“Why Were None of the Righthaven Lawyers Disciplined?”

The courts themselves reacted vigorously against the legal shenanigans of a copyright-mill mass filing enterprise built on the IP rights of the Las Vegas Review-Journal. Nevada bar discipline authorities, however, didn’t: “disciplinary matters have a higher standard of proof than almost all civil matters in a judicial setting.” [Nicole Hyland, Orange County Register, earlier]

Scotland’s sad state of statism

We’ve covered many of the individual controversies before — including police crackdowns on the singing of sectarian songs, and the introduction of named government functionaries charged with looking after the interests of every single child (not just, e.g., orphans or those whose custody is contested). And some of the endless nanny statism: Prices of alcohol are too low! The public’s eating habits must improve! And all of Scotland is to be smokefree by 2034, with the legal fate of those who might wish to continue smoking not yet specified. Brendan O’Neill in Reason pulls the whole depressing thing together. Scotland also has not only thousands of CCTV surveillance cameras but also “camera vans,” which “drive through towns filming the allegedly suspect populace.” And did we forget the warnings from Police Scotland about unlawful speech on social media?

Higher education roundup

  • After collapse of Rolling Stone article on alleged University of Virginia gang rape, who might prevail in a libel suit against whom? [Volokh] Someone with much to answer for: UVa president Teresa Sullivan [Glenn Reynolds]
  • Much-discussed Judith Shulevitz piece on campus climate [New York Times] John McWhorter challenges the White Privilege 101 curriculum [The Daily Beast]
  • Ithaca College gets in the swing of the federal guidance with its own anonymous microaggression snitchline [Greg Lukianoff]
  • Lawyer for University of Rochester “Demands Yik Yak Take Down Posts, Turn Over User Info” [Tim Cushing, TechDirt]
  • Academic-purity group backed by Greenpeace and AFT urges activists to “expose and undermine” professors and campus research centers that work against “progressive values.” [Kim Strassel, WSJ; related earlier] (& welcome Instapundit readers)
  • NLRB decision in Pacific Lutheran University case could menace private colleges by herding more faculty into unions [Charles Baird, Pope Center]
  • University of Texas still covertly doing race preferences, and SCOTUS should step in, argues Cato brief [Ilya Shapiro] Related: “U. of Texas’ Chief Might Have Exposed Its Admissions Policy to New Supreme Court Challenge” [Chronicle of Higher Education] University of Texas and legislature “Just Keep Digging That Wallace Hall Hole Deeper for Themselves” [Dallas Observer]

U.K.: parents “will be reported …for neglect if they allow children to play over-18 computer games”

A public authority governing 16 schools in Cheshire, England, has sent a letter to parents warning them that they must not allow their children to play with adult-themed videogames such as Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto. “If your child is allowed to have inappropriate access to any game, or associated product, that is designated 18+ we are advised to contact the police and children’s social care as this is deemed neglectful.” [ITV via Lenore Skenazy]

Culture War tomorrow, comity tonight: when one state boycotts another

Boycotts by one state directed against another seem to me to be a tactic best reserved for impending scenarios of civil war, although who knows, if my social media stream is any indication, perhaps the United States is soon to reach that point. Gerard Magliocca, who teaches law at Indiana, wonders whether the Constitution would provide any legal remedies if, for example, one state closed its public university system to applicants from another state to show disapproval for that second state’s policies. (For those who came in late, Governors Dannel Malloy of Connecticut and Andrew Cuomo of New York issued orders, now rescinded, barring travel by “non-essential” state employees to Indiana during the several-day furor over that state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).)

Supreme Court roundup

  • In a new Cato podcast, I talk with Caleb Brown about the Court’s pending case on “disparate impact” liability in housing and finance, Texas Dept. of Housing vs. The Inclusive Communities Project [earlier, more]
  • Amicus briefs urge Court to recognize regulatory taking in raisin marketing order requisition case Horne v. Department of Agriculture [Trevor Burrus, Ilya Somin, earlier]
  • Organized campaign to disrupt Supreme Court sittings is sure to raise the concern of groups devoted to backing judicial independence. Right? [Orin Kerr, Legal Times, earlier on selective vision of some of the latter groups here, here, etc.]
  • Under the surface, routine decision in Perez indicates Justices’ changing attitudes toward Chevron, Auer, and agency deference in administrative law [Sasha Volokh]
  • Vong v. Aune, arising from Arizona cosmetology board ban on Asian “fish pedicure” techniques, could enable Court to examine economic rationality of regulation [Ilya Shapiro]
  • “Justices stick to middle of the road in Omnicare securities opinion” [Alison Frankel/Reuters, Bainbridge]
  • Sequel to Harris v. Quinn? In Center for Individual Rights’s Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association case Court could revisit Abood question of public sector agency shop [On Labor, Larry Sand/City Journal]

Employer incentives and the discontents of workers’ comp

Despite discontents with the workers’ compensation system, statistics show the American workplace growing steadily safer, and it is anything but clear that the incentives for safe practice of the various players would be improved by a system which forced more accident cases into litigation [Gordon Yago, York Daily Record, quotes me at several places]

Surveillance and privacy roundup