Toilet Law School Files Feces Defamation Suit

Thomas M. Cooley Law School Diplomas - Take One!

By Marc J. Randazza

I’m not much of a prestige whore, but I’m not blind to the reality that Thomas M. Cooley Law School is a standalone punchline within the legal profession.  I’m familiar with its absurdly large class sizes, its questionable practice of culling the bottom few percent of its students each year to ensure high enough bar passage rates to maintain its tenuous grasp on ABA accreditation, and its bizarre self-ranking system that places an inordinate emphasis on library seating capacity.  After all, “[t]o study, a student needs a place to sit”! (source at xiv.)  Also, if the NFL based its draft selections on US News-style rankings – if they applied to football programs – only 30% of NFL quarterbacks would be on a roster!  Think that sounds like Bullshit?  It’s a major rationale for Cooley’s student recruiting.  Still confused?  Welcome to Cooley Law.

Cooley is an abysmal institution. And, as a blind squirrel eventually finds a nut, and a broken clock is right twice a day, Cooley does accidentally drop decent lawyers into the system on occasion. However, the general public’s esteem for lawyers would improve above cockroaches and approach Nigerian e-mail scammers if this dump were to close its doors — at all four(!) campuses.

And as evidence that Cooley really is the Righthaven of law schools — I present to you this lawsuit it filed against four critical John Doe defendants is even worse.

Naturally, those who climbed up out of the Cooley garbage disposal, only to find themselves with a mortgage-sized chunk of non-dischargable debt and the indelible resume stain of a Cooley law degree, were a bit pissed at the school.  So, a number of people – presumably alumni, former students, or even current ones – began posting at a blog titled “THOMAS M. COOLEY LAW SCHOOL SCAM.”  This is the basis for Cooley’s lawsuit.

If the four defendants had asked me for pre-publication review, I would have advised them against making some of their statements without presenting supporting evidence.  But that poses an even larger issue for Cooley: What if the people it’s suing for claiming the law school’s employees conceal their identities, and are on the take from financial institutions, are correct?  Is Cooley ready for discovery relating to the alleged investigation of “serious Title IV violations”?

Plain and simple, this is a SLAPP suit.  If Cooley were in California, Oregon, Texas, or DC, the Doe defendants would be looking at a healthy payday from Cooley, and would have pro bono representation lined up around the block.  Alternatively, if Rep. Steve Cohen had his way in enacting a federal anti-SLAPP statute, the defendants would have that protection at home.  But because this action is pending in Michigan, the defendants have no such recourse.  Hopefully they won’t have to retain Cooley grads to defend them!

It’s out of character for me to dump on law schools and their graduates out of prestige concerns.  But Cooley truly is on a level all its own in embodying all that is wrong with legal education.  At the very beginning of its Complaint, Cooley brags about having the largest enrollment and four campuses, as if this is a mark of accomplishment.  Harvard and Georgetown have large law school enrollments – but they also send many of their students, and likely the preponderance of them, onto gainful employment – or employment period.  

Can Cooley say that more than half of its graduates in any given year are employed in the law, or at all?  If someone is accusing your nationally mocked law school of being a scam, perhaps bringing a lawsuit over such allegations isn’t the best way to disprove them.  The louder one screams about something, the more likely it is to be the truth – and allegations of “lur[ing]” students to a school so they may be “prey[ed]” upon isn’t something that should be dignified, let alone potentially substantiated, with a lawsuit — if it’s untrue.

Even if the allegations against Cooley are false — so what?  They’re anonymous comments on a blog that are not going to be heralded as being immutable reality.  If the comments are true, then this is the dumbest thing Cooley could ever do.  Considering how many members of Cooley’s faculty are school alumni, though, is it any surprise nobody advised the school otherwise?  

This lawsuit is a heinous crime against free expression.  May an even worse pox than the one currently afflicting it befall that institution for turning the courts into an instrument to beat down free speech and censor the reality that everyone – including many jobless and hopeless Cooley alumni – knows to be true: Cooley sucks.

Read the Complaint.

Too Sexy for Crisp Skin?

By Tatiana von Tauber

Too sexy for some head?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) thinks this chicken is just too sexy for anyone to see, “downright offensive” in fact. 

“When I saw it I just couldn’t believe that an editor of The New York Times would find it acceptable,” PETA’s founder and president Ingrid Newkirk told The Atlantic Wire. “It’s downright offensive, not just to people who care about animals but almost to everyone. It’s a plucked, beheaded, young chicken in a young pose,” she said. (source)

Newkirk went on to call it “necrophilia.” I think PETA needs a sense of humor.  This is brilliant from every angle!   

