I Believe . . . South Carolina Just Got Schooled On the First Amendment

By: Zac Papantoniou

“Whatever else the Establishment Clause may mean (and we have held it to mean no official preference even for religion over nonreligion), . . . it certainly means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions). The clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another.” – U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie, ruling in the case of Summers et al v. Adams et al, quoting from Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun’s majority opinion in County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 590 (1989)

On Tuesday, a federal district court judge ruled that a special Christian-themed license plate, mandated by the South Carolina legislature, was unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie held, in Summers et al v. Adams et al, that the “special” Christian-themed plate (which was to bear a large cross superimposed on a stained-glass window and the words “I Believe”) clearly gave favored government treatment to one faith and ordered state officials not to issue the plate.

“The ‘I Believe’ Act’s primary effect is to promote a specific religion, Christianity.” – Judge Currie, in her written Opinion and Order for Summary Judgment

After a similar “I Believe” effort failed in Florida (see our posts on it: here and here), South Carolina’s lieutenant-governor, Andre Bauer, initiated legislation with the purpose of creating the “special” Christian-themed plate; that legislation was authorized last year by the South Carolina General Assembly (source). Unfortunately for Mr. Bauer and the South Carolina legislature, Judge Currie happens to be well-versed in Constitutional law and history (not to mention the First Amendment)!

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly warned that “government may not promote or affiliate itself with any religious doctrine or organization [. . .] This limitation on government action is based on the clear understanding of our founders that “a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion” (citations omitted). – Judge Currie, in her written Opinion and Order for Summary Judgment

Even better, Judge Currie’s seemingly most-pointed words were focused on the pivotal role Lt. Gov. Bauer played in initiating, and stumping for, the introduction of the unconstitutional legislation. As if she was admonishing a young child, Judge Currie wrote in the ruling, “Such a law amounts to state endorsement not only of religion in general, but of a specific sect in particular . . . Whether motivated by sincerely held Christian beliefs or an effort to purchase political capital with religious coin, the result is the same . . . The statute is clearly unconstitutional, and defense of its implementation has embroiled the state in unnecessary (and expensive) litigation.” (source).

Bauer responded to the ruling . . . by verbally attacking Judge Currie, calling her a “liberal judge appointed by (President) Bill Clinton . . . using her personal wishes to overrule the Legislature and the will of the thousands of South Carolinians who want to purchase the tags.” (source).

Bauer further cemented his nomination for “Whiny Ass-Hat of the Week” when he conclusively said that the ruling represented “another attack on Christianity.” (source).

Yeah, that must be it; obviously, Judge Currie’s ruling was just a thinly disguised declaration of war on Christianity. Not a well-researched, eloquently-written opinion, based on precedent set by (among others) the Supreme Court of the United States (like most second-year law students with half a brain, in their third week of Constitutional Law, would reasonably deduce) . . . nope, like Bauer said, clearly an “attack on Christianity.” In fact, I’m sure Judge Currie was sitting in her chambers, writing the opinion and ruling (all while drumming her fingers against one another ala Montgomery Burns), cackling aloud for no one in particular to hear, while thinking, “This ruling will serve as the pièce de résistance in plan for a one-woman, Rambo-like attack on Christianity! Mwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!!!”

Judge Cameron McGowan Currie did her job, plain and simple. She upheld the Constitution, ruled on precedent, and rewarded those who would attempt to subvert our founding fathers’ ideals, by awarding fees to the party that fought against those attempts. South Carolina’s lieutenant-governor, Andre Bauer, placed personal beliefs over the Constitution of the United States of America, and for that, I think he’s a whiny, ass-hat, that wouldn’t know his private parts from his elbow when it comes to matters of Constitutional law.

WTF, Wisconsin?! You Disappoint Me . . .

Before

By: Zac Papantoniou

If you’ve been living under a rock for the last couple of years (or possibly living “off the grid” in the back-woods of Wisconsin), you may not know that “WTF” has become a commonplace acronym for asking, “What the Fuck?” (Source). Apparently, no one told this to the people in charge at the old “Wisconsin Tourism Federation (WTF),” because once the blog “YourLogoMakesMeBarf.com” got a hold of the WTF’s logo (which prominently displayed the letters, “WTF,” above the organization’s name) and a few of the blog’s commenters had some fun with Wisconsin’s little word-blunder, the WTF took notice, and renamed themselves as the, “Tourism Federation of Wisconsin (TFW).” But the question that begs to be asked is . . . WTF?!

Wisconsin, I want to speak to you for a moment. You are “America’s Dairyland,” the land of the “Cheesehead,” and the Green Bay Packers. Wisconsin, you are known for your freezing weather bringing out legions of painted, shirtless, fat dudes, who catch flying football players in their arms, while those players are doing something called the “Lambeau Leap.”

Wisconsin, with a beer-brat in one hand and a “Milwaukee’s Best” in the other, you are that one uncle that gets drunk at the family reunion and accidently hits on your barely-legal niece . . . much to the chagrin and uncomfortable laughter of the rest of the family.

....and after.

Wisconsin, you are the unofficial home of Vince Lombardi, and Brett Fav . . . ok, scratch the last one . . . you are tough, fun, easy to get along with and could care less what the rest of us in the other 49 states think about your somewhat backwards (but always amusing) ways. So, why change the damn name of your tourism department, just because a couple of internet geeks got their jollies making fun of your logo . . . WTF?!

