Will Hans Niemann checkmate Magnus Carlsen again — in court? Will Sandy Hook families end up owning InfoWars? Why is everyone in this hipster coffee shop talking about Jacob Wohl's guilty plea?
While we often think about defamation as being constrained by the First Amendment, shouldn't we consider in certain contexts whether there might be other constitutional constraints as well? In this case, there is the allegation of use of an electronic buttplug or anal beads. As you know, such marital aids are protected under the right to privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut. "It follows that the Texas statute cannot define sexual devices themselves as obscene and prohibit their sale." Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle, 517 F.3d 738, 747 (5th Cir. 2008) ("Such devices include, but are not limited to, 'a dildo or artificial vagina'"). As a result, shouldn't Carlsen argue that the use of private marital aids is constitutionally protected and thus cannot form the basis for a claim of defamation?
Additionally, if Serious Trouble is thinking about swag ideas, I think a t-shirt which reads "The Penumbras Protect Butt Stuff" would sell well.
On venue, does it matter that St. Louis is the de facto chess capital of the US? St. Louis is home to many top American players (likely because it is also home to Rex Sinquefield-- namesake of the tournament and primary patron of American chess).
By analogy, is venue proper in the Middle District of Tennessee in most/all defamation cases about country music, even if the defendants don’t live in Nashville, and their statements were made online?
I'm surprised you didn't mention your Popehat blog saying that Tucker Carlson escaped a defamation suit from Karen McDougal because his statement that she was doing a shakedown of Trump was his opinion based on unchallenged facts. Wouldn't that be true here too?
Could Jacob Wohl become the next Donald Trump? Or is he more like Oliver Stone?
Josh I appreciate your phrasing in the chess conversation, and Ken thanks for suffering through it. I’ll just leave this here (prank phone call): https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IzxkJETW7lg
California, like some other states, has a registration regulation for in house counsel, that includes continuing legal education requirements among other things. If that CLO hadn’t registered in California, would that potentially make the attorney client privilege inapplicable? Here is the regulation: https://www.calbar.ca.gov/portals/0/documents/certification/MJP_In-House-Rules.pdf
re: attorney-client privilege with in-house counsel
This week’s discussion reminded me of when the GC of Al Jazeera US turned out to not be licensed at all (https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/almID/1202741962770/)
This whole situation made me think about televised poker. There was a huge cheating scandal in Sacramento about a player at a local card room called Stones. The Torched podcast episode 12 A Scandal at Stones explains it. Think about how easy it would be to cheat using the wi fi anal bead. Someone in the poker world has to have figured this out. How would investigating this kind is suspicion play out? Is there any kind of legal opportunity here? Torts? Damages? Blackmail? Where do fines go anyway? Or do you have to get LE to investigate? I’ve always been confused how cheating at sports, games, tests becomes a criminal matter.
On the Niemann suit: 1) The SLAPP law may not be driving this because the 2d Circuit says state SLAPP laws do not apply in federal court. 2) I am not sure there is jurisdiction in Connecticut. Even though he is from there, it is missing the "something more" connecting the defamatory statements to that state. Because the tournaments that triggered the accusations were in Missouri, the statements touch on events in that state more than the do Connecticut.