MTV’s new hit show, the Jersey Shore, swept the nation this fall after
appealing to the nation’s “trashier” side of entertainment. While
most people, especially in the tri-state area, would rather not have
an extra dose of “Guido” in their day, they felt compelled to watch,
it was like a train wreck, you just couldn’t look away. The show
gained popularity almost immediately after characters like “Snookie”
and “the Situation” unabashedly let their “freak flags” fly for the
entire nation to see. However, after only a few episodes, the show’s
appeal quickly turned from laughing alongside a few crazy New
Jersey/New Yorkers, to becoming full on violent entertainment. After
the “punch heard round the world” episode in which Snookie was punched
in the face by a guy drinking with the cast at a bar, the show began
to air more and more violence in keeping up with the nation’s violent
demands. The show continued to advertise and air fights between cast
members and jersey shore patrons, which has now netted the show with a
number of different lawsuits.
The most interesting set claims however, have come out of Toms River,
NJ, where a judge has let racketeering claims go forward. The
plaintiff, Stephen Izzo, was assaulted by the show’s Ronnie Magro.
The assault was taped and aired on the program. Izzo is bringing
claims that MTV has violated New Jersey’s anti-racketeering statute
(RICO). The allegation is that MTV is an enterprise profiting off of
illegal activity. In order to succeed on the claims, Izzo must show
that MTV and its parent company, Viacom, was acting as an enterprise,
which engaged in a pattern of racketeering. While the claim may be a
stretch, the New Jersey judge denied a claim dismissing the
racketeering charge, stating that the racketeering charge could go
forward.
RICO, or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, was
created in 1970 in an attempt to stop the Mafia and other criminal
organizations from infiltrating legitimate businesses. The statute is
arguably very broad but has survived untouched even despite a number
of constitutional challenges. RICO began as a tool to combat serious
organized crime, but recently has become a powerful weapon against all
sorts of conduct, criminal and civil. RICO has been used against
environmental and anti-abortion activists, as well as white-collar
criminals, who arguably have only committed basic fraud. It is a
statute which is quickly moving well beyond its original scope.
The statute is unique and is attractive to a client like Izzo because
Izzo stands to receive treble damages for his claims. Additionally,
Izzo may be entitled to a portion of the show’s profits, if MTV is
found to be a “criminal enterprise.” Izzo’s lawyer believes that if
his client’s claims are successful, he may be able to receive up to 5
million dollars. Five million dollars from a simple assault. This
blatant misapplication of the racketeering statute should not stand.
Victim’s like Izzo, who engage in the type of behavior which led the
fight in the first place, are not what RICO was intended for. While
MTV has been under tremendous legal and public pressure to stop airing
and producing the show, it should not however, fall victim to a
frivolous RICO claim by a clearly greedy plaintiff. Not only would
this type of RICO claim expand the scope of the statute to include
conduct never considered by Congress when the statute was passed, but
it would unjustly reward plaintiffs like Izzo, and encourage others to
engage in similar types of violent behavior.
-Kerry Rigas
