It has to do with RightHaven: “Why We Won’t Link To Denver Post, Las Vegas Review-Journal, Salt Lake Tribune, and Several Others” [Box Turtle Bulletin]
Posts tagged as:
online speech
The First Amendment notwithstanding, wealthy and powerful litigants in this country often exercise the tactical power “to bully those who publicly criticize them into silence by filing frivolous lawsuits that the critics can’t afford to litigate,” with defamation lawsuits being a particularly favored means of such bullying. The majority of states have moved to enact “anti-SLAPP” laws aimed at curtailing this tactical exercise through the application of sanctions or otherwise, but such laws are often quite weak, sometimes applying only, for example, to speech aimed at petitioning the government on public matters. Now Texas lawmakers are considering what would be one of the nation’s strongest laws, protecting “communication made in connection with a matter of public concern” and including statements made in non-public forums, such as emails. The website SLAPPED in Texas has compiled a list of speech-chilling lawsuits in the Lone Star State, including the oft-criticized suit by a real estate developer against author and eminent domain critic Carla Main. [Arthur Bright/Citizen Media Law, Paul Alan Levy/CL&P]
{ 5 comments }
Just four weeks to official publication date (now March 1) for my book, and it seems as if everyone’s talking about the state of the law schools:
- Bruce Antkowiak (Duquesne): “Why Law Schools Must Reform” [Dan Hull, WSJ Law Blog] “Law Schools: Tournaments or Lotteries?” [Kevin Carey, Chronicle of Higher Ed] Law schools still reluctant to grapple with oversupply problem [George Leef, Pope Center] Oregon joins trend toward restoring mentorship/apprenticeship as part of legal training [AtL] “…because there was no compelling need for additional law graduates” [1985 Missouri decision via AtL]
- Study: free representation from Harvard legal clinic actually worsened outcomes for jobless claimants [Greiner/Pattanayak via Ayres/Freakonomics ("Iatrogenic legal assistance?"), Hoffman/ConcurOp, more, yet more]
- Critical Race Theory makes good? Noted CRT-er Angela Onwuachi-Willig in line for possible appointment to Iowa high court [Wenger, ConcurOp]
- “The rise and fall of law faculty blogs” [Kerr]
- Too much heed paid to “consent,” “autonomy”? Noted feminist Prof. Robin West praises Ohio State’s Marc Spindelman for proposal to have more lawsuits over HIV transmission [Jotwell] Some high-profile lawprofs call for less online freedom in pages of new book ["The Offensive Internet"; Citron, Greenfield, Ron Coleman]
- All publicity is good dept.: along with the glowing advance notices, my forthcoming Schools for Misrule has also drawn brickbats [Brian Leiter; some ABA Journal commenters].
{ 2 comments }
- When naming a new law, please, no acronyms, no victim names, and no assumptions about what it will accomplish [WSJ Law Blog on Brian Christopher Jones's recommendations] More: Wood.
- America’s Most Irresponsible Public Figure® — that would be RFK Jr. — sounds off on Tucson massacre [Hemingway, Examiner]
- More press attention for CPSC’s dubious consumer complaint database [Washington Post; my take last month]
- An appellate win for Internet anonymity in Pennsylvania [Levy, CL&P]
- Santa Clara lead paint case: Supreme Court won’t review government misuse of contingency lawyers [Wood, ShopFloor]
- DC cops’ “post and forfeit” policy deserves scrutiny [Greenfield]
- “Philosophy Explains How Legal Ethics Turn Lawyers Into Liars” [Kennerly]
- “Marshall, Texas: Patent Central” [six years ago on Overlawyered]
Liability is predicated on “intent to harm, intimidate, threaten, or defraud another person – not necessarily the person you are impersonating.” [Michael Arrington, TechCrunch] Despite talk of using the statute against stalkers, Choire Sicha predicts a somewhat different application: “harm as in ‘brand dilution’ — that is what will be prosecuted. Of course there is no carve-out for playful, political or non-murderous uses of online impersonation.” The bill’s text, notes Arrington, doesn’t address such free speech issues as satire and parody, though it does restrict itself to impersonations that are “credible.” Compare: much-demonized Koch Industries goes to court to identify originators (apparently political critics) of website imitating its own [Web Host Industry Review]
- Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen’s firm suing Apple, Google and many others over common web features [Atlantic Wire, Groklaw ("Allen v. World and Dog"]
- Probably not a good idea to give local authorities cash incentive to snatch kids from homes [Bader, CEI]
- Hyperlink liability case: “If I lose there won’t BE an Internet in Canada” [Ars Technica]
- Shooting spree at Denny’s results in suit charging eatery with negligent security [PNWLocalNews.com]
- More links: “Do securities lawsuits help shareholders?” [Point of Law, Bainbridge]
- Fourth Circuit revives CSX fraud suit against asbestos lawyers [Dan Fisher, Forbes] “Asbestos defendants want automatic access to info in bankruptcy trusts” [Chamber-backed LNL]
- Creation of noncompliant consumer financial product is a criminal offense under Dodd-Frank [Josh Wright, TotM]
- Man sues over seeing contestants eat rats on NBC reality show “Fear Factor” [six years ago on Overlawyered]
{ 4 comments }
The latest round in the continuing quarrel between Simple Justice blogger Scott Greenfield and academic enthusiast for greater speech liability Danielle Citron. [Simple Justice]
Felix Salmon doubts things will turn out entirely as hoped for Charles Smith, the one doing the suing.
