The New York Post has now picked up a slightly shortened version of my City Journal piece on the housing lawsuit that contributed to a voter revolt in Westchester (cross-posted from Point of Law).
{ 0 comments }
Posts tagged as:
WO writings
[Bumped Monday a.m. with added links for readers who missed it on Friday]
My new article on the Federal Trade Commission’s very bad new rules on endorsements and social media is now up at City Journal.
Meanwhile, on Wednesday, the FTC held a conference call for reporters to dismiss concerns as unfounded. “They are not rules and regulations, and they don’t have the force of law,” said Mary Engle, associate director for advertising practices at the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection — which may be narrowly true but is hollow reassurance at best, since the guidelines plainly are meant to signal where the commission intends to aim its future enforcement efforts, and since not all bloggers will be willing to defy the guidelines on the assumption that courts will refuse to go along with the FTC’s interpretations.
“We are not going to be patrolling the blogosphere,” Engle also claimed. “We are not planning on investigating individual bloggers.” And: “We’re not interested in playing gotcha in the gray areas.” And yet the guidelines are again and again written in such a way as to reserve the Commission’s discretion to do any and all of these things. Ann Althouse, as before, is rightly scornful:
Oh, good. You’re not planning…
I’m so relieved.
“We’re not interested in playing gotcha in the gray areas.”
Not yet. But once the law is on the books, will you never feel tempted? Nothing will motivate you to venture into the gray?
Of course the FTC, like other regulatory agencies, is frequently drawn into enforcement not because it has been patrolling some area as such, but because some interested party (a competitor, a disgruntled employee, an ideological critic, a litigation opponent) calls the attention of enforcement staff (or the press) to the purported violation. Is the FTC really saying, “Yes, we’ve declared blogging in such-and-such a manner to be illegal, but we’re planning to look the other way?”
More on the rules: New York Times (reactions in world of online fashion journalism); Dear Author (new rules “will be rife with abuse and misuse and uneven application”); David Johnson/Digital Media Lawyer; BNA TechLaw (endorsing agency reassurances); Robert Siegel, Mind Your Own Damn Business Politics (guidelines “might bite traditional media after all”).
P.S. Randall Rothenberg of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, a trade group, notes that in recent days “the FTC has been furiously backtracking about their implications, in an apparent attempt to soothe the blogosphere”, but calls the reassurances “disingenuous”. More: PaidContent.org (IAB considers the rules constitutionally dubious under First Amendment); Ars Technica. And some more new links:
- According to one report from a children’s literature conference, the FTC’s Engle says Amazon bookstore arrangements must be re-disclosed anew with each linked post, but — in a seeming departure from what colleague Cleland said a week ago — otherwise “independent” book reviewers need not disclose free review copies [A Chair, a Fireplace, and a Tea Cozy]
- Gordon Crovitz in Monday’s WSJ (FTC backtracking in face of reaction; “Do employees of a company have to disclose the fact of their employment every time they comment on its products through their personal Facebook accounts?”)
{ 10 comments }
Forbes is just up with a new, improved version of my piece on the amazing trial lawyer bonanza that someone quietly tucked into last week’s draft of the health care bill. An earlier version of the piece ran at Overlawyered on Friday. The Forbes version takes note of the names of the House members who were pushing for and against the idea on the Ways & Means panel. Michelle Malkin gives it a recommendation here.
P.S. Some kind words, as well as a link, from Ashby Jones at the WSJ Law Blog (calling us “the granddaddy of legal blogs”). Plus: Don Surber, Charleston (W.V.) Daily Mail, Bainbridge, Wood/ShopFloor, Riehl World View, Bader/CEI “Open Market”.
{ 2 comments }
I’m in today’s New York Post with a second take on yesterday’s Ricci (New Haven firefighters) case. Link thanks: Instapundit, Damon Root/Reason “Hit and Run”. My first take on the decision, at Forbes.com yesterday, is linked here.
