What it says in the casebook: "UBS learned from the donor's physician that the donor [was in a high risk group for AIDS]"
What the actual case says, "UBS learned from the donor's physician that the donor pursued a 'gay lifestyle.'"
I mean seriously, is that big deal? Did they really need to redact that? I know that society did not have the most PC attitude about AIDS in 1985, but a lot of times caselaw is a refelction on the times. Besides, we are in law school, we should be able to sort this shit out for ourselves.
Sunday, April 16, 2006
PC Casebooks
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Another one that I just like for some reason. Though I have not seen anything this egregious since then.
Post a Comment