<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: &#8220;Prof. defends right to send feces&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/prof-defends-right-to-send-feces/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/prof-defends-right-to-send-feces/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 May 2008 13:42:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Supremacy Claus		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/prof-defends-right-to-send-feces/comment-page-1/#comment-5521</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Supremacy Claus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jan 2007 10:03:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4437#comment-5521</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Deoxy: Smoke from a cigarette is an unintentional nuisance. Blowing it at someone&#039;s face is more like sending feces. Is blowing smoke in someone&#039;s face protected free speech?

Which is worse, inflicting a coughing spell, nausea, or a shove?

The lawyers will be searching for cases on that. Here. A starter case for the lawyers.

Leichtman v. W.L.W. Jacor Communications, Inc. Ohio Ct. App., No. C-920922.

Radio host blows smoke at  anti-smoking advocate. Case may proceed.  &quot;No matter how trivial the incident, a battery is actionable even if the damages are only one dollar.&quot;

Even the court could not believe what they had just repeated from standard law doctrines. They tried to not look foolish with, &quot;This case emphasizes the need for some form of alternative dispute resolution operating totally outside the court system as a means to provide an attentive ear to the parties and a resolution of disputes in a nominal case.&quot;


]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Deoxy: Smoke from a cigarette is an unintentional nuisance. Blowing it at someone&#8217;s face is more like sending feces. Is blowing smoke in someone&#8217;s face protected free speech?</p>
<p>Which is worse, inflicting a coughing spell, nausea, or a shove?</p>
<p>The lawyers will be searching for cases on that. Here. A starter case for the lawyers.</p>
<p>Leichtman v. W.L.W. Jacor Communications, Inc. Ohio Ct. App., No. C-920922.</p>
<p>Radio host blows smoke at  anti-smoking advocate. Case may proceed.  &#8220;No matter how trivial the incident, a battery is actionable even if the damages are only one dollar.&#8221;</p>
<p>Even the court could not believe what they had just repeated from standard law doctrines. They tried to not look foolish with, &#8220;This case emphasizes the need for some form of alternative dispute resolution operating totally outside the court system as a means to provide an attentive ear to the parties and a resolution of disputes in a nominal case.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Deoxy		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/prof-defends-right-to-send-feces/comment-page-1/#comment-5520</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Deoxy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 23:03:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4437#comment-5520</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Supremacy Claus,

While I think I would support that line of reasoning, I&#039;m 99% sure that it&#039;s not actual policy anywhere in the US, or smoking anywhere in public would already not exist due to criminal prosecution of those doing it.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Supremacy Claus,</p>
<p>While I think I would support that line of reasoning, I&#8217;m 99% sure that it&#8217;s not actual policy anywhere in the US, or smoking anywhere in public would already not exist due to criminal prosecution of those doing it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: markm		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/prof-defends-right-to-send-feces/comment-page-1/#comment-5519</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[markm]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jan 2007 12:40:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4437#comment-5519</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Maybe if she carved the poo into a statue...
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe if she carved the poo into a statue&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Supremacy Claus		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/prof-defends-right-to-send-feces/comment-page-1/#comment-5518</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Supremacy Claus]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 20 Jan 2007 09:09:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4437#comment-5518</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Put aside the health risk to humans from dog feces:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_diseases&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_diseases&lt;/a&gt;

The message-in-a-smell is not speech. It is chemicals entering the nose and reaching the olfactory epithelium and neurons. The intentional act is at best, a nuisance act, at worst, a chemical battery of the receiver, an intentional tort and possibly a crime.

Is spraying acid at someone free speech? The difference between spraying acid at someone, and having noxious chemicals waft into someone&#039;s nasal passages is one of velocity of propulsion and injuriousness of battery. Both are battery.

]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Put aside the health risk to humans from dog feces:</p>
<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_diseases" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dog_diseases</a></p>
<p>The message-in-a-smell is not speech. It is chemicals entering the nose and reaching the olfactory epithelium and neurons. The intentional act is at best, a nuisance act, at worst, a chemical battery of the receiver, an intentional tort and possibly a crime.</p>
<p>Is spraying acid at someone free speech? The difference between spraying acid at someone, and having noxious chemicals waft into someone&#8217;s nasal passages is one of velocity of propulsion and injuriousness of battery. Both are battery.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: SJTNT		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/prof-defends-right-to-send-feces/comment-page-1/#comment-5517</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[SJTNT]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:15:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4437#comment-5517</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Won&#039;t the freedom of speech angle get trumped by the public safety issue (I&#039;m assuming you could possibly become ill from handling dog feces).
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Won&#8217;t the freedom of speech angle get trumped by the public safety issue (I&#8217;m assuming you could possibly become ill from handling dog feces).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: mojo		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/01/prof-defends-right-to-send-feces/comment-page-1/#comment-5516</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[mojo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Jan 2007 12:38:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4437#comment-5516</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Well, if she wins I wouldn&#039;t want to be the poor slob who has to clean her front porch...
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well, if she wins I wouldn&#8217;t want to be the poor slob who has to clean her front porch&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
