Remember the good old days when the demand to criminalize revenge porn was all about the terrible harm being done to women? It wasn’t just a matter of embarrassment, when private naked images went public, but an attack on gender? Sure you do. But what happens when reality doesn’t match the narrative?
Revenge porn is widely portrayed as an act committed by men against women. But in a new twist, women are no longer just the victims of those who post explicit photos of someone online without that person’s consent.
They are also the perpetrators of revenge porn.
As one of the foremost legal advocates of the victims of revenge porn, Marc Randazza, responded: Continue reading
Dahlia Lithwick managed to overcome her Canadian roots, graduate Stanford Law and become a respected writer about the Supreme Court and American law at Slate and other, more credible, media outlets. So what was she thinking when she blew her cred in this opening paragraph?
The Supreme Court of the John Roberts era gets one thing very right: It’s one of the most free-speech-protective courts in modern history. There is no purveyor of semi-pornographic crush videos, no maker of rape-aspiring violent video games, no homophobic funeral protester, no anti-abortion clinic counselor, and no filthy-rich campaign contribution–seeker whose rights and privileges will not be treated by the court with the utmost reverence and solicitude.
Some very harsh descriptions of the cases, the sort designed to inflame the ignorant who think nothing of the underlying doctrine and instead focus only on the hatred of the content, from someone who passive-aggressively agrees with the rulings. Continue reading
Who says the cops in St. Louis don’t learn how to play the media? Sure, they may have arrested reporters and gotten nailed on video dismantling equipment after they gassed them, but that was then. This is now:
Some of the physical evidence — including blood spatter analysis, shell casings and ballistics tests — also supports Wilson’s account of the shooting, The Post’s sources said, which casts Brown as an aggressor who threatened the officer’s life. The sources spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are prohibited from publicly discussing the case.
See that last sentence? These bits, together with Wilson’s accounts, come from grand jury leaks. The grand jury operates in secrecy, so that means they get to selectively spill what serves their interests and maintain anonymity so they are immune from responsibility for violating grand jury secrecy. Except, Continue reading
At The Puddle, Sam Glover takes up the annual cause of explaining to the groundlings why lawyers have to charge such high fees. Personally, I’m just happy to see an occasional new post at The Puddle, because its vapid rehashes of worthless old posts left a huge void for those lawyers whose depth of understanding was maxed out by kitten pictures. Where were they going to learn about the law?
It’s not that the issue of legal fees, and its corollary problem of access to justice, isn’t a perennial fav of blogs, always good for clickbait, that purport to teach lawyers how to practice (and what’s the best scanner to buy), but this time Sam goes in a somewhat unusual direction, making his post discussion-worthy.
I don’t know if the public really appreciates what a lawyer agrees to do for her clients when we sign a retainer. In fact, I think some lawyers need to be reminded. It’s true that many clients just want to get out of jail or a contract or for their insurance company to pay up. But in order to do that, lawyers have [to] commit to much more.
Are we really just like Mother Theresa in a pinstripe suit? Continue reading
Sure, New York is well-known as a liberal Democratic state, right? So why is AG Eric Schneiderman running this ad?
Bet you didn’t know that
Taking criminals off our streets and keeping cops safe. There’s nothing more important.
No doubt a psychologist can explain how prescribing a guinea pig for emotional support serves a real purpose, a medically necessary purpose, even if it defies empirical proof. And similarly, there are those who will speak in glowing terms of how a dog at their side during testimony soothes their anxiety. Others may feel the same way about a few tumblers of scotch, but Glenlivet isn’t cute and furry.
Walter Olson at Overlawyered exposes the silly side of over-emotionalism in the embrace of comfort animals under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Author Patricia Marx decided to brazen her way through New York restaurants, museums, high-end fashion shops, and other institutions with five “un-cuddly, non-nurturing animals” such as a turtle, snake, and turkey, and some therapist paperwork that was easy enough to procure.
While it served to produce an hysterically funny, as in ridiculous, tale, it also served to highlight how easily we succumb to the insanity of vagaries in the law. Continue reading
Regardless of whether you think Mumia Abu-Jamal to be a cop killer or political prisoner of a racist legal system, his voice continued to ring out, first from death row and later from his life-cell after his sentence was reduced to slow-death, on social and political issues. It’s a voice that has something to say, and a voice that others want to hear.
So the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania decided that Mumia must be silenced. From the AP:
Ignoring the chants of protesters on the block where a police officer was killed and the cause célèbre of Mumia Abu-Jamal was born, Gov. Tom Corbett signed into law Tuesday a measure he said would curb the “obscene celebrity” cultivated by convicts at the expense of victims.
When there is no rational basis in law for government action, it’s wrapped in the rhetoric of emotion with a pretty pink bow, using phrases artfully designed to evoke enough sorrow and misery to cloud our judgment and blind our eyes. Whether this reflects advocates and politicians getting shiftier, the public getting lazier and stupider, or both isn’t clear. What is clear is that it works. Continue reading
Via Tim Cushing at Techdirt, a pseudonymous cop who calls himself Deputy Matt explains at the Daily Caller how the evil forces of the media have turned the heads of not just the “normal criminal element” but good people, law-abiding people, from their adoration of the police.
I live and work more than 1900 miles west of Ferguson, but the effects of that case are still being felt here. Not a week goes by without someone I encounter mentioning it.
“Ferguson” has become the latest defense for committing crime, often invoked by people we arrest and their loved ones. Sadly, this feeling has not only infected the normal criminal element that I expect that behavior from, but even seems to be effecting middle class families as well.
Based on the required opening anecdote, offered to prove by one data point that the entire nation has gone nuts, Deputy Matt may misconstrue “the latest defense for committing crime” when what he means is contempt for cops. Or maybe they’re the same thing. Continue reading
When I speak about blawging, it’s usually in the context of an ethics lecture. Ethics and social media is a fairly hot topic, and when the alternatives are guys who make a living off of convincing lawyers that there is no such thing as ethics in social media, it makes me look good.
The one time Kevin O’Keefe made the foolish mistake of inviting me to join him on a panel about blogging at the New York City Bar. Aside from the fact that I’m not good for business, I’m also not good about people who only want to know a shortcut to the nuts and bolts of fabulous wealth and fame on in the interwebz. As one woman there demanded, she paid for the CLE (yes, it was a CLE) and damn well expected us to tell what she wanted to know. Ah, lawyers.
So when I was asked to speak to a diverse group of people this weekend about SJ, I saw it as an interesting experiment. I would speak to the good, bad and ugly of blawging, of which all existed in vast quantities, but it would not be a marketing pitch, as I had nothing to sell. It wasn’t about my own great glory, since I was well aware nobody cared, nor about some magic bullet that didn’t exist. It would be real. At least, that was my plan. Continue reading
For those who keep a keen eye on the shifting rules and sexual mores on campus, few voices have proven more effective, clear and forthright than Cathy Young’s. Among the unpopular and politically incorrect issues she tackles is the whole “rape culture” thing, from the pervasive phony statistics to the effort to disengage it from a criminal issue to a gender civil rights issue. Young has been a leading voice throughout.
All of which makes this a head-scratcher.
Thanks to the efforts of the academic left, this view [of silencing critics of politically correct orthodoxy] is increasingly prevalent on college campuses. However, some right-of-center organizations now seem terrified of challenging rape-culture orthodoxy.
In March, 2013, Young spoke at St. Louis Law School, where she was met with some antipathy by the faculty advisor, who insisted that he also be on the ticket as her opposition. She got a call from Federalist Society president Eugene Meyer a few days later to discuss the “negative reaction” to her presentation. Continue reading
To his credit, Jonathan Turley built up the scenario well, creating a mental image of a travesty where the First Rule of Policing cost a woman hostage her life.
Misty Holt-Singh, 41, had just run into the Stockton, California bank and left her 12-her-old daughter in the car for a quick transaction. In an instant, her life would change as Gilbert Renteria Jr., Jaime Ramos, and Alex Martinez came into to rob the bank. They took Singh hostage and fled in a car. However, the police were quickly on their tail and trapped the car. She may have had a glimmer of hope. After all, there were some 33 police officers surrounding the car. That is when the Stockton police opened up on the car and fired over 600 bullets — killing Holt-Singh, 41, and two of the bank robbers.
Outrageous. The callousness of the officers’ self-serving firing of “over 600 bullets” so that 10 of them, ten bullets, found their way into the body of Misty Holt-Singh and took her life, defies description.
The bank robbers had taken Holt-Singh clearly as a human shield and led the police on a high-speed car chase in a car stolen from a bank employee. Witnesses say that Holt-Singh was crying and saying that her daughter was in the car and that she did not want her daughter to be traumatized by seeing her with the robbers. The three robbers could care less, of course.
Among the phenomenon that is perpetually amusing is that when handed a form, people will fill it out. It doesn’t matter what it asks for, the relevance to the purpose of the form to the question. If there’s a blank line, people write on it. If there’s a box people check it. Because if they don’t, the sky will fall and society will come crashing down around their head.
At the New York Times Room for Debate, the question was posed whether checking the “sex” box is necessary:
New York City is considering a proposal that would make it easier for people to change their sex on their birth certificates. Other countries have grappled with this, and several federal agencies and states have adopted similar policies.
But why should government recognize individuals’ sex? Is there a legal need to distinguish among females, males and others?