Welcome back to Free Speech Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor, where we discuss the concepts, cases, and limitations behind the system of speech in this wonderful country – namely the United States of America – and learn some neat shit about free speech jurisprudence and concepts together. I’m your constitutionally inept attorney host, the Boozy Barrister, here at the behest of the Free Speech Friday sponsor, Quack Quack Honk Designs!
In case you don’t know who that is, Quack Quack Honk Designs is an awesome independent art studio and artist set up in the wilds of Michigan that provides a large number of original works in adorable and neat styles. I have several of their prints decorating my office for when I go home and wash off the blood of my litigation enemies before settling into my den with a nice plate of cookies to and listening to old sing along story tapes, and you can too if you visit their storefront or drop into one of the many upcoming art show appearances to peruse their works! If you do, though, be sure to tell them that a drunken, angry, profane lawyer sent you their way.
In past editions of Free Speech Friday we’ve discussed the founding of the First Amendment and how it seemed to be the clearest thing in the world until, you know, it fucking wasn’t. We’ve also talked about how John Adams and his administration went out of their way to shit all over the constitutional protection to say what you want free from government interference. But today we’re gonna veer away from the historical to talk about something we need to recognize before we go too far down the rabbithole of what you can say without getting smacked upside your loose-lipped head by the giant dick of justice. That’s right, today we’re going to talk about situations where the right to speak freely is sharply curtailed, not by a desire to silence the speaker but because of the malicious and detrimental effect some types of speech can have on the subjects – especially when the speech is enough to set someone’s pants on fire. Today, we’re going to delve into the defamatory world of slander and libel. But first, a disclaimer.
Continue reading “Quack Quack Honk Presents Free Speech Friday: Defamation and Paul the Pud Pulling Youtuber”
Welcome to another Furry Friday here on Lawyers and Liquor, where our updates are as infrequent as our stability. As always, this Furry Friday is brought to you by FurPlanet, the premier furry book service thingy. Look, they print furry stuff, like books and prints and comics and shit and it’s all pretty nice. You should definitely go and check them out as I don a giant badger head to talk about a legal issue that is somewhat related to the Furry fandom or, in other ways, somehow relevant to the interests of giant animal people.
Like today’s topic, which has been one I’ve, admittedly, been working on for a while with little headway as other shit started seeping into my schedule of traveling from place to place and, you know, actually engaging in the practice of law. Namely, this one is for those of the canine persuasion and the historical discrimination that has resulted from the fining and otherwise punishing of Paul the Persistent Poodle for doing what comes naturally to members of that particular persuasion: engaging in the artistic Awoo. More specifically, the imposition of a $350.00 fine or, conversely, the requirement of a license to engage in the vocal demonstration of all that defines a person as a “good doggie” at 4 in the morning as neighbors may be trying to get a little shut-eye. And buckle up, folks, because we have a lot to go over with this. So much, in fact, that we’re going to be breaking the Legalization of Awoo into several different parts over a few Furry Friday posts because, let’s be honest, there’s some world building to be done here.
Continue reading “Furplanet’s Furry Friday: Legalize Awoo – The Case of Aycee v. Howler, Part 1”
Welcome to Wednesday on Lawyers & Liquor! I’m your host the Boozy Barrister, and today we’re gonna start stirring some shit up nice and creamy, a veritable shit stew, regarding the ability of a parent to withhold vaccinations from their children! That’s right, in the far off year of 2018, we’re seriously going to talk about the ability of the state to tell a parent they have absolutely no right to refuse to do something that common sense, common decency, and love for your fucking child should dictate you do goddamn anyhow without the state having to step in and call you a genuine fuckwit.
Goddammit, do I hate people some time.
Anyhow, at the end of this whole thing we’re going to be going over the rights of parents to refuse to inoculate their child for some dipshitty reason or another versus the power of the state to come in and smack the shit out of the self-same parents, forcing them to fucking give their kids a little pokey-pokey for the welfare of the human race as a whole. But before we even start to talk about that, we need to talk about something else, because it all fucking plays into the question of whether or not the government can force a kid to a receive a vaccination over the objections of the parents. We need to, first and foremost, talk about the religious liberty rights of a parent in relation to seeking medical treatment for their kids, and more specifically the rights of the parents who claim to hold religious beliefs that prevent them from seeking medical treatment for their kids.
So, without further ado, let’s look at Part 1 of “The State Can Inoculate” – The Religious Belief and Medical Care!
Continue reading “The State Can Inoculate – A Legal Discussion of State-Enforced Vaccinations Over Parental Objections, Part 1”
Yesterday was Gay Wedding Cake day in the lawyer world. If you’re not really sure what I’m referring to, I’d like to congratulate you on finding a new home under that rock. I hopes it’s spacious and has great wifi reception. For the rest of us that live in the real world, like the poor bastard behind the keyboard at Lawyers & Liquor, the internet went nuts when the news of the Supreme Court’s ruling of the case of the baker who refuses to be a Marie Antoinette-esque figure to LGBTQ+ couples and demands that they not eat his cake set the world aflame as people tried to read into its meanings. It was so bad that mere moments after the opinion was released I was fielding a phone call from a senior partner at my office who wanted to talk about it – meaning he wanted me to read and summarize it for him.
Most of the talk, though, was people desperately trying to find meaning in an opinion that never once really touched on the primary issue before it. Instead of talking about whether the butcher, the baker, and the leather gear maker have a right to deny service to literally anyone in the world they want by screaming “But my Jesus” and locking the doors at the mere sight of a rainbow, SCOTUS punted the ball. The Supreme Court issued a narrow ruling that applied to only that one set of facts, said “Fuck all of you waiting to hear if we’re about to descend into madness,” and based their ruling off of the baker not getting themselves an impartial tribunal at the first level in this shit.
Continue reading “Come on Arlene’s – A second bite at the apple in the wake of Masterpiece Caskeshop”
Let’s talk about the meme in the room, okay? This Film Friday, I’m eschewing a discussion of traditional media and the law and diving into the depths of internet memes and news stories to talk about a current events issue and, hopefully, put people on notice that the police are not your fucking friends when they’re talking to you and, even if you think you’re being absolutely clear, you have to literally use magic words to be entitled to your full constitutional protections.
That said, let’s dive into the case of the “lawyer dog.”
Continue reading “Film Friday: Lawyer Dog and The Incredible Injustice”