Texas Abortion Runs Afoul of the First Amendment

A Texas law designed to deter abortion will remain enjoined.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, of Austin, blocked enforcement of significant portions of the sonogram law on Aug. 30, until the case is resolved. Sparks found the law violates the First Amendment, ruling that requiring doctors to show a woman seeking an abortion the sonogram images, describe those images to her or play the sound of the fetal heart, even against her wishes, is unconstitutional. (source)

5th Circuit Rules in Favor of Student Speech Rights

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that students who handed out christian-centric materials to other students had a First Amendment right to do so. School principals who prohibited this student-to-student speech violated the students’ First Amendment rights, the Court held.

“We hold that the First Amendment protects all students from viewpoint discrimination against private, non-disruptive, student-to-student speech,” Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in a part of her opinion, joined by nine of the 16 participating judges. “Therefore, the principals’ alleged conduct—discriminating against student speech solely on the basis of religious viewpoint—is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.” (source)

I guess I have to say “yay Jesus!”

Give it a rest already – Myths and Facts about mass copyright litigation

by Vaughn Greenwalt

The latest criticism of mass-copyright litigation follows the same mantra of previously-pissed patrons: “I know I stole your porn but I’ll be embarrassed if anyone finds out so you can’t sue me!” Cut the crap already, “shame” is not a legal defense.

Lets play fact or fiction with the latest misleading article which was, oddly enough, endorsed by the EFF:

1. FACT: “The lawsuits name ‘Doe’ defendants until they can unearth the true identities of those accused of downloading porn through their Internet providers.”

Naming Doe defendants is the only way to bring suit against thieves who steal Copyright protected works over the Internet. The identities of those thieves is only ascertainable once the personally identifiable information associated with the thieves Internet Protocol address (“IP address”) has been subpoenaed.

The industry isn’t blackmailing thieves with the prospect of naming a Doe defendant, it is the only legal course to obtain requisite discovery.

2. FICTION: “The adult entertainment industry has dubbed [John] Steele the ‘Pirate Slayer.’ Steele calls the lawsuit a simple defense against copyright theft.“

Fact: Steele named himself “Pirate Slayer,” and most of the industry mocks him. When he showed up to a conference wearing a badge that said “Pirate Slayer,” he immediately gained the nickname “Buffy.” That’s what the adult entertainment industry calls him — Buffy. And it isn’t a compliment.

Every studio has separate and distinct legal counsel and thus a separate and distinct legal strategy. While I cannot speak to the strategy employed by Mr. Steele, I can speak to the strategy employed by the Editor of this blog – it is anything but simple.

Without violating my ethical duty of confidentiality and privilege, I have been in many a meeting in which special emphasis was placed on “doing it right.” Efforts to safeguard the privacy of the defendants, fairness to the defendants, an opportunity to defend before being named as a defendant, and forewarning of the suits before suits were filed. In addition, some studios offered amnesty to those who sought to protect their privacy.

3. FICTION: “The intent of these lawsuits is to get peoples’ identifying information and attempt to extort settlements out of them” – Corynne McSherry, EFF’s Intellectual Property Director.

Ms. McSherry’s dogmatic whining borders on mental illness. Perhaps she should look up the definition of “extortion.” Words mean something. This word means to obtain money or property to which one is not entitled by threats or coercion. When a copyright owner seeks redress under the copyright act, the copyright owner is seeking restitution in a manner specifically authorized under the law. McSherry should not use big words without supervision if she doesn’t know what they mean.

Copyright’s purpose is to foster the creation of creative works. The music industry has already been economically gutted thanks to the likes of Napster, Kazaa and Limewire; the porn industry is seeking to avoid that very same fate. If protection is weakened so too is the drive to create and thus all suffer (even those of us who enjoy it late at night while our partner is sleeping). If copyright protected content is freely distributed among torrenters, then studio membership is impacted, which then impacts studio revenue, which then impacts studio quality and quantity, which then in-turn further impacts studio membership, which ultimately impacts the studio’s very existence.

I hope the EFF recognizes the difference between dissent and disloyalty (I really love you guys!). However, I find it odd that the Director of Intellectual Property is tossing grenades at those who would seek to protect their own Intellectual Property.

