Do Young People Understand the Creation of the Law?

When looking at our three branches of government in America this electoral season, the role, place and stature of the executive, legislative and judicial branches should be well studied, Federal, State and Local. All citizens and residents, of all ages, should know the names of our governing officials from all three branches and their role in our community.

In guiding our young people, we need to go beyond a mention or two of the name of our Congressperson or the name of the Mayor or a member of our City Council. Children in this the second decade of our 21st century are truly knowledgeable of current events in the modern era, more so than ever in America’s history. They have seen the most recent national elections and campaigns. The know by first name Barack, Bernie, Bill, Colin, Condoleezza, Eric, George Sr., George W., Hillary, Loretta, Madeleine, and Mitt. They know that the current President is Donald and that the next might be Joe III.

Yet, we must share with them more than this. Especially, our young people need an acknowledgment and appreciation of the scholarship of the judiciary. Popular understanding of our judicial system and its stewards guarantees the freedom of thought of those who appear before them as well as of our nation. Judicial decision making in the public interest benefits from a knowledgeable public.

A truly fundamental common law subject as the creation of a contract may provide a basis for an objective discussion of how we learn from our Judges and so gain an equal understanding of the three branches of government in America. Contract law is of general interest, noncontroversial and permits discussion of the art of the judiciary.

An example is taken from a legal opinion written by Federal Magistrate Judge Michael Newman of the Southern District of Ohio. Judge Newman is the recent President of the Federal Bar Association. His term in private legal practice prior to the bench was as a law firm Partner in Cincinnati and was lengthy and well accomplished.

In Traton News LLC v. Traton Corp., No. 3:11-cv-435, 914 F. Supp. 2d 901, (S.D. Ohio 2012), Judge Newman expressly acknowledged that the case posed “an issue of first impression in [his] Court.” 914 F. Supp. 2d at 909. Namely, the question newly presented was whether a person using the Internet and who accesses a certain website, in doing so, agrees to the Terms and Conditions set forth in the website as specified by the Terms and Conditions. And, would this create a binding agreement that would support personal jurisdiction pursuant to the governing Terms and Conditions? Judge Newman found that this did not create a contract for want of consideration. In this instance, the Internet user accessing the website did not receive a benefit supporting the existence of a bilateral contractual obligation.

We must appreciate such judicial thought and show such appreciation with greater encouragement of participation in community and government discussion? Popular understanding that Judges impart wisdom when new questions arise is needed. Civil peace and understanding require that young people learn American government at a young age.

In Cincinnati, do young teenagers understand the theory of the judiciary and its role in fashioning our common law from our amorphous popular thinking? In theory, Judges turn custom into law, and in fashioning the law, they educate our customs. The scholars of William Blackstone argue that our customs may only become common law if their tenets conform to our sense of natural reason and justice. Do we teach this to our young people so that they may grow up to understand an increasingly more complex nation, with a far more applicable hierarchy of institutions of higher education in that all of us within the 50 states must defer to the established hierarchy of universities and colleges? The young in turn may guide their parents in an increased understanding of the modern world and a respect for the judiciary.

The American public must be taught to defer to the constitutional function of the judiciary: the administration of legal decision making as to residents, citizens and government. With the fragile delicacy of Marbury v. Madison in its creation of our doctrine of judicial review, all within our nation must respect the separate, equitable power of the American Judiciary as to the executive and legislative branches of government. Popular understanding of our popular self-interest, in a country whose government force and power are derived and ensured only as individuals understand our principles of government, will only be stronger.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls, Esq.

A Return to Etiquette and Civility, Revisited. Or, Do Hate Speech Laws Conquer Hate Crimes?

In America, should we accept as expressions of public opinion speech and conduct that defy our traditions of etiquette and civility? Is civility a word with a definition that is, or should be, coextensive with the public peace and order. In the future, perhaps we could encourage thought and discussion about our world in a kind and peaceful manner by requiring every licensed driver in the State of Ohio be automatically registered to vote upon mere renewal of the State issued drivers license. But, until such legislation, we might consider the propriety of the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in regulating hateful speech and conduct under Ohio law. At a minimum, State law, and eventually Federal, should be invoked to criminalize speech, and similarly expressive conduct, either intended, or likely, to evoke a harmful or violent response from nearby persons, in general, or one given person to whom a hateful or derogatory comment is directed.

