Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports (blog summary) that Pennsylvania is cracking down on women who prepare home-baked pies for church fish fries without arranging for a license and state inspection access to their kitchens. Little in the story is surprising to those who’ve followed our coverage over the years of similar controversies over pies in Connecticut, cupcakes in Massachusetts, cookies in Maine, county-fair jams in Virginia, and church potlucks in Indiana. All these instances of regulation, one might note, were at the hands of state and local governments, which are widely reputed to be more easily reached by irate constituents and less likely to regulate with a heavy hand than the feds in Washington.

More to come later, including an effort to sort out the confusion over what H.R. 875 as currently written exempts (e.g., many direct farm-to-consumer transactions) and what it does not exempt (lots and lots of other small and local transactions).

Food safety law and small producers, cont’d is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Also on the library issue, there is good coverage in the Zanesville, Ohio Times Reporter (a disproportionate amount of the good library coverage has come from the state of Ohio, which I suspect must be a tribute to some energetic library people there). The American Library Association has a wiki reiterating (at present) that association’s advice to members not to throw out pre-1985 books: “If you feel you must remove books from circulation, please store them until rulings are clearer!”. In her latest roundup, Deputy Headmistress describes how her own local library is boxing up many books that are likely to have been printed after 1985, because their copyright date falls before then; it is a common practice for children’s books to list only a copyright date even if they were printed many years later. So at that cautious library, at least, the law’s effects are even more drastic than one might have assumed.

Darwin Central, which took out after the offending Snopes.com on the books issue a couple of weeks ago, follows up today with a post entitled, “Snopes Defending the Book Burners”. Linda L. Richards at January Magazine was among those misled by the Snopes slant. In a wide-ranging CPSIA roundup last month (worth reading in its entirety), Punditry by the Pint had wise advice: “This might be one of the cases where it would be good to read up on Snopes’ False Authority Syndrome page.” A visit to the Snopes page in question indicates that it now carries a “Last Updated” date of February 19, which indicates that it has been changed since we last had occasion to discuss it; at a brief glance, some of the dismissive language I and others found so objectionable seems no longer to be there, though it has not been replaced by language that’s actually cogent or up-to-date. Someone might want to do a before-and-after comparison using the Wayback Machine.

Also on books, children’s book author and editor Carol Baicker-McKee has a lovely followup to her excellent post of a day earlier, describing some of the kinds of older children’s books (of uncertain copyright status, too “quiet” in their themes to attract reprint interest from publishers) that might face a bleak future. She admires silhouette art, a feature of many midcentury children’s books (like the 1941 Marcella Chute volume from which this illustration is taken) but which is uncommon today.

Baicker-McKee has devoted more thought to the economics of children’s publishing than have most of us, and she writes beautifully of what is at risk. Ed Driscoll also has some to-the-point observations at Pajamas Media, where he quotes Mark Steyn: “A nation’s collective memory is the unseen seven-eighths of the iceberg. When you sever that, what’s left just bobs around on the surface, unmoored in every sense.”

There are other news stories I haven’t gotten to — in particular, the Wall Street Journal’s important reporting on $1 billion-plus (at least) in stranded inventories, much of which may be headed for landfills, and the news of the sudden 40% drop in the stock price of well-known kids’ retailer Gymboree as it was forced to take massive inventory write-offs. I’ll have to get to those at a later date, however, as an unrelated deadline is going to be absorbing much of my attention over the next few days.

CPSIA: “What’s so sad is that books aren’t dangerous” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