{ 1 comment }
I’ve got an opinion piece up at Forbes.com on today’s Supreme Court decision in Ricci v. DiStefano, the New Haven firefighter reverse-discrimination case. The title: “Sued If You Do, Sued If You Don’t: Through the Looking Glass on Affirmative Action” (& link thanks to Ramesh Ponnuru, NRO “Corner”, Daniel Schwartz, Connecticut Employment Law Blog, Jon Hyman, Ohio Employment Law (to whom thanks for the kind comments as well), and Scott Greenfield, Simple Justice).
{ 7 comments }
Today’s New York Times carries an article sounding alarms about packaged and frozen food safety. I didn’t at all care for the article, which I thought went out of its way to characterize as new and “increasing” a number of safety problems that are neither new nor necessarily on the increase. (A sample of the piece’s breathless, accusatory tone: “Increasingly, the corporations that supply Americans with processed foods are unable to guarantee the safety of their ingredients. … almost every element, not just red meat and poultry, is now a potential carrier of pathogens, government and industry officials concede.” You’d never guess that depending on which years you look at, food poisoning rates are either declining or flat.) At any rate, the editors at the Times generously invited me to discuss the general topic at their popular “Room for Debate” online feature, and the results are here.
{ 2 comments }
It may be recalled that in a recent review for the Sunday NYT I didn’t much care for David Liss’s new historical thriller about the Alexander Hamilton era, The Whiskey Rebels. This morning author Liss makes clear in a letter in the Times that he didn’t much care for my review. He corrects me on one instance of badly misplaced snark, in which I took one of his characters’ references to “Macaulay” as an anachronistic reference to the Victorian Macaulay, when his intended reference was to the histories of Catherine Sawbridge Macaulay, which were popular among colonial American readers. I should have checked and caught that, which is my fault. More broadly, he thinks I couldn’t have approached his novel with an open mind because the politics he wears on his sleeve differs sharply from mine. The thing is, I have no problem recommending works whose politics I find wrongheaded when they offer up plausible dialogue, satisfying plot turns, witty observation and narrative, and so forth. It’s when they don’t that the buzz of political axe-grinding begins to obtrude.
{ 3 comments }
I’ve got a review in today’s Sunday Times of The Whiskey Rebels, a new “historical thriller” set in the early federal era against a background of the rise of Hamiltonian finance capitalism, by David Liss, author of “The Coffee Trader” and “A Conspiracy of Paper”. You can read it here.
Update Feb. 22: David Liss responds in a letter to the Times (including a significant correction on one point in the review) and I reply.
{ 1 comment }
I’ve got a new opinion column just out at Forbes.com on the reports that president-elect Obama may be considering America’s Most Irresponsible Public Figure®, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., to head the Environmental Protection Agency. Earlier this week I posted on the topic here and here (welcome Jonathan Adler/Volokh, Ron Coleman/Likelihood of Success readers).
More: Orac advises writing letters to the Obama transition team urging them to consider the harm to their credibility should a figure such as RFK Jr. get the nod. His comments section includes many good examples of such letters, and Kathleen Seidel, autism blogger extraordinaire, contributes one at her site as well. See also this perhaps unintentionally ironic dispatch by MSNBC’s Alan Boyle on Thursday listing as among president-elect Obama’s “top tasks” “taking the ideology out of scientific issues” and quoting Chris Mooney, author of “The Republican War on Science,” to the effect that “the war has ended, and science has won”. The Center for American Progress’s ScienceProgress site, to which Mooney contributes, doesn’t seem to have weighed in on the RFK Jr. matter.
