Mark Lemley announced decision on Facebook for maximum effect.
The post Facebook Lawyer Ditches Client As Company Embraces Bigotry For Fun & Profit appeared first on Above the Law.
(Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Intellectual property expert Mark Lemley is done working for Facebook. The Stanford Law professor represented Facebook in the copyright case brought on behalf of creators claiming the social media giant infringed their IP while training its large language model, in a case that could have profound implications for generative AI’s future prospects. And while Lemley still hopes Facebook prevails on principle, he’s done associating himself with the company’s “descent into toxic masculinity and Neo-Nazi madness.”
And he made this announcement on Facebook.
And by descent into Neo-Nazi madness, we’re talking about policies like these leaked to The Intercept:
Overall the restrictions on claims of ethnic or religious supremacy has been eased significantly. The document explains that Meta now allows “statements of superiority as long as the statements do not refer to inferiority of another
group (a) on the basis of inherent intellectual ability and (b) without support.” Allowable statements under this rule include “Latinos are the best!” and “Black people are superior to all others.” Also now acceptable are comparative claims such as “Black people are more violent than Whites,” “Mexicans are lazier than Asians,” and “Jews are flat out greedier than Christians.” Off-limits, only because it pertains to intellectual ability, is the example “White people are more intelligent than black people.”Member Login
There’s a certain irony in the fact that this policy has cost Facebook its lawyer in a case against comedian Sarah Silverman, who famously/infamously had a routine lampooning the idea that proclaiming love for an ethnic group is the same as denigrating that group.
A sanctimonious segment of the legal profession harps on the idea that “everyone is entitled an attorney.” Except no one is entitled to you as an attorney. Frankly, no one is entitled to anything in a civil case and to the extent society needs to extend more protections to indigent clients on the wrong end of life-altering civil actions — landlord-tenant cases for instance — there’s definitely no such entitlement for a multibillion-dollar company in a copyright dispute.
Representing a client is a business decision. Some lawyers thrive as counsel of last resort and model their business around the willingness to represent unpopular clients. Other lawyers build their business on crusading for good causes. A whole lot of lawyers exist somewhere between those poles. In fact, a lot of deep-pocketed clients also don’t want to work with firms associated with unpopular causes — that’s a business decision too.
There’s nothing wrong with any of these approaches. Lawyers should feel free to build their practice however they want.
Lemley isn’t trying to be a Hollywood criminal law fixer, he’s an intellectual property lawyer. He doesn’t need to build an artificial firewall between his moral convictions and some abstract legal principle. He can choose to lend his skills to clients that reflect his values.
And Facebook doesn’t at this point.
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter or Bluesky if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