• Apparently I’m not the only one to lose patience with the New York Times, at least when they publish an editorial as bad as yesterday’s. My critique was not only (as mentioned) reprinted almost immediately at Forbes.com, but drew an extraordinary reaction elsewhere, including (not exhaustive): Virginia Postrel, Christopher Fountain, Patrick @ Popehat (strong language — now you’re sure to click), Carter Wood/ShopFloor, Mike Cernovich, Katherine Mangu-Ward/Reason “Hit and Run” (says I go “completely ballistic (in a good way!)”), Jonathan Adler @ Volokh Conspiracy, Memeorandum, Above the Law, Tim Sandefur, Mark Thompson/Donklephant (extensively “fisking” the Times editorial; related, Deputy Headmistress), Alison Morris/Publisher’s Weekly Shelftalker blog (law reminds her of Cory Doctorow novel Little Brother), Jacob Grier, Amy Alkon/Advice Goddess, Joe Weisenthal/ClusterStock, Valerie Jacobsen/Bookroom Blog. And: Deputy Headmistress at Common Room, Faith in Truth, Amy Ridenour/National Center and NewsBusters, Charles Kuffler/Off the Kuff. I’m particularly grateful to Robert Ambrogi at Legal Blog Watch for his wider look at how blogs and other newer media have helped correct the shortcomings of some venerable old-media institutions on this story.
• It’s often noted that the most visible economic interests on the children’s-products scene, namely the two big import-oriented toymakers, the makers of mass-market children’s apparel, disposable diapers, and the like, and the big retailers like Wal-Mart and Toys-R-Us, 1) mounted no effective resistance to CPSIA’s passage, 2) have experienced lobbyists in Washington who took an interest in the bill’s progress, and 3) can more or less live with the new rules as part of a business plan that includes mass factory runs and mass merchandising over which the high costs of testing and compliance can be spread, an advantage not shared by smaller producers and retailers. From this it is often concluded that the large companies purposely devised the law’s provisions so as to destroy smaller competitors. I doubt we’ll ever get a definitive answer to that question one way or the other unless Washington insiders step forward with firsthand accounts (hint), but I’d be wary of adopting the “Mattel and Hasbro are secretly chuckling all the way to the bank” meme without better evidence than has surfaced to date, for reasons outlined by David Foster, Kathleen Fasanella, and Deputy Headmistress. The last-named points quite reasonably to the long paper trail in which the Ralph-Nader-founded Public Citizen, a longstanding anti-business pressure group with close ties to the plaintiff’s bar, and its Nader-founded close ally PIRG, boast of having led the campaign for a maximally stringent CPSIA. Related points here (Eric Husman) and here and here (Deputy Headmistress). More: Mark Thompson has some highly pertinent things to add in the comments section.
• We’ve already visited the question whether one big organization that has vociferously defended CPSIA, the Natural Resources Defense Council, took care to obtain the needed manufacturer certifications before offering its own promotional baby “onesie”. Now Patrick at Popehat asks the same question about a second such group, Greenpeace.
• My favorite line from the late Daniel Patrick Moynihan was one about how when institutions fight each other for long enough they come to resemble each other. When I went over to Amy Alkon’s comments section and saw yet another “but Snopes said there’s nothing to this fuss about CPSIA” comment, it hit me: Snopes is now in the business of perpetuating urban legends.
• Unless you’re a New York Times editorialist, in which case you might not notice it under your own nose, it’s easy to find good coverage of the appalling debacle CPSIA has brought for youth powersports — motorbikes, mini-ATVs and the like. There’s USA Today, the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the Rapid City (S.D.) Journal, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and Marketing Daily, for instance, as well as the discussion on Rush Limbaugh.
• Kopfschmerz means headache, and describes the sensation felt by German exporters of toys and children’s products.
• While we’re at it, I never did round up the numerous reactions to my post of a week ago on CPSIA and vintage books. A sampling includes The Anchoress, Todd Seavey (also reminded of Ray Bradbury), Open Your Ears and Eyes, Blackadder’s Lair, John Holbo/Crooked Timber, 5 Kids and a Dog, Mark Bennett’s noteworthy posts at Defending People reprised at Blawg Review #199, Carter Wood at NAM ShopFloor and again, David Foster at Chicago Boyz, Der Schweizer Narr (from Switzerland, in German), International House of Bacon (CPSIA “the single worst piece of regulation in my lifetime”), children’s author Vivian Zabel/Brain Cells and Bubble Wrap, She’s Right, Joey and Aleethea, Dewey’s Treehouse, Sherry/Semicolon Blog, and Classic Housewife.

• I’ve started a new tag, CPSIA and resale, for easy retrieval of posts in that category. There are already tags for the law generally and for its effects on books and minibikes — at some point I’ll get around to adding tags for the law’s effects on needle/apparel trades, toys, and libraries, too, and maybe others.

CPSIA chronicles, February 19 is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Comment (MW): First of all, I LOVE your website, and usually find it well-sourced. But your inboxer article on CPSIA is just incorrect. CPSIA is a poorly written law (and apparently a poorly READ law – most of the representatives and senators who voted for it never bothered to read it – kind of like the PATRIOT Act), but it IS going to impact a LOT of people who shouldn’t have to suffer, mostly small business owners and LIBRARIES.

