Posts tagged as:

free speech

American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression:

There is a disturbing new trend in censorship legislation. Bills have been introduced in Utah and Louisiana this year that give private citizens the right to sue booksellers and other retailers for committing an “unfair” trade practice by selling “offensive” material to a minor. The defendants in these lawsuits would have to hire a lawyer to defend them and could be forced to pay thousands of dollars if they lost.

Earlier, the governor of Utah vetoed a similar measure aimed at video and game retailers.

{ 0 comments }

June 25 roundup

by Walter Olson on June 25, 2009

{ 1 comment }

Even linking to one of them can get you A$11,000 a day in fines [BoingBoing]

{ 1 comment }

Oh pshaw

by Walter Olson on June 18, 2009

A century-old New Jersey law bans parents’ habitual use of profane or indecent language around kids [Eugene Volokh and followup]

{ 2 comments }

New U.K. campaign from Sense About Science, building on widespread outrage over the British Chiropractic Association’s lawsuit against Simon Singh (via Bad Astronomy; earlier).

{ 3 comments }

Protect “a letter to [a] girlfriend [stating] that a prison officer had sex with a cat” but do not protect mailing a prosecutor “a note written on toilet paper” saying “Dear Susan, Please use this to wipe your ass, that argument was a bunch of shit! You[rs] Truly, George Morgan.” (Morgan v. Quarterman (5th Cir. 2009)). W.C., sending us the case, comments, perhaps only semi-facetiously:

(i) He said “very truly yours.” Maybe he was trying to help her. He was at least sincere.

(ii) I wouldn’t mind doing a similar stunt to opposing in a case I have currently. I too would do so from a helpful perspective. Is that so wrong?

{ 3 comments }

June 12 roundup

by Walter Olson on June 12, 2009

  • Judge in Van Buren County, Michigan won’t approve adoptions unless one parent promises to stay home [Ken at Popehat]
  • Critical view of proposed Performance Rights Act, under which radio would pay new fees to artists and copyright owners [Jesse Walker, Reason]
  • Student threatens to sue school district: “You can say she was an exotic dancer and she was 18, but it was not an equal relationship.” [Boston Herald, columnist Margery Eagan, Worcester Telegram]
  • More attention for U.S. Chamber’s movie trailers promoting awareness of lawsuit abuse [NY Times]
  • Train didn’t actually strike her car at dicey RR crossing after gate closed behind her, but New York woman’s suing Metro-North anyway for the bad scare [Westchester, N.Y. Journal-News]
  • Uh-oh: Defamation-and-privacy section of American Association of Law Schools keeps electing as leaders feminist lawprofs known for speech-restrictionist views [Greenfield, earlier]
  • Cows and vows don’t mix: Oregon county says weddings may not be held on farm-zoned land [KTVZ]
  • Paul Offit, author of noteworthy book Autism’s False Prophets, sued by anti-vaccine blogger [Confutata (scroll), Alyric, link to complaint (PDF) at Courthouse News]

{ 3 comments }

Administrations of both political parties shamelessly exploited the unlamented “Fairness Doctrine” to harass their critics in the broadcast world, and there’s every reason to believe that proposed “local content” mandates would be open to the same abuse. [John Samples, "Broadcast Localism and the Lessons of the Fairness Doctrine", Cato Institute Policy Analysis #639, May 27 (PDF)]

{ 1 comment }

May 7 roundup

by Walter Olson on May 7, 2009

{ 3 comments }

The Supreme Court “has agreed to consider whether a law barring videotapes and other depictions of animal cruelty violates the First Amendment.” The law could result in criminal charges being filed over, say, videos of bullfights or cockfights taken in nations where those practices are perfectly lawful, or taken in U.S. states where until recently various forms of animal fighting were lawful. The Third Circuit ruled it an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. [ABA Journal, Lyle Denniston/SCOTUSBlog, Adler @ Volokh; earlier] Nearly ten years ago (yes, believe it or not, this blog will turn 10 as of the first of July) we covered the original federal legislation, and visitors still arrive regularly at this site after searching on the term “crush videos”.

As we noted in a 2006 post, litigators for the Humane Society of the U.S. have been trying to force the U.S. Postal Service to ban the use of the mails by animal-fighting magazines like The Feathered Warrior. Now, according to an HSUS release, they have gotten a judge to order the USPS to reconsider its non-censorship policy. [Rebecca Baker, "Completely Legal" Gannett Westchester legal blog, Apr. 23]

{ 1 comment }

That lawprof chatfest promoting the idea of wider rights to sue over online speech has provoked a bit of a furor; see addenda to our earlier post as well as continuing coverage at Scott Greenfield’s site. Good! Better to have a controversy now than wait until after some academic consensus has already hardened around a MacKinnonite “of course we need to let people sue more widely over speech, or else women’s voices will be silenced” position.

The episode has also helped spin off a second, tangential controversy taking the form of a new round in the ongoing dispute between some “practical” law bloggers and their counterparts in legal academia, on which see Greenfield and Marc John Randazza.

{ 2 comments }

As Scott Greenfield notices, the lawprof chatfest (organized by Danielle Citron, Frank Pasquale, David Hoffman, and Deven Desai) is tilted toward participants who want to restrict online speech in the name of feminism and civil rights.

