Posts Tagged ‘ACLU’

Aguilar v. Avis, cont’d

Some years back, Justice Janice Rogers Brown of the California Supreme Court wrote a dissent in the widely noted harassment-law case of Aguilar v. Avis, in which the court ordered the drawing up of a list of forbidden words that employees of a rental car franchise were to be prohibited from using to each other on the job even in private conversation (see Sept. 11, 2000). The other day a New York Times editorial (“Disarmament in the Senate”, May 25) assailed Rogers for her supposedly extreme position in dissenting from Aguilar (which was decided 4-3), and James Taranto of the WSJ’s “Best of the Web” quite appropriately rises to her defense (May 27). As Taranto notes (but the Times somehow fails to), Justice Stanley Mosk, regarded as the California high court’s most liberal member, joined Brown in dissenting from Aguilar as a prior restraint on speech rights. For more, see Tim Sandefur, Sept. 23, 2004.

Flint’s mayor retreats

On Jan. 21 Mayor Don Williamson of Flint, Mich., issued an executive order directing the city not to do business with any enterprise or person who had sued the city during the previous five years. Last week he announced a retreat from that policy, his spokesman saying a record of having sued the city would henceforth be considered as one factor among others rather than as an automatic bar to doing business.

Williamson’s original order had been criticized on various grounds, and the local ACLU chapter had threatened — what else? — to sue the city over the policy. Now, it should be noted that a municipality’s blanket refusal to do business with lawsuit-filers very likely might run afoul of various laws: employment discrimination statutes, to take one notable example, typically include provisions banning employers from “retaliating” against persons who sue under them. Other state laws on topics such as procurement might also be plausibly implicated, and perhaps constitutional doctrines as well. On the other hand, news accounts portray the ACLU chapter as adventurously asserting some sort of universal if heretofore unenumerated right not to be retaliated against by any official body on the grounds of a record of litigiousness — so that an asphalt contractor, for example, with a record of getting into repeated wrangles with the city over the terms of past contracts might have a constitutional right not to have that held against it in future competition for business. Given Flint’s announced policy of continuing to consider proneness to litigation as one factor among others, it may be predicted that the controversy has not been finally put to rest. (Christofer Machniak, “Flint’s no-sue policy modified”, Flint Journal, Feb. 25; “Flint rescinds policy barring business with companies who have sued city”, AP/Detroit Free Press, Feb. 24).

Lawyer-joke tellers hire…a lawyer

Those two Long Island men who say they were arrested for telling lawyer jokes at a Nassau County courthouse (see yesterday’s post) were soon deluged with offers by lawyers to represent them for free. Reports Newsday:

“Barbara Bernstein, executive director of the Nassau chapter of the New York Civil Liberties Union, said she found the arrests “bewildering” and she called the men yesterday to determine whether the organization could help. “It’s just bewildering and preposterous that they should be arrested for telling lawyer jokes,” Bernstein said. “What’s the violation of law here?”

(Zachary R. Dowdy, “Lawyers offer help after pair’s anti-lawyer joke arrest”, Newsday, Jan. 13). The two men, Harvey Kash and Carl Lanzisera, have now accepted an offer of representation by radical attorney and New York radio personality Ron Kuby. (“Kuby takes jokers’ case”, Jan. 14). Further update: Jan. 30.

New York Death Penalty Controversy

Ten years ago a mildly successful Republican state senator in New York won a huge upset — defeating the three-term incumbent governor of New York and Bill Clinton ally, Mario Cuomo. Part of the reason was probably Cuomo fatigue — he had been governor since succeeding Hugh Carey in 1983 and had been Carey’s lieutenant governor before that. But the biggest part of Gov. George Pataki’s victory was his promise to sign into law a statute reinstating the death penalty in New York.

Cuomo had vetoed numerous death penalty statutes. In 1994, New York had terrible crime, especially in New York City (which later dropped precipitously under Mayor Giuliani and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly) and New Yorkers wanted to send the message that the state needed to get tough on crime and, especially, ensure that cop-killers would not walk free after 20-25 years (this was a big issue for supporters of the bills).

True to his word, Pataki signed a death penalty bill. By most measures, it was about as progressive a bill as death penalty provisions could get: requiring instructing jurors of the consequences of their sentencing decisions, setting up an administrative group of lawyers that would set fee rates for defense attorneys in capital cases (to ensure better quality representation), and mandating direct appeals of capital convictions to the New York Court of Appeals (the state’s highest court). Ultimately, the statute seemed designed to insure the rights of the accused, be used only in extreme cases and be constitutional.

Read On…

Punch the Vote

An Ohio federal court judge held that punch-card balloting is not, in and of itself, racially discriminatory. The ACLU sued for a declaration that the punch card ballots in Ohio discriminated against minorities because minorities live predominantly in counties that use punch card systems. The full AP story is here.

The lawsuit alleged that most of the 92,000 ballots that did not have a vote for president recorded were punch card ballots.

