So Why Is It Called Forensics?

Easily confused with Forensic Science, Forensics the colloquial and standard short-form of "Forensic Speech" is the study and practice of public speaking and debate.

So why the heck isn't it just called a public speaking? Probably because public speaking just isn't fancy enough a term and lacks the history, pomp and circumstance of the word forensics.

Looking at the dictionary its easy to see why these are confused as the word forensic has multiple meanings.

Definition of forensic

(Entry 1 of 2)
1 : belonging to, used in, or suitable to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate a lawyer's forensic skills
2 : argumentative, rhetorical forensic eloquence
3 : relating to or dealing with the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems forensic medicine forensic science forensic pathologist forensic experts

forensic noun
Definition of forensic (Entry 2 of 2)
1 : an argumentative exercise
2 forensics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the art or study of argumentative discourse
3 forensics plural in form but singular or plural in construction : the application of scientific knowledge to legal problems especially : scientific analysis of physical evidence (as from a crime scene)

Of course finding out why forensics is the word used for speech and debate and the history of the usage of the word forensics isn't exactly easy or clear.

The word forensics comes from Aristotle's work "The Rhetoric" in which he divided rhetoric int three general categories: epideictic (ceremonial), deliberative (policy), and forensic (legal). Public address and debate skills were important in the Ancient Greek courts and also in public life, and this continues even in modern Western Courts and in public life as well. After all, we tend to like our leaders to be able to speak well and you probably wouldn't want a lawyer who couldn't get a word in on your behalf.

Since we do like our Classical origins and the classics, Universities and other educational institutions applied the term forensics to speech and debate activities.

The word forensics apparently first pops up in English around 1659 being first used in regard to speech in the legal system and by the 1830s seems to have entered the universities as a word for the study of, and competition in, public speaking and debate.

Legal speech and policy debates were very popular in the US (think Lincoln-Douglas debates for example) and the public wanted to be educated andable to speak and argue effectively. Later in the United States a variety of speech, learning and competitive activities beyond just legal and policy got grouped together under the term forensics or forensic speech. Then the categories under the rubric forensics expanded even more to include other oratorical events such as interpretations including poetry recitals, impromptu speaking, and now includes sales presentations, broadcasting, storytelling, Duo, and Multiple events.

So now you know (whether you wanted to or not) why its called a forensics competition without a single person from CSI attending.

Scratch A Leftie Columnist, Find A Fascist Underneath

The Detroit Free Press' Rochelle "It's All About Race" Riley writes a column amazingly not dealing with race, the greatness of Obama, or gun control.

Taking a break from her usual tripe and expanding her horizons fascist-wise, she writes that she wants Congress to regulate cable television because 9 year-olds might watch the Walking Dead at 9pm at night and be psychologically harmed thereby.

Rather than asking what parent lets their 9-year old be awake at 9pm on a Sunday, much less letting the little tyke watch The Walking Dead?; Rather than advocating that parents you know, actually parent and control their kids bedtimes and tv content; she instead demands the government regulate and ban the evil she believes is the Walking Dead's gratuitous violence.

She actually called the FCC to complain. She was told to politely take a hike as the FCC doesn't regulate cable. She did not like that response.

So, joining the ranks of leading Democrats like Tipper Gore, she doesn't mind the government regulating and banning speech as long as it regulates things her way, and she calls on Congress to expand regulation onto the cable companies.

'Walking Dead' snuff episode should be a wake-up call

Rochelle Riley, one of the Freep's most liberal commentators actually wrote:

"We have freedom-of-speeched ourselves to death"

Rochelle, you have lots of control over your television, and you don't even have to leave your comfy chair in your liberal cocoon to do it. It's called picking up the remote control and changing the channel. Or even better, parent, supervise and have your 9 year old in bed before 9 on a night before school and the problem is solved - no big government censorship necessary.

It'll Be A No Go To Sue Go Daddy

The Detroit Free Press: Women sue Go Daddy over nude photos on revenge-porn site

If ever 'twas a case of an article being useless without the pictures in question this is it.

Go Daddy has been named lead defendant in a Texas lawsuit filed by 17 women whose nude photos were published without their permission on a "revenge porn" website hosted by the Scottsdale-based company.

The lawsuit exposes an obscure Internet pornography niche that often involves jilted ex-boyfriends posting nude or semi-nude cellphone pictures of their former girlfriends, with each photo usually accompanied by personal information such as the woman's name and city of residence.

All prurient interest aside, suing Go Daddy is a No Go.

The only good and constitutional portion of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, is Section 230, and 230's subpart (c) provides:

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

In short, Go Daddy isn't liable for any damages for the publication of materials made by one of its hosted websites, plain and simple. Go Daddy isn't the publisher and can't be liable for the acts of a website that it simply hosts.

This is hardly new law. The leading case on this, Zeran v AOL, dates to 1997 and held:

"[L]awsuits seeking to hold a service liable for its exercise of a publisher's traditional editorial functions – such as deciding whether to publish, withdraw, postpone or alter content – are barred."

The lawyer who pulled Go Daddy into the case, on dubious civil conspiracy grounds related to the publication of the perverse pics for the purpose of procuring a deep pocket for a payout probably should have known better and practiced law in accordance with precedent.

Putz.

Trick or Tweet: Woman's Twitter lands her in a Defamation lawsuit

People don't seem to realize that now with the ease of communicating to the public, when you're making casual remarks to your online friends you now open yourself up to liability for what you say.

Landlord sues tenant after tweet about moldy apartment

It all started when Twitter user @abonnen (Amanda Bonnen, who has since deleted her Twitter account) said to a friend on May 12, "You should just come anyway. Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay." At the time of the tweet, Bonnen's profile was public (meaning that everyone could read her Twitter stream) and she had about 20 followers.

Given that Twitter is pretty limited it is quite likely that the statement can be read as defamatory. I'm not sure on Illinois law but according to the article no request for retraction was made, which is necessary in Michigan before you can receive exemplary and punitive damages, leaving a plaintiff to only recover actual damages which in a defamation claim tend to be quite slight and hard to prove. (According to the Citizen Media Law Project there is no requirement for a Plaintiff to demand a retraction in Illinois).

The Complaint in the lawsuit can be read here.

Off the cuff Twitters about others that aren't clearly shown to be statements of opinion rather than fact can pretty easily expose the sender of the Tweet to potential liability for defamation and the expense of defending a lawsuit. Now whether it makes sense for the landlord to create such a firestorm of likely negative press and commentary about itself and its decision to sue over the seemingly innocuous tweet may be a questionable business decision, especially as landlords would likely prefer even the suggestion that they have a less than habitable apartment be as understated as possible and the lkess attention to such incidents the better. On the other hand, even negative publicity may indeed prove to be good publicity.

The real fun will be when an employee of a company says something off-the-cuff and defamatory or otherwise liability-causing over Twitter and the company gets sued for it.