Flori-duh Hall Monitors Flunk Copyright Law

Copyright Stupidity from America's Wang

It appears that the University of Tampa needs to educate its hall monitors on the law a little better. RAs at UT have been trying to tell the students that they can’t watch the Superbowl in a room with more than 3.4 people. Yes, really.

During recent floor meetings, some RAs have been telling their residents that they will not allow more than 3.4 people in a room watching the Super Bowl.

Krystal Schofield, Director of Residence Life, says the topic of copyright law first came up in RA training. RAs were being further educated on copyright laws and how it applied to their jobs, not specifically for the Super Bowl.

“Some RAs were looking for hard facts on how many people could view an event in a room and it still be considered a private showing,” she said. (source)

If I were “Director of Residence Life,” and an RA asked me how many people they could allow to watch TV together in a dorm room, I’d say “don’t you have something better to do than worry about how many college kids are watching television together?”

According to John Stepro, director of media services, the number 3.4, is the estimated number of people per household in the U.S. and it is considered to be the threshold for what is a private showing and what is a public performance.

And which law school did Mr. Stepro attend? Rule #1 of talking to the media, if you have no idea, then say “I have no idea.” Don’t try and fake it, because some smart ass lawyer will be out there waiting to make fun of you.

Adam Goldstein, attorney advocate at the Student Press Law Center said he had never heard of the 3.4 person rule.

“If you want to throw a party and invite a thousand of your closest friends, which I’m sure is happening this weekend across the Hamptons, there is no legal obstacle,” he said.

He also said that viewing parties for the Super Bowl are legal as long as they don’t charge or constitute a public performance in which people can come and go, such as showing the game in the Vaughn Courtyard.

Oh, I’m sorry Mr. Goldstein, the credited response is “If an RA asks this question, they must be involuntarily sterilized for being such a petty little twit.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Goldstein still gets full credit. There is a reason that Goldstein never heard of the “3.4 person rule.” Because IT DOESN’T EXIST — and if it did, what are you going to do, watch TV with two close friends and a quadruple amputee?

Listen up, University of Tampa students: Your RA’s three classes in “victim studies” don’t qualify them to quote the law to you.

You can find the correct answer in sections 101 and 106 of the Copyright Act. It is true that you can’t “publicly” display a copyrighted work without the permission of the copyright owner. Section 106 of the Act provides that you can’t “perform” a copyrighted work publicly without the consent of the copyright owner. That does include putting a movie or a broadcast on a television screen. However, the definition of “perform” requires a little more thought, so lets look at Section 101.

To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; (source)

If you only have 3.4 family members and social acquaintances, then I suppose the hall monitors are right. If you are a normal human being, they are wrong.

If you are a University of Tampa student, print out this post and put it in the face of any hall monitor who tries to quote this 3.4 person rule to you. Oh, but I provide this to you on one condition — that you agree to spend the rest of the year tormenting the living hell out of any RA who is so petty and small that they have nothing better to do than worry about whether you are watching the Superbowl with more than 3.4 family members and friends.

Connecticut Legislator Pushes for Student Speech Rights Bill

We haven’t given out a First Amendment Bad Ass award in a while, but Connecticut State Senator, Gary D LeBeau, come on down! LeBeau has proposed a “student speech” bill in the Connecticut General Assembly.

Sen. Gary D. LeBeau, the Democrat from East Hartford who co-chairs the General Assembly’s Commerce Committee, said today that he was spurred to introduce his bill by the nationally publicized case of Avery Doninger, a former Burlington high school student disciplined for a 2007 Internet posting she wrote from her home.

“I strongly believe in the First Amendment,” the lawmaker said. “And after what school administrators did in the Doninger case, what’s needed is a bright line of where the state — since the school was acting on behalf of the state — can impinge on the rights of individuals. I think they overstepped in this case.

“As long as a message like hers is not sent directly to a school, or if she is not using school equipment, this young person and everyone else has a right to say what they think,” he added. “Unfortunately, the way she said it was pretty offensive, but that happens — and that’s sometimes the very speech that needs to be protected.” (source)

Hell yeah.

Once Again, Adult Entertainment Leads the Way

Technologically speaking, we all owe a lot to the porn industry. But for porn, we wouldn’t have had VHS tapes (well, they might not have made it over Beta), nor would we likely have our current streaming video capability. Well, here comes 3-D porn.

