08 June 2008

Legal roflmao of the week


Rolling on floor laughing my ass off.

Internet shorthand.


Post a few court decisions and someone sends along a link to a blog that is built entirely on the humourous goings-on in courts south of the border.

That's the United States, since this is being written in Canada.

Lowering the bar is the blog.

It's most recent post describes some of the arguments presented in FCC v. Fox Television. That's a case at the heart of which is whether or not fleeting uses of four letter expletives are sufficiently shocking to audiences that they should be banned entirely from broadcasting between the hours of six and 10 in the evening.

Seems the lawyer for Fox began his argument by using two of the seven words you can't say on television repeatedly and in full.

There's a link to another post about a Pennsylvania case where fines where handed out to a person being deposed and his counsel for the use of the infamous "f*ck" 73 times in the course of a deposition, while the word contract only came up 14 times. The fine worked out to $367 per "f*ck".

Some people have no sense of humour.

In any event, turns out that the Wall Street Journal has a law blog, which is is well worth checking out on occasion. There's also SCOTUSblog which is, as the name suggests, a blog about the Supreme Court of the United States. These both tend toward a more serious raportage of legal matters than the stuff you'll find at Lowering the bar.

In Canada, you can find The Court, which is a rather serious blog from Osgoode Hall law school about the Supreme Court of Canada and its decisions. A reference librarian from SCC has his own blog, titled Library boy. google around enough and you'll find a few more worth stopping by if you have a sudden taste for things about lawyers written by lawyers.

Too bad we don't get this kinda stuff from the local law courts. Something says there'd be plenty of really funny stories to relate.

Barristers may feel free to send their submissions for consideration.

Update: In order to ensure there is no confusion, the phrase "for consideration" used above should in no way be construed as an offer to pay for any posts a barrister may submit. Words are funny things and lawyers are good at using them. Let's make sure there is no confusion.

Further to that point, posts may be made under a pseudonym provided that your humble e-editor knows who is making the submission. The local bar is a small one and a pseudonymous post might be in order under the right circumstances. Barristers should be somewhat creative in using a pseudonym. Rumpole is right out, but any of the other characters are fair game.

Speaking of Rumpole, undoubtedly he'd have had something to say about the initiative in the United Kingdom to change the style of dress in court. There's a discussion paper on the subject, complete with illustrations of the old and the proposed new.

The reaction to the proposal - which could see an end to wigs in British courts - has been somewhat mixed. Here's a link to the Inner Temple library blog with posts on the reaction as covered in the media.