Back

ABA Journal

Home

Law Schools

Do Footnoted Allegations of Vegetarian Bias Amount to Defamation? Suit Targets Law Review Article

Jan 3, 2013, 11:30 am CST

Comments

No mention of whether this got served. New Jersey doesn't seem to be the most appropriate venue based on what has been written here.

Then again, whoever filed the lawsuit also doesn't understand defamation and invasion of privacy laws. Wow.

I know Mr. Kramer. Great guy. Sorry to hear he's going to have to deal with this nutcase. (Uh oh, am I going to get sued now in New Jersey? Lol.)

By John on 2013 01 03, 11:57 am CST

"Associate dean for intellectual life"? You gotta be kidding.

By B. McLeod on 2013 01 03, 1:13 pm CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By UncleJed on 2013 01 03, 2:28 pm CST

"Healthy" is the word you were looking for, Uncle Jed. Was your LSAT verbal score a lot lower than your math one? There are programs for expanding vocabulary.

By Pushkin on 2013 01 03, 5:10 pm CST

Meh, UncleJed's statement was so absurd that it was pretty darn funny. Certainly the best post so far.

By NoleLaw on 2013 01 03, 6:42 pm CST

...so goes that silly free speech deal (aka 1st Amendment).

I will be carefully scanning all future comments. God forbid someone says anything anti-Catholic or anti-conservative and doesn't have the "comment removed by moderator." And I mean something as seemingly innocuous as "that is pretty conservative". Because, like the word "gay", the word "conservative" has no inherent negative connotations. In fact, the term used to describe homosexuals (g@y) is not considered derogatory in any way, to my knowledge. However, to say in a humorous way, that something (not even someONE) is, well... you know... subjects the comment to removal.
Again, if that is the rule, I'm totally cool with it. Just make sure, Herr Moderator, that you remove ANY reference to any other group that is used as a descriptor. Specific examples might help you:
In reference to a judge who hands down a conservative victory in a case, "Whoa that was kinda conservative!" Not, "what a conservative scumbag" mind you, just "wow, that was conservative."
That comment is to be removed by moderator.
Maybe another example, at the risk of becoming redundant and repeating myself over and over and over: ACA mandated contraception coverage is preliminarily enjoined by court, concluding that a Roman Catholic employer's belief that paying for such coverage contradicts her religious beliefs. Somebody posts the comment, "That decision is kinda Catholic." RED ALERT RED ALERT, ENGAGE COMMENT REMOVAL! Right moderator?
Boy those vegetarians are a touchy lot!

By UncleJed on 2013 01 03, 11:43 pm CST

You have to realize the Mods have been on a long break here, by and large going sunup to sundown hardly moderating anybody. So of course they're a little stir-crazy, especially when you start advancing crazy postulates that no gays are meateaters.

By B. McLeod on 2013 01 04, 12:00 am CST

#7, you are indeed the master of double entendre.

By Walt Fricke on 2013 01 04, 3:22 am CST

Well, as I see it, it is better to be born great or to achieve greatness than to have greatness thrust upon one.

By B. McLeod on 2013 01 04, 6:07 am CST

Law review articles are better off not using real people as their examples unless the allegations have been proven in a court of law, or admitted in some way. Although I have no idea of the facts here, a lot of people make a lot of stuff up in lawsuits. In the quoted language, I do not see the word "allegedly" mentioned at all. Indeed, if a newspaper were publishing an account of this, they would usually contact the other side for their side of the story.

By Grigg on 2013 01 04, 2:36 pm CST

#9 -- Welcome to 21st century America, in which "greatness" matters and its means of acquisition does not. That is why more Americans can identify Honey Boo Boo's mom than three US Supreme Court justices.

By AndytheLawyer on 2013 01 04, 4:35 pm CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By Altar Boy on 2013 01 04, 4:41 pm CST

UncleJed @ 6, no vegetarians are not a touchy lot, but "gay" ("happy") people can be, especially those who are meateaters. I do take issue with your statement the word "gay" does not inherently have negative connotations. It does to many, especially to some conservatives. Free speech in an ABA forum? You were way too optimistic.

