Legally hazardous for a US-based website to make itself available for British readers to visit? “[Attorney Giovanni] Di Stefano claims that he has consulted several QCs and has been told that British authorities could have powers to act against foreign-based broadcasters and websites and issue a European arrest warrant. They could be liable for breaching an English court order guaranteeing anonymity to the blackmail victim and witnesses if their speculation reached Britain.” (Adam Fresco and Dominic Kennedy, “Charge anyone naming Royal ‘victim’, says accused’s lawyer”, Times Online, Oct. 31).
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
Bee Movie
I loved the Seinfeld series, but the abysmal commercials for Bee Movie had me all set to ignore its release. But now that I know that the movie is really about the disastrous inadvertent consequences of a ludicrous class action lawsuit, I might have to reconsider. But I still doubt it will be as good as The Incredibles.
Lawsuit demands drugstores hire bilingual interpreters
Immigrant advocacy groups are filing a complaint with the New York attorney general’s office naming 16 pharmacies in Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island, claiming “that federal civil rights law and state health regulations require pharmacies to provide linguistic help” to “people who speak little or no English”. “That assistance should include interpreters at pharmacies and written translations of medication instructions, the advocates say.” The advocacy groups are New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, the New York Immigration Coalition and Make the Road New York.
It seems a creative reinterpretation of “national origin discrimination” has been going on for some time:
Health advocates have increasingly used federal civil rights law to push hospitals, nursing homes and clinics to provide language services. Language barriers to health services constitute discrimination based on national origin, they argue, a violation of federal civil rights law, which applies to hospitals because they receive federal funds through Medicare and other programs.
The latest effort aims to expand similar requirements to pharmacies.
As of the year 2000, according to one report, 138 languages were known to be spoken in the borough of Queens alone. (Anne Barnard, “Non-English Speakers Charge Bias in Prescription Labeling”, New York Times, Oct. 31).
Social host alcohol liability
A discussion by Judge Posner at the Becker-Posner blog (via Childs) provokes this on-point comment from reader “Phil”:
Perhaps one of the reasons social-host liability hasn’t caught on yet is that the “duty” one is expected to perform is onerous.
Should one of my guests insist on driving home drunk, I have two choices: either take his keys by force, or call the police and have him caught.
In the first case, I could get badly hurt — and, if my friend is only slightly over the legal limit, the combined physical harms to me and my friend are probably much higher than to the sum of the expected harms to all drivers on the road.
In the second case, my friend will lose his license, and perhaps his freedom. The penalty for getting caught driving drunk is much higher than the harms resulting from the individual infraction, as a deterrent, required because of the fact that so few drunk drivers are caught. So this is not something I would do to a friend. A stranger, perhaps, but not a friend.
The fact is that social hosts faced with an intoxicated friend who insists on driving have no reasonable recourse.
Criticizes BidZirk on his blog, and survives
Eric Goldman calls the case of BidZirk v. Smith, filed by a South Carolina eBay reseller against the blogger who’d criticized its services, “a flagship example of how a pernicious and misguided plaintiff with a thin skin can ruin a blogger’s life.” Maybe “ruin” is no longer the operative term, since a federal court has just thrown out the case. Among the court’s determinations: calling a company’s founder a “yes man” is opinion and not actionable as defamation (Oct. 28 and, before that, Nov. 21, 2006; decision (PDF)). More: Ron Coleman fingers as a culprit the “American Rule” (no shifting of fees) under which “there is for all practical purposes no downside to suing someone on the most preposterous of grounds and losing — hence making the bringing of meritless litigation a part of every large company’s toolkit for silencing criticism and destroying smaller competitors.”
Lawbloggers’ Halloween costume party
Harry Potter and Photoshop are involved. (Alan K. Henderson, Oct. 31).
The case for the telecom immunity bill
“Dragging phone companies through protracted litigation [over complying with NSA requests for surveillance help] would not only be unfair, but it would deter other companies and private citizens from responding in terrorist emergencies whenever there may be uncertainty or legal risk. … Without [the companies’ voluntary cooperation], our intelligence efforts will be gravely damaged. Whether the government has acted properly is a different question from whether a private person has acted properly in responding to the government’s call for help. … For hundreds of years our legal system has operated under the premise that, in a public emergency, we want private citizens to respond to the government’s call for help unless the citizen knows for sure that the government is acting illegally. If Congress does not act now, it would be basically saying that private citizens should only help when they are absolutely certain that all the government’s actions are legal.” (Benjamin Civiletti, Dick Thornburgh and William Webster, WSJ/OpinionJournal.com, Oct. 31). More here (fifth item) and here.
P.S. Commenters argue in response that the telecoms are sophisticated and had plenty of time to consult counsel, and point out that Qwest did in fact turn the government down. More: Bader, CEI (with arguments from Sen. Rockefeller).
Guestblogger thanks
Thanks to Jason Barney, from the Seattle area, for filling in while I met a deadline. Remember, if you’re interested in guestblogging, that it’s fine to approach us well in advance; we’ll probably need some help before and during the holidays, for example.
Edwards campaign: take down that student YouTube
Which has merely induced Dan Kennedy (Oct. 27) to reproduce the thing as a public service (Jim Rutenberg, “Student Paper Upsets the Edwards Camp”, New York Times, Oct. 26). The Streisand Effect strikes again…
“When punitive damages make no sense”
Stuart Taylor, Jr. on the Exxon Valdez and telecom-surveillance cases (National Journal, Oct. 29 — will rotate off free site, so catch it now). P.S.: Ted has more on the high court’s grant of cert in the Exxon case.