“Under Vermont’s limits, a candidate for state representative in a single-member district can spend no more than $2,000 in a two-year cycle. Every mile driven by a candidate—or a volunteer—must be computed as a 48.5-cent campaign expenditure. Just driving—and not much of it—can exhaust permissible spending.” (“Free Speech Under Siege”, Newsweek, Dec. 5). More: Aug. 23, etc.
Posts Tagged ‘free speech’
Racial and Religious Hatred Bill
It’s a clear and present danger to free speech in the United Kingdom (Andrew Stuttaford, NRO “The Corner”, Oct. 18). More: Jul. 16, 2004; Jun. 11, Jun. 27, Aug. 17, 2005.
“Erototoxins” as next tobacco
Judith Reisman, a peripheral yet oddly influential figure in social-conservative circles who is perhaps best known for her attacks on the late sex researcher Dr. Alfred Kinsey, has taken up a new cause: proving that exposure to pornography causes the release of injurious “erototoxins” in the human brain. Reports Britain’s Guardian:
Under the auspices of Utah’s Lighted Candle Society (LCS), Reisman and Victor Cline, a clinical psychologist at the University of Utah, began raising money from American conservative and religious organisations. They hope to raise at least $3m to conduct MRI scans on victims under the influence of porn and so prove their theories correct. They foresee two possible outcomes: if they can demonstrate that porn physically “damages” the brain, that might open the floodgates for “big tobacco”-style lawsuits against porn publishers and distributors; second, and more insidiously, if porn can be shown to “subvert cognition” and affect the parts of the brain involved in reasoning and speech, then “these toxic media should be legally outlawed, as is all other toxic waste, and eliminated from our societal structure”.
(Mark Pilkington, “Sex on the brain”, Jul. 14). Rogier Van Bakel (Nobody’s Business) has much more on Reisman (Jul. 21). (& welcome Andrew Sullivan, Instapundit readers).
Calif.: radio host’s ageism not a civil rights violation
Tom Leykis’s highly successful Westwood One radio show is geared to reach men 25-34, an advertiser-coveted demographic. When Marty Ingels, a 67-year-old talent agent and former sitcom actor (1962’s I’m Dickens, He’s Fenster) called in to the show, he was eventually put on the air, but Leykis launched into a series of japes poking fun at his age. Ingels proceeded to sue under California’s super-broad Unruh civil rights act and its equally super-broad s. 17200 unfair competition law, but an appeals court has now agreed with the broadcaster’s request to throw out the suit as violative of the state’s SLAPP statute, which is aimed at restricting some lawsuits that threaten free speech. (Kenneth Ofgang, “C.A. Rejects Age Bias Suit Over Exclusion From Radio Talk Show”, Metropolitan News-Enterprise, May 31; Ingels v. Westwood One, opinion in PDF format courtesy FindLaw; Silicon Valley Media Law Blog, May 26).
Not such a great place for free speech either
“Welcome to New Jersey. A horrible place to do business,” reads the billboard message [erected by William Juliano, a discontented Mount Laurel, N.J. businessman]…
So far, the state has done nothing about the billboard, and it’s unclear whether it could. “At some point, we’ll have to consider action against him,” [Environmental Protection chief Bradley] Campbell said, implying a potential legal fight.
(Geoff Mulvihill, “A sign of the times: New Jersey ‘horrible'”, AP/Akron Beacon Journal, Jun. 2). More: Ron Coleman also noticed this one (Jun. 2).
Aguilar v. Avis and Janice Rogers Brown
Following up on Monday’s post about the controversy over nominee Janice Brown’s dissent from Aguilar, a California Supreme Court decision which extended the reach of harassment law at the expense of free speech: James Taranto notes (May 31) that at the time the court handed down its decision in Aguilar, the San Francisco Chronicle described it as a “blockbuster” that “stunned constitutional experts”. He wonders: “How can dissent from a decision that ‘stunned constitutional experts’ turn in a few years into a view that’s totally ‘out of the mainstream’ [the New York Times’ words]?” And Eugene Volokh (Jun. 1, crediting Hans Bader) points out that while the AFL-CIO now blasts Brown for her “troubling and extreme” refusal to go along with the Aguilar majority, “the National Writers Union — a member union of the AFL-CIO — proudly filed an amicus brief urging the same result that Justice Brown endorsed.”
“Brand Name Bullies”
Unreviewed, but sounds promising: Brand Name Bullies, by David Bollier (website), published last December, bills itself as an “impassioned, darkly amusing look at how corporations misuse copyright and trademark law to stifle creativity and free speech.” The publisher, John Wiley & Sons, has a website with excerpts. For many examples of that phenomenon, see our pages on intellectual property/technology and free speech/media law.
Florida’s legislature inviting plaintiffs’ lawyers to re-enact Scopes?
Two bad ideas in one: A Florida state House committee voted 6-2 to forward on H-837, a bill some legislators say will give university students a legal cause of action to sue universities and professors who “ridicule” their beliefs.
“Some professors say, ‘Evolution is a fact. I don’t want to hear about Intelligent Design, and if you don’t like it, there’s the door,'” [Rep. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala] said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.
The bill is expected to pass the Florida House. It’s not quite clear that the bill will have the effect of opening the courtrooms to every crackpot student offended by a professor’s lecture, but it’s not comforting to see the absence of a denial. (James Vanlandingham, “Capitol bill aims to control ‘leftist’ profs”, Independent Florida Alligator, Mar. 23; Joe Follick, “House OKs Student `Free Speech’ Bill”, Lakeland Ledger, Mar. 23; James Vanlandingham, “Pending academic freedom bill comes under fire”, Independent Florida Alligator, Mar. 24).
Thank you, Dan Rather
…for helping rid us of the noxious Fairness Doctrine (Thomas W. Hazlett, “Dan Rather’s Good Deed”, Weekly Standard, Mar. 21, reprinted at Manhattan Institute site).
Free speech prevails in “trash terrorists” case
In a case closely watched by free-speech advocates, a Missouri appeals court has dismissed as meritless a defamation suit brought by a trash company against a man who had successfully fought its plan to site a transfer station in his suburban St. Louis neighborhood. Leaflets opposing the facility had referred to the company, Fred Weber Inc., as “trash terrorists”, but the court found that “rhetorical hyperbole” of that sort, even if overheated, would not suggest to a reasonable audience that company officials engage in actual bombings or murders. Concern over the case has led to efforts in the Missouri legislature to broaden protections against being sued for taking part in public discussions. (Leisa Zigman, “County Resident Wins ‘SLAPP’ Suit Ruling Against Fred Weber, Inc.”, KSDK.com, Mar. 8; “Slapping down Weber” (editorial), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Mar. 9; Tim Jones, “Lawsuit trashed as threat to speech”, Chicago Tribune, Mar. 9). More: opinion is here.