“Now it is official: The United States of America has a federal bureaucracy in charge of deciding who can say what about politicians during campaign season. We can argue, and people do, about whether this state of affairs is good or bad, better or worse than some alternative. What is inarguable is that America now has what amounts to a federal speech code, enforced with jail terms of up to five years.” (Jonathan Rauch, National Journal/Reason, Oct. 7). More: Columnist/blogger Dan Kennedy is troubled by efforts to charge the management of the Sinclair Broadcast Group with campaign finance violations (and maybe even subject them to criminal prosecution) for airing a documentary highly critical of Democratic candidate John Kerry (“Media Log: A Small Matter of Free Speech”, Boston Phoenix, Oct. 12). More on Sinclair and the FCC: Ron Orol, “Sinclair Uproar Threatens Purchase of TV Stations”, The Deal, Oct. 22.
Posts Tagged ‘free speech’
“Recovered memory” doubter sued
Prof. Elizabeth Loftus, the psychologist whose writings and expert testimony have been highly influential in casting doubt on the reliability of buried and then putatively recovered memories of abuse (see Mar. 22 and links from there), is the defendant in a lawsuit filed by a “Jane Doe” abuse complainant whose allegations Loftus critically examined in a 2002 article for Skeptical Inquirer (the valuable magazine of CSICOP, the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims for the Paranormal). Trial is expected soon: “If she loses, not only will academic freedom have arguably suffered a grievous blow, but on a personal level, Loftus herself could face bankruptcy.” “Jane Doe” also “filed an ethics complaint against Loftus with the University of Washington. Though the university eventually cleared Loftus of breaking research protocols — after seizing all of her files on the case and preventing her from publishing her work for almost two years — its support was so lukewarm, and its unwillingness to stand by its controversial psychologist during the current lawsuit so clear, that Loftus was only too happy to accept an offer from Irvine.” (Sasha Abramsky, “Memory and Manipulation”, L.A. Weekly, Aug. 20-26) (via Brian Doherty, Reason “Hit and Run”, Aug. 24). Update: see Jun. 26, 2005 (L.A. Times covers case).
Honest mastheads, cont’d
If Fox News is going to have to hire lawyers to defend the accuracy of its “Fair and Balanced” against MoveOn.org’s silly and abusive complaint (see Jul. 20), how many other media outfits are going to need to worry about backing up their puffish slogans? David Giacalone, guest-posting at Legal Underground, has a funny post (Jul. 24) listing various newspaper slogans that publishers might wish to reconsider, from the Atlanta Journal’s “Covers Dixie Like the Dew” (substantiation, please) to the Toledo Blade’s “One of America’s Great Newspapers — In One of America’s Great Cities”.
Siccing the law on Fox News
Given its role in campaign speech suppression, we’ve long associated the goo-goo group Common Cause with scary assaults on free speech, so we can’t say we’re exactly surprised at this latest: in a petition to the Federal Trade Commission, it and the leftist MoveOn.org are alleging that the Fox News Network should be exposed to penalties for consumer fraud for using the slogan “Fair and Balanced” while repeatedly broadcasting views strenuously disapproved of by C.C. and MO.O. (Jake Coyle, “Fox News’ use of ‘Fair and Balanced’ challenged legally”, AP/San Diego Union-Tribune, Jul. 19; Charles Geraci, “Activists Ask FTC to Take Action Against Fox News”, Editor and Publisher, Jul. 19). Fox “doesn’t have the right to market its network services to prospective viewers and advertisers by masquerading as a news network,” claims former FTC chairman Michael Pertschuk, who we’re very relieved held that position way back in the Carter era rather than more recently. (Albert Eisele and Jeff Dufour, “Under the dome: ‘Fair and balanced’ fight: Lefties hit Fox with FTC petition”, The Hill, Jul. 20). No word yet on whether equally inflamed right-wingers plan to haul the New York Times off to the authorities for using the slogan “All the News That’s Fit To Print”, which is no more believable than Fox’s (via Amy Ridenour). More: Jul. 26.
Parents yes, governments no
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).
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).
Find this man a dictionary
“‘I don’t think censorship is a bad word, but it has become a bad word because everybody associates it with some kind of restriction on liberty,’ said Mr. [Pat] Boone, who is in Washington making the rounds as the national spokesman for the 60-Plus Association, a conservative senior citizen lobby.” (Steve Miller, “Censorship in arts ‘healthy,’ Boone says”, Washington Times, Apr. 21)(via TMFTML).
“Scientology critic ordered to pay church”
“A former member and longtime critic of the Church of Scientology has been ordered by a Marin County judge to pay the church $500,000 for speaking out against the controversial religious movement.” Scientology defector Gerald Armstrong, in a 1986 settlement of earlier litigation with the church, had agreed to “maintain strict confidentiality and silence with respect to his experiences with the Church of Scientology” with a penalty of $50,000 for every offending utterance. “The church maintains that Armstrong has violated the agreement at least 201 times and owes it just over $10 million.” Armstrong’s “lawyer noted that his client had declared bankruptcy to avoid paying past damages won by Scientology, and Armstrong still vows to never pay a penny to the church.” (Don Lattin, San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 13). See also Mar. 25-26, 2002; May 3, 2000.
Shhhh! He’s got a lawyer!
In 1996 Frank Sulloway had a publishing hit with Born To Rebel, a book arguing that birth order is an important influence on individuals’ destinies (supposedly, first-born children grow up conservative, later-borns want to rock the boat). There were doubters, however, and a critique has now appeared claiming that Sulloway’s data does not back up his conclusions. According to a summary of the situation by Alex Tabarrok (Mar. 20), the appearance of this critique in print was drastically delayed by Sulloway’s threats to sue the journal’s publisher and editor over defamation and other alleged wrongs. The journal’s publisher declined to publish even a debate on the book unless assured that it would not be sued, with the result that editor Gary Johnson and his association wound up publishing it independently, after nearly five years of delay. Tabarrok has much more detail about the story, which he finds “shocking” and “disturbing”.
Lawyers for author John Gray (Men are From Mars…) threatened a libel suit after a weblog said rude things about his on-first-glance-impressive educational credentials. That ensured more attention to the embarrassment, as Instapundit (Mar. 22) points out in a post with many links. (Plus: J.B. Howard Jr. has more on the case, Mar. 25). And the Michigan Court of Appeals has “dismissed a lawsuit in which the Michigan Education Association claimed the Mackinac Center, a free market think tank that has been at odds with the union on issues such as charter schools and education vouchers, had violated the privacy of MEA President Luigi Battaglieri by quoting him in a fund-raising letter. The court concluded that the letter ‘falls squarely within the protection of the First Amendment for discourse on matters of public interest.'” (Jacob Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”, Mar. 22)(Mackinac Center, Mar. 19) More: John E. Kramer, “Calling the Bully’s Bluff”, Liberty and Law (Institute for Justice), Jun. (more on media and free speech suits)
“Shut up! Or I’ll sue”
I review David Bernstein’s “You Can’t Say That! The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties From Antidiscrimination Laws” in today’s New York Post (see Nov. 7). The book can be purchased here.