Posts Tagged ‘free speech’

Prisoners’ first-amendment rights

Protect “a letter to [a] girlfriend [stating] that a prison officer had sex with a cat” but do not protect mailing a prosecutor “a note written on toilet paper” saying “Dear Susan, Please use this to wipe your ass, that argument was a bunch of shit! You[rs] Truly, George Morgan.” (Morgan v. Quarterman (5th Cir. 2009)). W.C., sending us the case, comments, perhaps only semi-facetiously:

(i) He said “very truly yours.” Maybe he was trying to help her. He was at least sincere.

(ii) I wouldn’t mind doing a similar stunt to opposing in a case I have currently. I too would do so from a helpful perspective. Is that so wrong?

Filed under: Fifth Circuit, free speech, prisoners

June 12 roundup

Judge in Van Buren County, Michigan won’t approve adoptions unless one parent promises to stay home [Ken at Popehat]
Critical view of proposed Performance Rights Act, under which radio would pay new fees to artists and copyright owners [Jesse Walker, Reason]
Student threatens to sue school district: “You can say she was an exotic dancer and she was 18, but it was not an equal relationship.” [Boston Herald, columnist Margery Eagan, Worcester Telegram]
More attention for U.S. Chamber’s movie trailers promoting awareness of lawsuit abuse [NY Times]
Train didn’t actually strike her car at dicey RR crossing after gate closed behind her, but New York woman’s suing Metro-North anyway for the bad scare [Westchester, N.Y. Journal-News]
Uh-oh: Defamation-and-privacy section of American Association of Law Schools keeps electing as leaders feminist lawprofs known for speech-restrictionist views [Greenfield, earlier]
Cows and vows don’t mix: Oregon county says weddings may not be held on farm-zoned land [KTVZ]
Paul Offit, author of noteworthy book Autism’s False Prophets, sued by anti-vaccine blogger [Confutata (scroll), Alyric, link to complaint (PDF) at Courthouse News]

Filed under: broadcasters, family law, free speech, land use and zoning, law schools, libel slander and defamation, music and musicians, schools, strippers and exotic dancers, train, vaccines

Government regulation of broadcast content

Administrations of both political parties shamelessly exploited the unlamented “Fairness Doctrine” to harass their critics in the broadcast world, and there’s every reason to believe that proposed “local content” mandates would be open to the same abuse. [John Samples, “Broadcast Localism and the Lessons of the Fairness Doctrine”, Cato Institute Policy Analysis #639, May 27 (PDF)]

Filed under: broadcasters, free speech

May 7 roundup

New court allegations that disgraced Luzerne County, Pa. judges fixed civil cases as well [Legal Intelligencer; earlier here and here]
Half-hopeful, half-sad story of Florida town’s efforts to live down “Nub City” insurance-fraud notoriety [St. Petersburg Times a while back, but new to me; Errol Morris film; my review of Ken Dornstein’s book]
Evidence continues to roll in against once-touted theory that bans on smoking in public places result in dramatic overnight drop in heart attack rates [Sullum, Reason “Hit and Run”, earlier here and here]
Maybe everyone’s too used to such things by now to get riled up by that pic of garishly painted “1-800-LAWYERS” van [Ron Miller; earlier]
Magazines often found on scene at law enforcement raids = guilty magazines that should be banned from mails? [McClatchy “Suits and Sentences” blog; earlier on cockfighting periodicals Apr. 24, etc.]
Lawprofs: Let’s carve bigger religious-conscience exemptions into antibias laws [Robin Wilson, L.A. Times; Dale Carpenter series at Volokh; Ira Lupu, ConcurOp via Orin Kerr]
UK: “Parents sue NHS over ‘wrongful birth’ of disabled son” [Times Online, our earlier coverage of concept]
Throw bloggers in prison because their posts cause emotional distress? Have fifteen members of Congress gone completely mad? [David Kravets, Wired “Threat Level”, earlier]

Filed under: animal rights, bloggers and the law, discrimination law, Florida, free speech, insurance fraud, Luzerne County judicial scandal, same-sex marriage, smoking bans, wrongful birth and wrongful life

Update: Animal rights vs. free speech

The Supreme Court “has agreed to consider whether a law barring videotapes and other depictions of animal cruelty violates the First Amendment.” The law could result in criminal charges being filed over, say, videos of bullfights or cockfights taken in nations where those practices are perfectly lawful, or taken in U.S. states where until recently various forms of animal fighting were lawful. The Third Circuit ruled it an unconstitutional infringement on free speech. [ABA Journal, Lyle Denniston/SCOTUSBlog, Adler @ Volokh; earlier] Nearly ten years ago (yes, believe it or not, this blog will turn 10 as of the first of July) we covered the original federal legislation, and visitors still arrive regularly at this site after searching on the term “crush videos”.

