Quote:
Originally Posted by pornlaw
This one is going to be tough for AHF to win and can implicate mainstream agents as well.
Condoms are in the exclusive realm of porn... dangerous workplaces are not.
Anyone can make an argument that common physically injuries not to mention the head injuries and ALS (think Junior Seau) make an NFL football field an inherently dangerous workplace.
How would sports agents in California handle that issue ? LATATA is one thing - I dont think the DIR wants to take on the NFL and www.NASAAR.org |
so you think this will be tough for AHF to win based solely on the potential precedent it could set for sports and 'dangerous work environments'?
Why would you think the DIR would be reluctant, if that's exactly what they have done?
If i were a LLB, id expect a US judge to look at a porn case a whole lot differently than a football case