Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Sunday Morning

Legal Briefs

Aired May 11, 2003 - 08:15   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN ANCHOR: Right now it's time to open our legal briefs and look at the legal connections to some stories in the headlines. On our docket today, hazing a movie ad lawsuit and Internet slander.
The talk about all of this is Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president...

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT OF ACLU MIAMI: Good morning.

NEVILLE: Good morning. President of the ACLU office in Miami and Michael Smerconish, he is a trial attorney and CNN contributor. Want to say good morning to both of you. And first we will talk about this hazing incident outside of Chicago. We know the story. These girls were going to what, some so called powder puff football game and they ended up getting hurt. Some of them sent to the hospital.

And so I ask Michael, I'll start with you and ask you how far up the criminal or legal ladder will this issue go.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think it will go relatively high on both the criminal and on the civil side. You know what is interesting Arthel, is day one, the initial video came out and all of the shrinks and all of social pundits, they said well, what could possibly possess these young women to do this to one another.

And then day two, there was additional video released which showed these young women guzzling directly from the tap of a keg it's the age-old answer. Booze is what caused this thing. I think that there will be criminal punishment and civil lawsuits against the school as well.

NEVILLE: And Lida, what do you think should happen?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, maybe because it's early, but I absolutely agree. Now lets look at the civil liberties angle to this because every story has a civil liberties angle. But one of the issues that we've been looking at across the country is these zero tolerance policies, which are supposed to be designed to prevent incidents like this. There are supposed punish student misbehavior at all levels.

What has happened with these zero tolerance policies, however, is that instead of punishing this behavior and instead of preventing events like this, they've been used to stifle student dissent, to silence students when they oppose or take positions against their teachers and to censor student publications. We've seen many cases of students being arrested or suspended from minor, picky, technical violations of school code and nothing is being done about this sort of behavior. Schools and school administrators are absolutely responsible for this behavior and they should be watching out because I keep hearing people say that this has to do with the right of passage. The only right of passage that I think is acceptable is when students understand the responsibilities and learn to exercise their rights there. This is no right of passage.

NEVILLE: Interesting. You know, I want to move on now to another story that we're talking about this morning and that is movie ads that the theater when you show up. Of course you are going to see trailers, previews of other movies, but you know you also see commercials. Well there is a group in Los Angeles filing a class action lawsuit against Loews Entertainment -- Cineplex Entertainment saying listen, you can't tell me that the movie is going start at 8:00 p.m., have me show up and then force me to watch four minutes worth of commercials. So, I don't know. What do you think of this lawsuit, Michael?

SMERCONISH: Well, would it possible for me to say that I both think that the lawsuit is bogus and I hope it's successful? Because I get sick and tired of all those commercials myself, but this is certainly not what I'd like to see our judicial process become. The commercials are everywhere. You watch a sporting event these days, Arthel, everything, the coin toss, the best hit of the day, the strikeout. They're all sponsored and I get sick of it and I get sick of it at the movies as well, but please spare me a lawsuit on this issue.

NEVILLE: All right Lida, what do you think? Do you think this is a frivolous lawsuit?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: OK, this doesn't have a civil liberties angle. You know and I -- just so that Michael doesn't bug me tomorrow on his radio show, this is not an ACLU case.

I happen to think of previews as a cushion. You know, you are running late. You can get your popcorn. You can still make it to the theater on time. You know -- I think with Michael's absolutely right. This is just an example of wasting judicial resources. I wish we would spend our time and our money on better things. And you got to wonder why it is that our kids have a mistaken view of what the judicial system is. We are spending our time filing these sorts of lawsuits.

NEVILLE: Well I'm glad you said that there is no ACLU angle on this one. I'm glad you said that.

Let's go to Pennsylvania now. The Supreme Court is going to consider a lawsuit or a request to consider compelling the John Doe, if you will, an anonymous person on the Internet who is accused of slander. So, basically Michael, going back to you again. Now can you slander someone on the Internet? We don't know who you are.

SMERCONISH: There is an ACLU angle to this one.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank God!

SMERCONISH: The quick facts are that a judge was accused of an ethical impropriety on a web site anonymously. And so she's trying to unmask her accuser. And it's not some obscure legal point Arthel, because you know --there are message-posting boards in our communities, in our workplaces, in our schools. The issue is should you be able to learn the identity of somebody who slams you in a defamatory way on the Internet?

And I think you should because you can ruin a person's reputation with one touch of a computer key and it remains in cyberspace forever. So I think that in the Internet you need to learn the identity of a person who defames you.

NEVILLE: Lida, does Michael have a point?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the point to be made here is that anonymous speech is part of our First Amendment tradition. The Federalist Papers are the best example of anonymous speech. We need to protect anonymous speech on the Internet. And we need to protect it for a whole host of reasons, including some of the ones, which Michael has already named; but also because anonymous speech ads to the ability of people to really fully express themselves in the marketplace of ideas.

NEVILLE: Yes. But is it fair for someone to use this anonymous speech to harm someone?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the test here has to be if you were really harmed and if you actually have a basis for a lawsuit, then you can use the legal process to learn the identity of somebody.

NEVILLE: But you know, Lida, that sometimes it's hard to undo that sort of damage.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, that's why you have to demonstrate that there is damage in the first place before identifying the speaker. One of the interesting things about this lawsuit is that AOL, the Internet giant, filed an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief, in this case and the reason they did so is because every day they get subpoenas for this sort of information. This is intended to chill speech.

NEVILLE: All right. Lida, that's a different case and I don't have time to talk about that one this morning.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, Michael Smerconish, I want to thank both of you for joining us here this morning.

SMERCONISH: Thanks Arthel.

