Via Eugene Volokh, I see that United States District Judge George Wu has dismissed the case against Lori Drew, the loathsome woman who drove troubled 16-year-old Megan Meier to suicide through a wantonly cruel MySpace Prank.

As I wrote before, the government’s case theory was disturbing: it asserted that Drew had committed a federal crime — computer fraud in violation of 18 USC 1030 — when she violated MySpace’s Terms of Service by creating a false identity there. That apparently finally moved Judge Wu as well:

Wu said he was concerned that if Drew was found guilty of violating the terms of service in using MySpace, anyone who violated the terms could be convicted of a crime.

. . .

“Is a misdemeanor committed by the conduct which is done every single day by millions and millions of people?” Wu asked. “If these people do read [the terms of service] and still say they’re 40 when they are 45, is that a misdemeanor?”

Exactly. If violating any TOS on any web site is a federal crime, then a vast swath of innocuous online behavior becomes criminal. Of course the government isn’t going to prosecute everyone. Rather, the government is going to use the theory as a method of going after people they don’t like — notorious or unpopular people whose conduct does not actually violate any legal provision related to their actual conduct.

Huge props to the defense team (including Orin Kerr). This is a rebuke of the cynical overreaching by the L.A. U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Some vile conduct can’t be criminalized in a free society. Hopefully Lori Drew will suffer a social penalty — being a despised pariah, shunned for the rest of her days.

Former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Some Small Asteroid in the Vicinity of Saturn) remains imprisoned in Israel, after allegedly violating the country’s territorial waters by piloting the ship “Spirit of Humanity” to the shores of Gaza.

An international incident is not expected.

McKinney, a fierce critic of Israel, and Jews, achieved fame when, following a primary election defeat by a fellow black Democrat, her father blamed the loss on, as he put it, “J-E-W-S”.

McKinney also achieved fame when she proved that the September 11, 2001 attacks were “allowed” to happen to promote financial ties between President George H. W. Bush and Osama bin Laden.

McKinney likewise achieved fame when she introduced legislation to open the government’s secret files on the assassination of Tupac Shakur. Who probably wasn’t killed by Biggie Smalls at all, but by J-E-W-S.

McKinney otherwise achieved fame when she allegedly struck a Capitol Hill police officer who failed to recognize her at a metal detector.  There is no indication that J-E-W-S were involved in this incident.

While McKinney’s outspokenness and frank opinions have made her a lightning rod for controversy, including charges of anti-semitism, there can be no doubt that, this time, the J-E-W-S are at the root of Cynthia McKinney’s troubles.

They really do run everything.

I confess to a certain affection for BureauCrash, though I don’t read it often.

For the uninitiated, BureauCrash is a right libertarian multiauthor blog and discussion forum devoted to ending business regulation as we know it and elimination of income taxes, with a bit of Ayn Rand objectivism, Ludwig Von Mises goldbuggery, and probably casual marijuana use thrown in.  The audience at BureauCrash is in some ways as close to anarchism as to libertarianism.

Or they were.

In actuality, BureauCrash some time ago was acquired by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank which certainly advocates vigorously for free enterprise, but in other respects is about as unconventional as the Rotary Club.  Think Main Street Republicans.  Think Zell Miller Democrats, assuming any of those are left.  As foundations go, CEI is probably as close to the Brookings Institution as it is to the Cato Institute.

Last month CEI showed  its hand.  In a “hope you like our new direction” move, CEI has installed an administrator who announced his intent to moved the content in a decidedly less individualistic direction, along with adding links, since removed, to such libertarian stalwarts as Rush “warrantless wiretapping is good for America” Limbaugh, and Michelle Malkin, who thinks concentration camps are essential to ordered liberty.

And in the BureauCrash chatroom, the new “Crasher in Chief” dropped CEI science on the longhaired hippie kids thus:

The fact that the government violates its own laws doesn’t change the fact that it is my government

You should accept that might makes right…and that is why we have a government

Since America has the most powerful military we are in control

The government is there to protect life liberty and property

Did I like McCain….no. Did I vote for him over Obama yes.

None of which went over too well with a member base that worries, in its heart of hearts, that Dr. Ron Paul is a secret stooge because he voluntarily complied with licensing requirements of the Texas Medical Board.

Despite, or perhaps because of, the “Crasher In Chief’s” stated desire to expand the site’s userbase by thousands upon thousands of good-thinking, like-minded Republicans like Joe the Plumber, participation seems to have declined precipitously, even as America soaks in the dregs of a million tax-protesting tea parties.  The hard libertarians, minarchists, and anarchists are moving to  blacker pastures.

All of which brings to mind a couple of questions: What did these kids see in a state-controlled Competitive Enterprise Institute-run social networking site in the first place, and why did the CEI want to add them to its holdings?

