Search the Lounge


« Oscar Countdown: Day 26 | Main | Martin Katz Named Dean At Denver Law »

February 09, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Tiny point of local pride, but the name of the town where this all went down is "Pomona" (not "Ponoma"), which I feel obligated to point out because I'm pretty sure I'm the only lawprof and/or reader of this site who's from there.,_California


Correction noted, thanks Dave.

Calvin Massey

False statements of fact do not generally receive constitutional protection. The principal exception is defamation of public figures and, to a lesser extent, defamation of private figures on matters of public concern. Only if the USSC should conclude that false statements of fact about oneself are protected would we need to probe the compelling reasons for penalizing such statements. The government's interest might be insufficiently compelling, but that inquiry is relevant only after a conclusion that false statements of fact about oneself are protected. Such false statements might be protected when uttered in the context of a political campaign, although courts are split on the question of whether governments can punish false political speech.


If your theory is right, then I don't see how Congress can prohibit trademark dilution.

Francine Norris

I read about this story somewhere else and if I'm not mistaken I think he was claiming he had earned other awards too. Which is just unbelievable if none of it is true.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad