A funny story about free speach- & a Lawyer
Gotta read it slow so you can get the MENTAL image. In short, the woman is a nut case in my view. However she has a great Lawyer defending her first amendment rights. The Bar owner is totally innocent of the charges she claims.
The question is how far can free speech go?
The story-http://tinyurl.com/yu2lk6
The question is how far can free speech go?
The story-http://tinyurl.com/yu2lk6
0
-
Seems like the bar owner has a legitimate complaint of slander. Unless that woman can prove any of her allegations (which appear to be damaging the bar owner's business) are true, I believe the court has the authority to enforce prior restraint. Of course, this is California we're talking about here, so I wouldn't be surprised if the court shut down the bar.
Forget the first amendment issue. Her actions constitute harrassment.
Her antics and statements to reporters indicate that rather than an amalgamation of "Florence Nightingale, Joan of Arc and Erin Brockovich," she seems more like Atilla the Hen.0 -
1. Free speech does not include the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
2. The bar is NOT Mafia controlled. Otherwise this twinkie would be halfway to Catalina Island, talking to SpongeBob
3. The scary part- her vote in the last election counted just as much as YOUR vote.0 -
quote:Originally posted by 11b6r
1. Free speech does not include the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
2. The bar is NOT Mafia controlled. Otherwise this twinkie would be halfway to Catalina Island, talking to SpongeBob
3. The scary part- her vote in the last election counted just as much as YOUR vote.
I'm not sure how your point #1 is relevant. This is not the same as "clear and present danger of serious evil," as the response to her speech is not likely to cause a public hazard.
I haven't the experience to comment on point #2, except to say that it sounds vaguely plausible.
Point #3 is well taken.
The court is trying to impose prior restraint on this woman, and I agree that the only acceptable remedy is a slander suit, with a claim for damages. I don't believe the restaurant can't come up with some kind of an estimate for damages (how much did they make this time last year? and how much are they making now?)
Prior restraint is a scary, scary proposition.0 -
quote:Another neighbor said of Lemen, "She's just goofy, honey." The neighbor described the owner of the bar as "that poor guy."
Another longtime resident said the bar was not the problem; "it's her. She is just a very unique individual. You just try to stay clear of her."
Here we go with the camel's nose/slippery slope thing again.
A libel/slander suit is the proper recourse.0 -
Spurge- would tend to agree about "prior restraint", exept, in this case, it appears that she has already acted- the action sought is to prevent her from CONTINUING her acts. Not prior, but post. By grabbing customers, making untrue statements intended to turn customers away, she is causing (financial) harm to the owner. IF I have sat outside Henry's home for 10 nites with a 5 gallon bucket of firecrackers, and for 10 nites set them off at 1 AM, telling me I better not show up on nite #11 with a bucket of firecrackers..... Well- is THAT prior restraint? 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
5 comments