FINDLAW COLUMNISTS:
COULD VIRGINIA
TECH BE HELD LIABLE FOR CHO SEUNG HUI'S SHOOTINGS,IF AN
INVESTIGATION WERE TO REVEAL IT HAD BEEN NEGLIGENT? THE UNFORTUNATE
ANSWER
(Anthony Sebok) - Brooklyn law professor
Anthony Sebok discusses Virginia Tech's potential liability --
depending on the results of the ongoing investigation -- in the
shootings by Cho Seung Hui on April 16. Sebok focuses on the claims
the wounded victims and the deceased victims' families might attempt
to bring against Virginia Tech, and on the limitations of these
approaches, imposed by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Read
more...
THE SUPREME
COURT'S SPLIT DECISION TO UPHOLD THE FEDERAL "PARTIAL-BIRTH
ABORTION" BAN: WHY, DESPITE THE COURT'S DISCLAIMERS, IT WILL BE
HUGELY INFLUENTIAL
(Edward Lazarus) - Attorney and
author Edward Lazarus weighs in on the potential impact of the
Supreme Court's recent split decision upholding a federal statute
banning "partial birth" abortion. Lazarus argues that the Court
should have left intact the relative state of peace imposed by
1992's decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which both
reaffirmed women's right to abortion as established by Roe, and
increased states' latitude to regulate abortion prior to the third
trimester. He also contends that Justice Kennedy's opinion for the
Court serves the interests of neither women, nor those who want to
protect fetuses, for it will lead to saving not a single fetus,
while potentially imperilling women. Read
more...
Related Resources
• Read The Supreme
Court Opinion
WHEN
HOLLYWOOD MEETS BOLLYWOOD: WHY RICHARD GERE IS IN LEGAL TROUBLE IN
INDIA OVER A KISS
(Anita Ramasastry) - University of
Washington law professor Anita Ramasastry dicusses the legal actions
filed in India on the theory that Hollywood actor Richard Gere's
planting kisses on Bollywood actress Shilpa Shetty was "an obscene
act." Ramasastry puts the suits in context, noting similar recent
suits against Bollywood stars for public kisses; explains the
history and current state of Indian film censorship; and explains
how Bollywood directors have cleverly responded to the public
kissing ban. Read
more...
HOW THE FIRING
OF DON IMUS UNDERMINED FIRST AMENDMENT VALUES: AN ANALOGY TO
SECONDARY BOYCOTTS
(Michael Dorf) - Columbia law
professor Michael Dorf explains why private actions that silence
speech, such as the firing of radio personality Don Imus, may render
speech in America significantly less free -- even though, formally,
only the government can violate the First Amendment. Drawing an
interesting analogy to antitrust and labor law -- which hold that
while boycotts of employers are permissible, "secondary" boycotts of
employers' business associates are not -- Dorf explains the dangers
of letting not only stations, but also sponsors, determine what can
and cannot be said on the air. Read
more...
DISORDER
IN THE COUNCIL ROOM: DOES IT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO REMOVE A
CITIZEN FROM A CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR MAKING A NAZI SALUTE
GESTURE?
(Vikram Amar and Alan Brownstein) - U.C.
Hastings law professor Vikram Amar andU.C. Davis law professor Alan
Brownstein discuss a suit challenging, on First Amendment grounds,
the Santa Cruz City Council's decision to expel an audience member
who expressed his displeasure via a one-second Nazi salute. Amar and
Brownstein contend that the district court was wrong to rule against
the audience member, and they consider, more generally, the issue of
how thick-skinned officials in a democracy must be when they
encounter citizens' disagreement and protest. Read
more...
