The Maryland Daily Record reports that juror in the Shelia Dixon trial Facebook friended each other before the jury verdict.
The messages were very 'no harm, no foul" but there were 12 lawyers working on this case for Dixon. Somehow, I expect this is going to come up. Judge Sweeney is not going to declare a mistrial over it and neither is the Maryland Court of Special Appeals. But expect a lot of trees to go in the process to this outcome.
Strippers in Prince George's County scored another victory when a federal judge ruled that strip clubs in Prince George’s County can keep on serving alcohol because a state law enabling the county’s licensing board to revoke liquor licenses issued to strip bars violates equal protection and free speech under the Constitution. Somewhere, I'm sure James Madison and Abraham Lincoln are smiling because I think they had exactly strip clubs in Prince George's County in their minds putting together the 1st and 4th Amendments. I'm sure they would have been offended by the sensibilities of the Prince George's County law that required - among it other draconian measures - no touching the patrons. No lap dances? The inhumanity.
Why another victory for Prince George's County strippers? No reason. I just thought it was a fun title.
The Maryland Daily Record reports that Baltimore County may ban portable ads on its roads and parking lots.
Does not sound like an awful idea although I wonder if there are 1st Amendment issues. I think a bigger distraction is radio commercials scare me half to death beeping horns in their ads. I have to think that these horns have to panic some drivers into car accidents.
The Maryland Daily Record published a story today about a St. Mary’s County, Maryland man who is bringing suit against adultfriendfinder.com and three anonymous users of the site for defamation and false light invasion of privacy over the posting of sexually explicit pictures of his wife.
I hope more information comes out about this story because I have a lot of questions. First, the man claims that his reputation as a monogamous spouse has been smeared as a result of the inference that he is a swinger. This is nonsense on a number of levels. As a service to you, the loyal Maryland Lawyer Blog reader, I went to this website. There is no presumption that everyone on the site is part of a swinging couple. In fact, I think the major purpose of the site is to give couples a chance to pick up a third, if you will. This might cast some unfavorable impressions of his wife, who is very notably not a plaintiff, but it says very little about him and whether he has been faithful to his wife.
I would also be a bit curious to know exactly where sexually explicit pictures of his wife of 22 years came from in the first place. Three different users apparently have these pictures. There does not appear to be any suggestion that the pictures were stolen or unlawfully obtained.
I’m looking forward to seeing what develops from here. But I think this lawsuit is frivolous regardless of further facts, particularly against the website because the Communications Decency Act of 1996 bars claims against the website as a publisher. More to the point, I think all of this probably could have been avoided if the plaintiff or his lawyer had taken the time to have a long heart-to-heart talk with this man’s wife.
In Wisconsin, a lawsuit will be filed today against the mayor and the City Council of Green Bay president by the Madison-based Freedom from Religion Foundation who opposes the nativity scene the city placed at the entrance of City Hall.
If you ever watched West Wing, one of my 5 favorite shows of all-time, President Bartlett was asked by one of his young aids how the president speaking to Supreme Court justices at Red Mass did not create a separation of church and state problem. (Red Mass is a Catholic Mass celebrated annually by Catholic and non-Catholic lawyers and judges, the most prolific of which is the Red Mass held in October before the Supreme Court's fall session. The Mass held is to seek the Holy Spirit's guidance in the administration of justice in the coming year.) President Bartlett said: “And so how isn't it a Constitutional issue? It is, but sometimes you say, "Big deal." It was the intention not to have a national religion, not to have anyone's religious views imposed on anyone else, and not to have the government encourage a national display of piety as a substitute for real action.”
I realize that many have valid arguments to the idea that any intrusion into church and state is a slippery slope. But at some point, do we have to sweat all of the small stuff? Is anyone really offended by a nativity scene or “In God We Trust” on our currency?
I think we need more people saying “big deal” in our culture today. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Freedom from Religion Foundation is not going to be listening.
