It's time for the Road to Popehat, the feature in which we throw open Woopra's search logs, see what inquiries brought you here, and suddenly grasp why those "stranded Nigerian prince" emails are economically viable.

Today we'll be answering your questions. It's just a little service, from us to you.

can you be liable for downloading porn from Megaupload: There is one seriously nervous 14-year-old.

Why is it alright for Australians to insult Americans: Well, while it is true that convicted felons surrender many constitutional rights, they still retain certain rudimentary privileges.

is a police allow to record you on the phone: little known fact: due to overuse of allergy medication, that is verbatim how Justice Stewart defined the issue presented in Katz v. United States.

what breed of dog for shooting: Your local police department will tell you that any breed whatsover is suitable.

What the fuck is citizens united: The internet: alive with the spirit of inquiry.

could matt damon sue the makers of team america: No. No, because frankly though God loves me he doesn't love me THAT much.

what does the average small businessman look like: Tired. Very, very tired.

is it safe to go to St. Thomas law school: Sure. I mean, if there's a hostage situation, and they are besieged by a toddler with a sharp stick, they'll sacrifice you in a heartbeat, but otherwise, sure.

can cops legally tell u to shut up: No. But once you make "threatening moves" and "obstruct police offices" and appear to be holding a "dangerous weapon" they can generally get away with tasing or shooting you. So. Just so you know.

why fat people being offended? I'm just a little sensitive, ok? Is that so wrong? Wow. People on the internet have no fucking manners.

… of how we do the Popehat Signal:

http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7639/is-a-spotlight-like-the-bat-signal-possible

Step right up, ladies and gentlemen! Three for the price of one! Tales of censorious douchebags that will thrill and amaze you!

First up, we have Dr. Randeep Dhillon! Dr. Dhillon is suing Jay Leno. Is he suing Jay Leno for being a trite, phone-it-in placeholder? NO! There's no California cause of action for that! SAG would never allow it! No, Randeep Dhillon is suing Jay Leno for a lame joke about Mitt Romney suggesting that his vacation home was the Golden Temple of Amritsar, a holy site for Sikhs! Dr. Dhillon says that by making this joke, Leno "exposes plaintiff, other sikhs and their religion to hatred, contempt, ridicule and obloquy because it falsely portrays the holiest place in the Sikh religion as a vacation resort owned by a non-Sikh." He's backed up by an Indian foreign affairs minister who says "freedom does not mean hurting the sentiments of others."

Congrats, Dr. Dhillon! You win a date with California's robust anti-SLAPP statute! You're going to pay Jay Leno's attorney fees in this case, which I will estimate to be $50,000! And because some people will generalize about Sikhs based on the act of one asshole — you — you've just done more to expose Sikhs to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy than that threadbare hack Leno ever could! Way to go!

Next, ladies and gentlemen, we travel North, to Canada, and the Fredericton, New Brunswick Police Department! The Fredericton Police just staged a eight-officer raid of the apartment of Charles LeBlanc! Is Charles LeBlanc breaking bad with a meth lab? Does he have children in cages? Is he a gun-runner? No! He's a blogger, and he's being raided for criminal libel for criticizing the Fredericton Police! That's right! The Fredericton Police Department not only thinks it is appropriate to serve search warrants on bloggers who say mean things to them, they think that they should execute the search warrants themselves, even though they are the alleged victims of the criminal libel! That's the New Professionalism in action, ladies and gents! Stand and be amazed!

And finally, across the pond, to England! Sally Morgan, purported psychic, is suing the Daily Mail for saying her psychic abilities are bunk! Her suit faults the Daily Mail for running columns exposing the ways that purported psychics con their audiences! Hey Sally — surely you don't need to conduct discovery in this case — you know all the answers to your questions already!

It's not faked, ladies and gentlemen! Freakish, yes! Difficult to believe, yes! Astounding, yes! But all of it real! Step right up and see!

When you come right down to it, State Senator Ralph Shortey of Oklahoma is articulating the core value of politicians everywhere: this is America, dammit, and a complete lack of evidence or logic should be no barrier to passing legislation banning or regulating something.

In Senator Shortey's case, the thing in question is the grim prospect of corporations serving us human fetuses to eat as food, or in novelty items like ring-pops. Concluding that this is a real threat that Americans face, Shortey has introduced Oklahoma Senate Bill 1418:

No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients.
SECTION 2. This act shall become effective November 1, 2012.