Judge David Dowd held that:

Read On…

Update: Virginia primitive, take 6

More developments regarding Virginia’s antigay law, much criticized in this space (see May 31 and links from there): the state’s Attorney General, Jerry Kilgore, has put forth an opinion (which of course does not bind the courts) construing the statute narrowly so as not to restrict persons of the same sex from entering private contractual arrangements that convey any “rights or privileges not exclusive to the institution of marriage”. (“The law”, Style Weekly (Richmond magazine), Jun. 30; Lisa Provence, “Not gay: Marriage affirmation sparks protests”, The Hook (Charlottesville), Jul. 17; Adrian Brune, “ACLU to challenge Va. union ban”, Washington Blade, Jul. 16). The law is already being cited by some attorneys as reasons why persons in Virginia should be considered free to disregard not merely civil unions, but even court orders arising out of such unions, originating in other states. Attorneys for Lisa Miller-Jenkins, who recently moved to Virginia from Vermont after the breakup of a civil union in the latter state, are citing the Virginia law to justify their client’s reported refusal to comply with a two-month-old Vermont court order awarding her former partner, Janet Miller-Jenkins, rights to visit the daughter born to Lisa during their time together. “State law forbids Virginia courts from handling legal custody and parental rights disputes if proceedings are already under way in another state.” (Calvin R. Trice, “It’s Virginia vs. Vermont in custody case”, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Aug. 14; Justin Bergman, “Judge delays ruling on jurisdiction in lesbian custody battle”, Newport News Daily Press, Aug. 13; Jonathan Finer, “Custody Case Puts Lesbian Civil Union On Trial”, Washington Post/National Constitution Center, Aug. 7)(via Tim Hulsey). And some gay residents of the Dominion have reacted to the law by deciding to move away. Update Aug. 25: Va. judge takes jurisdiction of custody case notwithstanding court order (Washington Post). More background on case: Washington Blade, Aug. 20. Further updates Dec. 16 (I challenge conservative commentator David Frum’s description of the case); Aug. 26, 2006 (Vermont Supreme Court rules against Miller); Nov. 29, 2006 (Virginia appeals panel, reversing lower court, rules against Miller).

Mustn’t undermine their authority

Reversing a seven-year-old precedent, the Massachusetts high court has ruled that even though employees enjoy an absolute right to seek jury trials rather than have their claims of bias adjudicated by the state antibias agency, MCAD, employers do not have a right to bring their case to a jury following an adverse MCAD ruling. In its May 6 decision, the court said that recognizing employers’ right to a jury trial, as it had done in a 1997 decision called Lavelle v. Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination, was undermining the agency’s authority. Mustn’t do that! (“SJC decision curbs employer access to jury trial in job-related discrimination cases”, Boston Business Journal, May 7; “Bias case rulings may have wide impact”, BostonWorks.com (Boston Globe), May 23; “Q&A: MCAD’s Dorca Gomez, on jury trial reversal”, Boston Globe, May 16). The law firm of Foley, Hoag & Eliot (May 12, PDF) said the ruling “further stacks the deck against employers in discrimination cases”. Remarkably, the Massachusetts chapter of the ACLU had pressed to abolish employers’ right to jury trial, and hails the new decision in a press release which seems calculated to lull the casual reader into imagining that the two sides are somehow still endowed with symmetrical rights (by de-emphasizing complainants’ privilege of choosing which forum will hear the dispute). No doubt our friends at ATLA, with their frequent rhetoric about the need to prevent erosion of the jury system, will rise to deplore the stripping away of defendants’ access to juries. Right?

Archived media law & free speech items, pre-July 2003


Whatever you do, don’t criticize lawyers — 2003:The intimidation tactics of Madison County“, Jun. 9 (& updates Jul. 12Jul. 26).  2002:‘Ex-jurors file $6 billion suit against ’60 Minutes’“, Dec. 16-17; “Lawyers fret about bad image” (Fla. bar plans to rate and monitor tone of journalists’ coverage), Oct. 3; “Mich. lawyer’s demand: get my case off your website” (“Love Your Neighbor”, M-LAW, Overlawyered.com), Jun. 20 (& letter to the editor, July 6); “Dangers of complaining about lawyers” (Ga. considers easing defamation counter-complaints by lawyers), Mar. 30-Apr. 1. 2000:Australian roundup” (lawyers sue cabinet minister for suggesting they overcharge and lack ethics), Sept. 6-7; “Target Detroit” (class action lawyers personally sue DaimlerChrysler lawyer, citing his critical remarks regarding them), Jul. 19-20; “Baron’s judge grudge” (lawyer bullies alt-weekly Dallas Observer over expos? March 23.  1999:Criticizing lawyers proves hazardous” (class-action attorneys sue columnist Bill McClellan for making fun of them), Nov. 4 (updated Nov. 30 (he criticizes them again, though suit is still pending) and Feb. 29, 2000 (they agree to drop suit); “Couple ordered to pay $57,000 for campaign ads criticizing judge“, Oct. 18; “Think I’m too litigious? I’ll sue! (II)” (lawyer sues over being called ambulance chaser), Aug. 16. 

