Posts tagged as:

Sweden

February 7 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 7, 2013

  • You mean Philadelphia traffic court wasn’t on the up-and-up? [ABA Journal] DUI prosecution in Lafayette Parish, La. had become quite the tidy business [Scott Greenfield]
  • Match.com sued after date assault [FindLaw]
  • Sweden is at cutting edge of free-market policy innovation [Adrian Wooldridge, The Economist]
  • Big victory for Institute for Justice as federal court strikes down new IRS tax preparer rules [Katherine Mangu-Ward] 97% of Chicago tax preparers out of compliance with local licensing regs? [TaxProf]
  • A sentiment open to doubt: Heritage claims “there is no ban on same-sex marriage” in any state [Ryan Anderson] Support from PM Cameron, other senior Conservatives instrumental in British passage of same-sex marriage [Peter Jukes, Daily Beast] New beyond-the-culture-wars initiative on marriage from David Blankenhorn and colleagues at Institute for American Values [Mark Oppenheimer, NYT]
  • “Why not a waiting period for laws?” [Glenn Reynolds, NY Post]
  • As he steps aside, recalling some of the accomplishments of longtime Cato Institute chairman Ed Crane [Cato Policy Report, PDF]
  • R.I.P. Maureen Martin, legal affairs fellow at Heartland Institute whose work touched many [Jim Lakely]

{ 1 comment }

ABC takes very seriously a complaint filed by a photographic model that Swedish automaker Volvo improperly degraded her image by allowing play-on-words copy into a promotion. She had signed broadly worded releases. [Good Morning America]

{ 2 comments }

April 25 roundup

by Walter Olson on April 25, 2012

{ 2 comments }

European roundup

by Walter Olson on February 2, 2012

  • Overseas press excoriates new FATCA tax-Americans’-foreign-earnings law; some foreign banks now turn away American customers [Dan Mitchell, Cato, Reason] “The Fatca story is really kind of insane.” [Caplin & Drysdale's H. David Rosenbloom, NYT via TaxProf] Will Congress back down? [Peter Spiro/OJ, more]
  • Important new book from James Maxeiner (University of Baltimore) and co-authors Gyooho Lee and Armin Weber on what the U.S. can learn from legal procedure overseas: “Failures of American Civil Justice in International Perspective” [TortsProf]
  • Don’t do it: British administration mulls further move away from loser-pays rule in search of — what exactly, a yet more Americanized litigation culture? [Guardian, Law Society]
  • Apparently in Norway it’s possible to lose one’s kids by feeding them by hand [Shikha Dalmia, Reason]
  • Financial transaction tax? Ask the Swedes how that worked out [Mike "Mish" Shedlock, Business Insider]
  • Notes from conference on globalization of class actions [Karlsgodt] Related: Adam Zimmerman;
  • “Another conviction in Europe for insulting religion” [Volokh; Polish pop star] Campus secularists’ speech under fire in the U.K. as “Jesus and Mo” controversy spreads to LSE [Popehat] British speech prosecution of soccer star [Suneal Bedi and William Marra, NRO]

July 15 roundup

by Walter Olson on July 15, 2011

Since 1979 nineteen countries led by Sweden have banned corporal punishment by parents of kids in the home. A bill scheduled for debate today before the Massachusetts legislature would make that state the first to join the trend. (Laurel Sweet, “Bay State’s going slap-happy”, Boston Herald, Nov. 27; “Anti-spanking bill is folly” (editorial), Nov. 28; Stephen Bainbridge, Nov. 22 (New Zealand)). Earlier: Apr. 19, 2004 (U.K.); Feb. 14 and Feb. 24, 2007 (proposal in California).

More: such laws in both Sweden and New Zealand have been softened (i.e., made more lenient toward parents) by the interpolation of reasonableness standards, per Kiwi website Big News (via QuizLaw).

{ 14 comments }

Whereas some might think prison is a place to teach inmates valuable lessons (“don’t stab people,” etc.), it appears more Swedish prisoners are learning the value of a good lawyer:

Court Upholds Prisoners’ Right to Porn

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) — Convicted sex offenders in Sweden are free to read pornography in their cells following a court ruling that has angered the prison service.

The Supreme Administrative Court in Stockholm last week ruled that the Swedish Prison and Probation Service had no right to deny a rape convict access to his porn magazines.

Prison officials had argued that reading porn would interfere with the man’s rehabilitation program. They also said the magazines posed a security problem for staff and other inmates because they could increase the risk of the man relapsing into criminal behavior.

On the bright side, he’ll be blind when he’s finally released.

June 8 roundup

by Walter Olson on June 8, 2007

  • Litigation as foreign policy? Bill authorizing U.S. government to sue OPEC passes House, and is already contributing to friction with Russia [AP; Reuters; Steffy, Houston Chronicle; earlier here, here, and here]

  • Albany prosecutors charge boxing champion’s family with staging 23 car crashes, but a jury acquits [Obscure Store; Times-Union; North Country Gazette]

  • New at Point of Law: Bill Lerach may retire; Abe Lincoln’s legal practice; Philip Howard on getting weak cases thrown out; “Year of the Trial Lawyer” in Colorado; and much more;

  • Multiple partygoers bouncing on a trampoline not an “open and obvious” risk, says Ohio appeals court approving suit [Wilmington News-Journal]

  • Skadden and its allies were said to be representing Chinatown restaurant workers pro bono — then came the successful $1 million fee request, bigger than the damages themselves [NYLJ]

  • Who will cure the epidemic of public health meddling? [Sullum, Reason]

  • Turn those credit slips into gold, cont’d: lawsuits burgeon over retail receipts that print out too much data [NJLJ; earlier]

  • Lawprof Howard Wasserman has further discussion of the Josh Hancock case (Cardinals baseball player crashes while speeding, drunk and using cellphone) [Sports Law Blog; earlier]

  • “Women prisoners in a Swedish jail are demanding the ‘human right’ to wear bikinis so they can get a decent tan.” [Telegraph, U.K.]

