Highly recommended: David Bernstein’s new book You Can’t Say That!: The Growing Threat to Civil Liberties from Antidiscrimination Laws. David, who is a professor of law at George Mason and a contributor to the Volokh Conspiracy (and has collaborated with us in the past on a number of projects), does a great job of documenting a theme dear to our hearts, namely the persistent clash between harassment law (and antidiscrimination law more generally) and freedom of speech, conscience and personal association. The book seems to be doing deservedly well on Amazon and can be purchased here (& see Dec. 7).
Posts Tagged ‘free speech’
Being beastly to bulldozers
Caterpillar Inc., the maker of earthmoving machinery, has sued Disney and Buena Vista Pictures in federal court “hoping to block the Oct. 21 release of the direct-to-DVD movie ‘George of the Jungle 2.'” The movie’s plot, evidently a marvel of originality, pits a hero and his animal sidekicks against evil “industrialists seeking to ravage and destroy the jungle”. As the Peoria paper reports, it seems “the final battle pits George and the animals against an army of Caterpillar Wheel Loaders. It didn’t help, the suit goes on to state, that the movie’s narrator calls the machines ‘maniacal’, ‘deleterious dozers’ and “bulldozing bullies.” How better to dispel an image of bullyhood than by heading to court to demand that speech critical of one’s enterprise be silenced? (Andy Kravetz, “Cat doesn’t dig ‘bulldozing bullies'”, Peoria Journal-Star, Oct. 15; “George of the Jungle, Watch Out for That Lawsuit!”, Reuters/Washington Post, Oct. 15) More: Eugene Volokh comments (Oct. 17).
Monsanto vs. free speech
The giant chemical and agribusiness company is suing the Oakhurst Dairy in Maine “for promoting its products as containing milk from cows who are not treated with artificial growth hormones. Monsanto, which makes the leading artificial hormone for cows, said the marketing implies that there’s something wrong with milk from treated cows, even though studies show the milk is no different than milk from untreated cows.” (Edward D. Murphy, “On the front lines of free speech”, Portland Press Herald, Aug. 31; Kristen Philipkosky, “Sour Grapes over Milk Labeling”, Wired News, Sept. 16). As the Press-Herald’s Murphy suggests, this kind of suit can work very similarly to one like Nike v. Kasky in chilling controversial business speech, the difference being that in this case one business is doing it to another.
Update: Nike settles speech case
Shoemaker Nike Inc. has settled a California activist’s lawsuit over its allegedly wrongful speech by agreeing to make a $1.5 million payment to a workplace monitoring organization (see Jul. 9 and links from there). (Bob Egelko, “Nike settles suit for $1.5 million”, San Francisco Chronicle, Sept. 13). “Any other company under attack from activists of any stripe — and there are so many of them — will have to think twice now about its efforts to tell its side of the story, at least in California.” (“Free speech loses a round” (editorial), The Oregonian, Sept. 13).
Fox’s thin pelt
Shrinking the parody exception? “Fox News Channel has sued liberal humorist Al Franken and the Penguin Group to stop them from using the phrase ‘fair and balanced’ in the title of his upcoming book. Filed Monday in Manhattan, the trademark infringement lawsuit seeks a court order forcing Penguin to rename the book, ‘Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.’ It also asks for unspecified damages. Fox News registered ‘Fair & Balanced’ as a trademark in 1995, the suit says.” The suit claims that Franken displays a “clear” intent “to exploit Fox News’ trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book”. (“Fox Sues Humorist Al Franken Over Slogan”, AP/Washington Post, Aug. 11). Last month it was reported that lawyers for Fox had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Austin, Tex. creators of a T-shirt with a message “Faux News: We Distort, You Comply”, parodying the network’s well-known slogan. (Lee Nichols, Austin Chronicle, Jul. 11; AgitProperties website, Jun. 20).
In June radio talk show host Michael Savage, who at the time also had a TV talk show on MSNBC, sued three critics who had been urging advertisers to boycott his show (“Savage sues ‘rats'”, Southern Voice, Jun. 27; defendants SavageStupidity.com and TakeBacktheMedia). Separately, Savage’s producers fell short in an effort to argue that SavageStupidity.com’s domain name was “confusingly similar” to that of Savage’s own website and should be forfeited. (& more on the Fox/Franken case: New York Times, Eugene Volokh, Kevin Drum, Matt Yglesias, and (via InstaPundit) Alex Knapp, Jeff Jarvis)(& letter to the editor, Dec. 6).