Wisconsin, you disappoint me. You could have left the name/logo the same and in a couple months, no one would have noticed; now, your name/logo change is being written about all the way across the pond (that’s in the U.K. for those not hip to the script). The limey’s are making fun of you now . . . we saved their ass in “the Big One”! Wisconsin, I still like you, but with a heavy heart I now have to nominate you for the “Ass-Hat of the Day Award.”

Using “Pornography” For The Purpose of Personal Retribution and Political Oppression

By: Zac Papantoniou

For most people, the hurried rush of their everyday lives allows them to bustle about their routine, often taking for granted the protections afforded to them by our country’s Constitution. In the good ol’ U-S-of-A, most people wouldn’t think twice about criticizing the government; because here, in the land of freedom and opportunity, there really aren’t any repercussions to be faced when we express our point-of-view with regard to the way things are being run. This type of willful blindness allows us to forget that people in other parts of the world are being tried as criminals for simply trying to raise awareness on a matter that is crippling their country’s healthcare system.

In Zambia, a ban on pornography is apparently being used for the purpose of personal retribution and political oppression, where Chansa Kabwela (the news editor of the country’s largest independent newspaper, “The Post”) has been arrested and put on trial for “distributing obscene images.”

Kabwela, in an attempt to call for an end to a nurses’ strike that has crippled Zambia’s healthcare system, sent two photos to the country’s vice-president, its health minister, and various human rights groups. The two photos were of a woman, who had earlier been turned away from two medical clinics, giving birth without medical help. The “obscene images” contained in the photos were of the woman’s baby in the breech position, with its shoulders, legs and arms emerging from the woman’s vagina, but with the head still inside. By the time the woman was finally admitted to a hospital, it was too late for their surgeons to save the child, which died of suffocation.

Kabwela, who states she was given the photos by the woman’s relatives, sent the photos to the aforementioned government officials. Within a short matter of time, Zambia’s President Rupiah Banda demanded a police investigation, calling the pictures “pornographic.” Quickly thereafter, Kabwela was arrested for “distributing obscene material with intent to corrupt public morals,” a charge that carries a possible five-year prison term.

However, multiple organizations are claiming that the trial is likely not about the photographs at all. According to a “BBC News” story, the independent newspaper that Kabwela works for, “has relentlessly pursued the government with allegations of corruption, and the president has made no secret of his dislike of the paper.”

After reading this story, I stopped for a moment and took note of all the freedoms I have nonchalantly taken for granted on daily basis; freedoms, that I generally don’t think twice about, like expressing my opinion about the government without fear of criminal charges being brought against me, and being able to look at porn if I should so choose (though I can’t ever recall an instance where I looked at images of a woman in need of serious medical attention, due to a breeching infant, and considered those images “titillating,” “pornographic,” or “obscene” . . . usually I see those images on “Lifetime” when I’m trying to eat dinner, which I subsequently lose my appetite for, which leads me to quietly remind myself never to flip past that channel at 7 pm again . . . EVER).

H/T to Mark Kernes at Adult Video News

Censorship in the Name of Political Correctness — Gamers Prepare to Face a New Enemy

Editorial and Comment by Zac “AGhostInTheSnow” Papantoniou

“Just when the decency police and moral values group have been all but defeated in the courts–both of law and public opinion–a new threat has emerged from our left flank: political correctness . . . The leftist thought police are now wanting to impose their view of propriety on modern cultural discourse.” – Lawrence Walters

If you love video games as much as I do, you should ingrain the name Lawrence Walters into your brain.

Walters, who has been described by some as “the Anti-Jack Thompson,” is a distinguished First-Amendment attorney and Managing Partner at the law firm of, “Weston, Garrou, Walters and Mooney”; he recently spoke at the “2009 Game Developers Conference” in a session titled, “Silencing the Censors.” (Disclaimer, Walters is Randazza’s law partner).

During the session, Walters forewarned game developers of a looming threat to the video-game industry, censorship in the name of “political correctness.” Walters cited pending legislation, in the state of New York, that aims to prohibit sales of games to minors, that have various degrees of profanity, racist stereotypes, derogatory language, and/or actions toward a specific group of persons.

The law would require New York retailers to apply warning labels to any game that contained such subject matter and would require retailers to keep all such games in a “sealed and locked container” inaccessible to customers. Non-compliant retailers – or “non-custodial” adults who purchase regulated games for minors – would be subject to a fine of up to $1,000.

I have some major points of contention with legislation such as this. First, the video-game industry voluntarily set up a self-regulating body (the ESRB), over 15 years ago, to independently rate and label the content of every game sold in North America. Attempting to enact such legislation is a waste of precious tax-payer dollars; dollars, that could be better spent on a multitude of various state needs, such as . . . oh, I don’t know, maybe . . . education?! Second, legislation based on political correctness, which would impose a $1,000 fine on an offender is both excessive and (should be) a shock to one’s conscience; especially considering the way such legislation binds the hands of parents when it comes to child-rearing. Last, but certainly not least, such legislation is an affront to one’s rational ability to use common sense, not to mention, the basic freedoms afforded by the First Amendment of the Constitution! As Walters pointed out in his session:

“Think about that for a minute. Would we ever in a million years tolerate the government passing a law that movies cannot have profanity, racial jokes, or derogatory language? That would eliminate practically every movie made,” he said.

“Now we can debate all day long whether racist stereotypes or derogatory language is even appropriate in video games, but that’s for us to debate, and not for the government to decide.”

This type of “thought policing,” as of late, has generally come from those leaning to the right of the political spectrum; but Walters warns that with the new change in the political landscape, it is ever increasingly coming from those on the left as well. We’ve seen this before, I mean, who grew up in the 80’s and doesn’t remember Tipper Gore’s “War on the Music Industry?”

This type of thinking will do us in people! Parents must be free to make decisions as to their children’s best interests; video-game developers must be free to create products and retailers must be free to sell those products as they see fit, without having to worry that they’ll be fined a grand if a minor gets their hands on a video game with mature content in it. You and I, must be free to express thoughts, ideas, expressions and creations, without having to constantly look over our shoulders, wondering if we’ll be the target of a politician’s next attempt to stifle something they find “controversial.” Because it starts here, with you and I; and if we don’t speak up for ourselves, we’ll have to then wonder, will there be anyone left to speak up for us, once the thought police come to stifle our fundamental freedoms?

I’ll leave you with something Ben Franklin once said:

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”

HT to First Amendment Bad-Ass, Lawrence G. Walters, for speaking up, and fighting for our right to play any fucking video game we choose . . . Read more: Here and Here.

The First Amendment Is Often Inconvenient… But That Is Besides the Point

Editorial and Comment by Zac “AGhostInTheSnow” Papantoniou

Ok, so we’re a little late on this one, but over the course of the last two weeks, Rogier van Bakel at the blog “Nobody’s Business” posted, commented on, and eventually “debated,” law professor Kristen Juras on the subtleties of the First Amendment.

Professor Juras is an assistant law professor at the University of Montana. Professor Juras has been in the news recently because she has a fundamental problem with the content of a weekly sex column featured in the “Opinion” section the University’s newspaper, the “Montana Kaimin,” and is written by a University of Montana senior, Bess Davis.

Professor Juras has publicly stated that the column is “embarrassingly unprofessional,” and that the subject of sex is “inappropriate for college students.” The professor also stated that the sex column not only, “. . . reflects poorly on the university’s School of Journalism and UM itself,” but also, “. . . affects my [Juras’s] reputation as a member of the faculty.” The Professor, after having her complaints in letters to the paper’s editor go nowhere, has now threatened to take the issue to the state legislature unless the newspaper establishes written policies for hiring columnists and reviewing content that could be deemed “controversial.”

While I certainly can’t agree with the Professor’s views and struggle to find the logic of her arguments, Professor Juras is nonetheless a member of the University’s community, and as such, she is free to express her view that the sex column takes up space that can be better used for other things. However, when Professor Juras was contacted by Rogier van Bakel, to respond to van Bakel’s initial post on Juras’s public threats to take her complaints to the Montana state legislature, not once does she suggest what a better use of such column space might be.

It’s perfectly reasonable for Professor Juras to have and express her opinion, but the Professor would be wise to educate herself with something Benjamin Franklin once wrote – “Without freedom of thought, there can be no such thing as wisdom; and no such thing as publick [sic] liberty, without Freedom of Speech.”

If Kristen Juras were not a law professor, I would still vehemently disagree with her view on this issue. However, Ms. Juras is a law professor; and that makes me find her arguments and threats to seek legislative action, for suppressing the free dissemination of ideas and subjects with which she personally finds “inappropriate for college students” completely repugnant.

Simply saying that you support the First Amendment just doesn’t cut it; as a law professor, you more than most, should know and understand the dangers of institutional/governmental oversight on the press and while I must disagree with Rogier that your actions amount to “professional misconduct” – they are, to me, professionally reckless. As the wise Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy once said, “The First Amendment is often inconvenient. But that is besides the point. Inconvenience does not absolve the government of its obligation to tolerate speech.”

HT to Rogier van Bakel at the blog “Nobody’s Business.” Read more of his initial post here and his second post, including Professor Juras’s response, here.

Dispatches and Link Snatches

Zac's Blog Loot!

Editorial and Comment by Zac “Tzantziki” Papantoniou and Marc J. Randazza (the “J” is for “Jefe de Los Satyriconistas”)

Breaking News: Legal Satyricon Award for “Ass-Hat of the Week” Has Been Amended to Include . . .

. . . Lucie J. Kim! Thanks go to Seth, over at QuizLaw, for alerting us to Ms. Kim’s grandiose display of ass-hattery, due solely for the filing of one of the most ridiculous lawsuits since . . . this one. How ridiculous of a suit did Ms. Kim file, you ask? Well, she filed a class action lawsuit against Miley Cyrus (another ass-hat), claiming that Cyrus mocked Asians in a recent photo by slanting her [Cyrus’s] eyes; for this, Kim is seeking $4 billion in damages.

'Yay! I hit the racism jackpot!' - Lucie Kim.

Ms. Kim has way too much time on her hands, and not enough common sense to realize how much of an ass she is making of herself. For her efforts in furthering legal-idiocy, Lucie J. Kim is a Legal Satyricon “Co-Ass-Hat of the Week.” She can pick up her award, a free lesson on “How Not to Disgrace the First Amendment” at any time, all she has to do is send in an email and claim her prize.

The award includes all she can drink

The Blind Squirrel Award Goes To….

Ken at Popehat has some unlikely props for the Beckettistas. It looks like they are sticking up for Atheists for once.

Epic Lulz: Asinine Video Game Law Pwned By the 9th Circuit

Somewhere, Jack Thompson is crying . . .