  • Disbarred Miami lawyer Louis Robles, who prosecutors say stole at least $13 million from clients, detained as flight risk after mysterious “Ms. Wiki” informs [DBR; earlier at PoL]

  • Indiana courts reject motorist’s claim that Cingular should pay for crash because its customer was talking on cellphone while driving [three years ago on Overlawyered]

{ 6 comments }

March 14 roundup

by Walter Olson on March 14, 2007

{ 1 comment }

February 1 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 1, 2007

  • In “State of the Economy” speech, Bush says litigation and regulation harm U.S. financial competitiveness, praises enactment of Class Action Fairness Act [Reuters; his remarks]

  • How many California legislators does it take to ban the conventional lightbulb in favor of those odd-looking compact fluorescents? [Reuters, Postrel, McArdle first and second posts]

  • Levi’s, no longer a juggernaut in the jeans world, keeps lawyers busy suing competitors whose pocket design is allegedly too similar [NYTimes]

  • Clinics in some parts of Sweden won’t let women request a female gynecologist, saying it discriminates against male GYNs [UPI, Salon]

  • Is the new Congress open to litigation reform? Choose from among dueling headlines [Childs]

  • Anti-SLAPP motion filed against Santa Barbara newspaper owner McCaw [SB Ind't via Romenesko]

  • Uncritical look at Holocaust-reparations suits against French national railway [Phila. Inquirer]

  • Deep pockets dept.: court rules mfr. had duty to warn about asbestos in other companies’ products, though its own product contained none [Ted at Point of Law]

  • Lawyering up for expected business-bashing oversight hearings on Capitol Hill [Plumer, The New Republic]

  • “King of vexatious litigants” in Ontario restrained after 73 filings in 10 years, though he says he did quite well at winning the actions [Globe and Mail, Giacalone's self-help law blog]

  • Sen. Schumer can’t seem to catch a break from WSJ editorialists [me at PoL]

  • South Carolina gynecological nurse misses case of Rocky Mountain spotted fever — that’ll be $2.45 million, please [Greenville News via KevinMD]

  • Five years ago on Overlawyered: we passed the milestone of one million pages served. By now, though our primitive stats make it hard to know for sure, the cumulative figure probably exceeds ten million. Thanks for your support!

{ 3 comments }

Why?

[David H. Baker, the Lighter Association's general counsel] said association members want mandatory standards to help reduce their legal liability. He explained that members often get sued for fires resulting from malfunctioning lighters. In many cases, he said, the lighter was destroyed in the fire, so there’s no proof of who made the lighter. But the easiest targets are the well-known brands such as Bic, Scripto and Swedish Match — companies that are members of the association, Baker explained.

Chinese off-brand import lighters are only 30% likely to meet voluntary industry safety standards, and manufacturers are not just facing the cheaper competition from the imports, but apparently also having to swallow liability from accidents caused by the more dangerous imports.

{ 7 comments }

Sexist beer ads

by Walter Olson on September 19, 2006

Now it’s a group of Italian female lawyers who are suing to suppress that particular variety of commercial speech. (Nick Pisa, “Parking is no joke as Italy’s women sue over beer ad”, Daily Telegraph (U.K.), Sept. 17). For earlier precedents in the U.S. (Stroh’s sued over “Swedish bikini team”) and Canada (Ontario vs. Molson’s and Labatt’s ads), see Carlin Meyer, “Sex, Sin, and Women’s Liberation: Against Porn-Suppression”, Texas Law Review, April 1994 (PDF), at footnote 314. Another example: RealBeer.com, July 16, 1999 (Venezuela).

{ 2 comments }

The Boston Phoenix (“World of Pain”, Feb. 9) tells readers that “frankly, the primary reason” it isn’t going to run the Danish Muhammed cartoons:

Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do. …Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.

Somewhere there’s probably an issue of vicarious/employer liability lurking in here — if printing the cartoons did lead to violence, the Phoenix’s owners might well end up having to pay. But of course the venerable alt-weekly’s stance is practically a profile in courage compared with that of editors, publishers, governments and university officials in many other places, including South Africa (bans publication of images), Sweden (reported to have shut down website carrying them), Canada’s Prince Edward Island (university confiscates student newspaper, edict forbids weblog comments) and so on (Michelle Malkin roundup, Feb. 9). Commentaries worth reading: Krauthammer, Kinsley, and, from a different perspective, a commenter at Andrew Sullivan’s. (More on the cartoons here and here.)

{ 4 comments }

My op-ed on the litigation against Big Cola (see Feb. 2) draws an L.A. Times reader letter (Feb. 7). Also welcome Andrew Sullivan readers (Jan. 27). More by Sullivan: “Hey, these adverts are making me fat”, The Times (U.K.), Jan. 29; blog posts including Jan. 25 and Jan. 26. And see Philip Wallach, “There Are Deeper Pockets than ‘Big Soda’”, The American Enterprise, Dec. 15; John Luik, “Sponge Bob, Wide Pants?”, TCS Daily, Jan. 25; and Rogier van Bakel, Jan. 23.

On allegations of a link between food advertising and childhood obesity, see Todd Zywicki, Dec. 21 and links. According to John Hood (“Bill Won’t Stop War on Ads”, Carolina Journal, Nov. 11):

American children are now gaining weight even as they watch somewhat less commercial television than previous generations did. One study estimated that children saw about 15 percent fewer TV ads in 2003 than their counterparts did in 1994. Alas, that does not mean today’s kids are playing outside more. They simply have many more commercial-free alternatives such as premium cable, tapes and DVDs, and video and computer games.

Another unfortunate fact for advocates of regulating food advertising is that their pet idea has already been done to the max – that is, in the form of outright bans of ads targeting children – in places such as Sweden and Quebec. The obesity rate of Swedish children differs little from that of British children, however. The same is true in Quebec vs. other Canadian provinces.

Meanwhile, Jacob Sullum (“Dora the Exploiter”, syndicated/Reason, Jan. 25) comments on the Center for Science in the Public Interest’s suit against Viacom/Nickolodeon and Kellogg (see Jan. 20):

The plaintiffs say it’s not about the money. I believe them. This lawsuit, which CSPI and its allies plan to file under a Massachusetts consumer protection statute prohibiting “unfair or deceptive acts or practices,” is really about censorship. By threatening onerous damages, CSPI aims to achieve through the courts what it has unsuccessfully demanded from legislators and regulators for decades: a ban on food advertising aimed at children.

Earlier, Sullum reported on the CDC venturing into West Virginia to stalk obesity “vectors” (“Watching the Detectives”, syndicated/Reason, Aug. 26).

{ 4 comments }

In a widely awaited decision, the European Court of Justice has ruled that a Swedish woman can be fined about $500 for identifying and publishing personal details about fellow church volunteers on her personal web site in breach of “data protection” privacy laws. Bodil Lindqvist of Alseda parish had published online “some full names, telephone numbers and references to hobbies and jobs held by her colleagues. In relation to one lady, Lindqvist also revealed that the volunteer had injured her foot and was working part-time on medical grounds.” A Swedish court found that she had violated data-privacy law in posting the page and the European Court agreed. (“Identifying people on-line violates Data Protection laws, says European Court”, Out-Law (UK), Nov. 7). We originally reported on the case Sept. 20, 2000.


Whatever you do, don’t criticize lawyers — 2003:The intimidation tactics of Madison County“, Jun. 9 (& updates Jul. 12Jul. 26).  2002:‘Ex-jurors file $6 billion suit against ’60 Minutes’“, Dec. 16-17; “Lawyers fret about bad image” (Fla. bar plans to rate and monitor tone of journalists’ coverage), Oct. 3; “Mich. lawyer’s demand: get my case off your website” (“Love Your Neighbor”, M-LAW, Overlawyered.com), Jun. 20 (& letter to the editor, July 6); “Dangers of complaining about lawyers” (Ga. considers easing defamation counter-complaints by lawyers), Mar. 30-Apr. 1. 2000:Australian roundup” (lawyers sue cabinet minister for suggesting they overcharge and lack ethics), Sept. 6-7; “Target Detroit” (class action lawyers personally sue DaimlerChrysler lawyer, citing his critical remarks regarding them), Jul. 19-20; “Baron’s judge grudge” (lawyer bullies alt-weekly Dallas Observer over expos? March 23.  1999:Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (class-action attorneys sue columnist Bill McClellan for making fun of them), Nov. 4 (updated Nov. 30 (he criticizes them again, though suit is still pending) and Feb. 29, 2000 (they agree to drop suit); “Couple ordered to pay $57,000 for campaign ads criticizing judge“, Oct. 18; “Think I’m too litigious? I’ll sue! (II)” (lawyer sues over being called ambulance chaser), Aug. 16. 

Hate speech, hate crime laws, 2002:British free-speech case“, Dec. 18-19; Letter to the editor, Oct. 23; “Cutting edge of discrimination law” (Huckleberry Finn in schools), Oct. 7-8; “Prominent French author sued for ‘insulting Islam’“, Aug. 23-25 (& Sept. 18-19, Oct. 25-27 (acquitted)); “French ban sought for Fallaci book on Islam“, Jun. 11-12; “Our editor interviewed“, May 29.  2001:Australia: anti-American tripped up by speech code“, Dec. 21-23; “Compulsory chapel for Minn. lawyers“, Dec. 18; “EU considers plans to outlaw racism“, Dec. 5-6; “U.K. may ban anti-religious speech“, Oct. 19-21; “‘Hate speech’ law invoked against anti-American diatribe” (Canada), Oct. 17-18; “Judge to ‘Sopranos’ suit: fuhgetaboutit“, Sept. 21-23 (& Apr. 6-8); “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3.  2000:U.S. Department of Justice vs. Columbus Day?“, Oct. 3; “Punitive damages for hatemongering?” (Wash. Post on Aryan Nations case), Sept. 19; “Australia: antibias laws curb speech” (newspaper’s slighting ethnic references), July 11; “Columnist-fest” (John Rocker case), Jan. 18; “Watch your speech in Laguna Beach“, Jan. 13-14.  1999:Most unsettling thing we’ve heard about Canada in a while” (hate speech laws), Dec. 17-19; “Speech police go after opinion articles, editorial cartoons“, Aug. 28-29; “Hate-crime laws: why they aren’t liberal“, Aug. 9. 

Intellectual property, 2003:He’s gotta have it” (Spike Lee v. Spike TV), Jun. 16-17; “Hiker cuts off use of his name“, Jun. 4-6.  2002:Macaulay on copyright law“, Oct. 14; “‘Judge Throws Out “Harry Potter” Copyright Suit’“, Oct. 7-8; “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is/To have a precociously musical child” (singer James Brown sued by daughters), Sept. 20-22; “Skittish at Kinko’s” (won’t make copies of customer’s own published writing), Jul. 26-28; “Stolen silence?” (John Cage composition), Jul. 19-21; “Law blogs“, Jul. 3-9; “‘Top ten new copyright crimes’” (satire), Jun. 3-4; “‘A fence too far’” (Hollings bill), May 20-21; “ReplayTV copyright fight“, May 6; “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Intel Corp. versus yoga foundation“, Apr. 1-2; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “British Telecom claims to own hyperlinks“, Feb. 13-14 (& Oct. 1-2); “Overlawyered film sets“, Feb. 8-10; “‘”Let’s Roll” Trademark Battle Is On’“, Feb. 4-5 (& Feb. 11-12); “‘Aborigines claim kangaroo copyright’“, Feb. 1-3.  2001:Radio daze“, Aug. 31-Sept. 2; “Barney’s bluster“, June 25 (& “Welcome Slashdot readers“, July 5); “Mich. lawyer’s demand: get my case off your website” (“Love Your Neighbor”, M-LAW, Overlawyered.com), June 20; “Value of being able to endure parody without calling in lawyers: priceless” (MasterCard), April 25; “Patenting the Web?“, April 3-4; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, Mar. 19-20.  2000:Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31, 1999-Jan. 2, 2000. 1999:Hey, what is this place, anyway?” (Pez Co. claims right to restrict use of word “Pez”), Oct. 16-17; “Copyright and conscience” (goodbye to “Dysfunctional Family Circus”), Oct. 7 (& see main IP section on tech law page). 

Lawsuits intimidate expression, 2003:McDonald’s sues food critic” (Italy), Jun. 16-17.  2002:PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& May 27, 2002, Oct. 4-6, 2002, Aug. 6, 2001); “AVweb capitulates to defamation suit“, Sept. 16-17 (& Sept. 18-19); “Defend yourself in print and we’ll sue” (Nike issue ads), May 3 (& Feb. 13-14); “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26.  2001:Gary to Gannett: pay up for that investigative reporting“, March 30-April 1; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20; “‘Persistent suitor’” (criticism of academic journals’ publisher), Feb. 6. 2000:Hauling commentators to court“, Dec. 1; “Degrees of intimidation” (book on “diploma mills”, Apr. 28-30; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website“, Mar. 31-April 2; “Costs of veggie-libel laws“, Mar. 20.  1999:Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23. 

Bans on web content not “accessible” to disabled: see special section on disabled rights page. 

Blaming media for violence, 2002:Updates” (Jenny Jones case), Oct. 25-27; “‘Addictive’ computer game blamed for suicide“, Apr. 3-4 (& letter to the editor, Apr. 11).  2001: Blame video games, again” (WTC terrorism), Sept. 24; “Put the blame on games” (Columbine), April 24, 2001 (& see March 6, 2002: judge dismisses case); “Judge throws out Hollywood- violence suit” (Oliver Stone, Natural Born Killers), March 13-14.  2000:Hollywood under fire: nose of the Camel?“, Sept. 19; “‘Violent media is good for kids’“, Sept. 13-14; “Shoot-’em-ups: hand over your files“, June 19; “Judge dismisses suit blaming entertainment business for school shootings“, April 13.  1999:Down the censorship-by-lawsuit road“, Oct. 12; “‘Bringing art to court’“, Sept. 9; “Censorship via (novel) lawsuit” (media companies sued after school shootings), July 22. 

Harassment law:‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3, 2001; “EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, June 4, 2001; “Harassment-law roundup” (pin-ups, bar owner case), May 4, 2000; “The scarlet %+#?*^)&!“, March 7; Recommended reading” (Roland White in London Times on chill to office banter), Jan. 25, 2000; “Suppression of conversation vs. improvement of conversation“, Nov. 12, 1999 (excerpts from Joan Kennedy Taylor book); “‘Personally agree with’ harassment policy — or you’re out the door“, Sept. 22; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999; and see separate page on harassment law.

