“Defamation of Religion”

The Wall Street Journal Law Blog gives us “Defamation of Religion” — The New International Legal Craze?

Apparently, the United Nations is beginning to embrace the idea that there should be liability for calling bullshit on stupid stone age superstitions defaming religions.

Angela Wu, the international law director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a public-interest law firm seems to have her head screwed on straight. She said,

The defamation of religions protects ideas rather than individuals, and makes the state the arbiter of which ideas are true. It requires the state to sort good and bad ideologies. (source)

Angela, care to come visit us and tell that to the speech-code liberal nazis that run American academia?

Sam Brownback Can’t Spell Irony

One of my favorite targets for the ass-hat award, the normally-uber-swine Sam Brownback is on the right side of an internet freedom issue.

The Chinese government (enshrined with a permanent ass-hat award) monitors all internet service in the country, and has required foreign-owned hotels to install snooping equipment. Sam Brownback is outraged and held a press conference.

No mention was made, during the grandstanding, of the Bush Administration’s monitoring of animal rights, environmental and poverty relief activists, as documented by files released in 2005 as a result of a series of Freedom of Information Act lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union. (In those cases, the monitoring was done by the FBI.) (source)

Gators Attack Juicy Campus

University of Florida Student Body President, Kevin Riley, and Chief Information Officer, Marc Hoit, recently issued this letter to the Florida Attorney General asking that the Florida Office of the Attorney General launch an investigation into Juicy Campus, the well-known gossip site. They did not elaborate on what kind of investigation they expect the state to launch.

I agree that JuicyCampus.com contains terribly defamatory posts about many people. However, if you are gullible enough to believe anything you read on JuicyCampus.com, your opinion cannot be all that influential. I also think that asking the government to launch an investigation because a few thin-skinned people have had their feelings hurt is asking for a level of governmental paternalism that used to (in my day) piss college students off. Kids these days…

The letter reads:

“[JuicyCampus] is used to anonymously post gossip regarding students. The anonymity, and the guarantee that information about a user’s identity will not be tracked, provided by JuicyCampus emboldens users to post false and damaging statements about others. These posts often amount to cyberbullying and raise issues of public welfare and safety.” (source)

Mr. Riley and Mr. Hoit, in their zeal to go crying to the teacher, seem to have neglected to do their homework. JuicyCampus.com is protected from liability for the actions of its users by 47 U.S.C. § 230, which was passed in order to ensure that online businesses would not have to grind to a halt while they police their users’ actions. The phone company is under no obligation to make sure you don’t use your phone to set up a contract killing, a drug deal, or to make sure you don’t say nasty things about your co-workers. Similarly, internet service providers should receive the same laissez-faire treatement, lest censorship become the bastard child of technology. See Robert Corn-Revere, New Technology and the First Amendment: Breaking The Cycle of Repression, 17 Hastings Comm. & Ent. L.J. 247, 264 (1994). Naturally, the internet =/= phone lines. However, unless the website in question actually assists in the production of the offending material, it is not liable. See, e.g., Craigslist Wins Section 230 Case. The much-misunderstood Fair Housing Council v. Roommates.com decision did not change that rule, but rather reinforced it. In that case, Roommates.com provided pull-down menus that guided users to create potentially discriminatory housing postings. Therefore, they lost their Section 230 immunity. Craigslist is, like JuicyCampus, free-form and fully protected.

Despite their claim that JuicyCampus raises issues of public welfare and safety, the signatories of this foolish missive appear to be clueless as to how JuicyCampus has cooperated with the authorities in the past.

In situations where Juicy Campus posts have crossed the boundary from nuisance or harassment to outright threat, the site has cooperated with authorities. In December, Carlos Huerta, a senior at Loyola Marymount University, in Los Angeles, posted a message on Juicy Campus alleging that he would start a shooting spree on campus. At the request of the police, Mr. Ivester traced the threat to Mr. Huerta, who was arrested and released without charges. (source)

I agree JuicyCampus most likely hurts a few people’s feelings. There may even be an anecdote or two that raises the complaints beyond mere alligator tears. However, the vast majority of the content on JuicyCampus is innocuous or just plain silly. It seems to me that the only purpose served by this letter was a desire to appear to care about a non-problem.

