Updating our Sept. 14, 2004 post: The California Supreme Court has ruled that Irish dancing impresario Michael Flatley (“Riverdance”, “Lord of the Dance”) can proceed with a suit against a woman who falsely accused him of rape and a lawyer who demanded money on the threat of proceeding with the accusation. “Lawyers for [Tyna Marie] Robertson and [D. Dean] Mauro argued that the lawsuit brought by Flatley should be thrown out because the letter was a settlement offer and was protected under the First Amendment. The state Supreme Court rejected the argument. ‘Mauro’s communications constituted criminal extortion as a matter of law and, as such, were unprotected by constitutional guarantees of free speech or petition,’ the six-member panel wrote.” (“Michael Flatley wins court ruling in extortion case”, AP/San Jose Mercury News, Jul. 27; “California court OKs Flatley’s extortion lawsuit”, AP/Chicago Sun-Times, Jul. 30).
Posts Tagged ‘free speech’
Humane Society vs. free speech
The Humane Society of the U.S. says it plans to sue Amazon.com under a District of Columbia consumer protection statute because the online retailer has rejected its demands to stop selling two magazines aimed at cockfighting enthusiasts, The Gamecock and The Feathered Warrior. (They seem to have overlooked Grit and Steel.) The Society claims that a federal law prohibiting the use of the U.S. mails for the promotion of cockfighting events renders the magazines illegal, a position that the U.S. Postal Service itself has apparently not chosen to endorse. (KTHV, Jul. 18; Elizabeth M. Gillespie, “Humane Society urges Amazon.com to quit selling cockfighting mags”, AP/Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Jul. 18; Nobody’s Business, Jul. 24).
Changing planes in U.S.? II
While I oppose laws banning online gambling as ludicrous public policy in a world with government-run lotteries that return sixty cents on the dollar, I don’t see the controversy (also Hurt) over arresting someone indicted for breaking those laws when they step foot on US soil. If Osama bin Laden were foolish enough to take a commercial flight from Karachi to Caracas that changed planes in Dallas, federales could surely arrest him while he was waiting in line at the Orange Julius. Airports don’t convey some sort of diplomatic immunity.
That said, as a public policy matter, America should perhaps be less inclined to assert jurisdiction for victimless Internet crimes committed over international borders, lest we lose the ability to defend the free speech rights of American citizens to discuss issues of religion or politics barred in other countries. And in conjunction with the NatWest Three extraditions (ably discussed by Kirkendall), one fears a European perception of the US as a nationwide judicial hellhole unsuitable for business dealings, much the same way an American might view doing business in Russia. Already, international companies are choosing to raise capital in international financial markets outside the US where once they went to New York, a problem discussed by Larry Ribstein and Henry Butler in a recent AEI book on Sarbanes-Oxley.
Separately, with respect to the new federal interest in focusing scarce resources on gambling, one wonders if Rep. Jefferson is hoping that he shredded his March Madness pool entry before the FBI searched his office. And see also Mankiw v. Passey (via Taylor).
“Tide turns against rape — but why?”
“The Washington Post recently reported that since the 1970s, rape has diminished in frequency by some 85 percent.” Both feminists and televangelists would seem to have some trouble accounting for this welcome trend, given that access to pornography on the one hand, and the trappings of modernism in general on the other, remain ubiquitous (Steve Chapman, syndicated/Chicago Tribune, Jun. 29)(reg).
The High Cost of Petitioning
A radical pro-affirmative action group, By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), joined by Detroit’s mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, have filed a Voting Rights Act lawsuit against the sponsors of the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI) in federal court. MCRI is a ballot initiative would ban racial and gender set-asides and preferences in state contracting, employment, and public education. It is modeled on an earlier measure passed by California voters and upheld by the federal courts. BAMN argues that black voters who signed the petition to put MCRI on the ballot did so only because they did not realize it would restrict affirmative action, because they were confused by MCRI’s title, text, or misleading statements by MCRI signature gatherers. That, it claims, amounts to fraud.
BAMN’s lawsuit is factually groundless. Its fraud claims were considered and rejected by the Michigan Court of Appeals, which ordered MCRI placed on the ballot. MCRI’s text, which was presented to all petition signers, expressly prohibits racial preferences, eliminating any confusion about its effect on affirmative action. Moreover, the Voting Rights Act generally applies to the acts of state election officials, not private parties, and cases such as Delgado v. Smith, 861 F.2d 1489 (11th Cir. 1988), hold that the Voting Rights Act does not apply to initiative petitions.
BAMN’s lawsuit appears to be part of a pattern of intimidation. One BAMN official is accused of threatening MCRI executive director Jennifer Gratz with a knife.
BAMN’s suit is another example of how civil rights lawsuits are increasingly misused as political weapons or tools of censorship. For example, in Affordable Housing Development Corporation v. Fresno, 433 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2006), a developer used the Fair Housing Act to sue citizens who publicly opposed a housing development, arguing that their petitioning of city officials resulted in the city not funding the project. That, the developer argued, had an unlawful “disparate impact” on minority groups destined to live in the development. The trial court initially accepted this argument, holding that the Fair Housing Act overrode the citizens’ right of free speech. Years later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the lawsuit, holding that the citizens’ opposition to the project was protected by the First Amendment and the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. (The Noerr-Pennington doctrine protects citizens from antitrust and civil rights claims based on their speech and petitioning activity). It ordered the developer to pay the citizens’ crippling legal bills, which had risen to hundreds of thousands of dollars.
