You imbecile

That’s really all I can say as I read this story about Righthaven.

ACLU challenges Nevada’s marriage officiant requirements

By J. DeVoy

The ACLU is suing the State of Nevada and Clark County – where Las Vegas is located – over laws that require non-governmental marriage officiants to have a religious affiliation.  While anyone can perform a marriage in Nevada, he or she must obtain a certificate to solemnize the marriage based on the fact that he or she has a religious affiliation.

One of the plaintiffs, Raul Martinez, claims to be an atheist and member of the American Humanist Association.  If successful, the suit would end – or at least compromise – the state-and-religious duopoly over marriage in Nevada.

One of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, Allen Lichtenstein, is a friend of the blog, and we wish him success in this case.  In addition to many other First Amendment and civil liberties-related cases, Allen was recently involved in litigation for handbill distributors, political activists, street preachers and impersonators, so that they could continue their activities on the Las Vegas strip’s casino-owned sidewalks.

How Canada eliminates ineffective government

By J. DeVoy

It disbands it in a vote of no-confidence, as is happening right now.  This is a fairly regular occurrence in Canada, and something that, in some ways, would warrant salivation among the politically disillusioned here in the U.S.

Yahoo’s spam filter protected by § 230

By J. DeVoy

In a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, Yahoo’s spam filtering of its e-mail addresses is a valid exercise of its power as a content provider under 47 U.S.C. § 230, better known as § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, or simply § 230.  The case is Holomaxx Technologies v. Yahoo!, Inc., Case No. CV-10-4929-JF.  The Court’s order, available here, was reached after Yahoo moved to dismiss the claims against it under 12(b)(6), with § 230 serving as an affirmative defense – and basis of the motion – on claims three through six.

The court addressed two main issues:

Whether the court could consider Yahoo’s affirmative defenses – Because Yahoo filed a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, Holomaxx challenged the Court’s authority to consider Yahoo’s affirmative defenses, specifically those arising from § 230.  The court agreed with Yahoo that affirmative defenses under the Communications Decency Act can be raised at the 12(b)(6) phase and be used to defeat claims brought against the defendant, so long as they are raised in the Complaint and readily ascertainable from its allegations. Goddard v. Google, Inc., 640 F. Supp. 2d 1193, 1200 n. 5 (N.D.Cal.2009); Langdon v. Google, Inc., 474 F .Supp 2d 622, 630-31 (D.Del 2007); see also Jones v. Block, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007).  Thus, as the claims against Yahoo naturally invited a defense under § 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the service provider was entitled to raise them as affirmative defenses that negated the plaintiff’s claims in a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

Whether § 230 provides immunity for e-mail spam filters – As there is little question that Yahoo offers an interactive computer service, the court’s inquiry turned to whether Yahoo blocked or filtered material it found “to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable,” and did so in “good faith” as required by statute. Holomaxx contended that its e-mails were normal business communications that did not fall within these categories.  Furthermore, because of the association of “harassing” and “objectionable” with the other terms – “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy [and] excessively violent,” – Holomaxx contended that its e-mails were not harassing or objectionable merely because they were unwanted.

What constitutes “objectionable” content under § 230 is largely undefined by the courts at this point.  Precedent from the Northern District of Illinois suggests that much deference should be lent to the service provider’s subjective understanding of what is “objectionable” under the statute. e360 Insight, LLC v. Comcast Corp., 546 F. Supp. 2d 605, 608 (N.D. Ill. 2008).  Yahoo produced evidence that approximately 2 million e-mails each year were sent by Holomaxx to invalid e-mail addresses, or resulted in an opt-out by the end-user, even with Yahoo’s filtering in place – a number that would have been higher without spam protection.

The inquiry then turned to whether Yahoo took such measures in good faith.  Holomaxx alleged that Yahoo acted in bad faith, but failed to plead – or produce evidence showing – that Yahoo acted with an absence of good faith.  In failing to produce any evidence on this point, Holomaxx failed to meet its evidentiary burden and could not show Yahoo acted with the absence of good faith that is prohibited by § 230.  Moreover, Holomaxx failed to establish Yahoo’s duty to discuss its reasons for blocking Holomaxx’s mail, or provide a remedy for such blocking, because no such duty exists – its imposition would be a disincentive for the development of blocking and filtering technologies inconsistent with § 230(b)(4).

The court therefore dismissed these claims against Yahoo, though giving Holomaxx the opportunity to amend its Complaint and cure these deficiencies – a task Holomaxx may not be up to, given court’s ruling.  Indeed, the court specifically noted that Holomaxx needs “significantly greater factual detail” to sustain these claims.