Shortey delayed the bill's effective date until November because, though serving fetuses to unsuspecting consumers is a real and palpable threat, banning it isn't something you want to just rush into.

What caused Shortey to conclude that there was a need for a don't-serve-us-fetuses-you-big-bad-corporations law? He read it someplace. I'll give you one guess as to where.

Freshman Sen. Ralph Shortey said his own Internet research led him to believe such a ban is necessary and prompted him to offer the bill aimed at raising "public awareness" and giving an "ultimatum to companies" that might consider such a policy.

Shortey said he discovered suggestions online that some companies use embryonic stem cells to develop artificial flavors, but added that he is unaware of any Oklahoma companies doing such research.

America needs leaders like Shortey — leaders willing to scour the internet for any hints of threats from fetus-peddling corporations or possibly Lizard People. Who else is going to protect us? Our so-called regulators?

In an e-mail to The Associated Press, U.S. Food and Drug Administration spokeswoman Pat El-Hinnawy said: "FDA is not aware of this particular concern."

Of course the FDA is not aware of this concern. The FDA hasn't read nearly enough Geocities pages.

Some might see Senator Shortey's actions as bizarre, unbalanced, or indicative of poorly chosen priorities. I prefer to see them as noble. Why? Well, if Ralph Shortey is legislating against things that don't exist, he's not micromanaging real-world industries or regulating to help rent-seeking donors or passing stupid anti-bullying laws or otherwise interfering with the affairs of real humans that others can see and hear. Let's encourage more state legislators to be like Ralph Shortey. Let's tell them to spend more of their time legislating against the horrors of jenkem and bonsai kittens and the like. It keeps them busy.

Via Consumerist, courtesy of Amy Alkon.

"Liberty," said Learned Hand, "lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it."

Learned Hand was quite right — if people don't support basic legal norms like freedom of expression and due process of law, no legal systems will be sufficient to enforce those norms. They will wither. But how is the appetite for liberty born in our hearts? Some choose to believe that it is an inherent aspiration of humanity. I don't think that history, ancient or recent, supports that. Rather, I think that liberty is a cultural value, carefully cultivated by example and education. Good American citizenship is characterized by fidelity to shared taught values, and a willingness to support them and teach them to others.

Like any value, liberty can also be suppressed. People — especially young people — can be taught to scorn it.

Right now, the Shawano School District is Wisconsin is teaching students to scorn free expression. The Shawano School District, through its leaders, is teaching bad American citizenship.

Continue Reading »

Last week I offered some thoughts on the Megaupload indictment from my perspective as a federal criminal practitioner. I have a couple more — one legal, one practical.

Continue Reading »

A couple of weeks ago I described events at University College of London, where the Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society got in trouble with the Student Union because it posted a "Jesus and Mo" comic on its Facebook page.

That incident demonstrated that the "we have a protected right not to be offended" sentiment survives and even thrives.

It ain't over yet. The controversy has spread to the famous London School of Economics, where the local Atheist Secularist and Humanist Society posted the same "Jesus and Mo" comic on its Facebook page in solidarity with their UCL chapter, and received an even stronger response from the local Student's Union: a threat that they could be expelled from the Student Union unless they took it down. The LSE Student Union's statement on the matter is a master class in the mindset of censorious bureaucrats; indulge me and read it in full, with my emphasis:

On Monday 16th January it was brought to our attention via an official complaint by two students that the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society posted cartoons, published by the UCLU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society, depicting the Prophet Mohammed and Jesus "sitting in a pub having a pint" on their society Facebook page. Upon hearing this, the sabbaticals officers of the LSESU ensured all evidence was collected and an emergency meeting with a member of the Students' Union staff was called to discuss how to deal with the issue. During this time, we received over 40 separate official complaints from the student body, in addition to further information regarding more posts on the society Facebook page.

It was decided that the President and other committee members of the LSESU Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society would be called for an informal meeting to explain the situation, the complaints that had been made, and how the action of posting these cartoons was in breach of Students' Union policy on inclusion and the society's constitution. This meeting took place on Friday 20th January at 10.30am. The society agreed to certain actions coming out of the meeting and these were discussed amongst the sabbatical team. In this discussion it was felt that though these actions were positive they would not fully address the concerns of those who had submitted complaints. Therefore the SU will now be telling the society that they cannot continue these activities under the brand of the SU.

