Regular readers are painfully aware of the issues that have appeared here and at Mark Bennett’s Defending People with Miami lawprof Mary Anne Franks’ revenge porn law, and more particularly with her nasty, childish and dismissive responses to anything shy of adoration.
Sadly, Mr. Bennett, I do not have endless amounts of time to read everything that people write about me or my ideas. I also do not have time to review basic principles of reading comprehension or logic with every commenter with an axe to grind.
She is so brilliant. Bennett (and I) are such lowly trench lawyers, unworthy of her time and attention. But let’s test the veracity of her pomposity.
Who has won a major court victory in a First Amendment case?
These are all lawyers who have actually practiced law, fought First Amendment cases, and won.
Assistant Professor Mary Anne Franks?
There is no indication that she has ever stood before a court, any court, anywhere, in any case. Ever.
She did, however, write a law review article entitled When Bad Speech Does Good, which expresses her view that there is good speech and bad speech. The difference between the two is that the speech she likes is good speech, and the speech she doesn’t like is bad speech.
The purpose of her article is to rationalize the existence of bad speech by noting that enough of it drowns itself out, diffusing the impact of bad speech by its volume. That pretty much sums up her entire article, though she spends many thousands of words to say so.
When you read and consider arguments, and find yourself being swayed by the free use of words like “scholarship” to convince you that someone who puts professor before their name must know what they’re talking about, consider whether someone’s intellectual abilities and reasoning have been tested by the crucible of the legal system or whether they just write stuff to fill the empty pages of hundreds of unread law reviews.
To tell the truth, would you rather rely on the opinion of a lawyer who has actually fought and won First Amendment cases, or someone who has accomplished nothing and relies solely on the attributed credibility that comes with claiming to be a scholar while telling the lawyers who actually win cases that they are idiots compared to her brilliance?
Oh yeah. I won a First Amendment case before the highest court in New York too.