Go to Overlawyered.com and check it all out. I have no ax to grind here
(although my representative is Waxman, one of the morons who wrote this stupid bill) and just want you to take a look at the other side of the
issue. At the very least, your article should be labeled “undetermined” not “false.”

Kind regards,
Meredith Wright

And the response:

From: snopes.com [email redacted]
Subject: Re: snopes.com: Page Comment
To: Meredith Wright [email redacted]
Date: Friday, February 13, 2009, 6:43 PM

It’s covered in our FAQ at http://www.snopes.com/info/faq.asp

Many of the texts we discuss contain a mixture of truth, falsity, and exaggeration which cannot be accurately described by a single “True” or “False” rating. Therefore, an item’s status is generally based upon the single most important aspect of the text under discussion, which is summarized in the statement made after the “Claim:” heading at the top of the page. It is important to make note of the wording of that claim, since that is the statement to which the status applies.

Urban Legends Reference Pages
http://www.snopes.com/

* * *

So [this is W.O., editorializing, now, not Snopes or Wright] it doesn’t matter how often people read the Snopes item and conclude that the alarms over resellers and CPSIA are unfounded, hysteria, far-fetched, etc. The posting was narrowly accurate when it came to refuting one particular false sub-rumor, and so there’s no need to apologize for, let alone correct, the dismissive tone and poorly informed opinionizing on prospects for enforcement that led many readers into a wider and more serious error, namely thinking that children’s resellers who don’t “blatantly take a cavalier attitude” about customer safety would have no trouble living with the law’s requirements. If you believed Snopes on that, you would have been grossly unprepared for the convulsions in the children’s resale business that began making headlines in recent days.

Incidentally, for those keeping score, the Snopes entry gets other facts about the law wrong too. For example, it announces that “children’s products made after [emphasis added] February 10, 2009″ face lead certification requirements. This was not true either before or after the CPSC’s 11th-hour stay of certification enforcement: it was and is the date of sale or distribution, not of manufacture, that triggers the requirements. A small maker or dealer relying on the Snopes piece might have concluded that its pre-2/10 stocks were not affected by the certification controversy — big, big mistake.

(Public domain image: Grandma’s Graphics, Margaret Tulloch).

Snopes and CPSIA is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Bogus “Stella Awards” — at VC is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

1. One commenter invokes the Ford Pinto case, which is interesting because that’s perhaps the most famous anti-reform urban legend of all. He mistakenly says that Ford’s problem there was undervaluing human life (though the figure in the memo merely repeated the NHTSA number), but, in reality, the plaintiffs sought and obtained punitive damages because Ford performed a cost-benefit calculation at all. Any manufacturer caught performing the cost-benefit calculation that the commenter believes reflects the tort system operating at its most efficient is going to be accused of “putting profits before people” and undervaluing human life, and is at severe risk of being hit with punitive damages unless the judge or jury is unusually economically literate.

2. I’m not saying the court should have thrown the case out because of the factual dispute. The jury made the wrong decision on the facts, but the judge made the wrong decision on the law: see McMahon v. Bunn-O-Matic and the dozen or so cases throwing identical theories out.

3. I agree that it’s not enough to look solely at the costs of the tort system, and that one must look at the benefits also. I don’t oppose the tort system as a whole, but there are certainly problems with the tort system that can be improved to increase the benefits while decreasing the costs. The McDonald’s case illustrates several of these problems: (a) bogus expert testimony; (b) the distorting effect of punitive damages, especially when punitive damages in a products liability case is based on the defendants’ sales, rather than the defendants’ conduct; (c) the erosion of the concept of proximate cause from the tort system; and (d) the erosion of the concept of personal responsibility from the tort system; (e) the backwards-looking “failure to warn” cause of action; (f) the system’s unscientific rejection of concepts of statistical significance.

This would be bad enough if the case was simply an outlier, a case where bad luck, a bad judge, a bad jury, and defense mistakes combined to create a wrong result, but ATLA and law professors are holding up this case as a good result, and there’s a generation of law students who mistakenly think that this is what the tort system should aspire to.

4. I mentioned Snopes.com in the post; they appear to have taken down their original McDonald’s coffee page. I’ve changed the link from the main Snopes page to a different post discussing the “Stella Awards” (which we debunked August 27, 2001). There, Snopes.com repeats the claim that the McDonald’s coffee lawsuit was legitimate, and furthers the urban legend that there’s a sinister force behind the Stella Awards—a curious claim, given that the Mikkelsons’ experience with urban legends has surely taught them that no right-wing conspiracy is needed to result in the spreading of a good yarn that isn’t true. (See also Aug. 14.) In contrast, ATLA affirmatively promotes urban legends about the Ford Pinto and McDonald’s coffee case on their page.

5. Side note about an irony of the Ford Pinto case: the litigation was sold to the American public as a godsend because Pintos were so dangerous that their gas tanks killed a thousand or more. Gary Schwartz added up the numbers, and discovered that only 28 people died in Ford Pinto fuel-fed fires—a rate lower than many other small cars. ATLA shamelessly uses the new number to exclaim that current product manufacturing snafus are “worse than the infamous Ford Pinto,” which is, of course, infamous only because of the successful propaganda of the trial bar.

Responses to comments on yesterday’s McDonald’s coffee posts is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

The case is ludicrous on its face, as a matter of law and as a matter of common sense. Eleven years later, this should be beyond debate, yet somehow, it keeps coming up in the blogs, and we keep having to refute it. (Dec. 10, 2003, Aug. 3, 2004, Aug. 4, 2004).

Amazingly, rather than argue that the tort system shouldn’t be judged by the occasional outlier, the litigation lobby has succeeded in persuading some in the media and on the left that the Liebeck case is actually an aspirational result for the tort system, and, not only that, but that anyone who says otherwise is just a foolish right-winger buying into “urban legends” (Aug. 14, Aug. 16, and links therein). Even the Mikkelsons at snopes.com have made the mistake of buying into the trial lawyer hype, calling the case “perfectly legitimate” and effectively classifying the common-sense understanding of the case as an urban legend.

But the real urban legend has to be that the case has any legitimacy. Worse, this urban legend is being taught to a generation of law students by professors like Jonathan Turley and Michael McCann. Now, any peripheral mention of the McDonald’s coffee case provokes a gigantic backlash from the left, who, while congratulating themselves on their seeing past the common-sense view of the case and being above urban legends, spread a number of urban legends of their own about the case. Witness the 200-plus comment outpouring at Kevin Drum’s Political Animal blog. This post provides a partial rebuttal to some of the things said in that thread, and will hopefully serve as a FAQ in the future.

Kevin Drum: only the “most extreme” support the position of “trial lawyers who sue McDonalds over hot coffee”

False: The main trial-lawyers lobby, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, publishes an Orwellian “fact-sheet” defending the verdict; many law professors incorrectly teach their students that it was a legitimate case. Indeed, Drum is attacked by several commenters for taking this position.

Commenter cmdicely: the industry standard was to serve at a lower temperature

False: The National Coffee Association of the USA recommends serving at 180-190 degrees; another article suggests industry standard is 160 to 185 degrees.

According to a Sep. 1, 1994 Wall Street Journal interview with Reed Morgan, Liebeck’s attorney, he measured the temperature at 18 restaurants and 20 McDonald’s, and “McDonald’s was responsible for nine of the twelve highest temperature readings.” Which means that, even before one accounts for conscious or unconscious bias in the measurements, at least three, and probably more (what about the other eleven McDonald’s?), restaurants were serving coffee at a higher temperature. And Starbucks serves at a higher temperature today, and faces lawsuits over third-degree burns as a result (Jan. 2, 2004).

Commenter Carl: I presume hundreds, if not thousands of people have been saved from severe burns from unreasonably hot coffee.
Commenter MSR: Go to your home coffee maker and make a cup; it will be at about 140 Fahrenheit.

False: To the extent that McDonald’s and other restaurants lowered the temperature of their coffee, all it did was cost those institutions market share—people like hot coffee, and today Starbucks has gone from a local shop to a dominant national chain, despite prices several times higher than McDonald’s, because they serve their coffee hotter than McDonald’s served it to Stella Liebeck, recommending a temperature of 175 to 185 degrees. Starbucks faces suits over third-degree burns hot coffee cases (Jan. 2, 2004), and so does McDonald’s Aug. 13). And, moreover, while in the early 1990’s home coffeemakers only brewed up to 130-140 degrees, today people can and do buy far more expensive and higher-quality coffeemakers that can serve coffee at the 190-to-200-degree temperature that coffee is supposed to be brewed at.