Voyeur Dorm Redux – Coco Dorm Wins

The internet has rendered the Blutarski method largely obsolete

In order to zone out adult entertainment from a certain area, a town must show that it passed the zoning ordinance in order to combat the “adverse secondary effects” of adult entertainment establishments — not simply because the town doesn’t want “that kind of thing going on.” In other words, banning adult entertainment from a residential area because it isn’t a proper business district is completely permissible. Banning it from a business district because you think your town “isn’t that kind of place” is not.

In 2001, Tampa’s “Voyeur Dorm” operated peacefully and quietly in a residential house, but no customers ever came to the dorm. The house had a few girls living in it, webcams in every room, and the girls would walk around naked, masturbate on camera, shower, and generally provide a voyeur experience for the website’s subscribers. On the other end of the equation, members of the Voyeur Dorm website could enjoy the online reality show from the privacy of their own homes.

Naturally, this being Flori-duh, the local zealots weren’t having any of that, and they tried to shut the business down by invoking their local adult entertainment ordinance. Had the Voyeur Dorm been a strip club, they would have been dead right. However, in reversing the trial court’s determination that Tampa could shut down the dorm, the 11th Circuit ruled that since Voyeur Dorm offered no adult entertainment “to members of the public” on site, but rather the entertainment was offered over the internet, the city code did not apply.

As a practical matter, zoning restrictions are indelibly anchored in particular geographic locations. Residential areas are often cordoned off from business districts in order to promote a State’s interest. See e.g., City of Renton, 475 U.S. at 50 (“A city’s interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect.”). It does not follow, then, that a zoning ordinance designed to restrict facilities that offer adult entertainment can be applied to a particular location that does not, at that location, offer adult entertainment. Moreover, the case law relied upon by Tampa and the district court concern adult entertainment in which customers physically attend the premises wherein the entertainment is performed.2 Here, the audience or consumers of the adult entertainment do not go to 2312 West Farwell Drive or congregate anywhere else in Tampa to enjoy the entertainment. Voyeur Dorm, L.C. v. City of Tampa, 265 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2001)

Apparently, the City of Miami didn’t get the memo. Miami’s “Coco Dorm” is the gay equivalent of Tampa’s Voyeur Dorm. The boys play inside, the cameras capture the action, and the audience is dispersed world-wide. As I reported in August of 2007, nobody in the neighborhood really knew that the place was operating until an anonymous party delivered envelopes containing printouts of the site to their doors. (source). After that, the news cameras came rolling into the neighborhood, and then code enforcement went into action.

Despite efforts to educate the city by Coco Dorm Attorneys Jamie Benjamin, Gary Edinger, and Daniel Aaronson (all of whom I am proud to call my friends), Miami refused to budge — stubbornly insisting that its ordinance was different.

Federal Judge Marcia Cooke didn’t see it that way. Factually, the case was identical to Voyeur Dorm.

None of the webcams are located outside of the 503 residence and no images external to the residence are publicized or broadcast by Flava Works. The address of the residence is not disclosed on the website or any of Flava Works, Inc.’s products. It is rare for customers or vendors to physically go to the business office at 2610 North Miami Avenue. Neither customers nor vendors ever physically go to the 503 residence. (Op. at 5)

Judge Cooke also found the two legal scenarios to be indistinguishable:

Just as in Voyeur Dorm, since the Miami zoning ordinance is designed to restrict establishments that offer adult entertainment or services to the public at their physical location, that ordinance cannot be “applied to a particular location that does not, at that location, offer adult entertainment” or services to the public. Voyeur Dorm, L.C., 265 F.3d at 1236. Because the public offering by Flava Works, Inc. occurs via cocodorm.com in cyberspace, and not in a particular geographic location, the City of Miami zoning ordinance cannot be applied to the 503 residence. (Op. at 9-10)

The City argued that a slight semantic difference between the two ordinances should be enough to distinguish the two cases. The Tampa ordinance specifically applied to premises on which adult entertainment is offered, but the Miami ordinance did not contain such limiting language. – thus the City took the position that the mere fact that adult entertainment was being filmed on the premises was enough, and where the audience congregated was irrelevant. The Court dismissed this argument and found that the ordinances were “functionally equivalent.” (Op. at 8).