Samuelson on Nike v. Kasky
Washington Post columnist Bob Samuelson chastises the U.S. Supreme Court majority for ducking the recent free-speech-for-business case (see Ted Frank’s post of Jul. 1, as well as Feb. 13 and May 3-5, 2002). Sample: “Just about the last people you’d want to put in charge of the First Amendment are trial lawyers, whose business is suing large companies on any available pretext. … What’s occurring here is that trial lawyers are road-testing a new form of corporate shakedown. First, advocacy groups would attack a company or industry. Next, companies would face a dilemma: be silent and let the attacks stand, or respond and face an expensive and embarrassing suit. Finally, companies that ended up in court might face a daunting standard of proof — not whether what they said was true, but whether it might be misleading.” (Robert Samuelson, “A Tax on Free Speech”, Jul. 9). Before the Court issued its ruling, interesting columns about the case also appeared from Jonathan Rauch (“Corporate Lying is Bad”, National Journal/Reason.com, Jun. 9) and Dan Kennedy (“The Silent Swoosh”, Boston Phoenix, May 2-8). Update Sept. 14: Nike settles case.
Nike v. Kasky
Professor Volokh, of the Volokh Conspiracy, on the Nike v. Kasky case. Under a 4-3 California Supreme Court decision, Nike is potentially liable to any California citizen if its response to political speech criticizing Nike is deemed “misleading.”
(Full disclosure: Walter Dellinger of my law firm filed a U.S. Supreme Court brief on behalf of Nike.)
Private club liable for sexist speech
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has upheld the decision of the state Commission on Human Rights to assess $64,000 plus attorneys’ fees against the Franklin Lodge of Elks for committing sex discrimination against four applicants including “derogatory and anti-female comments” by club members during discussions over whether to admit the applicants. “Of course, when clubs are held legally liable for their members’ speech, they will naturally be forced to suppress such speech, to avoid this liability.” (Eugene Volokh, “Club Codes”, National Review Online, Jun. 25.)
Archived media law & free speech items, pre-July 2003
Whatever you do, don’t criticize lawyers — 2003: “The intimidation tactics of Madison County“, Jun. 9 (& updates Jul. 12, Jul. 26). 2002: “‘Ex-jurors file $6 billion suit against ’60 Minutes’“, Dec. 16-17; “Lawyers fret about bad image” (Fla. bar plans to rate and monitor tone of journalists’ coverage), Oct. 3; “Mich. lawyer’s demand: get my case off your website” (“Love Your Neighbor”, M-LAW, Overlawyered.com), Jun. 20 (& letter to the editor, July 6); “Dangers of complaining about lawyers” (Ga. considers easing defamation counter-complaints by lawyers), Mar. 30-Apr. 1. 2000: “Australian roundup” (lawyers sue cabinet minister for suggesting they overcharge and lack ethics), Sept. 6-7; “Target Detroit” (class action lawyers personally sue DaimlerChrysler lawyer, citing his critical remarks regarding them), Jul. 19-20; “Baron’s judge grudge” (lawyer bullies alt-weekly Dallas Observer over expos? March 23. 1999: “Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (class-action attorneys sue columnist Bill McClellan for making fun of them), Nov. 4 (updated Nov. 30 (he criticizes them again, though suit is still pending) and Feb. 29, 2000 (they agree to drop suit); “Couple ordered to pay $57,000 for campaign ads criticizing judge“, Oct. 18; “Think I’m too litigious? I’ll sue! (II)” (lawyer sues over being called ambulance chaser), Aug. 16.