Hate speech, hate crime laws, 2002:British free-speech case“, Dec. 18-19; Letter to the editor, Oct. 23; “Cutting edge of discrimination law” (Huckleberry Finn in schools), Oct. 7-8; “Prominent French author sued for ‘insulting Islam’“, Aug. 23-25 (& Sept. 18-19, Oct. 25-27 (acquitted)); “French ban sought for Fallaci book on Islam“, Jun. 11-12; “Our editor interviewed“, May 29.  2001:Australia: anti-American tripped up by speech code“, Dec. 21-23; “Compulsory chapel for Minn. lawyers“, Dec. 18; “EU considers plans to outlaw racism“, Dec. 5-6; “U.K. may ban anti-religious speech“, Oct. 19-21; “‘Hate speech’ law invoked against anti-American diatribe” (Canada), Oct. 17-18; “Judge to ‘Sopranos’ suit: fuhgetaboutit“, Sept. 21-23 (& Apr. 6-8); “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3.  2000:U.S. Department of Justice vs. Columbus Day?“, Oct. 3; “Punitive damages for hatemongering?” (Wash. Post on Aryan Nations case), Sept. 19; “Australia: antibias laws curb speech” (newspaper’s slighting ethnic references), July 11; “Columnist-fest” (John Rocker case), Jan. 18; “Watch your speech in Laguna Beach“, Jan. 13-14.  1999:Most unsettling thing we’ve heard about Canada in a while” (hate speech laws), Dec. 17-19; “Speech police go after opinion articles, editorial cartoons“, Aug. 28-29; “Hate-crime laws: why they aren’t liberal“, Aug. 9. 

Intellectual property, 2003:He’s gotta have it” (Spike Lee v. Spike TV), Jun. 16-17; “Hiker cuts off use of his name“, Jun. 4-6.  2002:Macaulay on copyright law“, Oct. 14; “‘Judge Throws Out “Harry Potter” Copyright Suit’“, Oct. 7-8; “How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is/To have a precociously musical child” (singer James Brown sued by daughters), Sept. 20-22; “Skittish at Kinko’s” (won’t make copies of customer’s own published writing), Jul. 26-28; “Stolen silence?” (John Cage composition), Jul. 19-21; “Law blogs“, Jul. 3-9; “‘Top ten new copyright crimes’” (satire), Jun. 3-4; “‘A fence too far’” (Hollings bill), May 20-21; “ReplayTV copyright fight“, May 6; “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Intel Corp. versus yoga foundation“, Apr. 1-2; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “British Telecom claims to own hyperlinks“, Feb. 13-14 (& Oct. 1-2); “Overlawyered film sets“, Feb. 8-10; “‘”Let’s Roll” Trademark Battle Is On’“, Feb. 4-5 (& Feb. 11-12); “‘Aborigines claim kangaroo copyright’“, Feb. 1-3.  2001:Radio daze“, Aug. 31-Sept. 2; “Barney’s bluster“, June 25 (& “Welcome Slashdot readers“, July 5); “Mich. lawyer’s demand: get my case off your website” (“Love Your Neighbor”, M-LAW, Overlawyered.com), June 20; “Value of being able to endure parody without calling in lawyers: priceless” (MasterCard), April 25; “Patenting the Web?“, April 3-4; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, Mar. 19-20.  2000:Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31, 1999-Jan. 2, 2000. 1999:Hey, what is this place, anyway?” (Pez Co. claims right to restrict use of word “Pez”), Oct. 16-17; “Copyright and conscience” (goodbye to “Dysfunctional Family Circus”), Oct. 7 (& see main IP section on tech law page). 

Lawsuits intimidate expression, 2003:McDonald’s sues food critic” (Italy), Jun. 16-17.  2002:PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& May 27, 2002, Oct. 4-6, 2002, Aug. 6, 2001); “Defend yourself in print and we’ll sue” (Nike issue ads), May 3 (& Feb. 13-14); “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26.  2001:Gary to Gannett: pay up for that investigative reporting“, March 30-April 1; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20; “‘Persistent suitor’” (criticism of academic journals’ publisher), Feb. 6. 2000:Hauling commentators to court“, Dec. 1; “Degrees of intimidation” (book on “diploma mills”, Apr. 28-30; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website“, Mar. 31-April 2; “Costs of veggie-libel laws“, Mar. 20.  1999:Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23. 

Bans on web content not “accessible” to disabled: see special section on disabled rights page. 

Blaming media for violence, 2002:Updates” (Jenny Jones case), Oct. 25-27; “‘Addictive’ computer game blamed for suicide“, Apr. 3-4 (& letter to the editor, Apr. 11).  2001: Blame video games, again” (WTC terrorism), Sept. 24; “Put the blame on games” (Columbine), April 24, 2001 (& see March 6, 2002: judge dismisses case); “Judge throws out Hollywood- violence suit” (Oliver Stone, Natural Born Killers), March 13-14.  2000:Hollywood under fire: nose of the Camel?“, Sept. 19; “‘Violent media is good for kids’“, Sept. 13-14; “Shoot-’em-ups: hand over your files“, June 19; “Judge dismisses suit blaming entertainment business for school shootings“, April 13.  1999:Down the censorship-by-lawsuit road“, Oct. 12; “‘Bringing art to court’“, Sept. 9; “Censorship via (novel) lawsuit” (media companies sued after school shootings), July 22. 

Harassment law:‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3, 2001; “EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, June 4, 2001; “Harassment-law roundup” (pin-ups, bar owner case), May 4, 2000; “The scarlet %+#?*^)&!“, March 7; Recommended reading” (Roland White in London Times on chill to office banter), Jan. 25, 2000; “Suppression of conversation vs. improvement of conversation“, Nov. 12, 1999 (excerpts from Joan Kennedy Taylor book); “‘Personally agree with’ harassment policy — or you’re out the door“, Sept. 22; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999; and see separate page on harassment law.