4. FICTION: “The so-called “mass copyright” cases all follow the same format: an adult film company sues scores of anonymous defendants, alleging a particular movie was pirated using the popular file-sharing technology BitTorrent. The number of defendants can be staggering, dwarfing the scope of the music industry’s lawsuits; there were 2,100 Does named in one recent San Jose case, and 23,000 in the largest thus far in Washington, D.C.”

As referenced above, every porn studio has independent legal counsel complete with independent legal strategy, while some attorneys may look for the quickest and most efficient way to make a buck for their clients, others, like my Editor, do not.

Some attorneys, while legally proper to sue 23,000 defendants in a single suit, put their law clerks through WEEKS OF PURE TORTURE to determine the location of the individual IP addresses and group them based on state and federal judicial district. Once determined, suit is brought against them in their home state and district and regularly reduces the number to less than 100 Doe defendants in any single suit.

Again, some attorneys take great pain to make litigation fair for thieves.

5. FACT: Mark Lemley is… eh…. brilliant?

I have been to many symposiums where Mr. Lemley has proposed theoretically brilliant additions to U.S. Intellectual Property Law. I have witnessed, in sheer awe, his ability to dismiss, answer and be condescending all in a single sentence.

However, Mr. Lemley’s brilliant theoretical ideas are not so brilliant when it comes to actual litigation and practice . Incredibly, Lemley provided a brilliant addition to the subject article regarding the porn industry’s torrent suits: “… it made people at the margins nervous about file sharing… people are going to think twice about doing this.” Lemley is absolutely correct in his assessment. THIS is the ultimate goal of the porn industry’s torrent litigation; not to shame the pron-viewing public (honestly, isn’t that all of us?) for their lunch money, but to deter the theft and infringement of their Intellectual Property.

The simple answer to EVERY concern opponents of mass-copyright litigation has is incredibly simple: Theft is theft – no matter the medium. STOP STEALING SHIT AND YOU WON’T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT!!!!

Sarah Palin Threatens a SLAPP Suit. Stupid? You Betcha!

By Marc Randazza

Sarah Palin always seems to be talking about families.  Despite bashing that door open, she takes such umbrage when anyone mentions her own.  So, When writer Joe McGinniss starts digging for facts and sources to complete his book “The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin,” what does Sarah do?  She lawyers up and threatens to sue… you betcha!

If this strikes you as unseemly – a former governor and vice presidential candidate who clings to whatever relevance she has left by making noise about seeking the presidency and touting her unfortunately named family, threatening to sue for investigative journalism about her background – then congratulations: You’re not a mendacious piece of shit.

The United States Constitution is quite clear on this issue: Public figures must prove actual malice (i.e., knowing falsity or a reckless disregard for the truth) to prevail in a defamation action. N.Y. Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).  This is a particularly applicable when the public figure is also a politician, and the speech addresses matters of public concern – namely someone’s fitness for office and prior conduct when wielding (and abusing) executive power. See Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983).  This kind of political speech is the most highly protected by the constitution and the very lifeblood of a functioning democracy. Consider this quote from the “God Hates Fags” case.

Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1219 (2011), citing Tex. v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 414 (1989).

If the Constitution provides such strong protection for the Westboro Baptist Church spewing its stupidity and hate, is there any doubt about reporting on a politician’s fitness for office? Of course, but there is no need to invoke the highest ambitions of the Constitution and the lofty rhetoric that accompanies them.  Sarah Palin is a bully, and not a very smart one, so we’ll keep this in terms she and any her attorney can understand.  Her legal threats can be debased by the law within Alaska’s boundaries, without having to look outside the state – to Russia or elsewhere.

Alaska is no stranger to the public figure doctrine. Lowell v. Hayes, 117 P.3d 745, 751 (Alaska 2005); Mt. Juneau Enters., Inc. v. Juneau Empire, 891 P.2d 829, 834-35 (Alaska 1995).  In Lowell, the plaintiff sought declaratory relief determining that the defendant had defamed him, arguing that the actual malice standard would not apply to such an action — as it had only been used in actual defamation claims in the past.  The Alaska Supreme Court soundly rejected this argument. Lowell, 117 P.3d at 757.

In Mount Juneau, the Alaska Supreme Court adopted the test used to determine whether a plaintiff is a public figure in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Incorporated, 418 U.S. 323, 345, 351 (1974).  The Mount Juneau court articulated its criteria thusly:

For the most part those who attain this [public figure] status have assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society. Some occupy positions of such persuasive power and influence that they are deemed public figures for all purposes. More commonly, those classed as public figures have thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved. In either event, they invite attention and comment.

