|
September 2007
NEW
YORK
A Street Performer Crusades for the First Amendment
By
Anemona Hartocollis, New York Times
9-26-07 --
What is the purpose of the First Amendment? . . . That was the
question before a judge in Manhattan Criminal Court yesterday,
as a street performer named Reverend Billy, a k a William Talen,
faced charges of harassing police officers in Union Square Park
by reciting the First Amendment to the Constitution. . . . Mr.
Talen — the white-suited, blond-pompadoured leader of the mock
Church of Stop Shopping who is perhaps
best known for his crusade against Starbucks — was arrested June
29. He had joined a protest against the city’s new permit
requirements for the monthly Critical Mass bicycle rally and
proposed restrictions on photographers and filmmakers in public
places. . . . He was charged with two counts of second-degree
harassment, under a statute originally intended for use against
stalkers. He was accused of following a group of officers while
repeatedly reciting the 40-odd words of the First Amendment
through a megaphone, the kind commonly used by cheerleaders. . .
. After his arrest, Mr. Talen said, he was jailed for 20 hours,
first in a Gramercy Park precinct house, then in the underground
Manhattan Detention Complex, popularly known as the Tombs, where
he felt compelled to live up to his stage name by ministering to
the less fortunate. In the precinct house, he said, he provided
pastoral counseling to a young man who was crying after he was
arrested for carrying a joint in his pocket. In the Tombs, one
of the medical attendants recognized him and offered to put him
in a “special” cell, which turned out to be for mental patients,
Mr. Talen said.
CONNECTICUT
Sunshine Law Is Applicable To Judiciary, Too
By
Morgan McGinley
9-24-07 -- The state's judiciary, always an
able and professional cadre, is making progress regarding its
historic Achilles heel — its propensity for secrecy. With Gov.
M. Jodi Rell, Supreme Court Chief Justice Chase Rogers and
former Acting Chief Justice David Borden all advocating the need
for transparency in the courts, the engine of court reform
regarding public disclosure motors down the track toward a
suitable finish line. . . . A recent meeting of the
judiciary-media committee organized by Borden and headed by
Appellate Court Judge David S. Lavine demonstrated there is a
common desire to seek common ground for progress. Editors,
reporters and judges are working together to make the courts
more understandable and, more open. . . . And why is
transparency so important? Because open government develops
public confidence in the judiciary and because the Bush
administration has attacked vigorously the rule of law. Now more
than ever, judges need to open up the process and reinforce
public confidence that justice dispensed in the courts is fair
and objective.
NEW
JERSEY
Local School Kids' "Hitler Youth" Buttons Get Court's OK
New
York Lawyer, By David Porter, The Associated Press
9-24-07 -- Two students in Bayonne, N.J. can wear buttons featuring
a picture of Hitler youth to protest a school uniform policy, a
federal judge ruled Thursday. . . . U.S. District Judge Joseph
A. Greenaway Jr. sided with the parents of the students, who had
been threatened with suspension last fall for wearing the
buttons. However, the judge added in his ruling that the boys
will not be allowed to distribute the buttons at school. . . .
Citing a 1969 case in Iowa involving students who wore black arm
bands to protest the Vietnam War, Greenaway wrote that "a
student may not be punished for merely expressing views unless
the school has reason to believe that the speech or expression
will 'materially and substantially disrupt the work and
discipline of the school.'"
December 2006
Defamation on the Internet:
With Courts Strongly
Supporting Website Users' Immunity from Suit, Should Would-Be
Plaintiffs Resort to ReputationDefender.com?
By Julie Hilden
12-11-06 --
On November 20, in the case of
Barrett v. Rosenthal, the California Supreme Court issued
an important opinion relating to Internet defamation.
In the opinion, the court invoked the federal statutory immunity
created by
Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA)
to dismiss a claim of defamation based on the publication of an
Internet posting. . . . In holding in favor of the defendant,
the court made crystal clear that someone who is the target of
Internet defamation has only one legal recourse: To go after the
"originator" of the publication - meaning, typically, its
author. The California Supreme Court didn't applaud this state
of affairs from a policy perspective, and it's true that Section
230 could always be amended at some future date, but the court
was quite unequivocal as to the broad protection afforded to
defamation defendants under current law. . . . The decision was
notable because it came from the state's highest court. However,
as the California Supreme Court itself pointed out, it was far
from the first to apply the immunity: To the contrary, the
immunity has been "widely and consistently interpreted [by
courts] to confer broad immunity against defamation for those
who use the Internet to publish information that originated from
another source." . . . In light of this reality, what should
those who believe they've been defamed on the Internet do? In
this column, I'll consider the various options - including the
one provided by the website
ReputationDefender.com.
