The Opposition Thread

This judge suggested that such a thing fell under the realm of nuissance tort.

  1. And the answer to that inquiry, Tao concluded, is that the question should be treated under the tort of nuisance rather than the tort of trespass:

The torts of trespass and nuisance are closely related, so much so that some courts have observed that expanding the tort of trespass to cover such things as light, gas, or odors effectively blurs the two torts together and makes them one. The traditional common-law view was that property injury caused by such things as light, gas, sound, smoke, odors, or vibrations might constitute an actionable nuisance under the right circumstances, but could not support a cause of action in trespass. On the other hand, a substantial minority of modern cases have held that light invasions can constitute a trespass so long as substantial harm results to the property. But, speaking generally, most commentators and the majority of courts consider light invasions to be better suited for the law of nuisance rather than trespass.

I agree with the view that light invasions — at least of the kind at issue here– are better suited to be addressed by the law of nuisance than the law of trespass. The fundamental conceptual difference between a trespass and a nuisance is that trespass is the right to exclude something absolutely, while nuisance is the right to exclude something that might have to be tolerated in small quantities but may become the subject of judicial relief when it becomes excessive and unreasonable even in an urban environment. Compare Crook v. Sheehan Enters Inc., 740 S.W.2d 333, 335 (Mo.App. E.D.1987) (“Trespass is the unauthorized entry by a person upon the land of another, regardless of the degree of force used, even if no damage is done, or the injury is slight.”) and Kitterman v. Simrall, 924 S.W.2d 872, 878 (Mo.App. W.D.1996) (noting that liability for trespass “exists whether or not done in good faith and with reasonable care, in ignorance, or under mistake of law or fact”) with Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision, 294 P.3d 427, 431 (Nev. 2013) (nuisance “may arise from a lawful activity conducted in an unreasonable and improper manner” and in evaluating whether an activity constitutes a nuisance, “it is necessary to balance the competing interests of the landowners, using a commonsense approach.”). See generally Restatement (Second) of Torts, § 821D (Am. Law Inst. 1979) (trespass is an interference with a property owner’s right to exclusive possession of a property, while a nuisance is an interference with the owner’s use or enjoyment of the property).

Thus, the tort of nuisance involves a balancing of competing interests with an eye toward ascertaining the reasonableness of the intrusion, while the tort of trespass is absolute and involves no such balancing. What this means for this case is that, by claiming a trespass to have occurred, the Respondents are seeking an absolute bar against the invasion of projected light, without any inquiry whatsoever into whether the intensity, duration, or other qualities of the projection were unreasonable or excessive.

Seems reasonable. Property ownership does not give you the absolute right to control all light that falls on a property, but while shining light on an object is legal, in certain cases it could be considered a nuisance.

In the specific case of a Trump hotel, I’d go with trademark infringement - you’re causing damage to the trademark by making it display in an altered form.

They aren’t the hero we need, but they are the hero we deserve.

The hero we need, needs to come with a stack of papers that puts Nixon speedrunner world record contestant Don Wrong away for a long time.

That’s grounds for a libel suit. It’s exactly the same as writing “THE CANDLES ACROSS THE STREET ARE MADE FROM MELTED WHITE BABIES” on your own storefront.

Trademarks are violated when someone copies a trademark to create confusion about his identity, for example selling bags that resemble Gucci bags but actually aren’t.

They are not violated when it’s clear who everyone is referring to. It’s irrelevant whether the trademark is being used to criticize or promote the brand.

For example, Pepsi was perfectly free to use the Coke brand in its “Pepsi Challenge” campaign. It was clearly referring to its rival even if Coke was not cast in a favorable light.

Latest PPP poll.
(Maybe there’s hope …)

Sure, but here you’re not just mentioning the product name in some other context. You’re literally defacing (in the plaintiff’s position) the trademark right on the site where the service is sold, directly affecting sales.

It would be like someone going into stores and removing Gucci tags from their bags, or Pepsi hiring people to write “disgusting” on bottles of Coke for sale on shelves (with the important difference that a projection is not permanent.) But the principle is the same - while the unauthorized change is there, the trademark is being tampered with and business is being lost as a result.

(Reading the details of this, though, neither nuisance tort law nor trademark law is likely to result in much here - the projection was only up for ten minutes, resulting in negligible direct damages because there wasn’t enough time to lose much if any business.)

The only purpose of a trademark is to help consumers figure out who is responsible for a product and avoid counterfeits. That’s why when people stop assuming that an “Escalator” is made by a particular company, the trademark protection for “Escalator” is lost. No confusion means no violation.

Here, there is no confusion over who is responsible for this Trump-labeled property. It’s Trump. It’s not like anyone else wants to be associated with it. So there is no possibility of trademark violation.

People use trademarks all the time in order to cast a company in a negative light, or as obvious satire. That’s not illegal (unless they are lying about the company). They are using the trademark as an alias or nickname for the company itself. That’s the whole purpose of a trademark.

And it doesn’t matter if those actions affect sales. People can legally do things that discourage sales. They can write bad reviews. They can encourage boycotts. They can insult management. If sales go down as a result, tough luck.

