Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘free speech’

Suing for a better education

The old joke goes something like this: If you go to law school, graduate, sue the school for providing a poor education, represent yourself and then win the case … did you really deserve to win?

The cases detailed here may not be quite as clear cut.

A group of students filed a $120 million class action against the American Justice School of Law in Paducah, Ky., on Nov. 17, citing allegations that include tax fraud, false representation to the American Bar Association, racketeering, scheming to defraud students and obstruction of justice. Rust v. American Justice School of Law, No. 5:07CV-191-R (W.D. Ky.).

Late last month, Adam Key, a second-year law student, sued Regent University School of Law, a private Christian school in Virginia Beach, Va., claiming violations of his right to free speech and religion after getting expelled for posting a critique in an online university forum. Key v. Regent University, No. 4:07-CV-04060 (S.D. Texas).

On Nov. 14, John Valente, a second-year student at University of Dayton School of Law in Ohio, filed a complaint against his school, citing negligence in dealing with exam software. Valente v. University of Dayton Law School of Law, No. 07-9593 (Montgomery Co., Ohio, Ct. C.P.).

It’s far from being a trend (yet!), but shouldn’t we expect a more costly legal education to generate demands from those students who slog it out to be chosen from an ever-increasing pool of applicants?

Law school tuition has been increasing at a considerable clip. And if you don’t graduate, it doesn’t matter to you if the value of the degree has risen twice as fast. You’re not a lawyer. (“Don’t Like Your Grade? Sue Your Law School,” The National Law Journal, Dec. 18, 2007.)

Update: I’m not a lawyer, either.

(crossposted at catallaxy.net)

Filed under: , ,

Daniel Solove’s The Future of Reputation

Daniel Solove’s solution to the potential problem of damning information on the Internet is to open up the libel laws and to remove the Communications Decency Act safe-harbor for site owners. As Amber Taylor points out in a provocative review, one could take this chain more seriously if Solove more directly considered the real-world consequences of such a rule, and the amount of true speech it would shut down because of the potential legal expense of defending speech in the absence of bright-line rules. Eric Turkewitz’s review finds his blogger identity trumping his plaintiffs’ attorney identity to also oppose the expanded litigation that Solove proposes. David Giacalone is more favorable, though also unwilling to endorse Solove’s policy prescriptions.

Filed under: , , , ,

Mark Steyn book excerpt = human rights violation?

Reminding us once again that our neighbor to the north lacks a First Amendment-strength guarantee of free speech, and stands in very great need of one: Canada’s largest non-profit Islamic body, the Canadian Islamic Congress, has launched human rights complaints against the prominent magazine Maclean’s and its editor-in-chief over a book excerpt from Mark Steyn, the well-known conservative columnist. “Complaints were submitted to Human Rights Commissions in B.C. and Ontario on the grounds that ‘the article subjects Canadian Muslims to hatred and contempt,’ according to a CIC press release. In the release, the CIC labels Steyn’s article as ‘flagrantly Islamophobic.'” (Kate Lunau, “Canadian Islamic Congress launches human rights complaints against Maclean’s”, Maclean’s, Nov. 30)(& welcome visitors from Steyn’s own SteynOnline).

Filed under: , , ,

Defamation-suit roundup

A hearing officer has recommended a reprimand for Boston judge and libel-suit winner Ernest B. Murphy over those “fascinatingly repellent” letters he sent to the publisher of the Boston Herald demanding a settlement of what proved a winning $2 million libel suit (Jessica Van Sack, “Public reprimand urged for Judge Murphy”, Boston Herald, Nov. 21; see Sept. 28, etc.). The operators of the Irish Pub & Inn in Atlantic City, New Jersey are suing the publishers of Philly magazine over their description of the tavern as a “dive bar”, and aren’t buying the magazine’s claim that the description was intended as complimentary. (Michael Klein, Philadelphia Inquirer “Inqlings”, Nov. 18). And a New York lower court judge has declined to order Google/Blogspot to divulge the identity of “Orthomom”, whom a Lawrence, N.Y. school board member had sought to sue on the theory that it was defamatory to have termed her a “bigot”. (Nicole Black, Nov. 18, with links to other blog coverage).

More: And Eugene Volokh (Nov. 27) posts today on a disturbing case from Canada in which a lawyer involved in the shutting down of “hate speech” websites proceeded to sue for defamation — successfully so far in the Ontario courts — over having been called (among other things) an “enemy of free speech”.

Filed under: , , , , , , ,

“Wetzel Law Firm: Retract ‘Weasel’ or Else”

“Threatened with a potential defamation suit, two individuals have apparently retracted their claimed characterization of a Spokane, Wash.-area law firm formerly known as ‘Wetzel & Wetzel’ as ‘Weasel & Weasel.'” Jim MacDonald, president of the Bayview, Idaho Chamber of Commerce, “read a letter of contrition” at the chamber’s regular monthly meeting “as demanded” by the offended lawyers. Does this mean we’re going to get in trouble with our earlier references to Cruel & Boring, We’ll Getcha & Mangle Ya, Huge Cupboards of Greed, etc.? (Martha Neil, ABA Journal, Oct. 25; Herb Huseland, “Bayview News: Law firm claims slander”, Spokane Statesman-Review, Oct. 25).

P.S. Australian lawyer Stumbling Tumblr adds, “there’s no indication in the story whether weasels had also threatened proceedings”.

