In a troubling reaction to a legal argument made against a Massachusetts law, that shooting “upskirt” photos is protected by the First Amendment, a lawprof abandoned thought to emotion.  Via Gideon at A Public Defender:

In what has become a hallmark of the site, Above the Law yesterday “posted” about a fascinating Massachusetts case and managed to distill it down for their LCD readership: man argues that upskirt photography is protected by the First Amendment.

That led a LawProf Jessica Smith to redistribute the same article with a comment appended:

No bounds to zealous advocacy? MT @atlblog: Lawyer argues for Constitutional right to be pervert & take upskirt pics http://t.co/WjRnYGE3bb

— Jessica Smith (@ProfJessieSmith) November 7, 2013 Continue reading →

Proposition 6 in the last New York election proposed to raise the retirement age for some New York judges from 70 to 80 years of age.  It lost. Well, not just “lost,” but was slaughtered by a margin of 61% to 39%.  Chief Judge Lippman raised the proposition for sound reasons, the need for judges to handle the caseload crushing the system and to end the anachronism of a relatively young retirement age and the only retirement age imposed on any government official.

That rule is out of date, Judge Lippman says, enacted just after the Civil War, long before the age of modern medicine, when merely living to 65 was considered a feat. The age limit has deprived the New York courts of great legal minds in their prime, he says, among them former Chief Judge Judith Kaye. Continue reading →

At the Careerist, Vivia Chen posts of a survey that some might see as evidence that men aren’t just greedy, blood-sucking opportunists who want only to accumulate vast wealth to prove their masculine worth.

According to a newly released survey by Citi and LinkedIn, more men than women place a higher priority on love, marriage, kids, and the whole domestic kit and caboodle. Yup, you heard right: Men are the true guardians of family values!

If you detected just the faintest hint of sarcasm in there, your meter is working perfectly. Continue reading →

Sentence came before Judge Loretta Preska, who was not amused. It began when Sabu, the name used by Anonymous hacker Hector Xavier Monsegur, was turned by government agents to give up others.

Mr. Monsegur was arrested and subsequently helped law-enforcement officials infiltrate Lulzsec, an offshoot of Anonymous, the loose hacking collective that has supported an ever-shifting variety of causes, ranging from democracy in the Middle East to justice for victims of sexual crimes. Continue reading →

At Techdirt, Tim Cushing tells of an utterly astounding situation at the hands of some website that sells stuff called , which curiously subtitles itself “Geeks Rule,” which had in its terms of sale (since removed following its public outing and disgrace) this fascinating non-disparagement clause.

Non-Disparagement Clause

In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.

Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Continue reading →

It started with an otherwise typical email, carrying the tantalizing subject line:

“What do you think of this “Why Does Anyone Drive Drunk? ” ? 

I’m a sucker for anything with two question marks, so I opened it. The rest was similarly artful.

Hi

My name is Hemant and I’m working with Luhrsen Law Group. I found your website through Google and was impressed by what you’ve built here – I find your voice authentic and your content crisp and insightful. Continue reading →

In a pair of rulings, the same 2d Circuit panel that announced that District Court Judge Shira Scheindlin “ran afoul of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges” announced, per curiam, they were only kidding.  The first opinion denied Judge Scheindlin’s application to appear, either by counsel or amicus curiae:

The motion, submitted substantially in the form of a brief in favor of reconsideration, presents the threshold question whether, in the circumstances presented, a district judge may participate as a party, as an intervenor, or as an amicus curiae in an appeal of her decisions. For the reasons set forth below, we DENY Judge Scheindlin’s motion to appear in this Court in support of retaining authority over these cases.

The same panel judges who unceremoniously tossed Judge Scheindlin off the case, while retaining the assignment of the underlying cases, Floyd and Ligon, for themselves lest any other panel judge waste precious time, explained that Judge Scheindlin’s motion “lacks a procedural basis.” Continue reading →

At Minding the Campus, Cathy Young writes of the Ohio University rape that wasn’t.

The scandal started, like many scandals do these days, in the social media. On Saturday, October 12, amidst the school’s Homecoming Weekend festivities, photos and a video of two young people engaged in a public sex act near the campus–the man on his knees performing oral sex on the woman while she leaned against a plate-glass window, half-sitting on its ledge–showed up online and promptly spread on Twitter.

On Sunday night, the woman in the photos, a 20-year-old Ohio University student, contacted Athens police to say that she had been sexually assaulted. Continue reading →

In the days following the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ ruling that the state online solicitation of a minor statute was unconstitutional, there was an outpouring of appreciation toward Mark Bennett for his excellent work on the case. Whether he deserved it or not, he was called a “hero” for what he accomplished.

One of the most dangerous things in law is the belief that somehow, some way, the law will “right” itself because some White Knight will ride in to save us.  It’s the law’s version of the economics concept of the invisible hand, except what works in economics has no analogue in law.  As Bennett explained: Continue reading →

The saga (and it’s already reached saga status, even though it’s barely been around for two weeks at this point) of the 2d Circuit panel’s bizarre war with Judge Shira Scheindlin in the stop & frisk cases, Ligon and Floyd, continues to spiral out of control, as the judge and both plaintiffs have sought to undo the ruling.

But it’s not just the parties aggrieved who have been typing away.  Michael Cardozo, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York, who serves at the pleasure of Mayor Michael Bloomberg, lame ducks all, has a computer of his own and he’s not afraid to use it. Continue reading →