Ya, ve shouldn't have kids playing violent video games. Now vere ist my check for za last Terminator movie royalties?

Being that our very own Satyriconista, Christopher Harbin, is working on a detailed post on the matter, we pick up some appetizers from the First Amendment’s uber pwnage of a California violent video game law from Norm Kent and Jon Katz. The law attempted to mandate an additional labeling requirement on “violent” video games, along with, making the act of selling or renting the aforementioned “violent” games to minors, illegal. The idiotic law was struck down by the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for being (drum roll please) . . . unconstitutional!

When will lawmakers learn that just because “they” don’t like something, it doesn’t give them (or anyone else for that matter) the right/ability to piss all over the freedoms and rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution?! Thankfully until “they” do learn, the First Amendment will be there, waiting in the wings like a diligent hero, standing strong in stark contrast to the knee-jerk idiocy of the common government lawmaker . . . hip, hip, hooray!

Maintaining Your Health During the Battle of a Trial

Props to Jon Katz, at “The Underdog Blog,” who always gives us the angles that nobody else thinks of. This week, Jon tells us how attorneys can better maintain their physical and mental health during the battle royale, better known as a legal trial.

Many attorneys, both newly sworn in and those who’ve been around the block a few times, underestimate the rigorous toll a trial can take on ones physical and mental well-being. Jon shares some personal tips on how to maintain a “trial ready” body and mind, in his post, “How to stay healthy during trial battle?”

Recent Poll Shows That President Obama Is Capable of Defeating Terrorism and . . .

. . . Jesus? That’s right! HT to Johnny Peepers, at the blog, “Dillsnap Cogitations” for filling us in on a recent Harris Interactive Poll pitting the two men, whose middle names both coincidentally start with the letter “H”, in a battle for America’s #1 Hero; and President Obama emerged on top of Christianity’s lord and savior!

For more on the story, check out Johnny P’s post, President Obama Defeats Jesus as America’s #1 Hero.

Was This Sherriff’s Department Investigation Really Worth Taxpayer Dollars?

Mark Draughn, at “Windy Pundit,” rightfully calls attention to a ridiculous South Carolina Sherriff’s investigation into Michael Phelps’ alleged pot smoking incident. Thankfully, Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott has stated that he is not going to charge swimmer Michael Phelps (with what, I have no freaking clue) after a photo of the 14-time gold medalist showed him smoking from a “marijuana pipe”. Good, now the Richland County Sherriff’s Department can work on solving real crimes, rather than investigating photographs of someone allegedly smoking something from an alleged

Well, except for Kellogg's

“marijuana pipe” (i.e. a device commonly referred to on “the streets” as a “bong” . . . I mean, really, a “marijuana pipe?” That’s just being a little “loose” on the description of such an accoutrement; everyone knows that stoners can go all “MacGyver” on any old thing lying around their bean-bag chairs, and fashion a “marijuana pipe” in 2 min. flat out of a couple of “Lincoln Logs”, 7 inches of yarn, an eye-dropper and an empty 2 liter bottle of cola).

In related news: No Kellogg’s Munchies

Speaking of Michael Phelps. Phelps picked up a bong, so Kelloggs dropped him. NORML ups the ante by telling its members to…. umm…. oh, yeah, don’t chow down on Kellogg’s products when you’ve got the munchies and you’re watching Super Troopers for the 85th time. For some reason, I don’t think this is going to have much of an effect. When you’ve watched someone with mega munchies eat chipotle peppers covered in peanut butter, you realize that a man with the munchies isn’t about to put down the Corn Flakes over some dude who swims for a living.

The [Return of] Blog L00t!

W00t! W00t! Zac's Blog L00t!

Editorial and Comment by Zac “I Wish I Had a Cool Nickname” Papantoniou

We here at the LS (aka “Legal Satyricon” for all you n00bs), have heard the longing cries and tearful sobs of our faithful flock of readers/scallywags, who have so dearly missed the mad props to blog rollers (and biting sarcasm) offered by the “Blog L00t!”; so in the name of good taste and all that is awesome, the weekly post is making its triumphant return! With that said… on with the l00ting!

”The Audacity of Hope Hypocrisy”

Dustin, over at “QuizLaw”, starts us off with a “neat” little story that reaffirms my distaste for both Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and the sunny state of Flori-duh. According to Dustin’s post, an employee of a Jacksonville, FL, Sam’s Club, was ”reprimanded for wearing a T-shirt with Obama’s face on it.”

“Which Obama,” you ask? Barack Obama, the 44th (and current) President of the United States of America! “That’s silly,” you say, “Why would a Sam’s Club employee be reprimanded for wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with our President on it? Maybe it’s against company policy.” Nope; the “offense” was not against company policy, and even better, the employee was reprimanded by his supervisor because “[the] supervisor told him a customer didn’t like it, and [then] . . . told him to change.” Oh, Sam’s Club, where is your sense of patriotism? Don’t you know that every time you make an employee remove an article of clothing with President Obama emblazoned on it, a terrorist gets his wings?

More on Sam’s Club’s foray into the “Audacity of Hope Hypocrisy” at (and props to) QuizLaw.

Higher Education?

Rogier van Bakel at “Nobody’s Business” wrote a hilarious post about the suspension of Colorado State University’s Police Chief/Class Lecturer Dexter Yarbrough for his alleged “blunt” and “questionable” teaching methods, which included telling his students “to provide illicit drugs [crack] to informants as payment for information.”