Miami’s pleas that its ordinance should have been interpreted differently stretched credibility into a mental goatse. However, aside from that, this argument was strategically speaking, monumentally foolish. As noted above, local communities can not simply ban adult entertainment because they don’t like it. A town can only restrict adult entertainment in order to combat the “adverse secondary effects” of that kind of business.

Some of the “effects” that have been recited by cities trying to banish adult entertainment to restricted zones are: increased crime, increased traffic, increased calls for police, and even increased litter. I seriously question whether such “effects” exist in the live entertainment context, and most “studies” that say they do have been thoroughly discredited when scrutinized by objective social scientists.

Nevertheless, let us presume, arguendo that adverse secondary effects are not a myth, and that when a strip club opens in a neighborhood, these adverse secondary effects do occur. Nobody in the neighborhood even knew the business was there until someone decided to “out” it. How can adverse secondary effects possibly occur if the business is internet-based and the audience never comes to the facility?

If the Miami adult entertainment ordinance truly did encompass internet activity the way the City argued, then the ordinance itself would have been completely void. Without a justification for a ban that has a solid foundation in an effort to combat adverse secondary effects, the ordinance would fail even the relaxed level of scrutiny that ordinances must endure in order to be considered to be constitutional. Had the court bought Miami’s argument, the only constitutionally-permissible decision would have been to invalidate the ordinance as a whole — and then there would have been no restrictions on adult entertainment at all.

Yet Another Moronic PATRIOT Act Result

My former Con Law Professor and the author of the PATRIOT Act, Viet Dinh, calls himself an “attendant of freedom.” I have to admit, I liked the guy personally… but I don’t think he should be the attendant of anything but a dingy rest room in a bus station for his act of idiocy and treason — even if he does think that he meant well at the time.

So far, unless its success is classified and the leak-prone Bush administration actually managed to keep all the secret successes under wraps, the PATRIOT Act has been a colossal failure. It has, however, succeeded in being a huge pain in the ass. If you’ve opened a bank account or bought anything more costly than a bicycle since the fascist pig wish list was jammed through Congress with nary a peep (thank you for your patriotism, Russ Feingold) you know what I am talking about.

Now, it appears that a lawyer (who happens to be my FALA brother) in Utah, Andrew McCullogh, has discovered another ludicrous side effect of Dinh’s problem child. See, like most lawyers, McCullogh has a trust account — an account where he keeps his clients’ money until he has properly billed for it. McCullogh, once he earns that money, transfers it into his firm’s operating account, from which he then pays himself and his employees.

That is now “suspicious activity,” as the PATRIOT Act defines the term — or as some dipshit banker interprets the Act. No matter whether the blame rests with Zion Bank, Dinh, or Congress, the fact is that the PATRIOT Act is a colossal failure — well, unless its intent was to instill millions of people with false fear and to render the Constitution a quaint anachronism. In that case, bravo.

The Longest Journey Starts With a Single Step

I must admit I lost a little faith in our political system after the 2000 election and all that transpired under the Bush administration. For nearly ten years, I did everything in my power to avoid political discussions of any kind. Naturally, then-candidate now-President Obama, with his focus on integrity, hope, and restoring American ideals, completely sucked me in. Now I, along with countless others, anxiously await confirmation of my belief that President Obama can bring about change – at least in the sense that he can encourage a level of transparency in government that will restore my faith in the people supposedly leading our country. When I learned that our new Secretary of Treasury (the man in charge of ensuring proper administration and collection of tax) had failed to properly pay his own taxes for a time, I began to have some misgivings. Those misgivings intensified slightly upon reading that another nominee, Tom Daschle, had likewise originally failed to report income in his tax returns for several years resulting in a substantial underpayment of taxes on his part. (Source.)

Upon reflection, however, I think we’re noticing a positive trend for the Obama administration. Once nominated, both Secretary of Treasury Tim Geithner and Health Department nominee Tom Daschle corrected their respective errors and reported them to the Senate during the confirmation process. Requiring top officials to re-examine their prior conduct and rectify potential errors on their own initiative before acquiring top level-posts seems to indicate that the Obama administration will be held to a higher standard of internal and external accountability. (By “higher standard” I mean they will be held accountable at the very least some of the time as opposed to never.) I personally feel that President Obama will have satisfied my expectations by simply instituting internal procedures that comply with the overriding spirit of the Constitution: checks and balances.