BAMN’s lawsuit would raise First Amendment problems even if it were true that voters misunderstood MCRI’s purpose, and even if MCRI’s sponsors knew of any erroneous statements about MCRI by signature gatherers. The courts have generally held that the First Amendment bars liability for speech in ballot initiatives and other political campaigns, even if the speech is knowingly false.
A License To Complain
Last Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that a worker alleging retaliation for complaining about discrimination may sue even if she has not suffered a tangible loss, like a firing or denial of a promotion. In its decision in Burlington Northern v. White, the Supreme Court ruled that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, “retaliation” includes any act that “well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker” worker from complaining. The court upheld a $43,500 judgment in favor of an employee who was reassigned to different tasks and then suspended for a month before being reinstated with full backpay.
The court’s low bar for what constitutes retaliation turns many mistaken complaints of discrimination into future lawsuits. Under federal court rulings, even groundless complaints are often protected against retaliation. Complaints to an employer are protected as long as the complainant reasonably believes that discrimination or harassment occurred, even if it didn’t. And complaints to the EEOC are protected even if they are plainly unreasonable, intemperate, and false. So an employee who has never been discriminated against can sue over deteriorating relationships with co-workers whom the employee has falsely accused of discrimination, claiming that the bad relationships constitute a “hostile environment” in retaliation for claiming discrimination.
In an attempt to forestall some such suits, the Supreme Court added a caveat to its test. It declared that “snubbing by supervisors or co-workers” or “petty slights” in response to a claim of discrimination do not rise to the level of retaliation, since they would not be sufficiently “materially adverse” to dissuade someone from complaining of discrimination. Whether or not that caveat is consistent with the court’s general test, it is welcome from a First Amendment perspective. As Judge Kozinski observed in Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000), banning all criticism or ostracism in response to a discrimination charge may well violate the First Amendment freedoms of speech and association.
But the Supreme Court’s caveat may not be enough to protect First Amendment rights. For example, in Bain v. City of Springfield, 678 N.E.2d 155 (Mass. 1997), a mayor publicly denounced as unfounded a sexual harassment complaint against him. It is easy to see how such a public denial might dissuade a publicity-shy complainant from bringing an accusation. But as the Massachusetts Supreme Court observed, defining his speech as unlawful retaliation would clash with the First Amendment. Retaliation prohibitions are “subject to constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech. The interest in remedying discrimination is weighty but not so weighty as to justify what amounts to a restriction on core political speech.” Since the Supreme Court has set the bar so low, the courts may need to exempt speech about the merits of discrimination claims to prevent censorship.
But some judges will probably refuse to do so. Judge Myron Thompson held an employer liable for retaliation for publicly criticizing a discrimination complaint, rejecting a First Amendment defense on the ground that since sexual harassment law supposedly trumps the First Amendment, so do laws against retaliation.
New guestblogger Hans Bader
Joining us this week as a guestblogger is Hans Bader, Counsel for Special Projects at the Competitive Enterprise Institute in Washington. Hans is a frequent visitor to our comments section; his current projects for CEI include constitutional challenges to the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement and to the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board created by Sarbanes-Oxley. Before joining CEI he was at the Center for Individual Rights where his work included constitutional and civil rights litigation, including free speech and workplace claims.
Around the blogs
“Robert Musil” marvels at the apparent untouchability of a key witness in the Anthony Pellicano wiretap case (Jun. 13) . At Volokh Conspiracy, Jonathan Adler skeptically examines a tendentious piece in Scientific American which claims that the Supreme Court’s pending decisions on two wetlands cases, Rapanos and Carabell, imperil the survival of the Florida Everglades (Jun. 13). The trial of journalist Oriana Fallaci, on charges of “insulting Islam” (see Jun. 11, 2005), has begun in an Italian courtroom; among the many giving it coverage are Dave Zincavage, Michelle Malkin and Howard M. Friedman. And Tyler Cowen expounds his opinions on the “net neutrality” issue here.
Suing an Islamic moderate
In its many lawsuits against critics of its activities (see Jan. 5) the Islamic Society of Boston has added as a defendant Muslim reformist Ahmed Mansour, a former visiting fellow at Harvard Law School. (Jeff Jacoby, “Muslim reformer still a target”, May 17; Dean Barnett, “Mosque meltdown”, Weekly Standard, Mar. 24; Miss Kelly, Mar. 24).
Dept. of Intimidating the Little Guy: Maine Board of Tourism
Lance Dutson of the Maine Web Report had the temerity to note that an expensive advertising agency published a phone-sex number instead of the correct line for the Maine Office of Tourism. For this, and other criticisms, Warren Kremer Paino Advertising is suing Dutson for millions. The plaintiff’s lawyer is Portland attorney Alfred Frawley III, who alleges that an opinion that a state agency is “pissing away” money is legally actionable. Dutson has numerous links for this ludicrous lawsuit. Greenberg Traurig is once again stepping up to protect free speech in defense, in conjunction with the Media Bloggers Association. (via Lattman)