Rogier tells it best, in his post, ”Teach ‘Em Young”. Props to Nobody’s Business.

Baseball Caps Are Not [Presumably] Proper Inauguration Attire for U.S. Senators

Something tells me that Senator Joe Lieberman should know better than to wear a baseball cap at the Presidential Inauguration, but what do I know, I’m a Satyriconista, not a fashionista. It’s a good thing Eric Turkewitz at “The New York Personal Injury Law Blog” has a keen eye (and sharp wit, to boot!) Read more about Lieberman’s Inauguration Fashion Faux Pah, and props to “The New York Personal Injury Law Blog” .

Law Firm Orders Lawyer to Stop Publishing Erotic Fiction on Her Personal Website

The headline should be self explanatory, and Ken’s post at “Popehat” is stimulating… Read more on the story at “No Sex, Please, We’re Lawyers”, props to “Popehat” .

The Catholic Church Scares Me

Andrew Sullivan at “The Daily Dish” gives us the world reason to question the sanity of Pope Benedict XVI (aka Joey Ratz) in Sullivan’s post “The Man Benedict Has Brought In From The Cold”. Apparently, being an ex-communicated Bishop with xenophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic beliefs is no good reason for the head of the Catholic church to not welcome you back to the flock with open arms. Props to Andrew Sullivan at “The Daily Dish”.

The Thanksgiving Edition Blog LooT!

W00t! W00t! Zac's Blog L00t!

Editorial and Comment by Zac Papantoniou

Hot Chicks with Douchebags Lawsuits

QuizLawreports that three (3) Jersey girls have sued the creator of the website (and author of the equally awesome book by the same name) Hot Chicks with Douchebags over the inclusion of photos of them with men who meet the strictest standards of douchiness (“see here for a prime hot chick with douchebag” example), on both the website and in the related book… Wait, when did Jersey get hot chicks?! Read more here

Props to Seth at QuizLaw

Seattle Trademark Lawyer Explains Why Dead-Elvis Made More Than You Did Last Year

Michael Atkins, over at this post on Seattle Trademark Lawyer, comments on the “Forbes List of Top-Earning Dead Celebrities for 2008” and why dead-Elvis can still kick your paychecks’ ass.

Props to Michael Atkins at Seattle Trademark Lawyer

Memo: The Journeys in Overland Park, Kansas, Should Probably Hire Smarter Non-Racist Employees

Jon Katz, at the Underdog Blog wrote this post about one Journeys (the shoe retailer) customer who probably won’t be coming back for the awesome “After Thanksgiving Day” sales…

Why you ask? Because when the customer returned a pair of shoes, his return receipt, displayed a racial epithet instead of his name under the portion of the receipt for listing customer info.

More on the story at the Underdog Blog, props to Jon Katz

Does Obesity Confer Additional Rights To Larger Airplane Passengers?

Scott H. Greenfield at Simple Justice takes a thought provoking look at a legal issue, the highest court in Canada refused to hear.

Props to Scott H. Greenfield at Simple Justice

A Fellow “Blawg Review” Hosting Partner Will Be Hosting #188 Next Week!

Eric Turkewitz at the New York Personal Injury Law Blog will be hosting the Blawg Review next week.

We here at the Legal Satyricon wanted to show Eric some love, encourage our readers to check out his post on the upcoming blawgalishisness and remind the LS faithful that the Legal Satyricon will be hosting the Blawg Review the week of Dec. 15 in honor of Bill of Rights Day!

Props to Eric Turkewitz at the New York Personal Injury Law Blog

The (sort of) Week-End Blog Loot!

Zac Papantoniou's Blog Loot!

Pre-Election Week Edition… W00T!

Editorial and Comment by Zac “I’m-ill-yo” Papantoniou

1. Seriously, making Gov. Palin look stupid is getting a bit redundant… but she makes it so easy pull off, that even French-Canadian radio DJ’s are taking their turn playing “lets-tease-the-idiot”! Listen in as Gov. “Jane Six-Pack” Palin shows off her foreign policy skillz, while attempting to chit-chat on the phone to (who she believes is) “French President Nicolas Sarkozy”

- Bonus: Read the transcript of the conversation here

[Props to Scott H. Greenfield, Esq. at Simple Justice; Scott Finch at The Daily Kos; and my roommate Cristian Maselli for pointing the story out to me in the first place]

2. The Legal Satyricon linked to this post from Salon.com, once already… but it needs to be done again Glenn Greenwald summarizes my personal distaste for far-right-wing, conservative, hypocrisy so eloquently, it’s like he’s been having sex with my brain for the last 8 years…

[Props to Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com]

3. For those graduating law school with me this May, who are [also like me] really worried about getting a job after passing their respective bar exams…. Have no fear, because “Above the Law” had a post, just this week, discussing Jennifer Hudson’s fiancé/VH1 reality star/Harvard Law grad David “Punk” Otunga’s newest, post-law school (non-traditional) employment plans!

[Props to Above the Law]

4. One piece of knowledge that has been passed down to me pounded into my head, by a really smart attorney/professor (who will remain nameless), is that you always treat your/any paralegal with the utmost respect and cordiality. He didn’t explain to me that this could happen, but I will surely not be on the wrong end of a beheading thanks to that man’s infinite wisdom…

[Props to Seth at QuizLaw]

5. EPIC FAIL for this ass-hat – FilmDrunk wrote a hilarious post about the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) getting weepy-eyed [dripping with sarcasm] over some guy who was handsomely rewarded for pleading guilty to illegally recording the films Enchanted and 28 Weeks Later, by being “sentenced to 21 months in a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison…”

[Props to FilmDrunk]

The Westboro Baptist Church Lives to Protest Another Day

Yes, even this speech is protected by the First Amendment

by Zac Papantoniou,
Correspondent of that which is awesome and bad-ass

Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficient. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding.

