II. CORPORATIONS CANNOT
EVADE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS
CRITICISM.
Large corporations and individuals with deep
pockets may try to suppress speech using the
court system because they are angered by the
criticism. “Humans dislike self-directed
criticism. The intolerance within all of us can
oversuppress speech which is otherwise useful
either to the speaker or to a listener. The
desire to suppress unpleasant or critical
speech is almost irrepressible.” Moore v. City of
Kilgore, 877 F.2d 364, 380 (5th Cir. 1989).
Commercial entities may also try to
suppress criticism because they believe it will
hurt their bottom line. Because
corporations often have resources which the
citizen critic lacks, they are able to
intimidate critics with threatened or actual
litigation.
Corporations or wealthy individuals attempting
to silence critics are just as
dangerous to free debate as the government
doing the same. If corporations are
able to suppress criticism of their products and
services, not only do the critics
suffer, but other consumers lack the
information they need to make informed
decisions. “The constitutional guarantee of
free speech ‘serves significant societal
interests’ wholly apart from the speaker’s
interest in self-expression” and “protects
the public’s interest in receiving information.”
Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. Public
Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)
(citations omitted).
EVADE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO SUPPRESS
CRITICISM.
Large corporations and individuals with deep
pockets may try to suppress speech using the
court system because they are angered by the
criticism. “Humans dislike self-directed
criticism. The intolerance within all of us can
oversuppress speech which is otherwise useful
either to the speaker or to a listener. The
desire to suppress unpleasant or critical
speech is almost irrepressible.” Moore v. City of
Kilgore, 877 F.2d 364, 380 (5th Cir. 1989).
Commercial entities may also try to
suppress criticism because they believe it will
hurt their bottom line. Because
corporations often have resources which the
citizen critic lacks, they are able to
intimidate critics with threatened or actual
litigation.
Corporations or wealthy individuals attempting
to silence critics are just as
dangerous to free debate as the government
doing the same. If corporations are
able to suppress criticism of their products and
services, not only do the critics
suffer, but other consumers lack the
information they need to make informed
decisions. “The constitutional guarantee of
free speech ‘serves significant societal
interests’ wholly apart from the speaker’s
interest in self-expression” and “protects
the public’s interest in receiving information.”
Pacific Gas and Elec. Co. v. Public
Utilities Commission, 475 U.S. 1, 8 (1986)
(citations omitted).
Tarla Makaeff v. Trump
University
University
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park Elem
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Daivd Blair-Loy supports the First
Amendment--except when his friends are violating it
It seems that political expediency and friendship with cronies caused Blair-Loy to support
egregious violations of the First Amendment in San Diego
Amendment--except when his friends are violating it
It seems that political expediency and friendship with cronies caused Blair-Loy to support
egregious violations of the First Amendment in San Diego
It turns out that David Blair-Loy, in contradiction to his own stated policy, does sometimes
believe in suing regarding First Amendment rights. He just doesn't like to sue the clients
of his pals who are attorneys for public schools in San Diego.
believe in suing regarding First Amendment rights. He just doesn't like to sue the clients
of his pals who are attorneys for public schools in San Diego.
Silence at Boalt Hall
The Dismantling of Affirmative Action
Andrea Guerrero
The Dismantling of Affirmative Action
Andrea Guerrero
Maura Larkins comment:
Large organizations such as the ACLU,
incredibly enough, are not immune to
the urge to silence criticism. My father
deeply admired the ACLU for standing
by its principles. It seems that it's a
new world now. David Blair-Loy,
author of the brief at left, tried to
oversuppress criticism of a law firm
that represented public schools in San
Diego.
The San Diego ACLU has avoided
suing public schools, even as the Los
Angeles ACLU has been winning cases
against schools. The LA ACLU sued
the LAUSD for firing all or almost all
the teachers at low-performing schools
because seniority policies demanded
it.
The Los Angeles ACLU also named
districts in a suit on school fees, but
San Diego ACLU declined to name
San Diego Unified School District in the
suit, apparently purely out of a desire
to go easy on its pals. Blair-Loy told
those gathered at the 2011 San
Diego ACLU general meeting that he
preferred not to sue, but to negotiate
with school lawyers. He said a lawsuit
is the "worst" option. Yet he is
constantly suing other institutions. He
seems to want the Constitution to be
applied very sparingly to the public
schools represented by his friends. He
only wants a few student speech
issues to be discussed, and seems to
be either opposed to employee
speech, or not much interested in it.
Large organizations such as the ACLU,
incredibly enough, are not immune to
the urge to silence criticism. My father
deeply admired the ACLU for standing
by its principles. It seems that it's a
new world now. David Blair-Loy,
author of the brief at left, tried to
oversuppress criticism of a law firm
that represented public schools in San
Diego.
