When Marilou Auer sent me the link to a story about Dr. Danielle N. Lee being called a whore by someone named Ofek at Biology-Online, I shrugged it off. It struck me as a mundane tiff between a website I cared nothing about and a writer who properly refused to provide it with free content.  Unpleasant interactions happen every day on the internet.

What distinguished the story was Ofek’s response to Dr. Lee’s refusal to provide her work for free:

Are you an urban scientist or an urban whore?

Whore! Oh my god! Did he just say that! Continue reading →

It appears that the members of the school board overseeing North Andover High have a problem on their hands.  Their students are drinking booze.  It’s fairly well agreed that high school students shouldn’t get drunk, despite a long-standing tradition of teenagers testing the limits and feeling their way through their budding adulthood in potentially destructive ways.

But as MADD, and SADD, and any other organization with double “D’s” at their end would have it, these destructive behaviors result in harm, and there is no doubt truth to this argument.  So there are two answers: the first is to create a general policy to prevent destructive conduct. The second is to craft a Zero Tolerance approach to show kids how serious this is and how adults would rather scorch their earth than use their heads. The school board in charge of North Andover high picked the latter. Continue reading →

The idea that the Son of Sam killer, David Berkowitz, could possibly tell his story and reap a fortune from its publication was more than anyone could stand, and so the Son of Sam law(s) was born.  The original version, New York Executive Law §632-a, was enacted to make sure that no person convicted of a crime could receive the profits that might otherwise by enjoyed as a result of it.

That it only applied to those “convicted” made perfect sense at the time it was drafted, as it seemed to cover the situation.  But people, being who we are, always manage to find a way to screw up the best laid plans.  This time, it’s not just people, but a crazy person. The irony is that Berkowitz, the Son of Sam, was as loony as could be, provided you don’t think taking instructions to kill from a dog is normal. And if you do, please explain that to the nearest police officer. Continue reading →

Sitting in the front row, the one with the sign that said “Attorneys and Police Only” even though defendants in cuffs were also allowed to sit there, I heard my client sit down behind me.  He said hello, and I turned to return the greeting.

Next to my client was an old man.  My client was big; robust and tall. The old man next to him was slight; short and thin.  He had that wiry look of a guy who would do far better in a fight than his size would lead you to expect.  But he wasn’t looking mean and tough. He had a huge smile, as if we were at a party and he was the host.  I introduced myself and shook his hand. It was clear Continue reading →

Over the past few days, I’ve written a few posts about the efforts to criminalize revenge porn, led by Miami Lawprof Mary Anne Franks. This won’t be another post on the subject, so don’t make a face. Rather, this is a post about the efficacy and legitimacy of searching.

Shortly after publishing this post, where Franks is named in the title, I searched Google to see what, if anything, else had been written on the subject. My post was there in the results, on the first page, about midway down. After Kaimipono Wenger posted the faux interview of Franks at Concurring Opinions, I heard from commenter “AP” who told me the weird story of how his comment to Wenger’s post included a link back to mine.  He did what any normal person would do, cut and pasted the link into the comment. Continue reading →

A maxim that was taught when I went to law school long ago was that the law can’t provide a remedy for every wrong man can conceive.  That was back when we were allowed to say things like “man,” without anyone pretending to choke. Except that one weird kid in the back of the room who seemed to find offense in places no one else did.

The point was that people seemed to always manage to come up with some variation on a theme of harm that nobody anticipated, nobody thought possible, and for which there was no law, whether criminal or civil, that applied.  “Why not?,” budding lawyers demanded of the professor.  “Why shouldn’t the law prohibit this awfulness?” Continue reading →

In the latest in his series of sentencing “statements of reason,” Eastern District of New York Judge John Gleeson takes on one of the most onerous and offensive of the weapons of mass destruction in the prosecutor’s arsenal, 21 U.S.C. §851 in United States v. Kupa. The statute requires the government to file an information that the defendant has a prior felony conviction, which triggers enhanced penalties. Like doubling the mandatory minimums.

The initial reaction might be “great, so the government has to jump through a hoop,” and subject its claim to scrutiny. Well, yes, that’s true, but like so many laws passed by Congress, it’s been turned into a sword when it was meant as a shield. As Judge Gleeson explains: Continue reading →

It’s the buzz word that goes hand in hand with the marketing ploy of producing “practice-ready” lawyers: experiential learning.  What it means is to teach by experience, which has conceptual merit like many ideas, even if it’s become trite before it’s even been implemented.  The problem, like most concepts, is that it’s easy to print the words on law school porn in bold-faced, gold-colored letters to entice and confuse young people, but a lot harder to execute in any worthwhile way.

Paul Campos at Lawyers, Guns and Money, raises the point:

Next week Washington’s Wardman Park hotel will be invaded by 800 or so people looking for jobs as law professors, at the annual hiring conference put on by the Association of American Law Schools. “Experiential learning” is the buzz phrase of the moment in legal academia, as law schools deal with the latest wave of criticism Continue reading →

When Southern District of New York Judge Richard Sullivan rips the government a new one, you know it’s got to be bad. And when the opposing voice is an old friend from the office, Rich Zabel, oh boy. Sorry if this sounds a bit like schadenfreude (it’s really not), but I remember when these guys were all line assistants in the Southern District, and I can’t help but picture them giving each other the stare, like, “why are you doing this to me?”

Via Mike Koehler’s FCPA Professor:

According to a recent Law360 article (“Judge Mocks US Attorney Bharara’s Press Release”), at a recent Practising Law Institute conference Judge Sullivan “ridiculed” this press release put out by the office of Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara in a public corruption case Continue reading →