- Lawsuit of the Day: Partner Booted From Three Firms Sues ‘Em All! [Legal Blog Watch]
- Drawing wrong lessons from the Rutgers suicide [Greenfield and more (proposed "Tyler's Law"), John Schwartz/NYT (quoting Orin Kerr), Volokh and more, Above the Law]
- John Sullivan leaving after 15 years at helm of Civil Justice Association of California [L.A. Times]
- Maybe consumers don’t feel so victimized by overdraft “protection” after all [Bank Lawyer's Blog]
- Yes, it’s another dust-up pitting all sensible Supreme Court commentators against Dahlia Lithwick, if you like that sort of thing [Kerr, Bodie/Prawfs, Ponnuru, Frank; bonus, Richard Epstein on Erwin Chemerinsky and Hans Bader on a prize flight of Lithwick fancy]
- Blog post relatively sympathetic to Righthaven copyright trollery draws many responses [Robert Zelnick, Patently-O]
- “Should they have let the guy’s house burn down?” [Tyler Cowen; Firey, Cato]
- “Drunken man passes out, wins $850K from police” [six years ago on Overlawyered]
{ 5 comments }
Scott Greenfield has some questions following the conviction of a New York lawyer who impersonated a scholar online “in a heated academic debate over the origins of the Dead Sea Scrolls.”
{ 3 comments }
No disrespect to any actual dentists intended, honest. It’s just an example (from Eric Goldman) from an article on the proliferation of suits charging online defamation. “‘It was probably inevitable, but we have seen a steady growth in litigation over content on the Internet,’ said Sandra Baron, executive director of the Media Law Resource Center in New York.” [L.A. Times]
P.S.: “A Duluth physician is suing the son of a former patient for publicly criticizing his bedside manner.” [Duluth News Tribune via Citizen Media Law, McKee v. Laurion]
{ 7 comments }
- Dodd-Frank major oops: Faced with new liabilities, agencies refuse to let their ratings be used in bond issuance [WaPo, Salmon] SEC scurries to suspend requirement for six months while it figures out what to do [Salmon]
- Left-leaning law lectern: study of newly hired lawprofs identifies 52 liberals, 8 conservatives [Caron, ABA Journal, Lindgren/Volokh]
- “Progress in protecting gripe site owners against silly trademark claims” [Levy, CL&P]
- “Congress Investigates Beck, Ingraham Advertisers” [Stoll]
- “Uncle Sam Kicks Out Legal Immigrants for Down Profits in Recession” [Shapiro, Cato]
- Judge punishes Goodyear for discovery heel-dragging by denying it chance to disprove liability in $32M case [Las Vegas Sun]
- “$2.3M verdict against Dole thrown out on fraud grounds” [PoL, background]
- Paul Campos vs. Elena Kagan: this time it’s personal [Lawyers Guns & Money]
{ 3 comments }
It is unclear from the BBC’s account whether the sock-puppetry amounted to anything that would have been actionable in an American court. A detail worth noting, though: “Initially, when confronted by the allegations of his involvement, Prof Figes instructed his lawyer to threaten legal action.”
{ 4 comments }
The Times’s Dan Frosch takes note of litigation aimed at silencing online critics, including the much-discussed T&J Towing and Route 6 Hyundai cases.
- Pennsylvania attorney general subpoenas Twitter in search of critics’ identities, then backs down [Volokh and more, Levy/CL&P, Romenesko, Wired "Threat Level"]
- Letting kids have unsupervised time in NYC park not actually against the law [Free-Range Kids on "Take Your Kids to the Park, and Leave Them There Day"] Related from Lenore Skenazy: Spiked Online and Salon, “The War on Children’s Playgrounds”
- Uh-oh: New York chief judge Jonathan Lippman endorses massive new Civil Gideon legal-aid entitlement [ABA Journal, and the NYT cheers]
- “Novartis Hit With $250 Million in Punitives in Gender Bias Case” [NYLJ, WSJ Law Blog (blaming bad defense trial strategy) and more, ABA Journal, Hyman]
- Med-mal law has done very well for two attorney brothers in Georgia [Atlanta Journal-Constitution via Pero]
- Kagan’s Oxford thesis revealed: judges shouldn’t make it up as they go along in quest of social justice. Sensation ensues! [WSJ Law Blog, related on political-branch deference] And were the SG’s judicial-restraint principles activated by Graham v. Florida? [Stuart Taylor, Jr., National Journal]
- Federal Elections Commission as net regulator: “How the DISCLOSE Act will restrict free speech” [Brad Smith/Jeff Patch, Reason]
- “Law Professor Confesses ‘I’m a Criminal’” [Tim Lynch, Cato]
- Argentina: “Parts of Anti-Plagiarism Bill Lifted from Wikipedia” [Lowering the Bar, TechDirt]
{ 2 comments }
A Cook County judge issues a remarkably sweeping temporary restraining order against an online forum over its contributors’ criticisms of a cold-calling financial services firm. The plaintiff’s luck changes when things reach federal court, however. [Levy, Consumer Law & Policy via Popehat]