I have been to bathrooms at the University of Florida where I saw defamatory material written on the wall. No investigation was launched – at least not at the level of the state Attorney General - and nobody called for the building to be torn down. The logic of blaming the forum for the actions of the participants is as illogical as closing a public park because someone held up a defamatory sign.

Section 230 is an example of Congress getting an issue right — internet commerce must be allowed to grow, even if that growth causes a few stretch marks.

Kevin Grierson said:

I don’t think it’s the job of the law to limit the options of law-abiding citizens and businesses because of the potential harm to the Darwin-Award-winning segment of our society.

Similarly, it is not the job of the state to intervene in every example of hurt feelings – even if it is a widespread issue. The next time you take a flight, look at the immense hassle you have to go through. Flying in America is an experience that is a pain in the ass because we passed rules designed to affect the behavior of a few of the worst people in society. Then, we handed the rulebook to dumbest nitwits we could find. Do you really want the government passing rules and launching investigations that may wind up placing the same kind of restrictions on the greatest tool for mass communication ever invented? I sure don’t.

If a student feels aggrieved by the content on Juicy Campus, he or she has the right to file a private cause of action. If the speech rises to the level of a true threat, the police will get involved. Asking the government to launch an investigation into a public forum because of the actions of a minority of participants in that forum is an act of abject foolishness.

There are some areas where the government should never venture – including criminal investigations of activities involving free speech. Fortunately for us, I do not believe that Bill McCollum will take any action. Mr. McCollum, a die-hard Republican, has an excellent record when it comes to free speech issues. McCollum has tirelessly pursued child predators and human traffickers, but he has courageously resisted calls from social conservatives to investigate and prosecute mainstream pornography. McCollum understands the meaning of being a conservative, and is not likely to intervene in a situation that could be cured either through the marketplace of ideas or over-cured by government intervention.

I don’t mind Mr. Riley or Mr. Holt raising the alarm about Juicy Campus. They were well within their First Amendment rights to express their opinion, and to petition the government to take any steps they liked. They crossed the line by purporting to speak for the tens of thousands of students at the University of Florida. I called McCollum’s office, which confirmed that there has been exactly ONE complaint about Juicy Campus by University of Florida students — and that was launched by the student body president himself. Who were these two ass-hats speaking for but themselves?

I encourage Mr. Riley and Mr. Holt to do their homework before they try to start a government investigation into people saying naughty things about one another. I have always found the University of Florida to be a shockingly intellectually complacent institution (and yes, I am a Gator), but this is a new low. Had this been a less enlightened attorney general, their foolish letter very well could have caused real damage to free speech on the Internet.

Kevin Martin, at it Again with his “Porn Free Broadband Proposal”

One wonders what awful experiences in Kevin Martin’s life must have twisted him into the modern day Comstock. His latest proposal is to provide free broadband nationwide, but the company that gets the bid (under little Kevvie’s proposal) must promise to block all porn from the network. See Artstechnica.

Is this Denver or Singapore?

A citizen came to a public place, where John McCain was giving a “town hall meeting.” For some reason, the Secret Service told the police to remove this citizen because she was holding a sign that said “McCain=Bush.”

And the police? Like the pussy little lapdogs they are, rolled over, issued her a ticket, removed her from the premises, and threatened her with arrest if she returned. So much for their oath to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lyaMrS0hzk]

The right to engage in political speech used to be the most sacred of all of our rights. Unfortunately, this nation has turned into a flock of mewling cowards, and even that right is falling apart at the seams.

Hustler Store Challenges Ohio Sex Offender Registration Law

Last year, the Ohio legislature jumped into the fiesta of states trying to outdo each other passing stronger and stronger sex offender registration laws. Ohio’s Adam Walsh compliance act, Senate Bill 10 seems to have stepped over a Constitutional line.

A few of Ohio’s “community values” legislators slipped a little treat into the Adam Walsh bill that they hoped would help drive porn out of Ohio. The law states that anyone convicted of “pandering obscenity” is automatically labeled a “Tier I sex offender,” and must register as one. A Hustler Store employee has challenged the constitutionality of the law on inter alia First Amendment grounds.

The employee, identified as “G.B.,” and her lawyers Louis Sirkin, Jennifer Kinsley, and Scott Nazzarine filed a complaint in U.S. District Court seeking to overturn the law.

From the complaint:

Unlike the remainder of the Adam Walsh Act, Ohio’s automatic Tier I classification for individuals convicted of pandering obscenity is neither intended to protect children or the community at large, nor is it narrowly tailored to serve those objectives. Under the new classification system unveiled in Senate Bill 10, an individual convicted of pandering obscenity involving a minor, a separate offense, falls into the Tier II category for the purposes of registration and verification. Therefore, the requirement that individuals convicted of pandering obscenity be mechanically classified as Tier I sex offenders and subject to all registration, residency, and verification requirements therein, expressly targets obscenity that does not involve minors in any capacity.

To successfully prosecute a defendant for distribution of obscenity, the state must prove that material violates “contemporary community standards.” Even though standards may evolve during the 15 years of registration for a Tier I offender, the law does not provide for any review of the offender’s status.

Attorney Jennifer Kinsley had this to say in a LS exclusive interview:

It is unfortunate that a single mother who is just doing her job could inadvertently wind up being labeled as a sex offender. She should not be grouped with actual child predators, with her name, picture, and residential address on websites all across the country, all for making an incorrect assumption as to the community standards of the county in which she works.

When legislators scramble over themselves to pass laws named after little kids, you wind up with laws being pushed by hysteria — not by logic. Unfortunately, in passing this version of the Adam Walsh Act, the Ohio legislature appears to have mixed in a bit of censorship for good measure.

Fortunately, G.B. and the First Amendment are in great hands. Louis Sirkin is widely recognized as one of the living greats of the First Amendment bar, and Kinsley and Nazzarine are two of its rising stars.

Judge Sanctions Shoemaker

I previously wrote about Clifford Shoemaker, the Virginia attorney with the flexible ethical standards and his quest to shut down blogger Kathleen Seidel, here in Subpoena Sleaze and here in Take That Ass Hat.

Sometimes… once and a while… a judge will look at a sleazy lawyer’s behavior and actually hold him accountable. This is one of those times. David Ardia at the Citizen Media Law Project has a great analysis of the Rule 11 order.

The best excerpt from the order is here:

Mr. Shoemaker made no attempt to avoid imposing an undue burden or expense on Ms. Seidel. To the contrary, I find that he sought to burden her by requiring production of every scrap of paper related to autism, her web site, her tax returns, and her communications with the government. He improperly imposes a requirement to create documents, e.g., a list of “names of persons helping, paying or facilitating . . . these endeavors.” The documentation sought is exhaustive. . . .

Shoemaker has not offered a shred of evidence to support his speculations. He has, he says, had his suspicions aroused because she has so much information. Clearly he is unfamiliar with the extent of the information which a highly-competent librarian like Ms. Seidel can, and did, accumulate. If Shoemaker wanted to know if Ms. Seidel was in part supported by or provided information by Bayer, he could have inquired of Bayer or limited the Seidel subpoena to that information. Instead he issued the subpoena calling for production of documents and a deposition on the day before he stipulated to dismiss the underlying suit with prejudice. His failure to withdraw the subpoena when he clearly knew that suit was over is telling about his motives. His efforts to vilify and demean Ms. Seidel are unwarranted and unseemly. (source)

Ardia sums it up nicely here:

Shoemaker and his client have a right to disagree with Seidel and, if they think they’ve been the victims of a conspiracy, to sue her. But they don’t have a right to misuse the legal system to coerce a critic to “shut up.” (source)

The War on Porn

If you have Showtime, at 10:00 this evening, Dr. Marty Klein will be on Penn & Teller’s show.

PENN & TELLER: BULLSHIT!: WAR ON PORN (TVMA - SLD) (2003)
In episode 601, the sixth season premiere, the duo examines the “war on porn,” a crusade by various special interest groups to restrict free speech and regulate the Internet.

Preview here.

Kozinski “scandal” is a non-story

I wanted to resist writing about the Kozinski porn “scandal”. I simply saw no reason to add fuel to the fire. Feminazis, big surprise, threw a hissy fit, saying: “He is not ethically competent to hear obscenity cases.” (source)

Of course, a “real” professor, Lawrence Lessig, explains the facts simply enough that even a critical victim studies theorist can understand (but rest assured, they’ll still scream that the world is flat).