NEVILLE: Good to see you, Michael.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired May 11, 2003 - 08:15   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ARTHEL NEVILLE, CNN ANCHOR: Right now it's time to open our legal briefs and look at the legal connections to some stories in the headlines. On our docket today, hazing a movie ad lawsuit and Internet slander.
The talk about all of this is Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, president...

LIDA RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF, PRESIDENT OF ACLU MIAMI: Good morning.

NEVILLE: Good morning. President of the ACLU office in Miami and Michael Smerconish, he is a trial attorney and CNN contributor. Want to say good morning to both of you. And first we will talk about this hazing incident outside of Chicago. We know the story. These girls were going to what, some so called powder puff football game and they ended up getting hurt. Some of them sent to the hospital.

And so I ask Michael, I'll start with you and ask you how far up the criminal or legal ladder will this issue go.

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: I think it will go relatively high on both the criminal and on the civil side. You know what is interesting Arthel, is day one, the initial video came out and all of the shrinks and all of social pundits, they said well, what could possibly possess these young women to do this to one another.

And then day two, there was additional video released which showed these young women guzzling directly from the tap of a keg it's the age-old answer. Booze is what caused this thing. I think that there will be criminal punishment and civil lawsuits against the school as well.

NEVILLE: And Lida, what do you think should happen?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, maybe because it's early, but I absolutely agree. Now lets look at the civil liberties angle to this because every story has a civil liberties angle. But one of the issues that we've been looking at across the country is these zero tolerance policies, which are supposed to be designed to prevent incidents like this. There are supposed punish student misbehavior at all levels.

What has happened with these zero tolerance policies, however, is that instead of punishing this behavior and instead of preventing events like this, they've been used to stifle student dissent, to silence students when they oppose or take positions against their teachers and to censor student publications. We've seen many cases of students being arrested or suspended from minor, picky, technical violations of school code and nothing is being done about this sort of behavior. Schools and school administrators are absolutely responsible for this behavior and they should be watching out because I keep hearing people say that this has to do with the right of passage. The only right of passage that I think is acceptable is when students understand the responsibilities and learn to exercise their rights there. This is no right of passage.

NEVILLE: Interesting. You know, I want to move on now to another story that we're talking about this morning and that is movie ads that the theater when you show up. Of course you are going to see trailers, previews of other movies, but you know you also see commercials. Well there is a group in Los Angeles filing a class action lawsuit against Loews Entertainment -- Cineplex Entertainment saying listen, you can't tell me that the movie is going start at 8:00 p.m., have me show up and then force me to watch four minutes worth of commercials. So, I don't know. What do you think of this lawsuit, Michael?

SMERCONISH: Well, would it possible for me to say that I both think that the lawsuit is bogus and I hope it's successful? Because I get sick and tired of all those commercials myself, but this is certainly not what I'd like to see our judicial process become. The commercials are everywhere. You watch a sporting event these days, Arthel, everything, the coin toss, the best hit of the day, the strikeout. They're all sponsored and I get sick of it and I get sick of it at the movies as well, but please spare me a lawsuit on this issue.

NEVILLE: All right Lida, what do you think? Do you think this is a frivolous lawsuit?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: OK, this doesn't have a civil liberties angle. You know and I -- just so that Michael doesn't bug me tomorrow on his radio show, this is not an ACLU case.

I happen to think of previews as a cushion. You know, you are running late. You can get your popcorn. You can still make it to the theater on time. You know -- I think with Michael's absolutely right. This is just an example of wasting judicial resources. I wish we would spend our time and our money on better things. And you got to wonder why it is that our kids have a mistaken view of what the judicial system is. We are spending our time filing these sorts of lawsuits.

NEVILLE: Well I'm glad you said that there is no ACLU angle on this one. I'm glad you said that.

Let's go to Pennsylvania now. The Supreme Court is going to consider a lawsuit or a request to consider compelling the John Doe, if you will, an anonymous person on the Internet who is accused of slander. So, basically Michael, going back to you again. Now can you slander someone on the Internet? We don't know who you are.

SMERCONISH: There is an ACLU angle to this one.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thank God!

SMERCONISH: The quick facts are that a judge was accused of an ethical impropriety on a web site anonymously. And so she's trying to unmask her accuser. And it's not some obscure legal point Arthel, because you know --there are message-posting boards in our communities, in our workplaces, in our schools. The issue is should you be able to learn the identity of somebody who slams you in a defamatory way on the Internet?

And I think you should because you can ruin a person's reputation with one touch of a computer key and it remains in cyberspace forever. So I think that in the Internet you need to learn the identity of a person who defames you.

NEVILLE: Lida, does Michael have a point?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the point to be made here is that anonymous speech is part of our First Amendment tradition. The Federalist Papers are the best example of anonymous speech. We need to protect anonymous speech on the Internet. And we need to protect it for a whole host of reasons, including some of the ones, which Michael has already named; but also because anonymous speech ads to the ability of people to really fully express themselves in the marketplace of ideas.

NEVILLE: Yes. But is it fair for someone to use this anonymous speech to harm someone?

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, the test here has to be if you were really harmed and if you actually have a basis for a lawsuit, then you can use the legal process to learn the identity of somebody.

NEVILLE: But you know, Lida, that sometimes it's hard to undo that sort of damage.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Well, that's why you have to demonstrate that there is damage in the first place before identifying the speaker. One of the interesting things about this lawsuit is that AOL, the Internet giant, filed an amicus brief, a friend of the court brief, in this case and the reason they did so is because every day they get subpoenas for this sort of information. This is intended to chill speech.

NEVILLE: All right. Lida, that's a different case and I don't have time to talk about that one this morning.

Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, Michael Smerconish, I want to thank both of you for joining us here this morning.

SMERCONISH: Thanks Arthel.

NEVILLE: Good to see you, Michael.

RODRIGUEZ-TASEFF: Thanks. TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com