Social media and blogs have ushered in a new era of communication. Now, everyone has an audience. Is that a good thing? Well, I guess that depends on your faith in humanity, but in a legal context it certainly provides for interesting conundrums, one of which being, defamation.

For a defamation cause of action to be successful one must prove a statement injured that person’s reputation in their community, that the statement was published (that is someone other than the two heard and understood the defamatory statement), and that the statement about the defamed person was untrue. Defamation per se occurs when one defames another based on one of the following, allegations of “loathsome diseases” (leprosy, sexually transmitted diseases, and in some courts, mental illness), injurious statements about the person’s unchastity or promiscuity, allegations of criminal activity or injurious statements of one’s conduct in their profession, business or trade. In per se violations, the injured party need not prove injury, only that the statement was made, that it was untrue and it was published to another.

Now, with that background, comes this gem from the internet. Levinson Axelrod Sucks (http://levinsonaxelrod.net/) is a blog about the law firm Levinson Axelrod based in the East Coast. It is written by a former associate of the firm who is dissatisfied with his treatment in that firm. As a lawyer, I would have thought he would be a bit more cautious with his words, especially in the name of the url. But this angry former employee has decided to throw caution to the wind and let lose his pen (well keyboard in this case) against his former employers. Edward Harrington Heyburn, the owner of the blog and former associate has accused his former firm of being a “fraud”, Richard Levinson of being a “hypocrite”, as well as several other choice words for former coworkers and employers.

Levinson Axelrod is reportedly considering legal action, which isn’t surprising considering they are a law firm, after all. Among them, trademark infringement and cyber squatting (as the url name would suggest) as well as defamation. No doubt the firm will try to apply a defamation per se argument, that they need not prove actual harm but that the injurious statements of the business (if it is concluded as such) would constitute a per se injury.

Heyburn has offered to take a lie detector test, perhaps to provide for a truth defense. For many, the internet is a wild west where anonymity protects our actions. Though this particular man has decided not to remain anonymous, his actions (and the resulting consequences) may serve as a reminder that what we say online has real legal repercussions.

For more reading on the subject of Blogs and defamation, please see

http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation

Whether it is cruel and inhumane to declaw cats has been a popular topic among animal activists and rescuers for years now. More recently, it has received main stream attention with various California cities considering legislation banning the act of declawing cats. This crusade started when West Hollywood became the first U.S. city to pass such an ordinance in 2003. About six years later, many prominent California cities are also considering similar bans.

West Hollywood’s ban was contested when the California Veterinary Medical Association (“CVMA”) sued the city of West Hollywood alleging that the ban was preempted by a section of the Business and Professions Code and the Veterinary Medical Practice Act (“VMPA”) which authorizes surgically declawing cats. Business and Professions Code section 460 prohibits local legislation from preventing individuals licensed by the state (such as veterinarians) from practicing their business or profession. The CVMA won by summary judgment at the Los Angeles Superior Court level based on the argument that the ban was preempted by section 460. But, this decision was overturned by a California appellate court.

In June 2007, the Appellate court ordered the Superior Court judge to deny the CVMA’s Motion For Summary Judgment and grant West Hollywood’s Motion For Summary Judgment. According to the Appellate Court, section 460 prohibits additional prerequisites (licenses or qualifications) to an individual’s ability to practice his/her profession in a given jurisdiction, but it does not prohibit limiting how a profession may be practiced. Similarly, it was stated that the ban did not violate the VMPA. The California Supreme Court chose not to hear this case.

Since then on July 2, 2009, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 762 (“SB 762”) into law, which amends section 460 of the California Business and Professions Code. SB 762 prohibits local California municipalities from enacting regulations similar to West Hollywood’s by making it unlawful for a city and/or county to prohibit a licensed healing arts professional from performing a procedure that is within the professional’s scope of practice. SB 762 also contains a grandfathering clause that allows the enforcement of violative local ordinances in effect prior to January 1, 2010. With this date approaching quickly, some California cities are considering passing legislation banning declawing while they still can.

Malibu already rejected such legislation in October 2009. But, San Francisco, Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Berkeley and Beverly Hills are on their way to passing their ordinances. San Francisco is voting on whether to approve the ban November 3, 2009. The final votes in the other cities are on November 5, 2009 in Beverly Hills, November 6, 2009 in Los Angeles, November 10, 2009 in Santa Monica and November 11, 2009 in Berkeley.

To express support in support of or against the bans in the above cities, go to Paw Project; for your local representatives’ contact information.