May 21, 2007

Squeezing out The Juice

By Malcolm Fleschner / Humor Columnist

This past week Maryland and Minnesota became the latest states to adopt regulations banning smoking in all restaurants and bars or, as smokers themselves often refer to such laws, "Further proof that the United States is being run by a bunch of Nazis."

In recent years these restrictions on smoking in public places have gained voter support as the scientific evidence has mounted, conclusively demonstrating that cigarettes are responsible not only for thousands of preventable deaths each year, but also countless burns to the edges of barroom pool tables.

These days, perhaps in fear of the increasingly influential anti-smoking lobby, many restaurant owners have begun taking every possible precaution to avoid running afoul of the new laws. To cite just one extreme example, earlier this month Louisville steak house owner Jeff Ruby approached a table of twelve diners in the restaurant who had just been seated and asked the entire party to leave - before anyone at the table had even gotten the chance to light up a cigarette.

Of course, fearing the wrath of smokers, Ruby would never admit that this was the reason behind his actions. Instead, he claimed that he had only tossed the group because the dining party had included O.J. Simpson, who was in town for the Kentucky Derby.

"I didn't want to serve him because of my convictions of what he's done to those families," Ruby told The Associated Press, referring to the long-simmering allegations that Simpson was involved in the murders of his ex-wife, Nicole Simpson, and her friend Ron Goldman.

Like me, Simpson is skeptical of Ruby's story. And he's got a point. After all, O.J. was tried in criminal court back in 1995 and the jury did deliver a not guilty verdict, so obviously he's perfectly innocent. But O.J.'s theory has nothing to do with Ruby's fears about running afoul of the restaurant smoking ban either. So what's the real reason the restaurateur tossed the dining party out of his establishment? To O.J., the answer is obvious: racism.

The article I read about the story quotes Simpson's lawyer, Yale Galanter, saying he intends to pursue the matter and may sue the restaurant on the grounds that the decision to deny service to the group was based on Simpson's race.

Frankly, I welcome this development. We '90s nostalgia buffs can't help but embrace the opportunity to see the Hall-of-Fame football star the way we fondly remember him during his glory days - sitting in a courtroom, staring blankly into space. Perhaps former Los Angeles police officer Mark Fuhrman can put in an appearance as a witness, because as we all recall from the earlier trial, Fuhrman is nothing if not an expert about race relations.

I also hope that we'll somehow get to relive one of the earlier trial's most memorable moments, perhaps this time involving a grimacing O.J. gamely attempting to stuff a napkin into the collar of his shirt, while his attorney chants, "If the napkin won't stay in place, it must be race!"

These kinds of theatrics may not be enough, however, to convince a savvy 21st century jury that O.J. was kicked out of the restaurant just because he is black. In that case, he will probably have to find a way to prove that had he been a former NFL star and sometime actor who inexplicably escaped justice after committing a grisly double homicide - but one who was white - the restaurant would have gladly served him. Any readers with inside knowledge of pending murder allegations against Howie Long or Terry Bradshaw should definitely get in touch with the new Simpson legal team.

But by O.J. Simpson trial standards, this would all be relatively standard fare. To take it to the next level, I would hope that, at a minimum, Simpson's legal team will try to prove that O.J. was in town following up on a hot lead in his 12-year quest to find the "real killers," whom he suspected of working at the Louisville steakhouse. After all, he might point out, it does seem more than a little suspicious that during O.J.'s original trial no one bothered to find out where Jeff Ruby was on the night the murders took place.

All I'm saying is that the public has a right to the truth. Or, failing that, the right to watch another O.J. Simpson-related spectacle trial shown live in its entirety on Court TV.

But in the meantime, the question remains: should the government have the power to place ever more restrictions on citizens' public activities, like the right to smoke in a bar or to dine in a restaurant without the fear of being thrown out just because everyone thinks you're a murderer?

It's an important question, one that's probably best left to the top legal minds of our generation. I say we ask Judge Ito.

Would you let O.J. dine in your restaurant? What if he tried to light up? Malcolm Fleschner wants to hear your thoughts at Malcolm@CultureShlock.com.