[...]

[The public figure] designation may rest on either of two alternative bases. In some instances an individual may achieve such pervasive fame or notoriety that he becomes a public figure for all purposes and in all contexts. More commonly, an individual voluntarily injects himself or is drawn into a particular public controversy and thereby become a public figure for a limited range of issues.

So let’s go down the checklist.  Roles of especial prominence in the affairs of society?  Former governor, former vice presidential candidate, and on-again, off-again presidential hopeful. Check.  Occupy positions of “such persuasive power and influence” that she is a public figure for all purposes?  I can escape her state, but cannot avoid her on television, in the bookstore or in the hackneyed catchphrases of soccer moms.  Sadly, that’s power – and the worst kind. Check.  Thrusting (heh) herself to the forefront of public controversies? CHECK CHECK CHECKITY CHECK.  That’s exactly what got her here – and now that she can’t get her and her idiot kids to relinquish the spotlight, she thinks she can sue it away.  Not quite, Sarah.

Whether by the designs of others or her own half-witted ambition, Palin is undoubtedly a public figure under Alaska law.  And while the speech promulgated by McGinniss and other investigators is of interest to everyone, it is of particular interest to the poor souls known as Alaskans, as so much of Palin’s scrutinized past relates to her mismanagement of the state.

This is to say nothing of the Streisand Effect, though that ship likely has sailed.  If there is anything we don’t know about Sarah Palin, we’re going to find out, as she carries the burden of proving the statements about her are false. Mt. Juneau, 891 P.2d at 835; see also Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 11-17 (1990).  If Palin cannot prove that the statements she objects to in the book are false, she’s going to have a lot of problems trying to tamp them down in the future – and, indeed, her failed defamation crusade may open new investigations and speculation about the half-term former governess.

Indeed, even under Alaska’s laws, Palin has a steep hill to climb:

Actual malice involves a subjective inquiry into a speaker’s intent — specifically, whether he knew that his defamatory statement was false or recklessly disregarded the possibility of its falsity.  A plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the declarant acted with knowledge of the statement’s falsity or in reckless disregard of the statement’s truth or falsity.  To show that a declarant recklessly disregarded the truth or falsity of published material, a plaintiff must show that the declarant entertained serious doubts as to the truth of the publication.  A defendant’s failure to make a prior investigation into the accuracy of published statements does not, by itself, constitute actual malice.  Neither does a defendant’s incorrect usage of a key term or word whose meaning is reasonably disputed.  Thus, the actual malice standard is a difficult one to satisfy.

Lowell, 117 P.3d at 751 (internal quotations and citations omitted).

In short, it looks like Palin’s threatened litigation is about as viable as her presidential campaign.  But, God bless her misguided heart, don’t let that stop her.  If Alaska had an anti-SLAPP statute, I would not merely refrain from discouraging this litigation, I’d dare Palin to bring it.

Righthaven on the small screen

By J. DeVoy

I recently caught up with a college friend who does not work in law, who asked me about Righthaven since he had read several articles linked on this blog and on my facebook account.  I explained the status of the approximately 18-month litigation campaign.  After a few moments of confused silence, he told me it would be much easier to understand as a documentary or made-for-television movie.

So what format would make the Righthaven story comprehensible?

Documentary

Pros: Designed to present information, and people engage one with a longer attention span.  Documentaries have been used to tackle complicated factual and legal issues, such the Enron scandal and more recent economic collapse.  If a former (or “recovering”) lawyer like Michael Whiteacre approached the project, the material would translate well.

Cons: Documentaries are always accused of having an agenda, even when made as fairly as possible.  Dig! made the Brian Jonestown Massacre look like a band of aimless drug addicts, despite being vastly more creative than the Dandy Warhols.  Before The Light Takes Us underplayed Satyricon’s role in black metal and probably made Count Grischnackh out to be more philosophical than he was in the early 1990′s.  American Psycho made people working in finance look like insensitive jerks.  These were not intentional motives of the directors, but natural consequences of editing the film available to make the movie.

Made-for-TV Movie

Pros: Large budget, and will reach many people.  Can be spread out over several nights.  Everyone wins when the network tries to buy rights to their likeness to avoid even possibly getting sued.

