Friday, May 30, 2008
Best wedding toast ever.
or, dangers of inviting drama geeks to the wedding.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1287124/best_wedding_toast_ever_amys_song/
or, dangers of inviting drama geeks to the wedding.
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1287124/best_wedding_toast_ever_amys_song/
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Slashdot only gave me one line from my most recent submit.
Another reader points to a quick report from Fortune magazine on the ruling.
I'm "another reader". I'm running about 50% in them picking up my submissions.
Another reader points to a quick report from Fortune magazine on the ruling.
I'm "another reader". I'm running about 50% in them picking up my submissions.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Got some email asking me to blog this article:
http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/library/
20-civil-liberties-laws-every-american-should-know.html
http://www.criminaljusticedegreesguide.com/library/
20-civil-liberties-laws-every-american-should-know.html
Monday, May 26, 2008
word for the day: aptonym
Sunday, May 25, 2008
I didn't get back to Indy from Jersey in time to get ready to catch the Bob Barr bus to Denver, so I didn't go to the convention this year. Seeing this guy again was one of the main reasons I wanted to go. 
Barr won narrowly against Mary Ruart on the 6th ballot. I didn't know Mary was running; I like her and think the party needs a woman candidate. Starchild pic isn't displaying. Hmm. Fixed, I think.
update: and this guy.
That's my friend Willy Star Marshall in the NYT.
Barr won narrowly against Mary Ruart on the 6th ballot. I didn't know Mary was running; I like her and think the party needs a woman candidate. Starchild pic isn't displaying. Hmm. Fixed, I think.
update: and this guy.
That's my friend Willy Star Marshall in the NYT.
It turns out Jennie of the devil's panties comic strip does other comics too.
http://www.customerssuck.com/strip/index.php?date=2007-03-04
http://www.customerssuck.com/strip/index.php?date=2007-03-04
Saturday, May 24, 2008
# SalsaShark Says:
April 24th, 2008 at 9:57 am
The night, like so many other evenings before, bore down close upon his shoulders. He heard sirens off in the distance, baying like foxhounds. As he trudged down the gritty streets, shards of glass crunching under his boots, he shrugged off the enticements of the streetwalkers and tried to avoid the eyes of the johns who sought them out – too much emptiness there, like a parrot of his own soul. He turned a corner and walked furtively to the shop of the lithographer; the metal shutter was drawn down but not locked. He reached and drew it up with a screech until it clanged home, then passed through the fortified gate as a knight on horseback rode under the portcullis of his castle in the legends of old. His mission tonight – resupplying the old man with the ink he needed for his work – gave him strength and confidence. He stepped cautiously through the cluttered store, passing a discarded pile of bunting from a forgotten rally thrown by a forgotten politician, easing his way toward the sliver of light emanating from the half-shut workshop door behind the counter. Something brushed past his leg. source is xkcd blag.
April 24th, 2008 at 9:57 am
The night, like so many other evenings before, bore down close upon his shoulders. He heard sirens off in the distance, baying like foxhounds. As he trudged down the gritty streets, shards of glass crunching under his boots, he shrugged off the enticements of the streetwalkers and tried to avoid the eyes of the johns who sought them out – too much emptiness there, like a parrot of his own soul. He turned a corner and walked furtively to the shop of the lithographer; the metal shutter was drawn down but not locked. He reached and drew it up with a screech until it clanged home, then passed through the fortified gate as a knight on horseback rode under the portcullis of his castle in the legends of old. His mission tonight – resupplying the old man with the ink he needed for his work – gave him strength and confidence. He stepped cautiously through the cluttered store, passing a discarded pile of bunting from a forgotten rally thrown by a forgotten politician, easing his way toward the sliver of light emanating from the half-shut workshop door behind the counter. Something brushed past his leg. source is xkcd blag.
Scalzi's Agent to the Stars and some other stuff. Scalzi links to some a cappela music at yale, the Spizzwinks?
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Hancock trailer. Will Smith as ghetto superhero.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Doctorow's Little Brother
Monday, May 05, 2008
A new Heinlein book. Scalzi.
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Not remotely safe for work:
Megan McCardle was blogging about Hilary's plans to sue opec over oil production, and compared this to suing GM for not offering flying cars.
So I googled for flying cars, trying to find that one I blogged about awhile back,
but it turns out "flying cars" is a short film by Kevin Smith, with the guys from Clerks. Video. And Kevin Smith is making a movie about making porn, which has this promo clip:
"I'm fucking seth rogan". http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/2008/02/25/quick-stop-exclusive-im-fing-seth-rogen/
So I'm inclined to think that's where Sarah Silverman got the idea for her "I'm fucking Matt Damon" song, unless that one came first, ok, i guess hers came first. Followed by Jimmy and Ben.
