Marquette Law Student Theresa Fallon Serving as ABA Law Student Division Liaison for the Dispute Resolution Section

I recently learned that Theresa Fallon, a 2L, was appointed by the ABA to serve as Liaison to the Section on Dispute Resolution for 2009-2010.  You can see a list naming Theresa and the other liaison appointees here.  Student liaisons to ABA entities such as the Dispute Resolution Section work to “serve as a line of communication between [their] respective entit[ies], Law Student Division, Division Circuits, and local law schools,” according to the front page of the Liaison website.

The competition for the liaison positions is tough, and it is an honor for Theresa to have been chosen.  In this position, Theresa will attend the section’s meetings and get to know its leadership, helping it to understand and serve the needs of law students.  She will also attend meetings for the ABA Law Student Division in the Seventh Circuit.  The liaison position is a wonderful opportunity for Theresa to make connections, serve the profession, and represent Marquette University Law School in national legal circles.

Continue ReadingMarquette Law Student Theresa Fallon Serving as ABA Law Student Division Liaison for the Dispute Resolution Section

IP Colloquium Tackles Fairey v. AP

Intellectual Property Colloquium Doug Lichtman at UCLA is producing a fantastic series of monthly podcasts on IP issues, called the Intellectual Property Colloquium. This month’s episode is on fair use in the Shepard Fairey case, and features a terrific line-up of guests: Mark Lemley, attorney for Fairey; Dale Cendali, attorney for AP; and Ken Richieri, General Counsel at the New York Times, who adds the view of someone on both sides of the issue. Doug asks some pretty good questions, particularly about the notoriously circular fourth fair use factor (the effect on the potential market). It’s worth a listen, and you can also use it for CLE credit in six states, “and any state that accepts any of those through reciprocity,” which I believe includes Wisconsin (do not rely on me for this).

Continue ReadingIP Colloquium Tackles Fairey v. AP

Sarcasm and Public Employment Don’t Mix, Part Deux

GavelBack in my previous blogging life, I wrote about a case by the 11th Circuit, Mitchell v. Hillsborough County, No. 05-12207 (11th Cir., Oct. 31, 2006), which involved a county employee who made satirical remarks about one of the country commissioners, and got fired for it.  In “Swift Would Be Ashamed” from 2006, I wrote about the facts of that case:

Plaintiff Gary Mitchell had a job filming the meetings of his local Board of Commissioners and he also volunteered at the local public access television station. Due to a brouhaha over indecent programming, the Board of Commissioners had proposed to cut public access funding. Commissioner Rhonda Storms was leading the morality crusade, so Mitchell decided to have some fun at her expense. During the open comment period of a supervisors’ meeting, Mitchell took to the podium wearing a beret with a thunderbolt on top and announced that he was a member of a fictitious political support group called the Thunderheads. He then gave a speech praising Storms and concluded with a question: given her preoccupation with women’s body parts, did she prefer the nickname “Vagi” or “Gina”?

I perhaps can understand the efficiency argument in this case (though it is certainly not a slam dunk), but I don’t agree at all that this is not speech on a matter of public concern.  As Robert [Loblaw] points out, that would be like saying Jonathan Swift’s Modest Proposal was really about cannibalism.

The 11th Circuit found that Mitchell’s speech was not a matter of public concern, and even if it was, the efficiency concerns of the employer in ensuring co-worker harmony outweighed any First Amendment rights Mitchell would have had.

Well, the humor of the federal courts has not improved in three years.  Not even in my hometown. 

Continue ReadingSarcasm and Public Employment Don’t Mix, Part Deux