Friday Afternoon Link Roundup

I’d like to apologize to our faithful readers for the relative dearth of content lately. I’ve been busy studying for yet another bar exam as part of my quest to become licensed in every state in the lower 48* and Joe is currently off in some Caribbean fantasyland sipping rum from a coconut. We’ll be back with guns blazing over the weekend. In the interim, here are some highlights of the past week in our corner of the legal world.

*To be fair, I have also thought about sitting for the Alaska bar exam, despite the fact that it’s three days long.

Strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPPs) are lawsuits filed to restrain the speech of an opponent or punish an opponent for past speech. Often involving questionable defamation claims, SLAPPs can cause significant expense and anxiety. Public policy on SLAPPs varies; some states like California have strong anti-SLAPP laws, but others don’t. Now a federal anti-SLAPP statute, called the Citizen Participation Act, is on the table. The Legal Satyricon has the details. If you’re the victim of a SLAPP, the First Amendment Project offers tools for fighting back.

Jalopnik calls this opinion from the Delaware Court of Chancery ”The Greatest Legal Document of All Time,” which may be accurate if you really like auto racing and/or Will Ferrell movies. Thanks to William Bray for the link.

Is the Copyright Royalty Board, which determines webcasting copyright royalty rates, constitutional? Live365 has been arguing that it isn’t. Although Live365 failed to obtain injunctive relief on that ground, the issue remains undecided. Story courtesy CommLawBlog.

Cornell Law’s decision to promote itself by way of reference to fictional Cornellian Andy Bernard from “The Office” comes under fire for a number of reasons. Story courtesy Above the Law.

Cat-SLAPP photo courtesy australianshepherds (http://www.flickr.com/photos/australianshepherds/ / CC BY 2.0).

This entry was posted by Richard on Friday, March 12th, 2010 at 5:53 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response below, or trackback from your own site.

Show/Hide Comments (2)

2 Reader Comments (Reply Now)

  1. March 15th, 2010

    @ 10:26 am

    Richard posted:

    Maxwell Kennerly at Litigation and Trial examines the federal anti-SLAPP bill in depth and explains why it may harm some litigants it’s intended to help:

    http://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/03/articles/the-law/for-lawyers/the-problem-with-hr-4364-the-proposed-federal-antislapp-law/

  2. June 2nd, 2010

    @ 8:03 am

    [...] rise in strategic lawsuits against public participation, better known as “SLAPPs.” We first reported on SLAPPs back in March, noting that “SLAPPs can cause significant expense and [...]

Leave a Reply

(Required)
(Required)