Filed under: , , , , ,

“Drunk on power: campaign reformers can’t help it”

Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Tom Harkin (D-Ia.), Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) have teamed up to co-sponsor a proposed constitutional amendment that “would overturn U.S. Supreme Court decisions that limit Congress’ power to regulate the funding of political campaigns. … the amendment would repeal the 1st Amendment as it relates to campaign finance. This would be the first time in our history that we altered the Constitution to curtail liberties protected by the Bill of Rights. It would also have the effect, not accidental, of protecting incumbent members of Congress from being unseated at the polls.” (Steve Chapman, Chicago Tribune/syndicated, Oct. 28).

P.S. Then there’s the possibility that the talk-radio-stifling Fairness Doctrine will be reintroduced in 2009 or after (John Fund, OpinionJournal.com, Oct. 29). And while “Crooked Timber” may be a pleasantly evocative name for a weblog, would arch-liberal Isaiah Berlin really have been so keen to use the state’s coercive power against unwanted speech? (Sullivan, Bainbridge)(& welcome Salon Blog Report readers).

Filed under: , ,

The Fairness Doctrine

The left-wing websites parroting Senator Durbin’s demand for a return to the bad old days of the Fairness Doctrine might want to consider the slippery-slope repercussions; as Rasmussen reports, “Thirty-four percent (34%) believe the government should ‘require web sites that offer political commentary to present opposing viewpoints.’” More: Fred Thompson, Brian C. Anderson, Jesse Walker, John Berlau, Mike Franc, Adam Thierer. Bush has stated that he would veto any such measure.

Filed under: , , ,

The civil right to be cruel

But first, a greeting, and a thank you to the Overlawyered boys for inviting me to guest-blog this week. I’m Ron Coleman, proprietor of the LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION® blog on trademark, copyright and free speech law, and a contributor to Dean’s World and other things. In short, I love practicing law so much that I spend most of the day blogging.

So much for self-promotion (if you can call it that) — now to the promotion of animal cruelty — it’s all the rage, after all:

A new state law against fighting roosters violates a treaty that ended the Mexican-American War, a cockfighting association claims in a lawsuit.

The New Mexico Gamefowl Breeders Association and six businessmen argued that the law infringes on rights protected under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which made New Mexico a U.S. territory.

The lawsuit contends the treaty guarantees civil, political and religious rights, privileges and immunities to the people of New Mexico.

Many of the association’s 2,000 members “are devoted to rural lifestyles, of which gamefowl breeding and-or participating in gamefowl shows and fights are, in New Mexico, long-standing, culturally bound and significant activities,” the lawsuit said.

Wow, some treaty! It guarantees the right to — well, to do what, exactly? Let’s ask the Humane Society:

Cockfighting is a centuries-old blood sport in which two or more specially bred birds, known as gamecocks, are placed in an enclosure to fight, for the primary purposes of gambling and entertainment. A cockfight usually results in the death of one of the birds; sometimes it ends in the death of both. A typical cockfight can last anywhere from several minutes to more than half an hour.

The birds, even those who do not die, suffer in cockfights. The birds cannot escape from the fight, regardless of how exhausted or injured they become. Common injuries include punctured lungs, broken bones, and pierced eyes. Such severe injuries occur because the birds’ legs are usually fitted with razor-sharp steel blades or with gaffs, which resemble three-inch-long, curved ice picks. These artificial spurs are designed to puncture and mutilate.

Nice. And, best of all, tanto auténtico! What judge could resist such a rootsy appeal to heartless blood lust? Plus there’s dinero at stake, too.

Okay, so what’s the legal theory again? Oh, yeah, that’s right: This novel civil right — the right to engage in any “long-standing, culturally bound and significant activities” — is enshrined in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Well, here’s the Treaty: You see the clause guaranteeing the inalienable right to “long-standing, culturally bound and significant activities”?

No? Okay, well how about just the piece about roosters? Any specifications for ice picks?

Me neither. The only thing I remember about the unlikely juxtaposition of ice picks and Mexico is a certain unpleasantness involving some murderous Bolsheviks. Now, we saw then that “breaking a few eggs” can be unpleasant, but these poor chickens deserve better. Plaintiffs in this lawsuit, however, don’t.

UPDATE: Wow. There’s more to this civil right than I thought!

Filed under: , , ,

FEC v. WRTL

Yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life is of special importance to those of us in Wisconsin, since we have watched the case unfold before our eyes since its inception. As you’ve probably heard by now, the Court, in a 5-4 vote, struck down a portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law which prohibited so-called “issue advocacy” by unregistered groups in a period of 60 days before a general election. Wisconsin Right to Life had run advertisements critical of Senators Russ Feingold and Herb Kohl for their perceived role in holding up judicial appointments, but these ads were deemed to be illegal under McCain-Feingold, despite not advocating for the electoral defeat of either. Yesterday’s decision upheld WRTL’s right to run the ads, as the Court determined they were not “express advocacy.”

The culture of speech restriction with regard to campaigns has been prevalent in Wisconsin for some time, and produces some fairly odd applications of the law. This was demonstrated during last November’s elections, when the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (a pro-campaign finance reform group) actually filed a complaint to bar a Catholic diocese from urging its parishoners to support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. (Church Accused of Illegal Lobbying, Madison Capital Times, Oct. 18, 2006) At the same time they were attempting to use state law to block the Catholic Church’s right to support the constitutional amendment, the WDC was actually publicly lobbying against the amendment – yet they didn’t see their own activities as “express advocacy.”

So while it is clear yesterday’s decision represented a marginal victory for free speech rights at the federal level, there are steps states can take to ensure political speech isn’t muzzled come election time. When churches break the law by teaching their beliefs, it should alert states to dangerous path campaign finance restrictions are taking us.

Filed under: , ,