Those dangerous emails:Cartoonist’s suit over practical joke“, Oct. 26-28, 2001 (& letter to the editor, Nov. 29); “Big fish devour the little?” (listserv defamation, aquatic plants case), Aug. 6, 2001; “Harassment-law roundup” (email-shredding software), Feb. 19-21, 2000; “Emails that ended 20 Times careers“, Feb. 8-9, 2000; “Hold your e-tongue” (emails “can kill you in a courtroom”), Nov. 9, 1999; “Please — there are terminals present” (Bloomberg email system censors bad words), July 30; “‘Destroy privacy expectations’: lawyer” (tell workers their email and hard drives are open to company inspection), July 26, 1999; and see separate page on harassment law.

Web liability issues, 2002:AVweb capitulates to defamation suit“, Sept. 16-17 (& Sept. 18-19); “PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d” (linking, metatags), May 22-23 (& Oct. 4-6); “A DMCA run-in” (linking to copyright violation), Apr. 16-17; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Columnist-fest” (N.Y. Times v. Tasini), Feb. 11-12; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20.  2001:Words as property: ‘entrepreneur’” (domain name dispute), Nov. 1; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3; “Anonymity takes a D.C. hit” (Italy licenses web publishers), May 21; “Scientologists vs. Slashdot“, March 19-20.  2000:Yahoo pulls message board“, Oct. 18; “‘Regulating Privacy: At What Cost?’” (Swedish privacy laws), Sept. 20; “Web-copyright update: ‘Dialectizer’ back up, ‘MS-Monopoly’ down“, Aug. 16-17; “Dangers of linking“, June 7; “Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30; “‘Dialectizer shut down’“, May 18-21; “eBay yanks e-meter auctions” (copyright claim), May 3; “Terminix vs. consumer critic’s website” (metatags), March 31-April 2; “More assertions of link liability” (DVD hack), Dec. 31-Jan. 2.  1999:Link your way to liability?” (professor sues over “course critique” website), Nov. 15 (& update Oct. 10, 2000); “We ourselves use ‘sue’” (competitors’ names used as metatags), Sept. 25-26; “Don’t link or I’ll sue” (“deep linking” suits), Aug. 13 (& update April 5, 2000: court rules deep linking not violation).  Plus: our 404 message; & see data collection, disabled online access issues, and high-tech law generally. 

Other media/performance accessibility issues, 2002:11th Circuit reinstates ‘Millionaire’ lawsuit” (suit against “Millionaire” TV show over telephone-based screening), Jun. 21-23 (& Mar. 24-26, June 12, June 19, Nov. 7, 2000; Nov. 5, 2001).  2001:‘Panel backs deaf patron’s claim against club’” (interpreter demand at comedy club), March 9-11.  2000:Seats in all parts” (theaters), Dec. 29, 2000-Jan. 2, 2001; “Movie caption trial begins” (assistive devices aid concert bootleggers), Aug. 1; “Complaint: recreated slave ship not handicap accessible“, July 21-23; “Preferred seating” (theaters), April 25-26; “Newest disabled right: audio TV captioning“, March 22; “‘Deaf group files suit against movie theaters’” (closed captioning demand), Feb. 19-21; “The fine print” (sue Boston Globe for reducing type size?), Feb. 17. 

Surveillance:Collateral damage in Drug War” (identity of book buyer), Apr. 28-30, 2000; “Chat into the microphone, please” (SEC plan to trawl Web), Apr. 11; “The booths have ears” (restaurant conversations spied on in U.K.), Apr. 5; “The bold cosmetologists of law enforcement“, Mar. 29; “Your hairdresser — and informant?“, Mar. 16, 2000; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999. 

Defamation, 2003: Around the blogs” (N.Y. Times brass), Jun. 18-19. 2002: PetsWarehouse.com defamation suit, cont’d“, May 22-23; “Web speech roundup“, Mar. 25-26; “Web defamation roundup“, Jan. 18-20; “The talk of Laconia“, Jan. 2-3. 2001:Attorney can sue for being called ‘fixer’“, Dec. 5-6; “University official vs. web anonymity“, Oct. 30; “Disparaging stadium nickname leads to suit“, Jul. 5 (& update Aug. 29-30: company drops suit); “Patenting the Web?” (TechSearch v. Intel defamation suit), Apr. 3-4.  2000:Toronto coach: Ich kann nicht anders” (had to file defamation suit), Apr. 25-26 (& update May 4, case dropped); “Great moments in defamation law” (armed robber sues own lawyer for mistakenly calling him heroin instead of crack abuser), Apr. 14-16.

