Dogs In Review Magazine July 2017 | Page 27

LET’S MAKE IT LEGAL ROBERT NEWMAN 24 When Social Media Isn’t Sociable A s an attorney, there are resources available to me when I find a client’s case assigned to a judge I am not familiar with. There are the standard judicial profiles, prior decisions rendered that may provide insight, and tentative rulings on current cases pending before that judge that may be an indicator of how he or she views a particular issue. With a little more digging, I can usually learn if a judge supports more liberal causes such as indigent or inmate literacy projects, or leans toward more conservative causes such as a particular religious group or the NRA. Frequently, this information may determine whether I will stay with that judge or exercise my one peremptory challenge and go back into random assignment, where my client’s case will be reassigned to a different (and hopefully more favorable) judge. Exercising this peremptory chal- lenge is, ironically enough, referred to as using your “bullet” on the original judge. There is also another resource available to me—it’s contained on the ever-reliable internet, and readily avail- able at a website titled “What is Under Your Robe?” (the name has been changed for purposes of this column). On this site, I can get to the true nitty gritty about a judge. It is a no-holds-barred review of judges throughout the entire country. Recent reviews include the following thoughtful insights about judges currently sitting on the bench: “Mean and stupid. Not a very good combo. Needs to go back to private practice.” “This judge is anything but honorable. She is nasty, glares at you when she is confused (which is pretty often) or frustrated (because she is so easily confused). She does not apply the law, she is biased and easily distracted …” “How did this hostile, unfriendly, impulsive person end up on the bench? She is a first-rate piece of crap …” Although these reviews are sometimes entertaining to read, the actual insight one can glean is negligible, at best. Once one starts reading theses comments, it quickly be- comes clear that the vast majority of the remarks are from disgruntled attorneys or parties who have not fared well in front of a judge they are “reviewing.” In this day and age of social media, people who might otherwise hold their tongues, or at least think twice before saying what’s on th eir mind, can now safely hide behind the anonymity of a keyboard, with seemingly little or no DOGSinREVIEW.com thought to the implications of rendering their opinions and/ or critiques. We live in a time when people are suddenly em- boldened by the fact that they believe social media grants them a “free pass” to say anything at all. However, “What’s Under Your Robe?” has now spawned multiple disciplinary actions against attorneys posting on that site, as well as some actual lawsuits. The disciplinary actions, taken by the agency which regulates attorney misconduct for any given state, have involved allegations of unprofessional conduct and showing con- tempt or disrespect to the bench and bar. Discipline, if sustained, can result in a range of consequences from a private rebuke to an actual suspension from the practice of law. SOCIAL MEDIA AND THE DOG FANCY By analogy, this same unsociable social media phenomenon has also invaded the dog fancy. On Facebook and in internet chat forums, people now have taken to expressing “opinions” on a variety of topics relevant to our sport. Harsh, mean-spirited and frequently false statements can be found directed at dog show judges, professional handlers and even the dogs themselves—typi- cally under the guise of sharing “helpful” insights to others in the fancy. It is only a matter of time before some of these situa- tions will end up in a courtroom. Some people are of the mistaken belief that comments made online cannot sub- ject them to any legal repercussions. This belief is, quite simply, false. LEGAL DEFINITIONS OF LIBEL AND SLANDER—WRITTEN WORD V. SPOKEN WORD In order for either libel or slander to be actionable, the threshold requirement is that the statement made must be false. Libel—written word. Although the actual legal defini- tion may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, in general libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture or other representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, or which causes a person to be shunned or avoided, which has a tendency to injure a person in his CONTINUED ON PAGE 26