Those dangerous emails:Cartoonist’s suit over practical joke“, Oct. 26-28, 2001 (& letter to the editor, Nov. 29); “Big fish devour the little?” (listserv defamation, aquatic plants case), Aug. 6, 2001; “Harassment-law roundup” (email-shredding software), Feb. 19-21, 2000; “Emails that ended 20 Times careers“, Feb. 8-9, 2000; “Hold your e-tongue” (emails “can kill you in a courtroom”), Nov. 9, 1999; “Please — there are terminals present” (Bloomberg email system censors bad words), July 30; “‘Destroy privacy expectations’: lawyer” (tell workers their email and hard drives are open to company inspection), July 26, 1999; and see separate page on harassment law.

Web liability issues, 2002:AVweb capitulates to defamation suit“, Sept. 16-17 (& Sept. 18-19); “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& Oct. 4-6); “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Columnist-fest” (N.Y. Times v. Tasini), Feb. 11-12; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20.  2001:Words as property: ‘entrepreneur’” (domain name dispute), Nov. 1; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3; “Anonymity takes a D.C. hit” (Italy licenses web publishers), May 21; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20.  2000:Yahoo pulls message board“, Oct. 18; “‘Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?’” (Swedish privacy laws), Sept. 20; “Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “Dangers of linking“, June 7; “Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “eBay yanks e-meter auctions” (copyright claim), May 3; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website” (metatags), March 31-April 2; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31-Jan. 2.  1999:Link your way to liability?” (professor sues over “course critique” website), Nov. 15 (& update Oct. 10, 2000); “We ourselves use ‘sue’” (competitors’ names used as metatags), Sept. 25-26; “Don’t link or I’ll sue” (“deep linking” suits), Aug. 13 (& update April 5, 2000: court rules deep linking not violation).  Plus: our 404 message; & see data collection, disabled online access issues, and high-tech law generally. 

Other media/performance accessibility issues, 2002:11th Circuit reinstates ‘Millionaire’ lawsuit” (suit against “Millionaire” TV show over telephone-based screening), Jun. 21-23 (& Mar. 24-26, June 12, June 19, Nov. 7, 2000; Nov. 5, 2001).  2001:‘Panel backs deaf patron’s claim against club’” (interpreter demand at comedy club), March 9-11.  2000:Seats in all parts” (theaters), Dec. 29, 2000-Jan. 2, 2001; “Movie caption trial begins” (assistive devices aid concert bootleggers), Aug. 1; “Complaint: recreated slave ship not handicap accessible“, July 21-23; “Preferred seating” (theaters), April 25-26; “Newest disabled right: audio TV captioning“, March 22; “‘Deaf group files suit against movie theaters’” (closed captioning demand), Feb. 19-21; “The fine print” (sue Boston Globe for reducing type size?), Feb. 17. 

Surveillance:Collateral damage in Drug War” (identity of book buyer), Apr. 28-30, 2000; “Chat into the microphone, please” (SEC plan to trawl Web), Apr. 11; “The booths have ears” (restaurant conversations spied on in U.K.), Apr. 5; “The bold cosmetologists of law enforcement“, Mar. 29; “Your hairdresser — and informant?“, Mar. 16, 2000; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999. 

Defamation, 2003: Around the blogs” (N.Y. Times brass), Jun. 18-19. 2002: PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d“, May 22-23; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20; “The talk of Laconia“, Jan. 2-3. 2001:Attorney can sue for being called ‘fixer’“, Dec. 5-6; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “Disparaging stadium nickname leads to suit“, Jul. 5 (& update Aug. 29-30: company drops suit); “Patenting the Web?” (TechSearch v. Intel defamation suit), Apr. 3-4.  2000:Toronto coach: Ich kann nicht anders” (had to file defamation suit), Apr. 25-26 (& update May 4, case dropped); “Great moments in defamation law” (armed robber sues own lawyer for mistakenly calling him heroin instead of crack abuser), Apr. 14-16.

Advertising, 2003:Clear Channel = Deep Pocket” (advertising as nexus of liability in nightclub fire?, Mar. 10-11. 2002:Lawsuit threats vs. campaign speech“, Oct. 4-6 (& May 18-21, 2000); “Defend yourself in print and we’ll sue” (Nike issue ads), May 3 (& Feb. 13-14); “Norway toy-ad crackdown” (sexism), Apr. 23-24; “‘FTC Taking “Seriously” Request to Probe Firearms Sites’” (unlawful to recommend guns for family security?), Jan. 16-17.  2001:Radio daze“, Aug. 31-Sept. 2; “Ghost blurber case“, June 12; “Old-hairstyle photo prompts lawsuit“, June 1-3; “Junk-fax bonanza“, March 27 (& March 3-5, 2000, Oct. 22, 1999). 2000:Web-advertisers’ apocalypse?“, Apr. 20.  1999:Free expression, with truth in advertising thrown in?” (lawyer’s Jolly Roger flag dispute), Dec. 31; “Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23, 1999 (and see lawyers’ advertising page). 

TV, 2003:He’s gotta have it” (Spike Lee v. Spike TV), Jun. 16-17; “Jailhouse rock” (VH1), Mar. 10-11; “‘Jack Ass blasts “Jackass”‘“, Jan. 3-6.  2002:Updates” (Jenny Jones case), Oct. 25-27; “‘Demand for more ugly people on TV’” (Norway: higher “ugly quotas” sought), Oct. 21; “Lawsuit threats vs. campaign speech“, Oct. 4-6; “11th Circuit reinstates ‘Millionaire’ lawsuit” (suit over show’s telephone-based screening), Jun. 21-23 (& Mar. 24-26, June 12, June 19, Nov. 7, 2000; Nov. 5, 2001); “Soap star: ABC wrote my character out of the show“, Apr. 10.  2001:Suing ‘The Sopranos’“, Apr. 6-8 (& Jul. 12-14, 2002: case dropped); “‘Survivor’ contestant sues“, Feb. 7-8.  2000: Behind ‘Boston Public’“, Nov. 21; “Palm Beach County ‘Under Control’” (suit against network for erroneous election-eve projection), Nov. 16; “Why the bad guys can’t stand John Stossel“, Aug. 18-20; “Won’t pay for set repairs” (Orkin ad leads viewers to throw objects at their TVs), May 30; “Thomas the Tank Engine, derailed” (show’s email contact with young fans), May 25; “Sock puppet lawsuit” (“Late Show with Conan O’Brien” writer), Apr. 27; “Who wants to sue for a million?” (suit against game show for lack of disabled access), Mar. 24-26 (& update Jun. 12); “Newest disabled right: audio TV captioning“, Mar. 22; “Letterman sign suit“, Mar. 17-19.  1999:The fateful T-shirt” (Leno show giveaway suit), Dec. 7. 

A judge bans a book” (incitement to tax evasion), Jun. 18-19, 2003.

Hiker cuts off use of his name“, Jun. 4-6, 2003.

Start that movie on time, or else“, Feb. 20, 2003 (& Jan. 10).

Fair housing law vs. free speech“, Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2003.

Campaign regulation vs. free speech“, May 18-21, 2000 (& Oct. 4-6, 2002). 