Advertising, 2003:Clear Channel = Deep Pocket” (advertising as nexus of liability in nightclub fire?, Mar. 10-11. 2002:Lawsuit threats vs. campaign speech“, Oct. 4-6 (& May 18-21, 2000); “Defend yourself in print and we’ll sue” (Nike issue ads), May 3 (& Feb. 13-14); “Norway toy-ad crackdown” (sexism), Apr. 23-24; “‘FTC Taking “Seriously” Request to Probe Firearms Sites’” (unlawful to recommend guns for family security?), Jan. 16-17.  2001:Radio daze“, Aug. 31-Sept. 2; “Ghost blurber case“, June 12; “Old-hairstyle photo prompts lawsuit“, June 1-3; “Junk-fax bonanza“, March 27 (& March 3-5, 2000, Oct. 22, 1999). 2000:Web-advertisers’ apocalypse?“, Apr. 20.  1999:Free expression, with truth in advertising thrown in?” (lawyer’s Jolly Roger flag dispute), Dec. 31; “Feds: dissent on smoking = racketeering“, Sept. 23, 1999 (and see lawyers’ advertising page). 

TV, 2003:He’s gotta have it” (Spike Lee v. Spike TV), Jun. 16-17; “Jailhouse rock” (VH1), Mar. 10-11; “‘Jack Ass blasts “Jackass”‘“, Jan. 3-6.  2002:Updates” (Jenny Jones case), Oct. 25-27; “‘Demand for more ugly people on TV’” (Norway: higher “ugly quotas” sought), Oct. 21; “Lawsuit threats vs. campaign speech“, Oct. 4-6; “11th Circuit reinstates ‘Millionaire’ lawsuit” (suit over show’s telephone-based screening), Jun. 21-23 (& Mar. 24-26, June 12, June 19, Nov. 7, 2000; Nov. 5, 2001); “Soap star: ABC wrote my character out of the show“, Apr. 10.  2001:Suing ‘The Sopranos’“, Apr. 6-8 (& Jul. 12-14, 2002: case dropped); “‘Survivor’ contestant sues“, Feb. 7-8.  2000: Behind ‘Boston Public’“, Nov. 21; “Palm Beach County ‘Under Control’” (suit against network for erroneous election-eve projection), Nov. 16; “Why the bad guys can’t stand John Stossel“, Aug. 18-20; “Won’t pay for set repairs” (Orkin ad leads viewers to throw objects at their TVs), May 30; “Thomas the Tank Engine, derailed” (show’s email contact with young fans), May 25; “Sock puppet lawsuit” (“Late Show with Conan O’Brien” writer), Apr. 27; “Who wants to sue for a million?” (suit against game show for lack of disabled access), Mar. 24-26 (& update Jun. 12); “Newest disabled right: audio TV captioning“, Mar. 22; “Letterman sign suit“, Mar. 17-19.  1999:The fateful T-shirt” (Leno show giveaway suit), Dec. 7. 

A judge bans a book” (incitement to tax evasion), Jun. 18-19, 2003.

Hiker cuts off use of his name“, Jun. 4-6, 2003.

Start that movie on time, or else“, Feb. 20, 2003 (& Jan. 10).

Fair housing law vs. free speech“, Jan. 31-Feb. 2, 2003.

Campaign regulation vs. free speech“, May 18-21, 2000 (& Oct. 4-6, 2002). 

‘Greek net cafes face ruin’” (ban on computer games), Sept. 23, 2002.

Penthouse sued on behalf of disappointed Kournikova-oglers“, Jun. 3-4, 2002. 

Privacy claim by Bourbon Street celebrant“, Sept. 28-30, 2001 (& Mar. 6, 2002, Apr. 15, 2002). 

Radio daze” (Clear Channel hardball), Aug. 31-Sept. 2, 2001. 

The document-shredding facility at Pooh Corner” (Disney dispute with rights holders), Aug. 24-26, 2001. 

‘Internet Usage Records Accessible Under FOI Laws’” (schools case), Nov. 14, 2000. 

Collateral damage in Drug War” (customer records of Denver’s Tattered Cover bookstore subpoenaed), April 28-30, 2000 (update, Oct. 27-29: judge orders records handed over); “‘Power lawyers may sue for reparations’” (sue textbook makers over representation of blacks?), Oct. 25, 2000; “Baleful blurbs” (book publishers sued over errors in cover copy), Nov. 16, 1999. 

Illegal to talk about drugs?“, May 30, 2000. 

Dusting ’em off” (laws against profanity in public), May 18-21, 2000. 

Thought for the day” (Posner on censorship), April 25-26, 2000. 

Verdict on Consumer Reports: false, but not damaging“, April 10, 2000; “Costly state of higher awareness” (libel suit, author Deepak Chopra), March 9, 2000.

Mormon actress sues over profanity” (says Univ. of Utah theater dept. insisted she utter foul language in scripts), Jan. 24, 2000.

FCC as Don Corleone“, Oct. 5-6, 1999.

The shame of the ACLU” (Aguilar v. Avis: ACLU intervenes on anti- free-speech side), Sept. 7, 1999.

Weekend reading” (tabloid law), Aug. 7-8, 1999.


Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson:

The Law on Trial“, Wall Street Journal, October 14, 1997 (review of Beyond all Reason by Daniel Farber and Suzanna Sherry). 

Shut Up, They Explained” (“zero-tolerance” harassment policies), Reason, June 1997. 

Judge Dread” (on Robert Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah), Reason, April 1997.

Archived harassment law items, pre-July 2003

‘Prosecutor had ordeal as defendant’“, May 14, 2003. 