Via Kalim Kassam through Twitter.

We often have caption this contests. Well, in the same vein, I throw the following story out to the Popehat masses for your skills in coming up with a title. Do your worst!

Police: Conn. teens mishear sex screams, beat man

Newspapers are dying a slow, painful death, at least in their present form. Fortunately they have the chance for what we all aspire to: death with dignity, death on their own terms, death without desperate, pathetic bargaining with God.

Will they take that opportunity?

Oh, of COURSE not. Via Politico:

For $25,000 to $250,000, The Washington Post is offering lobbyists and association executives off-the-record, nonconfrontational access to “those powerful few” — Obama administration officials, members of Congress, and the paper’s own reporters and editors.

The astonishing offer is detailed in a flier circulated Wednesday to a health care lobbyist, who provided it to a reporter because the lobbyist said he feels it’s a conflict for the paper to charge for access to, as the flier says, its “health care reporting and editorial staff.”

Yep, you read that right. The Washington Post is selling its access to Obama Administration officials — facilitated by its journalists — to the lobbying community. The come-on is as whorish as anything ever uttered from a street corner through an open car window:

“Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of [Washington Post CEO and Publisher] Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less.”

Oooh, hotttttt. But wear a rubber. These folks ain’t clean.

Edited to add: Politico has edited its article to add the Washington Post’s response, which is, in so many words, that the flier was sent by their business division without the knowledge of the news division and without being vetted. I have two responses: (1) I find it very difficult to believe that the business division would commit specific personnel to participation in an event without getting some level of buy-in from the participants, especially with so much money on the line, and (2) even if it was only the business division’s idea, the business division is part of the enterprise and makes major decisions impacting the state of journalism at the Post all the time, and this incident speaks volumes.

Edited again: the Twitter feed at #WaPoDeals is quickly becoming pants-wetting hilarious.

Another edit: The WaPo editorial response.

How many reports of “ghost sightings” can be explained by the effects of infrasound, as opposed to craziness or fancy?

Further investigation led him to discover that the extraction fan was emitting a frequency of 18.98 Hz, very close to the resonant frequency of the eye… This was why he saw a ghostly figure — it was an optical illusion caused by his eyeballs resonating. The room was exactly half a wavelength in length, and the desk was in the centre, thus causing a standing wave which was detected by the foil.

It would be interesting to compare typical accounts of “ghost experiences” both before and after the widespread use of machinery likely to generate infrasound waves, to see if there was any trend towards describing symptoms similar to those caused by infrasound.

Of course, I’m discounting the possibility of real ghosts. It’s preferable to the alternative. Math suggests that the development of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is possible, or even probable. But I’d prefer not to accept the proposition that such intelligent life enjoys molesting our cows and going proctological on Billy-Jo-Bob. Similarly, to the extent I believe in an afterlife, I prefer not to contemplate that it entails moping about dank laboratories irritating obscure scientists. That’s just depressing.

The Associated Press reports that former Toole County Montana Judge Ronald McPhillips made an unexpected comeback this week to issue a surprise ruling in the case of Ayers v. Rubow, a mineral rights suit concerning natural gas royalties.

Judge McPhillips last ruled on the suit in March 1985, holding after a bench trial that he would take the case file to his home for study before issuing a decision.

Unfortunately, following his 1985 decision to take the file home Judge McPhillips developed what a witness described to the Great Falls Tribune as “a malignant tumor the size of a football on his hip,” prompting his first retirement.  Judge McPhillips ultimately recovered, and yesterday issued his long-awaited decision, holding that the plaintiff had not proven his case, and should recover nothing from the defendant.

Records are sketchy as to what had happened over the intervening 24 years in the case, but a source within the court speculated, “I think he [Judge McPhillips] found it [the case file] in an old briefcase he had at home.”  Upon locating the file, guidance was sought from the Montana Supreme Court, which suggested that if Judge McPhillips still remembered the case, he could make a ruling.  As it turned out, the Judge had taken what he described as “extensive notes,” and was able to issue a decision.

William Conklin, the attorney for Ayers, expressed his disappointment in the ruling and his confidence that Ayers would prevail on appeal, adding that he “remembered part of the case” and was sure that evidence had been presented, and possibly arguments.  The attorney for the victorious defendant Rubow had no comment, as it is uncertain whether he or she is alive.

Under the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ayers will have thirty days from entry of judgment in which to appeal Judge McPhillips’ order dismissing his case.

Source: Associated Press, Great Falls Tribune.

Some people save lives. Some people succor the weak. Some people defend the downtrodden. All of these people bring goodness and light into the world.

And then there’s the people who bring happiness into the world by being entertaining, by which I mean “a big sack of crazy.” Here I’m thinking of our old pal and frequent blogging subject Jack Thompson.

