First Amendment - Anti-SLAPP - California Constitution - grpub.net

First Amendment


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76
In the DMCA, Congress enabled copyright owners to obtain pre-litigation discovery of alleged infringers (17 USC 512(h)). After sending a takedown notice, the copyright owner can apply for an unmasking subpoena, which the clerk of the court must issue without any discretion or review by a judge. This fast lane is a historical anachronism; it does little to balance the privacy interests of the alleged infringer. Knowing what we know now about the dangers of unmasking subpoenas, I would like to think that Congress would draft 512(h) with more privacy sensitivity today. 512(h) subpoenas rarely produce court opinions because the copyright owners get the subpoena automatically and the services usually automatically comply with the subpoena. This case is unusual because the Doe defendants attempted to quash the subpoena. The court rejects the Doe defendants’ efforts, and it gives us a little more insight about 512(h) along the way. The copyright owner is Julia Allison Baugher,…
Resisting the Menace of Face Recognition - October 26, 2021 - Adam Schwartz
Face recognition technology is a special menace to privacy, racial justice, free expression, and information security. Our faces are unique identifiers, and most of us expose them everywhere we go. And unlike our passwords and identification numbers, we can’t get a new face. So, governments and businesses, often working in partnership, are increasingly using our faces to track our whereabouts, activities, and associations. Fortunately, people around the world are fighting back. A growing number of communities have banned government use of face recognition. As to business use, many communities are looking to a watershed Illinois statute, which requires businesses to get opt-in consent before extracting a person’s faceprint. EFF is proud to support laws like these. Face Recognition Harms Let’s begin with the ways that face recognition harms us. Then we’ll turn to solutions. Privacy Face recognition violates our human right to privacy.…
The First Amendment Coalition (FAC) seeks applicants to join our growing team for a full-time legal fellowship for one year, with the possibility of renewal for a second year. We seek a highly motivated lawyer with excellent credentials and a...
The Week That Will Be - October 25, 2021 - Emily Dai
Event Announcements (More details on the Events Calendar) Tuesday, October 26, 2021, at 9:30 a.m.: The Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing to examine security in Afghanistan and in the regions of South and Central Asia. The committee will hear testimony from Colin Kahl, under secretary of defense for policy and Lt. Gen. James Mingus, director for operations of the Joint Staff. Tuesday, October 26, 2021, at 10:00 a.m.: The House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management will hold a hearing to examine whether FEMA’s assistance programs are adequately designed to assist communities before, during and after wildfires. The committee will hear testimony from Andrew Phelps, director of the Office of Emergency Management for Oregon; Rich Elliott, deputy chief of Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue in Washington; Kacey KC, state forester and fire warden of the division of forestry in Nevada; and…
Publishing Summons in Quiet Title Actions – What is Required - October 25, 2021 - Law Office of James J. Falcone
A real property title defect will prevent you from selling your property or eventually cause future problems. When there is an issue regarding title to real property, a quiet title action is pursued which results in a court order clarifying the parties’ rights and interests. Such issues include ownership, and rights to ownership, removal of liens, boundaries, easements, licenses, and options. If a defendant who has a potential claim cannot be located or served, the court may order that they be served by publication of summons. The legal requirement is that the publication must “particularly describe the property,” plus provide its “common designation.” In a recent decision out of Riverside, the plaintiff was disappointed to learn that publishing just the Assessor’s Parcel Number did not qualify. In Douglas HUMPHREY v. Peter D. BEWLEY, the trial court ordered service of the summons and first amended complaint by publication. Humphrey filed…
MGFB Properties, Inc. v. ViacomCBS INC., 2021 WL 4843905, NO. 5:19cv257-RH-MJF (N.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2021) The Flora-Bama lounge and entertainment complext is “regionally famous,” and MTV created a national TV series, MTV Floribama Shore. The district court granted summary judgment on the resulting trademark claims, reasoning that plaintiffs’ likelihood of confusion showing was “not strong enough to meet the standard that applies to artistic works. This is so in part because the plaintiffs and defendants use the competing marks in substantially different settings.” From the fact section: The record gives no reason to believe that, had there been no Flora-Bama, the defendants would have come up with the name Floribama Shore on their own. This does not mean, however, that the defendants intended to benefit from the plaintiffs’ goodwill. The defendants believed the name Floribama Shore was superior on its own merit to such alternatives as…

