Two interesting court decisions were handed down Thursday:
Judge Blocks Class Action vs. State Farm Over Katrina Damage
A federal judge on Thursday refused to allow a class action against State Farm Insurance Cos. over the insurer's denial of claims on Mississippi's Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.
Obviously the correct decision.
Mass contract/common law tort claims *never* are suitable for class actions. In fact, the only beneficiary of class actions in those circumstances are sleazebag-style plaintiff's attorneys, who then use the specter of class-wide judgments to extort settlement monies - keeping, of course, big piles for themselves but obtaining quite little for class members.
Judge Blocks 1998 Online Porn Law
Software filters work much better than a 1998 federal law designed to keep pornography away from children on the Internet, a federal judge ruled Thursday in striking down the measure on free-speech grounds.
Another correct decision. That law was far too broad and paternalistic to boot.
Permalink | Linking Blogs | Sphere: Related Content | Digg this! | FARK It!
Filed under:
Judges, Law
Comments (5)
thank godnes. us six yeer o... (Below threshold)1. Posted by Keevin | March 23, 2007 3:13 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
thank godnes. us six yeer olds nead porn to!
1. Posted by Keevin | March 23, 2007 3:13 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 23, 2007 03:13
2. Posted by WildWillie | March 23, 2007 8:00 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I agree the class action suit should have been overturned. The mob mentality thought it would get through.
I also agree with the porn decision even though I dispise porn. However, our library systems are not allowed to use filters, isn't that true? ww
2. Posted by WildWillie | March 23, 2007 8:00 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 23, 2007 08:00
3. Posted by Faith+1 | March 23, 2007 10:59 AM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
The problem with the "porn law" is that once you got beyond the title it was one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written. It was so broad and far reaching it pretty much gave the power to the government to retroactively change its interpretation of what "porn" was against anybody. It was so broad a judge who felt an normally innocent picture would be considered porn. For example, in theory the infamous sun tan lotion ad of the puppy tugging on a child's bathing suit could have been classified as porn.
Or imagine if an extreme mindset had the authority to make the determination--i.e. suppose an extreme fundamentalist Christian or a Sharia following Muslim made the call. The law was broad enough to allow a person of authority to determine that any woman portrayed and NOT dressed in a hajib was porn.
It was a bad, bad law and needed to be struck down.
3. Posted by Faith+1 | March 23, 2007 10:59 AM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 23, 2007 10:59
4. Posted by John F Not Kerry | March 23, 2007 1:15 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Welcome back Jayson! I've missed you since the unmentioned website exodus.
4. Posted by John F Not Kerry | March 23, 2007 1:15 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 23, 2007 13:15
5. Posted by Hal Duston | March 23, 2007 4:26 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
I was once (by default) a member of a class in a class action suit agains a credit card company. When it was settled, my share of the settlement was about 39 cents which was credited to my next statement.
5. Posted by Hal Duston | March 23, 2007 4:26 PM |
Score: 0 (0 votes cast)
Posted on March 23, 2007 16:26