The Los Angeles Times has an interesting piece about the most pressing issue regarding free speech to come before the California State Supreme Court. I wonder if it will continue to the US Supreme Court. Basically, this is what is going on ...
A woman in southern California has a major problem with a restaurant/bar that she lives just a few feet away from, so she has been talking major smack about it. She has told potential patrons that the food is poisoned and that there are rats inside; she says the bar makes sex videos and sells child pornography; she says that it is run by mafia; and that they deal illicit drugs, amongst other claims.
The issue before the court is whether they legally can make her shut up. You see, she has the right to speak out, and it is most likely unconstitutional to issue an order for someone to shut up except in very certain circumstances. That doesn't mean she is allowed to get away with this. Normal recourse is for the victim to sue and to collect money after the fact, which should stop subsequent actions, but, under general circumstances, one cannot be stopped from making any future statements. Still, in this case, the restaurant/bar wants to stop her from saying things altogether because she is wrecking their quality of life.
If they are successful, will it open a can of worms? Speech is limited for such issues as national security, but not for defamation cases.
Interestingly, the woman doesn't care about free speech issues. She wants her lawyers to focus their efforts on the restaurant and bar. Here, read some of this:
Duke University constitutional law professor Erwin Chemerinsky is paying his own way to California and working free of charge to tell the California Supreme Court today that the order violates Lemen's right to free speech.
If Lemen loses, such court orders might become "a regular remedy in defamation cases," Chemerinsky said. Newspapers could even be barred from covering a person who won one, he said. In his view, the only appropriate remedy for defamation is monetary damages.
But J. Scott Russo, who will represent the Village Inn at the hearing, said the order was Toll's only way to stop Lemen from hurting his business. He said Toll did not ask for damages because it was impossible to specify how much money Lemen had cost him.
"It's ridiculous that someone can stand in front of a restaurant and tell patrons that the food makes you sick and that they sell drugs and have prostitution, and a court would have its hands tied and could not say 'Stop,' " Russo said.
I can see the conundrum. On the one hand, the restaurant wants to shut up someone that is telling lies and ruining their business. On the other hand, people worry that this can jeopardize the integrity of a system that allows robust freedom of speech.
Lemen, who owns the two-unit cottage a narrow alley away from the restaurant, began pestering Toll's employees and patrons, calling them "whores" and "Satan," videotaping departing customers walking to their cars and taking flash photographs through the restaurant's windows, court documents said.
The court did stop her from videotaping people. She's also claimed that she gets death threats but that the cops won't investigate the threats because they are in cahoots with what she claims are the mafia-owners of the restaurant. Let's just say the woman comes across as rather eccentric.
"All you need to win in court are two liars, one to back up the other, against the nice, innocent Christian woman," said Lemen, who wears her blond hair in a pageboy with bangs.
Lemen talks at breakneck speed and sometimes bursts into religious hymns or dances to the ring of her cellphone. "You should write this down," she repeatedly tells a reporter.
...
During a recent conversation, she suggested she pose "for fun" in a plastic crown with a torch she retrieved from the cottage basement. So adorned, she put her arm around her frontyard Statue of Liberty and belted out religious hymns as people walked by and stared.
Hey, even people like her have the right to have their freedom of speech protected. The question is whether she can ordered to stop telling lies about others in a way that directly affects their livlihood. Stay tuned ...
Recent Comments