Under longstanding Ohio judicial precedent, a criminal charge may be brought against a person for words, even by virtue of their content. Words may be deemed “likely, by their very utterance, to … invoke the average person to an immediate retaliatory breach of the peace.” State v. Turner, 2007 Ohio 5449, ¶ 109 (Ct. App. 8^th Dist. 2007)(citing, State v. Hoffman, 57 Ohio St. 2d 12, at ¶ 1 (1979). In offering this view of the First Amendment, the Court in Turner, was commenting upon Ohio Revised Code § 2917.11(A), effective Jan. 25, 2002, which was enacted after the statements of the Ohio Supreme Court in Hoffman. The Court in Turner also concluded that such speech, regardless of content, had been previously found to be “fighting words” under Ohio law. Turner, 2007 Ohio 5449, at ¶ 109.

Since 2002, Ohio courts, State and Federal, have not been asked frequently to rule upon the manner in which Ohio Revised Code § 2917.11 regulates “hate speech” or “fighting words.” In the advent of the many complicated political and social discussions during this time in American history, we should look to the long extant legal provisions that have been reviewed across the country. § 2917.11 is such a statute. For, this law expressly deems actus reus both: (1) “offensively coarse utterance [and] gesture[,]” as well as (2) “insulting [or] taunting [conduct] … likely to provoke a violent response.” § 2917.11(A)(2), (3). Chapter 2917 of the Ohio Revised Code designates this criminal law “Disorderly Conduct,” as one of many “Offenses Against the Public Peace.”

As citizens in our communities in the State of Ohio, the recognition and proscription of fighting words and hate speech derive from the foundations of our democracy, and their requisite respect for the individual. Our laws against speech and gestures that invoke either a fear of violence, violent urges, or violence itself deter those inclined to so act. Even more importantly, these criminal laws serve as a didactic to instill a code of conduct we rely upon in a community in which the people govern. Social activity and public debate should not provoke violence. We should, instead, look to partisan politics and the creation of third parties in our traditional two-party system, as well as the judicial third branch of government for adversarial resolution of disputes by courts and arbitrators.

Though the United States separated itself from England, our law owes much to the earlier enacted hate speech law in the United Kingdom, Public Order Act 1986, Chapter 64, Part I, Section 4, as amended (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1986/64/section/4). In its broadest provision, this law prohibits acts “whereby [a] person is likely to believe that … violence would be used or it is likely that …. violence will be provoked.” This does not impose an element of criminal intent upon the actor. Moreover, it also declares a person guilty who “distributes or displays to another person any writing [or] sign … threatening, abusive or insulting.” Id.

This British law would meet Justice Scalia’s requirements for constitutional restrictions upon speech in R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992). Essentially, R.A.V. prohibits restrictions upon speech and conduct which treat speech on one topic or within the one category differently, by virtue of viewpoint. In its Syllabus, R.A.V. states:

The ordinance, even as narrowly construed by the State Supreme Court, is facially unconstitutional, because it imposes special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on the disfavored subjects of “race, color, creed, religion or gender.” At the same time, it permits displays containing abusive invective if they are not addressed to those topics. Moreover, in its practical operation, the ordinance goes beyond mere content, to actual viewpoint, discrimination. Displays containing “fighting words” that do not invoke the disfavored subjects would seemingly be useable ad libitum by those arguing in favor of racial, color, etc. tolerance and equality, but not by their opponents. St. Paul’s desire to communicate to minority groups that it does not condone the “group hatred” of bias-motivated speech does not justify selectively silencing speech on the basis of its content. Pp. 391-393.

505 U.S. at 378. And, the municipal ordinance at issue in R.A.V. proscribed conduct that “one knows or has reason to know ‘arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender.’” Id. Arguably, this imposes a criminal penalty without a requirement of criminal intent.

Both the UK statue and R.C. § 2917.11 prohibit the act of improper speech or conduct, in itself, regardless of intent or an effect of actually producing a violent response. This is in the nature of a balancing of the interests of the public good in the guarantee of our right to free speech versus the proper regulation of speech and conduct harmful to the public good and the public peace

Speech likely to incite violence may possess noteworthy ideas we seek to have fully presented before us. And, we may not censor speech or conduct potentially deemed fighting words or acts because they exhibit a certain content or view. Rather, to be hate speech, the words, gestures or conduct used may not be found to be essential to the ideas sought to be conveyed. Instead, the words or conduct must go beyond free expression to communicate via a means not proper for civil discussion within a representative democracy of a self-governing people. R.A.V., 505 U.S., at 385.

In Ohio Revised Code § 2917.11, we do not justify the criminalization of acts and speech with reference to their viewpoint. Turner; Hoffman; State v. Cunningham, 2006 Ohio 6373, at ¶ 22 (Ct. App. 10^th Dist. 2006); accord, R.A.V., 505 U.S., at 389. In the thought of Justice White offered in his Concurring Opinion in R.A.V.:

Fighting words are not a means of exchanging views, rallying supporters, or registering a protest; they are directed against individuals to provoke violence or to inflict injury. Chaplinsky, 315 U.S. at 572. Therefore, a ban on all fighting words or on a subset of the fighting words category would restrict only the social evil of hate speech, without creating the danger of driving viewpoints from the marketplace. See ante at 387.

