Cathy Gellis 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (150)

• On the post: An Appeals Court Broke Media Advertising, So The Copia Institute Asked The California Supreme Court To Fix It

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2023 @ 08:44am

  I'm what? There is always tension between the First Amendment right of association and anti-discrimination law. That it has at times been decided in favor of the latter does not mean that it has been decided that the latter trumps the right of free expression. And, as noted, 303 Creative reminds us that it doesn't.

• On the post: An Appeals Court Broke Media Advertising, So The Copia Institute Asked The California Supreme Court To Fix It

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2023 @ 06:46am

  No harm

  The case is basically a troll, to find grounds to take out Facebook. Even if the appeals court decision holds she's still not likely to win, because she wasn't actually harmed. She's upset that she didn't know about the promotion to be able to go learn more about what else the company offered, but she obviously did know that the company was around offering insurance, and she was in no way kept from their website or any other means of contacting them to see what policies they were offering. In other words, if the decision is upheld she'll still lose, but now so will everyone else.

• On the post: An Appeals Court Broke Media Advertising, So The Copia Institute Asked The California Supreme Court To Fix It

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2023 @ 06:43am

  Unruh Act IS fixed...

  It's called the First Amendment, and the Unruh Act doesn't get to trump it.

• On the post: An Appeals Court Broke Media Advertising, So The Copia Institute Asked The California Supreme Court To Fix It

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 01 Dec, 2023 @ 06:43am

  EVERY media company tracks its audience demographics

  Sure, Facebook generally can do it better, but every media company has long tried. This isn't something new. And it has always been legal.

• On the post: Dear Marin County Board of Supervisors: Reject The Sheriff’s Proposal To Install License Plate Cameras In The County

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 28 Nov, 2023 @ 03:31pm

  Marin geography

  You aren't suggesting that I don't care, right? Because I cared when the first cameras came to the wealthiest enclaves. And I care just as much when they are coming to Marin City, which is anything but.

• On the post: Dear Marin County Board of Supervisors: Reject The Sheriff’s Proposal To Install License Plate Cameras In The County

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 27 Nov, 2023 @ 04:24pm

  Equity

  Equity wasn't my argument, per se. It was the only pushback the proposal even attempted to address. My point was that it ignored every other consideration, and thus that we are all screwed.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2023 @ 08:31am

  Yes, it does. It's just that we've decided that there are countervailing reasons that make it something we'll tolerate.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 09 Jul, 2023 @ 08:30am

  That's not right. The First Amendment is relevant because mandatory intermediation of communication would normally implicate First Amendment interests. It's just that in these instances we find that it doesn't prevent NN regulation. But you can't just jump ahead to "oh it doesn't apply to these services" because there are reasons why it doesn't apply, legally, that you can't ignore, since without all those legal conditions being in place, it would apply. (For instance, there's a reason why the First Amendment would reach Facebook but not the phone company. But if the world looked a little different, and Facebook were truly a monopoly or the phone company less of one, then the 1A analysis could be different.)

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 07 Jul, 2023 @ 06:48am

  Two courts, actually

  The 10th Circuit found standing too... and then used it to rule against her. The only thing SCOTUS did was reverse on the merits.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 09:44pm

  It's funny how you think insulting me somehow proves me wrong. I stand by what I said; it is your analysis (and apparently that of whoever Unikowsky is) that is misplaced. No one ever needed to approach the web designer for the state's threat to be enough for standing. Colorado, or the courts themselves, may have a genuine concern about the litigants' behavior. And perhaps some sanction might be imposed. But Colorado will be hard pressed to argue that the lie somehow induced a concession it would not otherwise have made. The law was designed to prevent the discrimination the web designer wanted to engage in to refuse to make a website for a gay wedding. And the state was open about its desire to enforce its laws in the situations they were intended for, as it could reasonably be expected to be. And that threat is all that was necessary for the courts to find standing, whether that situation had actually arisen already or not.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 07:37pm

  Strict scrutiny

  You are correct in that net neutrality would need to survive strict scrutiny to not be found to violate the First Amendment. The issue there, however, is that it probably could. But the government action here, to prohibit the web designer's refusal, could not survive strict scrutiny. They aren't quite comparable situations, which is why the scrutiny analysis would likely resolve differently, but you are right that they both implicate free expression and thus would need to be subject to it.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 06:52pm

  He's not harassing anyone. He's right.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 06:50pm

  You're right; I've only been coding websites since at least 1995 and had a multi-year career as a professional web developer before I became a lawyer. So what would I know...

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 05:40pm

  No, because the standing hinged entirely on Colorado admitting that it planned to go after her should she turn down such business. Standing was based entirely on that threat, not on that business actually having materialized (or not).

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 05:38pm

  What you are describing is the way impact litigation works, and the left does impact litigation too. I even cited an example case in particular! Which you might have noticed if you actually read the post, rather then spent your time making up lies about me.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 04:25pm

  It actually seems like you who's ok with lies as you sit there and lie about me.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 04:24pm

  What? I'm saying I'm alarmed because she DIDN'T. She was creating a legal regime that was only going to hurt them. And deluding herself and everyone else that she was somehow being a hero by giving governments that power to make their lives hell and take away their ability to speak out against it.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 03:44pm

  Yes

  I did read the dissent. It was alarmingly bad in understanding the issues and applying past precedent. It's why I called our Sotomayor's recent jurisprudence which has been deeply, deeply troubling.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 03:00pm

  I address that point at the end of the post. If it's applied equally, we're all in great shape. If not, then we're not, but only time will tell which the court will do. BUT had it decided otherwise, we'd be worse off, because we could hand bigots in governments tools for enforcing that bigotry NOW. And, at least in the meantime, this decision binds the lower courts, and that's where plenty of fights will play out, including many that never reach the Supreme Court.

• On the post: In 303 Creative, By Happily Helping One Bigot, SCOTUS (Perhaps Inadvertently) Helped The Larger Fight Against Bigotry

  

  Cathy Gellis ( profile ), 06 Jul, 2023 @ 02:58pm

  Not this case

  On a practical level, perhaps not. On a legal level, yes, although if the police refuse to prosecute for assault then the law might have something to answer for. But that's not this case.

Next >>