Twitter has been sued in Australia for defamation, based on a user’s allegedly defamatory tweet [WSJ Law Blog]
Author Archive
Restrictions on altered photos in ads, cont’d
An Arizona lawmaker has proposed (how many regrettable stories begin with that lead-in!) a crackdown on looks-enhancement in advertising. “House Bill 2793, proposed by Rep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, would require advertisers who alter or enhance a photo to put a disclaimer on that ad alerting customers that ‘Postproduction techniques were made to alter the appearance in this advertisement. When using this product, similar results may not be achieved.'” [Arizona Republic via Coyote, earlier (and compare)]
The quotable Judge Alex Kozinski
Because it’s fun [James Mitchell via Cory Doctorow, BoingBoing]
Hope in a (soap) box
Lawyers have brought at least two class actions seeking to represent men who hoped pheromones in soap would attract women [Russell Jackson]
“No, You Can’t Sue Your Uncle For Putting Embarrassing Family Photos On Facebook”
A Minnesota man named Aaron (no relation) Olson has met with no success in legal efforts to force his uncle to remove “innocuous [but surely awkward] family photographs” with snarky captions. [Christopher Danzig, Above the Law; Venkat Balasubramani/TMLB]
Isometric government: Malibu beach paths
Speaking as I was in the Times farm-bill symposium of what I call isometric government, in which different subsidies or regulations tend to cancel out each others’ effect, reminds me of this L.A. Times story recently blogged by Gideon Kanner: government has required that public beaches be carved out of prime Malibu coastline, but then keeps those beaches mostly inaccessible to the public: “In fact, officials discourage visitors from trying to reach the shore from the highway above out of concern that they will be injured scrambling down the 20-foot bluff,” in the words of reporter Tony Barboza.
February 22 roundup
- Florida courts allow probe of finances of MDs who treat many injury plaintiffs [Dolman Law Group; Crable v. State Farm]
- Booster clubs: “Does Title IX Reach Voluntary Donations?” [Joshua Thompson, PLF, earlier here, here]
- Freedom to Discriminate in Choice of Roommates: 9th Circuit case of Fair Housing Council v. Roommate.com [Eugene Volokh; related from David Bernstein h/t commenter wfjag]
- PI firm employee “disliked sending clients to [chiropractors] because insurers were more reluctant to settle those claims” [ABA Journal]
- “Bill introduced to de-criminalize the Lacey Act” [Paul Enzinna, PoL; earlier on Gibson Guitar and wood imports here, here] More: Reason.tv on the raids [Balko]
- “Australia: A Cautionary Tale of Litigation Financing?” [WSJ Law Blog]
- Constitutional law book review: Jay Wexler, “The Odd Clauses” [Greenfield, Lowering the Bar]
Welcome New York Times readers
I contribute to a “Room for Debate” symposium on the 2012 farm bill here (& Drovers Cattle Network).
P.S. As Nicole Kurokawa Neily reminds us, Cato has been active on farm bill issues for many years, including this 2007 paper by Sallie James and Dan Griswold.
University of Alabama vs. sports artist
The trademark case between artist Daniel Moore and the University of Alabama, over his paintings of Crimson Tide athletics without permission from the university’s licensing operation, has reached the Eleventh Circuit. [Ben Flanagan, Al.com; earlier]
Liability-proof your Mardi Gras parade watch party
Among ways to add to the festive atmosphere: sign-in and sign-out sheets, monitors hired to look out for slip-inducing bead spills, and rules against letting supervisors or employees pour drinks. [Melissa Landry, The Hay Ride] Earlier on Mardi Gras liability here (tossed coconuts), here (floats), here (King cake figurine), and here (flasher’s-remorse cases.