Comments on: July 28 roundup

By: “The Mess at Widener Law School”

“The Mess at Widener Law School” — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 05:33:33 +0000

[…] hypotheticals and has spiraled into a major embarrassment for the Delaware institution. Earlier here, […]

By: Melvin H.

Melvin H. — Wed, 03 Aug 2011 10:49:09 +0000

With regard to the Facebook situation with accommodation for mental disability: Could a smart lawyer invoke DMCA section 230 to try to knock down ADA lawsuits against either content providers and/or service providers? (For that matter, could such a strategy have been used in the Target.com case?).

Failing that, what about using a reverse ADA-discrimination defense, such that to accommodate under many circumstances may/would discriminate against the non-disabled users of the site or provider?

By: William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 10:55:03 +0000

The retaliation charge against the professor looks an awful lot like the Martha Stewart prosecution in that if you can’t get a citizen on a substantial charge, just twist the law to allow a conviction based on presumed guilt of a substantial charge. The harassment charge must have been really weak as racially tinged disputes quickly become irrational. Remember Mario Cuomo’s reaction to the ridiculous Tawana Brawley claim and the reaction of the Duke University to Crystal Magnum’s charges against Duke students.

By: Hans Bader

Hans Bader — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:59:12 +0000

The professor was cleared of racial harassment charges, but then found guilty of “retaliation” for his indignant reaction to the charges.

Overlawyered previously discussed the way “retaliation” lawsuits and charges can violate free-speech rights here:

https://www.overlawyered.com/2006/06/a_license_to_complain.html

Here is a Supreme Court case illustrating that freedom of speech and petition protects some so-called “retaliation” against liability:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-518.ZS.html