(I can offer no justification or alternative explanation for the unfortunate choice of Eric Holder as Attorney General, though. See prior commentary here, here, and here.)

Getting Under-30s Interested in the First Amendment

by Jason Fischer

It’s a daunting task, but one District Judge in Rhode Island thinks he has found a way to catch the interest of the under-30, computer-oriented generation: Link to YouTube videos, which play music that is ironically related to the facts of a case. (source)

“The novelty of citations to YouTube and the idea that you could access music as you plod through the opinion hopefully makes a kind of dry subject a little more fun and interesting,” [U.S. District Judge William E. Smith] wrote in an e-mail. “It seems to me that judges should look for ways to get people interested in important subjects like the First Amendment, to get them talking about it. Hopefully this will accomplish that goal in a small way.”

We here at the Legal Satyricon agree that this is a good idea, and offer the following for your enjoyment while reading this post.

Bring Back Buck (versus Bell, that is)

In my opinion, Oliver Wendell Holmes was one of the greatest justices ever to grace the Supreme Court bench. His thirty years on the bench produced some of the most brilliant and influential opinions ever authored. It is a testament to his power that he essentially fathered modern First Amendment jurisprudence in a series of dissenting opinions that later grew to become the law of the land.

But, this post is not about Holmes’ free speech jurisprudence, it is about another example of his brilliance — his willingness to embrace forced sterilization of imbeciles. As he wrote in Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927).

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

In honor of Holmes’ brilliance, I am establishing the Buck Award — to be issued to persons and groups who display such stunning degrees of imbecility they are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. In a better world, these people would be subject to forced sterilization.

Sleazy and greedy — we’ve got enough of that. Snip.

People thinking of suing U.S. Airways for “emotional distress” suffered in the Hudson River landing AND their lawyers need to be sterilized.

Had I been on that flight, the only thing I would sue U.S. Airways for would be the right to follow the pilot around until I had saved HIS life. If I’m ever on a plane and BOTH engines go out over a city filled with skyscrapers, and the pilot manages to set me down safely, I hope that someone comes and sterilizes me if I even consider saying the word “lawsuit.”

Human Lhasa Apsos

The Octuplets mom, who already had six kids and lived with her parents doesn’t need to be spawning any more. In an overpopulated world, more than two kids seems a little bit self-indulgent, but I’m not ready to be that harsh with parents who decide to go one beyond mere population replacement. However, I do think that after three, your fourth shouldn’t get you any more tax deductions nor should the fourth get free education.

Where to draw the line is always a tricky exercise… but when you have enough kids to field a basketball team with someone on the bench, you’ve spawned enough. When you have six kids that you can’t support on your own, and then you actually get medical treatment to have more, you have lost your right to reproduce.

And frankly, while we’re snipping, I want the doctors who gave this woman fertility treatments sterilized as well. Just because you “can” doesn’t mean you “should.”

Flight Attendants with attitudes

Deborah Crowley, the president of the Spirit Airlines “flight attendants” union doesn’t need to be spawning either. Spirit sold Budweiser ad space on the flight attendants’ aprons, and the union freaked out.

“Turning flight attendants into walking billboards is unacceptable,” said Deborah Crowley the president of the carrier’s FA union…“The proposed aprons diminish the primary and federally mandated role of flight attendants as safety professionals and our role as first responders onboard.”

Well now welcome to reality. Your job is to hand out drinks and peanuts. If someone chokes on a peanut, you give them CPR like any decent human being. If you did that job anywhere but in a plane, you’d be a waitress, and you’d be wearing a Bud Light apron. Chill the hell out. Did you know that in some countries, flight attendants are so damn pleasant that they are treated almost like celebrities? I flew Thai Airways a few times. Every time I fell asleep, I would wake up with an orchid on my chest. (And that was POST 9/11). Passengers, in turn, went out of their way to be nice to the stewardesses (they still call them that in Thailand). In the end, everyone was really happy.

