Posts Tagged ‘hate speech’

June 10 roundup

All-free-speech edition:

Christiansburg, Va. land developer Roger Woody sues local bloggers and two other critics for more than $10 million for speaking ill of big dirt pile on one of his properties [Roanoke Times, editorial; more on Woody’s dealings]

Lots of developments on free speech in Canada: trial begins in Vancouver in complaint against Mark Steyn and Maclean’s over book excerpt critical of Islam [his site]; after defending speech-restricting network of human rights tribunals, Conservative government in Ottawa now says it will take another look [Ezra Levant, with much other coverage including favorable nods from Toronto literati]; Alberta tribunal orders conservative pastor to “cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.” [Levant; Calgary Herald; Gilles Marchildon, Egale.ca] (more, Eugene Volokh)

Brief filed for Kathleen Seidel in her resistance of abusive subpoena, with assistance of Public Citizen [her site, theirs, and our comment section]; Seidel is among autism bloggers profiled in NY mag [w/pic]; profile of thriving Boston “vaccine injury” law firm” Conway Homer & Chin-Caplan [NLJ; Seidel’s critical comments on that firm]

Views critical of religion unlawful unless expressed in respectful and non-scoffing way? Lots of precedent for that approach, unfortunately [Volokh on Comstock]

Score one for fair use: judge denies Yoko Ono preliminary injunction against creationist film’s use of 15 seconds of John Lennon’s “Imagine” in context implicitly criticizing song’s point of view [Hollywood Reporter, WSJ law blog, Timothy Lee/Ars Technica]

Filed under: bloggers and the law, bullying businesses, copyright, free speech, free speech in Canada, hate speech, Kathleen Seidel subpoena, Mark Steyn, music and musicians, vaccines, Virginia

April 29 roundup

“Dog owners in Switzerland will have to pass a test to prove they can control and care for their animal, or risk losing it, the Swiss government said yesterday.” [Daily Telegraph]
72-year-old mom visits daughter’s Southport, Ct. home, falls down stairs searching for bathroom at night, sues daughter for lack of night light, law firm boasts of her $2.475 million win on its website [Casper & deToledo, scroll to “Jeremy C. Virgil”]
Can’t possibly be right: “Every American enjoys a constitutional right to sue any other American in a West Virginia court” [W.V. Record]
Video contest for best spoof personal injury attorney ads [Sick of Lawsuits; YouTube]
Good profile of Kathleen Seidel, courageous blogger nemesis of autism/vaccine litigation [Concord Monitor*, Orac]. Plus: all three White House hopefuls now pander to anti-vaxers, Dems having matched McCain [Orac]
One dollar for every defamed Chinese person amounts to a mighty big lawsuit demand against CNN anchor Jack Cafferty [NYDN link now dead; Independent (U.K.)]
Hapless Ben Stein whipped up one side of the street [Salmon on financial regulation] and down the other [Derbyshire on creationism]
If only Weimar Germany had Canada-style hate-speech laws to prevent the rise of — wait, you mean they did? [Steyn/Maclean’s] Plus: unlawful in Alberta to expose a person to contempt based on his “source of income” [Levant quoting sec. 3 (1)(b) of Human Rights Law]
Hey, these coupon settlements are giving all of us class action lawyers a bad name [Leviant/The Complex Litigator]
Because patent law is bad enough all by itself? D.C. Circuit tosses out FTC’s antitrust ruling against Rambus [GrokLaw; earlier]
“The fell attorney prowls for prey” — who wrote that line, and about which city? [four years ago on Overlawyered]

*Okay, one flaw in the profile: If Prof. Irving Gottesman compares Seidel to Erin Brockovich he probably doesn’t know much about Brockovich.

Filed under: antitrust, asbestos, autism, Barack Obama, Ben Stein, coupon settlements, Erin Brockovich, forum shopping, free speech in Canada, Germany, hate speech, jackpot justice, John McCain, Kathleen Seidel subpoena, libel slander and defamation, Mark Steyn, nanny state, parody, roundups, Switzerland, vaccines, West Virginia

March 19 roundup

UK: Paramedic twists ankle on steps responding to emergency call, plans to sue elderly couple [Daily Mail]
Critics say litigiousness is part of the business plan for rental outfit Leasecomm, which has sued its customers more than 92,000 times [Boston Globe, Daily News Transcript]
Great big predators of the alternative press? Jury awards $15 million against SF Weekly to its main competitor, Bay Guardian [SF Chronicle]
Tacoma public schools sued after mentally ill student brings gun to school and kills classmate [KOMO]
How the parties traded positions with each other on trade [Gordon, Commentary]
Now Canada has its own “human rights” complaint against plastic surgeon who declines to undertake transgender-related surgery [Steyn, Macleans; earlier Catholic hospital case from California]
Florida Supreme Court hears appeal of Joe Anderson $18 million “false light” defamation verdict against Gannett’s Pensacola News-Journal [WSJ law blog; earlier]
Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman keeps suing bloggers and dragging websites before those Canadian hate-speech tribunals, so no criticizing him please [Levant, Five Feet of Fury (& more), Steyn]
Discontent continues over judges’ standardless discretion in granting alimony awards [NLJ]
Death of widow Alice Lawrence isn’t expected to end her litigation with law firm Graubard Miller over contingency fee [NYLJ; earlier]
Labor arbitrator tells Florida school to rehire employee who reported to work with cocaine in his system [six years ago on Overlawyered]

