General Public

The influence of television and movies on the general public—

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2797

2798 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

misunderstanding of legal issues as portrayed on The Simpsons, laws

Scholars have addressed the ways in which inaccurate world

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2799

relationship between television viewership and attitudes, behaviors, and

2800 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2801

has no effective way of dealing with. Under a cultivation theory

2802 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

previously argued that 24 provides a springboard for urging viewers to

82 See generally id.; READING 24, supra note 75.

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2803

to handle such problems, cultivation theory provides that the audience

III. POPULAR CULTURE’S REACH INTO THE LEGAL ARENA

Although scholars have largely focused their attention on the

2804 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

A. Influence on Legal Scholars

Scholars and authors have devoted serious academic attention to

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2805

scholars have also argued that depictions of lawyers on The Simpsons

2806 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

There have been a few studies documenting Hollywood’s influence

2008] THE SIMPSONS, 24, AND THE LAW 2807

2808 CARDOZO LAW REVIEW [Vol. 29:6

Bauer moment,”114 and argued that a formal exception permitting

114 Meet the Press, supra note 113.