The LSE Students’ Union would like to reiterate that we strongly condemn and stand against any form of racism and discrimination on campus. The offensive nature of the content on the Facebook page is not in accordance with our values of tolerance, diversity, and respect for all students regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or religious affiliation. There is a special need in a Students' Union to balance freedom of speech and to ensure access to all aspects of the LSESU for all the ethnic and religious minority communities that make up the student body at the LSE.

All the tropes of the censorious bureaucrat are there: leaping into action to bring petty power to bear, inquisitorial demands about the reasons for speech, and a bold pronouncement that free expression must be "balanced" — the balancing to be done by petty bureaucrats — against open-ended, vague, and unprincipled anti-discrimination principles. All of this was a result of a cartoon, on an organization's own Facebook page.

There are two ways to approach this phenomenon in the university. One way is for student organizations to abandon student unions and their petty speech-policing martinets and go their own way at the cost of funding and facilities. Student union funding has often been used as a weapon to suppress disfavored speech and association, and American courts have sometimes supported that use — as when the Supreme Court recently ruled that public schools could use anti-discrimination principles to de-fund religious groups unless they allowed non-believers to take leadership positions. This is a hard path — that student union money and those student union facilities, meager though they may be, can be essential to getting an organization off of the ground.

The other approach is to speak out, forcefully, and call out the bureaucrats who use their petty power to suppress expression they don't like under the thin guise of anti-discrimination principles. The seeds of the student unions' destruction lies in their own hubris, their own words. Ask any student: do you really trust student union leaders to "balance" your right to speak against whatever they feel is important on any given day? Ask any student: what sort of puerile, sanitized campus will you have if the student union defunds any group that ever says anything that anyone could find objectionable? Ask any student: do you really think, for even a moment, that the student union will weigh speech in the balance even-handedly? The London School of Economics Student Union condemns and censors a satirical cartoon on a humanist site — but do you think that those same student union members will lift a censorious finger to condemn or discourage actual threats of violence by people who claim offense at such discourse?

The survival of core cultural values like robust freedom of expression depends upon you — and people like you — calling out and condemning the censors of the world. I'd like to see the specific LSE Student Union leaders who took this action named and shamed worldwide. What can you do to help?

Hat tip to Ophelia Benson.

Edit: Via the comments, two more posts about the incident: the LSE Student Union paper, and Legal Cheek.

Wow.  This will merit some further analysis, so I'll try and tear my self away from The Old Republic long enough to write something more substantial.  But the short narrative:  MidClassMitt had every advantage but attacked the expansion with the wrong unit mix (especially since AggiesFanWWJD unexpectedly dropped.  He gave TheGrinch the sad remnants of his stuff, but who gives a shit).   TheGrinch, already in full on "eff you" mode, countered him perfectly.

It's all econ, and MidClassMitt is still hands down the guy to beat, especially now we're out of the Early Game and into the Mid.  You can't win on early rush cheese anymore.  Now you actually need to play.  And MidClassMitt has by far the most cohesive strategy.  TheGrinch (the closest challenger at this point) has clearly been slapping his shit together with spit and wishes.  We'll see if he can pull it together; you can't just select all your units and attack-move them to some random expansion anymore.  But this game has suddenly become very interesting.

So, the feds — more specifically, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, assisted by attorneys from the Department of Justice — have secured an indictment of many individual and entity defendants associated with the site Megaupload. The indictment is all over the internet, including here.

A few comments from the perspective of someone who used to indict people for the feds for a living, and now defends people indicted by the feds for a living:

1. The notion that the feds scheduled this as a response to the SOPA/PIPA blackout day is highly unlikely. The grand jury returned the indictment weeks ago and the feds obtained an order sealing it until they arranged the arrests and searches. A multi-country takedown like this is a logistical nightmare involving hundreds of agents and dozens of court filings; it's not something that can be moved on a dime, and appearances aside, I'd rate it as very highly unlikely that it was timed as some sort of response to anti-SOPA protests.

2. Please, for God's sake, so the heads of federal criminal practitioners don't explode, remember that there is little relationship between the maximum sentence that the media (and the prosecutors) announce and the actual probable sentence. The two might coincide, but it's rare. Federal sentences are strongly influenced (but no longer strictly determined) by the arcane United States Sentencing Guidelines. To approximate the experience of calculating a recommended sentence under the Guidelines, attempt to complete a multinational corporation's tax return whilst guiding an overcaffinated min-maxing twelve-year-old through rolling up a Runequest character.