Hate speech, hate crime laws, 2002: “British free-speech case“, Dec. 18-19; Letter to the editor, Oct. 23; “Cutting edge of discrimination law” (Huckleberry Finn in schools), Oct. 7-8; “Prominent French author sued for ‘insulting Islam’“, Aug. 23-25 (& Sept. 18-19, Oct. 25-27 (acquitted)); “French ban sought for Fallaci book on Islam“, Jun. 11-12; “Our editor interviewed“, May 29. 2001: “Australia: anti-American tripped up by speech code“, Dec. 21-23; “Compulsory chapel for Minn. lawyers“, Dec. 18; “EU considers plans to outlaw racism“, Dec. 5-6; “U.K. may ban anti-religious speech“, Oct. 19-21; “‘Hate speech’ law invoked against anti-American diatribe” (Canada), Oct. 17-18; “Judge to ‘Sopranos’ suit: fuhgetaboutit“, Sept. 21-23 (& Apr. 6-8); “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3. 2000: “U.S. Department of Justice vs. Columbus Day?“, Oct. 3; “Punitive damages for hatemongering?” (Wash. Post on Aryan Nations case), Sept. 19; “Australia: antibias laws curb speech” (newspaper’s slighting ethnic references), July 11; “Columnist-fest” (John Rocker case), Jan. 18; “Watch your speech in Laguna Beach“, Jan. 13-14. 1999: “Most unsettling thing we’ve heard about Canada in a while” (hate speech laws), Dec. 17-19; “Speech police go after opinion articles, editorial cartoons“, Aug. 28-29; “Hate-crime laws: why they aren’t liberal“, Aug. 9.
Intellectual property, 2003: “He’s gotta have it” (Spike Lee v. Spike TV), Jun. 16-17; “Hiker cuts off use of his name“, Jun. 4-6. 2002: “Macaulay on copyright law“, Oct. 14; “‘Judge Throws Out “Harry Potter” Copyright Suit’“, Oct. 7-8; “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is/To have a precociously musical child” (singer James Brown sued by daughters), Sept. 20-22; “Skittish at Kinko’s” (won’t make copies of customer’s own published writing), Jul. 26-28; “Stolen silence?” (John Cage composition), Jul. 19-21; “Law blogs“, Jul. 3-9; “‘Top ten new copyright crimes’” (satire), Jun. 3-4; “‘A fence too far’” (Hollings bill), May 20-21; “ReplayTV copyright fight“, May 6; “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Intel Corp. versus yoga foundation“, Apr. 1-2; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “British Telecom claims to own hyperlinks“, Feb. 13-14 (& Oct. 1-2); “Overlawyered film sets“, Feb. 8-10; “‘”Let’s Roll” Trademark Battle Is On’“, Feb. 4-5 (& Feb. 11-12); “‘Aborigines claim kangaroo copyright’“, Feb. 1-3. 2001: “Radio daze“, Aug. 31-Sept. 2; “Barney’s bluster“, June 25 (& “Welcome Slashdot readers“, July 5); “Mich. lawyer’s demand: get my case off your website” (“Love Your Neighbor”, M-LAW, Overlawyered.com), June 20; “Value of being able to endure parody without calling in lawyers: priceless” (MasterCard), April 25; “Patenting the Web?“, April 3-4; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, Mar. 19-20. 2000: “Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31, 1999-Jan. 2, 2000. 1999: “Hey, what is this place, anyway?” (Pez Co. claims right to restrict use of word “Pez”), Oct. 16-17; “Copyright and conscience” (goodbye to “Dysfunctional Family Circus”), Oct. 7 (& see main IP section on tech law page).
Lawsuits intimidate expression, 2003: “McDonald’s sues food critic” (Italy), Jun. 16-17. 2002: “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& May 27, 2002, Oct. 4-6, 2002, Aug. 6, 2001); “Defend yourself in print and we’ll sue” (Nike issue ads), May 3 (& Feb. 13-14); “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26. 2001: “Gary to Gannett: pay up for that investigative reporting“, March 30-April 1; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20; “‘Persistent suitor’” (criticism of academic journals’ publisher), Feb. 6. 2000: “Hauling commentators to court“, Dec. 1; “Degrees of intimidation” (book on “diploma mills”, Apr. 28-30; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website“, Mar. 31-April 2; “Costs of veggie-libel laws“, Mar. 20. 1999: “Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23.
Bans on web content not “accessible” to disabled: see special section on disabled rights page.
Blaming media for violence, 2002: “Updates” (Jenny Jones case), Oct. 25-27; “‘Addictive’ computer game blamed for suicide“, Apr. 3-4 (& letter to the editor, Apr. 11). 2001: “Blame video games, again” (WTC terrorism), Sept. 24; “Put the blame on games” (Columbine), April 24, 2001 (& see March 6, 2002: judge dismisses case); “Judge throws out Hollywood- violence suit” (Oliver Stone, Natural Born Killers), March 13-14. 2000: “Hollywood under fire: nose of the Camel?“, Sept. 19; “‘Violent media is good for kids’“, Sept. 13-14; “Shoot-’em-ups: hand over your files“, June 19; “Judge dismisses suit blaming entertainment business for school shootings“, April 13. 1999: “Down the censorship-by-lawsuit road“, Oct. 12; “‘Bringing art to court’“, Sept. 9; “Censorship via (novel) lawsuit” (media companies sued after school shootings), July 22.