It comes around again to Hillary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5jyTc6rnbI&feature=related
Kevin Smith's blog.
Megan McCardle was blogging about Hilary's plans to sue opec over oil production, and compared this to suing GM for not offering flying cars.
So I googled for flying cars, trying to find that one I blogged about awhile back,
but it turns out "flying cars" is a short film by Kevin Smith, with the guys from Clerks. Video. And Kevin Smith is making a movie about making porn, which has this promo clip:
"I'm fucking seth rogan". http://www.quickstopentertainment.com/2008/02/25/quick-stop-exclusive-im-fing-seth-rogen/
So I'm inclined to think that's where Sarah Silverman got the idea for her "I'm fucking Matt Damon" song, unless that one came first, ok, i guess hers came first. Followed by Jimmy and Ben.
It comes around again to Hillary: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5jyTc6rnbI&feature=related
Kevin Smith's blog.
When I saw the photographs from Abu Ghraib, for example, I understood instantly the connection between the humiliations inflicted there and the ones the Nazis imposed upon death camp inmates—but I am the one person in the world least able to draw attention to that valid comparison. - Mike Godwin.
Over at Marginal Revolutions, I learn that Roger Ebert is blogging. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/
Great story about a coach who turned into a pumpkin. And one about a burning junkyard still.
I read Ebert for the way he writes; I rarely actually go see the movies he reviews.
Lately too many of the reviews at his site turn out to have been written by Jim Emerson, and are just about the movie, and I don't notice at first.
Great story about a coach who turned into a pumpkin. And one about a burning junkyard still.
I read Ebert for the way he writes; I rarely actually go see the movies he reviews.
Lately too many of the reviews at his site turn out to have been written by Jim Emerson, and are just about the movie, and I don't notice at first.
Friday, May 02, 2008
(note: only of interest to law geeks)
The virginia rehearing in jaynes asks some tricky first amendment standing issues.
Here's the grant of rehearing, and then my first thoughts on the topic.
Caution long rant follows, I should bury most of this with a later edit.
1Jeremy Jaynes, Appellant,
against Record No. 062388
Court of Appeals No. 1054-05-4
Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.
Upon A Petition For Rehearing
The Court grants the Petition for Rehearing filed by the Appellant limited, however, to the following issues:
1. In the context of a claim brought in a state court challenging a state statute under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, are state courts required to apply the same standing requirements as to that claimant that the claimant would be accorded in a federal court considering a similar First Amendment overbreadth claim?
2. Assuming, arguendo, that the first question is answered in the affirmative, has the Appellant (a) waived the argument presented in the Petition for Rehearing at pages 1 through 5 as not made in Appellant’s briefs or on oral argument; and (b) is appellate consideration of the issue barred because Appellant approbated and reprobated (e.g., did Appellant agree in prior proceedings in this case that a state court may establish its own standing requirements but in its petition for rehearing contend that a state court must, at a minimum, apply federal standing requirements)?
3. Assuming, arguendo, that the first question is answered in the negative and a state court is not required to accord equivalent standing, as in a federal court, in a First Amendment overbreadth challenge to a Virginia statute involving commercial speech, what is the precedential effect of Wayside Restaurant, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, 215 Va. 231, 208 S.E.2d 51 (1974)?
1. Of course, as in Hicks, state first amendment standing rules do not have to be the same as those of federal courts. Federal courts are bound by the case or controversy clause of article III. States are free to have less restrictive rules,and this is probably what Hicks was referring to. It is wrong to read Hicks as saying states can have more restrictive rules, unless case can be found which upholds more restrict state rules. More restrictive rules would impinge on due process and Supremacy clause concerns.
States are free to adopt their own rules of standing and overbreadth when it comes to interpreting their own free speech and free press clauses. For instance, Indiana's article 9 free speech rights have been found to have no overbreadth analysis. Price v State. But when it comes to the First Amendment, states are supposed to adhere to SCOTUS precedent. Under Broadrick v Oklahoma, defendants can raise overbreadth challenges to the constitutionality of a statute even when their own conduct violated the statute. A statute which is unconstitutional because of overbreadth is void and is not law and has no valid application to anyone.
2 Plaintiff has not waived his claim that the statute is overbroad and unconstitutional and that he has standing to raise the issue. Indeed, that was a major focus of his argument and of the court's prior opinion.