March 2006
WASHINGTON
New rule to make sealing court
cases more difficult
The state Supreme Court approved
tighter rules governing when judges can seal court records.
The Washington Supreme Court approved rules that will make it harder for
judges to seal files in state court cases. Under the revisions,
judges should seal records only if "compelling privacy or safety
concerns'' outweigh the public interest in the court record. . . .
The change, effective July 1, came on the heels of a Seattle Times
series that revealed that at least 420 civil cases have been
improperly sealed in
Washington's King County Superior Court since 1990 in lawsuits
about medical malpractice, personal injury, domestic violence,
child molestation and other topics. Although the high court
approved the change only days after the series began, the revision
has been in the works since 2003. . . . General Rule 15 makes it
clear that a party's desire to keep records private is not a good
enough reason for secrecy and that in lieu of blocking access to
entire files, judges should try to remove sensitive information.
The new rule also requires judges to explain in writing their
reasons for sealing a case.
NEW
YORK
Back in Class After Expulsion
Over Paper
By
Michelle York
Last week, a professor at Le Moyne College gave a homework assignment
that made one of his students, Scott McConnell, groan. The
students were asked to write a paper explaining why they wanted to
teach. . . . "I said, 'Can I skip that one?' " said Mr. McConnell,
27. "Some of the other students laughed." . . . Not because they
thought he was a slacker. They knew that the last paper Mr.
McConnell wrote led to his expulsion, newspaper headlines and a
yearlong court battle. . . . In fact, Mr. McConnell returned to
classes only after a state judge directed the college in late
January to reinstate him, saying the school had not followed its
procedures by ousting him without prior warning. . . . Mr.
McConnell's paper advocated corporal punishment in the classroom
and dismissed multiculturalism. It soon led to questions about his
fitness to be a teacher, and whether the college had violated his
right to free speech. . . . "This is the only case I know of where
a college flat-out expelled a student because of a paper," said
Terence J. Pell, president of the Center for Individual Rights, a
Washington law firm that specializes in First Amendment cases and
represented Mr. McConnell.
Suits Against Anti-Cult Blogger
Provide Test for Online Speech
Self-styled 'deprogrammer' says litigation is the price he pays for
using the Internet to expose cult practices
Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law
Journal
1-20-06 --
Lawsuits are occupational hazards
for anti-cult blogger Rick Ross. . . . Sued a half-dozen times
during the past decade for his public pronouncements, especially
on the Internet, he's managed to win all but one case, with the
help of pro bono counsel. His latest close call came in December
when Landmark Education, a promoter of self-help seminars,
withdrew with prejudice its federal suit in Newark alleging
defamation. . . . But Ross, of Jersey City, knows certain groups
still have him in their sights. Posts on his Web pages --
culteducation.com, cultnews.com and rickross.com -- are replete
with data about what he labels as cults or otherwise suspect
entities, including al-Qaida, the Ku Klux Klan, the Church of
Scientology, Jews for Jesus and Amway. . . . "If I wasn't getting
sued by some of these groups, I'd wonder if my work was really
having an effect," he says. "The fact that Landmark Education sued
me was a testimony to the power of the Internet."
INDIANA
Ind. Lawmakers & Citizens Pray
Despite Court Order
David
M. Bresnahan. NewsWithViews.com
1-7-06 --A court order was issued to prevent prayers that mentioned Jesus Christ
during the sessions of the
Indiana legislature, but that did not stop protestors from praying
anyway when the lawmakers began their 2006 session on Wednesday. .
. . More than 50 members of the Indiana House of Representatives
gathered in a huddle at the rear of the chamber and held a prayer,
in the name of Jesus Christ, just a few minutes before the opening
gavel that began the session. . . . Both Democrats and Republicans
were seen participating in the prayer. Citizens also gathered and
offered prayers in other locations within the capital building. .
. . For 189 years the Indiana House has started each daily session
with a prayer, but because of a lawsuit by the Indiana affiliate
of the American Civil Liberties Union a judge ruled the prayer
could stay, but the name of Jesus Christ could not be mentioned. .
. . House Speaker Brian C. Bosma and others voiced a loud protest,
and on the opening day of the session demonstrated their
objections with a prayer. . . . The official prayer has been
dropped because of the ruling by U.S. Federal Judge David
Hamilton, Southern District of Indiana.
|
