If you are in a relationship, you aren't "free," but is your speech?

Is all free in love and war?

So of course everyone has heard how Chris Brown attacked Rihanna. According to four magazines I saw side-by-side at Walgreens, Rihanna married Chris Brown, she is pregnant, she did not marry him and instead checked herself into an institution to help herself battle depression and cutting, and she refuses to testify against him. Regardless of the true story, the abuse got me thinking...Yes; physical abuse is awful no matter the circumstances. But what about verbal abuse between married couples? No relationship is perfect and "fighting words" are occasionally extravagantly used in public places to the entertainment of those around to hear. There are abuse hotlines, but what if the verbal abuse is two-sided? Can such arguments actually be put to the end by the law? Clearly laws against physical abuse do not change just because the crime occurs between two people in a relationship, and while the thought process along the way may differ, the outcome for verbal or written abuse is no different.

An interesting divorce case was brought to light about one year ago. William Krasnansky, then-husband to Maria Garrido, decided to blog about the going-ons of his divorce. When the wife learned of the blog, she reported it to the judge currently over-seeing their divorce. The judge then ordered Krasnansky to "take down any and all internet postings about his wife and their marriage." The judge labeled the blog as harassment, which divorce judges are able to bar during proceedings. According to the New York Times, this ruling turned an ordinary divorce into a battle of free speech over the Internet. Prior restraint was Krasnansky's defense. While a blog between two individuals not going through a divorce would have never been silenced, this case does raise the issue of a difference of the terms of free speech for people related in an intimate way as opposed to a general acquaintance or so forth. The wife believed she was justified in her wishes for the blog to be removed, as it was defamation**...but then again can't divorce in general be considered defamation of the parties involved? By extremes, if one person does not want a divorce but their spouse does and defamation becomes an issue decided in family courts, then a divorce could be prevented by the claim that the other spouse wants a divorce to purposely cause defamation to their spouse. Thus, such issues are handled in separate courts. But then...do family members and married couples live by different rules than others? 

Back in the day, "crimes of passion" were leniently dealt with. If a wife walked in on her husband having an affair and stabbed him, it was considered a crime of passion and the wife could receive little to no punishment by the court. Today, it seems like the opposite occurs. When there is any reported defamation between people of an intimate nature, more serious actions are taken. After a relationship between a woman and a police office officer soured, restraining orders were filed, jobs were lost, and then in stepped the officer's lawyer to sue on the grounds of defamation. Prior to the suit, the woman, Taylor, had been talking to an acquaintance of Officer Doyle, the ex-boyfriend, when she commented that she could kill Doyle's female roommate Stuber (not in the literal sense). People generally say they "could just kill __." I guess one moral of the story is to not say such a thing when the people involved wear badges. The 911-dispatcher roommate heard of the comment and filed a restraining order and had it served to Taylor at her place of employment. Soon after, Taylor lost her job. Perhaps Stuber feared a crime of passion against her since most people would have little reaction to such a comment and perhaps give the woman some chocolate. However, the difference here is that Doyle and Taylor had been in an intimate relationship and so more aggressive actions were expected and thus dealt.

 While Taylor and family claim Doyle has exposed himself inappropriately to Taylor's mother, has threatened them, and has urinated on their lawn, Doyle has filed the defamation suit because he feels the family's actions to separate themselves from him have hurt his reputation. The hearing is to be held in April. The fact that the plaintiff is an officer clearly has its impact, but it must not go unnoticed the drastic actions that have been taken against Taylor for speaking ill of Doyle.

As in all court cases, it is not the plaintiff's expectations that decide what should have been an expected outcome but the average reasonable person's expectations. The average, reasonable person expects family members and couples to fight, occasionally in a public manner. 