‘Greek net cafes face ruin’” (ban on computer games), Sept. 23, 2002.

Penthouse sued on behalf of disappointed Kournikova-oglers“, Jun. 3-4, 2002. 

Privacy claim by Bourbon Street celebrant“, Sept. 28-30, 2001 (& Mar. 6, 2002, Apr. 15, 2002). 

Radio daze” (Clear Channel hardball), Aug. 31-Sept. 2, 2001. 

The document-shredding facility at Pooh Corner” (Disney dispute with rights holders), Aug. 24-26, 2001. 

‘Internet Usage Records Accessible Under FOI Laws’” (schools case), Nov. 14, 2000. 

Collateral damage in Drug War” (customer records of Denver’s Tattered Cover bookstore subpoenaed), April 28-30, 2000 (update, Oct. 27-29: judge orders records handed over); “‘Power lawyers may sue for reparations’” (sue textbook makers over representation of blacks?), Oct. 25, 2000; “Baleful blurbs” (book publishers sued over errors in cover copy), Nov. 16, 1999. 

Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30, 2000. 

Dusting ‘em off” (laws against profanity in public), May 18-21, 2000. 

Thought for the day” (Posner on censorship), April 25-26, 2000. 

Verdict on Consumer Reports: false, but not damaging“, April 10, 2000; “Costly state of higher awareness” (libel suit, author Deepak Chopra), March 9, 2000.

Mormon actress sues over profanity” (says Univ. of Utah theater dept. insisted she utter foul language in scripts), Jan. 24, 2000.

FCC as Don Corleone“, Oct. 5-6, 1999.

The shame of the ACLU” (Aguilar v. Avis: ACLU intervenes on anti- free-speech side), Sept. 7, 1999.

Weekend reading” (tabloid law), Aug. 7-8, 1999.


Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson:

The Law on Trial“, Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1997 (review of Beyond all Reason by Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry). 

Shut Up, They Explained” (“zero-tolerance” harassment policies), Reason, June 1997. 

Judge Dread” (on Robert Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah), Reason, April 1997.

[intellectual property, patent, copyright and trademark cases]

[Microsoft legal woes]

Web liability issues, 2002:‘Google sued over search ratings’“, Nov. 6; “AVweb capitulates to defamation suit“, Sept. 16-17 (& Sept. 18-19); “Defying the link-banners“, Aug. 22; “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& May 27, 2002, Aug. 6, 2001); “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Columnist-fest” (N.Y. Times v. Tasini), Feb. 11-12; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20.  2001:KPMG” (company thinks it can prohibit linking to its site), Dec. 11; “Words as property: ‘entrepreneur’” (domain name dispute), Nov. 1; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “Domain-name disputes are busting out all over“, June 29-July 1; “Anonymity takes a D.C. hit” (Italy licenses web publishers), May 21; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20.  2000:Yahoo pulls message board“, Oct. 18; “‘Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?’” (Swedish privacy laws), Sept. 20; “Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “Dangers of linking“, June 7; “Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “eBay yanks e-meter auctions” (copyright claim), May 3; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website” (metatags), Mar. 31-Apr. 2; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31-Jan. 2.  1999:Link your way to liability?” (professor sues over “course critique” website), Nov. 15 (& update Oct. 10, 2000); “We ourselves use ‘sue’” (competitors’ names used as metatags), Sept. 25-26; “‘Don’t link or I’ll sue’” (“deep linking” suits), Aug. 13 (& update April 5, 2000: court rules deep linking not violation).  Plus: our 404 message; & see data collection, disabled access issues

Website accessibility:‘Judge: Disabilities act doesn’t cover Web“, Oct. 22, 2002; “Website accessibility law hits the U.K.” (Scotland), May 7, 2001; “Olympics website’s accessibility complaint“, Aug. 16-17, 2000; “Disabled accessibility for campaign websites: the gotcha game“, July 19-20; “Welcome readers” (Intellectual Capital), June 19; “ADA & the web: sounding the alarm“, May 24; “Access excess“, May 2; “ADA & freedom of expression on the Web“, Feb. 10-11; editor’s testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 9, 2000; “Accessible websites no snap“, Dec. 21, 1999; “AOL sued for failure to accommodate blind users“, Nov. 5, 1999. 

Toshiba settlement, bug and glitch liability, 2002:7,000 missing colors, many of them crisply green“, Aug. 29. 2001: Update: Compaq beats glitch suit“, May 11-13; “‘Lawyers to Get $4.7 Million in Suit Against Iomega’” (zip drive defect allegations), May 8.  2000:‘Laptop lawsuit: Toshiba, feds settle’“, Oct. 25; “In praise of bugs“, May 1; “Silicon siege” (CNet report), April 7-9.  1999:Toshiba and Ford, in the same boat“, Dec. 2; “Don’t redeem that coupon!“, Nov. 24-25; “Class actions vs. high-tech“, Nov. 23; “How I hit the class action jackpot” (Stuart Taylor, Jr.), Nov. 17; “More details on Toshiba“, Nov. 5-7; “Toshiba flops over“, Nov. 3. 

Email and liability:Employers liable for not filtering raunchy spam?“, Apr. 10-13, 2003; “Big fish devour the little?” (listserv defamation, aquatic plants case), Aug. 6, 2001; “E-privacy invasion made simple“, Feb. 14-15, 2001; “Watch those fwds” (subpoenas of bulletin board postings; Dow Chemical fires employees for email use), Aug. 21-22, 2000; “Hold your e-tongue” (emails “can kill you in a courtroom”), Nov. 9, 1999; “Please — there are terminals present” (Bloomberg email system censors bad words), Jul. 30; “‘Destroy privacy expectations’: lawyer” (tell workers their email and hard drives are open to company inspection), Jul. 26, 1999. 

Data collection, privacy issues, 2001:Vast new surveillance powers for state AGs?” (Carnivore), Sept. 25-26, 2001; “Brace for data-disaster suits“, May 29; “Anonymity takes a D.C. hit“, May 21; “Update: cookie lawsuit crumbles“, May 9.  2000:‘Internet Usage Records Accessible Under FOI Laws’“, Nov. 14; “‘Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?’“, Sept. 20; “Feds’ own cookie-pushing“, July 5; “Insurers fret over online privacy suits“, May 26-29; “Thomas the Tank Engine, derailed” (COPPA children’s privacy law), May 25; “Web-advertisers’ apocalypse?“, April 20; “Chat into the microphone, please” (SEC plans automated trawling of bulletin boards for stock-hyping comments), April 11; “Silicon siege” (Yahoo), April 7-9; “Another S&W thing” (state AGs vs. DoubleClick), March 27; “Yahoo stalked me!” (privacy suits), March 2; “Cookies, dunked” (DoubleClick), Feb. 2. 

Home office regulation?:OSHA & telecommuters: the long view“, April 7-9, 2000; “Update: OSHA in full retreat on home office issue“, Jan. 29-30; “OSHA at-home worker directive“, Jan. 8-9; “OSHA backs off on home-office regulation“, Jan. 6; “Beyond parody: ‘OSHA Covers At-Home Workers’“, Jan. 5, 2000. 