Here are the facts as I’ve been able to tell: For at least a month, a disgruntled litigant, angry at Judge Kozinski (and the Ninth Circuit) has been talking to the media to try to smear Kozinski. Kozinski had sent a link to a file (unrelated to the stuff being reported about) that was stored on a file server maintained by Kozinski’s son, Yale. From that link (and a mistake in how the server was configured), it was possible to determine the directory structure for the server. From that directory structure, it was possible to see likely interesting places to peer. The disgruntled sort did that, and shopped some of what he found to the news sources that are now spreading it. (source)

In other words, the boneheads in the media and at Feminist Law Profs are purposely trying to mislead the public into believing that Kozinski was “publishing” a porn website. (much to the delight of the disgruntled litigant who started this whole mess) This wasn’t a “website,” it was a “directory.” Nevertheless, it really doesn’t matter. Kozinski had as much right to have those images on in this directory (and frankly, on a public website, if he so chose) as he had a right to have a six pack of beer in his refrigerator. They are perfectly legal. Attorney Gill Sperlien asked: “Should a judge who owns a car and operates it lawfully be disqualified from presiding over a trial where a car was used unlawfully (e.g. DUI, reckless driving, vehicular homicide)?“

Indeed, Judge Kozinski’s familiarity with internet erotic content makes him more, not less, competent as a judge in an obscenity case. He would be more familiar with the community standards, what is available as comparable material, and likely in a better position to bring a dose of reality to the trial. First Amendment attorney Gary Edinger said, “We let crazy zealot Southern Baptist born again judges preside over obscenity trials wherever they spring up. The press never suggests that those Jesus freaks are incapable of being neutral and impartial dispensers of justice.“

Professor Dave Fagundes made a great observation:

A very puritanical person who had a strong bias against anything even remotely sexually explicit would be very likely to have no pornography on their computer, but this certainly wouldn’t mean such a person was objective. If anything, a judge who has a strong stomach for all kinds of material might be better suited to evaluate whether the highly context-sensitive First Amendment standards for obscenity apply to a particular work. Very rough analogy, but wouldn’t you rather have a bibliophile evaluate the literary merit of a given novel than someone who had never read a book?

Fagundes also questioned whether the Kozinski material was accurately called “pornography.”

It’s more just crude, kind of bizarre, sexually themed humor-the kind of stuff a college sophomore might find hilarious and send to his frat buddies. So I think there’s a foundational difference between Koz’s motivations (which I think were merely to share bawdy laughs with others, however lame the jokes may have been) and the aims of the defendant in the trial (which were presumably to generate sexually explicit material to arouse whoever viewed it).

I’ve gone through most of Kozinski’s images, trying to figure out what all the fuss was about…. They are nothing more than a collection of stupid images that most of us get sent to us at one time or another by that annoying friend who cant keep his finger off the “forward” button.

For example, the press describes one of the images as “of contortionist sex.” Technically, it is, but it is accompanied by a spoof of the “for everything else there is master card” ad campaign. The “bestiality” content? That was the famous “donkey rapes man” video (shown at the bottom of this post).

And so on… In fact, if you look in my “deleted items folder,” you’ll find most of those images in there too. Most were forwarded by friends who seem to think that I would find them funny. Some are funny, most are just dumb and out-dated internet memes. I don’t bother to save them, because I know that someone else will forward it to me in a week.

The feminazis seem fixated on one image of two nude women painted as cows - whining that it is “degrading” because the women are positioned as if to say “come milk me” or “come fuck me”. This is somehow evidence that Kozinski is a misogynist.

I’m not sure that it is proper to lay our personal moralities over any of the depictions. I may be lacking in imagination, but neither “come milk me” nor “come fuck me” came to mind when I saw it. Perhaps the author of the work was trying to make a comment about how women are portrayed in the media. I don’t know what was in the author’s mind any more than I know what is in the collector’s mind. However, the thought police over at feminazi law profs, they know exactly what is in Kozinski’s mind… and they want it re-educated right now.

Here’s Kozinski’s “bestiality” video.

School paper disbanded due to content

From the Boston Globe

SACRAMENTO, Calif.—A high school newspaper in California was disbanded after it published a front-page photo of a student burning an American flag, triggering criticism that the administration was stifling free expression.
more stories like this

Shasta High School Principal Milan Woollard said the school year’s final issue of the student-run Shasta High Volcano was embarrassing.

“The paper’s done,” Woollard told the Record Searchlight newspaper of Redding. “There is not going to be a school newspaper next year.”