Sex abuse charges, 2003:‘Sex, God and Greed’“, May 28; “‘No Crueler Tyrannies’” (Dorothy Rabinowitz), May 8 (& Apr. 17, 2001). 2002:‘Reno owes the public answers’“, May 7; “Updates” (rape shield laws), Jan. 9-10 (& more on Jovanovic case: Dec. 23-26, 1999).  2001:Sued if you do dept.: co-worker’s claim of rape“, Nov. 7-8; “‘Teen sex offenders face years of stigma’“, Nov. 5; “‘Crying wolf’“, Oct. 30;  “‘Proposed Law Would Consider Alcohol as Date-Rape Drug’” (Wisc.), Oct. 3-4. 2000:Federal commerce power genuinely limited, Supreme Court rules” (strikes down VAWA’s lawsuit provision), May 16 (and see Wendy Kaminer, Feb. 24); “Updating Jane Austen“, Apr. 28-30; “Court rejects ‘telephone sex slave’ charge“, Apr. 24; “Philadelphia: feminist groups to be consulted on whether to classify incidents as rape“, Mar. 27 (and see Cathy Young, April 6); 1999:Okay, we admit it: we admire these lawyers” (Wenatchee defenders), Sept. 4-6; “Personal hell“, Jul. 31-Aug. 1. 

Employers liable for not filtering raunchy spam?“, Apr. 10-13, 2003.

Watch those emails:Employers liable for not filtering raunchy spam?“, Apr. 10-13, 2003; “Why we lose workplace privacy“, Aug. 9, 2001; “Watch those fwds” (Dow Chemical fires employees for email use), Aug. 21-22, 2000; “Oops: D.A.’s and judge’s fwding of sex pics deemed ‘unfortunate event’“, April 11; “Harassment-law roundup” (email-shredding software), Feb. 19-21; “Emails that ended 20 Times careers“, Feb. 8-9, 2000; “Please — there are terminals present” (Bloomberg censors its terminals), July 30, 1999. 

After failed workplace romance, a $1.3 million bill“, Feb. 6-9, 2003.

Incoherence of sexual harassment law“, Oct. 15, 2002.

Sued either way:Investigate, but gently“, Sept. 25-26, 2002; “‘Ex-Teach’s Suit: Kids Abused Me’“, Jun. 26-27, 2002; “Sued if you do dept.: co-worker’s claim of rape“, Nov. 7-8, 2001; “EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, Jun. 4, 2001; “Customer offense” (supermarket bagger with Tourette’s), Jun. 9-11, 2000; “Columnist-fest” (Mona Charen on Mar. 10-12 story, below), Apr. 6; “Accused of harassment; wins $2 million from employer“, Mar. 10-12 (& update Jun. 2, 2003: award reversed); “‘Judgment reversed in Seinfeld case’“, Feb. 26-27, 2000; “Employment-law retaliation: real frogs from ‘totally bogus’ gardens“, Sept. 29, 1999

Banish those desk photos of spouse at beach“, Aug. 29-Sept. 2, 2002. 

Clipboard-throwing manager = $30 million clipping for grocery chain“, Apr. 19-21, 2002 (& update Jul. 26-28: damages cut to $8 million); “‘$3 million awarded in harassment’” (Illinois police department), Dec. 19, 2001; “Fieger’s firecrackers frequently fizzle” ($20 million harassment verdict against Chrysler), May 31, 2001; “The stuffed-grape-leaf standard” (feminist litigator asserts that $300K isn’t that much money), August 14-15, 1999. 

‘Surgeon halts operation over foreign nurses’ poor English’” (U.K.: he’s then threatened with disciplinary action for racism), Jul. 25, 2002. 

Catharine MacKinnon, call your office“, May 16, 2002. 

An eggshell psyche at U.Va. Law“, Apr. 8-9, 2002. 

Jail for schoolyard taunts?“, Feb. 27-28, 2002; “‘Boy faces jail for slapping girl’s bottom’“, Jan. 5-7, 2001; “Annals of zero tolerance” (six-year-old’s “sexual harassment”), May 22, 2000. 

European workplace notes” (UK: harassment of dyslexic), Feb. 25-26, 2002. 

Firehouse blues” (girly mags, Alaska), Feb. 20-21, 2002. 

‘Woman Wins Verdict, but no Money, Against Seagal’“, Jan. 4-6, 2002. 

Office dating, “love contracts”:Love contracts“, Dec. 10, 2001; “Ask the experts (if that’ll help)“, Oct. 19, 2000; “Ministry of love-discouragement“, May 3; “‘Love contracts’ spreading to U.K.“, Dec. 31, 1999-Jan. 2, 2000; “Weekend reading: evergreens” (“love contract” for office romances), Dec. 3-5, 1999. 

Employee’s right to jubilate over Sept. 11 attack“, Oct. 9, 2001. 

‘Lawsuit demands AOL stop anti-Islamic chat’“, Sept. 3, 2001. 

‘We often turn irresponsibility into legal actions against others’” (Robyn Blumner on U. of South Fla. art student harassment case), Aug. 13-14, 2001. 

Chandra, Monica, and sex-harass law“, July 27-29, 2001. 

Spoof memo draws EEOC probe“, June 26, 2001. 

‘Hearsay harassment’ not actionable“, June 12, 2001. 

EEOC: unfiltered computers ‘harass’ librarians“, June 4, 2001 (& see “Columnist-fest” (Wendy McElroy), June 22-24. 

