“The British Chiropractic Association is using the libel laws to try and silence Simon Singh’s discussion of some of the more, uh, unusual claims they make for Chiropractic treatments (such as curing Colic and Asthma).” [Boing Boing, Orac first and second posts, Jack of Kent] And Dave Gorman writes really carefully about the case.
Posts Tagged ‘bloggers and the law’
May 7 roundup
- New court allegations that disgraced Luzerne County, Pa. judges fixed civil cases as well [Legal Intelligencer; earlier here and here]
- Half-hopeful, half-sad story of Florida town’s efforts to live down “Nub City” insurance-fraud notoriety [St. Petersburg Times a while back, but new to me; Errol Morris film; my review of Ken Dornstein’s book]
- Evidence continues to roll in against once-touted theory that bans on smoking in public places result in dramatic overnight drop in heart attack rates [Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”, earlier here and here]
- Maybe everyone’s too used to such things by now to get riled up by that pic of garishly painted “1-800-LAWYERS” van [Ron Miller; earlier]
- Magazines often found on scene at law enforcement raids = guilty magazines that should be banned from mails? [McClatchy “Suits and Sentences” blog; earlier on cockfighting periodicals Apr. 24, etc.]
- Lawprofs: Let’s carve bigger religious-conscience exemptions into antibias laws [Robin Wilson, L.A. Times; Dale Carpenter series at Volokh; Ira Lupu, ConcurOp via Orin Kerr]
- UK: “Parents sue NHS over ‘wrongful birth’ of disabled son” [Times Online, our earlier coverage of concept]
- Throw bloggers in prison because their posts cause emotional distress? Have fifteen members of Congress gone completely mad? [David Kravets, Wired “Threat Level”, earlier]
Discussing a Florida company on your blog
Is that enough, without more, to subject you to the jurisdiction of a Florida federal court in a resulting defamation lawsuit? [Ron Coleman, Likelihood of Confusion; Citizen Media Law]
“South Carolina Court Awards $1.8 Million Libel Judgment Against Blogger”
Ad agency head Scott Brandon sued Donald Wizeman “claiming that Wizeman was the author of Myrtle Beach Insider and that Wizeman had defamed him by publishing a June 2007 post calling him a ‘failed lawyer’ and criticizing one of his ad agency’s campaigns. Wizeman denied that he was the author of Myrtle Beach Insider, but admitted agreeing with its content.” Note, however, some oddities that make the case far from typical: Wizeman did not hire a lawyer at first and claims to have been unaware of some key proceedings that were decided against him, and the judge awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff, which is extremely unusual in defamation cases. [Sam Bayard, Citizen Media Law; Mike Cherney, Myrtle Beach Sun-News]
P.S. Some commenters are reading the case as one of “defendant doesn’t show up to contest complaint, gets hit with default judgment”; I wasn’t sure from the story (and am still not sure) that the sequence of events was that cut and dried. Obviously, it doesn’t count as especially odd if an absent litigant gets hit with a big judgment.
Update Aug. 2009: Case settled [Citizen Media Law]
“Bad Phoenix Cops” blogger raided, cont’d
David Ardia of Citizen Media Law has more details on this disturbing case (earlier).
“Considering the explosion of new media, regulation is inevitable”
Phillips Givens’ IP Law 101 has more on the Federal Trade Commission’s proposed extension of liability to situations where bloggers or others in social media fail to disclose the receipt of freebie services (such as entertainment or software) or write insincerely favorable posts about the experience. Earlier here. More: Jeff Winkler, Reason “Hit and Run”.
P.S.: Doesn’t sound as if bloggers have much to worry about, though, if the topics on which they provide favorable coverage are of a more political sort.
Blogger makes himself pest to Phoenix police
And gets raided by them. More: Instapundit.
Bloggers: beware of overpraising
I wonder whether it’s time to start turning down review copies of books:
Revised guidelines on endorsements and testimonials by the Federal Trade Commission, now under review and expected to be adopted, would hold companies liable for untruthful statements made by bloggers and users of social networking sites who receive samples of their products.
The guidelines would also hold bloggers liable for the statements they make about products.
Related: 2007 Ron Coleman column.
April 2 roundup
- Topic we’ve covered before: should the MCAT exam for prospective M.D.s grant extra time to applicants with learning disabilities? [KevinMD]
- Virginia blogger Waldo Jaquith fighting subpoena seeking identities of anonymous commenters [Citizen Media Law, earlier]
- A free marketer’s case for why fired professor Ward Churchill might deserve to win his case against the University of Colorado [Coyote Blog]
- She videotaped cops arresting her son. They took her camera. Could she have it back, please? [Ken @ Popehat]
- Despite Obama campaign hints of Second Amendment truce, lower-level appointees far from gun-friendly [Dave Kopel] And new State Department legal advisor Harold Koh pushed international curbs on small-arms trade [Fonte, NRO “Corner”]
- U.K.: “Man Who Attempted Suicide Sues Hospital that Saved Him” [Telegraph via Lowering the Bar]
- National media jump on Luzerne County, Pa. judicial scandal, some details I hadn’t seen in earlier coverage [NYT, ABA Journal]
- Atlanta jury — of 11 women and one lone guy — awards $2.3 million for circumcision injury [Fulton County Daily Report]
More nastygrams over anonymous blog comments
“The law firm Jackson Lewis delivered nastygrams [last month] to two health industry blogs, demanding that they take down anonymous comments and hand over information to help identify the person who posted the comments.” But Confessions of a Pediatric Practice Consultant and the Chilmark Research blog say they have no intention of cooperating. [Ambrogi, Legal Blog Watch]
,