More on the UNC-W email brouhaha

[Mark Tushnet]

Some observations and questions:  (1)  It may be worth noting that this
dispute arises in the Fourth Circuit, which has held -- in the Urofsky
case -- that employees of public universities are properly subject to
constraint in their use of university provided computers (in the Urofsky
case, limitations going to searches on the Web for material that is
protected against direct government regulation).  Does the government's
ownership and -- according to the father -- asserted control over the
use of the professor's computer affect the free speech analysis?

(2)  I doubt that professors who mutter abusive things as they grade
papers, and even write those things on the papers to be returned to the
student, "publish" them in the sense required by libel law -- that is,
distribute them to someone other than the student.

(3)  In what sense is an e-mail to an individual properly subject to a
characterization as a "public statement," as in "when one makes a
controversial public statement, one has opened oneself to critical
response"?

(4)  And, finally, is there authority for the proposition that it is
"patently absurd" to assert that a published statement about a
non-public figure (not even a limited purpose public figure, as one
might be -- I make no assertion that one would be -- for publishing op
eds in or writing letters published by in newspapers) that the person is
"immature," "unintelligent," and (by clear implication) "bigoted" is
libelous?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: tushnet.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 242 bytes
Desc: Card for Mark Tushnet
Url : http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/private/conlawprof/attachments/20011224/044642de/tushnet.vcf