The Wendy Bell debacle: Employers need clear, consistent social-media policies; Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, 6/24/16

Beverly A. Block, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette; The Wendy Bell debacle: Employers need clear, consistent social-media policies:

"A lot of the commentary surrounding Ms. Bell’s Facebook post suggests that she had a First Amendment right to speak her mind about the Wilkinsburg shootings. Yes, but protections afforded by the First Amendment are not absolute and, generally speaking, do not apply to private employers such as WTAE and Hearst.

Many employers have a legitimate interest in regulating their employees’ speech to promote harmony, respect and the effective functioning of the business. That said, when rules are not precise, clearly communicated and uniformly applied, even the most sophisticated company or revered professional can end up facing severe consequences. Ambiguity can do a lot of damage."

Why Trump lawyers won’t ask Trump University judge to step aside; Reuters, 6/6/16

Alison Frankel, Reuters; Why Trump lawyers won’t ask Trump University judge to step aside:

"As many, many legal experts have opined in the past few days, a federal judge’s ethnicity or national origin cannot serve as the basis for a claim of judicial bias. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for instance, held in its 1998 opinion in MacDraw Inc v. CIT Group that U.S. District Judge Denny Chin (now on the appeals court) was within his rights to sanction two lawyers who asked whether his Asian ancestry prejudiced him against them. (They were involved in completely separate litigation against an Asian fundraiser for President Bill Clinton, who appointed Chin.) “Courts have repeatedly held that matters such as race or ethnicity are improper bases for challenging a judge’s impartiality,” the 2nd Circuit said. Added Alexandra Lahav, who specializes in legal ethics at the University of Connecticut: “There is no basis in the law or our legal history. It’s antithetical to the rule of law.”

Trump has a First Amendment right to express his opinion of the Trump University proceedings, which have certainly not gone the way he and his lawyers would have liked...

Outside of court, Trump can say just about whatever he wants about the case without much risk of being held accountable. It might be another story if the candidate were to express contempt for Judge Curiel or the proceeding inside the judge’s courtroom, but so far, Trump has not made accusations to Curiel’s face.

Nor are the candidate’s lawyers responsible in court for what their client says about the judge outside of the courtroom. The American Bar Association’s model rules of professional conduct explicitly say that representing a client does not mean a lawyer endorses the client’s “political, economic, social or moral views or activities.” Ethics adviser Thomas Mason of Harris Wiltshire & Grannis said lawyers generally do not face sanctions for what their clients say – and that goes double when the client is running for president. “How easy do you think it would be for any lawyer at any firm to control what Mr. Trump says?” Mason asked.

If, however, O’Melveny were to accuse Judge Curiel of bias in a filing that cited only his heritage as evidence, according to legal ethics experts, the firm could be accused of bringing a frivolous motion, according to Mark Foster of Zuckerman Spaeder and Barry Cohen of Crowell & Moring, who counsel law firms on professional responsibility."

This Silicon Valley Billionaire Has Been Secretly Funding Hulk Hogan's Lawsuits Against Gawker; Forbes, 5/24/16

Ryan Mac, Forbes; This Silicon Valley Billionaire Has Been Secretly Funding Hulk Hogan's Lawsuits Against Gawker:

"The involvement of Thiel, an eccentric figure in Silicon Valley who has advocated for teenagers to skip college and openly supported Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, adds another wrinkle to a case that has garnered widespread attention for its implications over celebrity privacy and a publication’s First Amendment rights. During court proceedings, which ended in late March with a $140 million victory for Hogan, there had been rumors that a wealthy individual had funded Hogan’s case though there was never any hard evidence that surfaced to prove that was true.

On Tuesday, in an interview with The New York Times, Gawker founder Nick Denton said he had a “personal hunch” that the financial aid could be linked to someone in Silicon Valley. “If you’re a billionaire and you don’t like the coverage of you, and you don’t particularly want to embroil yourself any further in a public scandal, it’s a pretty smart, rational thing to fund other legal cases,” he told the Times.

It is not illegal for an outside entity to help fund another party’s lawsuit, and the practice, known as “third-party litigation funding” has become increasingly common in the U.S. Typically, the outside party negotiates for a defined share of any proceeds from the suit."

Drone Regulations Should Focus on Safety and Privacy; New York Times, 1/9/16

Editorial Board, New York Times; Drone Regulations Should Focus on Safety and Privacy:

"Increasingly coveted by hobbyists and businesses, these devices flew (as it were) off the shelves and into living rooms by the hundreds of thousands.

But as drones have become smaller, cheaper and more numerous — some popular consumer models sell for less than $1,000 — policy makers have had to address potential problems. These machines can obviously be put to good use — say, inspecting cellphone towers, shooting movies or compiling multidimensional real estate portfolios. They can also be used to snoop on people and harass them. And they can threaten other aircraft.

Some regulation of the private and commercial use of drones thus seems inevitable. The task for regulators is how to protect privacy and promote safety without infringing on the First Amendment rights of citizens and businesses that wish to use drones for legitimates purposes, like photography or news gathering (The Times has used drones to shoot videos and take photographs)."

Pa. student newspaper editors ban ‘Redskins’ nickname _ and get sent to principal’s office; Associated Press via Washington Post, 11/16/13

Associated Press via Washington Post; Pa. student newspaper editors ban ‘Redskins’ nickname _ and get sent to principal’s office: "The Playwickian editors started getting heat from school officials after an Oct. 27 editorial that barred the use of the word “Redskins” — the nickname of the teams at Neshaminy, a school named for the creek where the Lenape Indians once lived... Nonetheless, Principal Robert McGee ordered the editors to put the “Redskins” ban on hold, and summoned them to a meeting after school Tuesday, according to junior Gillian McGoldrick, the editor-in-chief... I don’t think that’s been decided at the national level, whether that word is or is not (offensive). It’s our school mascot,” said McGee, who said he’s consulted with the school solicitor and others. “I see it as a First Amendment issue running into another First Amendment issue... Both the student law center and the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania believe school districts are on shaky ground if they try to compel students to use a given word, especially one the students deem offensive.”

For Faculty Free Speech, the Tide Is Turning; Chronicle of Higher Education, 9/30/13

Thomas Sullivan and Lawrence White, Chronicle of Higher Education; For Faculty Free Speech, the Tide Is Turning: "Those and other cases prompted the AAUP in 2009 to issue a report observing that "the lower federal courts have so far largely ignored the Garcetti majority's reservation, posing the danger that, as First Amendment rights for public employees are narrowed, so too may be the constitutional protection for academic freedom at public institutions, perhaps fatally." In the past two years, however, the tide appears to have turned. Two recent decisions by federal appellate courts explicitly hold that the Garcetti standard does not apply in faculty-free-speech cases... The trend is encouraging. As a legal principle and sound postulate of institutional governance, academic freedom should be deemed to protect the expression of faculty views even when they are deemed by some to be unhelpful or provocatively stated. This is especially compelling given the uniqueness of our universities as marketplaces of ideas where we seek to discover new knowledge and understanding and make it available to others."