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]
Archive for January, 2011
“If I notice an employee becoming increasingly unstable, what can I do about it?”
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to accommodate mentally disabled employees, but makes an exception for those who pose a “direct threat” to co-workers or others. Trouble is, to invoke the narrow “direct threat” exception, an employer may need to be prepared to prove that it has based its decision either on “a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge” or “on the best available objective evidence” — a much tougher evidentiary standard than is required for the making of many other workplace, governmental and medical decisions. [Jon Hyman, Ohio Employer’s Law Blog]
What could have been entering the public domain this month?
If not for the copyright extension bill that became effective in 1978, a wealth of significant work created in 1954 would have entered the public domain this January 1. [Duke Center for the Study of the Public Domain]
Settlement consumed in fees
A man says that he secured a $900,000 settlement from the Roman Catholic church over his abuse by a priest, but “alleges that attorneys who represented him in the case managed to claim $877,000 of the settlement, leaving him with no more than $23,000.” The man switched attorneys 2 1/2 years into the case and subsequently lost a case filed by the first attorney saying he had been deprived of his rightful fee. His new suit contends that he was wrongly advised to fight the first lawyer’s suit every step of the way. [Oregonian]
Update: California tow-and-sue scam
In an elaborate scheme discussed in this space in May, a northern California towing operator towed cars without authority, then proceeded to sue the owners — and even some non-owners — for exaggerated storage and handling fees. The enterprise was eventually exposed by Greg Adler, a young lawyer who estimates that he spent 1,200 hours documenting the misdeeds. Two of the scammers are now headed to prison, with one receiving a 14-year sentence. [San Jose Mercury News via Legal Ethics Forum]
On the food safety bill
Despite the “government will finally protect you now” atmospherics, there’s little reason to think the recently signed food safety bill will make any dramatic change in what were already falling rates of food poisoning. Bacteria will still be around, and you’ll still want to remember grandma’s advice about washing fresh produce and taking care with raw eggs. I explain in a brief interview with Hearst-Argyle Television.
Separately: Food-safety bill provided a feast for lobbyists [Washington Post]
Toyota theories shift
Unable to show any electronic flaw in the vehicles, plaintiff’s lawyers switch to the theory that the automaker should have embraced “brake override” technology that disengages the throttle when the brake is applied. That technology doesn’t work, of course, if the driver is in fact mistakenly hitting the accelerator when intending to hit the brake — which was what happened in earlier sudden-acceleration scares, and looks likely to be the cause of most of the Toyota incidents as well. [L.A. Times]
“Law degree, never used, for sale on eBay”
If they were really transferable, we’d all be in trouble. [Stephanie Landsman, CNBC “NetNet”]
Related: Sunday’s New York Times has a long article asking whether law schools are adequately disclosing the high likelihood that their costly offerings will turn out to be a poor investment for many heavily indebted students. Should U.S. News law-school rankings, like cigarette packs, carry warnings? [Above the Law]
Since parties “are immune to reason…I have tried ridicule as a last resort”
A Canadian judge loses his patience in a divorce case. [Lowering the Bar]
“Comatose Little Girl Gets Ticket for Jaywalking”
Las Vegas: “Allegedly, [13-year-old] Takara Davis was jaywalking when she got hit [by a car]. So a police officer showed up at the hospital and gave the ticket to her mother, Kellie Obong.” [Above the Law]