I’m so damn sick of uptight American flight attendants. If you weren’t such self-important assholes, carrying the standard of the “post 9-11 world,” acting like every sheaf of paper is a potential atomic bomb, and if you fucking smiled once and a while, people would like you more and you wouldn’t care if you wore a frigging Pabst Blue Ribbon shirt.

If Italian soccer players NASCAR drivers can wear product ads at work, you and your $13.75 an hour ass can do it. Now shut up, get me a beer and a pillow, and learn how to smile.

Douchebaugh

Rush Limbaugh… but that was a no brainer.

Simpletonkins

Charles Claudio Simpkins – A Harvard Law student who, four months from graduation, stumbled out of a bar and into the back of a police car demanding in a profanity laden tirade that the officers give him a ride home because he was an intern for the District Attorney’s office. Some of his other greatest hits:

“This ain’t (expletive) because I work at the DA’s office. Don’t worry, I will beat this.”

“You (expletives) all lie. That’s why no one likes you (expletives).”

“Dan Conley is a (expletive), but he’ll get you (expletives).”

“If (I) ever get one of (you) on the stand, (I) will lie and cheat to hurt (you) (expletives).” (source)

The redactions were done by the Boston Herald, not me. Who ain’t (expletive) now, dipshit?

Anyone who supports “protect the children” legislation without reading it.

Everyone who voted for the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act needs to go under the knife. It looks like Ron Paul will be the only member of the House of Representatives with the ability to sire.

Uh oh

I hope this isn’t true.

Creationism in Louisiana Public Schools?

Last year, the Louisiana legislature passed “The Louisiana Science Education Act,” ostensibly to promote “students’ critical thinking skills and open discussion of scientific theories.”

The Act requires that teachers use state-approved science texts, “but allows local teachers and school districts to then use supplemental material on the subject.” (source). The Act explicitly states that that it should “not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion.” Of course, just saying it doesn’t make it so.

The Board of Education committee charged with adopting guidelines for the implementation of the law voted to remove the following language from the guidelines:

“Materials that teach creationism or intelligent design or that advance the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind shall be prohibited for use in science class.”

Louisiana tried this before — leading to the case Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) — where the Supreme Court held that teaching fairy tales as “science” is a violation of the Establishment Clause. However, here they go again, spray painting the apple with orange paint and claiming that it is still an orange.

Oklahoma Lawmaker Proposes Measure to Place 10 Commandments at State Capitol

A key ingredient in anti-christofascist legislation

Oklahoma lawmaker, Rep. Mike Ritze, R-Broken Arrow, filed a bill in the Oklahoma House of Representatives, Bill 1330, the “Ten Commandments Monument Display Act,” seeking to have a monument of the Ten Commandments placed on the state Capitol grounds, but paid for by private funds. His bill calls for the Secretary of State to “help private entities pick a location for the monument.” (source)

The Edmond Sun reports that the measure claims to be secular in nature:

“The placement of this monument shall not be construed to mean that the State of Oklahoma favors any particular religion or denomination thereof over others,” the measure says. (source)

While that is a pretty clever addition, the measure is still as unconstitutional as it is dishonest. Simply saying that something has a secular purpose doesn’t make it so. See Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980) (“an ‘avowed’ secular purpose is not sufficient to avoid conflict with the First Amendment. The preeminent purpose of posting the Ten Commandments, which do not confine themselves to arguably secular matters, is plainly religious in nature…”)

The monument will be a reminder to people where the state gets its laws, Ritze said.

“We are just basically putting a monument up to remind us the philosophy of what our founders had in place for the nation and what is ordained for civil government,” Ritze said.

Lets go to the dishonesty first. Anyone who claims that the Ten Commandments are “where the state gets its laws” either hasn’t read the Ten Commandments or is lying. The commandments that prohibit murder, theft, and perjury may have parallels in American law, but three out of ten doesn’t get you there. Here is a good post debunking the myth that the Ten Commandments have anything at all to do with our laws.

Any more lies in here? Well, how about the bald-faced lie that the display of a Decalogue can possibly mean anything except the endorsement or favoring of a particular religion? Is it even possible to post a Decalogue without favoring at least one denomination of Christianity? I think not, since there are at least three different versions of the Decalogue.

Finally, lets look at the Constitutional issue.

Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) a government action must meet all three of the following requirements in order to conform with the Establishment Clause.