Harassment law: “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3, 2001; “EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, June 4, 2001; “Harassment-law roundup” (pin-ups, bar owner case), May 4, 2000; “The scarlet %+#?*^)&!“, March 7; “Recommended reading” (Roland White in London Times on chill to office banter), Jan. 25, 2000; “Suppression of conversation vs. improvement of conversation“, Nov. 12, 1999 (excerpts from Joan Kennedy Taylor book); “‘Personally agree with’ harassment policy — or you’re out the door“, Sept. 22; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999; and see separate page on harassment law.
Those dangerous emails: “Cartoonist’s suit over practical joke“, Oct. 26-28, 2001 (& letter to the editor, Nov. 29); “Big fish devour the little?” (listserv defamation, aquatic plants case), Aug. 6, 2001; “Harassment-law roundup” (email-shredding software), Feb. 19-21, 2000; “Emails that ended 20 Times careers“, Feb. 8-9, 2000; “Hold your e-tongue” (emails “can kill you in a courtroom”), Nov. 9, 1999; “Please — there are terminals present” (Bloomberg email system censors bad words), July 30; “‘Destroy privacy expectations’: lawyer” (tell workers their email and hard drives are open to company inspection), July 26, 1999; and see separate page on harassment law.
Web liability issues, 2002: “AVweb capitulates to defamation suit“, Sept. 16-17 (& Sept. 18-19); “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& Oct. 4-6); “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Columnist-fest” (N.Y. Times v. Tasini), Feb. 11-12; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20. 2001: “Words as property: ‘entrepreneur’” (domain name dispute), Nov. 1; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3; “Anonymity takes a D.C. hit” (Italy licenses web publishers), May 21; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20. 2000: “Yahoo pulls message board“, Oct. 18; “‘Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?’” (Swedish privacy laws), Sept. 20; “Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “Dangers of linking“, June 7; “Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “eBay yanks e-meter auctions” (copyright claim), May 3; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website” (metatags), March 31-April 2; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31-Jan. 2. 1999: “Link your way to liability?” (professor sues over “course critique” website), Nov. 15 (& update Oct. 10, 2000); “We ourselves use ‘sue’” (competitors’ names used as metatags), Sept. 25-26; “Don’t link or I’ll sue” (“deep linking” suits), Aug. 13 (& update April 5, 2000: court rules deep linking not violation). Plus: our 404 message; & see data collection, disabled online access issues, and high-tech law generally.
Other media/performance accessibility issues, 2002: “11th Circuit reinstates ‘Millionaire’ lawsuit” (suit against “Millionaire” TV show over telephone-based screening), Jun. 21-23 (& Mar. 24-26, June 12, June 19, Nov. 7, 2000; Nov. 5, 2001). 2001: “‘Panel backs deaf patron’s claim against club’” (interpreter demand at comedy club), March 9-11. 2000: “Seats in all parts” (theaters), Dec. 29, 2000-Jan. 2, 2001; “Movie caption trial begins” (assistive devices aid concert bootleggers), Aug. 1; “Complaint: recreated slave ship not handicap accessible“, July 21-23; “Preferred seating” (theaters), April 25-26; “Newest disabled right: audio TV captioning“, March 22; “‘Deaf group files suit against movie theaters’” (closed captioning demand), Feb. 19-21; “The fine print” (sue Boston Globe for reducing type size?), Feb. 17.
Surveillance: “Collateral damage in Drug War” (identity of book buyer), Apr. 28-30, 2000; “Chat into the microphone, please” (SEC plan to trawl Web), Apr. 11; “The booths have ears” (restaurant conversations spied on in U.K.), Apr. 5; “The bold cosmetologists of law enforcement“, Mar. 29; “Your hairdresser — and informant?“, Mar. 16, 2000; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999.