Anti-SLAPP


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76
by Paul Alan Levy Our latest effort to defend the right to speak anonymously about issues of public concern brings us up against Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Last summer, Kennedy spoke at a rally convened by the German far right to protest government restrictions aimed at corralling the COVID pandemic. Kennedy was, apparently, the third choice speaker, after appeals from a rightwing group called Querdenken to Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin went unheeded.  But when this group learned that Kennedy was coming to Germany for other reasons, it issued a public invitation and he responded. The German right waxed rhapsodic about the way in which Kennedy’s presence was lending legitimacy to their activity. The rally and his speech were widely covered in the mainstream media, which reported that his rally was heavily attended by neo-Nazis  and that a variety of antisemitic and neo-Nazi factions  had been involved in organizing the event. Kennedy was infuriated by this…
2021 CEQA 3rd QUARTER REVIEW - October 13, 2021 - Abbott & Kindermann, William W. Abbott, Diane G. Kindermann, Glen C. Hansen and Daniel S. Cucchi
Welcome to Abbott & Kindermann’s 2021 3rd Quarter cumulative CEQA update. This summary provides links to more in-depth case write-ups on the firm’s blog. The case names of the newest decisions start with Section 3 and are denoted by bold italic fonts. 2020 CEQA UPDATE To read the 2020 cumulative CEQA review, click here: https://blog.aklandlaw.com/2021/01/articles/ceqa/2020-ceqa-4th-quarter-review/ CASES PENDING AT THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT There is 1 CEQA case pending at the California Supreme Court. The case and the Court’s summary is as follows: County of Butte v. Department of Water Resources, S258574. (C071785; 39 Cal.App.5th 708; Yolo County Superior Court; CVCV091258.) Petition for review after the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal in an action for writ of administrative mandate. This case presents the following issues: (1) To what extent does the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq.) preempt application of the California…
Wednesday: What’s Hot on CanLII - October 13, 2021 - Administrator
Each Wednesday we tell you which three English-language cases and which French-language case have been the most viewed* on CanLII and we give you a small sense of what the cases are about. For this last week: 1. Canadian Thermo Windows Inc. v. Seangio, 2021 ONSC 6555 [74] The whole point of s. 137.1 is to prevent a plaintiff from inflicting substantial costs on defendants in order to chill their participation in expressions on matter of public interest. Without the stay under s. 137.1 (5), the full panoply of expensive procedural steps under the Rules of Civil Procedure would remain open to a plaintiff who knows that an anti-SLAPP motion is being scheduled in Civil Practice Court. An interpretation allowing that outcome risks frustrating the intention of s. 137.1. (Check for commentary on CanLII Connects) 2. R. v. Friesen, 2020 SCC 9 [26] As this Court confirmed in Lacasse, an appellate court can only intervene to vary a sentence if (1) the sentence is demonstrably unfit (para.…
September 2021 Law Faculty Publications & News - October 6, 2021 - fjhinojosa
Throughout the month of September, the Law Library received alerts for full-time TTU Law Faculty publications and news. Below is a compilation of those daily alerts for September 1st to September 30th, 2021. Articles, Essays, and Reviews 1. Brie Sherwin, et. al., Service Learning in the First-Year Research and Writing Classroom in Integrating Doctrine and Diversity: Inclusion And Equity in the Law School Classroom (2021). 2. Amy Hardberger, et. al., Groundwater Governance for Conflict-Affected Countries, UNESCO International Centre for Water Security and Sustainable Management, Global Water Security Issues Series 3 (2021). Citations 1. Prof. Brie Sherwin’s article Chocolate, Coca-Cola, and Fracturing Fluid: A Story of Unfettered Secrecy, Toxicology, and the Resulting Public Health Implications of Natural Gas Development is cited in the following article: Lisa A. Cumming, The Feud is Getting Old: Why The Oil And Gas Industry Should Lobby For the Federal…
When Can a Court Motion Be Considered “Made”? - October 6, 2021 - Heather Douglas
In Canadian Thermo Windows Inc. v. Seangio, 2021 ONSC 6555, Justice Myers addresses the issue of procedure for starting a motion. In Canadian Thermo, the plaintiffs sued the defendants for defamation. The defendants sought the dismissal of the claim, under the Anti-SLAPP provisions of section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act. The defendants served a notice of motion for a long motion. The notice of motion did not indicate a date for a hearing. This was in contravention of subsection 137.2(3) of the Courts of Justice Act. Subsection 137.2(3) states that for an anti-SLAPP motion, the moving party shall obtain a date for the motion before serving the notice of motion. Once a motion is made under section 137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, no further steps can be taken in the proceeding. So the question is: can a motion be “made” without providing a date in the notice of motion? Under subrule 37.05(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, “a long motion…
Law and Media Round Up – 4 October 2021 - October 3, 2021 - INFORRM
The Telegraph has suspended cartoonist Bob Moran following a tweet he made targeting an NHS doctor. Moran encouraged his followers to publicly abuse a palliative care doctor who posted about wearing masks on public transport to stop the spread of COVID-19. Doctor Rachel Clarke reported the tweet to the police and has threatened to sue Moran for defamation. The leader and deputy leader of the far-right organisation Britain First have agreed to pay “substantial damages” to settle a libel claim after they falsely alleged that the Halal Food Authority and its two employees were involved in funding terrorism. UK journalist Oliver Bullough is being sued for defamation in Portugal by the vice-president of Angola. Moneyland: Why Thieves and Crooks Now Rule the World professes to examine the hidden world of global kleptocrats. Bornito de Sousa Baltazar Diogo and his daughter, Naulila Diogo, are thought to take issue with the 8-pages of the book dedicated to Naulila, who…