I’ve seen no data that suggest that the small number of people who’ve burned themselves on hot coffee has gone down. If it has, it’s far more likely that the publicity over Stella Liebeck has caused people to be more careful with their hot beverages, and because coffee sleeves, a product invented shortly before Liebeck’s suit went to trial, have become a popular way for restaurants to save paper with the added benefit of additional safety.

Commenter Robert: McDonalds coffee was not only hot, it was scalding – capable of almost instantaneous destruction of skin, flesh and muscle.

False: Stella Liebeck suffered terrible third-degree burns because, while wearing sweatpants that absorbed the liquid and held it to her skin, she sat in a puddle of hot coffee for over ninety seconds.

Commenter Stefan: The burn victim offered to settle with McDonald’s for a token sum (around $10,000 if memory serves)

False: Liebeck asked for $20,000, and then, later, $300,000 to settle before trial. McDonald’s offered a token sum. And why should McDonald’s offer any money when they hadn’t done anything wrong?

Commenter Jeffrey Davis: I’m trying to imagine anyone who was injured that way and that severely not seeking redress. And failing.

Well, Angela McMahon suffered third-degree burns from spilling coffee on herself, and sued on the identical legal theories that Stella Liebeck did. Her case was correctly thrown out, even though the defendant waived the most obvious legal defense.

The tort system is meant to deter wrongdoing; the mistake of the left is the increasingly successful attempt to make the main purpose compensating the injured, and redistributing wealth from wealthier bystanders tangentially related to the victim who haven’t done anything wrong. The tort system is a remarkably inefficient means of performing this task, which is why litigation reform is needed.

Commenter MSR: One other point about the McDonald’s case that should be mentioned here. The award to the woman for injuries was about $130,000 or 13 times her original request. Enough to cover her costs and send a message that it’s better to just settle than take a loosing [sic] case to court.

False: The jury award was $2.9 million. The court lowered this to $650,000. Both Liebeck and McDonald’s appealed, and then settled, allegedly for something close to, if not identical to, the final judgment. McDonald’s didn’t have a losing case: it was only the error of the judge in letting the case get to the jury combined with the error of the jury that caused them to lose. The fact that a defendant can exposed to many multiples of actual damages is one of the serious problems of the tort system. Even when 9 out of 10 juries get it right, if the tenth jury awards ten times as much damages as it should, it undoes the work of the juries that exonerated the defendant. This encourages lottery litigation. (E.g., Jun. 3, 2004).

Commenter MSR: In the course of the trial, as others have noted, it was made clear that the coffee was much closer to boiling than to the temperature of ordinary coffee

False: As noted, coffee is supposed to be that hot, and people prefer coffee that hot, and Starbucks serves even hotter coffee today.

Commenter MSR: many people had been injured (some 700 over the previous decade)

Misleading: McDonald’s sells billions of cups of coffee. There had been 700 complaints over hot coffee in the previous decade, which translates into a complaint rate of 1-in-24-million, with only a small fraction of the complaints reflecting injuries as severe as Liebeck’s. By comparison, 1-in-4-million Americans will be killed by lightning in a given year, and 1-in-20-million Americans (and a much higher ratio of American toddlers) drown in 5-gallon buckets in an average year.

Commenter MSR: the complete absence of any warning that the coffee was nearly at the boiling point

False: Aside from the “open and obvious” danger that coffee presents that should eliminate a warning, Stella Liebeck’s cup did have a warning! The jury thought it was “too small”, which reflects the problem with failure-to-warn claims—one can always second-guess a warning after the fact, because it’s always possible to give a more extensive warning. And defendants are caught in a trap, because if they give too many warnings, they’re accused of failing to warn by burying the important warnings in a morass of unimportant warnings. At what point does common sense come into play?

Commenter theorajones starts off correctly noting that the McDonald’s coffee case is a no-win argument for liberals, but then blows the winning streak when she invokes Valerie Lakey.

Commenter Alek Hidell: it was McDonald’s, not Ms. Liebeck, that forced a trial (and the subsequent “jackpot award”), was it not?