Cons: Will be made accessible to many people, which requires things like dumbing down the facts and law until neither are comprehensible.  Will fall prey to the ratings trap and depict IP lawyers as 6’3″ alpha bros with square jaws and biceps capable of curling 250 lbs.  Viewers would ask “which one was Casey Anthony?”

Brazil denies reality, considers banning racy lingerie ad

By J. DeVoy

It has not been a good week at Tom Brady’s house.  First the Patriots lost to the Buffalo Bills, perennial failures and four-time consecutive Super Bowl losers, and now Brady’s better half, Gisele Bundchen, might have her ad for an intimate apparel company banned in Brazil.  Sure, she probably got paid already, but it doesn’t auger well for repeat business.

Naturally, feminists are to blame.

Brazil’s Ministry for Women called Wednesday for the suspension of a television ad featuring lingerie-clad supermodel Gisele Bundchen, saying it reinforces the stereotype of women as sex objects. (source.)

On one hand, the Latin world is very machismo and I can see why this would be a concern in some areas.  To the extent women want to work, they shouldn’t have to face constant degradation and criticism.  Although, if they don’t  have to work, that seems like a pretty sweet deal.  I’m still looking for my sugar momma so I can strike out “Have Career” from my calendar for the next 40 years and replace it with something like “do Ketamine and watch Dr. Who.”

On the other hand, it’s an ad, and sex sells.  Sex especially sells lingerie, which exists to encourage sex in the first place.  You can’t really divorce sex from this product unless you have Ben Stein deliver some kind of monologue about the undergarments’ erotic qualities.

The TV ads [depicting Bundchen in lingerie and heels as she explains to her husband that she wrecked the car, exceeded her credit limit, etc.] send a message “that sensuality can melt any man” and “encourages Brazilian women to use their charms… to minimize the reactions of their husbands,” the ministry said. (source.)

Point of information: This is true.  Does anyone seriously dispute this?  One can still be “equal” and play to their strengths.  in fact, this is the kind of approach we should be encouraging with women, as opposed to training them to rationalize every error to be someone else’s fault, and to charge into any disagreement as if it’s a contentious arbitration.  Know what the latter approach has made women?  Miserable.  Baking cookies for your husband before telling him you wrecked his credit is not that bad of a tactic for all involved.  As they say, if you’ve got it, flaunt it.

The Ministry for Women’s argument rests upon flawed logic, assuming that women must choose between “independence”  (which ironically entails working for someone else most of the time) or supplicating their men by acting sweet and feminine.  Both can coexist, and Brazil’s women will not have to choose between having long hair and soft voices or possessing any degree of self-sufficiency.

Economically, the suppression of beauty benefits those who lack it (whether absolutely or relatively).  It’s why middle-aged women hate their husbands watching porn, and obese girls chide skinny ones for looking “unhealthy,” telling their waif peers that they “should really eat a cheeseburger” — or four.  I can understand the desire to maximize one’s market position, especially when it’s held by only the most tenuous grasp.  But don’t gussy it up as being “for women’s own good.”  Just like every other charlatan who screams that some sweeping restriction of freedom is “for the children!” – or just “terrorism!” – the people pushing this agenda are full of crap, and nobody with firing brain synapsis should listen to them.

Righthaven loses in Colorado

By J. DeVoy

Yesterday, the District of Colorado dismissed Righthaven LLC’s copyright infringement lawsuit against Leland Wolf and the It Makes Sense Blog in Righthaven LLC v. Wolf et al., Case Number 1:11-cv-00830.  The Wolf case was the only active matter in Righthaven’s 57 cases filed in the District of Colorado, as the more than 35 cases that were ongoing when Wolf moved to dismiss Righthaven’s lawsuit were stayed pending the outcome in Wolf. (The approximately 25 other suits presumably settled.)  Leland Wolf and the It Makes Sense Blog were represented by Randazza Legal Group and Contiguglia / Fazzone P.C.

The Court’s Order, authored by Judge Kane, is available here.  Judge Kane summarizes his Opinion and Order in this opening paragraph:

The issue presented in this case, whether a party with a bare right to sue has standing to institute an action for infringement under federal copyright law, is one of first impression in the Tenth Circuit. After considering the parties’ written and oral arguments and analyzing the constitutional underpinnings of federal copyright law, the legislative history of the 1909 and 1976 Copyright Acts, and the meager precedent available from analogous situations in other Circuits, I hold that the answer to that question is a forceful, yet qualified, “no” and GRANT summary judgment to Defendant Leland Wolf. Furthermore, pursuant to 17 U.S.C. § 505, Righthaven shall reimburse Mr. Wolf’s full costs in defending this action, including reasonable attorney fees.