P.S. One of the symposium participants most inclined toward the free-speech position, Michael Froomkin, draws some particularly lively comments. And Paul Horwitz at Prawfsblawg offers some pointed criticisms.

{ 2 comments }

Past differences on other issues aside, Jonathan Turley has a good column (in Sunday’s WaPo) on international trends toward restricting speech.

March 31 roundup

by Walter Olson on March 31, 2009

March 23 roundup

by Walter Olson on March 23, 2009

  • Probate court in Connecticut: bad enough when they hold you improperly in conservatorship, but worse when they bill you for the favor [Hartford Courant]
  • Does “Patent Troll” in World of Warcraft count as a character type or a monster type? [Broken Toys]
  • 102-year-old Italian woman wins decade-long legal dispute, but is told appeal could take 10 years more [Telegraph]
  • “This Cartoon Could Be Illegal, If Two Iowa Legislators Have Their Way” [Eugene Volokh]
  • David Giacalone, nonpareil commentator on attorneys’ fee ethics (and haiku), has decided to end his blog f/k/a. He signs off with a four-part series on lawyer billing and fairness to consumers/clients: parts one, two, three, four, plus a final “Understanding and Reducing Attorney Fees“. He’s keeping the site as archives, though, and let’s hope that as such it goes on shedding its light for as long as there are lawyers and vulnerable clients. More: Scott Greenfield.
  • Even they can’t manage to comply? Politically active union SEIU faces unfair labor practice charges from its own employees [WaPo]
  • Judge in Austin awards $3 million from couple’s estate to their divorce lawyers [Austin American-Statesman]
  • “Keywords With Highest Cost Per Click”, lawyers and financial services dominate [SpyFu]

{ 1 comment }

February 23 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 23, 2009

Free speech and press issue:

  • Even truthful statements libelous if made with actual malice? Outcry at “dangerous” First Circuit decision [Ambrogi/LegaLine, Bayard/Citizen Media Law, Coleman/Likelihood of Confusion]
  • Eric Holder’s open and frank national dialogue on race sure isn’t going to take place in the workplace, thanks to fear of being sued [Goldberg, NRO "Corner"]
  • Obama says he opposes revival of talk-radio-squelching Fairness Doctrine, though some in Congress favor it; some worry that under-the-radar FCC rules could accomplish some of the same effects without using the name [Matt Lasar and Julian Sanchez, Ars Technica; Ken @ Popehat] Both FCC and Waxman’s office deny report that Congressman met with staffers to promote new controls [Broadcasting & Cable, Unfair Doctrine]
  • Freedom wins a round: Court strikes down California violent-videogame law as unconstitutional [Eugene Volokh] Cockfighting is lawful in Puerto Rico, but U.S. Congress has banned videos of same from the States, raising First Amendment issue [David Post @ Volokh; our posts in 1999 and last year]
  • Are they being extraterritorial, or are we? “Congressional Efforts to Stymie ‘Libel Tourism’ Rev Up” [Citizen Media Law]
  • Ordinarily there’s no legal penalty for whistling the theme to “The Addams Family” at your neighbors, unless you’re under a court order to refrain from doing so, in which case you might be locked up like one U.K. man [UPI]
  • Any First Amendment implications in CPSIA bonfires of old children’s books? [Ted Frank, Valerie Jacobsen and others in comments]

{ 5 comments }

January 29 roundup

by Walter Olson on January 29, 2009

  • Free class-action swag if you bought department store cosmetics between 1994 and 2003; not that they’re giving away the very best stuff or anything [Tompkins/Poynter, California Civil Justice, WSJ Law Blog, settlement site] We’ve been covering the story for quite some time;
  • Law school “can be a financial disaster” for unwary students [Law and More] Law schools not immune from economic downturn [Above the Law]
  • Bruce Bawer on Dutch prosecution of Islam-criticizer Geert Wilders [City Journal]
  • More on possible passenger suits after the miracle Hudson-landing USAir Flight #1549 [USA Today, earlier] Update: NY Post, NY Mag.
  • Bad news for patients and other living things: Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen somehow got named to a key FDA panel during the late Bush administration [Point of Law, Postrel, Bernstein/Volokh, Hooper & Henderson/Forbes]
  • “Friends weren’t really trying to reach me!” class action against Reunion.com encounters another setback [Spam Notes]
  • Stand and deliver it back: “Minnesota: $2.6 Million in Red Light Camera Tickets Refunded” [The Newspaper]
  • Gary, Indiana’s is the last standing of what were once thirty “gun sales = nuisance” suits filed by cities; now Indiana high court says it can go to trial [Point of Law]

{ 4 comments }

Updating our Apr. 29 item: “A law professor who sued two former students for defamation has dropped his suit after the school’s interim dean said there is no evidence he is a racist. Law professor Richard Peltz of the University of Arkansas at Little Rock told Inside Higher Ed that he sued to get his reputation back. ‘This suit was never about money,’ he said. ‘I feel that now with the university’s support, I am on the road to repairing my reputation.’” (Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal, Nov. 17).

{ 2 comments }