In light of the many creative legislative proposals in Ohio regarding Sanctuary State and Sanctuary City status, as well as the mandatory voter registration of licensed drivers, would Ohio political subdivisions benefit from more stringent fighting word or hate speech provisions. Such local laws could be tailored to their unique popular demographics, topics in discussion, and independent concerns of State and Federal law.

The First Amendment exists to ensure that when the popular majority imposes its lawful preferences as to the obligatory manner of public debate, and specifies and restricts certain categories of speech, it does not penalize the speech or conduct it specifies and restricts by topic content or viewpoint. We must enact our restrictions and adjudicate each defendant presented as possibly guilty with the requisite sensibilities of other than the hateful, resentful and tyrannous majority.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls

Law Students Before the Judiciary, Revisited

On Christmas Eve, last, I asked if the Rules formally adopted by the Ohio Supreme Court to govern the Ohio Bar might be amended to improve the educational opportunities of Ohio’s law students prior to their graduation. Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio, R. II., “Limited Practice of Law by a Legal Intern.” Perhaps, all Ohio law students should be permitted to share in providing formal legal representation to clients when mentored by a supervising attorney. This is something Cincinnati’s current Mayor John Cranley did as a student at Harvard Law School. He participated in a student practitioner program in the Massachusetts court system as a member of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau, as I had done myself many years before. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts permits Second Year law students to engage in supervised civil representation, and Third Year law students to engage in both supervised civil and criminal representation. S.J.C. Rule 303.

Currently, when mentored by an Ohio attorney, the Ohio Supreme Court permits Ohio law students to act as student practitioner legal interns in both civil and criminal matters, and before courts, administrative boards and government agencies. Gov. Bar R. II. Sec. 5. Yet, the Ohio Supreme Court only permits law student practitioners to do so in their Third Year of law school. Gov. Bar R. II. Sec. 2.

Support truly exists for permitting Ohio law students to begin student legal internships in their Second, or even First, Year of law school. Ohio’s law students are usually employed part time while full time law students, as law clerks in law firms, corporations, governmental agencies, as well as in the offices of State and Federal partisan elected officials. Student practitioner duties would not diminish attention given legal studies.

Paid part time legal employment supplements participation in law school Moot Court and Clinical programs. Many students engage in law related employment before entering law school. Both the practice customs and economic structure of Ohio’s legal community would encourage the Ohio Supreme Court to expand upon its own court rules, and those of other States, to permit student practitioners to provide formal legal representation to clients. Currently, Ohio’s Third Year law students may only represent the financially needy and governmental entities, though in both civil and criminal matters. Gov. Bar R. II. Sec. 5.

If the clear majority of Ohio law students currently work in a for profit or personally interested capacity during law school, for law firms, corporations and partisan elected officials, why would an ethical concern arise if their current for profit or personally interested client work product were accorded the formal sanctioning of Rule II legal intern status? The for profit or partisan attorneys by whom they are currently employed are subject to the same professional ethical duties as are the government and public interest attorneys presently sanctioned by Rule II. The due and proper incentive of government should enable students to derive the most from the structure, both formal and informal, of their academic environment during their tenure as students.

We should agree that if law students maintain employment begun before enrollment through their First Year, law school studies would not suffer if they were given Rule II student practitioner privileges for this, or similar, work during First Year. Rather, our theories of client interest and adversarial practice, as the guiding principles of our judicial system, indicate that formal legal representation during law school enhances understanding of both law school studies and substantive for profit work product.

Acknowledgement by the Ohio Supreme Court of the substantive, for profit legal work currently incumbent upon law students in the private sector would enhance the depth of their legal study, and they would then more greatly succeed upon graduation into private practice. In for profit law clerk employment, law students research and draft, with the obligatory duty incumbent upon a practitioner, as do the current Rule II law students with governmental and public interest entities. The formal right to appear in a representative capacity, in deference to a mentoring attorney, allows a law student to fully understand the burden of client representation regardless of the economic status of the client.

Law students rely upon law school course work and law clerk employment to develop required skills in legal methods, specifically, analyzing judicial opinions, conducting Federal and State legislative histories, and the comparative analysis of both primary and secondary legal sources. With the addition of formal practice during First and or Second Year, Ohio law students would make a more informed choice of practice areas, and more readily begin their practice after graduation. Even our best known legal practitioners in Ohio, and we need not name names, would, I am sure, concede that, as graduates of Ohio law schools, they would have truly benefited from such an Hohfeldian right and privilege.

Lori Gayle Nuckolls