News & Media

In 2013, Nevada passed the best Anti-SLAPP law in the country. Under this law, NRS 41.660-670, when someone files a lawsuit designed to stifle First Amendment protected expression, that lawsuit gets thrown out quickly, and that lawsuit comes with a price tag for the censorious plaintiff. The law strikes a good balance too – it still allows for valid lawsuits designed to protect a person’s good reputation. I handle lawsuits on both sides, plaintiff and defendant, and I have never feared an Anti-SLAPP law in California or Nevada, when putting my signature on a complaint. Why? Because I don’t file

The Las Vegas Review Journal points out that the polls are showing that Nevadans oppose Senate Bill 444 by more than 100 to 1. See Will Assembly serve the elite or the masses?

My latest CNN Column is a bit of a sneak peek of the upcoming publication of my thesis in the Nevada Law Journal.

Senate Bill 444 cuts the guts out of the Nevada Anti-SLAPP law. Don’t just take my word for it: The Las Vegas Review-Journal is against Senate Bill 444. The Sparks Tribune is against it. TechDirt has an opinion, guess what it is. PopeHat has an opinion too. The Elko Daily? Nope, no support for Senate Bill 444 there either. This bill has to die.

Senate Bill 444 was a sneak attack on free speech in Nevada. It wasn’t announced in advance, like most legislation. To the extent anyone would have seen it, it got put on the agenda under the innocuous name “Revises provisions governing civil actions.” But, what it really does is cut the guts out of the Nevada Anti-SLAPP law. Don’t just take my word for it: The Las Vegas Review-Journal is against Senate Bill 444. The Sparks Tribune is against it. TechDirt has an opinion, guess what it is. PopeHat has an opinion too. The Elko Daily? Nope, no support for

The Elko Daily has chimed in on Senate Bill 444. (here) It should come as little surprise that they’re against it too. So far, we have liberals and conservatives, both aligned on the common ground that Senate Bill 444 is terrible for Nevada. How often does that happen in America nowadays? I hope, I really hope, that it continues. Senate Bill 444 was a paragon of sleaze. It wasn’t announced in advance, like most legislation. To the extent anyone would have seen it, it got put on the agenda under the innocuous name “Revises provisions governing civil actions.” Why do

Senate Bill 444, the sneaky attempt to gut Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP act, does not seem to have too many friends (just one, last I counted). Thomas Mitchell at The Sparks Tribune provides us with an eloquent explanation of why the bill should go down in flames.

Conservatives (not all of them) loved it when we got tough on “crime.” No knock warrants, militarized police, doors bashed down, homes invaded, it all worked to keep a little Reagan-inspired law and order. Now a conservative activist finds herself on the ass end of this normalized police abuse. Welcome to the party. You see, Republicans? This is why you should be pissed off when you see the cops kicking down doors to arrest poor people on suspicion of having a bag of weed in their house. This is why when you see them dragging black people out of their

Legal academia largely rejects the notion that professors should have practice experience. Yeah, its the only profession in the world where you teach people to do something, and it is a disadvantage to have actually done the job you’re training people to do. Sorta like if you had a motorcycle mechanic’s school, but you only wanted instructors who could tell you about the origin of the socket wrench, but who had not ever actually performed an oil change. The WSJ profiles Charlotte Law Professor, Brian Clarke . Specifically, how he opens up to his students about his own depression issues,

Well, it looks like we know who pushed to kill Nevada’s Anti-SLAPP statute. Video here. And why? Because he got the Pwned while representing Steve Wynn in California. Here’s the loss.

It looks like a bill is working its way through the Florida legislature that could turn it’s terrible Anti-SLAPP law into one that is of the “not so bad” variety. Florida House bill 1041 and its Senate companion, Senate bill 1312, take Florida Statute § 768.295 from “completely useless” to “hopeful.” Currently, Fla. Stat. § 768.295 is super anemic. It only applies to governmental entities. Florida has another Anti-SLAPP act that only applies to homeowners’ associations (but not condo associations). See Fla. Stat. § 720.204(4). As far as I know, § 768.295 has never been used. On the other hand,

I don’t know Jose Arcaya. I only know about him. I know that he is apparently a psychotherapist and a lawyer. I know that someone wrote a bad Yelp! review about him. I hired Arcaya to help with a case. I asked him at the outset if he had handled these matters before and he said yes. The ensuing performance suggests otherwise. When I mentioned his truly pitiful performance he implied that it was my fault. When i reminded him that he was the lawyer and hired to do a professional job he made fun of my medical issues. Absolute

After reading this, if you are against SB 444, come back and click here: Choose SB 444, and voice your displeasure to this anti-freedom and anti-business bill. Anti-SLAPP statutes are there so that free expression doesn’t come along with a side helping of bankruptcy, if your speech offends the wrong person. They don’t protect you from liability for real defamation, but they do protect you from being dragged through three years of litigation over a claim that never should have been brought in the first place. You see, that’s how the bastards win. If they don’t like your political speech,

A long time back, I wrote about a Third Amendment claim in Nevada. (source) A few weeks ago, Judge Gordon rejected the plaintiff’s Third Amendment claim. (source)

My latest CNN column – sparked by a recent controversy, but illustrating an ongoing theme of enforced ignorance.

The TTAB is looking to add a member to its ranks. (source) This is the perfect candidate, since she seems to be explaining the TTAB’s prevailing view in Section 2(a) cases, with just about as much logic as any written decision handed down by the TTAB. [youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJMiKvnIUjQ&t=82]

This Boston Globe article discusses how fucked up imprisonment rates are. (source) It is pretty shocking how much more likely you are to go to jail if you’re black. Black high school drop outs have a nearly 70% chance of incarceration. You’re seven times more likely to go to jail if you’re black than if you’re white. But, this “all” statistic doesn’t make it clear if the high school dropout rate skews the “all” category. Nevertheless, this makes one thing pretty clear — if you’re black, you can cut your chances of going to jail by almost 66% by staying

Because if you question the victim, you’re committing the crime of perpetrating “rape culture.” Well, you know, unless the story is complete bullshit. Then, I guess that “rape culture” is just a nasty way of pronouncing “the truth” or “due process.” See Erik Wemple, Charlottesville police make clear that Rolling Stone story is a complete crock.

In Knoxville, Tennessee, a Christian church put up what proved to be a controversial sign. The sign read, “Remember, Satan was the first to demand equal rights.” And a shitstorm ensued, of course. Some people found this to be a swipe at gays seeking equal rights. (source) I think, however, they’re looking at it the wrong way. Lets look at Christian mythology. Who is this “God” character, and who is this “Satan” guy? Lets look at it with a little bit of a critical eye. The first thing we need to remember is that the victors write the history books.

Last week’s post “There will never be a nigger in SAE” has been sanitized for mass publication. See What we risk when we ban racist speech at CNN.com.