Apparently Judge Kane has ordered Righthaven to show cause by October 7 why its other cases should not be dismissed in the wake of this ruling. (Source.)

More coverage available at:

Vegas Inc.

Ars Technica

the EFF’s DeepLinks Blog

Techdirt

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

 

 

The best parodies / derivative uses always involve muppets

By J. DeVoy

This is the trailer for The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo.  It was a popular book, so naturally I neither read nor cared about it.  Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails fame scored the movie, which includes a cover of Led Zepplin’s Immigrant Song, performed with Karen O of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs.

Never to be outdone, Disney promoted its Thanksgiving offering, The Muppets, with an advertisement spoofing The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’s, titling it “The Pig With The Froggy Tattoo.”

Perhaps internet memes and user-generated content have come full circle to influence the muppets’ formal marketing.

Still, it’s not quite as good as this classic:

S.C. Public School Invites Christian Rapper to Perform

I understand why people want the government and the public schools to back up their religion. Here you have a bastardization of a 2000 years old cult. It is based upon lies, fairy tales, and superstition. How else are you going to perpetuate this set of beliefs without brainwashing impressionable young kids with it, or getting the government to stamp its seal of approval on it?

If christianity is such a good idea, it ought to sell itself without this blatantly unconstitutional foolishness.

H/T Death and Taxes

Two chicks making out…

…is apparently not allowed on Southwest Airlines. (Source)

It is allowed, and encouraged, on The Legal Satyricon.

University Pig Decides She Will Not Tolerate a Challenge to her Authoritah

A professor at University of Wiconsin – Stout, put up a poster from the sci fi series, Firefly. The poster had some macho shit on it about where and when the character would kill one of his enemies. Some worthless fuckhead in the school’s administration (Lisa Walter, the chief of police) lost her shit, and hadthe cops come tear down the poster.

Miller was contacted by Lisa Walter, the chief of police/director of parking services, and informed that “it is unacceptable to have postings such as this that refer to killing.” She also warned the astounded professor that any future such posts would be removed and would cause him to be charged with disorderly conduct. (source)

So the professor put up this poster in its place:

And so Chief Walter said “ok, point taken,” and gave the professor back his original poster, and everyone learned a nice lesson about the First Amendment.

NAH, Just kidding.

Chief Walter decided that disobedience of her authoritah would not be tolerated, so she sent cops back to the professor’s classroom to tear down that poster too.

with Chief Walter claiming this time that the problem was that the poster “depicts violence and mentions violence or death.” She went on to say that “it is believed that this posting also has a reasonable expectation that it will cause a material and/or substantial disruption of school activities and/or be constituted as a threat.” Seriously. (source)

As if the Victim Studies departments on college campuses had not done enough damage to free expression, here come the TSA agent rejects. Fortunately, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education is on the case.

Student Suspended for Saying Homosexuality is Wrong

A Texas teenager expressed his opinion that, since he is a “christian,” he believes that homosexuality is wrong. Makes sense. This magic space zombie jew created heaven and earth, but the thing that really makes him mad is if two guys’ dicks touch.

His teacher wrote him up for expressing his opinion, and the school suspended him.

I’m all for giving the kid a smackdown, but like his speech or not, it was his First Amendment right to express his opinion. As long as he wasn’t being disruptive in class (and nothing in the story indicates that he was), then it seems pretty clear that the school stepped over the line. There is a report that the kid often brings up the issue, any chance he gets, in an effort to harass his teacher (who he seems to think is gay). But, even then, suspending him for frequently expressing his opinion is troubling.

Unfortunately, the Dallas Voice, a LGBT website has jumped in on the side of the teacher. (source) I find it most unfortunate that the Dallas Voice is jumping in on the side of “its tribe,” instead of the greater principle of freedom of expression.

The cause of equality would be far better served by gay rights groups standing up in favor of the kid’s right to express himself.

The Saudis broke my irony meter

The Canadians have a TV ad that touts Canada’s “ethical oil.” This is in contrast to Middle Eastern oil, which comes from dirty piece of shit regimes run by lowlives who hang out with the Bush family. The Saudis are apparently threatening legal action, because they don’t want the Canadians reminding people of what Saudi Arabia really stands for. (source) In other news, my irony meter just exploded.