UPDATED: The Yankees Still Suck Ass

Yesterday, I wrote about a fan ejected from Yankee Stadium for refusing to partake in the forced jingoism during the seventh inning stretch.

Upon reflection, while I agree with his complaints, I’m not sure he has a very strong legal case. The update is here. I would be very interested to hear any thoughts on whether the case has any legs at all. I fear that it does not.

Pirate Bay Crew Guilty – One Year in Jail

I am not terribly surprised at this verdict. All along, the crew of the Pirate Bay has been pretty arrogant about the trial. Their key defense seemed to be “you people are ridiculous.”

I don’t agree that anyone should be in prison over copyright infringement. But, sometimes you gotta play ball. They didn’t. They are going to jail.

Yes, the Yankees Still Suck Ass

Stick this up your ass, Steinbrenner

It is no secret that I hate the Yankees, Steinbrenner, and pretty much anything in pinstripes. But for god’s sake, does George have to make it this easy for me to gain converts?

Another thing I hate, which brings us to the current Yankee-hating issue, is the jingoistic empty-headed false patriotism that infected everything in America, starting on September 12, 2001. Patriotism is about loving the principles your country stands for, not stupid magnets on your car, flags on your house, or any other mass-hysteria imposed conformity.

As many MLB fans may recall, the league asked us to “show our patriotism” by standing for “God Bless America” during the seventh inning stretch. They later slacked off from that — I guess we didn’t need to be that patriotic. Now they ask that teams have this faux patriotism event only on Sundays and holidays. Perhaps on those days, godless atheists and non-christians don’t go to ball games.

The Yankees, never to be outdone when it comes to douchebag-ness, are the only team that still requires that its patrons respect the authoritah of the state during the stretch.

Ok, I could live with that. I think it is stupid, but I can live with it. I’d prefer that they place quotes from the Constitution on the Jumbotron or something, but I can live with it.

However, you don’t actually have a choice at Yankee Stadium, as reported by the New York Times.

By mid-October 2001, the Yankees’ implemented a system using off-duty uniformed police officers, ushers, stadium security personnel and the aisle chains to restrict movement. The Yankees pay the city to use police officers as part of the security detail.

[Lonn A. Trost, the team’s chief operating officer] said the ushers were instructed to allow fans with emergencies to move through the stands. Because one end of each chain is held by a person, instead of secured in place, the system is not considered a fire hazard, a spokeswoman for the New York Fire Department said.

Trost said the Yankees have not heard any complaints about either the continued playing of “God Bless America” or the restrictions on movement.(source)

The plan was apparently a reaction to some fans complaints that other fans were not “showing the proper respect” to God Bless America.

So, to celebrate our freedom and patriotism, the scum sucking Yankees have hired police and surrounded fans with chains in order to show them how free we are.

Now a Yankees fan is striking back. Apparently, on August 26, Bradford Campeau-Laurion went to the bathroom when God Bless America was playing, so police officers enforced Yankee Stadium policy and ejected him from the game.

As he headed toward a tunnel to the concourse, a uniformed NYPD officer blocked his path, “indicating that he could not leave during ‘God Bless America,’ ” his Manhattan federal suit says.

Campeau-Laurion told the cop he didn’t care about the song and tried to get past, but was quickly grabbed by the officer and a colleague stationed nearby.

The cops then allegedly twisted his arms back and frog-marched him to the exit. (source)

Bradford Campeau-Laurion claims that “he was made a victim of political and religious discrimination” and filed a lawsuit against the Yankees yesterday. His complaint is available here.

Campeau-Laurion, a Red Sox fan, says that he brought his suit because he is tired of the “forced patriotism” that seems to have proliferated since Sept. 11, 2001. Hmm, he noticed that, huh?

UPDATE: I’ve given this case some thought, and although I’m on Campeau-Laurion’s side, I fear that his legal case may be less compelling than his story.

Isn’t Yankee Stadium private property? I know it was, in part, paid for with public funds. However, can’t Steinbrenner require everyone to wear a blue bucket on their head throughout the whole game, if he wants? It might be within my civil rights to wear a Borat thong, but if a restaurant wants to say “we’re not serving you unless you put on a jacket,” then don’t they have that right?

What of the fact that this guy was certainly on notice of the policy. Everyone knows that the Yankees have this forced jingoism policy. You buy your ticket to the game subject to the rules of the park. If you are disruptive, you’re out. If you drink too much, you’re out. If you try and bring in a knife or a gun, you’re out. Why can’t a private property owner have this stupid rule too?

I am not aware of any cases directly on point, but there have been a few analogous cases in the Fourth Amendment context. In a fan challenge to routine pat-down searches, the Western District of Washington (Seattle) tossed a fan’s suit on the grounds that there was no state action in the case, thus no Constitutional violation. See Stark v. Seattle Seahawks.

