Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts

Monday, October 26, 2009

Can Sex Offenders be Banned From Church?

Most recently, Profs Berman and Dorf weigh in. If churches are anything like schools, I am surprised that the law does not provide for limited exceptions for attending church services. Perhaps the state could have thought of that, or will they add a provision to avoid going to court?

Or, with the constitutional analysis pending, will sex offenders be further separated into legal categories, such as dangerous, dangerous to children, and not dangerous, not violent, and no risk? Many, from what I understand, present absolutely no risk of reoffending whatsoever. And that's the point of these laws, correct? Let's get them off the registries! It will make it easier to track the ones requiring the attention.

What might that do to the notion of tracking, registries, and bans from residence in proximity to schools, school bus stops and such?

Friday, May 16, 2008

Against the Grain

At this link is an opinion being appealed to the Supreme Court by Major League Baseball, and a bunch of other hippo size bodies with brains of peas (I take that back y'all---go ahead and spend money however you want to---I would do the same thing---or maybe not---maybe I grew up---maybe I don't like throwing money into the toilet---who knows...nobody cares), who want to control the use of their own statistics, already public domain stuff, by a fantasy baseball game maker. I wish I had half of the cash the parties have already spent on this lawsuit. I'd settle for a quarter of it. Read more at SCOTUSBLOG'S petitions to watch section.

Wait. I just remembered that running against the grain is how you get things done. So, now when I write my book and talk about the awesome Iron Man playing ball, and how, I need MLBPA permission. Not.

That would make the world a better place, if you're MLBPA. Anyhow,

It sure does make for interesting first amendment reading! There is also an interesting breach of warranty claim discussed in this case. Seriously, a game has entertainment value as art or a novel. If the maker wants to make a few bucks to defray the cost of his game why should we stop that.

I play fantasy yahoo for free and wonder how they do it, keep it free, that is.

This is just another case of the rich bully wanting to take the poor man's toy away. As if it wasn't enough to push the price of gas up to five dollars a quart.

I respectfully beg the Court to deny cert to resolve the issue. Watch out, that's certain to provoke them to grant the petition.

Sunday, December 31, 2006

End of the Year Currents and bubbles

I am breaking my general rule that I do not blog on Sundays, only because it is the last day of the year (one out of 365 is not bad). Bring on 2007. Just before this stuff goes stale (mostly from Washington Post):

Politics of (and) "Free" Speech (George Will)
A three-judge federal court recently tugged a thread that may begin the unraveling of the fabric of murky laws and regulations that traduce the First Amendment by suppressing political speech. Divided 2 to 1, the court held -- unremarkably, you might think -- that issue advocacy ads can run during an election campaign, when they matter most. This decision will strike zealous (there is no other kind) advocates of ever-tighter regulation of political speech (campaign finance "reformers") as ominous. Why? Because it partially emancipates millions of Americans who incorporate thousands of groups to advocate their causes, groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association.
Classically Innocuous WP: "O'Malley's Gift" (very political and correct--maybe the perfect Christmas gift)

on Nifong (the Duke rape case prosecutor is in trouble now)

more resolutions (Deborah Howell/ombudsman)

Broder on years end

Teggies (Rob Pegoraro/WP)

2006 and the Constitution
2006 was not a good year for the Constitution. It was not remotely a good year for the concept of separation of powers in government or for the idea that our system works best when there are sufficient checks on the excesses of one branch over another. It was not a good year for opponents of an imperial presidency or for supporters of a concerned and compassionate Congress. It was not a year that offers a lot of hope that things will get any better, or even stabilize, in 2007.

So we got out of the law this year what we deserved from it. And hopefully we will come to realize in 2007 and beyond that if we continue to ignore and neglect the most important and weighty issues that confront the Constitution, its power and authority will erode, slowly but surely, until one of the best ideas ever conceived by man is relegated to being just another dusty, historical document.

Andrew Cohen writes Bench Conference and this regular law column for washingtonpost.com. He is also CBS News Chief Legal Analyst. His columns for CBS can be found online here.
Gitmo stuff (get rid of the kangas--better late than never! Staunch the stench!?)
“We have tried again and again to have a say in the process,” said Barbara Olshansky, a lawyer who has coordinated much of the work of the detainees’ lawyers for the Center for Constitutional Rights. “But we learned pretty early on that these were kangaroo courts.”
(from the New York Times)

Friday, November 24, 2006

Weekly Update: Due Process, First Amendment

The most important development in the week's news so far just might be this, from howappealing by Howard Bashman (link down and to the right on my sidebar). Thanks Howard!
Access online the D.C. Circuit's order granting rehearing en banc in the substantive due process access to experimental potentially life-saving drugs case: I obtained a copy of the D.C. Circuit 's order entered yesterday granting rehearing en banc in the case from that court's PACER system, and I have uploaded a copy of the order to this link. Posted at 10:25 AM Tuesday, 11/21, Howard Bashman.

And, so now I'm supposed to research down to the gnats *ss every time I use a fact that MIGHT be injurious and put it on my blog to make sure its not defamatory? But as one commenter at Volokh points out, "This [ruling] is not a victory for free speech, which was already protected; it is a victory for the perpetrators of libel and slander." Respectfully, I dissent. The original perpetrator remains liable, and unwitting bloggers should not be dragged into court, and should remain free of the undue burdens of hiring a lawyer to understand what defamation means. Thoughts, anybody?

Thursday, November 16, 2006

INMATES ON MYSPACE: IS THE FIRST AMENDMENT MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE?

Wired has an interesting comment on the death row inmates posting diary entries on Myspace. How dangerous is that? So they are supposed to shut up and die, but for 25 years?

Bush Wiretapping Program Violates Federal Laws and the Constitution, Says ACLU
-- The ACLU issued press release that begins, "The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Michigan today urged a federal appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling declaring the government's warrantless National Security Agency wiretapping program illegal, calling the government's assertion of unchecked spying powers 'radical' and a threat to American democracy."
-- Brief for Appellees filed in the NSA wiretapping appeal, pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, is available by clicking here. Thanks Howard Bashman

Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA), that State's highest court in criminal cases, holds that President Bush was powerless to force the Texas judiciary to disregard its rules of procedural default to consider on the merits a Mexican death row inmate's Article 36 Vienna Convention claim. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals today issued its ruling in Ex Parte Jose Ernesto Medellin. Access the lead opinion at this link, while the concurring opinions can be accessed here, here, here, and here. For more click this, at SCOTUSblog.

When George Will writes, he's news. His column in the Washington Post, found here, is about the recent Belmontes decision. Kent Scheidegger reactions are here at Crime & Consequences. Brian Tamanaha has thoughtful ruminations on jury instructions in the wake of Belmontes here at Balkinization. Thanks SCOTUSblog.

WHEN IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Go see
Prison Art Gallery
1600 K Street NW
Suite 501
Washington, DC
202-393-1511