Hi. I'm Joe. I like law, tech, and stuff for geeks. I'm an Associate Editor at Phillyist and a contributor to Geekadelphia. I judge people loudly in public but other than that I'm a nice guy.
Comments [0]
(download)
Source: Miller Center for Public Affairs at the University of Virginia
TweetComments [0]
"When you are charged with a crime, your lawyer needs to tell you the full picture," said Bibas, a former assistant U.S. attorney in Manhattan who teaches criminal procedure at Penn, and who lives with his wife and two children in Fairmount. "You would never hire a business lawyer to advise you on a contract for a company if the lawyer was not also able to say that this might get you in trouble with antitrust authorities or you will be liable for violating someone's patent."
This is a pretty cool story. Keep in mind that the point isn't that the guy wasn't a criminal -- it seems clear that he was -- but that he was misled by incompetent counsel on the likely ooutcome of a guilty plea.
He may have had other options, like, off the top of my head, a bargain in which he could have revealed the source of the 1,000 pounds of marijuana in exchange for a guarantee that he wouldn't face deportation.
Of course, I haven't had criminal procedure yet, so what the hell do I know?
Source: Philadelphia Inquirer; University of Pennsylvania Law School Supreme Court Clinic
Comments [0]
The law prohibits the sale of an interactive video game to anyone under 18 if the game was so violent it was "patently offensive," according to prevailing community standards and lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
In my personal opinion, parents needs to be informed about the games their kids like and buy. Parents are in a better and more socially-digestable position to risk infringing on minors' First Amendment rights than the government.
Are "prevailing community standards" the standards of the local geographical community, the legal climate of the municipality, or the gaming community?
Certainly that last one would be far more lenient than the others, and probably isn't meant as one of the optional communities referred to by the law's standard-setting clause.
I also think any attempt to show a game is devoid of serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value would be an uphill battle and, in many cases, disingenuous on its face.
Many of even the most violent games are developed by hoards of real artists and writers and often employ cutting-edge programming "science."
Previous First Amendment stories on joebeta.com:
Comments [0]
Rep. Elton Gallegly (R., Calif.) told the Law Blog he was planning to introduce a bill “before the end of the day that I think will be consistent with what the court was talking about.
Rep. Gallegly wrote the law, passed in 1999, that the SCOTUS shot down today on First Amendment grounds, which outlawed videotaping animal cruelty.
It's good news that he plans to tailor the new law to prevent the creepy, crazy, inhuman phenomenon known as "crush" videos--in which women stomp animals to death to excite those who indulge in the inhuman sexual fetish.
This is one of those instances in which my desire to become a lawyer one day prevents me from expressing my true ideas for the treatment of such freaks. Ask me offline.
Â
Comments [0]
We are gratified that the justices soundly rejected the government's invitation to create a new exception to the First Amendment. As today's ruling demonstrates, if the Court were to rewrite the First Amendment every time an unpopular or distasteful subject was at issue, we wouldn't have any free speech left. We continue to believe that animal cruelty is wrong and should be vigorously prosecuted, but as the Court today found, sending people to prison for making videos is not the answer.(download)
This was a First Amendment issue. The right to make and sell videos depicting animal cruelty versus the importance of discouraging that cruelty.This decision makes video depictions of animal cruelty like those banned by the 1999 law legal again, including "crush" videos--aimed at people with a sexual fetish for watching women stomp animals to death.
Justice Alito, Jr. had no company in his dissent. He wrote that "violent criminal conduct" is not protected by the First Amendment, even if "engaged in for expressive purposes."
The majority opinion by Chief Justice Roberts noted that the court's decision in this case does not indicate how it would rule regarding whether or not a law banning crush videos specifically may withstand First Amendment scrutiny.
Comments [0]
In Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates, P.A. v. Allstate Insurance Company (08-1008), the Court reverses and remands the lower court decision. The main opinion is by Justice Scalia, but not all parts of it are joined by a majority. Justice Stevens writes an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Ginsburg files a dissenting opinion joined by Justices Kennedy, Breyer, and Alito.
- Holding: The Court rules 5-4 that Federal Rule 23 controls when a class action lawsuit may be filed in federal court, so states do not have the authority to limit the right to sue.
We talked about this in class tonight.
Comments [0]
The Supreme Court just decided a case that deals with the scope of subject matter jurisdiction in copyright cases, and clarifies a notion that has been the subject of some uncertainty. The question the court decided was whether a federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a copyright case when a work at issue is not the subject of a copyright registration.
Evan Brown is a regular on one of my favorite podcasts, This Week in Law, which discusses the intersection of technology and law.
Follow him on Twitter.
Comments [0]
(download)
Most law professors discourage offering disclaimers about your self-doubt to maintain maximum credibility and confidence in front of your audience. I learned this stuff only in the last week, though, so here's the disclaimer: Hopefully I haven't displayed a severe misunderstanding of this material in front of whole world, but if I have, let me know in the comments. — Ed. note
Yesterday, the Supreme Court held that the "nerve center" test is the only test, that "the phrase 'principal place of business' refers to the place where the corporation’s high level officers direct, control, and coordinate the corporation’s activities." Slip op., p. 1.
Comments [0]
(download)
This is the full slip opinion, including concurrences and dissents. At 183 pages, it's no Sunday afternoon read. But it's the source of that awkward moment I mentioned previously, and has the potential to drastically alter future elections.
