Guest Blawger Sam Lea: The New Marketplace of Ideas Remains Open for Business

Blogging, an often controversial area of the “marketplace of ideas,” has just won a victory over an overzealous attorney, who improperly sought to silence one of his clients critics.

In an Order handed down by the District of New Hampshire, Judge James R. Murihead levied sanctions against Clifford J. Shoemaker, Esq., for “an abuse of legal process, a waste of judicial resources and an unnecessary waste of time and expense to the purported deponent.”

The “purported deponent” is blogger Kathy Seidel of the weblog Neurodiversity.com, where she post articles by herself and others concerning the possible link between autism and exposure to mercury. After posting a particularly critical article of Mr. Shoemaker’s extensive litigation efforts in the area of Vaccine Injury Compensation Program claims, Ms. Seidel received a subpoena for Mr. Shoemaker’s most recent autism case involving Sykes v. Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corporation. The subpoena requested in the judge’s words “…every scrap of paper related to autism, her website, her tax returns, and her communications with the government.

Mr. Shoemaker defends by stating that Seidel is a co-conspirator with Bayer, “…or by some organization dedicated to harassing this Plaintiff and her witnesses.” The judge found this to be completely unsupported by any facts and recognized that Seidel was “openly and extensively exercising her First amendment right to speak on the issue.”

This is good news for bloggers in light of some of the recent litigation involving the blogosphere and free speech. Additional sanctions are may come from the Virginia State Bar, once they review the above Order from the court. Further and more extensive condemnation of the scare tactics used by Mr. Shoemaker will hopefully have a lasting effect and serve to caution future attorneys who may decide to use the government, via the court system to curtail or chill free speech adverse to the positions held by themselves and/or their clients.

Perhaps Mr. Shoemaker should be ordered to maintain his own blog for a while so that he may truly get a sense of how well his own ideas can withstand the test of the Market.

Sam Lea is a 3L at Barry University School of Law

Guest Blogger Correct says Supreme Court…

Today the Supreme Court handed down District of Columbia v. Heller. The background of the case is available here:

http://randazza.wordpress.com/2007/11/24/guest-blawg-jonathon-blevins-on-the-second-amendment/

The agonizing 64 page decision can be found here:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-2901.pdf

To summarize Justice Scalia’s opinion, the Second Amendment plainly means what it says…The people (individual) has the right to keep and bear arms. The Court bridged the gap between gun nuts and regulation hippies by providing a laundry list of potential valid restrictions on firearm ownership, use, and storage. The case is seminal in its subject matter but limited in its power.

Heller is not the end of the story regarding the Second Amendment. The case simply means that DC’s absolute prohibition on firearms is unconstitutional and the individual has a “theoretical” right to keep and bear arms. The right is “theoretical” because the individual right to keep and bear arms is only applicable against the federal government. DC is a under federal law. Thus, the states may still restrict firearm ownership within its boundaries so long as it does not conflict with the ruling. The next step is incorporation via the Fourteenth Amendment. It is only a true right when we are ALL protected from state and federal intrusion.

While the Heller decision is a great day for individual rights and freedom lovers, it is a sad day for the “independent judiciary.” The Court was split 5-4. The rift was down the middle, conservatives v. liberals:

The issue split the court along conservative and liberal ideological lines, with Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito in the majority. Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and David Souter dissented.

The highest court in the nation should be truly independent. One should be unable to predict the outcome of a case based on political ideology. However, the Court proved it is continually susceptible to outside pressure. The Court should rule on logic, reason, and precedent…NEVER donkey v. elephant…this is an issue for a later debate.

The First Amendment has some backup in the fire power of the Second Amendment.

Jonathon Blevins

Guest Blogger - Professor Birdsong on Barack Obama and His Pastor

BARACK OBAMA AND HIS PASTOR – AMERICA ON RACE
BY BIRDSONG

Birdsong is not an oracle. Yet, Birdsong is always asked difficult questions. This week people have been asking Birdsong: “Are Barack Obama’s chances to become President of the U.S. doomed because of his association with his allegedly fiery Pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.” Snippets of Wright’s sermons where he has condemned America for its racism and militarism have floated around the internet for several months. This past week those snippets have been the fodder of cable TV news and have raised the specter that Obama is not a loyal American and perhaps a danger to the U.S. if he were to become President.

More after the jump:

Anti-Hillary Hypocrisy?

One of my most stellar former students (and one who was never afraid to take me on in class), Mr. Jeffrey Fuller chimed in on the Clash of the Anti-Hillaristas posting with some very interesting research:

With that introduction, I yield the floor to Mr. Fuller:

I went over to the C.U website and was surprised when I saw C.U’s General Counsel and Vice President is Michael Boos. He was the plaintiff in Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312 (1988). C.U.’s website explains it this way:

The case involved a successful constitutional challenge to a Washington, DC law that prohibited the carrying of signs or banners near foreign embassies, if those signs or banners were designed to bring the foreign government into “public odium” or “public disrepute.” The law had been selectively enforced to prohibit demonstrations near the Soviet Embassy.

If any one is worthy of the ass-hat award, it is Mr. Boos. His intellectual dishonesty amazes me. On one hand he argues, he has a first amendment right to protest foreign embassies in a way the embassies find offensive. Then twenty years later asks the court to ignore the first amendment and prevent someone else from exercising their first amendment right because it offends his organization.

For this hypocrisy Mr. Boos should be considered for the ass-hat of the year award.

Guest Blawg: Jonathon Blevins on the Second Amendment

I have my own opinions on the Second Amendment that can be boiled down to this: The Second Amendment says what it says. While I will agree that it might not be socially desirable to have unfettered gun ownership in a nation of idiots, I can not pick and choose which rights guaranteed by the Constitution I may find socially desirable.

Mr. Blevins is the Chief Justice of the Moot Court Honors Board at Barry University School of Law. He has done a lot of research on this issue lately, and asked me why I hadn’t blogged on it.

Which got me thinking… why should I when I can just ask him to. What follows is his essay, which I am proud to present here at the Legal Satyricon.

Andrew Contiguglia on School Search and Seizure Case

A recent case on the further erosion of Constitutional rights in the schools caught my eye. The news article is here.

Since this is a bit beyond my traditional areas of expertise, and it takes place in Colorado, I asked Colorado Attorney and brother FALA member, Andrew Contiguglia to share his thoughts on the matter. His thoughts were so extensive and well reasoned that I elected to inaugurate a new tradition of inviting guest bloggers to comment on interesting cases (an idea I stole from one of my other favorite bloggers, John Welch)

Without further ado, here is Mr. Contiguglia’s take: