UPDATE Dec. 8, 2014 10:39 am:
Wow! It took less that 10 minutes for Leagle.com to fix the defaced Stutz v. Larkins decision after I complained. ACLU legal director David Loy didn't want the First Amendment to be enforced in this case, perhaps because of loyalty to someone he worked with. But I doubt that he was involved in defacing the decision. Here's the comment I sent to Leagle.com:
Who defaced this decision? This page was perfectly legible for several years after the 2011 decision. On December 8, 2014, I find that a large amount of the decision has been overwritten, making it indecipherable. Was this page hacked, or does Leagle.com want it to be largely unreadable?
Here is what the Leagle.com page looked like before 10:30 am today:
Today I was reading David Loy's biography on the San Diego ACLU website, and I was struck by the irony of his claims to fame. Freedom of speech? Open government and public disclosure? You've got to be kidding.
David Loy was indeed chosen as a Top Attorney in 2009 and 2010, but I suspect the reason was NOT that he defended free speech, but that he cozied-up to individuals who crafted a couple of agreements with him regarding student speech.
Those agreements generated some nice media attention for Mr. Loy. But what was he doing behind the scenes?
He was pressuring me to remove the names of public entity attorneys from my website. He wrote to me telling me that I must remove every mention of public attorneys he had worked with!
The Court of Appeal disagreed with Mr. Loy that I must remove those names. See story in Voice of San Diego.
If you want to see something truly bizarre, look at the Stutz v. Larkins decision from the Leagle website. It was largely unreadable for as much as several months in 2014. It was fixed on Dec. 8, 2014. You can see the repaired web page HERE.
I wonder what Mr. Loy thinks of concealing Court of Appeal decisions from the public.
Here's the decision that somebody doesn't want you to see. Clearly, David Loy didn't even want this case to be heard, so I'm sure he wasn't happy with the decision.
So how does David Loy get off claiming to be an expert in free speech and a champion of sunshine in government? He most certainly is NOT a supporter of transparency in public entities, as shown by his efforts to silence public discussion of public attorneys.
Legal Director, David Loy
After graduating law school, Loy clerked for Judge Dolores K. Sloviter of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. He worked as a staff attorney with Office of the Appellate Defender in New York City and public defender and civil rights attorney in Spokane, Washington before joining the ACLU in 2006. He previously served on the Southern District Lawyer Representative Committee and the board of California Appellate Defense Counsel. Loy was named one of San Diego’s Top Attorneys 2009 and 2010 by San Diego Daily Transcript. He supervises all legal advocacy at the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties, and has particular expertise in freedom of speech and religion, open government and public disclosure, police misconduct, and constitutional criminal procedure. Loy has a law degree from Northwestern and a B.A. from Brown, and is licensed to practice in California and New York (with inactive licenses in Illinois and Washington).
--from ACLU website
David Loy is also in the news today courtesy of the San Diego Union-Tribune due to his objections to a religious organization that is involved in raising money in public schools.
I share Mr. Loy's concern about a charity that public schools in San Marcos are involved with. I have two criticism's of the charity.
First, I don't like the idea of feeding kids for a limited period of time and then walking away.
I would urge citizens of San Marcos to give to Oxfam rather than this questionable charity.
Oxfam helps people create better economic conditions. They teach people how to fish rather than giving them a fish to eat. They create jobs for parents, and let the parents feed their kids with the money they make.
The San Marcos charity simply serves meals to kids.
Well, actually, I suspect that's not all they do. Which brings me to my second criticism: the violation of the First Amendment.
Second, I suspect that the charity is serving meals for a limited time because it wants to give religious training to kids. After they're converted, the charity's goals have been achieved, and the feeding of the kids is no longer a priority.
I can understand that Mr. Loy would be worried about the slippery slopes that surround enterprises like this one, but if he's going to worry about the dangers of everyday activities that threaten the First Amendment, he should worry first about his own efforts to quash free speech. Why should he hold San Marcos Middle School to such an exacting standard when he is so lax about the First Amendment in other situations?