- U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1928)

Fred Phelps and his daughter, attorney Shirley Phelps-Roper, along with members of the church Phelps founded (the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kansas (WBC)), are well-known for their anti-gay protests at the funerals of American troops killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I would venture to theorize that most people dislike (to put it nicely) the actions of those involved with the WBC (see here, here, here, here for examples) and especially here. As the church’s attorney, Phelps-Roper routinely defends the WBC’s beliefs/actions in the media and in the courtroom. In direct correlation to the WBC’s protests, several states have enacted laws prohibiting/restricting protests at funerals which carry criminal penalties, including time in prison/jail and fairly hefty fines.

In 2007, Missouri enacted Missouri Revised Statute 578.501 which criminalizes picketing in front of a funeral location or procession, and Missouri Revised Statute 578.502 a “fall-back” provision, which would narrow the scope of 578.501 (requiring that protesters/picketers stay 300 ft. away, rather than completely prohibiting the protest/picketing entirely, from a funeral/procession). It should be noted, that 578.502, would only come into effect should 578.501 be ruled unconstitutionally broad by a court. In October of 2007, Phelps-Roper brought suit in the Western District of Missouri on behalf of the WBC, challenging the validity of § 578.501 and § 578.502, under the freedom of speech protection of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. In addition, Phelps-Roper also requested a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of § 578.501 until the statute could be reviewed.

The district court denied Phelps-Ropers motion for a preliminary injunction, holding “she did not demonstrate she was likely to succeed on the merits, did not demonstrate irreparable harm, and the public interest weighed in favor of upholding the challenged statutory provisions.” Phelps-Roper appealed, and the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision, finding Phelps-Roper met the standard for the issuance of a preliminary injunction. Phelps-Roper v. Nixon, 509 F.3d 480 (8th Cir. 2007). The Eighth Circuit then granted a petition for rehearing to consider the modified standard the Court had articulated for demonstrating a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits under a more recent case, Planned Parenthood v. Rounds, 530 F.3d 724, 732 (8th Cir. 2008).

Yesterday, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals again held that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to grant the preliminary injunction to Phelps-Roper. Specifically, the Court found that:

1) plaintiff was likely to prove any interest the state has in protecting funeral mourners from unwanted speech was outweighed by the First Amendment right to free speech; 2) there was enough likelihood plaintiff will be able to prove the statute is not narrowly tailored or is facially overbroad; and 3) she was likely to prevail in proving the statute fails to afford open, ample and adequate alternative channels for the dissemination of her particular message that God is punishing America for the sin of homosexuality by killing Americans, including soldiers. (Opinion)

In other words, the Court says that Phelps-Roper is likely to prove “that any interest in protecting funeral mourners from unwanted speech is outweighed by the First Amendment right to free speech, that the statute is not narrowly tailored or facially over-broad, and that the statute fails to afford open, ample and adequate alternative channels for dissemination of her particular message.” Therefore, a preliminary injunction should be granted in order to rightly err on the side of the First Amendment. The Court emphasized that they were not (at least for the present moment) determining the constitutionality of § 578.501, they were merely deciding that Phelps-Roper is entitled to a preliminary injunction while the constitutionality of Missouri Revised Statute § 578.501 is thoroughly reviewed.

Say what you will about Phelps-Roper and the WBC; hell, I’d love to invite them to a blanket party at my apartment; but the fact of the matter is, we don’t need the First Amendment to protect popular speech. The First Amendment was contrived by our forefathers to protect unpopular speech in order to allow the marketplace of ideas to flourish. In their infinite wisdom, the founders sought to protect dissent and nurture new thought by limiting the Government’s ability to limit expression. While the Court did not issue an opinion on the constitutionality of Missouri Revised Statute § 578.501, I find comfort in knowing that the Eighth Circuit got it right, at least for one more day. See also Soldier Funeral Protests and Why I Reluctantly Side With Westboro Baptist Church.

[W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution.

-Oliver Wendell Holmes dissenting in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)

The Blog Loot!

Zac Papantoniou's Blog Loot!

Editorial and Comments by Zac “Rediculous” Papantoniou

The “Blog Loot” is a new, weekly post, here on the Legal Satyricon. Essentially, it’s showing a little love to the blogs that make up our list of “Recommended Blogs” by running around to our favorite blogs and looting them of some of their more interesting recent content.

1. Someone call Gil Grissom… Maryland criminal defense attorney/blawger Jon Katz, of the Underdog Blog, asks (and attempts to answer) an age-old question of law, ”Should fingerprint evidence be banned from court?”

