Author Archive

Unclear on the First Amendment in Albany

More than two dozen members of the New York state assembly, including nearly half its GOP members, have signed on to a flagrantly unconstitutional bill that would empower complainants to force the takedown of anonymous online speech by claiming to have been victimized by it. To avoid takedown, the website sponsor would have to disclose information about the authorship of the supposedly offensive post including the writer’s name and home address. Eugene Volokh:

Nor would this be limited to comments that allegedly libel someone, or even insult someone (though that would be bad enough), despite all the talk of preventing cyber-bullying by the bill’s backers. Rather, the law would apply any time anyone makes a “request” that a comment be removed, even if the comment doesn’t mention anyone by name but is simply religiously or politically offensive to the “request[er].” The same would apply to anonymous material added to Wikipedia, if Wikipedia were found to be subject to New York jurisdiction, anonymous videos posted to YouTube, and so on.

The sponsors of the bill claim that it is part of a legislative effort against “cyber-bullying.” Scott Greenfield’s post has the best headline: “New York to Publius: You’re Done, Bully-Boy.” Related on “cyber-bullying” here (& welcome Above the Law readers).

“Obesity is not the result of market failure.”

Another government report is out pushing the case for more regulation of the food market to deal with expanding waistlines, but a new Mercatus Center study by Michael L. Marlow and Sherzod Abdukadirov argues that, to quote its summary,

* Consumers already have ample access to information on healthy dietary choices.
* Markets already are responding with products and services to address the problem.
* Individual decision-making—not market responsiveness—is the main factor.

Related: Jacob Sullum (does obesity impose externalities on others, and is that relevant to policy?)

FMLA leave meets ADA “reasonable accommodation”

The intersection of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s “reasonable accommodation” mandate with the Family and Medical Leave Act’s mandate of unpaid time off for illness has long posed a head-scratcher for employers. The EEOC is planning to issue clarifying guidelines on leave-as-accommodation, but organized employers fear the commission’s very liberal leadership may be working up new and extra-onerous legal interpretations. [Bloomberg Business Week; EEOC; Susan Lessack, Pepper Hamilton; Marie Larsen, Recruiter.com]

But there’s no more room to cut the budget

“There are plenty of charities that do good work without including Weather Underground co-founders on their boards of directors and openly praising prison rioters on their websites.” [National Review’s Robert VerBruggen on $400,000 in U.S. Department of Justice grants to the W. Haywood Burns Institute, its board adorned by Northwestern lawprof Bernardine Dohrn; more, Chicago Sun-Times] Speaking of gruesome austerity in public expenditure, there’s clearly no room left to cut the state of Connecticut’s budget either [Chris Powell on $300,000 for the New Haven People’s Center]

Patent troll vexes municipal transit agencies

Greater Greater Washington covers a story we linked a while back:

Jones doesn’t actually develop or sell any technology relating to real-time vehicle tracking, but that hasn’t stopped him (and his two offshore firms, ArrivalStar and Melvino Technologies) from punishing anyone who does. To date, he’s filed more than 100 lawsuits against anyone who uses such technology—everyone from Ford to Abercrombie & Fitch to American Airlines to FedEx. He’s now one of the top 25 filers of patent infringement suits, according to PriorSmart.com.

Prominent among ArrivalStar’s recent targets have been municipal transit agencies, at least ten of whom it has sued, with another eight getting demand letters. Several have settled, including the New York City, Boston, Chicago and Maryland authorities; critics say the settlements are typically for less than the cost of defending the suits and are accompanied by nondisclosure clauses in which the transit operators agree not to talk about their experience.

Education roundup

Against North Carolina Amendment One

Patrick at Popehat, who lives in Durham, N.C., interviewed his neighbors Gale and Elizabeth, who are a same sex couple, “about how Amendment One would affect them. This is what they had to say.” Earlier here (conservatives who oppose Amendment One include John Locke Foundation president John Hood) and here (most North Carolinians don’t realize measure would ban legal recognition of civil unions and domestic partnerships).

P.S. More from Richard Painter. And Gene Nichol (UNC Law) writes about the other time North Carolina amended its constitution to restrict marriage, which was back in 1875 [News & Observer]