The San Diego ACLU has avoided
suing public schools, even as the Los
Angeles ACLU has been winning cases
against schools. The LA ACLU sued
the LAUSD for firing all or almost all
the teachers at low-performing schools
because seniority policies demanded
it.
The Los Angeles ACLU also named
districts in a suit on school fees, but
San Diego ACLU declined to name
San Diego Unified School District in the
suit, apparently purely out of a desire
to go easy on its pals. Blair-Loy told
those gathered at the 2011 San
Diego ACLU general meeting that he
preferred not to sue, but to negotiate
with school lawyers. He said a lawsuit
is the "worst" option. Yet he is
constantly suing other institutions. He
seems to want the Constitution to be
applied very sparingly to the public
schools represented by his friends. He
only wants a few student speech
issues to be discussed, and seems to
be either opposed to employee
speech, or not much interested in it.
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
New School Board Policy
Forbids Criticism
September 26, 2008
By EMILY ALPERT
Voice of San Diego
A new San Diego Unified rule bans school board
members from publicly criticizing the
superintendent or his staff.
The controversial restriction is part of a new set
of governance policies passed earlier this month
by the San Diego Unified school board to define
its powers and responsibilities. Board members
hammered out the policies this summer with the
help of paid consultants, hoping to stop their
squabbling and the criticized practice of meddling
in everyday school decisions. They also set
specific goals and timelines for achieving them.
School board members "will not publicly express
individual negative judgments about
superintendent and staff performance," the rule
reads. "Any such judgments of superintendent or
staff performance will be expressed in executive
session." They must also "respect decisions of
the board and … not undermine those decisions"
when speaking publicly.
Willfully violating that or any other rule can lead
to penalties from a private scolding to public
censure and removal from leadership positions
or committees, the policies state.
Discord among employees and the board has
been a persistent issue in San Diego Unified
School District. Its last superintendent, Carl
Cohn, said it had "a culture of conflict." For
example, Gompers Middle School Principal Vince
Riveroll faced public criticism and was abruptly
pulled from his position in 2005 when the school
was seeking to become a charter school
operated independently from the school district;
Riveroll was later reinstated without explanation.
"You don't cross the line of a personal attack
where you are evaluating a person," said school
board member Mitz Lee, adding that she and
other board members will still ask questions of
their staff and share their opinions on policies.
"… I don't understand why people are going to
be worrying about it."
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union
and the open government group Californians
Aware derided the rule, saying it flouts the First
Amendment and cannot be enforced.
"I'm flabbergasted," said David Blair-Loy,
legal director of the regional ACLU chapter.
"This is so outrageous. … It's a complete
violation of speech. It undermines
democracy."... [Maura Larkins comment:
hypocrisy alert!]
Forbids Criticism
September 26, 2008
By EMILY ALPERT
Voice of San Diego
A new San Diego Unified rule bans school board
members from publicly criticizing the
superintendent or his staff.
The controversial restriction is part of a new set
of governance policies passed earlier this month
by the San Diego Unified school board to define
its powers and responsibilities. Board members
hammered out the policies this summer with the
help of paid consultants, hoping to stop their
squabbling and the criticized practice of meddling
in everyday school decisions. They also set
specific goals and timelines for achieving them.
School board members "will not publicly express
individual negative judgments about
superintendent and staff performance," the rule
reads. "Any such judgments of superintendent or
staff performance will be expressed in executive
session." They must also "respect decisions of
the board and … not undermine those decisions"
when speaking publicly.
Willfully violating that or any other rule can lead
to penalties from a private scolding to public
censure and removal from leadership positions
or committees, the policies state.
Discord among employees and the board has
been a persistent issue in San Diego Unified
School District. Its last superintendent, Carl
Cohn, said it had "a culture of conflict." For
example, Gompers Middle School Principal Vince
Riveroll faced public criticism and was abruptly
pulled from his position in 2005 when the school
was seeking to become a charter school
operated independently from the school district;
Riveroll was later reinstated without explanation.
"You don't cross the line of a personal attack
where you are evaluating a person," said school
board member Mitz Lee, adding that she and
other board members will still ask questions of
their staff and share their opinions on policies.
"… I don't understand why people are going to
be worrying about it."
Attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union
and the open government group Californians
Aware derided the rule, saying it flouts the First
Amendment and cannot be enforced.
"I'm flabbergasted," said David Blair-Loy,
legal director of the regional ACLU chapter.
"This is so outrageous. … It's a complete
violation of speech. It undermines
democracy."... [Maura Larkins comment:
hypocrisy alert!]
David Loy's email to Maura Larkins
warning her to stop discussing
school attorneys in San Diego.
warning her to stop discussing
school attorneys in San Diego.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff &
Holtz v. Maura Larkins
Holtz v. Maura Larkins
David Loy's position #1
David Loy's position #2