Hate speech laws? No thanks, we’ll stick with the First Amendment

Watch out when Establishment figures “declare that they’ve changed their mind on free speech and now think there should be less of it,” I write in my new piece at Cato:

This new Washington Post opinion piece (“Why America needs a hate speech law”) is by Richard Stengel, a former editor of Time magazine and the State Department’s undersecretary for public diplomacy and public affairs from 2013 to 2016. In that post, he was charged with representing America’s values to the world.

Honestly, could Stengel’s argument be any weaker? “Even the most sophisticated Arab diplomats that I dealt with did not understand why the First Amendment allows someone to burn a Koran. … it should not protect hateful speech that can cause violence by one group against another.”

If the prospect of violence by offended groups is what causes us to censor, we are well on the way toward closing down speech at the whim of whichever mobs, here or abroad, decide to be violent….

Whole thing here.

Filed under: First Amendment, hate speech, WO writings

Section 8 Landlording Should Be Voluntary

It’s the strings: landlords should have a right to decide for themselves whether to shoulder the Section 8 program’s only-too-real regulatory burdens, I argue in my new Cato piece, reacting to a Baltimore Sun opinion piece. Baltimore County is the scene of a long-running controversy over whether to force landlords to participate in the federal housing voucher program. Earlier here.

Sidelight: A new San Diego ordinance that took effect August 1 “orders violators to pay three times the advertised monthly rent to eligible plaintiffs who saw the ad, plus punitive damages, as well as a plaintiff’s attorney fees and costs if a judge so orders. Even after the offending ad is taken down or changed, exposure to liability from anyone who saw the illegal ad lasts for a year.” Soon thereafter enterprising attorney Christian Curry filed more than 50 lawsuits under the ordinance and has obtained many settlements, although critics suspect his clients weren’t always intent on living in properties with challenged ads; they also say some ads were targeted that were written before the law changed and not intentionally left online afterward. A spokeswoman for a property group “likened the new Section 8 cases to ‘drive-by’ lawsuits over violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.” [Ashly McGlone and Jack Molmud, Voice of San Diego]

Filed under: ADA filing mills, Baltimore, housing discrimination, San Diego

October 30 roundup

Under investigation and facing the same sorts of tactics he once used against Wall Street, Giuliani may now have reason to appreciate the sorts of principled civil libertarians who stand firm against prosecutorial excess [Ira Stoll]
U.S. dominance in social media is the envy of the rest of the world. Politicians’ trustbusting zeal could change that [Amy-Xiaoshi DePaola, Cronkite News/Arizona PBS, thanks for quoting me]
Walgreen’s had a tussle with Wegman’s over the trademark use of a big script “W,” but has not gone after with another well-known organization with such a letter symbol, the Washington Nationals [Richard Patterson, American University IP Brief back in 2011]
British Columbia human rights tribunal rejects groin-waxing complaint, finding that complainant “engaged in improper conduct”, “filed complaints for improper purposes”, and gave testimony that was “disingenuous and self-serving,” along with having “targeted small businesses, manufactured the conditions for a human rights complaint, and then leveraged that complaint to pursue a financial settlement from parties who were unsophisticated and unlikely to mount a proper defense.” [Joseph Brean, National Post, Justice Centre, opinion in Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons (No. 2), earlier]
“University of Louisville Students Can’t Sue Escort for Exposing Prostitution in the Louisville Basketball Program” [Eugene Volokh]
Intending no disrespect, Your Honor, you should think twice before doing this [Zachary Halaschak, Washington Examiner (“Two male judges shot after female judge gives middle finger during drunken night out”; Indiana)]

Filed under: antitrust, Rudolph Giuliani, social media, sports

Protecting (and hiding the ball on) cops gone wrong

The city of Phoenix quietly erases police misconduct records: “The practice, which the Department refers to as ‘purging,’ has been standard for more than two decades under the police union’s contract, but the public has been unaware of it.” [Justin Price, Arizona Republic; Tim Cushing, TechDirt]

Although the Supreme Court’s Brady doctrine requires prosecutors to inform defense counsel of evidence undermining the credibility of police witnesses, the right can amount to little if matters are so arranged that past instances of officer dishonesty never come to their attention in the first place [Steve Reilly and Mark Nichols, USA Today] In Baltimore, following the conviction of several officers in the notorious Gun Trace Task Force scandal, the state’s attorney has begun throwing out nearly 800 convictions tainted by the wrongdoers’ testimony [my Free State Notes post]

Meanwhile: “The former New York police officer who was fired in August for using a chokehold during Eric Garner’s deadly arrest five years ago is suing to be reinstated.” [Doha Madani, NBC News] Earlier, New York’s Police Benevolent Association said the city’s police commissioner would “lose his police department” if he followed a judge’s recommendation and fired Daniel Pantaleo [Jonathan Blanks, Cato; Joel Mathis, The Week]