By Realist on 2013 01 04, 11:31 pm CST

@11: Who is Honey Boo Boo?

By John Ruskin on 2013 01 04, 11:32 pm CST

Is that the new, hill person version of "who is John Gault"?

By B. McLeod on 2013 01 04, 11:57 pm CST

Comment removed by moderator.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 01 05, 6:53 pm CST

Merriam Webster defines "hamburger" as: "1. a: ground beef . b: a patty of ground beef . 2: a sandwich consisting of a patty of hamburger in a split typically round bun."

Hence, even though Catalanello might be "full of bull" in a manner of speaking, I do not think he qualifies as "beef" (although he certainly seems to "have a beef"). Accordingly, I do not think he can be "ground into hamburger." Even if he were to experience a traffic collision in which his physical form were to be forcefully commingled with that of a native of Hamburg, I believe that would be more accurately described as Catalanello being "ground into a Hamburger."

I am actually surprised that the post survived at all, as the Moderators have been known to remove relatively innocuous posts relating to certain proposed legislative authorizations of taser use as "promoting violence." But, perhaps the Moderators read the post as advocating the proposed minced rendition of Catalanello only after his death from natural causes. One can never be quite certain about the Moderators.

By B. McLeod on 2013 01 05, 9:34 pm CST

Amen for a moderate Moderator.

Maybe she doesn't have a beef with vegetarians.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 01 05, 11:55 pm CST

Right. I mean, sometimes you might suspect their personal views are getting into the removals, a bit.

By B. McLeod on 2013 01 06, 8:45 am CST

One sincerely prays that this doesn't happen in US Immigration Court. But here? Getting removed is not a death sentence. Actually, it can be character building.

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 01 06, 6:53 pm CST

One of my cousins was twice removed.

By B. McLeod on 2013 01 06, 9:44 pm CST

I feel pretty, oh so pretty....

By UncleJed on 2013 01 07, 2:18 pm CST

I presume that the discussion here is not about the merits of the lawsuit against the author of the law review article because that suit has no merit. Is it clear that there is at least qualified privilege to report on lawsuits based on the publicly-available pleadings (whether or not one says 'allegedly' from time to time, so long as the source of the allegations is clear)?

By John G on 2013 01 07, 4:03 pm CST

For Uncle Jed --
You lamented the removal of a comment that looks like it was funny, that I would have liked to read (based on the banter afterward). But the First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with what happened. It just says that Congress cannot make laws restricting the content of speech. Many people think that means they can say anything, and no one can interfere with their right to say it. Well, no. A forum like this can have rules about what is permissible, and your employer can have rules about what you can and cannot say in certain circumstances. You can say what you want, but: 1.) no one has to take it seriously; and 2.) you have to pay the consequences. When people say something, and others jump in and ridicule it, often the first reaction is, where's my freedom of speech? But people have a right to rebut and make fun of what others say. That IS free speech, and that's the whole point.

By Vorhedian on 2013 01 07, 4:55 pm CST

For (real) info about vegetarianism, please visit

Eco-Eating

www.brook.com/veg

By Dan Brook, Ph.D. on 2013 01 07, 10:26 pm CST

While I feel livestock slaughter and related videos provide the best argument for vegetarianism, there are other reasons too: www.facebook.com/pages/Christian-Vegetarian-Association/10156148652?ref=ts&fref=ts

By Tom Youngjohn on 2013 01 07, 10:30 pm CST

Does anyone know what the result of the underlying case is? Did anyone bother to check before writing posts?

By Paul Potter on 2013 01 08, 12:54 pm CST

Does anyone ever? You must be new to this site.

By B. McLeod on 2013 01 08, 1:25 pm CST

UncleJed - I didn't see your original comment, so I don't know how you used the term "gay." But if you used it to connote a "sissy" or in some other insulting fashion, yeah, that's a negative connotation. It's like calling someone a retard, say, on Twitter. Or suggesting that a woman who gets pregnant following a rape wasn't really raped. But I digress. Generally speaking, people don't use the term "conservative" as an insult or put down, although come to think of it, we probably should.

By isolde on 2013 01 09, 6:20 pm CST

Add a Comment

We welcome your comments, but please adhere to our comment policy.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.