And: tons of mostly helpful blog reactions. At ScienceBlogs, besides Orac, there are the influential P.Z. Myers/Pharyngula (”another irrational purveyor of woo and fluffy substanceless hysteria”), Chad Orzel, Uncertain Principles (”his highest-profile activity in recent years has been the promotion of nutbar conspiracy theories”), Mike the Mad Biologist (”every bit as ridiculous as creationism”), Around the Clock (”He is the typical paranoid, conspiracy-theorist, hyperbolic quack. A kind of person shunned, ignored and marginalized by the Democratic Party for decades now for two good reasons: such people’s judgment cannot be trusted, and such people give the party a bad name”), James Hrynyshyn (”More worrisome is the fact that Obama on at least one campaign occasion, pandered to the anti-vaccine crowd by describing the science on the subject as “inconclusive” despite loads of studies that show no link”, PalMD, ERV, Science Woman, Effect Measure, SunClipse, and Mark Hoofnagle. Plus: Skepchick, DarkSyde @ DailyKos, Rondi Adamson (”gives me the creeps…The guy’s a complete wingnut”), Wendy Williams, Steven Novella, Neurologica (”This would be an unmitigated disaster for science in government … Putting a known antiscientific crank in this position is inexcusable”), The Amateur Scientist (”an absolutely terrible idea … the guy’s bad news”), Brandon Keim, WiredScience (”America doesn’t need more political officials who skew science to fit personal beliefs.”), Thinking Outside, Science Avenger, Colossus of Rhodey, Politico. Liz Ditz has a great roundup of critical opinions.
Further: Edward John Craig at NRO “Planet Gore” here and here.
{ 16 comments }
Philip Howard’s new online discussion series, New Talk, is back today with a discussion of loser-pays, moderated by Rebecca Love Kourlis. I’m one of the discussants, as is Marie Gryphon of the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy, and a galaxy of others, including several law professors who can be expected to oppose the idea strongly. You can tune in here (cross-posted from Point of Law).
More: publicity from Kevin Williamson at NRO Media Blog.
{ 8 comments }
The editors at Conde Nast Portfolio were kind enough to invite me to contribute a rebuttal, which is now online, to William Lerach’s egregious apologia pro crookery sua. The allotted space permits me to address briefly only a couple of Lerach’s worst howlers, in particular his bald assertions that his concealed kickbacks did no harm to class members or to competing lawyers. (It’s true that named class representatives do a very poor job at their intended mission of standing in for other class members’ interests, but secretly aligning their incentives with the size of fee awards, rather than the value of the settlement to the class, is a corruption meant to keep them from ever living up to their theoretical watchdog role.)
For a more extended look at what’s wrong with Lerach’s article, let me recommend Joseph Nocera’s excellent column a week ago in the Times:
In the article, Mr. Lerach expresses zero remorse, positions his crimes as having hurt no one while serving a greater good and makes the absurd claim that he was railroaded by his political opponents.It is a brazen, shameful piece of work — and it must infuriate the prosecutors who made the plea agreement with him, and the judge who accepted it, especially since Mr. Lerach wrote his own remorseful letter to the judge ahead of his sentencing. It also ought to infuriate anyone who cares about the law. Plenty of criminals head to prison still believing they’re above the law, but Mr. Lerach takes the cake.
Ted Frank has some further thoughts on that point. And note (from Nocera) that Lerach’s “everyone did it” swipes at his colleagues — which many, including we, have read as grounds for an investigation — are by no means passing without contradiction from colleagues:
Mr. Lerach’s statement has infuriated other plaintiffs’ lawyers. “It would just be unthinkable” to give kickbacks to lead plaintiffs, said Max Berger, of the firm Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman. Added Sean Coffey, another Bernstein, Litowitz partner: “It is bad enough that this confessed criminal cheated for years to get an unfair advantage over his rival firms. But for this guy, on his way to prison, to say that everyone does it is just beyond the pale.”
(cross-posted from Point of Law; & welcome San Diego Union-Tribune blog readers).
P.S.: For another example of just how slippery Lerach’s careful phrasings can be, check this Roger Parloff post from an earlier point in the scandal. And Stephanie Mencimer, whose writings are nearly always criticized in this space, deserves due credit for seeing through Lerach’s “liberal folk-hero status” to the “pretty sleazy” realities beneath in this February article.
