- Those enviro-hazard warnings plastered all over because of Prop 65? They may be not merely pointless but untrue [California Civil Justice; a still-timely 2000 piece]
- Is it somehow wrong for a public medical examiner to testify against cops — even when it’s in another county? [Radley Balko, Reason]
- UCLA research scientists fight back against animal rights fanatics’ violence and intimidation [Orac/Respectful Insolence, “Pro-Test”]
- Ezra Levant, himself a target of Canada’s official speech tribunals, has written a new book denouncing them, buy before they ban it [Amazon; Andrew Coyne, Maclean’s] Has odious censorship-complaint-filer Richard Warman finally gotten his comeuppance? [Ken @ Popehat] More: another Warman case [Cit Media Law]
- Roundup of recent sports/assumption of risk cases [John Hochfelder]
- Already in trouble on charges of faking a will, Allentown, Pa. police-brutality attorney John Karoly now faces tax charges including alleged failure to report $5 million in income for 2002, 2004 and 2005 [TaxGirl]
- Lawprof’s “Reparations, Reconciliation and Restorative Justice” seminar led to introduction of Maryland bill requiring insurers to disclose antebellum slaveholder policies [DelmarvaNow]
- Judge tosses suit by Clarksville, Tennessee officials against activists who called them cozy with developers [Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”]
Filed under: animal rights, assumption of risk, California, expert witnesses, free speech in Canada, insurers, Maryland, Prop 65, reparations, Richard Warman, sports, Tennessee
4 Comments
Why hasn’t the American press breathed a word about Richard Warman? Just because it’s happening in Canada doesn’t mean it’s automatically boring, people. Or do our trusty journos in the states secretly admire his efforts to stifle politically incorrect speech? I mean, this guy would make for a dynamite thumbsucker in a big paper or magazine, even at the hands of a liberal reporter. Hmmm.
Anonymous Attorney, I think that the American press correctly thinks that most Americans don’t care about news of Canada — which results in less coverage, which results in caring even less — a vicious cycle that contributes to Americans’ embarrassing ignorance of our good neighbor.
It would be nice if this story got more play, though.
To be fair to the American press Ken, the Canadian press barely covers Warman, except (until recently) to show him in a positive light as an anti-hate activist, not the anti-speech activist he also is. The unsavory side of Warman is covered by the Western Standard (which is edited by Ezra Levant, whom he sued), and Mark Steyn, who has an interest in this sort of thing because of the MacLean’s hate complaint. Until MacLean’s got sued, that magazine covered Warman in a flattering light.
Other than that, his Canadian coverage comes from bloggers like Kathy Shaidle, some of whom (like Shaidle) have large readership even by American standards, but they’re still blogs.
For instance, at this moment, a Google News front page search for Richard Warman reveals about 20 items on the man. One of those is this blog entry, which is negative. Another is a story about Kathy Shaidle, also negative on Warman. One is a story about Canada’s diminishing free speech culture, also negative.
The remainder all focus on his “win” before the Human Rights Commission, and refer to him as “activist Richard Warman,” or “anti-hate speech campaigner Richard Warman,” rather than as “serial litigant Richard Warman,” or “noted internet troll Richard Warman,” or “race baiter Richard Warman.” And these are Canadian media.
If the Canadian media cover Warman’s antics in positive terms rather than in terms of his abuse of the legal system, American media can’t be expected to pick him up. After all, we have plenty of homegrown speech police masquerading as anti-hate campaigners for the American media to cover.