Y2K:Y2K roundup: poor things!” (much less litigation than expected), Jan. 21-23, 2000; “Litigation Bug Bites Into Democracy“, Jan. 13-14, 2000; “Y, oh Y2K?” (“sue and labor” insurance claims), Sept. 16, 1999 (& see updates Dec. 26-28, 2000 and Nov. 2-4, 2001: courts tend to rule against such claims).


Other Overlawyered.com commentaries:

Intel sued in notorious county“, Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 2002. 

Sic ‘em on Segway“, Aug. 1, 2002; “Segway, the super-wheelchair and the FDA“, Dec. 12, 2001. 

‘Every Man a Cyber Crook’“, Feb. 6-7, 2002. 

Draconian hacker penalties?“, Sept. 28-30, 2001. 

‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3, 2001; “EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, June 4, 2001. 

Dotcom wreckage: sue ‘em all“, Aug. 7-8, 2001. 

Brace for data-disaster suits” (hacker attacks, viruses), May 29, 2001; “Suing Nike for getting hacked“, July 12, 2000; “Deep pockets blameable for denial-of-service attacks?“, Feb. 26-27; “Antitrust obstacles to hacker defense“, Feb. 10-11, 2000. 

Anonymity takes a D.C. hit“, May 21, 2001. 

Techies fear Calif. anti-confidentiality bill“, May 15, 2001. 

Internet service disclaimers“, Dec. 13-14, 2000. 

‘Stock Options: A Gold Mine for Racial-Discrimination Suits?’“, Dec. 11-12, 2000; “Feds’ mission: target Silicon Valley for race complaints“, Feb. 29, 2000. 

Labor law:Digital serfs?“, Jan. 26-28, 2001; “Goodbye to gaming volunteers?“, Sept. 12, 2000 (& update Oct. 3); “Why rush that software project, anyway?” (California overtime law), March 29; “Microsoft temps can sue for stock options“, Jan. 11, 2000 (& see Feb. 17; letters, Dec. 20); “‘Click here to sue!’” (AOL volunteer suit), Sept. 7, 1999; “Click here to sue!” (employee misclassification suits), Aug. 19, 1999. 

Tax software verdict: pick a number” (Mississippi verdict; government contracting), Sept. 5, 2000. 

Class-action assault on eBay“, July 13, 2000 (update Nov. 22-23; class action certified). 

‘Parody of animal rights site told to close’“, July 3-4, 2000 (& Aug. 29-30, 2001). 

A Harvard call for selective rain” (some Internet regulation, not too much), July 3-4, 2000. 

AOL ‘pop-up’ class action” (ads said to be unfair), June 27, 2000. 

Harassment-law roundup” (Internet startups vulnerable), May 4, 2000; “Dot-coms as perfect defendants” (sex harassment suits), Jan. 17; “Harassment-law roundup” (Juno cases), Feb. 19-21, 2000.. 

Silicon siege” (Ebay antitrust investigation, other cases; T.J. Rodgers warns against rapprochement with Washington), April 7-9, 2000. 

Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website“, March 31-April 2, 2000. 

Music stores sue Sony” (objecting to company-store hyperlinks included with CDs), Feb. 25, 2000. 

Silicon siege” (AOL 5.0 upgrade), April 7-9, 2000; “AOL upgrade’s sharp elbows“, Feb. 12-13, 2000. 

Green cards gather moss” (immigration delays), Feb. 4, 2000. 

Santa came late” (Toys-R-Us e-tailing shortfalls), Jan. 19, 2000; “Beware of market crashes” (online brokerages “probably” liable for computer outages), Nov. 26-28, 1999. 

Your fortune awaits in Internet law” (cybersquatting), Jan. 13-14, 2000; “Time to rent a clue” (domain name disputes), July 28, 1999. 

Rolling the dice, cont’d” (suits over online gambling), Dec. 7, 1999 (earlier report, Aug. 26). 

Mounties vs. your dish” (Canadian satellite law), Nov. 1, 1999. 

Founders’ view of encryption“, Oct. 29, 1999. 

In Houston, expensive menus” (junk faxes class action), Oct. 22, 1999 (update April 3, 2000: claims thrown out). 

Foam-rubber cow recall” (Gateway Corp. premium), Oct. 22, 1999. 

Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering” (suit deems website advocacy unlawful), Sept. 23, 1999. 

Effects of shareholder-suit reform“, Sept. 22, 1999. 

Our award-winning errors” (this site’s 404 message), Aug. 14-15, 1999. 

Weekend reading” (word counts on litigators’ briefs), Aug. 7-8, 1999. 

Censorship via (novel) lawsuits” (lawyers blame school shootings on video games, Internet sites), July 22, 1999. 

Thought for the day” (Cravath’s Robert Joffe on foreign companies’ unwillingness to let American law govern contracts), July 11, 1999.


October 18-20 – EEOC: employer must accommodate “Church of Body Modification” beliefs. Massachusetts: “Last year Costco Wholesale Corp. fired Kimberly M. Cloutier of West Springfield for refusing to remove [her eyebrow] ring. She filed a $2 million suit against the corporation. Cloutier, 27, belongs to the Church of Body Modification, and maintains that her piercings, which include several earrings in each ear and a recently acquired lip ring, are worn as a sign of faith and help to unite her mind, body and soul. ‘It’s not just an aesthetic thing,’ Cloutier said. ‘It’s your body; you’re taking control of it.’

“Cloutier filed suit against Costco in Springfield’s U.S. District Court after a finding in May by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that Costco probably violated religious discrimination laws when its West Springfield store fired Cloutier in July 2001. The commission’s area director in Boston, Robert L. Sanders, determined that Cloutier’s wearing of an eyebrow ring qualified as a religious practice under federal law, and that Costco refused to accommodate Cloutier.” (Marla A. Goldberg, “Eyebrow ring, firing spark $2 million suit”, MassLive/ Springfield Union-News, Oct. 16) (& see Megan McArdle, Oct. 21, and reader comments).Update Dec. 11, 2004: First Circuit federal appeals court grants summary judgment in favor of store. (DURABLE LINK)

October 18-20 – U.K.: “Dr. Botch” sues hospital for wrongful dismissal. “A surgeon who was struck off the medical register after being held responsible for the deaths of four women and the maiming of six others is suing his former hospital for wrongful dismissal. Steven Walker, nicknamed ‘Dr Botch’, is claiming up to £100,000 in compensation for lost wages and ‘unfair’ treatment after being sacked by the Victoria Blackpool Hospital in Lancashire last November.” (Rajeev Syal and Hazel Scotland, “‘Dr Botch’ issues writ against hospital in claim for £100,000″, Daily Telegraph (UK), Sept. 22). (DURABLE LINK)