Mistletoe dangerous even when absent“, April 18, 2001. 

‘2000’s Ten Wackiest Employment Lawsuits’” (too much sex talk in sex shop), April 13-15, 2001. 

Appeals panel: schools’ harassment rule unconstitutional“, Feb. 27, 2001; “Weekend reading” (Supreme Court’s invention of Title IX harassment law), August 21-22, 1999. 

Business climate:Why we lose workplace privacy“, Aug. 9, 2001; “Ask the experts (if that’ll help)“, Oct. 19, 2000; “The scarlet %+#?*^)&!” (companies cut clients loose for profane language), March 7, 2000; ‘Personally agree with’ harassment policy — or you’re out the door“, Sept. 22, 1999; “EEOC encourages anonymous harassment complaints“, Sept. 3, 1999.

Hate speech, hate crime laws: see free speech and media law page. 

Columnist-fest” (Sarah McCarthy on Paula Jones case), Nov. 14, 2000. 

Don’t meet with her alone“, Nov. 1, 2000. 

Ask the experts (if that’ll help)“, Oct. 19, 2000. 

White House pastry chef harassment suit“, Sept. 18, 2000. 

Harassment law roundup” (Confederate flags on employee cars, Jeffrey Rosen book, Avis v. Aguilar, do-as-we-say case), Sept. 11, 2000. 

Embarrassing Lawsuit Hall of Fame” (Mass. agency finds flatulence not harassing), Aug. 14, 2000. 

From the U.K.: watch your language” (college, job bureau restrict use of “lady”, “hardworking”), June 13, 2000. 

Victim of the century?” (principal collects disability benefits for sexual compulsion), June 2-4, 2000; “Doctor sues insurer, claims sex addiction“, Oct. 13, 1999. 

What the French think of American harassment law“, May 25, 2000. 

The four rules of sexual harassment controversies” (Claudia Kennedy case; female-on-male touching case; spanking initiation), May 15, 2000. 

Comment of the day“, May 5-7, 2000; “Recommended reading” (Roland White in London Times on chill to office banter), Jan. 25, 2000. 

Harassment-law roundup” (bathroom graffiti; Boston bar owner’s insensitive decorations; pin-ups and porn in police station), May 4, 2000. 

Book feature: ‘The Kinder, Gentler Military’“, April 3, 2000. 

The shame of the ACLU” (Aguilar v. Avis: ACLU intervenes on anti- free-speech side), Sept. 7, 1999; “Speech police go after opinion articles, editorial cartoons“, August 28-29, 1999. 

Harassment-law roundup” (Internet startups vulnerable), May 4, 2000; “Dot-coms as perfect defendants“, Jan. 17; “Harassment-law roundup” (Juno case), Feb. 19-21, 2000. 

Oops! Didn’t mean nothing by that, ma’am” (“Hello, good looking” directed at harassment trainer), Dec. 21, 1999. 

Suppression of conversation vs. improvement of conversation“, Nov. 12, 1999 (excerpts from Joan Kennedy Taylor book); “Risks of harm“, Nov. 13-14, 1999; “Harassment-law roundup” (Taylor book discussed), Feb. 19-21, 2000. 

Courts actually begin to define ‘harassment’; activists in shock“, August 6, 1999. 

Please — there are terminals present” (South Park on sexual harassment), July 30, 1999.
——————————————————————————–

Articles by Overlawyered.com editor Walter Olson:

Title IX’s Invisible Ink” (Supreme Court invents right to sue schools over student-on-student harassment), Reason, August/September 1999. 

A Legacy of Dirty Laundry” (brief contribution to symposium on harassment law), The Women’s Quarterly, Winter 1999. 

Have the Harassment Rules Changed?“, Wall Street Journal, April 6, 1998 (judge’s dismissal of Paula Jones lawsuit). 

Punch the Clock, Sue the Boss“, New York Times, March 20, 1998. 

Shut Up, They Explained” (“zero-tolerance”), Reason, June 1997. 

The Long Arm of Harassment Law“, New York Times, July 7, 1996. 

?When Sensitivity Training Is the Law? (Connecticut law requires training of managers), Wall Street Journal, January 20, 1993. 

In addition, The Excuse Factory (1997) includes two chapters on harassment law, namely chapter 4 (“Fear of Flirting”) and chapter 14 (“Workplace Cleansing”).  Neither is online. 


Other resources:

Websites

Freedom of Speech vs. Workplace Harassment Law” (highly informative site maintained by Prof. Eugene Volokh, UCLA Law School) 

Organizations

Books

The shelf of books critical of the overreach of harassment law got at least three important additions in 1999.  Daphne Patai of the University of Massachusetts, known already as a co-author of Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales From the Strange World of Women’s Studies, published Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism.  Cathy Young, columnist for the Detroit News, published Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality.  And Joan Kennedy Taylor, associated with the Cato Institute, published What to Do When You Don’t Want to Call the Cops: Or a Non-Adversarial Approach to Sexual Harassment.  (Also see our editor’s 1997 contribution, The Excuse Factory.)

Archived advertising and solicitation posts through June 2003

New Orleans cleanup continues“, Jun. 10-11, 2003.