According to the Young Lawyers Section of the Missouri Bar, civil relief can be filed for if the abused used to be the spouse of, is currently the spouse of, is related by blood, or has a child with the abuser. But once again two-way abuse is not mentioned. What can be done if someone is verbally abusing you after you abused them is never mentioned...I guess everyone just believes that solution would be for the two people to just stop talking to one another, get a divorce, or become one of those families that just talks every five to ten years. If a complaint was filed against a family or couple having an issue of a fighting-word-war, I suppose the result would just be a noise complaint or some such issue. If a court did hear a case where one person was arrested for public disturbance of peace but the argument was between a father and son, the fine would be held because when it gets down to it, the father still disturbed the peace, whether the argument was with his son or a mail man. If the son had also been using fighting words and aided in the disturbance and did not also receive a ticket, I guess his lawyer would just see him as lucky. In the end I suppose two people can just countersue each other until one finally wins or their claims get thrown out.

The People's Legal Front states about six times that fighting words inflict injury or lead to a breach of the peace. However, I do believe that people with an intimate relationship do have more of a right to use fighting words. As discussed in class, words allow for people to "let off steam" so that physical actions are not taken. Personally, I believe it is even more important for such physical abuse to be prevented in relationships than in general as such abuse is sometimes overlooked, either by those in the relationship or their friends and family. Additionally, family members or couples have more opportunity to be angered as they are generally together more than people that are not related in such a way. Through this logic, I believe that family members and those in relationships should have an understanding that fighting words will not get them arrested. While I do not believe such relation-oriented issues should be protected by an actual law, I do believe that there should be a more lenient way to deal with such things. 

**The issue was proclaimed "too broad to be constitutional" by the dean of the law school at Washington Lee University. Additionally, Krasnansky had stated a mixture of fictional and true information in his blogs, including some of his wife's old journal entries. Two weeks after the order filed against Krasnansky, the court declared that the blog did not constitute harassment and that his First Amendment rights had been violated. It was also decided that the family court had no jurisdiction to rule defamation in the case of blogs.

PS- Watch out for the computer virus that's supposed to hit....Happy April Fools!....

Freedom of speech...when your speech isn't like anyone elses?

Freedom of speech is rather broad...It is not simply the ability to say one thing or another or to hold some sort of demonstration. In actuality, the freedom to express oneself by any way regarding any topic and with any help, be it a poster or megaphone, can be held to the First Amendment to determine its "expression insurance." 

However, insurance companies have qualifications for their clients. If someone has caused or just been involved in numerous car accidents, an insurance company may not wish to represent them. In a way, immigrants are like insurance clients. --The next sentence is expressed in an extremist way so please understand I have nothing against immigrants personally, or anyone of any different background in any sense. This blog is not meant to address the issue of illegal immigration either.-- By the insurance metaphor, immigrants may be seen as the people that caused the accident while society has a slightly different attitude toward immigrants' children as if they were the drivers that were simply involved in an accident. Particular insurance companies may wish to not provide services to either while other companies will provide for those that were not at fault and, by this metaphor, the children of immigrants.

Allow me to clarify. What I am trying to propose is the question whether everyone deserves freedom of expression by the First Amendment the moment they step on American soil, or if they should dutifully become a citizen (though a sort of definition of "citizen" would have to be determined; is it based on documentation or a person's lifestyle?) before having the advantage of such freedoms, and if other citizens that have been here longer will truly respect the immigrants' acquired right. Such a topic seems more an issue of societal beliefs than law, but these issues leak into the minds of the justices deciding the cases...

The New York Times posted an article this past Saturday entitled "Where Education and Assimilation Collide." This article discusses the issue of race in schools being an issue of the past while the real issue today is whether a student speaks English or not. At Hylton High in Washington DC, "the calm in the hallways belies resentments simmering among students who barely know one another. They readily label one another "stupid" or "racist." The tensions have at times erupted into walkouts and cafeteria fights, including one in which immigrant students tore an American flag off the wall and black students responded by shouting, "Go back to your own country!"" As poignantly inserted by the author of the article, the issue of black versus white is not even the issue at this high school. The issue is whether a student is "American" enough. While the Texas v. Johnson case determined that using the flag to express one's opinion, whether it is a positive or negative one, is protected by the First Amendment, it must be pondered what the outcome and opinions may have been had the flag been burned by a recent immigrant rather than an American citizen. The article does not say what was done in response to the outburst, but as a minor committed the defamation the insurance metaphor probably would have applied once more; the child is simply involved in the accident. It is actually their parents' fault.