Why is it the defendant’s fault for “forcing a trial” by refusing an unreasonable settlement demand? It’s blaming the victim to say that the shopkeeper brought on his own broken knees because he refused to pay Tony Soprano protection money. McDonald’s was entitled to a fair trial when the plaintiff insisted on going forward, and didn’t get one.

Commenter Cyan: many of these claims were settled

Misleading. Yes, McDonald’s took responsibility when one of its employees spilled coffee on a customer and settled cases of burns from such spills. Because a coffee-spill is usually the fault of the person who spilled the coffee. The Liebeck jury and judge decided to mostly blame the deep pocket instead.

Update: Check out this British legal analysis of similar cases brought in the UK.

Urban legends and Stella Liebeck and the McDonald’s coffee case is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

I first heard a version of the “Winnebago cruise control” story while I was in the Navy stationed at Whiting Field in Milton, Fla. in 1977. And I’ve heard different versions of it over the years.

The earliest version I heard, as well as a number of later versions, had an ethnic angle. At the time, the U.S. Navy was training pilots for the Shah of Iran, and what with language and customs difference, the trainees weren’t considered technically acute. So the first version of the story I heard was of a supposed Iranian driver. Over the years versions I heard involved a number of other ethnic groups. Just plug in who you wanted.

In the first version I heard, the vehicle was a conversion van. Bed in the back, couple of captain chairs and large mural on the side. Didn’t start hearing motorhome versions till the 90’s. So I guess it’s plug in the popular large vehicle of the time.

In the early versions, the point of the story was just that the driver was too dumb to know cruise control wasn’t the same as an autopilot. I never heard of a lawyer being involved until a few years ago. Guess the story’s age was showing and it needed spicing up.

Most people telling it thought it was true. A friend had seen it in a paper, etc. I guess the whole story works because of the number of stupid people in the world.

For those who came in late, the L.A. Times on Sunday printed a prominent piece on the Winnebago and other “Stella Award” tall tales, which it suggested were “fabrications” spread by the tort reform movement (see Ted’s and my take on the story, as well as our four-year-old debunking of the tales themselves with credit to Snopes). Regarding Mr. Affeldt’s recollections, a few observations:

* You’d think before running an article suggesting that the tales’ wide circulation over the Net reflects a campaign of purposeful disinformation, L.A. Times reporter Myron Levin might have done a little digging into the origins of the tales to find out things like where and when the earliest sightings occur. But there’s scant sign that he did.

* As a visit to the generally excellent urban-legends site Snopes.com will make clear, it’s typical of garden-variety urban legends — the kind whose circulation reflects mere credulity on the part of reader/forwarders, as opposed to a conscious plot to hoodwink the public — that they are older than the tale-tellers realize them to be, and have gone through mutations reflecting what in musicology would be called the folk process.

* To be sure, Mr. Affeldt’s recollections do not conclusively refute the ATLA/L.A. Times thesis that the Winnebago and similar tales have been purposely fabricated. After all, even if there were already an urban legend in wide circulation about a clueless driver’s mistaking cruise control for autopilot, it’s conceivable that the plotters came up with the sly stroke of inserting a lawsuit into the narrative as part of their unceasing efforts to sap public confidence in the U.S. legal system. Of course, it bears repeating that ATLA-‘n’-L.A.T. have offered zero evidence of any such thing happening.

* One other thing missing from the L.A. Times account: any showing that the lawsuit-reform groups mentioned, such as ATRA and Common Good, or any similarly prominent group, have in fact circulated the Winnebago/Stella Award stories at all. Credulity being part of the human condition, of course, there are no doubt instances where the newsletter editor of the East Kankakee Citizens for Lawsuit Reform was taken in by a Stella email from his Aunt Fran and passed it along. That the L.A. Times piece does not adduce even one instance of serious backing from such groups should have raised a flag about the quote from Prof. Turley claiming that such stories have been devised with “skill” for purposes of “influencing policy”.

* Thanks to Patterico, Gail Heriot and Southern California Law Blog for linking to our earlier discussion. Among some bloggers of an opposite persuasion, the L.A. Times piece seems to have come as a confirmation of their own dearly held preconceptions on the subject, as with Ezra Klein, John Cole, and Mr. Furious, to some of whose comments sections Ted has paid a visit.

Winnebago/Stella Award myths, pt. 4 is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system