Overlawyered: Chronicling The High Cost Of Our Legal System

Posts Tagged ‘free speech’

Oz: discrimination law vs. free speech

In Australia, a professor faces punishment for politically unacceptable speech:

Academic Andrew Fraser will defy the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission by not apologising to the Sudanese community for his study linking African refugees to high crime rates.
In a landmark ruling that raises fresh questions about the limits to which academics can engage in public debate, HREOC chairman John von Doussa has found Professor Fraser’s comments were unlawful because they amounted to a “sweeping generalisation” that was not backed by research.

Professor Fraser was suspended last year from teaching at Sydney’s Macquarie University over his comments about Sudanese refugees in Australia.

(Greg Roberts, “Academic still links Africans to crime”, The Australian, Apr. 4)(via David Bernstein).

Filed under: , ,

Canadian magazine sued over cartoons

Following up on earlier threats (Feb. 14, Mar. 19), Syed Soharwardy has brought a complaint against the Western Standard before the Alberta Human Rights Commission over its publication of the Mohammed cartoons. Ezra Levant, publisher of the Western Standard, explains (Mar. 29) that defendants in the “human rights” tribunal do not benefit from the protection that the loser-pays principle affords most defendants in Canada against groundless or nuisance litigation:

even if we are successful in the human rights commission, we will not be compensated for our legal fees. It’s not like a real court [! — W.O.], where an unsuccessful plaintiff would be ordered to pay a successful defendant’s costs. So even if we win, we lose — the process is the penalty. Worse than that, the radical imam who is suing us doesn’t have to put up a dime — the commission uses tax dollars to pay lawyers and other inquisitors to go at us directly. Human rights tribunals themselves are illiberal institutions.

More: A. Alan Borovoy, “Hearing complaint alters rights body’s mandate”, Calgary Herald, Mar. 16 (PDF).

In other cartoon-jihad news, it appears that giant book retailers Borders and Waldenbooks have been Boston-Phoenix-ized (see Feb. 10); they say they won’t carry the April-May issue of the magazine Free Inquiry, which reprints Mohammed cartoons, for fear of Islamist violence against their employees and customers (Carolyn Thompson, “Borders, Waldenbooks Won’t Carry Magazine”, AP/San Francisco Chronicle, Mar. 29). Free Inquiry is actually worth subscribing to quite aside from this episode; you can do that here.

P.S. Eugene Volokh has a thread discussing the extent to which Borders/Walden might be subject to later tort liability if its sale of the magazine led to violence that harmed customers (Mar. 30). SupportDenmarkSmall3EN.png

Filed under: , , ,

Revealing someone’s criminal record = privacy invasion?

Eugene Volokh on the background of a case now pending in the Ninth Circuit:

Unfortunately, for several decades, California courts did indeed take the view that accurately discussing people’s crimes from a decade or more ago could lead to legal liability. Such speech, a discussion in a 1971 California Supreme Court said, serves no “public purpose” and is not “of legitimate public interest”; there is no “reason whatsoever” for it, when (in the court’s view) the plaintiff has been “rehabilitated” and has “paid his debt to society.”

In 2004, the state’s high court recognized that as regards the media and its reporting, this stance had become inconsistent with modern views of the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the court left open the possibility that non-media defendants might still face damage suits for privacy invasion over such disclosures, and exactly that possibility has now eventuated in a case by the name of Readylink Healthcare v. Lynch. (Mar. 15)

Filed under: , ,

Sammenhold

It means “solidarity” in Danish, and specifically solidarity with the endangered liberties of Denmark, where some of the “Mohammed” cartoonists live in hiding after threats to their lives. (Michelle Malkin, Mar. 3, complete with “Lego My Free Speech” rally sign; Flemming Rose, “Why I Published Those Cartoons”, Washington Post, Feb. 19). More here and here. SupportDenmarkSmall3EN.png

Filed under: ,

Why they aren’t running the cartoons

The Boston Phoenix (“World of Pain”, Feb. 9) tells readers that “frankly, the primary reason” it isn’t going to run the Danish Muhammed cartoons:

Out of fear of retaliation from the international brotherhood of radical and bloodthirsty Islamists who seek to impose their will on those who do not believe as they do. …Simply stated, we are being terrorized, and as deeply as we believe in the principles of free speech and a free press, we could not in good conscience place the men and women who work at the Phoenix and its related companies in physical jeopardy. As we feel forced, literally, to bend to maniacal pressure, this may be the darkest moment in our 40-year publishing history.