October 18-20 – Enron: “Who Enabled the Enablers?”. “Congressional investigators and plaintiffs’ lawyers are closing in on Enron Corp.’s so-called enablers — the banks that made Enron’s suspect deals possible. But the lawyers on those deals haven’t received much attention. Yet.” (Paul Braverman, “Who Enabled the Enablers?”, The American Lawyer, Oct. 8). See also Otis Bilodeau, “Enron Report Casts Harsh Light on Lawyers”, Legal Times, Sept. 30; Otis Bilodeau, “More Lawyers Snared in Enron Trap”, Legal Times, Sept. 3; Susan Koniak, “Who Gave Lawyers a Pass?”, Forbes, Aug. 12. (DURABLE LINK)

October 16-17 – Ohio’s high-stakes court race. A key race to be decided at the polls next month could challenge the four-to-three margin by which a bloc of activist (to say the least) judges currently control the Ohio Supreme Court. Legal reformers’ hopes are riding on Republican Lt. Gov. Maureen O’Connor, running for a vacant seat on the court. Her opponent, Democrat Tim Black, “backed heavily by trial lawyers and labor unions,” is considered likely to vote with the current court majority (its deplorable record) which has expanded liability in many unprecedented ways, struck down democratically enacted tort reform and revived the city of Cincinnati’s lawsuit against the gun industry. (Jim Siegel, “Black vs. O’Connor could change Ohio Supreme Court”, Gannett/Newark, Ohio Advocate, Oct. 14). (DURABLE LINK)

October 16-17 – “Inundations of Electronic Resumes Pose Problems for Employers”. Employers are deluged with resumes arriving by email as well as on paper, each of which represents both a paperwork obligation and a potential source of liability. “Under the current federal standard, anyone who submits a resume electronically is a job applicant. Even people who are not looking at any job in particular or are clearly unsuited — say, a high school student applying for the position of chief executive — qualify. In and of itself, this would not be a concern, but the government also requires every company with more than 100 employees to track the race, gender and ethnicity of every one of these so-called job applicants.” Plaintiff’s lawyers can also demand that a defendant company produce these applications, and then proceed to troll through them for patterns suggesting disparate rejection of protected groups.

With the rise of Internet job postings, the numbers have exploded: “The Boeing Co. has projected that it will receive about 1.3 million resumes this year, compared with last year’s mere 790,000 resumes. Lockheed Martin Corp. has said it gets about 4,000 resumes a day, or upwards of 1.4 million annually.” “I know of a company that keeps a warehouse in Salt Lake City just to store resumes,” says chairwoman Cari Dominguez of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. “They’re just so afraid of throwing them away.” For two years the EEOC has been studying how to ease employers’ retention burdens by updating the definition of applicant, but it still hasn’t acted. (Tamara Loomis, New York Law Journal, Sept. 25). (DURABLE LINK)

October 16-17 – “Patient sues hospital for letting him out on night he killed”. Australia: “A man who stabbed his prospective sister-in-law to death hours after being discharged from a psychiatric hospital is suing Newcastle health authorities for damages.” Attorney Mark Lynch said that his client “should be ‘compensated for his premature discharge’ and the tragic events that followed.” After murdering Kelley-Anne Laws in 1995, Kevin William Presland, now 44, spent 2 years in jail and a psychiatric institution. (Leonie Lamont, “Patient sues hospital for letting him out on night he killed”, Sydney Morning Herald, Oct. 15). (DURABLE LINK)

October 16-17 – “Law to Protect Debtors Can Be a Windfall for Lawyers”. Mutiny among the bounty-hunted dept.: The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is a federal law passed in 1977 to combat harassment and other abuses in debt collection. “In the last decade, the law has also given rise to what some say is an unintended consequence: thousands of federal lawsuits taking issue with the wording of collection letters. …..Successful plaintiffs in these cases are entitled to $1,000, but their lawyers can collect vastly larger sums,” such as $40,000 or $50,000 if the defendant resists, even if the dispute concerns only an arcane matter of wording. Federal judge Gerard L. Goettel has criticized the trend, noting, “There is nothing in the act to suggest that it was intended to create a cottage industry for the production of attorneys’ fees.” “Plaintiffs’ lawyers obtain leads for such suits by scouring the dockets in small claims courts for collection actions and by savvy questioning of people seeking to file bankruptcy actions, [Indianapolis lawyer Dean R. Brackenridge, who represents collection agencies and lawyers,] said. ‘It is oftentimes like Christmas morning,’ he said, imagining the scene in the bankruptcy lawyers’ offices. ‘They’re opening up a grocery sack of collection letters that may give rise to these lawsuits.’” (Adam Liptak, “Law to Protect Debtors Can Be a Windfall for Lawyers”, New York Times, Oct. 6). (DURABLE LINK)

October 16-17 – New York tobacco-fee challenge, cont’d. The Albany paper reports on Judge Charles Ramos’s probe into whether lawyers who helped handle the state of New York’s copycat suit in the tobacco litigation are entitled to an arbitration award of $625 million in fees (see Jul. 30-31). “The New York firms [asking a collective $14,000 an hour for their services] were politically well connected and regular campaign contributors to both Democrats, trial lawyers’ traditional allies, and to Republicans, including [former attorney general Dennis] Vacco and Gov. George Pataki. The Albany firm’s senior partner, Dale Thuillez, represented Pataki’s first inaugural committee. … Since the settlement, the firms have given a total of more than $200,000 to the campaign war chests of both parties.” (Andrew Tilghman, “Tobacco case legal fees under fire”, Albany Times-Union, Oct. 14). (DURABLE LINK)

October 15 – Incoherence of sexual harassment law. The case of men subjected to sexual taunts at the workplace by other men — have they suffered sexual harassment in the law’s eyes, or no? — reveals the lack of any real logical coherence in our current scheme of sexual harassment law. Several law profs seem to think that by taking due note of this incoherence they demonstrate the need to extend the scope of harassment law yet further, to suppress yet more forms of workplace speech and social interaction than currently. (Margaret Talbot, “Men Behaving Badly,” New York Times Magazine, Oct. 13)(reg)(see also Mark Kleiman blog, Oct. 13). In the case of Burns v. City of Detroit, still working its way through the courts per the latest we can find on Google, Michigan judges are expected to address the question of whether some forms of speech penalized by the current state of harassment law are in fact protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. (Kingsley Browne, “Harassment law chills free speech”, Detroit News, Jul. 9, reprinted at Center for Individual Freedom site; Brian Dickerson, “Harassment law becomes a hot potato”, Detroit Free Press, Jun. 14 and “Harassment law headed for a tune-up”, Jun. 17; more from Center for Individual Freedom) (via Howard Bashman this summer, #1, 2, 3). (DURABLE LINK)