Defamation, 2003: “Around the blogs” (N.Y. Times brass), Jun. 18-19. 2002: “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d“, May 22-23; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20; “The talk of Laconia“, Jan. 2-3. 2001: “Attorney can sue for being called ‘fixer’“, Dec. 5-6; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “Disparaging stadium nickname leads to suit“, Jul. 5 (& update Aug. 29-30: company drops suit); “Patenting the Web?” (TechSearch v. Intel defamation suit), Apr. 3-4. 2000: “Toronto coach: Ich kann nicht anders” (had to file defamation suit), Apr. 25-26 (& update May 4, case dropped); “Great moments in defamation law” (armed robber sues own lawyer for mistakenly calling him heroin instead of crack abuser), Apr. 14-16.
Advertising, 2003: “Clear Channel = Deep Pocket” (advertising as nexus of liability in nightclub fire?, Mar. 10-11. 2002: “Lawsuit threats vs. campaign speech“, Oct. 4-6 (& May 18-21, 2000); “Defend yourself in print and we’ll sue” (Nike issue ads), May 3 (& Feb. 13-14); “Norway toy-ad crackdown” (sexism), Apr. 23-24; “‘FTC Taking “Seriously” Request to Probe Firearms Sites’” (unlawful to recommend guns for family security?), Jan. 16-17. 2001: “Radio daze“, Aug. 31-Sept. 2; “Ghost blurber case“, June 12; “Old-hairstyle photo prompts lawsuit“, June 1-3; “Junk-fax bonanza“, March 27 (& March 3-5, 2000, Oct. 22, 1999). 2000: “Web-advertisers’ apocalypse?“, Apr. 20. 1999: “Free expression, with truth in advertising thrown in?” (lawyer’s Jolly Roger flag dispute), Dec. 31; “Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23, 1999 (and see lawyers’ advertising page).
TV, 2003: “He’s gotta have it” (Spike Lee v. Spike TV), Jun. 16-17; “Jailhouse rock” (VH1), Mar. 10-11; “‘Jack Ass blasts “Jackass”‘“, Jan. 3-6. 2002: “Updates” (Jenny Jones case), Oct. 25-27; “‘Demand for more ugly people on TV’” (Norway: higher “ugly quotas” sought), Oct. 21; “Lawsuit threats vs. campaign speech“, Oct. 4-6; “11th Circuit reinstates ‘Millionaire’ lawsuit” (suit over show’s telephone-based screening), Jun. 21-23 (& Mar. 24-26, June 12, June 19, Nov. 7, 2000; Nov. 5, 2001); “Soap star: ABC wrote my character out of the show“, Apr. 10. 2001: “Suing ‘The Sopranos’“, Apr. 6-8 (& Jul. 12-14, 2002: case dropped); “‘Survivor’ contestant sues“, Feb. 7-8. 2000: “Behind ‘Boston Public’“, Nov. 21; “Palm Beach County ‘Under Control’” (suit against network for erroneous election-eve projection), Nov. 16; “Why the bad guys can’t stand John Stossel“, Aug. 18-20; “Won’t pay for set repairs” (Orkin ad leads viewers to throw objects at their TVs), May 30; “Thomas the Tank Engine, derailed” (show’s email contact with young fans), May 25; “Sock puppet lawsuit” (“Late Show with Conan O’Brien” writer), Apr. 27; “Who wants to sue for a million?” (suit against game show for lack of disabled access), Mar. 24-26 (& update Jun. 12); “Newest disabled right: audio TV captioning“, Mar. 22; “Letterman sign suit“, Mar. 17-19. 1999: “The fateful T-shirt” (Leno show giveaway suit), Dec. 7.