California Constitution


Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76

Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /home/grpubne/public_html/rss/index.php on line 76
“Judicial Watch is taking a stand against this crazed critical theory that is resulting in quota requirements in the state of California.” When it comes to gender quotas, there really is no limit. Judicial Watch is now in court fighting a California state law “requiring boards of directors to have a certain number of women,” a policy which Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton states is “prohibited by the federal constitution but more specifically by the California Constitution.” As Fitton adds in the Judicial Watch Weekly Update, “the Left doesn’t care, they want to upend decades of law prohibiting discrimination to advance … their critical theory agenda.” “When you hear the Left say they’re against sex discrimination, that’s not true,” Fitton states. “They’re supporting discrimination in this law.” Fitton says the California quota “shows you the insanity” of…
Posted by Cydney Posner, Cooley LLP, on Friday, October 22, 2021 Editor's Note: Cydney S. Posner is special counsel at Cooley LLP. This post is based on her Cooley memorandum. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Politics and Gender in the Executive Suite by Alma Cohen, Moshe Hazan, and David Weiss (discussed on the Forum here); and Will Nasdaq’s Diversity Rules Harm Investors? by Jesse M. Fried (discussed on the Forum here). You might remember that the first legal challenge to California’s board gender diversity statute, Crest v. Alex Padilla, was a complaint filed in 2019 in California state court by three California taxpayers seeking to prevent implementation and enforcement of the law. Framed as a “taxpayer suit,” the litigation sought to enjoin Alex Padilla, the then-California Secretary of State (now U.S. Senator), from expending taxpayer funds and taxpayer-financed resources to enforce or…
Legal Ethics, Bar Discipline and John Eastman - October 20, 2021 - Paul Rosenzweig
In the aftermath of the November 2020 election and the Jan. 6 insurrection, attention is increasingly being paid to the role lawyers played in the run-up to and aftermath of those events. Rudy Giuliani’s law license has been suspended. Sidney Powell has been referred by a federal court for possible discipline. And complaints have been filed against Jeffrey Clark and John Eastman, alleging violations of lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct. I’ve been a participant in the legal ethics and discipline process for more than 20 years. In this post, I use that experience to explore the role of legal ethics and bar discipline as they apply to the Trump insurrection, using the complaint against Eastman as a prism to explore the broader issues. I chose Eastman because, though I’ve met him a couple of times, I do not know him and because I have no connection at all to the California bar’s disciplinary process and, therefore, can review the matter with some…
California appeals court upholds decision repealing fracking ban - October 13, 2021 - Ian Profiri | U. Calgary Law School, CA
The Court of Appeal of the State of California has upheld a decision striking down a Monterey County order banning “land use in support of” fracking practices in oil and gas development. The appeals court stated that “Measure Z”, which introduced the impugned land-use policies, was preempted by state law. Section 3106 of the California Public Resources Code “explicitly provides” that the state has jurisdiction over the implementation of oil and gas wells and other operations; the court upheld that the land-use policies introduced through Measure Z, in effect, conflicted with this explicit jurisdiction. Measure Z was passed by voters of Monterey Country in November of 2016. The measure identified its purpose as protecting the county’s water, agricultural land, air quality and quality of life by “prohibit[ing] and phas[ing] out land uses in support of oil and gas wastewater . . . disposal” and “prohibit[ing]…
Here’s the intro from this Allen Matkins blog: California Superior Court Judge Maureen Duffy-Lewis issued her ruling on September 28th on the parties’ respective motions for summary judgment in Crest v. Padilla (Cal. Super. Ct. Case No. 19STCV27561). In this case, the plaintiffs are seeking a judgment declaring that any and all expenditures of taxpayer funds to enforce and carry out the provisions of California’s female director quota law (SB 826) are illegal. SB 826 is codified at Sections 301.3 and 2115.5 of the California Corporations Code. The basis for the plaintiffs’ claim is Art. I, Section 31 of the California Constitution which forbids the state from discriminating against, or granting preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting. Judge Duffy-Lewis denied both motions on the grounds that there…
Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Answers About its Challenge to Georgia’s Voter Integrity BillHHS Documents Reveal Sexual and Physical Abuse of Unaccompanied MinorsJudicial Watch Sues HHS for Details of Biden’s COVID-19 Community CorpsJudicial Watch Sues HHS for Biodistribution Studies of the COVID VaccinesCalifornia Judge Heard Arguments on Gender Quotas for Corporate Boards Judicial Watch Sues DOJ for Answers About its Challenge to Georgia’s Voter Integrity Bill For years we have reported on Democrats blocking efforts to make elections honest. Not surprisingly, the problem continues under Joe Biden.  The latest battlefield is Georgia. We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for records of communications between the DOJ and various left-wing groups and individuals concerning the DOJ’s decision to challenge Georgia’s election integrity law (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.…