Berkeley CSUA MOTD:Entry 46472
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2019/03/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

2007/4/28-5/1 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:46472 Activity:nil
4/29    CA Supreme Court rules to limit future speech. (LA Times)
        What implications does this have? -emarkp
        \_ The implication is that someone who has already been convicted
           of slanderous speech can't say the same thing again.  Oh no.  -tom
        \_ None. Prior restraint law is fairly well developed and there
           is nothing really remarkable about this case. The CA S. Ct.
           felt that the presumption of invalidity of a prior restraint
           was overcome.
        \_ I suspect the USSC will overturn this. The restraining order
           should be enough, imo.
           \_ Doubtful, there is really nothing to justify taking cert.
2019/03/20 [General] UID:1000 Activity:popular

You may also be interested in these entries...
2010/11/2-2011/1/13 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/President/Reagan] UID:54001 Activity:nil
11/2    California Uber Alles is such a great song
        \_ Yes, and it was written about Jerry Brown. I was thinking this
           as I cast my vote for Meg Whitman. I am independent, but I
           typically vote Democrat (e.g., I voted for Boxer). However, I
           can't believe we elected this retread.
           \_ You voted for the billionaire that ran HP into the ground
2010/8/29-9/30 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/Immigration] UID:53942 Activity:kinda low
8/29    OC turning liberal, maybe there is hope for CA afterall:
        \_ and the state is slowly turning conservative. Meg 2010!
           \_ We will see. Seems unlikely.
        \_ Yeah, because CA sure has a problem with not enough dems in power!
           If only dems had been running the state for the last 40 years!
2010/7/15-8/11 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:53885 Activity:nil
7/15    "Mom jailed over sex with 14-year-old son"
        \_ I just bought a hot homeless teen runaway lunch.
           Am i going to jail?
           \_ Was she 18?
        \_ FYI people "MILF" doesn't always mean what you think it means.
2010/4/15-5/10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:53786 Activity:nil
4/15    Guess who is not on this list (States with worst projected deficits):
        \_ Don't know how CA missed that list; we're looking at a $20B deficit
           on $82.9B spending (24.1%)  -tom
           \_ Even if that number is accurate, it makes California #7. That's
              enlightening given the attenion California has received.
2009/9/2-9 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:53319 Activity:low
9/2     California will survive its crackup:
        \_ not if we can help it.
        \_ I like the comparison with Italy.  Maybe someday we can have
          dozens of political parties fighting!  yay chaos!!
          \_ Do you think Italian people have a lower quality of life than
2009/8/12-9/1 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:53268 Activity:moderate
8/12    Thanks for destroying the world's finest public University! (The Economist)
        \_ Why not raise tuition? At private universities, students generate
           revenue. Students should not be seen as an expense. UC has
           been a tremendous bargain for most of its existence. It's time
           to raise tuition to match the perceived quality of the
2009/2/27-3/5 [Politics/Domestic/California, Health/Women] UID:52654 Activity:moderate
        *shocking* allegations.
        China denounces US 'rights abuse':
                China has responded in detail to a US report published this
                week criticising China for alleged rights abuses. Beijing
                released its own report on the US, saying crime is a threat to
2009/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California, Industry/Jobs] UID:52585 Activity:moderate
2/16    So California is going to lay off 20% of employees. Seems like a
        good idea, but won't all those people now get unemployment benefits? So
        we'll be paying something like 60% of their salaries (depends on
        their income) for 0% of their work.
        \_ It's a great idea because we're starving the beast. Who needs
           a big government? Every man should be self reliant for his own
2009/2/17-19 [Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold, Politics/Domestic/California/Prop] UID:52590 Activity:high
2/16    California is truly f'd for sure this time.  Can we find another pair
        of stupid radio DJs to start a drive to recall Arnold?
        \_ It will only help if we get a governor with a spine, and get rid of
           the incompetent legislature.