Thompson, as our readers (and gamers, and people fond of Fox News) know, is a disbarred lawyer who has spent the last ten years freaking out at judges over video games. Prior to video games, he spent a career freaking out about rap music and hating Janet Reno for the wrong reasons.

What’s new with Jacko, you ask? Well, there are still people who are freaked out about video games, and still people who like watching train wrecks. So Jack still gets invites to speak and columns and such. And recently he agreed to appear at a gaming convention in Texas and debate a gamer/lawyer named Mark Menthenitis. And then came more crazy.

* he objected to a one- or two-line introduction (”I have never been introduced with 1 or 2 sentences. Nobody can be introduced in that fashion…”)
* he objected to a user-created parody video posted (and since removed) on the [gaming convention] site; Thompson may have believed the video, “Questions Not to Ask Jack Thompson” at SGC,” was official [gaming convention] content

So now maybe it’s on again. Or maybe not. Right now apparently he’s pissed about another post about him. And it’s not clear if anyone can agree on an appropriate number of sentences to introduce what Jack Thompson is all about, or if the parties can agree upon an introduction that is accurate without using terms that Jack won’t like (”Thorazine” “vexatious” “otherworldly”). There’s certainly no way that any group of gamers is going to refrain from making fun of him. So it may remain uncertain, right up to the moment of the debate, right up to the moment of any future debates, whether or not Jack will be there. Jack Thompson is the Schrodinger’s Cat of crazy — you can tell where he is, or what he’ll be doing, but never both at once.

While China may have the world’s second fastest growing economy, we’re still not fans of Chinese building code enforcement.

For more on how a thirteen story apartment building turned into a one story disaster, click.

They may look weird, but they can dance:

The weirdo who doesn’t dance is playing a shamisen.

Let’s be clear — the right to free speech is the right to express oneself without state retaliation. It is not a right to speak without social retaliation. Speech has consequences. Among those consequences are condemnation, vituperation, scorn, ridicule, and pariah status. Those consequences represent other people exercising their free speech rights. That’s a feature of the marketplace of ideas, not a bug.

Yet too many people seem to think that free speech includes not only a right to be free of consequences imposed by the state, but a right to be free of consequences imposed by other people. Therefore they attempt to portray criticism as a violation of their rights. This, of course, finds no support in the law, and is patently unsustainable as a philosophy besides — it nonsensically elevates the rights of the first person to talk over the rights of the second person to talk.

This noxious concept is now sufficiently widespread to warrant its own tag here: Speech is Tyranny! Often the argument involves portraying speech as violence, as when thin-skinned speakers complain that criticism of their speech is “terrorism” or “abuse”, or claim that it is “chilling,” thus misappropriating a term used to describe the effect of government restrictions on speech.   To that extent the argument  is related to, but not identical to, the European/Canadian/UN concept that “hate speech” is a violation of the rights of others.  Examples of this noxious trend:

• California Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, who thinks that it is a “terrorist threat” for conservative commentators to tell Republican legislators that they will be voted out of office if they vote for new taxes.
• Canadian Censor-In-Chief Jennifer Lynch, who thinks that free speech advocates are guilty of “reverse chill” when they criticize government censorship.
• Clint Eastwood, who thinks he ought to have a right to tell ethnic jokes without having to fear someone might call him a racist.
• The endless parade of morons who think that companies are violating entertainers’ free speech rights if the companies cease paying the entertainers to promote products after the entertainers say something obnoxious (In the linked examples, David Letterman being dumped by Olive Garden for being a dick to Sarah Palin’s daughter, and Whopi Goldbreg criticizing George Bush and losing SlimFast).
• The parade of idiots from both sides of the spectrum who decry boycotts as violating the free speech rights of the boycotted (see, e.g., “this boycott violates the Dixie Chicks’ right to free speech!!”).
• Rick Moran of RightWingNutHouse, a representative instance of the view that calling somebody or something racist breaks the marketplace of ideas because it goes “beyond critiquing the work and enter[s] the world of pure politics.”
• Prop 8 supporters who conflate actual violence and vandalism with harsh criticism by calling it all “intimidation.”
• Michael Savage, who thinks that people criticizing him and displaying clips of his show for comment are violating his free speech rights.

Now, some marketplace responses — some criticism and consequences for speech — display a fundamental intolerance for dissenting views.  Some marketplace responses are premised on ignorance or prejudice.  The proper way to deal with that is with more speech, trying to win more in the marketplace over to your view.  If I criticize President Obama or Governor Palin, and twenty blogs link to me calling me a fascist idiot who should be bombed with nasty comments and shunned from decent society, it’s completely reasonable for me to respond by saying that fans of Obama/Palin are thin skinned weenies whose dramatic overreaction to critique demonstrates the bankruptcy of their ideas.  But if I respond by crying that my free speech rights have been violated by the response, I’m being an ass and willfully promoting ignorance of the fundamental nature of freedom of expression, perhaps our most important democratic value.  Someone ought to call me out on that.  Nobody promised the marketplace of ideas would be a fragrant rose garden.  Suck it up, or shut up.

