Comments on: “Pregnancy brain” http://overlawyered.com/2007/05/pregnancy-brain/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:39:32 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Richard Nieporent http://overlawyered.com/2007/05/pregnancy-brain/comment-page-1/#comment-7150 Richard Nieporent Wed, 02 May 2007 13:08:05 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4860#comment-7150 <i>but especially in SF, I would presume a jury would laugh at anyone proposing such ludicrous action</i> Unfortunately, that is not the case. It is the political correctness of the Left that is eviscerating the First Amendment. but especially in SF, I would presume a jury would laugh at anyone proposing such ludicrous action

Unfortunately, that is not the case. It is the political correctness of the Left that is eviscerating the First Amendment.

]]> By: Griffin3 http://overlawyered.com/2007/05/pregnancy-brain/comment-page-1/#comment-7149 Griffin3 Wed, 02 May 2007 09:59:04 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4860#comment-7149 I just don't see what the city could have done, more than it did, to prevent this situation. It would have been an interesting question to ask the plaintiff's attorney: should the city have pre-screened anyone attending, and ejected them if they said anything beyond what they proposed to say, in advance? Should it have immediately ejected or jailed any citizen who made a comment perceived to be offensive? I mean, some folks might think that it's okay to run presidential press conferences like that, with loyalty oaths and all, but especially in SF, I would presume a jury would laugh at anyone proposing such ludicrous action. The case sounds, from what I read in the article, to be an absolute joke. But, more than that, it is not a case of damned-if-you-don't, it seems, as much as the plaintiff now demanding money for the city's refusal to take action against a citizen which would be illegal, in direct contravention of the first amendment. And people wonder why, when we read these stories, all we can manage in an inarticulate growl... Glenn I just don’t see what the city could have done, more than it did, to prevent this situation. It would have been an interesting question to ask the plaintiff’s attorney: should the city have pre-screened anyone attending, and ejected them if they said anything beyond what they proposed to say, in advance? Should it have immediately ejected or jailed any citizen who made a comment perceived to be offensive? I mean, some folks might think that it’s okay to run presidential press conferences like that, with loyalty oaths and all, but especially in SF, I would presume a jury would laugh at anyone proposing such ludicrous action.

The case sounds, from what I read in the article, to be an absolute joke. But, more than that, it is not a case of damned-if-you-don’t, it seems, as much as the plaintiff now demanding money for the city’s refusal to take action against a citizen which would be illegal, in direct contravention of the first amendment. And people wonder why, when we read these stories, all we can manage in an inarticulate growl…

Glenn

]]> By: jb http://overlawyered.com/2007/05/pregnancy-brain/comment-page-1/#comment-7148 jb Wed, 02 May 2007 01:02:02 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4860#comment-7148 So the liability theory is "they owned the space"? "They represent the people, and one of the people said it"? "They didn't gag all spectators"? So the liability theory is “they owned the space”? “They represent the people, and one of the people said it”? “They didn’t gag all spectators”?

]]>