The takeaway from this case is the expanded understanding of what content is “objectionable” under § 230, which appears to be almost any kind of communication as long as a meaningful, harmful effect can be shown.  One person’s whine does not establish harm, but 2 million spam e-mails a year, which reach dead addresses or are greeted with an opt-out, crosses the threshold for what is “harassing” or “otherwise objectionable.”

Law School Career Counseling

Would you buy a laptop from Pedobear?

(Source)

Just make sure you clear the browser history and cache, and you should be fine.

Your Daily Awesomeness – The Panyee Football Club

You should probably watch this maximized so you can read the subtitles.

H/T: Siouxsie Law

Middle Class in the USA

Potassium Iodide, anyone?

For those of you running out to buy potassium iodide, you may want to review this chart while you consider the health risks of eating that stuff.

ALERT: SUPERMOON WILL KILL US ALL!

Ok, there’s nothing to be afraid of really… but in the tradition of the American media, I’d like to at least instill some hysteria in an event that really doesn’t qualify for any greater reaction than “neato!”

.xxx passes

ICANN just voted and approved the .xxx TLD.

Has Ark Music Factory ruined more teens’ lives than sexting?

By J. DeVoy

I believe so.

H/T: Mike

Free financial tip for law students

By J. DeVoy

Before I started law school, I considered getting my student loans in Yen.  Japan’s Yen, long a stable currency that reliably stayed around 110-120 Yen-per-US Dollar – however badly we devalued the dollar under the reigns of Bush (weak dollar policy to boost exports) and Obama (“quantitative easing”).  This use of the Yen and other stable, low-interest currencies to make other, high-gain investments –  which is a stretch when discussing higher education – is referred to as a “carry trade” in financial circles.

Well it’s a damn good thing that I couldn’t make this work in 2007, or this would be a personal financial armageddon as well as an ecological one.  Becuase of massive repatriation of Yen, the US Dollar is only worth around 75 Yen.  Check out this pronounced decline.  If I a) had actually done this, b) was in finance, c) lived in 1930′s New York City, and d) had any sense of shame, I’d throw myself out a window for essentially increasing my debt 50% overnight.  At least if I did that through reckless spending, I’d have a fun car or sweet vacation or show for it.

So, law students, don’t think you’re smart with money just because you day trade or own a few shares of GOOG.  Not to impugn your intelligence, but this stuff can seriously ruin your life in ways you cannot foresee, protect against, or get out of on your own.  Right now, the smart move seems to be using GradPLUS and using IBR to push off payments until the whole system inevitably collapses – probably sooner than anyone thinks.

Maybe Sarah Palin was right – Can you see Russia from your house?

Sarah Palin said that she could see Russia from her house (or was that just Tina Fey playing Sarah Palin?). This video from Alaska makes it seem like perhaps Palin was speaking metaphorically. Heh… as if she knows what that means.

I’m certainly no fan of Lyndon LaRouche or the idiotic comparisons of Obama and hitler, but if this crowd had risen up and killed these security guards and cops, and I was on the jury for their murder trial, I wouldn’t have voted to convict.

Of course, the way our Federal Government behaves, maybe third reich comparisons are tired and tacky, but you can see how they might come to the surface of one’s imagination.

For those of you who travel on I-8 or I-10 (or even the back roads) in California and Arizona, these “border patrol checkpoints” are a regular sight. They’ve always pissed me off too, but I seem to get waved through each time I cross them. I guess they figure that a guy in a Porsche isn’t likely smuggling much.

I’m of course not advocating that we start killing cops when they trample on the Constitution… but I would like to ask a question: Why is it that we have thousands upon thousands of pissed off old white guys screaming about how Obama is hitler because he wants us all to have health insurance — but when things like this happen, we don’t see rallies, we don’t see Glenn Beck crying, we don’t really hear too much of an outcry? Every day we hear about some legislator wanting to pass a new law restricting our liberties, but we pretty rarely (if ever) hear about legislators trying to rein in this kind of behavior.

The fact is, I can see the Soviet Union from my house. Okay, maybe not from my house, but I can drive 40 minutes east, and as I approach that huge roadblock / checkpoint with armed guards and police dogs, I can see the Soviet Union from my car.

Retraction

Yesterday, I had a post based on a statement that appeared in the Daily Telegraph (Australia). Today, the Telegraph retracted that statement, saying they got it wrong. (source). Based upon that, I see no reason for the original post to remain up.