BLITZ-ERED WITH LAWYERLY DERISION
I see that two of the blawgosphere's most evenhanded writers are rolling their eyes this afternoon. What riles Mike Fox and Eugene Volokh? Seems to me it's folks who they feel don't get the law.
First, Mr. Fox rolled his eyes at Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., and his comments to CNN's Wolf Blitzer in "the Walmart rhubarb."
Now I see that even sanguine-in-nearly-all-circumstances Eugene Volokh is fed up, too. The good professor is not impressed that Universal Communication Systems CEO Michael J. Zwebner is suing a number of folks over a message board flame war. These defendants include, of all people, CNN's <em>Wolf Blitzer</em>, whom Zwebner accuses of failing to stop some message board yahoo from assuming Blitzer's name in public messages critical of Zwebner on RagingBull.com.
Volokh's assessment? Here's a taster:
"Appalling. First, I doubt that Blitzer even had a legal right to stop Wolfblitzzer0 from his posts; unless the posts were commercial advertising (which I doubt), Blitzer wouldn't have a right of publicity or trademark claim against Wolfblitzzer0. And I doubt Blitzer would have a libel claim (on the theory that Wolfblitzzer0 is hurting Blitzer's reputation by posting things under his name) because few readers would really think that the poster is Wolf Blitzer.
But second ..."
Posted by Laurel Newby on February 17, 2005 at 06:50 PM | Permalink
| TrackBack (0)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference BLITZ-ERED WITH LAWYERLY DERISION: