04/17/2017

Court Revives Harassment Lawsuit Over Blog Posts, Menacing Free Speech

Hans Bader, Liberty Unyielding

A recent ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals menaces free speech in condominiums, apartment buildings, and the Internet. It allowed individual bloggers to be sued because their blog posts allegedly created a “hostile housing environment” for condo residents who kept emotional-support dogs despite the condominium’s no-dogs rule. This “hostile environment” allegedly rendered those blog posts “harassment” in violation of the Fair Housing Act. The provision the court cited does not even mention a hostile environment, but rather makes it illegal “to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere” with the exercise or enjoyment of rights under the Fair Housing Act. (See 42 USC 3617).

Alarmingly, the court’s ruling in Revock v. Cowpet Bay West Condominium Association also suggested that a single sufficiently offensive blog post could potentially constitute illegal “harassment.” It stated in dictum that “a single act may be sufficient, provided that the conduct is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive.’” This was a gratuitous statement, since each of the bloggers it allowed to be sued posted multiple blog posts critical of the allegedly disabled plaintiffs.

The court justified this extremely expansive reading of the statute by citing a speech-restrictive regulation imposed by the Obama administration that purports to interpret the statute. After defining illegal interference to include the creation of a “hostile environment,” that regulation states that “[h]arassment can be written, verbal, or other conduct, and does not require physical contact.” 24 C.F.R. § 100.600(b) (2016). In addition, “[a] single incident of harassment because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or handicap may constitute a discriminatory housing practice, where the incident is sufficiently severe to create a hostile environment, or evidences a quid pro quo.” 24 C.F.R. § 100.600(c) (2016).

Courts are not supposed to defer to agencies at the expense of free speech. Had the bloggers raised a First Amendment defense, deferring to the Obama administration’s speech-restrictive interpretation of the statute would be an error.  Even when an agency would otherwise receive great deference in interpreting a statute, it will not receive any deference from the courts where its interpretation would raise potential free-speech problems. The Supreme Court has made this point in the past. (SeeEdward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Building & Constr. Trades Council, 485 U. S. 568, 574-575 (1988) (construing National Labor Relations Act narrowly to avoid potential free-speech problems, despite the broad Chevron deference that the NLRB’s interpretation usually receives).

But here, no First Amendment defense seems to have been raised, so it is not clear how free speech principles should have shaped the court’s interpretation of the statute.

Read full article



You May Also Like:

Reports: Kushner Had Multiple Undisclosed Conversations With Kislyak, Discussed "Back Channel" Comms Jennifer Van Laar, Townhall

The Real Reason Zuckerberg Supports A Universal Basic Income TDB, Zero Hedge

Obama Administration Transferred MS-13 Gang Members To Placement Centers Across The Country Warren Mass, New American

Poland Stands Up To EU On Forced Quotas: We’re Not Taking Your Migrants – Your Blackmail Won’t Work On Us Damien Cowley, The Gateway Pundit

Progressively Bankrupt Richard A. Epstein, Hoover Institution

Obama Attempts Government In Exile Wesley Pruden, The Washington Times

Report: Insurance Rates Could Skyrocket Under Border Adjustment Tax Americans For Prosperity

Memo To CBO: Obamacare Is Unsustainable Charles Hughes, Economics21

Paid Parental Leave Proposal Increases The Cost Of Employment And Burdens States Trey Kovacs, Competitive Enterprise Institute

LEFTISTS SILENT: CBO Confirms Repeal Of Obamacare SAVES BILLIONS Kelly Beasley, The BlackSphere

No, CEOs Don't Make 347 Times More Than American Workers Luka Ladan, Washington Examiner

Don’t Just Blame Sean Hannity For The Seth Rich Conspiracy Theory Robert Tracinski, The Federalist

Obama Lectures Trump Over Walls, Builds One Around D.C. Home Edmund Kozak, PoliZette

Confederate Monuments And Civil Discourse William Watkins, Independent Institute

For More go to the Home Page >>>

Search

Bookshelf

FreeMarket Central

Some titles recent, all recommended -

Special Video Feature

FreeMarket Central

Voices From The 2017 International Students For Liberty Conference

In Search Of History

Cambodia's Deadly Experiment

In the 1950s, students started gathering in Paris. They were reading Karl Marx. They were forming book clubs. They were trying to come up with a better version of society. One that moved away from the division of labor. One that moved away from the capitalism in the big cities that they so despised. ... One of those students would change his name to Pol Pot. He and his colleagues formed a new political party, a takeover in Cambodia. They called themsevles the Khmer Rouge. ... Under Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge, one out of four people in that country died in less than four years. 

-- Matt Kibbe,

Shadow Stats Snapshot


FreeMarket Central

ShadowStats alternate economic indicators are based on the methodology of noted economist John Williams, specialist in government economic reporting.

  • Unemployment:
    FreeMarket Central BLS: 4.4%
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 22.1%
  • Inflation:
    FreeMarket Central April Year-to-Year: 2.20% (CPI-U*)
    FreeMarket Central Shadow Stats: 10.0%

*[cpi-u is the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate for all urban consumers]