This is in contrast to a short-lived but very enlightened opinion of the Middle District of Florida on the same issue. However, the 11th Circuit overturned that on the grounds that the plaintiff consented to the searches. See The St. Pete Times editorial on that decision.

It is true that to have a First (or a Fourth) Amendment violation, you need a state actor. However, a private entity can be a state actor in certain circumstances. For example, if the private entity exercises powers “traditionally exclusively reserved to the State.” Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 352 (1974). The context in which courts have recognized traditional state functions include administering elections, Terry v. Adams, 345 U.S. 461 (1953); and running a company-owned town, Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946).

In the Seahawks case, the Western District of Washington held:

Because neither operating a stadium nor providing security is a function traditionally and exclusively reserved to the state, the court concludes that the pat-down searches conducted by private actors at Qwest Field do not constitute state action.

Similarly, I question whether the Yankees’ policy constitutes “state action.” Yes, the stadium is publicly funded. Yes, the goons who threw Campeau-Laurion out of the stadium were uniformed NYPD officers. However, they were being paid privately by the Yankees and not serving as public officers at the time.

Trust me, I WANT the guy to win. If there are two things I hate, they are faux patriotism rituals and the New York Yankees. I just fear that this guy has some serious issues in this case that he’s going to have a lot of trouble getting past.

Welcome a New Satyriconista – Matthew C. Sanchez

Matthew C. Sanchez

Matthew C. Sanchez is a budding First Amendment and media lawyer based in South Florida. A regular volunteer with the Citizen Media Law Project at Harvard, Matt has logged more than 1600 hours of pro bono work dealing with free speech issues. His own (mostly) free speech consists of music journalism and children’s fiction.

He is a certified bad ass.

Jennifer Kinsley, First Amendment Bad Ass

Jennifer Kinsley is, without question, one of the brightest and most committed First Amendment lawyers in America.

Her home-town Cincinnati City Beat Newspaper recently recognized her work in this piece, Nobody’s Above the Law.

I just consider myself to be fortunate beyond words to be able to call Kinsley my friend.

Sex with clients is not unethical in England… Just don’t bill for it

by Jason Fischer (follow me on )

The American Bar Association’s (ABA’s) Mode Rules for Professional Conduct state, in the section about Conflicts of Interest:

A lawyer shall not have sexual relations with a client unless a consensual sexual relationship existed between them when the client-lawyer relationship commenced. Rule 1.8(j)

(Interesting side note: this is the only conflict that is not imputed to all members of a firm (Rule 1.8(k)) — so feel free to bang your partner’s clients)

Apparently, there is no such restriction in England. However, as this story demonstrates, you may have a problem if you bill for the time you spend “servicing” your client’s needs.

Best line ever from a legal news story:

Her claim states that under the advice agreement, in addition to a fixed fee arrangement for £120,000, Beaumont could charge her for unforeseen and urgent work, and that she was surprised to discover when he billed her that some of the “urgent work” was actually for time when she had personal reason to know he was not thrusting himself into a law book.

H/T @kevinokeefe

The French Bitch Gets All the Men

Tatiana Von Tauber

By Tatiana von Tauber

“I am a master flirt,” says Lisa Solod Warren, feminist and inspiration to women with her piece about the difference between the love lives of American and French women, Why American Women Are Alone When They Don’t Want to Be.  American women seem to neglect the art of flirting in the scheme of dating and relationship building yet it’s the strongest communication tool we have — to say nothing for the fact that it is a whole lot of fun. While there’s an art to flirtation, simply its mere possibility inflates the self-confidence with the opposite sex. French women play with love as though an adventure rather than a job, as many American women seem to do, says Warren.  

French women also opt to leave the sweats and flip-flops at home and dress each day as if consciously enjoying and playing with the strengths of their femininity – be it by clothing, sexuality or flirtation – French women express pride and comfort with their gender.  As mothers, the French are  less stressed out than Americansaccording to Judith Warner, author of Anxiety and the Age of Motherhood Madness.  Are American women doing something wrong?  Have they missed an important element in personal happiness?

“As American women we are ambitious and career oriented, and many of us will approach our search for love as if we were a recent MBA grad looking for a great job.”
And therein lies the problem…The key to a French woman’s success with men is in knowing her own sexuality, her own sensuality and her own power.” (source)

I’m thrilled to see the feminist wisdom I so often preach embraced by other women. This is very encouraging.

TWC to FCC: STFU, K?

LOLOLOL

In its comments regarding the Broadband Provisions of the 2009 Recovery Act, Time Warner Cable politely informs the FCC that “[n]ow is not the time, nor is this the appropriate proceeding, to engage in a debate about the need for net neutrality obligations.”   Moh’k.