3 If, contrary to fact, Virginia were able to set its own First Amendment standing rules below the federal floor, what precedential value should be given to wayside?
Wayside, if still good law, should be overruled on policy grounds, because it is bad policy. Wayside was heavily influenced by (the abortion advertising case) which was subsequently overruled in light of Roe v Wade. Wayside is a case that says business owners of a topless joint lacked standing to raise overbreadth claims as to a statute that unconstitutionally imposed dress codes on citizens, on the grounds that commercial speech is unprotected. That is doubly wrong.
The constitution contains no textual exemption for commercial speech.
Justice Thomas, for one, thinks that commercial speech is as protected as noncommercial speech. Cases such as 44 Liquormart have overruled Wayside's core claim that commerical speech is distinct and unprotected.
Arguably, while literary and political speech are all well and good, it is commercial speech which society has the strongest interest in protecting. Information is the driving force in the American economy, and is essential to the operation of a market economy. Earlier economic models assumed perfect information in both the marketplace and government, but this view is no longer accepted as actually modeling the economy.
The United States has been able to develop the world's strongest economy by allowing markets, and allowing the relatively free flow of information which markets require.
The constitution does not police itself. When a statute or policy violates the First Amendment, it is often a business which can fund a challenge. Private citizens tend to lack the resources to take on the deep pockets of the state. The adversarial system of justice is damaged when one set of players is unduly hobbled.
This is a case in which a man is being sent to prison for a long period of time for writing on the internet. While the court found against defendant on his commerce clause argument, and found that Virginia can assert jurisdiction over the entire internet if an aol account is ever involved, the court should remain mindful of the chilling effect on the entire internet. Reno v ACLU referred to this sort of thing as burning the global village to roast a pig. Because his prosecution harms the speech interests of third parties everywhere, he should not be foreclosed from his due process right to raise claims of unconstitutionality due to overbreadth.
I, for example, am harmed by the statute. But the harm to me does not justify the expense of bringing suit in Virginia, which I lack the resources to do if I wanted to. Jaynes, on the other hand, has the resources and the motivation to make my case. It would be unjust to him and to me to prevent him from doing so.
The right view is to allow him standing to raise the overbreadth issue, whether doing so is required by the federal constitution and supremacy, or whether the court does so on its own authority as the caretaker of Virginia law. /end of rant.
The virginia rehearing in jaynes asks some tricky first amendment standing issues.
Here's the grant of rehearing, and then my first thoughts on the topic.
Caution long rant follows, I should bury most of this with a later edit.
1Jeremy Jaynes, Appellant,
against Record No. 062388
Court of Appeals No. 1054-05-4
Commonwealth of Virginia, Appellee.
Upon A Petition For Rehearing
The Court grants the Petition for Rehearing filed by the Appellant limited, however, to the following issues:
1. In the context of a claim brought in a state court challenging a state statute under the First Amendment overbreadth doctrine, are state courts required to apply the same standing requirements as to that claimant that the claimant would be accorded in a federal court considering a similar First Amendment overbreadth claim?
2. Assuming, arguendo, that the first question is answered in the affirmative, has the Appellant (a) waived the argument presented in the Petition for Rehearing at pages 1 through 5 as not made in Appellant’s briefs or on oral argument; and (b) is appellate consideration of the issue barred because Appellant approbated and reprobated (e.g., did Appellant agree in prior proceedings in this case that a state court may establish its own standing requirements but in its petition for rehearing contend that a state court must, at a minimum, apply federal standing requirements)?
3. Assuming, arguendo, that the first question is answered in the negative and a state court is not required to accord equivalent standing, as in a federal court, in a First Amendment overbreadth challenge to a Virginia statute involving commercial speech, what is the precedential effect of Wayside Restaurant, Inc. v. City of Virginia Beach, 215 Va. 231, 208 S.E.2d 51 (1974)?
1. Of course, as in Hicks, state first amendment standing rules do not have to be the same as those of federal courts. Federal courts are bound by the case or controversy clause of article III. States are free to have less restrictive rules,and this is probably what Hicks was referring to. It is wrong to read Hicks as saying states can have more restrictive rules, unless case can be found which upholds more restrict state rules. More restrictive rules would impinge on due process and Supremacy clause concerns.
States are free to adopt their own rules of standing and overbreadth when it comes to interpreting their own free speech and free press clauses. For instance, Indiana's article 9 free speech rights have been found to have no overbreadth analysis. Price v State. But when it comes to the First Amendment, states are supposed to adhere to SCOTUS precedent. Under Broadrick v Oklahoma, defendants can raise overbreadth challenges to the constitutionality of a statute even when their own conduct violated the statute. A statute which is unconstitutional because of overbreadth is void and is not law and has no valid application to anyone.
