"You no nothing. Your reasoning that there is no First Amendment violation because attendance is voluntary is flatly wrong."
First, it's "I know nothing."
Second, it would help if you could improve your reading comprehension, specifically the ability to understand the implication in the parenthetical following the sentence you quoted.
Finally, it's "well settled case law," not "caselaw."
I'm still of the opinion this case will be decided on Due Process grounds, but . . . I know nothing.
Quoted from a post above:
"The university can't do that: the 1st Amendment isn't suspended because someone's a student somewhere."
The university can do that because it's the student's choice to attend the university, thus it is really just a time, place and manner restriction. (Well, if it ever reaches the Supreme Court, that will be what's in the decision authored by Justice Thomas, and joined by four others in a 5-4 decision).
The student can say whatever she wants, but there will be repercussions. Some MAY be for violating HIPPA, and some MAY be for violating school policy. (I can only gather that the restriction was for using social media).
But . . .
State school kicks you out without a hearing, thus depriving you of $$, which is property, can't do that without Due Process. But, it is well known that you must exhaust administrative remedies before resorting to a lawsuit. The student appealed the dismissal, which was denied, but did not take the next administrative step of filing an Academic Grievance (http://chronicle.com/article/Nursing-Student-Sues-After-U/42558/)
Interestingly, since the District Court found in her favor in 2009, the student, a Ms. Yoder, was able to back to school, has graduated, and is now a nurse.
What I learned here today:
If your nurse is Nina Yoder, exercise your patients' rights, and ask that she not be allowed any access to you or your information, lest your sordid medical history ends up in a Blog somewhere.
The guy may potentially face contempt charges for violating the judge's rules.
What about the civil rights of the person on trial?
If Ramirez posted a comment, and others responded to him might that not affect his decision. The comments could range from "if he's been arrested, he's guilty," to "you know cops only arrest the poor and guys they don't like so they can bully them to jail."
Ramirez's rights don't exist in a vacuum, they have to be balanced with the rights of others. If the jury is tainted, how about a mistrial is declared. Then Ramirez should have to pick up the tab for defense counsel, the cost of the time of the judge, the cost of the court personnel, not to mention he should also compensate the other jurors.
What other fair remedy would you have a judge attempt to fashion in this case?
Whether accurate or not this is what it says in paragraph 15 of the complaint:
15. That prior to and around the time of the incident which caused the injuries herein, the Trolley Brook Estates Subdivision was advertised as a new housing development that was open to the public.
It seems to me this must have been made up if he was charged with trespass. I was wondering "where is the paragraph citing that he was legally on the premises."
The lawyer and Alesi are lucky this wasn't filed in Federal Court, where some attorneys were recently fined $4500 for filing an "idiotic" and baseless motion; the judge was the one who called it "idiotic."
The lawyer should have cared; a lawyer cannot just send out a letter because a client insists, there must be a basis in law or it's an ethical violation. The recipient may file a complaint with the bar association where Mr. Olsen practices.
AJackson has apparently polled lawyers to know "[t]hat's what most lawyers do," otherwise the comment is one with no real basis in fact.
There are a lot of idiots out there, and some of them are lawyers.
The law professor never said it was fair use, he said it "almost could be interpreted as implied permission." Does anyone really think that phrase 'could almost possibly be misinterpreted as the basis for, perhaps, a feasible, or even a viable, defense' to the legal action.
After reading the Denver Post article, and Professor Johnson's article, this is my impression of the Johnson article (which you should read)
Johnson says the Denver Post article, the one in a letter format from Mr. Rosen could "almost could be interpreted as implied permission." Reading the actual article, this is certainly a far stretch from what is written, and is more a tortured interpretation of the written word. Rosen expressing his support for a cause does not imply permission to take a protected work. The Denver Post article is simply and obviously, as even Professor Johnson mentioned in his article, a style choice for the work.
Of course irony and humor seem to have demanded that Mr. Rosen dump on the very people for whom he espoused support in his letter; it appears Mr. Rosen's open support demands a sum certain.
It's pretty much normal discovery, Steelcase can go after information that may lead to something admissible at trial.
That being said, the preferred method, if there is unrelated (i.e. financial data) information in the profile and other content, is an in camera review by the judge, where the judge looks at everything, then releases the relevant portions to the defendant.
The defense is complaining because the "alleged murder" is shown in that lovely orange jumpsuit, and that may bias some.
Firstly, I agree wholeheartedly, the First Amendment trumps the appearance of a fair trial issue here.
Secondly, who is the picture going to bias? Nobody! When the jury is selected the will know who the defendant is, and what he is accused of, it's not going to be a secret. If somebody already made up their mind on guilt or innocence, it was done when they heard the defendant was arrested; no one needs the orange jumpsuit to make up their mind.