On on hand, TWC acknowledges that “robust competition in the broadband marketplace ensures that service providers will act in consumers’ best interests.”  One the other,  TWC asks the FCC to “avoid subsidizing competition through an overly broad definition of ‘underserved.’” I suppose I could understand the call for non-regulation if cable companies didn’t enjoy such a sweet monopoly.

The execs over at TWC deserve a serious cockpunch.  At least a dickslap.  Something.

Gratuitous link.

LOLICOPTERZ! Teabagging

Whoever wrote this piece is frigging brilliant.

By the way, I know I have a lot of older and less than “with it” readers. Read the definition of Teabagging at Urban Dictionary.

Heh heh… heh

The Women in Magazines Don’t Look Like That Either

A long time ago, I worked in the advertising industry. I’ll never forget the first lingerie ad I worked on. The art director stood behind me as I photoshopped a photo of a gorgeous woman in her underwear.

“Ewww, her thighs are too big, make them smaller,” he said.

So I photoshopped her thighs down.

“Oh, her skin is offensive, smooth it out.”

So I did.

And so on. Finally, we were left with an image that looked good… I guess… but it didn’t look anything like the woman we started with.

At that moment, a lightbulb went on in my head. I was participating in some pretty evil shit. I thought of my little sister and every other little girl who might look at that picture as a pubescent girl, already obsessed with her self-image. I thought of all the girls who might look at that picture and starve themselves so that they could look like this “ideal” of beauty — when the “ideal” didn’t exist herself.

I didn’t work there much longer after that. That was the only job I’ve ever done that I was ashamed of.

For a great piece on this, read Impossibly Beautiful. H/T Feminist Law Professors

R.I.S. – Judith Krug – First Amendment Warrior

Judith Krug, First Amendment Heroine, Dead at 69

Judith Krug headed the American Library Association’s Office of Intellectual Freedom since 1967 and founded the Freedom to Read Foundation. She fought the banning of such titles as “Huckleberry Finn,” “Mein Kampf,” “Little Black Sambo,” “Catcher in the Rye” and sex manuals. In 1982, she founded Banned Books Week — an annual festival that promotes titles that some have attempted to ban.

“My personal proclivities have nothing to do with how I react as a librarian,” Ms. Krug said in an interview with The New York Times in 1972. “Library service in this country should be based on the concept of intellectual freedom, of providing all pertinent information so a reader can make decisions for himself.” (source)

Krug was instrumental in the fight against Section 2257 and the “minors display” ordinances that were fashionable in the 1980′s. Most impressively, she convinced 13 federal judges to unanimously strike down the MacKinnon-Dworkin anti-pornography ordinance.

She invented Banned Books Week. Although the ALA lost some—the Virginia library/computer case and the seven-year battle against 2257, every time you cite a case beginning “ALA” you’re benefitting from her work. ALA v. Virginia basically neutered the rash of “minors’ display” ordinances that the censors came up with in the ’80s and the ALA got 13 federal judges to unanimously strike a “MacKinnon-Dworkin” anti-pornography ordinance, which would have repealed the First Amendment in the area of sexual expression.

We don’t lower the flag to half mast lightly at the Legal Satyricon. But, for Judith Krug, we are honored to do so.

Louis CK Pwns Critical Race Theorists

Bohannan Pens Brilliant Study on Copyright Harm and the First Amendment

Christina Bohannan, a professor at the University of Iowa College of Law has written an article called Copyright Harm & The First Amendment. Eventually, I’ll get down to reading the whole article, but from the abstract (below) I love what I see.

Copyright law is a glaring and unjustified exception to the general rule that the government may not prohibit speech without a showing that the speech causes harm. While the First Amendment sometimes protects even harmful speech, it virtually never allows the prohibition of harmless speech. Yet, while other speech-burdening laws, such as defamation and right of publicity laws, require demonstrable evidence that the defendant’s speech causes actual harm, copyright law does not make harm a requirement of infringement. Although copyright law considers harm to the market for the copyrighted work as a factor in fair use analysis, harm is not always required and is so poorly defined that the concept has become circular. Moreover, the defendant ordinarily bears the burden of proof to show the absence of harm. As a result, courts often find liability for infringement (and therefore burden speech) where harm is purely speculative.

