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