The Coyote of Coyoteblog is on a trip to London, and as a result has documented some of the ubiquitous CCTV cameras that form just one part of England’s increasingly unnerving security fetish. Maybe we can persuade him to snap some shots of their fun turn-in-your-neighbors anti-terrorism posters as well.

Today marks the tenth anniversary of Walter Olson’s launch of Overlawyered, which is one of the oldest existing weblogs, and probably the oldest weblog devoted exclusively to law and lawyers.  The site still operates much to the chagrin of some lawyers and much to the edification and amusement of others.  While portrayed by opponents as a “lawyer joke” site (untrue), or a “lawyer-bashing” site (arguably more true), Overlawyered also serves as a warning of the danger of litigation run amuck, and a “Don’t get too big for your britches” message to a profession that combines power and self-importance in equal measure.

Mr. Olson has been very generous to this small site, for which we thank him.  If you’ve never had a blog of your own, believe me the feat of keeping a non-commercial site of high quality running, mostly as a one man show, for ten years is an impressive one.

Here’s to ten more years for Overlawyered.  And may your name never be featured there.

Since the 1940s, it has been fashionable among right-thinking, scientifically inclined people of the left to point out a certain unseemly fascination among folks on the extreme right with fluoridation of the water supply.

As sensible people know, fluoride is certainly a dangerous chemical, but on the scale it’s used in municipal water it’s a positive health benefit, allowing Americans to enjoy nice smiles into ripe old age while our cousins in the Old World spit their rotted teeth into the denture glass.  The joke reached its height with Stanley Kubrick’s Dr. Strangelove, in which the anticommunist General Jack D. Ripper attempted to destroy the world in order to save it from fluoride.

As it turns out General Ripper didn’t commit suicide at all.  He’s alive and well, and working for the California Office of Environmental Health.

The CIC voted on May 29 to prioritize 38 more chemicals for possible listing as carcinogens.  Nine were designated as high priority, and these include fluoride (yep, the stuff the dentists use, Crest puts in its toothpaste and many water districts add to the water)…

After sixty years, the dream of rightwing fluoride nuts has been realized, and to think it’s going to be done by the public health ministry in Sacramento.  Henceforth products containing fluoride, including toothpaste, will have to be labeled a carcinogenic health hazard.  While there’s no evidence that Californians will suffer less cancer as a result, human nature being what it is, we can predict they’ll suffer a lot more cavities.

Open wide and smile, California.

We’ve written harshly about the British nanny state in the past.  Perhaps too harshly, in retrospect.

Based on recent news, what the British people need is a national nanny, someone who’ll prevent them from hurting themselves.

Talk of swine flu parties has emerged on Internet forums. The idea is that exposing a child to the H1N1 virus while it remains relatively mild will give the child immunity if the virus returns in a more virulent form later on.

So if little Ian comes down with the swine flu, little Graeme and little Neville are invited to Ian’s house, where they can share blankets and postnasal drip in the hope that, like a milkmaid suffering cowpox in the 19th century, they’ll be immune to the “smallpox” strain of swine flu that’s sure to come.  Some day.

Of course, given enough time it’s a certainty that the H1N1 virus will mutate not just into a “superflu,” but a technologically advanced galactic empire of flu, ruling the pitiful descendants of British humanity from the orbital flu satellites.

In the meantime, here and now on the planet earth, the swine flu has killed hundreds of people already.  And the British government, understandably, is warning parents that it’s a bad idea for parents to expose their children to influenza.

Will British parents heed this advice?  That’s an interesting question.  As others have pointed out, in America our lawyer-driven “nanny culture” is responsible for all sorts of ridiculous warning labels, to the point where a case can be made that consumers are less likely to take real warnings about threats that matter seriously.  We may suffer from “warning fatigue.”

In Britain on the other hand, the important job of protecting everyone from everything is not the work of lawyers, but the government and its employees, who seek to save the British people from pointed knives, Wi-fi in public, and in fact virtually everything except the government itself. And while we don’t endorse exposing children to the flu, we have strong concerns about a government that seems to think it’s the State’s business to keep children from scraping their knees.

Eventually, Britain’s “everything not compulsory is forbidden” ethos will catch up to it.  Can a people who live from cradle to grave in the warm arms of a government nanny look after themselves?  After years of Chicken Little, will the minority who consider it their personal responsibility to take care of themselves give up when the sky actually falls?

And probably moments before the attack of the Galactic Flu Empire.