Fuhgeddaboudit, Bill Bennett: “grandstanding politicos seem intent on getting the government into the business of censorship. … It has been said that when Democrats start talking about children, it’s time to hide your wallet; when Republicans start talking about children, it’s time to TIVO the good stuff for posterity.” (Prof. Bainbridge, Jun. 4; Adam Thierer, National Review Online, Jun. 4). And another parent, this time a New Mexico resident with a 12-year-old boy, has been menaced by authorities with child abuse charges for taking his child off Ritalin, the antidepressant drug (Brian Robinson, “Pills vs. Talking: Dad Investigated for Taking Son Off Meds”, ABC News, Jun. 7). For an earlier case along the same lines, see Jul. 26-27, 2000. (via Wizbang). Sydney Smith has more (Jun. 8).
Posts Tagged ‘child protection’
Dept. of truly bad ideas
“Republican Californian Congressman Duncan Hunter has introduced a bill titled the ‘Parents’ Empowerment Act,’ which would allow the parent or guardian of a minor to sue (in federal court) anyone who knowingly disseminates any media which contains ‘material that is harmful to minors.'” The bill would apply in cases where “a reasonable person would expect a substantial number of minors to be exposed to the material” and “the minor as a result of exposure to that material is likely to suffer personal or emotional injury or injury to mental or moral welfare.” “Compensatory damages under the bill would start at no less than $10,000 for any instance a minor is exposed to harmful entertainment products”, and liability would apparently extend to original publishers, final retailers, and everyone in between. (“House Bill Threatens Retailers”, icv2.com News, May 21; Jonah Weiland, “CBLDF: New Censorship Bill Turns Parents Into Prosecutors”, May 21; Alan Connor, “The Parents’ Empowerment Act: finding the porn in Harry Potter”, London Review of Books, May 20)(text of H.R. 4239, introduced Apr. 28, courtesy TheOrator.com). Focus on the Family, the religious-right group, likes the idea (Keith Peters, “Congress Considers Parents’ Empowerment Act”, Family News in Focus, May 3)(more on free speech and media law).
$100 background check requirement to volunteer
A “growing number of school districts nationwide are adopting rigorous security policies for parents and others who want to volunteer.” The expense and inconvenience of the $100 background checks are dissuading many parents from participating. The New York Times blames this on post-9/11 terrorism concerns, but the real culprit goes unmentioned: fear of liability for failure to screen. Even though “there is no evidence that tighter screening of parent volunteers prevents problems,” the failure to screen could be used by a plaintiffs’ lawyer to hold a school district liable or the criminal behavior of a volunteer. (Tamar Lewin, “Want to Volunteer in Schools? Be Ready for a Security Check”, New York Times, Mar. 11) (via Jacobs). One such lawsuit is pending now in New Haven, alleging the city Board of Education should have taken steps to determine if a Yale professor who participated in a School Volunteers for New Haven mentoring program was a pedophile–even though the plaintiff admits a background check wouldn’t have turned up anything, he suggests that perhaps Professor Antonio Lasaga would’ve been deterred from applying for the program. Needless to say, the plaintiff also plans to sue Yale. (Michelle Tuccitto, “School board asks to get out of Lasaga sex abuse case”, New Haven Register, Mar. 10).
Meanwhile, an Orange County appeals court ruled recently in Wiener v. Southcoast Childcare Centers Inc., that a daycare center and its landlord, a church, could potentially be held liable for failing to put up a fence “to protect the children from out-of-control cars” when Steven Abrams deliberately drove his Cadillac onto a playground at 40 mph and murdered two children. The good news is that the California Supreme Court indicated skepticism of the tenability of the claim during oral argument this week. (David Kravets, “Court debates landowner liability for unforeseen crimes”, AP, Mar. 10; Mike McKee, “Calif. Justices Wary of Liability for Others’ Crimes”, The Recorder, Mar. 11). If the California Supreme Court reverses and dismisses the case, tort reform opponents will pooh-pooh concerns about the lawsuit, but meanwhile the daycare center and church will have been forced to litigate this in front of three levels of courts at great expense.
Blockbuster suit: unsafe for adults
“A couple who says their 4-year-old daughter saw hard-core pornography on a PG-rated movie tape from Blockbuster has sued the video company.” The lawsuit, filed in New Jersey, says the rental chain “had a responsibility and a duty to inspect, monitor and ensure the quality and propriety of all video products purchased by its customers.” Blockbuster spokesman Randy Hargrove said “that the company does not carry X- or NC-17-rated movies, and depends on renters to return a tape ‘in the same condition it was given to them.’ ‘Unfortunately there are those rare instances when someone will abuse that privilege and damage one of our tapes,’ he said.” (“Blockbuster sued for porn on PG movie”, AP/CNN, Jan. 24). Reader Jeff Rowes writes: “I haven’t read the complaint, only the CNN story, but the theory of recovery seems to be that Blockbuster has a duty to review every videotape returned after renting to ensure that its contents have not been adulterated with pornography. If adopted, this duty of care would obviously jeopardize Blockbuster’s business because each outlet would need dozens of full time videotape reviewers (or some expensive, as-yet-uninvented technology). It would also create an explosion in fraud as all one would need to recover is a Blockbuster video with a few minutes of porn on it.”
More on comics clerk’s conviction
Reader William Dyer (BeldarBlog) writes that he “was disappointed to see your brief entry today on Overlawyered regarding the Jesus Castillo obscenity case. The stories you linked today are filled with factual errors and generally overblow the story.”
Comics? Must be for kids
“Earlier this [month], the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of Jesus Castillo’s 2000 obscenity conviction for selling a comic book. … In September 1999, Castillo, manager of Keith’s Comics in Dallas, sold a copy of ‘Demon Beast Invasion: The Fallen’ No. 2 to an undercover police officer. The adults-only comic (an English translation of a Japanese manga) was labeled as such and was stocked in an adults-only section of the shop. The police officer was an adult. … ‘I don’t care what kind of testimony is out there,’ the prosecuting attorney said. ‘Comic books, traditionally what we think of, are for kids.'” (Franklin Harris, Pulp Culture Online, Aug. 7) (via Unqualified Offerings)(Comic Book Legal Defense Fund). More: reader William Dyer (BeldarBlog) writes taking issue with the linked stories.