SOPA

Many websites are going dark or (see Google) doing something else to call attention to the problematic SOPA legislation. As Chris Hayes noted last weekend, there has not been much media reporting on this issue and honestly I am not fully informed about it either. But, it does look problematic and I am wary of any heavy-handed approach that burns the room to roast the pig. I'm not for roasting pigs either.

New Audio

Oyez.com has posted the oral audio for the 2008-09 term. It does not have transcripts available yet [some are] as is the case for recent terms, but this is good stuff. The SCOTUS website should have it as well. Kudos also to the convenient new comment system at VC, including the ability to edit briefly after posting.

Various

“Phil Cuzzi saw the ball as foul, called what he saw,” said the umpire crew chief, Tim Tschida, who acknowledged that the call was wrong after seeing a replay. “There’s a guy sitting over in the umpire’s dressing room right now that feels horrible.”

Oh well. At least he feels horrible, right? Twins blew chances repeatedly, so hey, the guy had one specific job -- make outfield calls -- and didn't do it in the top of the 11th in the playoffs. Who cares, right? Well, those who want umpiring at the most important time of the year that is not subpar, perhaps. Repeated questionable calls in the Rockies' games underline it is not just Twins' games. Not that the play by play (contra Darling's analysis) was great either. And, subpar teams make enough of their own mistakes without additional "help."

In a reversal of Bush administration policy, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in March that the government would not prosecute medical marijuana distributors who comply with state laws. That announcement has emboldened Rhode Island to adopt legislation similar to New Mexico’s: it will license three nonprofit “compassion centers” to grow and dispense the drug by 2012. At least six other states are now considering the model.

But in recent weeks, law enforcement officers, some of them federal, have raided dispensaries in California and Washington State, and in the absence of any actual change in the federal law, many still fear prosecution.

This is absurd. Marijuana should not be illegal to begin with, for any number of reasons, including basic liberty and a pragmatic use of resources. But, can they at least lay off the medicinal marijuana growers? Give me a break.

Rachel Maddow did a segment on her always-superb show tonight about Ralph Lauren's recent bogus legal threats against various blogs -- including this one. Those DMCAs sent by lawyers for Lauren demanded the removal of a badly photoshopped ad which morphed a model into a lollipop-headed stick figure.

A noteworthy story really, even if the specific context seems trivial -- how many times do they overly photoshop or airbrush photos? As the person noted, this case is basically silly, but preemptive removal of such clearly protected material pursuant to the DMCA can very well affect much more serious material as well. And, the strategy here is a good one for others as well, who are just too bloody weeny-like when criticized:

So, instead of responding to their legal threat by suppressing our criticism of their marketing images, we're gonna mock them.

Rachel had at least one questionable moment last night all the same. During the segment on Afghanistan, where the MSNBC commentator went all Walter Cronkite and argued that the U.S. mission in Afghanistan in effect jumped the shark, our mission was compared to the one in Iraq. There -- unlike here -- we had a civil war and the people wanted the military to step in. Actually, I sort of consider there to be a civil war of sorts (at least) in Afghanistan. The Taliban (and others) are trying to gain control from the central government, right?

And, yes, to some extent, American forces (mostly American) were welcomed after we f-ed up the country. (Another fact not referenced here -- why forces had to be sent in.) But, only to an extent. Many still didn't want us there. Some in fact want us in Afghanistan (or Pakistan). Not to dwell on the point much, and there are differences, but I think they were simplified a tad here. RW should show more nuance when promoting ("mandatory" viewing!) special reports on her network.

Oh well. My desire for the Sox and Cards not to get to the next round was helped some more today. I knew the Twins were hopeless ... but do they have to rub salt in the wound? A-Rod doing much of the damage was not great news either. I didn't kill myself by watching much of the game, but the manager's expression when his second player ... versus the back-end of the Yanks bullpen ... swung at the first pitch with the bases loaded, resulting in another cheap out said it all. He took off his cap, looked away, and shook his head. The third out was the work the count / fly ball effort that they needed. Who needs the Mets?

For clutch play by gritty gamers, it is best to watch the Angels or Dodgers.

In A NYPL?!