2 Plaintiff has not waived his claim that the statute is overbroad and unconstitutional and that he has standing to raise the issue. Indeed, that was a major focus of his argument and of the court's prior opinion.
3 If, contrary to fact, Virginia were able to set its own First Amendment standing rules below the federal floor, what precedential value should be given to wayside?
Wayside, if still good law, should be overruled on policy grounds, because it is bad policy. Wayside was heavily influenced by (the abortion advertising case) which was subsequently overruled in light of Roe v Wade. Wayside is a case that says business owners of a topless joint lacked standing to raise overbreadth claims as to a statute that unconstitutionally imposed dress codes on citizens, on the grounds that commercial speech is unprotected. That is doubly wrong.
The constitution contains no textual exemption for commercial speech.
Justice Thomas, for one, thinks that commercial speech is as protected as noncommercial speech. Cases such as 44 Liquormart have overruled Wayside's core claim that commerical speech is distinct and unprotected.
Arguably, while literary and political speech are all well and good, it is commercial speech which society has the strongest interest in protecting. Information is the driving force in the American economy, and is essential to the operation of a market economy. Earlier economic models assumed perfect information in both the marketplace and government, but this view is no longer accepted as actually modeling the economy.
The United States has been able to develop the world's strongest economy by allowing markets, and allowing the relatively free flow of information which markets require.
The constitution does not police itself. When a statute or policy violates the First Amendment, it is often a business which can fund a challenge. Private citizens tend to lack the resources to take on the deep pockets of the state. The adversarial system of justice is damaged when one set of players is unduly hobbled.
This is a case in which a man is being sent to prison for a long period of time for writing on the internet. While the court found against defendant on his commerce clause argument, and found that Virginia can assert jurisdiction over the entire internet if an aol account is ever involved, the court should remain mindful of the chilling effect on the entire internet. Reno v ACLU referred to this sort of thing as burning the global village to roast a pig. Because his prosecution harms the speech interests of third parties everywhere, he should not be foreclosed from his due process right to raise claims of unconstitutionality due to overbreadth.
I, for example, am harmed by the statute. But the harm to me does not justify the expense of bringing suit in Virginia, which I lack the resources to do if I wanted to. Jaynes, on the other hand, has the resources and the motivation to make my case. It would be unjust to him and to me to prevent him from doing so.
The right view is to allow him standing to raise the overbreadth issue, whether doing so is required by the federal constitution and supremacy, or whether the court does so on its own authority as the caretaker of Virginia law. /end of rant.
I think my article is about to go up at slashdot:
Mega-spammer Jeremy Jaynes was convicted in Virginia of spamming in '05, sentenced to 9 years, and lost his appeal, 4-3, at the Virgina Supreme Court. But the court has just ordered a new hearing on whether the anti-spam statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, reports How Appealing.
We previously covered the appeal and the conviction.
I didn't get anything else done today.
Hey this is neat; they published it just the way I wrote it, instead of editing it as usual. Maybe I'm getting the hang of their format. No, I'm wrong they didn't just edit it, they took out the link to TFA.
arbitraryaardvark writes "Mega-spammer Jeremy Jaynes was convicted in Virginia of spamming in '05, sentenced to 9 years, and lost his appeal, 4-3, at the Virgina Supreme Court. But the court has just ordered a new hearing on whether the anti-spam statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Slashdot previously covered the appeal and the conviction."
Mega-spammer Jeremy Jaynes was convicted in Virginia of spamming in '05, sentenced to 9 years, and lost his appeal, 4-3, at the Virgina Supreme Court. But the court has just ordered a new hearing on whether the anti-spam statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, reports How Appealing.
We previously covered the appeal and the conviction.
I didn't get anything else done today.
Hey this is neat; they published it just the way I wrote it, instead of editing it as usual. Maybe I'm getting the hang of their format. No, I'm wrong they didn't just edit it, they took out the link to TFA.
arbitraryaardvark writes "Mega-spammer Jeremy Jaynes was convicted in Virginia of spamming in '05, sentenced to 9 years, and lost his appeal, 4-3, at the Virgina Supreme Court. But the court has just ordered a new hearing on whether the anti-spam statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Slashdot previously covered the appeal and the conviction."
Today's sinfest: http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=2796
Thursday, May 01, 2008
USA attacks Somalia, again. Because that's going so well in Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
