Flame on. Bloggers gain libel protection .
posted by the fire you left me on Jul 1, 2003 - 10 comments

The Supreme Court begins its term this coming Monday. There are lots of exciting cases on the calendar (99k PDF). For example, Ewing v. California, which will test California's 3 strikes rule. Scheidler v. NOW, which has to do with anti-abortion activists blocking access to clinics. And of course, Eldred v. Ashcroft, where the issue is whether or not the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (PDF) is Constitutional. The last has been mentioned in a couple threads and has gotten loads of web attention, including this new piece from WIRED. A lot to look forward to, whether you're interested in one of the specific issues or you're just an avid armchair justice.
posted by jewishbuddha on Oct 4, 2002 - 22 comments

More from the "Watch What You Say Online" Department This Wired story mentions a fellow who badmouthed a thin-skinned company on an online forum and found himself hit with a $450,000 default judgment against him because he didn't show up in court to defend himself (he claims he had no idea he had been sued). Even those among us who might not be guilty of stealing have probably said something bad about various companies here and elsewhere. Should we all go hire a lawyer RIGHT NOW?
posted by briank on Mar 1, 2002 - 17 comments

Feds post indecent material. In a move sure to be challenged, the FCC released a report which offfers examples of what they consider to be indecent, and not indecent.

In typical government style, anything that is referred to "sexual" is deemed indecent. But use of the word such as "motherF****r" isn't. This just makes things even more confusing... at least to me.

Examples:

Indecent: "Well, it was a nice big fart. I'm feeling very gaseous at this point."

Not indecent: "The hell I did, I drove motherF****r, oh. Oh."

Indecent: "Sit on my face and tell me that you love me. I'll sit on your face and tell you I love you too." - Montey Python
posted by da5id on Apr 7, 2001 - 10 comments

Wired News reports on the upcoming DMCA review. Via Linux Weekly News: "When music is streamed, webcasters are required to pay a performance royalty. In order to generate smooth playback of incoming streams, computers temporarily store some of the data in memory in a RAM buffer. Music publishers have stated that the data in this buffer should be considered a physical creation that would require webcasters to pay a mechanical royalty, similar to what they pay for downloads or CDs." Anyone need any more on that? Time to get your congressman on the phone...
posted by baylink on Nov 30, 2000 - 3 comments

Oh shit, oh piss, oh dear. Judge rules domain names are not property. We had enough problems with this in the last decade with 800-numbers. <sigh>
posted by baylink on Aug 25, 2000 - 12 comments

DaimlerChrysler is taking the Webmaster of DodgeViper.Com to court after he tried selling it on eBay. What gets me is that the owner of the site claims he had to defend himself, because he couldn't afford an attorney, yet he says he owns a Dodge Viper? Just another dispute on who can own what domains, and what they can do with them.
posted by Mark on Aug 3, 2000 - 0 comments

Court orders Yahoo to block French access to Nazi memorabilia. Does it bother anyone else that the French courts think they can regulate an American business? I dislike Nazis as much as the next guy but this seems to be a bit much on the part of the French.
posted by darainwa on May 23, 2000 - 15 comments

Say goodbye to personal liberty if this bill gets passed. A bill aimed at fighting drugs on and off line will limit your freedom of speech, allow police to enter your house with a warrant but not telling you what it's for. One step closer to the Police state. And one heck of a supreme court case in the wings.
posted by eljuanbobo on May 9, 2000 - 3 comments