1. The action must have a secular purpose
2. The action must have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion
3. The action must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion

I don’t think you need a very sophisticated bullshit detector to tell that Mr. Ritze is being dishonest when he puts on his best Alfred E. Neuman face and says “really, trust me, this ain’t got nothin’ t’ do with religion.” Any judge or juror who buys that line should be forcibly sterilized, because we really do already have our fill of imbeciles in America.

Does a Decalogue “foster an excessive government entanglement with religion?” You mean aised from the State Capitol becoming a place where there is a monument to one particular religion?

The real killer is the “primary effect” prong. Believe it or not, there are a lot of us who don’t follow the Ten Commandments.

In 2005, the Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions on this issue that many say only leads to more confusion when considering whether a Decalogue display violates the Constitution (I think the pair makes it abundantly clear). The cases were McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 545 U.S. 844 (2005) and Van Orden v. Perry, 545 U.S. 677 (2005).

In McCreary, two Kentucky counties posted King James versions of the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. One county had a local pastor unveil the display. After the legal battle heated up, they put up post hoc secular justifications for the displays, and added other tokens to the displays to water down the religious message, but the court saw through this. The purpose of the displays was to promote Christianity, and that isn’t allowed under the Establishment Clause.

In Van Orden, the Decalogue had been standing there for 40 years among 17 monuments and 21 historical markers, “all designed to illustrate the “ideals” of those who settled in Texas and of those who have lived there since that time.” (source). In other words, the monument was placed there at a different time, as part of a larger display, and nobody was using it to try and shove religion down any one else’s throat.

Mr. Ritze’s dishonest and unconstitutional act is clearly of the McCreary variety, and if it passes it will meet the same fate.

Crappy Day At Work?

SAN DIEGO — A mistrial was declared Monday when a home-invasion robbery suspect smeared human feces on his attorney’s face then threw more at the jury.

Weusi McGowan, 37, was upset because San Diego Superior Court Judge Jeffrey Fraser refused to remove Deputy Alternate Public Defender Jeffrey Martin from the case, prosecutor Christopher Lawson said.

At the mid-morning break, McGowan produced a plastic baggie filled with fecal matter and spread it on Martin’s hair and face, then flung the excrement toward the jury box, hitting the briefcase of juror No. 9 but missing the juror himself. (source)

I expect the comments on this subject to be full of puns and bad jokes. Please commence.

The [Return of] Blog L00t!

W00t! W00t! Zac's Blog L00t!

Editorial and Comment by Zac “I Wish I Had a Cool Nickname” Papantoniou

We here at the LS (aka “Legal Satyricon” for all you n00bs), have heard the longing cries and tearful sobs of our faithful flock of readers/scallywags, who have so dearly missed the mad props to blog rollers (and biting sarcasm) offered by the “Blog L00t!”; so in the name of good taste and all that is awesome, the weekly post is making its triumphant return! With that said… on with the l00ting!

”The Audacity of Hope Hypocrisy”

Dustin, over at “QuizLaw”, starts us off with a “neat” little story that reaffirms my distaste for both Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and the sunny state of Flori-duh. According to Dustin’s post, an employee of a Jacksonville, FL, Sam’s Club, was ”reprimanded for wearing a T-shirt with Obama’s face on it.”

“Which Obama,” you ask? Barack Obama, the 44th (and current) President of the United States of America! “That’s silly,” you say, “Why would a Sam’s Club employee be reprimanded for wearing a t-shirt emblazoned with our President on it? Maybe it’s against company policy.” Nope; the “offense” was not against company policy, and even better, the employee was reprimanded by his supervisor because “[the] supervisor told him a customer didn’t like it, and [then] . . . told him to change.” Oh, Sam’s Club, where is your sense of patriotism? Don’t you know that every time you make an employee remove an article of clothing with President Obama emblazoned on it, a terrorist gets his wings?

More on Sam’s Club’s foray into the “Audacity of Hope Hypocrisy” at (and props to) QuizLaw.

Higher Education?

Rogier van Bakel at “Nobody’s Business” wrote a hilarious post about the suspension of Colorado State University’s Police Chief/Class Lecturer Dexter Yarbrough for his alleged “blunt” and “questionable” teaching methods, which included telling his students “to provide illicit drugs [crack] to informants as payment for information.”