So if you want to make a big sign complaining about Gucci’s business practices, feel free to use the Gucci trademark in place of their name. Of course, you can’t physically mutilate their handbags. But that’s illegal regardless of whether you are removing Gucci tags from a bag or merely breaking the straps and leaving the tags alone. Likewise, it doesn’t matter whether you write “disgusting” over an official Coke logo or merely paint it on the door of their bottling plant. It’s vandalism, not trademark violation.

In contrast, if you own a bunch of old Coke cans and want to write “disgusting” on each one and put the whole thing on exhibit somewhere, go for it. They’re your cans, you can do what you want with them and the Coca-Cola company can’t stop you.

The only question is whether annoying lights can be considered a nuisance, as others have suggested. That’s possible, since it falls into the same general category as shouting at customers in a store.

But in all those cases, they aren’t trading under the mark or tampering with the mark, just saying you shouldn’t buy it. (Nevermind, though, because Googling reveals the relevant legal concept is in fact "Product disparagement" and it is indeed a branch of slander/libel, so you have to prove the statements were misleading.)

True, if you mean they aren’t trading their own stuff while pretending to be someone else. But neither are the Trump protestors.

But you would also have to defend yourself against a guy who has bottomless pockets and is used to suing people to get what he wants.

Yeah, so long as you’re not trying to sell your own stuff with a trademark or sleazing people into thinking you have the rights to it, it’s not infringement. You might be incidentally guilty of some of other offense, but nothing associated with the PTO.

Regardless, you can always be sued for anything by a rich person or a corporation that can afford to throw money at lawyers.

Rolling Stone piece on the Montana election.

Gianforte’s religious views are extreme – even for the Republican Party. He’s a creationist, and his foundation paid to install the tyrannosaurus exhibit at a local biblical “museum” that purports the Earth is only 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs not only lived among humans but were also passengers on Noah’s ark. That Bible story is a touchstone for Gianforte. In a 2015 speech, he declared that “the concept of retirement is not biblical,” pointing to the example of Noah. “How old was Noah when he built the ark? Six hundred. He wasn’t, like, cashing Social Security checks. He wasn’t hanging out. He was working.”

Maine Democrats - save this one for later:

(Remember, she’s supposed to be the last living “moderate” Republican.)

Few folks in the past have ever questioned Comey’s integrity, even if they questioned his decision making… But I expect that will change.

I’m anticipating that Republicans will have more epistemological crises when on camera over the next few months than an incoming class of liberal arts freshmen.

“Well, it’s his word against Trump’s. Who’s to say who’s right or wrong? And what do ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ really mean? What does ‘mean’ mean? It really makes you think, man … What was the question?”

Kasich was equivocating during his recent appearance on CNN about whether Trump (or anyone, to his point) was worthy of being called a liar (Sanders flat-out called him one). To be fair, he’s technically correct. Someone can be 100% wrong without being a liar - heaven knows I’ve been, before - because they didn’t intend to provide incorrect information. But either Trump is one of the most willfully ignorant people I’ve ever met, or there’s some serious BS he’s been slinging.

At this point the answer is clearly both.
He has no problem lying, but he’s also clearly an imbecile. He’s stupid in a really profound way.

A remarkable and moving speech by New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu. Part of it is quoted but it’s worth reading the entire transcript.

http://pulsegulfcoast.com/2017/05/transcript-of-new-orleans-mayor-landrieus-address-on-confederate-monuments

So I am not judging anybody, I am not judging people. We all take our own journey on race. I just hope people listen like I did when my dear friend Wynton Marsalis helped me see the truth. He asked me to think about all the people who have left New Orleans because of our exclusionary attitudes.

Another friend asked me to consider these four monuments from the perspective of an African American mother or father trying to explain to their fifth grade daughter who Robert E. Lee is and why he stands atop of our beautiful city. Can you do it?

Can you look into that young girl’s eyes and convince her that Robert E. Lee is there to encourage her? Do you think she will feel inspired and hopeful by that story? Do these monuments help her see a future with limitless potential? Have you ever thought that if her potential is limited, yours and mine are too?

We all know the answer to these very simple questions.

When you look into this child’s eyes is the moment when the searing truth comes into focus for us. This is the moment when we know what is right and what we must do. We can’t walk away from this truth.

And I knew that taking down the monuments was going to be tough, but you elected me to do the right thing, not the easy thing and this is what that looks like. So relocating these Confederate monuments is not about taking something away from someone else. This is not about politics, this is not about blame or retaliation. This is not a naïve quest to solve all our problems at once.

This is, however, about showing the whole world that we as a city and as a people are able to acknowledge, understand, reconcile and, most importantly, choose a better future for ourselves, making straight what has been crooked and making right what was wrong.

Otherwise, we will continue to pay a price with discord, with division, and yes, with violence

For the longest time during the election I would hear his speeches and comments and think he was someone with decent intelligence stirring sentiment with less than ideal oratory skills.

I 100% agree with your assessment now. The more he talks, the more he appears to be a moron. It’s not that he says dumb things because he thinks people want to hear dumb things. It’s because he is dumb.

Exactly. There’s nothing more to it.

It’s like you think it’s a veneer of stupidity to appeal to the masses… Nope. It’s pure, solid stupidity.

It’s hard to believe, because in many of these cases, he has a grasp of things that is well below what a reasonably well informed adult would have.

You think, “he can’t be that dumb, because he’s the president of the united States.”

But he is that dumb… And he IS the president of the united States, and that’s what is horrific and terrifying.