As we noted in a 2006 post, litigators for the Humane Society of the U.S. have been trying to force the U.S. Postal Service to ban the use of the mails by animal-fighting magazines like The Feathered Warrior. Now, according to an HSUS release, they have gotten a judge to order the USPS to reconsider its non-censorship policy. [Rebecca Baker, “Completely Legal” Gannett Westchester legal blog, Apr. 23]

Filed under: animal rights, crime and punishment, free speech, Supreme Court

ConcurOp “cyberspeech as tort” symposium, cont’d

That lawprof chatfest promoting the idea of wider rights to sue over online speech has provoked a bit of a furor; see addenda to our earlier post as well as continuing coverage at Scott Greenfield’s site. Good! Better to have a controversy now than wait until after some academic consensus has already hardened around a MacKinnonite “of course we need to let people sue more widely over speech, or else women’s voices will be silenced” position. Update March 2010: David Kopel covers at Volokh.

The episode has also helped spin off a second, tangential controversy taking the form of a new round in the ongoing dispute between some “practical” law bloggers and their counterparts in legal academia, on which see Greenfield and Marc John Randazza.

Filed under: free speech, hostile environment, law schools, legal blogs, online speech

Online-speech symposium at Concurring Opinions

As Scott Greenfield notices, the lawprof chatfest (organized by Danielle Citron, Frank Pasquale, David Hoffman, and Deven Desai) is tilted toward participants who want to restrict online speech in the name of feminism and civil rights.

P.S. One of the symposium participants most inclined toward the free-speech position, Michael Froomkin, draws some particularly lively comments. And Paul Horwitz at Prawfsblawg offers some pointed criticisms.

Filed under: free speech, law schools, online speech

“The right of all to speak openly about religion”

Past differences on other issues aside, Jonathan Turley has a good column (in Sunday’s WaPo) on international trends toward restricting speech.

Filed under: free speech, religious discrimination

March 31 roundup

Litigation over high-tech products is rife, but major benefits for consumers can be hard to discern [Low End Mac]
“United settles with female ex-pilot who found p0rn in cockpits” [Obscure Store]
California suit charges negligent “laying on of hands” at church service [Lowering the Bar]
UN resolution against “defamation of religion” imperils free speech [Paula Schriefer, Freedom House/CSM, Steyn/NR “Corner”, National Secular Society (U.K.), Ilya Somin @ Volokh
DivorceNetwork.com, social networking for those caught up in family law battles? [Ambrogi, Legal BlogWatch]
Prosecutors behaving badly in Wayne County (Mich.), Miami, Santa Clara County [Radley Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”]
After nine years, the notorious Bill Lerach California-unfair-competition-law suit against Kwikset (over several screws from Taiwan in a lock marked “Made in America”) finally winds down [California Civil Justice, earlier]
Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson to poultry companies: my pals will bankrupt you with massive verdicts unless you settle [Rizo/Legal NewsLine; more]

Filed under: agriculture and farming, attorneys general, aviation, Bill Lerach, California, churches, divorce, family law, free speech, hostile environment, Oklahoma, s. 17200, social networking, technology

March 23 roundup

Probate court in Connecticut: bad enough when they hold you improperly in conservatorship, but worse when they bill you for the favor [Hartford Courant]
Does “Patent Troll” in World of Warcraft count as a character type or a monster type? [Broken Toys]
102-year-old Italian woman wins decade-long legal dispute, but is told appeal could take 10 years more [Telegraph]
“This Cartoon Could Be Illegal, If Two Iowa Legislators Have Their Way” [Eugene Volokh]
David Giacalone, nonpareil commentator on attorneys’ fee ethics (and haiku), has decided to end his blog f/k/a. He signs off with a four-part series on lawyer billing and fairness to consumers/clients: parts one, two, three, four, plus a final “Understanding and Reducing Attorney Fees“. He’s keeping the site as archives, though, and let’s hope that as such it goes on shedding its light for as long as there are lawyers and vulnerable clients. More: Scott Greenfield.
Even they can’t manage to comply? Politically active union SEIU faces unfair labor practice charges from its own employees [WaPo]
Judge in Austin awards $3 million from couple’s estate to their divorce lawyers [Austin American-Statesman]
“Keywords With Highest Cost Per Click”, lawyers and financial services dominate [SpyFu]

Filed under: attorneys' fees, chasing clients, Connecticut, divorce, do as we say, ethics, free speech, Iowa, Italy, on other blogs, patent trolls, Texas, wills and trusts