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 the third part of our interesting investigation of intent here on Lawyers & Liquor, where we strive to provide baby lawyers and law students with a profane purview of the legal profession. I’m your host with little to say and 1,500+ words to say it in, the Boozy Barrister.
So, like we’ve covered every other time, this guide isn’t really aimed at lawyers. I mean, at least not good lawyers who paid attention during their first year of law school and therefore have a semi-firm grasp on these basic fucking concepts. I mean, these are concepts so basic they get a latte from the same Starbucks every damn day. You should know this shit well before now if you’re an attorney and any where the day-to-day practice of lot and not busy being some in-house asshole who forms their furniture solely out of frightened interns and sales representatives. It’s basic and fundamental to the practice of law to understand the question of states of mind and intent in the civil and criminal law system, that’s what we’re getting at here.
And we’ve gone through it now. Last time and the time before that we looked at the basic differences between the criminal and civil justice system and the standards of proof used, and then at the question and definition of what “intent” and “mens rea” mean in regards to the criminal justice system alone. And that was some dense shit, man. This time, though, we’re going to go into the sort of law that most of the people out there are going to be experienced with at some point in their life, and that’s civil justice. Because life isn’t a fucking Law & Order episode where a random celebrity is going to show up and commit some horrible crime against us, no matter how many times Kevin Spacey tries to break into your bedroom at night.
So, without taking up any more of my precious intro space, let’s lead ourselves down the garden path of civil intent and its meaning in this, our penultimate installment in our multi-part series.
Continue reading “Liable But Not Culpable, Part 3: Lexplaining The Reasonable Person and Civil Justice”
Ladies and Gentlemen, start your engines for this May, 2018 edition of Fetish Friday here on Lawyers & Liquor, where we examine the law in relation to the sexual escapades of others. Last time we covered what could best be described as a heavier than hell topic, the legality of cartoon porn depicting children or characters that are otherwise assumed to be minors, so I figured this time we’d return to something lighthearted. Something we can talk about without making the skin crawl right off our bodies and nope the hell out of here. Something that’ll really get your motors running.
That’s right, this month for Fetish Friday we’re going to talk about the sexual kink known as Mechanophilia, or the sexual attraction to machinery.
I’m your host, the Boozy Barrister.
Continue reading “Fetish Friday: Banging A Buick – Mechanophilia and the Law”