Rogier tells it best, in his post, ”Teach ‘Em Young”. Props to Nobody’s Business.

Baseball Caps Are Not [Presumably] Proper Inauguration Attire for U.S. Senators

Something tells me that Senator Joe Lieberman should know better than to wear a baseball cap at the Presidential Inauguration, but what do I know, I’m a Satyriconista, not a fashionista. It’s a good thing Eric Turkewitz at “The New York Personal Injury Law Blog” has a keen eye (and sharp wit, to boot!) Read more about Lieberman’s Inauguration Fashion Faux Pah, and props to “The New York Personal Injury Law Blog” .

Law Firm Orders Lawyer to Stop Publishing Erotic Fiction on Her Personal Website

The headline should be self explanatory, and Ken’s post at “Popehat” is stimulating… Read more on the story at “No Sex, Please, We’re Lawyers”, props to “Popehat” .

The Catholic Church Scares Me

Andrew Sullivan at “The Daily Dish” gives us the world reason to question the sanity of Pope Benedict XVI (aka Joey Ratz) in Sullivan’s post “The Man Benedict Has Brought In From The Cold”. Apparently, being an ex-communicated Bishop with xenophobic, sexist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic beliefs is no good reason for the head of the Catholic church to not welcome you back to the flock with open arms. Props to Andrew Sullivan at “The Daily Dish”.

Michelle Obama: Mom-in-Chief

By Tatiana von Tauber

It’s as though the first couple hypnotized millions.  I too have become star struck.  Is the hypnotized state what makes the Obamas so captivating to imaginations run by hope?  Barack Obama’s promise of change is forcing all sides to unite whether they want to or not, i.e. Rick Warren.  Barack’s presence tempts our curiosity to witness what he’ll do, who’ll he be and what that may mean to America’s future.  But, what about Michelle?  She’s captivating in her own right.

I like how Michelle Obama took a “back seat” by setting her children’s future up front. Her husband’s fame is her fame.  Her husband’s legacy will not be hers.  Michelle Obama is a strong African American feminist who chose family and her actions will paint her legacy.  Her sense of maternal value shined through her golden dress on Inauguration Day and I wonder, cannot a First Lady be just as lovely and valued as a First Mother?  Can American women find hope and a different sense of balance between career and motherhood without sacrificing the needs of their children?  Can American women accept being a husband’s equal accessory while still being great mothers and independent individuals? 

Michelle Obama’s children are aged around mine so I know what some of her concerns might be from a parental perspective.  I like that Barack Obama is a father of girls.  I have daughters too.  I believe their combined sights will benefit the American family. I’ve noticed the way the Obamas structure the importance of their family around events and I think Michelle could provide a fantastic opportunity to help reshape the way America views family, motherhood and feminism.  Most of all, I love that Michelle’s priorities are in the right places: “My first job in all honesty is going to continue to be mom-in-chief, she said.  Feminism of the past left family behind.

I’m particularly thrilled to see Michelle’s mother move into the White House to help, that all the generations of the Obamas can share in the experience of presidency while they raise children and experience what it is to be a family to the best of their circumstantial ability.  This is a custom more families should reintroduce as the older generation adds richness to family, and “affordable”, trusting child care.  Michelle appears to understand and value the powerful influence of motherhood and it’d be nice to see that philosophy spread to the American masses. 

I think First Lady Michelle Obama is really the best example of feminism gone right and she’s in a fantastic power position where she can popularize her sense of elegance and her value of motherhood.  Women need this and families need a proud and willing mother-in-chief.

Could a Camera Click be Compelled Speech?

by Jason Fischer

H.R. 414 was introduced into Congress this month with the title “The Camera Phone Predator Alert Act” (source). In an effort to combat unauthorized pictures, which might be taken in places like dressing rooms, locker rooms, and the like, the bill would require all mobile phones, made in the United States, to emit a “tone or other sound” that would be audible “within a reasonable radius of the phone” whenever a picture is taken. Under the legislation, a user would also not have the option of disabling the sound.

If the sound made by a phone, when a picture is taken, is designed to communicate a message (i.e., “I’m taking a picture now”), would it be a First Amendment issue to require the sound? Can the government compel every camera phone user to make this statement each time they take a picture?