If a middle-age immigrant had been in a public area, such as a bank, and tore down an American flag shouting something in their first language, the first thought of many of the witnesses would probably be that this person is a terrorist. It is rather sad, but it is true. While the children of immigrants are less likely to receive such criticism, they do deal with others exiling them for their different culture and inability to speak "America's language"...which is ironic considering the US does not actually have a national language...

It has been tested by cases and verified that immigrants have freedom of speech, yet there have also been cases showing immigrants can be deported for exercising that "right."  All in all, it seems that the US government as well as US citizens are more willing to provide rights to those that have been here relatively longer than others...and exhibit an American lifestyle rather than one representative of their heritage.

In the Harisiades v. Shaughnessy Supreme Court case in 1952, the issue at hand was the Alien Registration Act that Congress had passed in 1940. It required anyone that had ever been a communist to be deported. This went against the First Amendment as the plaintiffs were being punished for exercising free speech as well as their right to freely assemble. However, the three plaintiffs were immigrants. 

According to Patrick Young, a professor at Hofstra Law School, this case was one of political infringement. He states the positions of the three ex-communists in a rather entertaining way; "So we have Harisiades, the hard core communist, Mrs. Coleman, who apparently joined for the parties, and Mascitti, who was anti-communist. Yet all of them were ordered deported. For something they had done before the law prohibiting it had been passed." Harisiades came to America with his father when he was thirteen, married, and had two children. Both his wife and his children were US citizens. Mascitti legally entered the US when he was 16, married another resident alien and they had a child. Mrs. Coleman was legally admitted to the US when she was thirteen as well, married a US citizen, and had three children that were citizens by birth. These people came to the US in 1916, 1920, and 1914, respectively. The law was passed in 1940 and this Supreme Court ruling was in 1953. Once again, I feel obligated to point out that the one thing these three had in common was that they were immigrants. The Supreme Court ruling: the First Amendment claim was denied.

The justices dissenting held that, "a resident alien is a "person" within the meaning of the Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments. He therefore may not be deprived either by the National Government or by any state of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." This is where things get fuzzy regarding free speech of "Americans" versus free speech of immigrants...The Supreme Court considered an immigrant to have the same rights as a naturally-born citizen. Such rights include those named under the First Amendment. All right. That sounds good....but why on earth is this stated within the dissenting opinion rather than the concurring decision of the court? The dissenting opinion of the Harisiades case believes the concurring opinion to regard once-dangerous immigrants to remain dangerous indefinitely. By such a rule, if a flag was burned by an immigrant from a terrorist nation, such an act could be considered by the court as evidence as their continued danger. Clearly there is discretion between immigrants and citizens as flag burning by a citizen has been tried and proven to produce no such imminent danger. So then America isn't truly the land of the free. It is the land of the free for those that have been here long enough and whose ancestors have already fought the battle for equal rights.

The students at Hylton High are separated from the rest of the school so that their classes can be focused on teaching them English so they can pass state exams. Other students look down on them because they do not belong. Little do these immigrant students know that the accident they have been involved in will be a reoccurring event, persuading the government's "insurance policy" to possibly refuse coverage.

This video showcases the difference today between racism and anti-immigration...Sorry, it does touch on illegal immigration but does mention speech and being a born citizen. And the person mocking a Mexican is of Spanish descent.

The Moss Muse

Perusing through recent articles, I came upon one reporting a suit filed by Kate Moss against News of the World because they had printed that she was three months pregnant. While it doesn't seem that big of a deal whether she is or isn't, and it's very unlikely that someone that read this had an epiphany concerning their feelings toward Moss (or anything else for that matter), she is of course very offended. The reason why isn't very clear, but this is the United States of America where everyone has a right to sue whether it is logical or not.

By typical standards, Kate Moss should not win her suit. Actual malice has not been proven and the newspaper stated that they, "now accept that [their] information was incorrect and that Kate is not pregnant."1 By this statement, they are expressing that they were not previously aware that their claim that Kate Moss was pregnant was false. Without intentionally spreading the rumor that she was pregnant, the newspaper cannot be held liable. Of course she still feels they owe her a sort of tangible proof of their apologetic feelings...

