Didn’t see this coming.
Holy #applevsFBI frack! pic.twitter.com/D09UqWI2kQ
— Jim Tyre (@TyreJim) March 21, 2016
But this was a given.
Federal court in Calif. has canceled tomorrow’s hearing on the FBI’s request to force Apple to unlock an iPhone. pic.twitter.com/IoS4y3IBOr
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) March 22, 2016
In the big city, we harbor the delusion that we’re smarter, more erudite, more sophisticated than those hicks in the hinterlands. Tennessee state representative Martin Daniel just proved us wrong. New Yorker Donald Trump didn’t help, but regardless, Daniel still schooled the big city politicians who wrap themselves up in the self-righteousness of progressivism.
What did Daniel do? He stood up for the Constitution. These days, that’s a bold move.
When Tennessee’s lawmakers fight for the constitutional rights of the people, they should be commended, not silenced or ridiculed.
That is why Rep. Martin Daniel’s, R-Knoxville, passionate defense of Americans’ free speech rights this week was good, thoughtful and courageous.
Ironically, his bill to require public colleges in Tennessee to affirm and defend the First Amendment was derailed because of his passion.
What are the chances that you run into a feminist reporter on a train? Really good, if you’re Owen Labrie. Labrie became the poster boy for rich kid, entitled high school rape, even though he was acquitted of rape. He was sentenced to a year in jail for using a computer in the course of seducing a 15-year-old unnamed female student to engage in consensual sex.
When Labrie did it, it was demonized as the “Senior Salute” at St. Paul’s, a boarding school for the wealthy. Before you hate Labrie for having parents with money, remember that the 15-year-old’s parents weren’t on food stamps either.
Pending appeal, Labrie was free on $15,000 bail. Not that his parents couldn’t afford to bail the then-Harvard student out, but Judge Larry Smuckler must have figured that without this number, Labrie would flee. And if he was so inclined to flee, $15,000 was enough to prevent it. But Smuckler, in his judicial wisdom, also imposed conditions on bail pending appeal, one of which was a 5 p.m. curfew. This was his undoing. Continue reading
Driving around Ferguson, Missouri, Radley Balko exposed how petty (and often phony) traffic infractions gave rise to a cash machine for municipalities, and a collection scheme that forced the poor from poverty to prison. This came as an epiphany to many, who were unaware of how fines, fees upon fines, created a system from which escape was functionally impossible. You can’t pay what you don’t have.
As Noel Erinjeri pointed out at Fault Lines, the Supreme Court in Bearden v. Georgia held the failure of a court to ascertain whether non-payment was deliberate or due to inability was unlawful. Noel pondered why nobody seemed to be aware of Bearden, why courts didn’t seem to care and lawyers weren’t screaming about it. There is no good answer to the question.
But if there is pervasive wrong being done by judges who view their role as collection agents for the state, at least it can be seen from the surface. Beneath the surface, there is an economy built on the fact that prisoners are the most captive audience of consumers around, and they need services too. Continue reading
Technology has brought us devices of amazing capabilities, and yet there is one that’s worse today than it was when I was a kid. The telephone. It used to work even when the power went out. It was crystal clear. Both people could speak at the same time. It was great.
It now fits in your pocket, can go everywhere and costs nothing extra to make a call to anywhere in the country. But Millennials hate using telephones.
“We called people on phones and we — I don’t know — we faxed people,” Ms. Plank said, sounding exasperated. “And we had to mail things. And no one really took my opinion into consideration.”
Things only dinosaurs do for $1000, Alex. Why? What is it that makes young people hate talking on the phone? I get convenience of texting emojis, but do you really hate hearing the voices of actual human beings? Does it mean nothing to you to get a full story, rather than snippets that leave everyone clueless as to what they’re talking about, the full story? Continue reading
Near as I can tell, the first person to pick up on footnote 9 in the government’s response to Apple was Marcy Wheeler at Empty Wheel.