[Update: I went back to the blocked site. If one scrolls down the "this site is blocked" page, one sees that you can click a button certifying you are over seventeen and such, which lets you view the blocked site for ten minutes. This does give me some faith in the NYPL, though the page is set up as such that this option is not readily apparent. And, a library isn't required to offer such an option. Thusly, overall, mild chilling effect. Still a no no, but less so.]

There were two interesting essays at the Findlaw website (commentary section). One covers a recent German ruling that allows contingency fees in select cases, the country an interesting case study in that it provides some assistance for civil cases and allows third parties to pay for lawsuits in a fee based system (plus has a "loser pays" system). A second one discusses the NSL story, but in a somewhat annoying fashion -- it takes at face value the judgment that the problem was unintentional. Set up a regime with self-checks and a lower standard, and yes, you are taking a risk. It is why the Fourth Amendment has an independent check regime in the first place. Anyway, should we take anything coming out of the administration at face value.

We therefore have to take the statute on the understanding that adults will be denied access to a substantial amount of nonobscene material harmful to children but lawful for adult examination, and a substantial quantity of text and pictures harmful to no one. As the plurality concedes, see ante, at 11, this is the inevitable consequence of the indiscriminate behavior of current filtering mechanisms, which screen out material to an extent known only by the manufacturers of the blocking software [sounds like electronic voting!] ...

-- UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. (Souter, J. dissenting)

Anyway, at lunch time, I went to one of the main libraries in Manhattan to use the Internet. It provides over ten computers for the general public, two for about fifteen minutes, the rest (on appointment) for about forty-five. I find the former a good way to check up on things without spending too much time, though it doesn't let me post at Slate. Anyway, I checked a blog piece on Plan B. Reading up on the subject, the general pro-choice argument is that it stops ovulation.* The literature does suggest ovulation "may" happen in some cases, so Plan B might in effect block implantation. Many doubt this actually occurs. If it does, normal birth control pills would have similar effects, since Plan B is related. Likewise, it occurs naturally all the time.

Anyway, the first link [I just used it ... my home computer is not filtered] provided didn't work. I was blocked ... at a computer in the adult section (there is a separate young adult section), one with quite 'R' rated material. I was informed that in order to obtain federal funding, the library had to use filtering. Said filtering, it noted, can tend to be overinclusive. A link was provided to suggest the website not be blocked. When the Supremes dealt with this very issue, mention was made how trivial the whole thing is. Worse comes to worst, the filter can just be turned off. Of course, the ruling also noted the Internet doesn't provide a "public forum," which is also ridiculous.

[I missed it the first time, but the information page notes: "In addition, any user who is 17 years of age or older may disable the filtering software in order to obtain unfiltered Internet access for bona fide research or other lawful purpose by following the instructions provided on the computer screen or such instructions as the Library shall otherwise provide from time to time." I have to try it again and see how it goes -- but I'm with Souter, this serves as a barrier. What are these "instructions?" What is "bona fide research?" If it was on the screen, it wasn't THAT easy to determine. And, should this sort of page be blocked to sexually active teens? Oh, and why is censorship the default in the adult section?!]


The reason the site was blocked is probably related to some explicit photos -- not porn, but oh no, you see breasts -- elsewhere on the site. But, in the process, clearly worthwhile material is also blocked. And, the benefits of blocking mature erotica is unclear as well. Surely, some amount of nudity is allowed to go through, such as works of art and medical related material. We simply are not dealing with crud here. And, if anything, is there not a way to allow certain perfectly fine pages of a website etc. without blocking the whole thing? Guess not. On some level, the inconvenience was trivial -- another link was provided as well -- but there is something wrong with it occurring in the adult section of a New York City public library.

The Brethren cites Douglas' concern that obscenity rulings would lead to censoring in libraries. Well, his fears have come to pass. Given he spent much time bemoaning the illegality of certain sorts of hard core porn, my annoyance seems worthy of a bit of comment, huh? Seriously, this sort of thing is likely to occur if filtering is used badly, and simply should not happen in cases like this.

---

* Thus, rhetoric that it disposes of a "fetus" is ridiculous. The term is inappropriate for most abortions, since even then an embryo -- the stage of development quite important generally in personal morality etc. on the topic -- is usually involved. But, even after fertilization -- which appears not to occur in this instance -- it is simply silly to speak of a "fetus." It isn't even an "embryo" at that point.