That celebrities sacrifice some of their privacy for their large paychecks is no secret, but whether they still have "equal rights" when it comes to defamation is debatable. While the celebrity may have negative things said about them, such rumors may actually improve their reputation while also providing advertisement for any upcoming ads, movies, or CDs that may be soon distributed. 2

The question therefore must always be in the back of one's mind whether "celebrity treatment" should carry into the courthouse, whether in favor of celebrities or not. In a case such as Moss's, News of the World would not be held liable for reporting that a civilian was three months pregnant if they had thought so. Then again, News of the World would never print something like that about a civilian. Which of course calls into question whether such a false rumor about a celebrity must have been done intentionally or not. It is possible that someone had it out for Moss and decided telling the world she was pregnant would somehow make them feel a little bit better about their less-than-celebrity-style lifestyle. Still, "actual malice" cannot be proved. Unless the publisher or author of the story states that they had known Kate Moss had not in actuality been pregnant when writing the story, no actual malice can be proven in court and the newspaper should not be sued.

No true damage other than a factor of annoyance can be derived from this case. People thinking that Kate Moss is three months pregnant should by no means alter their opinion of her. There is a slight possibility that some agency may have though Moss should not be hired given her appearance would not be as suited to Calvin Klein underwear ads as in the past, but whether the rumor had caused such a misunderstanding is not mentioned in the article.

In November of 2006, Britney Spears attempted to sue for 10 million dollars. The judge ruled that published rumors that Spears and her husband were trying to prevent the release of a sex tape were not enough to cause defamation since Spears "put her modern sexuality squarely, and profitably, before the public eye." 3 The judge never even addressed the issue of whether the rumor was true or not. While Moss had not put her sexuality "before the public eye," a report of her being pregnant is not of a prurient nature as the rumor of a sex tape can be considered. As Moss is married to her husband, it is not far from the public's mind to believe that the two would have "sexual relations," and so stating that she is pregnant is not defamatory in accusing her of having sex, either.

An interesting act passed in 1998 by the State of Washington was the "New Act," which "provides that every person (including individuals and entities) has a property right in the use of one's name, voice, signature, photograph or other likeness in any medium or any manner."4 Such an act puts to question the expanse to which this wording can be applied. If a person has property rights to their name, it is unclear whether this just applies to commercial usage of the name or use of the name in general. While Washington most likely refers to the commercial use of such personal property, it can be argued that using a story about a specific celebrity is in fat used to sell the newspaper. For the latter interpretation, any use of a person's name would then require an approval for that usage. in this case, Moss or any other celebrity would have the right to approve any use of their name. This right could be viewed as prior restraint. Any newspaper or tabloid would not want to report anything that could aggravate the person of whom it referred. While the "New Act" is not a federal law, it does open a whole new can of worms when it comes to First Amendment rights. By libertarian beliefs, anyone should be able to report anything and anyone should be able to report their own variation of a retraction of the material. By neoliberal terms, the government should monitor the usage of individual names and decide whether the information given is in the public's interest or not.

I wish I had lived in Washington and someone had for some reason plastered my name everywhere to sell...suncreen or something. I could've had one heck of a college fund.

1. Brooke, Stephen. "News of the World apolgises to Kate Moss for pregnancy rumour." Guardian News and Media Limmited 2009. 02 MAR 2009. Guardian Co. 09 Mar 2009 .

2. Mandela, Nelson. "Celebrity Lawsuits." Personal Injury. 2005. Personal Injury Info. 09 MAR 2009

3. Associated press, "Judge dismisses Britney Spears' libel suit; Pop star had accused US Weekly of fabricating story about sex video." Entertainment/Celebrities. 07 NOV 2006. msnbc. 09 MAR 2009 .

4. Ryan, Swanson & Cleveland, "Protection of One's Name, Voice, Signature, Photograph, or Other likeness." FindLaw Library. 1999. FindLaw. 09 MAR 2009 .