In an opinion that was reported even in France, the Nebraska Supreme Court reinstated the conviction, stating repeatedly that my client’s speech was offensive. I was disappointed though, as the opinion did not contain the words “constitution” or “first amendment,” meaning that the highest court in Nebraska felt they need not address the First Amendment issues whatsoever, despite the fact that the case turned on speech and that the lower court found the issues properly preserved.

So, long story short, I contact the local ACLU chapter to see if they were interested in an amicus brief or in helping me appeal the the U.S. Supreme Court. I was shocked to hear that the NCLU could not assist me as they beleived that the due process rights of students to attend school trumped my client’s right to call people offensive names in school. Not only that, but the NCLU was even sponsoring anti-bullying legislation and for that reason would be also unable to assist.

In other words, what I thought of as the great defender of free speech was one of the parties eagerly chipping away at it, unconcerned with the collateral damage.

The net result of the fee setting jurisprudence here and in the Supreme Court is that the district courts must engage in an equitable inquiry of varying methodology while making a pretense of mathematical precision.

Finally, an open admission that this is all a big joke wrapped up in fancy lawyerspeak. The courts are using a bunch of words and tests to justify their own sense of equity as if there was really some basis in fact for it or that it can calculated in some rational, quantifiable, objective fashion. I always knew they were just messing with our heads.