{"id":5260,"date":"2006-04-10T23:52:02","date_gmt":"2006-04-11T03:52:02","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2006\/04\/10\/fla-pit-bull-court-gets-jeffe"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:54:00","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:54:00","slug":"fla-pit-bull-court-gets-jefferson-muzzles-award","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2006\/04\/10\/fla-pit-bull-court-gets-jefferson-muzzles-award\/","title":{"rendered":"Fla. “Pit Bull ” Court gets Jefferson Muzzles Award"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

The <\/FONT>Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
has announced its <\/FONT>2006 Jefferson Muzzles<\/EM><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/A> awards, and one of the biggest <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
“winners” is the Florida Supreme Court, due to its decision banning <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Pape & Chandler<\/FONT><\/A>‘s pit bull <\/FONT>logo<\/FONT><\/A> and 800 phone number.  [many <\/FONT>prior<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
posts<\/FONT><\/A>]  (Charlottesville, VA, Daily Progress<\/FONT><\/A><\/EM>, “Center Names Muzzle <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Winners,” April 11, 2006) <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
\"tiny Only Pres. George W. Bush (for warrantless NSA wiretapping),<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
The Department of Justice (for its COPA search engine inquiries), and
the Federal Communications Commission (for seeking to restrict cable
and satellite programming deemed “indecent”) came in ahead of the
Pit Bull Court<\/EM>, which placed 4th<\/A> out of thirteen winners. <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"JeffersonCenter\"<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                                  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
The Muzzles are announced each year near Thomas Jefferson’s April
13th birthday anniversary, “as a means to draw national attention to abridg-<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
ments of free<\/FONT> speech and press and, at the same time, foster an apprecia-<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
tion for those tenets of the First Amendment.”    This year, there is a special <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
podcast<\/A> of the Awards.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
Taking aim at the Florida Supreme Court’s November 17, 2005 decision <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
in <\/FONT>Florida Bar v. <\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>John Pape and Marc Chandler<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A>, the Muzzles board <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
noted that lawyers have been granted First Amendment protection for <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
their advertisements.  Nonetheless: <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
                                                                                                \"StaffBT\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Florida specifically restricts attorney advertising that is ‘sensational’ <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
and that uses ‘slogans’ even to convey factually accurate appeals to <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
prospective clients.  It was on this basis that the Florida Supreme <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Court ruled in November, 2005, that two Fort Lauderdale lawyers, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
John Pape and Marc Chandler, must stop airing a TV commercial that <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
featured a pit bull in a spiked collar and listed the firm’s phone number, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
1-800-PIT-BULL.  Such an ad, wrote Chief Justice Barbara Pariente, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
implied that lawyers would ‘get results through combative and vicious <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
tactics that will maim, scar or harm the opposing party.’  Given the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
inherently vicious nature of the pit bull, added the Florida high court, <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
if such ads were permitted ‘images of sharks, wolves, crocodiles and <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
piranhas could follow.’  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
“PitBullLogo”<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
In response, The Thomas Jefferson Center concluded:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
“Regardless how one feels about the tastefulness of such advertising, <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
the claim that prospective clients could be misled to their detriment by <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
the pit bull commercial seems outlandish.  None of the recognized <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
Constitutional exceptions to the status of attorney advertising seem to <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
apply here. For failing to recognize the First Amendment rights of lawyers <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
to use unconventional appeals in seeking legal business, the Florida <\/FONT><\/EM><\/DIV>
\n
Supreme Court earns a 2006 Jefferson Muzzle.”<\/FONT><\/EM> <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
                                                                                                      \"JeffersonCenter\"<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
No other courts were on the 2006 Muzzles List.  Here are the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
13 awardees:<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
1) President George W. Bush 
2) The U.S. Department of Justice 
3) FCC Chairman Kevin Martin 
4) The Florida Supreme Court 
5) New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg 
6) Hecklers of the Ann Coulter Speech at UConn
7) The Yelm (WA) Town Council
8) The U.S. Department of Homeland Security
9) The Command Authority of the U.S. Army Base at <\/DIV>
\n
Fort Bragg, NC
10) The School Administrations of Tennessee’s Oak   \"dog<\/DIV>
\n
Ridge High School, Florida’s Wellington High School, <\/DIV>
\n
and California’s Troy High School
11) Orange County (FL) School District Superintendent <\/DIV>
\n
Ron Blocker
12) William Patterson (NJ) University Administration
13) U.S. Representative Joe Barton  <\/DIV>
\n
 <\/DIV>
\n
\"MuzzlesBannerGS\"<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
Former awards back through 2000 can be accessed at the Center’s website. <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
The only other judicial winner came in 2004, when the First Place Muzzle went <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
to <\/FONT>Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum<\/FONT><\/A> for closing the Martha Stewart trial to the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
press.<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
update<\/STRONG><\/EM> (5 PM): Pape & Chandler<\/A> have updated a webpage describing their<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
experiences since choosing the Pit Bull logo and becoming targets for the <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
Florida Bar Association.  It has links to many relevant documents, plus a <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
photo of Siegfried & Roi.<\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
 
\n

\n

\n

\n

\n
invisible fence
. . .
no sign of the dog  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
cat’s purr<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
too loud<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
for poetry<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n

\n
spring morning<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
my dog marks<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
a clump of dandelions<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

\n
     <\/FONT>Hilary Tann<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/FONT>  <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
     “invisible fence” – The Heron’s Nest<\/FONT><\/A> <\/FONT><\/EM><\/FONT>(Aug. 2003)  <\/FONT>  <\/FONT><\/FONT>     <\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
    “cat’s purr” & “spring morning” – Upstate Dim Sum<\/FONT><\/EM><\/A> (<\/FONT>2005\/II<\/FONT><\/A>)<\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/FONT><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/FONT><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
                                                     <\/FONT><\/DIV><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n
\"dog<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV><\/SPAN><\/SPAN><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/BLOCKQUOTE><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has announced its 2006 Jefferson Muzzles awards, and one of the biggest “winners” is the Florida Supreme Court, due to its decision banning Pape & Chandler‘s pit bull logo and 800 phone number.  [many prior posts]  (Charlottesville, VA, Daily Progress, “Center Names Muzzle Winners,” April […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[2926],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5260","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pre-06-2006"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p6kP1R-1mQ","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5260","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5260"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5260\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":12694,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5260\/revisions\/12694"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5260"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5260"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5260"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}