Mississippi investigation heats up“, May 7, 2003; “‘Oxy Morons’“, May 30, 2002; “Trial lawyers vs. OxyContin“, Aug. 7-8, 2001; “Target: Alka-Seltzer” (phenylpropanolamine, PPA), April 6-8, 2001 (& Dec. 18, 2001). 

‘Streets strewn with glass, gold’“, May 4-5, 2003.

Thrill of the chase“, Mar. 4, 2003.

Client-chasing: we interrupt your grief“, Feb. 21-23, 2003.

Client-chasing: tantrum-enablers“, Feb. 21-23, 2003.

Politico’s law associate suspended over ‘runner’ use” (Louisiana), Feb. 14-16, 2003.

Targeting Wall Street“, Jan. 30, 2003.

Lawyers’ advertising, 25 years later“, Dec. 23, 2002.

Websites, 2003:Slip, fall, learn who to blame“, Feb. 4-5. 2002:Trial lawyers vs. Thimerosal“, Dec. 20-22; “Sic ’em on Segway“, Aug. 1; “Jury nails ‘The Hammer’” (MillionDollarLungs.com, CPalsy.com), Jun. 17-18.  2001: Trial lawyers vs. OxyContin“, Aug. 7-8; “Letter to the editor” (fallingmerchandise.com), May 18. 2000:Down, attorney! Down!” (dogbitelaw.com), Feb. 1.  1999:‘Some lawyers try to make nice’” (Egypt Air 990), Nov. 29; “Click here to sue!” (AOL volunteers), Sept. 7; “Click here to sue!” (“employee misclassification”), Aug. 19. 

After our own heart” (coach attacked by fans solicited to sue baseball club), Sept. 27-29, 2002. 

Patriotic, or promotional?” (billboard), Sept. 13-15, 2002.

Jury nails ‘The Hammer’” (jury finds lawyer’s ads false and misleading in legal-malpractice case), Jun. 17-18, 2002.

‘Friends don’t let friends plead guilty’” (lawyer’s slogan), May 13, 2002.

The lawyers who invented spam“, Mar. 29-31, 2002.

Texas docs plan walkout”, Mar. 15-17, 2002; “A ‘Jenny Jones Show’ question“, Mar. 12, 2002; “For client-chasers, daytime TV gets results“, Dec. 18, 2001. 

‘Halliburton shares plunge on verdict’” (“million dollar lungs”), Dec. 10, 2001. 

Profiling perfectly OK after all” (ACLU billboard solicits racial profiling plaintiffs), Nov. 16-18, 2001. 

U.S. Muslims told: don’t talk to law enforcement” (by lawyer promoting his services), Oct. 29, 2001. 

‘Company tried to capitalize on Sept. 11’“, Oct. 15, 2001. 

Meet the ‘wrongful-birth’ bar“, Aug. 22-23, 2001. 

‘Lawyer says Yellow Book ad makes him look bad, sues for damages’“, July 3-4, 2001; “Let your fingers do the suing” (Michigan’s “AAAA Legal Center“), Feb. 17, 2000; “The Yellow Pages indicator“, Oct. 9-10, 1999. 

‘Insect lawyer ad creates buzz’” (Canadian law firm’s recruitment ad), May 23, 2001. 

From dinner party to court” (U.K.), May 22, 2001. 

Letter to the editor” (law firm “consumer columns”), May 18, 2001. 

Behind the subway ads” (1-800-DIVORCE, etc.), Dec. 18-19, 2000. 

Scarier than they bargained for” (“grenades” sent as promotion), Oct. 5, 2000. 

Press releases, or ‘strike suit’ ads?” (announcements of securities lawsuits), March 6, 2000. 

‘Ambulance chaser’ label ruled defamatory” (appeals court says lawyer can sue), Jan. 24, 2000. 

Free expression, with truth in advertising thrown in?” (injury lawyer flies Jolly Roger pirate flag), Dec. 31, 1999-Jan. 2, 2000. 

Pack your toothbrush, son” (Alabama: charges of paying hospital, police employees for leads on cases), Dec. 20, 1999. 

‘Some lawyers try to make nice’” (Ohio Bar ads), Nov. 29, 1999. 

State of legal ethics” (ad stirring up will-contest litigation), Oct. 5-6, 1999.

Mass. high court opens lawyer-ad floodgates“, Sept. 17-19, 1999. 

Like calling the Orkin man to talk about bugs” (Johnnie Cochran 18-page promotional bio at A.B.A. convention), August 10, 1999. 

Honey, you’ve got mail” (Florida divorce-lawyer solicitations arrive before clients know they’re being divorced), July 15, 1999. 

What a recommendation” (O.J. Simpson to cut TV ads for 1-800 lawyer referral service), July 6, 1999; see also Dec. 8-10, 2000 (Fla. battle over lawyer TV ads).

This time, bombing the taxpayer” (controversy over American attorney John Burris’ recruitment of embassy-bombing victims), Jul. 5, 1999. (More resources on same episode: Mike Kelly, Bergen Record, Apr. 18, 1999; Newsweek International, Apr. 12, 1999, links now dead.)

The annotated external links formerly present on this page are now here.

Cato Institute Logo

1000 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.
Washington D.C. 20001-5403
Telephone (202) 842-0200
Privacy Policy