October 15 – Chocolate, gas-pump fumes, playground sand and so much more. Unanticipated (at least to non-lawyers) consequences of California’s Proposition 65, passed in 1986, mandating warning labels on all hazardous chemicals: “The last two years have seen bounty hunter lawsuits claiming that Californians are exposed to toxins from products such as picture frames, lightbulbs, Christmas lights, electrical tape, braces, game darts, stained-glass lamps, fire logs, exercise weights, hammers, terrariums, tools, cue chalk, cosmetics, even Slim-Fast,” according to attorney Jeffrey B. Margulies. Yes, cue chalk has always terrified us. (“New legal target: chocolate”, Orange County Register, Oct. 8). (DURABLE LINK)

October 15 – Judicial selection, the Gotham way. New York stands alone in its method of picking basic-level trial judges: “closed judicial nominating conventions followed by partisan elections. Party bosses rule.” The parties then engage in collusive cross-endorsements which operate to deny most City voters a meaningful choice. The results? According to the editorialists of the New York Daily News, an unusually high number of mediocre or downright bad jurists make it to the bench, while in Brooklyn, 10 of 60 sitting judges currently face ethics questions or actual charges. (“N.Y.’s unnatural selection” (editorial), Oct. 2). (DURABLE LINK)

October 14 – Australia on the front lines. The island nation, one of the staunchest members of the worldwide coalition fighting the battle against terrorism, now finds itself on the front lines of that battle, with more than 200 of its citizens still missing following the Bali attacks. “[T]his time terrorism has come to our doorstep, to the holiday home away from home that is Bali. The tourist destination familiar to most of us as a safe, cheap and friendly island of tolerance and fun has been turned into a charred graveyard. Horrifying images of bodies burned beyond description, seriously injured young men and women, and the street scenes of utter devastation recall a war zone….Certainly more Australians have been killed in Bali than in any other international disaster. … The Bali bombings expose the lie that the act of war on September 11, 2001, was simply an attack on Americans and American values. Bali proves that all freedom-loving peoples are at risk from terrorism, at home and abroad.” (“We must remain firm in face of terror” (editorial), The Australian, Oct. 14). More: “Thirteen Australians confirmed dead, 220 missing in Bali”, ABC.au, Oct. 14; Ben Martin, “Australia terror: Fearful wait”, The West Australian, Oct. 14; Matthew Moore, “US ambassador saw writing on wall a month ago”, Sydney Morning Herald, Oct. 14; Simon Kearney & Sarah Blake, “Terror Warning: Targets Named”, Sunday Telegraph, Oct. 13. For hard-hitting commentary on the ideological implications, check out maverick Aussie journalist Tim Blair. More good links: zem blog, Gweilo Diaries (mid-October entries). Update: As of Oct. 21 the likely death toll of the blasts was thought to be 190, including 103 Australians as well as numerous Indonesian nationals and citizens of such countries as Germany, Sweden, New Zealand and the United States. See Melbourne Age, Oct. 21. (DURABLE LINK)

October 14 – Rather die than commit profiling, cont’d. “A federal judge has cleared the way for a discrimination lawsuit filed by an Arab-American who was removed from a United Airlines flight three months after the Sept. 11 attacks. U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper ruled airlines do have a legal right to remove passengers who pose a security threat, but that does not allow them to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin.” (“Judge rules Arab-American taken off plane can sue United Airlines”, AP/Sacramento Bee, Oct. 12). The American Civil Liberties Union helped organize the suit. See also Eugene Volokh, Oct. 14. (DURABLE LINK)

October 14 – Macaulay on copyright law. In two speeches given in Parliament in 1841, the historian and statesman anticipated most of the issues worth thinking about on the issue of whether lawmakers should extend copyright long past the natural life of authors and other creators (courtesy Eric Flint, “Prime Palaver”)(more on TBM). (DURABLE LINK)

October 14 – “‘Pay-before-pumping rule called racist’”. Ohio: “North Randall Mayor Shelton Richardson fumes when he sees gas stations in his community that demand that customers pay before they pump, a practice he calls racist. The requirement is insulting and implies a presumption that customers will steal, he says. He wants to outlaw it. … No gas station in North Randall could require payment first if City Council adopts Richardson’s proposal to ban pay-first policies Monday night. … Prepayment is required around the clock at the 24-hour Shell station at the corner of Warrensville and Emery roads in North Randall. Manager Mike Jadallah said he would comply if the new law is approved. But he thinks he should be able to decide how he runs his business. ‘Is the city going to cover our losses?’ he asked.” (Kaye Spector, “Pay-before-pumping rule called racist”, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Oct. 12). (DURABLE LINK)

October 11-13 – “High court judge had use of condo owned by group that includes trial lawyer”. More eyebrow-raising allegations in the Mississippi favors-for-judges flap reported earlier this week: “A Gulf Coast condo owned by a partnership that includes prominent trial lawyer Richard ‘Dickie’ Scruggs has been used by Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr., reports say.” “Mark Lumpkin, an associate in the firm of prominent Mississippi lawyer Paul Minor, said Wednesday that he lives in the condominium and has allowed Diaz to use it.” It seems the judge had recently divorced and needed a base for visitation with his kids, so it’s just good Southern hospitality, don’t you know. AP/Alabama Live, Oct. 10) See also Jerry Mitchell, “Probe could sway voters”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Oct. 9. More: Scruggs “denies that he repaid loans for Diaz or any other judge.” (“Investigation Targets Lawyers, Judges & Loans”, WLOX, Oct. 7; see Oct. 9-10). See also Nikki Davis Maute, “McRae won’t accept donation from lawyer”, Hattiesburg American, Oct. 10. (DURABLE LINK)

October 11-13 – Malpractice: Pennsylvania House votes to curb venue-shopping. The measure, which has yet to be approved by the state Senate or governor, requires plaintiffs in medical liability cases to file their suits in the county where the alleged negligent conduct occurred, rather than just heading to Philadelphia with its generous juries and indulgent judges. Doctors say it’s a start, while the state trial lawyers association is already promising a constitutional challenge — doesn’t this kind of measure violate the constitutional right to high verdicts, or something? (M. Bradford Grabowski, “Physicians react to ‘venue shopping’ bill”, Bucks County (Pa.) Courier Times, Oct. 9). (DURABLE LINK)

October 11-13 – “Wealthy candidates give Democrats hope”. Trial lawyer Harry Jacobs, who is reported to have a net worth of $42 million mostly from filing malpractice suits, is running for a Congressional seat in northern Florida. Jacksonville’s Wayne Hogan, who bagged $54 million in the state of Florida’s highly aromatic suit against the tobacco industry, “is trying to unseat Rep. John Mica, R-Winter Park. In West Virginia, attorney Jim Humphreys is running against incumbent Republican Shelley Moore Capito” in a rematch after her year-2000 upset win. (Bill Adair, St. Petersburg Times, Oct. 7). Update Nov. 7: all lose by wide margins. (DURABLE LINK)

October 11-13 – Quote of the day. “I have a few (trial lawyer) friends, but most of them abuse the system” — Ohio Supreme Court Justice Evelyn Stratton, quoted in David Benson, Mansfield (Ohio) News Journal, Oct. 9. (DURABLE LINK)

{ 1 comment }