An Activist Law Firm
A mere seven years after the 2000 election, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has finally handed down Porter v. Bowen, ___ F.3d ___ (9th Cir. 2007). I’ve been particularly
The Department of Justice, protecting you from obscenity, recently indicted California resident Ira Isaacs for distributing erotic videos that are “far beyond the mainstream.” Now brace yourselves. The videos have
Well, now they’ve gone and done it. Someone finally filed a lawsuit to have 18 U.S.C. § 48 declared unconstitutional. (Previous post here).
Towering Rage, Luxury condo developers up the ante with critics, Broward New Times, July 26, 2007. Earlier posts on this subject: Slapp Happy? Related Group v. Stranahan House Related Group
Well, now they’ve gone and done it. Someone finally filed a lawsuit to have 18 U.S.C. § 48 declared unconstitutional. (Previous post here).
Interesting story from the Boston Globe, the Boston newspaper that Judge Murphy didn’t sue. He apparently used his judicial stationery to write notes trying to bully the Herald into giving
More discussion on this to come, but an interesting First Amendment issue. And no, that isnt a double entendre.
The 11th Circuit is generally known as a constitutionally protective circuit. Not lately. Aside from its reversal in Johnson v. Tampa Bay Sports Authority, it recently issued a horrifying decision
There really is something stomach churning about a judge filing a defamation action. (See related post on Murphy v. Boston Herald). This one, however, really makes me a bit unsettled.
Freecycling, is the act of giving away usable but unneeded items to others. Freecycling harnesses the power of the Internet to connect people who have stuff with others nearby who
LodgeNet Entertainment Corp. supplies pay-per-view movies to America’s hotels, and “Focus on the Family” (FOF) says, “In August, family advocates will ask the Department of Justice to investigate and bring
The Boston Herald, already stung with a $2 Million libel verdict, upheld in a questionable decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, just wired the plaintiff an additional $1.4 million