| “A judge bans a book” (incitement to tax evasion), Jun. 18-19, 2003. “Hiker cuts off use of his name“, Jun. 4-6, 2003. “Start that movie on time, or else“, Feb. 20, 2003 (& Jan. 10). “Fair housing law vs. free speech“, Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2003. “Campaign regulation vs. free speech“, May 18-21, 2000 (& Oct. 4-6, 2002). “‘Greek net cafes face ruin’” (ban on computer games), Sept. 23, 2002. “Penthouse sued on behalf of disappointed Kournikova-oglers“, Jun. 3-4, 2002. “Privacy claim by Bourbon Street celebrant“, Sept. 28-30, 2001 (& Mar. 6, 2002, Apr. 15, 2002). “Radio daze” (Clear Channel hardball), Aug. 31-Sept. 2, 2001. “The document-shredding facility at Pooh Corner” (Disney dispute with rights holders), Aug. 24-26, 2001. “‘Internet Usage Records Accessible Under FOI Laws’” (schools case), Nov. 14, 2000. “Collateral damage in Drug War” (customer records of Denver’s Tattered Cover bookstore subpoenaed), April 28-30, 2000 (update, Oct. 27-29: judge orders records handed over); “‘Power lawyers may sue for reparations’” (sue textbook makers over representation of blacks?), Oct. 25, 2000; “Baleful blurbs” (book publishers sued over errors in cover copy), Nov. 16, 1999. “Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30, 2000. “Dusting ’em off” (laws against profanity in public), May 18-21, 2000. “Thought for the day” (Posner on censorship), April 25-26, 2000. “Verdict on Consumer Reports: false, but not damaging“, April 10, 2000; “Costly state of higher awareness” (libel suit, author Deepak Chopra), March 9, 2000. “Mormon actress sues over profanity” (says Univ. of Utah theater dept. insisted she utter foul language in scripts), Jan. 24, 2000. “FCC as Don Corleone“, Oct. 5-6, 1999. “The shame of the ACLU” (Aguilar v. Avis: ACLU intervenes on anti- free-speech side), Sept. 7, 1999. “Weekend reading” (tabloid law), Aug. 7-8, 1999. |
|
Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson: “The Law on Trial“, Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1997 (review of Beyond all Reason by Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry). “Shut Up, They Explained” (“zero-tolerance” harassment policies), Reason, June 1997. “Judge Dread” (on Robert Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah), Reason, April 1997. Archived harassment law items, pre-July 2003“‘Prosecutor had ordeal as defendant’“, May 14, 2003. “Employers liable for not filtering raunchy spam?“, Apr. 10-13, 2003. “After failed workplace romance, a $1.3 million bill“, Feb. 6-9, 2003. “Incoherence of sexual harassment law“, Oct. 15, 2002. “Banish those desk photos of spouse at beach“, Aug. 29-Sept. 2, 2002. “Clipboard-throwing manager = $30 million clipping for grocery chain“, Apr. 19-21, 2002 (& update Jul. 26-28: damages cut to $8 million); “‘$3 million awarded in harassment’” (Illinois police department), Dec. 19, 2001; “Fieger’s firecrackers frequently fizzle” ($20 million harassment verdict against Chrysler), May 31, 2001; “The stuffed-grape-leaf standard” (feminist litigator asserts that $300K isn’t that much money), August 14-15, 1999. “‘Surgeon halts operation over foreign nurses’ poor English’” (U.K.: he’s then threatened with disciplinary action for racism), Jul. 25, 2002. “Catharine MacKinnon, call your office“, May 16, 2002. “An eggshell psyche at U.Va. Law“, Apr. 8-9, 2002. “Jail for schoolyard taunts?“, Feb. 27-28, 2002; “‘Boy faces jail for slapping girl’s bottom’“, Jan. 5-7, 2001; “Annals of zero tolerance” (six-year-old’s “sexual harassment”), May 22, 2000. “European workplace notes” (UK: harassment of dyslexic), Feb. 25-26, 2002. “Firehouse blues” (girly mags, Alaska), Feb. 20-21, 2002. “‘Woman Wins Verdict, but no Money, Against Seagal’“, Jan. 4-6, 2002. Office dating, “love contracts”: “Love contracts“, Dec. 10, 2001; “Ask the experts (if that’ll help)“, Oct. 19, 2000; “Ministry of love-discouragement“, May 3; “‘Love contracts’ spreading to U.K.