[Props to the Underdog Blog]

2. A Jacksonville, FL, church attempted to redefine their “fire and brimstone” Sunday-sermon… “Members of Christ Church Anglican . . . gathered [last] Sunday for an unusual religious ceremony that involved torching X-rated old movies in a fire pit…”

[Props to Cary Wiggins, over at “Meeting the Sin Laws”]

3. A new look for the Pepsi brand, or just a clever way for the illiterate to understand which beverage they’re drinking? (Here’s a clue… look closely at the logos on the bottles)

[Props to Marty at The Trademark Blog]

4. I’m pretty certain this is what Ben Franklin was referring to when he wrote, “[T]hose who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

[Props to Andrew J. Contiguglia at Contiguglia's Entertainment Law Blog]

5. Do plants feel pain? Ok, so it’s a little left of legal quandaries, but with all the seriousness going on over at the Legal Satyricon, somebody had to make a ridiculous post. Lucky for you, “ridiculous” is my middle name, because this post sounds like a topic best contemplated, when one is in a relaxed state of mind… Ann Althouse brought up the topic, for her readers, to ponder on a bit.

[Props to Ann Althouse at her blawg Althouse]

The Only Officially Certified Sane Lawyer in Florida… a Lawyer no More

Na na na na, na na na na, hey hey, good bye!

by Christopher Harbin and Zac Papantoniou

At the stroke of midnight on October 25th, Jack Thompson will finally be booted from the guild. Disbarred. For those not in the “know,” Jack Thompson is a conservative, “Christian” activist and formerly-licensed attorney in the state of Florida. Over the years, Thompson has railed against numerous perceived “evils” of the modern era, such as, “nasty” rap lyrics, Howard Stern and most notably, violence in video games.

In certain respects we have to admit that JT’s tenacity and fervor for crusading across the nation, filing lawsuit after lawsuit for the causes he believes in is somewhat admirable; however, it is our opinion that he has no place in being part of a profession that demands… well, professionalism – because even the Florida Supreme Court seems to believe that Jack simply doesn’t have any. Don’t believe us? Read for yourself.

In our limited time around lawyers and law school, there generally appears to be a fair amount of hypocrisy involved in this line of work, but Jack Thompson takes the cake. His email address, affixed to every one of his rambling, offensive, distasteful, poorly-reasoned motions is: amendmentone@[withheld].com.

Seriously, JT?

Then They Came For Me… A New Age of McCarthyism and The Witch-Hunt For “Obscenity”

“In Germany they first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me – and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.“

- Pastor Martin Niemoller, Dachau, 1944

In 2005, the U.S. Department of Justice created the Obscenity Prosecution Task Force (OPTF); according to their website the OPTF is:

“[D]edicated exclusively to the protection of America’s children and families through the enforcement of our Nation’s obscenity laws… investigates and prosecutes the producers and distributors of hardcore pornography… and is mounting a determined effort to coordinate resources at all levels of government to give people the protection the laws are intended to provide.”

Oh, isn’t it grand, to be alive and kicking in the Third Reich United States of America today! In the past month alone, the OPTF has successfully charged and prosecuted American’s for:

a. “non-existent obscenity”;

b. “movies made-by, exclusively-for, only available-to and purchased-by, consenting adults”; and most recently,

c. “films created by a self-described ’shock’ artist.”

The L.A. Times ran a story today, regarding the above-mentioned, Government prosecution of Ira Isaacs, a Hollywood filmmaker who describes the videos he sells as “works of art.” His artistic expressions feature scenes which would, admittedly, make most people queasy. Some scenes in his videos include acts of bestiality, defecation and consensual adults having sex. “The sex,” he says, “is incidental to the art. It’s merely a marketing tool to drive sales of the videos on the Internet.” He adamantly argues, that the whole purpose of his films, is to shock the viewer (I mean, he wouldn’t a very good ’shock’ artist if his art contained only scenes to tickle ones’ funny-bone). However, in a turn of (hopefully) good fortune, the judge presiding over the case (the honorable Alex Kozinski, chief judge of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) is seen as a staunch defender of free speech. Judge Kozinski even led a successful effort to have filters banning pornography and other materials from computers in the appeals court’s Pasadena offices, removed.

Only time (and a panel of jurors) will tell, if the thought police will win this important battle for free speech and expression; but in the meantime, do not sit idly by as your First Amendment rights are ripped out from under you. We are at war with our own government; who apparently would love nothing more, than to waste the tax dollars we pay them, in order to fight a mythical “enemy.” You may not agree with others’ tastes of artistic expression; or others’ opinions of what “art” is; and you may find the artistic expression “disgusting,” “distasteful,” and even “nausea-inducing.” That does not give anyone, including our government, the right to censor free speech and expression, without a substantial cause. As Supreme Court Justice Kennedy once said,

“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”

Heed these words; great men and women, have shed unfathomable amounts of blood, sweat and tears, throughout the history of this great nation so that you and I may enjoy the rights instilled in us by the Constitution. Write to your representatives, senators, judges, journalists and anyone else that will listen; tell them (eloquently) that you adamantly disagree with the recent positions taken by the Department of Justice, prosecutor’s offices and the judiciary. Let them know that you will not stand for your rights, freedoms and civil liberties being taken away because a minority of the country, filled with ultra-conservative zealots, has had their ears for the last few years. Educate them, on the fact, that you won’t be voting for those who allow those zealots to conduct modern-day witch hunts, ala Joe McCarthy, for non-existent threats, harms or enemies. Most importantly, you must fight, in every legal way possible; fight against the growing tide, of those who wish to oppress you in the name of protecting you; because,

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

Do not go gentle into that good night… Rage, rage against the dying of the light; IF WE DON’T STOP THEM NOW, they will eventually come for you and me, and by that time there will be no one left to speak up for us.