Filed under: Canada, competition through litigation, contingent fee, false light, free trade, hate speech, hospitals, Leasecomm, libel slander and defamation, Richard Warman, roundups, third party liability for crime, transgender, United Kingdom

Imus lawsuit: nevermind

Kia Vaughn, the Rutgers basketball player who filed a defamation lawsuit against Don Imus over his “nappy headed hos” comment, has withdrawn her suit:

Vaughn’s attorney, Richard B. Ancowitz, said in a statement yesterday that the junior from the Bronx decided not to pursue the suit so she could focus on academics and training for the upcoming season. Rutgers, which made it to the NCAA championship game last season, is expected to be one of the top teams in the country.

“Her strong commitments to both (academics and basketball) have influenced her decision to withdraw the suit at this time,” Ancowitz said in the statement. “We feel that we have made a strong and important statement against such hateful speech with the filing of this lawsuit.”

Translation: “Whoops. This case might be a little harder to win than I thought.”

I think the Overlawyered discussion thread (Aug. 15) about the case lasted longer than the lawsuit.

Filed under: hate speech, libel slander and defamation

European speechcrime, cont’d

Perhaps not unrelated to the French Mohammed-cartoons trial mentioned yesterday, this is from Brussels Journal (Feb. 2):

If Turkey joins the EU then we will have the comedy situation that denial of the Armenian Holocaust is a criminal offence in France, whilst mentioning it is a criminal offence in Turkey. The happy result of this could be that the entire population of France could be lifted and placed, Midnight Express like in Turkish prisons. Of course the entire population of Turkey could then find itself extradited to France and imprisoned there.

Before anyone objects, yes, it’s of course true that the laws in question do not actually compel citizens to speak affirmatively on behalf of the official view, so it’s still possible (through silence) to avoid breaking anyone’s law. The concept remains funny, though.

Filed under: Europe, France, hate speech, sued if you do

“France cartoons lawsuit to begin”

“Two French Muslim organisations are suing the magazine Charlie Hebdo for printing cartoons satirising the Prophet Muhammad. … Supporters of the magazine, including some French Muslims, say the trial is a test case for free speech.” No, really, you don’t say? (BBC, Feb. 7).

Filed under: Europe, France, free speech, hate speech

UK free speech, cont’d

Too much liberty of expression survives in that country for the government’s liking:

New laws to clamp down on racism are being prepared by the Government after the leader of the far-right British National Party was cleared of stirring up racial hatred by attacking Islam.

Gordon Brown swiftly pledged to bring in tougher powers to raise the chance of convictions in similar cases, calling the BNP’s statements offensive.

His intervention came after an all-white jury decided that Nick Griffin, the BNP chairman, broke no law when he condemned Islam as “a wicked, vicious faith” at a secretly filmed meeting.

Plans for an offence of incitement to religious hatred were thrown out in a rare Commons defeat for the Government in February after a campaign led by the comedian Rowan Atkinson.

(Andrew Norfolk and Greg Hurst, “Race-hate laws to be changed after BNP case fails”, Times Online, Nov. 11). More: Feb. 4, etc. Comment: Rod Liddle.

Filed under: free speech, hate speech, United Kingdom

“The struggle to defend free expression is defining our age”

“Fanatiques sans frontières are on the march. …In the first decade of the 21st century, the spaces of free expression, even in old-established liberal democracies, have been eroded, are being eroded and — if we don’t summon ourselves to the fight — will continue to be eroded.” (Timothy Garton Ash, The Guardian, Oct. 5).

Filed under: Europe, free speech, hate speech

Oz: logic of “religious vilification” laws

An Australian QC has appeared in court to argue that vilifying a religion should be considered per se unlawful under the state of Victoria’s paradoxically named Racial and Religious Tolerance Act. “[Brind] Woinarski was appearing for the Islamic Council of Victoria in the appeal by Christian group Catch the Fire Ministries and pastors Danny Nalliah and Daniel Scot against a finding under Victoria’s religious hatred law that they vilified Muslims in 2002. The Racial and Religious Tolerance Act defines vilification as inciting hatred, serious contempt, revulsion or severe ridicule against a person or class of persons.” (Barney Zwartz, “Religion in the dock in Muslim vilification appeal”, Melbourne Age, Aug. 22; “Questions over ruling on Muslims”, Aug. 23). See Dec. 19 and Dec. 3, 2004, etc.

Filed under: Australia, hate speech

Canada’s hate speech law

Selective enforcement is one of the many problems with a law that can reach out to ensnare David Ahenakew, an elderly aboriginal leader in Saskatchewan, but seems to pass right over preachers of violent jihad. “But hate laws aren’t really about hate. They’re about abusing and stretching the criminal code to criminalize political dissidents.” (Ezra Levant, “Abolish foolish law”, Calgary Sun/Canoe, Jun. 12).

Filed under: free speech in Canada, hate speech