Archive for the ‘ Law ’ Category

FCC Ready to Kill Internet

According to Reuters, FCC commis­sioners voted 5–0 today to proceed with crafting a “net neutrality” rule, sending the current language (which would strip telecom companies of the right to control how they use their own property) to the printing office for public comment. Comments will be accepted until January 14th. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available online here [PDF]. You can upload your comments using ECFS here, using proceeding number 09–191. You can read others’ comments on ECFS here. I’m writing comments to submit right now. I’ll post my comments here when I finish. I encourage everyone who loves the Internet [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

British Official Knows Nothing About First Amendment

Via Prawfsblawg, a story from Reuters India reports that a British official has asked California Governor Schwarzenegger to shut down a Website that she says encourages pros­ti­tution in the UK. Prostitution is legal in the UK. Quoth the official, Surely it can’t be too difficult for “The Terminator” to terminate Punternet and that’s what I am demanding that he does. Patently, Ms Harman is not acquainted with our First Amendment, which is precisely what prevents “The Terminator” from “termi­nating” such a Website. The Website’s owner responds with a brief lesson in free speech, then thanks Ms Harman for the bene­ficial effects of her ignorance: In closing, I would [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

De Minimis Establishment Clause Violations?

I just saw this ad on telly: The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in conjunction with the Ad Council (both orga­ni­za­tions about which I have nothing positive to say), has funded and produced an adver­tisement featuring religious figures endorsing and promoting government programs. No mention of the featured anthro­po­morphic vegetables’ religious affil­i­ation is mentioned. Something about using explicitly religious char­acters to encourage children to follow government health advice strikes me as something less than neutral to religion, despite the secular purpose. But because promoting the health of children is a “legit­imate secular purpose”, this kind of thing doesn’t violate the [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

Scalia on the Meaning of the Latin Cross

The ongoing contro­versy over a Latin cross erected in 1934 on Federal land in Mojave National Preserve to honor WWI dead reached the Supreme Court today on the question of whether Congress’ sale of the land where the cross sits to a private entity in an effort to remove the consti­tu­tional violation itself violated the injunction ordering the government to remove the consti­tu­tional violation. Photo by Eric Nystrom, courtesy National Park Service The case is Salazar v. Buono, and oral arguments were held this morning. Transcript is here. The consti­tu­tion­ality of the cross was not before the Court today. The question was [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

And Maine Makes Five

Maine legalizes same-​​​​sex marriage By legislative action, no less. Without a court telling them they had to do it. That makes Maine the second state to enact same-​​​​sex marriage without a judicial order to do so, and the first state to enact same-​​​​sex marriage without a judicial order to at least create a parallel licensing system (as the Vermont Supreme Court did back before that state created its civil union system). Also, the first state to legisla­tively dispose of a prior legislative ban (Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 19-​​​​A § 701 (2009)). My last law school exam ever starts in 10 minutes. Woo hoo!

An excerpt from a footnote in my Law Review article

Here is a hopefully useful excerpt from a footnote in my Law Review article. It’s not the whole footnote, and I’m not going to share the entire article for at least some time, as I have other plans for it. But this one footnote, the result of many, many hours of research, could be useful to others and I thought I would share it. (For those who are inter­ested, the article is not really about same-​​​​sex marriage as such, but about an obscure little choice of law problem in one of the very few areas where federal courts have to look into the validity of a marriage [ . . . ]

Read the Rest...

“Knock, Knock!”

“Who’s there?” “Orange.” “Orange who?” “Orange you glad you didn’t vote for McCain!” I still say Stevens is due — he’ll be 89 this year. And Ginsburg has health issues. Luckily all three are part of the liberal bloc and will be replaced with liberals — not likely to upset court balance. I’m in the middle of finals week in my last semester in law school. Assuming I pass every­thing, I’ll graduate on May 17th, which is inci­den­tally the septen­vig­in­tennial of my birth.