- Zac Papantoniou (Guest Blogger)

An Inside Look at the Adult Entertainment Industry’s Fight to Stamp Out Child Pornography

Many anti-porn activists like to try to connect adult entertainment with child pornography as a means to build support for their desire to roll back the First Amendment. Let’s face it, screaming “protect the children,” is a good way to get a lot of people to set aside logic and get them on your side.

However, those who have any regular contact with the adult entertainment industry already know that the industry has zero involvement with productions involving children. In fact, the adult entertainment industry is the child pornographer’s worst enemy. Robert D. Richards and Clay Calvert recently published an article that shines some light on the facts. See Untangling Child Pornography From The Adult Entertainment Industry: An Inside Look at the Industry’s Efforts to Protect Minors,” 44 Cal. W. L. Rev. 511 (2008)

Calvert and Richards highlight the efforts of the Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP, http://www.asacp.org/page.php). Anti porn zealots would probably be surprised to learn that ASACP, founded in 1996, is a non-profit organization fully funded by the adult entertainment industry to fight internet child pornography and to help parents prevent children from viewing age-inappropriate material online. ASACP investigates thousands of reports per month to determine the hosting, billing, IP address, ownership, and linkage of suspected child pornography sites and then forwards the information to law enforcement, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), and hotlines in other countries.

The article includes interviews with attorneys and activists in order to shed light, on how ASACP works to fight internet child porn. The interviews highlight the difficulty the adult industry faces both in stopping politicians from linking mainstream adult entertainment to child pornography and in changing public perception about this conflation.

“In a highly ironic twist, while adult entertainment industry-funded ASACP is aiding law enforcement to stamp out child pornography, the FBI is simultaneously conducting age-verification and record-keeping inspections, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2257, of adult movie companies to ensure they are not using underage performers, which would be tantamount to creating child pornography.”

Calvert and Richards dispel some popular misconceptions about the adult entertainment industry, such as the fanciful problem of underage performers in the mainstream adult movie business.

ASACP director Joan Irvine states, “I do not see one [a problem with underage performers] and, in fact, there really hasn’t been one. The adult industry is by adults and for adults. We don’t see it, people aren’t doing it and it is not worth it.” On politicians who have tried to link the adult porn industry with child pornography, “[t]hey didn’t get the distinction between them. I also really do believe that the current administration is generally anti-adult entertainment. There are almost no data that could ever even show that the adult industry was involved with underage children in movies and, thus, child pornography. With our hotline, for the first time, we actually have empirical data that show no involvement. Before, the industry didn’t have that data, so the government could say, “Go show us the data.” Irvine goes on to recall how, “[a]t one of the last meetings that I went to, Dan Larkin, an FBI forensic specialist, said “We know the industry is not involved in this and that it is organized crime that is involved in child pornography, mainly out of the Eastern European bloc countries.”

The article discusses how adult entertainment insider, Alec Helmy, started ASACP. Helmy “wanted to have a place where Webmasters could report it and not feel that they were going to be investigated for reporting it, because we don’t keep IP addresses.” The article sums up the ASACP’s ongoing fight against child pornography and those who make and distribute it, quoting Irvine again, “[c]hild pornography doesn’t exist in the industry, but the perception exists. Child porn is a big one, but we’ve gotten it to a point where we have a handle on it and we’re working with the right people. They know and recognize us for being able to handle it.”

In an “academic” environment too-often polluted by anti-freedom crybabies, it is refreshing to see work like this — work that actually examines the facts about the link between adult porn and child porn. Once the “link” is effectively examined, the authors come to the unshakable conclusion that not only is there no connection, but that the adult entertainment industry is a child pornographer’s greatest enemy and worst nightmare.

-Zac Papantoniou (guest blogger)

Congratulations to Alexis Lambert, Florida’s New Sunshine Law Attorney!

On Monday, June 2nd, Florida’s Attorney General announced the appointment of Alexis Lambert as the new Sunshine Law Attorney for the Office of the Attorney General.

In Florida, every person has been granted the Constitutional right to inspect or copy any public record with some exemptions, and the Sunshine Law provides a right of access to government proceedings at both the state and local levels. These essential laws afford citizens of the state the ability to see behind the curtain of government and remain involved in the processes that affect their lives. Without this access there is little accountability, and accountability is vital for good government. – Source

Basically, Ms. Lambert will oversee and manage the openness of Florida’s state government, ensuring that every citizen of Florida is granted the Constitutional right to inspect or copy any public record not exempt by law. Ms. Lambert holds a bachelor’s degree in Spanish and a master’s degree in Education from the University of Florida, where she also earned her law degree in 2004. She is a member of the Florida Bar and began working as an Assistant Attorney General in February 2007. She also serves as legal counsel to the Council on the Social Status of Black Men and Boys and the Florida Commission on the Status of Women.

Most importantly, Ms. Lambert received a glowing approval from Barbara Petersen, President of the First Amendment Foundation, who said:

“I’m pleased that Attorney General McCollum has appointed Ms. Lambert as Sunshine Attorney… Florida citizens enjoy a historic right of access to the records and meetings of their government and it’s critically important that the citizens have a voice and an advocate when it comes to open government. I look forward to working with Ms. Lambert.”

FL Attorney General, Bill McCollum, made a great choice in Alexis, who he referred to as, “… [A] person of integrity who has my trust and respect.”

We here at the Legal Satyricon couldn’t agree more and offer our warmest and most sincere congratulations to Alexis and Florida’s state government for hitting a home run.