Potential explanations for copyright’s anomalous treatment are unpersuasive. Copying involves speech as well as conduct, and the fact that copyrights are in some sense property does not come close to justifying its aberrant treatment. Moreover, copyright’s role in encouraging creative expression does not obviate First Amendment concerns. Rather, it provides a way to reconcile copyright law and free speech. Drawing substantially from First Amendment cases holding that speech restrictions must be justified by a governmental interest, this article argues that the First Amendment requires real proof of harm to the copyright holder’s incentives in order to impose liability for copyright infringement. It also explores the types of harm that might arise in copyright infringement cases and considers whether the First Amendment permits recognition of these types of harm. The article concludes that although demonstrable market harm is cognizable under First Amendment principles, recognition of harm to the reputation of copyrighted works, the author’s right not to speak or associate, or the copyright holder’s privacy interests is generally not compatible with the values of free speech.

Grand Theft Lawlz – Video Game Roundup

Does the column title suck? Have a better suggestion? Sound off in the comments!

I’m in beast mode today. I’m not sure whether it’s because finals are close or because the weather in Michigan sucks. Either way, I’m dropping rage up in the Satyricon.

Electronic Arts Sends Media Illegal Brass Knuckles

As part of their press kit for their newly-released Godfather II game, Electronic Arts shipped brass knuckles to gaming journalists. Problem? They’re illegal in several states. It’s even illegal to ship them in California (where EA is based). In a short interview with Gamepolitics.com, EA confirmed they were recalling the knuckle-dusters as well as crapping their pants:

“EA: I hope you’re enjoying our Godfather II press kit, including the novelty brass knuckles. To help you take proper care to dispose of the item, we’re sending you a pre-paid shipping package.

And I can’t discuss this any further.

GamePolitics.com: Are you doing this with all of the journalists who received the brass knuckles? Or just me because I wrote about them?

EA: I can’t discuss this any further.”

Gamestop sells used games as new.

Apparently, Gamestop has a policy that allows employees to take brand-spanking-new video games home, play them (you know, for review purposes), and then bring them back to the store for resale to consumers as “new.” In an amazing show of stupidity, attorney Mark Methentis doesn’t see what the big fat hairy deal is:

“However, I still think that if the plastic seal is not a major issue, there is no difference in the game experience between a perfect condition new disk and a perfect condition disk played once by an employee, besides the potential public relations issues. Of course, when I say perfect condition, I mean everything: kept in a smoke free environment, free of dirt, not kept in direct sunlight or damaging temperatures, etc. I believe that’s a major factor as to why the GameStop employees I’ve known are far more likely to check out a used title than a new one.”

Let me clue you in, Mark. It is a major issue. Asswipe sixteen-year-old kids working at Gamestop aren’t particularly known for their responsible nature. Anytime I’ve ever bought a used game from Gamestop, it looks like the previous owner played it on their Sandpaper360. So, when I buy a game labeled as “new”, I expect it to not have been used in someone else’s console. I mean the plain language of “new” implies that THE PRODUCT HASN’T BEEN USED. I mean, why are used games cheaper if consumers don’t value a new product? Use your noodle, Mark!

Whatever. I can’t stay mad at you Methentis. I dig your blog. BFFs?

Over at Kotaku, a non-lawyer takes a better stab at it:

The FTC Act Test for false advertising states that there must be a representation, omission or practice that is likely to mislead the consumer. Second, the FTC examines the practice from the standpoint of a reasonable consumer. Finally, the representation, omission, or practice must be a “material” one (whether the act or practice is likely to affect the consumer’s conduct or decision with regard to a product or service). In GameStop’s situation, it sounds like the employees have mislead the customer by representing that the game is new and omitted the fact the game has been used. A reasonable customer would not pay full price for a used game; the representation or omission would affect the customer’s decision; and therefore, the representation or omission is material and would constitute false advertising.

Ah. The sound of sweet sweet common sense.

Time Warner Cable Execs Announce Draconian Bandwidth Caps

Lara Crigger over at Gamerswithjobs and Bill Harris of Dubious Quality both chime in on Time Warner’s plan to roll out a 5GB bandwidth cap in test markets. For those of you not technically inclined, 5GB is less than one hi-def (high def? HD?) movie. Coincidence? I think not. I think this move is obviously designed to bolster on demand video.

Bill Harris writes:

“So if you’re Time Warner, and you can’t stop the bleeding, what do you do? You leverage the monopoly you have inside franchise cities for broadband service. They could never roll out this kind of pricing plan, could never use it to pressure content providers, if there was any real competition. I think this is the line in the sand, though, and they’re going to defend it as fiercely as they can.”

Without competition, this will be an inevitable race to the bottom and ISP’s will see this as just another revenue stream. As much as I despise TWC, I’d like to see them implement caps just to highlight this issue. My mother, 70 years old, watches HD shows on Hulu. I’d bet money she goes over 5GB every other day. When Joe and Sally Consumer start getting overage notices from their “unlimited” broadband provider, they’re going to freak out.

It will be glorious.