DOJ has submitted its response to Apple in the Syed Farook case. Amid invocations of a bunch of ominous precedents — including Dick Cheney’s successful effort to hide his energy task force, Alberto Gonzales effort to use kiddie porn as an excuse to get a subset of all of Google’s web searches, and Aaron Burr’s use of encryption — it included this footnote explaining why it hadn’t just asked for Apple’s source code.
That’s a reference to the Lavabit appeal, in which Ladar Levison was forced to turn over its encryption keys.
That it was a threat is beyond question. The snideness of “if Apple would prefer” leaves no doubt. This refers to a court ordering Apple to turn over its code to the government, handing over the keys to the technological Kingdom. In reply, Apple pointed out the obvious: Continue reading
Within minutes of the verdict being announced, an astounding $115,000,000 awarded Hulk Hogan in compensatory damages, with the jury returning to consider punitive damages, the reactions began. On the one side, there was the Schadenfreude, coming from surprising sources. On the other, the usual assortment of non-lawyer (and some lawyer) stupidity about the First Amendment.
The First Amendment isn’t unlimited.
You can’t yell fire in a crowded theater.
The First Amendment doesn’t protect revenge porn.
There’s a constitutional right to privacy.
Gawker sucks and it’s hypocritical, so who cares?
The first fear was that the verdict, indeed the very fact that there was a trial, reinforces the general belief that free speech and press is only as much of a right as people’s sensibilities feel it should be. Like something? Then it should be free speech. Think it’s icky? Then it’s not free speech.
The non-legal consensus these days is that each of us gets to be censor of the universe, deciding the value of speech for everyone else. The irrationality of such a scheme never seems to be recognized; if I think your speech is too, like really, just, you know, then I get to shut you up, because, literally. That’s paraphrasing law professors. Continue reading
We hear you. We asked for your thoughts, and you’ve been more than generous in providing them. Thank you.
We share many of the ideas you’ve offered, and with that in mind, we’re ready to bring more writers aboard. At present, we have Greg Prickett bringing the cop’s perspective to Fault Lines, but we want more. We have Murray Newman and Andrew King bringing the prosecutor’s prospective, and we want more. We have Judge Richard Kopf bringing the view from the bench (and we anticipate another judge joining us soon), but we still want more.
We want perspectives from all genders, all colors, all political views and all players in criminal law. Too much? Perhaps, but unlike anywhere else on the internet, we seek to provide all sides of legitimate commentary, because our writers aren’t merely interested and passionate, but the people who actually do the work in the trenches and speak from knowledge and experience. Continue reading
While much of the political world remained obsessed with whether Donald Trump is the worst presidential candidate ever or will bring about the end of times, two smaller primary battles were waged in Chicago and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. The outcomes matter.
First, Anita Alvarez, the reigning Cook County State’s Attorney, lost. Her claim to the seat was lost due to her complicity in the concealment of the video of Laquan McDonald’s murder by Police Officer Jason Van Dyke, together with her failure to indict her cop until it became certain that the video would be released.
Second, Cuyahoga County District Attorney Tim McGinty, who orchestrated the grand jury show in the Tamir Rice execution.
Both need new jobs, because the voters turned them out of office. It happened because of the confluence of two things, the efforts to make it known far and wide that these two prosecutors failed to perform the duties of their office with integrity when it came to police, and people voting. The former is largely due to the efforts of Black Lives Matter advocates. The latter is due to all people of conscience getting off their butts and performing their duty as citizens. Continue reading
The headline began with the use of the word “kids,” a slang word for children. Children dislike being reminded that they’re children, because it’s stereotypical, ageist and true. However, there isn’t much to scream about, given that ageism is a minor offense at the moment. Its day may come, like fat-ism or smell-ism. Whether or not there will be a stupid-ism remains to be seen. It’s not out of the question.
But the headline then went all parity, from kids to “girls.” Bingo! Crank up the outrage machine. What headline?
If I was to take issue with the headline, my problem would have been that it would appear to exclude “girls” from “smart kids.” It gives rise to an awkward juxtaposition, and that wasn’t its purpose. Elie Mystal saw the headline before it went live. He realized there were issues, but rather than edit (because, after all, he’s the editor-at-large), he decided to let his “columnist” get crushed under the bus. Continue reading