{ 4 comments }
I’ve got a piece in this morning’s National Review Online on some of the ironies of the Spitzer scandal, which recalls echoes of the former prosecutor’s own “imperial CEO” rhetoric and may hinge on a crime — the “structuring” of cash transactions — whose enactment was very much part of the trend toward more ferocious white-collar law enforcement that you might call Spitzerization. (Walter Olson, “Saving Spitzer”, Mar. 11). P.S. I’ve also rounded up a lot of web coverage of the scandal over at Point of Law.
{ 3 comments }
Thank you, OpinionJournal.com, which has now published a free link for my Saturday op-ed laying out some of the story of the Scruggs indictments.
I’ve got a new piece up at City Journal (a slightly different version appears in today’s New York Post) on the controversy over the disbarred lawyer’s role as designated faculty at the upcoming Hofstra legal ethics conference. Thanks for links to Instapundit, NRO “The Corner”, Brothers Judd (cross-posted from Point of Law).
{ 3 comments }
My new column in the Times (U.K.) is on the many costs of HIPAA, the federal law which even now prevents institutions from releasing the Virginia Tech psychopath’s health records (privacy rights extend after death) and played a notable role (along with the Buckley Amendment/FERPA) in restricting the chances for relevant actors to compare notes on his symptoms of madness before it was too late (Walter Olson, “Could less rigid privacy laws have prevented the Virginia tragedy?”, Apr. 20).
More: Dr. Wes has some additional HIPAA thoughts, as does Jeff Drummond at HIPAA Blog.
{ 10 comments }
The newspaper reprinted my warning labels column yesterday (Walter Olson, “Product labels have come unglued from reality”, Mar. 25). Reader Gary Neyens of Round Rock, Tex. wrote in to say he enjoyed the piece and added one of his own favorite stories:
I recently replaced the serpentine (fan) belt on my Ford pickup. The Ford Motorcraft packaging warned “Shut off engine before checking or replacing belt”. I know the reason for this warning – - Somebody, somewhere…
While on the subject of publicity, Legal NewsLine did a whole article (with file photo!) based on my recent column about not counting the trial lawyers out (Rob Luke, Anti-business suits still surging, warns tort-reform expert”, Mar. 21). Last month New York Post reporter Janon Fisher quoted me in an article on the “firefighter’s rule” which historically has barred injured public rescue personnel from suing the people they were rescuing, or others whose negligence allegedly led to disaster (”Firemen file arson lawsuits”, Feb. 2). And a couple of publicity clips from last year that I didn’t round up at the time: at the North County Times’ The Californian, Bridgit Jordan quotes me on Mayor Bloomberg’s anti-tobacco philanthropy (”Donation may go up in smoke”, Aug. 22); and Joseph Goldstein of the New York Sun quotes me in an illuminating article about the “creeping oversight” of New York City government operations obtained by the feds through consent decrees and the like (”Bush Administration, in Series of Federal Lawsuits Against New York Agencies, Gains Creeping Oversight of Local Government”, Aug. 15).
My latest column in the Times Online explains why Business Week and some other media outlets are being at best premature (and that’s putting it diplomatically) in declaring the American plaintiff’s bar down for the count. Opening excerpt:
America’s litigation fever is cooling off, or so one hears. Merck & Co is doing reasonably well defending suits over its painkiller Vioxx, while actions blaming foodmakers for obesity have sputtered. Doctors’ malpractice-suit payouts are said to be flat (at what by other countries’ standards are still unthinkably high levels). Last month, the Supreme Court ruled on a punitive damage case in favor of tobacco giant Philip Morris, which has become a Wall Street favorite after wrestling down its perceived legal risks. Nearly every American politician claims to be on board with reform, even the nation’s most famous plaintiff’s-lawyer-made-good: “We do have too many lawsuits”, said John Edwards during the 2004 Presidential debates. A recent Business Week cover sums it up: “How Business Trounced the Trial Lawyers”.And yet one wonders whether a contest is being called prematurely. … To call a high-water mark is going to require more evidence than we’ve seen so far.
P.S. Other reactions to the Business Week cover story came from Bizzyblog (”Year’s Most Unintentionally Comical”), Roger Parloff (article itself was better than headline), and me at Point of Law (see also this WSJ column).