Somewhere there’s probably an issue of vicarious/employer liability lurking in here — if printing the cartoons did lead to violence, the Phoenix’s owners might well end up having to pay. But of course the venerable alt-weekly’s stance is practically a profile in courage compared with that of editors, publishers, governments and university officials in many other places, including South Africa (bans publication of images), Sweden (reported to have shut down website carrying them), Canada’s Prince Edward Island (university confiscates student newspaper, edict forbids weblog comments) and so on (Michelle Malkin roundup, Feb. 9). Commentaries worth reading: Krauthammer, Kinsley, and, from a different perspective, a commenter at Andrew Sullivan’s. (More on the cartoons here and here.)

Filed under: , , , , , , , , ,

Phila. judge: no right to anonymous online disparagement

Watch what you say about lawyers (and everyone else), cont’d: a “Philadelphia judge has ruled that a valid defamation claim trumps any right to speak anonymously on the Internet….Common Pleas Judge Albert W. Sheppard Jr. ordered the operator of two now-defunct Web sites to turn over the identities of the anonymous authors of comments on the sites that allegedly defamed a Philadelphia law firm….In the suit, the Klehr Harrison firm complains that its reputation was severely disparaged by comments on the two sites that falsely accused its lawyers of being ‘thieves,’ committing ‘fraud’ and ‘lying’ to a judge.” Although courts in some other states have protected anonymous online commenters from demands that their identity be disclosed, Sheppard said Pennsylvania law was not obliged to follow that path. (Shannon P. Duffy, “Law Firm’s Defamation Claim Found to Trump Critics’ Internet Anonymity”, The Legal Intelligencer, Jan. 23). For more on the legal hazards of criticizing Pennsylvania lawyers and judges, see Nov. 30, 2003, Mar. 16, 2004, and Oct. 24-25, 2001.

Comments are open (be very careful, please).

Filed under: , , , , , ,

Islamic Society of Boston

It’s filed lawsuits against “Fox Channel 25, the Boston Herald, and 14 other private citizens and organizations for having conspired to defame the organization.” Its critics aren’t easy to silence, though. (Dean Barnett, “A Mosque Grows in Boston”, Weekly Standard, Dec. 14; Mark Jurkowitz, “Trial and terror”, Boston Phoenix, Nov. 18-24; Jeff Jacoby, “Questions the Islamic Society should answer”, Boston Globe, Jan. 1 (via Dan Kennedy)).

Filed under: , ,

Judge demands freeze on Boston Herald’s assets

Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Ernest B. Murphy, having won a libel judgment of more than $2 million against the Boston Herald, smaller of the city’s two big newspapers, is now demanding that a court order the paper’s assets frozen to guarantee payment of the judgment. (Jonathan Saltzman, “Court is asked to freeze Herald’s assets”, Boston Globe, Nov. 29). Dan Kennedy at Media Nation (Nov. 29) says that the Herald’s original article criticizing Murphy was anything but a model of good journalism.

But free-press advocates ought to be concerned that a sitting judge can have some influence over the Herald’s future — and possibly its very survival — because of reporting that amounted to criticism of how he performed his public duties. That, more than anything, is what the First Amendment was designed to protect.

(via Romenesko). For the chilling effects of libel awards won by judges in Pennsylvania, see Mar. 16, 2004, etc.

Filed under: , , , , ,

Boston mayor vows to seize t-shirts from stores

…because he doesn’t like the message printed on them, as Reason “Hit and Run” reports:

Boston Mayor Thomas Menino has ordered the city to seize T-shirts that say “Stop Snitchin.” “‘It’s wrong,’ Menino said. ‘We are going into every retail store that sells the shirts and remove them.'”

(Boston Herald; Boston Globe; KipEsquire; Eugene Volokh; ACLU of Mass. press release, PDF). More: Gunner at No Quarters Blog has an update.

Filed under: , ,