Filed under: NYC, Phoenix, police, police unions

Philadelphia jury orders J&J to pay $8 billion in claim of male breast growth from psychiatric drug

“A Philadelphia jury [October 8] ordered Johnson & Johnson to pay $8 billion in damages to a Maryland man who said his use of J&J’s antipsychotic Risperdal as a child caused enlarged breasts and the company failed to properly warn of this risk.” [Peter Loftus, Wall Street Journal] According to the company, the jury in the case had not been allowed to hear evidence of Risperdal’s benefits or the adequacy of its labeling, and the plaintiff’s attorney never introduced evidence that the allegedly improper warning made a difference in whether the client would have been exposed to the side effect. [Brendan Pierson and Nate Raymond, Reuters; Mihir Zaveri and Katie Thomas, New York Times] A recusal motion filed by the company also claims that the judge high-fived jurors after the verdict. [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal] Update Oct. 31: judge denies high-five allegation.

Filed under: pharmaceuticals, Philadelphia, problem jurisdictions

Banking and finance roundup

Supreme Court poised to strike down structure of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) as unconstitutional [Ilya Shapiro, National Review]
No love lost between Elizabeth Warren’s, Barack Obama’s teams when consumer finance regulation was on the table [Alex Thompson, Politico]
Cato Daily Podcasts on two topics with Diego Zuluaga and Caleb Brown: Congress is considering a ban on cashless stores, and Bernie Sanders wants to create a public credit scoring system;
And speaking of the Vermont senator: “The Economic Consequences of Sen. Sanders’ Stock Confiscation Plan” [Ryan Bourne, Cato]
State Street hearing before Boston federal judge lays bare politics and accounting issues of one large securities class action settlement [Daniel Fisher/Legal Newsline and more, Law360 also via Fisher]
SEC rules on “accredited investors” are an attempt “to protect us from ourselves. Yet there are no such rules for betting in Las Vegas.” [David Henderson]

Filed under: Barack Obama, Bernie Sanders, CFPB, class action settlements, Elizabeth Warren, Securities and Exchange Commission, securities litigation

Tenure for doctors has its limits

From Institute for Justice’s Short Circuit newsletter: “How many times can an eye surgeon accidentally operate on the wrong eye before his surgical privileges are revoked? Three is the magic number at the Murfreesboro, Tenn. Veterans Affairs hospital. Sixth Circuit: And the revocation does not violate the due process of law.” [or constitute retaliation under employment discrimination law; Ahad v. Wilkie]

Filed under: employment at will, hospitals, medical, retaliation

Court to officials: do not insult religious believers (cont’d)

If you missed my Wall Street Journal piece on how the Michigan foster care decision isn’t really much of a victory for religious accommodation, Cato now has posted an unpaywalled version. Earlier discussion here.

Filed under: foster care, religious discrimination, WO writings

Class action roundup

“Prices may vary” disclaimer said too small: “A Couple Is Suing Taco Bell for Overcharging Them $2.18 for Chalupas” [Jelisa Castrodale, Vice] “Bronx man sues NBC Universal over ‘unlimited’ soda refills at theme park” [Emily Saul and Natalie O’Neill, New York Post]
An old Florida law bans the use in alcoholic beverages of grains of paradise, a spice widely available online, resulting in a class action lawsuit against makers of a well-known British gin [Baylen Linnekin]
Post-decision Federalist Society podcast on Frank v. Gaos (Supreme Court remands on standing issue without resolving issue of cy pres adequacy) with the eponymous Ted Frank;
“FTC’s comprehensive study finds median consumer class action claims rate is 9%” [Alison Frankel, Reuters]
A recent Ted Frank win: “U.S. appeals court voids Google ‘cookie’ privacy settlement that paid users nothing” [Jonathan Stempel, Reuters] “Zappos data breach settlement: users get 10% store discount, lawyers get $1.6m” [Catalin Cimpanu, ZDNet] “Worse, 10% code doesn’t stack w/ existing discounts.” [@tedfrank on Twitter]
California privacy law fuels class actions over smart speakers such as Amazon’s Alexa, Google Home and Apple’s Siri [Alicia A. Baiardo & Christine M. Mastromonaco, Class Action Countermeasures]

Filed under: class action settlements, class actions, cy pres, privacy, Ted Frank

Cato Supreme Court Review 2018-19

The full Cato Supreme Court Review for the 2018-19 term can be read here, with an introduction by Trevor Burrus. Among this year’s highlights: Michael McConnell on the Maryland Peace Cross case and government-sponsored religious symbols, Bruce Kobayashi and Joshua Wright on the Apple indirect-purchaser antitrust case, Braden Boucek on the Tennessee liquor Commerce Clause case, and Simon Lecturer George Will on “The Insufficiently Dangerous Branch.”

Or listen to a Cato audio with Trevor Burrus, Ilya Shapiro, and Caleb Brown:

Filed under: antitrust, Apple, Cato Institute, religious liberty, Supreme Court