           \_ How do you expect that we will get a decent ledge?  With the 2/3rd
2009/2/4-10 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:52512 Activity:kinda low
2/4     Another business flees California
        \_ this whole bribe businesses to "create" jobs is a crock of bs imo
           \_ Sure, but the end result is CA loses jobs.
              \_ well, no, it isn't.  Other business replace them.  -tom
                 \_ May I suggest that when you make such asinine comments
2009/1/12-15 [Politics/Domestic/California, Politics/Domestic/California/Arnold] UID:52362 Activity:moderate
1/12    Californians fleeing to other states in record numbers:
        \_ Thank god, I hope this will ease up with congestion. On the
           other hand, this may result in Latino explosion... hmmm....
              \_ I don't mind more Salma Hayek and Yurizan Beltran.
2008/11/3 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51795 Activity:high
11/3    Protect Marriage and vote YES ON EIGHT! Trickle down economy
        works. Let's cut tax till the beast is starving. Let California
        go bankrupt! Iraq War is good. God Bless. -Reagan loving zombie troll
        \_ What's Obama's position on CA Prop 8, or the same issue on national
           \_ Obama is anti-8
Cache (3500 bytes) ->,1,1812360.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california
Large Text Size Large Text Size Change text size State supreme court moves to limit speech State justices for the first time rule that defendants can be barred from making defamatory statements in the future. By Maura Dolan, Times Staff Writer April 27, 2007 SAN FRANCISCO -- In a significant development in free speech law, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that state courts may silence people who have defamed others. Ruling in the case of a 58-year-old Newport Beach woman who accused a local bar of serving tainted food and making sex videos, the high court said a judge may order Anne Lemen to stop repeating false and scurrilous statements that were found by a trial court to be defamatory. The decision marked the first time the state high court has approved barring defendants in defamation cases from making statements in the future. Judges typically punish defamation by ordering defendants to pay damages. The dissenters in the 5-2 ruling warned that the court was authorizing a prior restraint on free speech, a legal concept rooted in English common law. "To forever gag the speaker -- the remedy approved by the majority -- goes beyond chilling speech," Justice Joyce L Kennard wrote. Because violating such an order could mean fines or jail, the prospect may "deter a person from speaking at all," Kennard wrote. But the majority said a narrow order against further defamation was constitutional. that does no more than prohibit the defendant from repeating the defamation is not a prior restraint and does not offend the 1st Amendment," Justice Carlos R Moreno wrote for the majority. A lawsuit by Aric Toll, who owns the Village Inn on Balboa Island with his parents, triggered the decision. Toll said Lemen was driving his customers away by videotaping them and telling outrageous lies about his business. He said Lemen told others that he had Mafia connections and had attempted to kill her. Toll's plight elicited sympathy from some of the justices at oral arguments, a factor that probably influenced Thursday's ruling. "Every ruling is affected by the facts of the case, and that is why hard cases make bad law," said Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, an expert on the state high court. "But when it comes to the burdens with respect to 1st Amendment protection, this is a pretty significant step." He said he had spent about $100,000 pursuing his case against Lemen, who describes herself as a Christian evangelist and owns a home next door to Toll's business. "She is capable of a lot of damage, and she just doesn't let up," Toll said. D Michael Bush, who represented Lemen at trial, said he was disappointed. Bush described Lemen as "emotionally vulnerable" and called the case "a human tragedy." "She is ill-equipped to handle herself in a public manner," he said, asking that she not be contacted by the media. The concept of prior restraint came into the public lexicon with such major cases as the Pentagon Papers and Nazis' seeking to march in a Jewish neighborhood in Skokie, Ill. The prohibition against prior restraint originally applied only to the news media, the court said. The idea was that requiring the media to obtain permission to publish something because it allegedly would be libelous would stifle the free expression at the heart of a democratic society. Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar, in her dissent, said it was "unescapable" that prohibiting Lemen from making certain statements in the future violated the Constitution.