A federal magistrate has recommended dismissal of an action by a Tennessee attorney representing himself who “contends that he should not have been inadvertently allowed to view pornography on the Internet,” and that Apple is liable for not including a default filter against such images on its devices. The plaintiff blames the resulting viewing for a host of physical and other ills, including the breakup of his relationship with his wife, who “simply could not compete with the endless stream of ageless cyber vixens, who ‘never say no’.” His earlier litigation against Google and other defendants likewise fell short. [Sevier v. Apple] [edited Aug. 31 to clarify that plaintiff was attorney representing himself, h/t David N. in comments]
5 Comments
I’m almost tempted to file a lawsuit because I haven’t been exposed to an “endless stream of ageless cyber vixens, who “never say no””.
I’m in. We could make it a class action suit.
As we march on the courthouse singing Tom Lehrer’s “Smut”.
Bob
Clarification: according to the decision, although the plaintiff is literally pro se (he’s representing himself), the plaintiff is actually an attorney. (He has been “inactive” for the last few years because of “disability.” I don’t have any details as to the basis of this status, except that it was involuntary. But this court treated him as a lawyer, not a pro se plaintiff, in assessing his lawsuit.)
David,
There is an old saying about a doctor who treats himself having a fool for a patient. The same can probably be said for lawyers.
He may be more familiar with court procedures than a normal pro se plaintiff, but I doubt he is in any better a position to properly assess the legal merits of his case.