“, Dec. 31, 1999-Jan. 2, 2000; “Weekend reading: evergreens” (“love contract” for office romances), Dec. 3-5, 1999. “Employee’s right to jubilate over Sept. 11 attack“, Oct. 9, 2001. “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3, 2001. “‘We often turn irresponsibility into legal actions against others’” (Robyn Blumner on U. of South Fla. art student harassment case), Aug. 13-14, 2001. “Chandra, Monica, and sex-harass law“, July 27-29, 2001. “Spoof memo draws EEOC probe“, June 26, 2001. “‘Hearsay harassment’ not actionable“, June 12, 2001. “EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, June 4, 2001 (& see “Columnist-fest” (Wendy McElroy), June 22-24. “Mistletoe dangerous even when absent“, April 18, 2001. “‘2000’s Ten Wackiest Employment Lawsuits’” (too much sex talk in sex shop), April 13-15, 2001. “Appeals panel: schools’ harassment rule unconstitutional“, Feb. 27, 2001; “Weekend reading” (Supreme Court’s invention of Title IX harassment law), August 21-22, 1999. “Columnist-fest” (Sarah McCarthy on Paula Jones case), Nov. 14, 2000. “Don’t meet with her alone“, Nov. 1, 2000. “Ask the experts (if that’ll help)“, Oct. 19, 2000. “White House pastry chef harassment suit“, Sept. 18, 2000. “Harassment law roundup” (Confederate flags on employee cars, Jeffrey Rosen book, Avis v. Aguilar, do-as-we-say case), Sept. 11, 2000. “Embarrassing Lawsuit Hall of Fame” (Mass. agency finds flatulence not harassing), Aug. 14, 2000. “From the U.K.: watch your language” (college, job bureau restrict use of “lady”, “hardworking”), June 13, 2000. “Victim of the century?” (principal collects disability benefits for sexual compulsion), June 2-4, 2000; “Doctor sues insurer, claims sex addiction“, Oct. 13, 1999. “What the French think of American harassment law“, May 25, 2000. “The four rules of sexual harassment controversies” (Claudia Kennedy case; female-on-male touching case; spanking initiation), May 15, 2000. “Comment of the day“, May 5-7, 2000; “Recommended reading” (Roland White in London Times on chill to office banter), Jan. 25, 2000. “Harassment-law roundup” (bathroom graffiti; Boston bar owner’s insensitive decorations; pin-ups and porn in police station), May 4, 2000. “Book feature: ‘The Kinder, Gentler Military’“, April 3, 2000. “The shame of the ACLU” (Aguilar v. Avis: ACLU intervenes on anti- free-speech side), Sept. 7, 1999; “Speech police go after opinion articles, editorial cartoons“, August 28-29, 1999. “Harassment-law roundup” (Internet startups vulnerable), May 4, 2000; “Dot-coms as perfect defendants“, Jan. 17; “Harassment-law roundup” (Juno case), Feb. 19-21, 2000. “Oops! Didn’t mean nothing by that, ma’am” (“Hello, good looking” directed at harassment trainer), Dec. 21, 1999. “Suppression of conversation vs. improvement of conversation“, Nov. 12, 1999 (excerpts from Joan Kennedy Taylor book); “Risks of harm“, Nov. 13-14, 1999; “Harassment-law roundup” (Taylor book discussed), Feb. 19-21, 2000. “Courts actually begin to define ‘harassment’; activists in shock“, August 6, 1999. “Please — there are terminals present” (South Park on sexual harassment), July 30, 1999. Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson: “Title IX’s Invisible Ink” (Supreme Court invents right to sue schools over student-on-student harassment), Reason, August/September 1999. “A Legacy of Dirty Laundry” (brief contribution to symposium on harassment law), The Women’s Quarterly, Winter 1999. “Have the Harassment Rules Changed?“, Wall Street Journal, April 6, 1998 (judge’s dismissal of Paula Jones lawsuit). “Punch the Clock, Sue the Boss“, New York Times, March 20, 1998. “Shut Up, They Explained” (“zero-tolerance”), Reason, June 1997. “The Long Arm of Harassment Law“, New York Times, July 7, 1996. ?When Sensitivity Training Is the Law? (Connecticut law requires training of managers), Wall Street Journal, January 20, 1993. In addition, The Excuse Factory (1997) includes two chapters on harassment law, namely chapter 4 (“Fear of Flirting”) and chapter 14 (“Workplace Cleansing”). Neither is online. |
|
Other resources: Websites “Freedom of Speech vs. Workplace Harassment Law” (highly informative site maintained by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School) Organizations
The shelf of books critical of the overreach of harassment law got at least three important additions in 1999. Daphne Patai of the University of Massachusetts, known already as a co-author of Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women’s Studies, published Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Cathy Young, columnist for the Detroit News, published Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality. And Joan Kennedy Taylor, associated with the Cato Institute, published What to Do When You Don’t Want to Call the Cops: Or a Non-Adversarial Approach to Sexual Harassment. (Also see our editor’s 1997 contribution, The Excuse Factory.) |