3. The charges are as follows:
a. Conspiracy to commit racketeering under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), commonly known as RICO.
b. Conspiracy under the generic federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, to commit criminal copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(d)(2).
c. Conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h).
d. Criminal copyright infringement in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 506(a)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2319(d)(2) and aiding and abetting the same under 18 U.S.C. § 2. These are charged in two separate counts to address the feds' two separate theories of how the defendants violated the relevant statutes.

4. All of those statutes have well-established elements — that is, the building blocks that the feds must prove beyond a reasonable doubt to establish the defendants' guilt. If there is interest I will go into the elements in depth. For now let me focus on one — the plain-vanilla federal conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371. Under the Ninth Circuit's model jury instruction (which I link because the Fourth Circuit, in its wisdom, has elected not to publish model jury instructions) describes the elements like this:

The defendant is charged in [Count _______ of] the indictment with conspiring to _______ in violation of Section _______ of Title ___ of the United States Code. In order for the defendant to be found guilty of that charge, the government must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

First, beginning on or about [date], and ending on or about [date], there was an agreement between two or more persons to commit at least one crime as charged in the indictment; [and]

Second, the defendant became a member of the conspiracy knowing of at least one of its objects and intending to help accomplish it [and;]

Third, one of the members of the conspiracy performed at least one overt act for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy, with all of you agreeing on a particular overt act that you find was committed.

I shall discuss with you briefly the law relating to each of these elements.

A conspiracy is a kind of criminal partnership—an agreement of two or more persons to commit one or more crimes. The crime of conspiracy is the agreement to do something unlawful; it does not matter whether the crime agreed upon was committed.

For a conspiracy to have existed, it is not necessary that the conspirators made a formal agreement or that they agreed on every detail of the conspiracy. It is not enough, however, that they simply met, discussed matters of common interest, acted in similar ways, or perhaps helped one another. You must find that there was a plan to commit at least one of the crimes alleged in the indictment as an object of the conspiracy with all of you agreeing as to the particular crime which the conspirators agreed to commit.

One becomes a member of a conspiracy by willfully participating in the unlawful plan with the intent to advance or further some object or purpose of the conspiracy, even though the person does not have full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. Furthermore, one who willfully joins an existing conspiracy is as responsible for it as the originators. On the other hand, one who has no knowledge of a conspiracy, but happens to act in a way which furthers some object or purpose of the conspiracy, does not thereby become a conspirator. Similarly, a person does not become a conspirator merely by associating with one or more persons who are conspirators, nor merely by knowing that a conspiracy exists.

An overt act does not itself have to be unlawful. A lawful act may be an element of a conspiracy if it was done for the purpose of carrying out the conspiracy. The government is not required to prove that the defendant personally did one of the overt acts.

So: as you can see, the federal conspiracy statute is very broad, requiring that the charged individual himself or herself do little more than join an unlawful agreement.

5. The "overt act" requirement is a favorite of the feds, and the cause of much mischief. Note that the Megaupload indictment is 72 pages long. Much of that is taken up by a recitation of "overt acts" in furtherance of the conspiracy. The feds traditionally use the overt act requirement as an excuse to frame their indictments as recitations of the evidence in support of their case, detailing what happened and what evidence they have in gratuitous detail. Note, for example, the multiple quotations of seemingly incriminating emails in this indictment, recited on the pretext that sending the email was an overt act. Why do this? Well, it makes for good press. It's an avenue for providing many factual details to reporters without running afoul of such modest limits on press communications as the courts and DoJ rules impose. Moreover, many courts will read the entire indictment to a jury at the start of the case — it's like a free extra opening statement. Some courts will even let jurors take the indictment into the jury room with them.

Some judges see through this and don't care for it. The late William Matthew Byrne once yelled at me for the better part of half an hour on this subject, upset that my office had listed overt acts in a drug conspiracy indictment. He was particularly annoyed because the drug conspiracy statute didn't even require an overt act showing at the time. He saw it as a transparent ploy to influence press and jurors, and believed that it violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), which calls for a "plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged," not the prosecutor's LiveJournal page. I viewed the experience as (1) an occasion for development of my moral character, and (2) an occasion for learning to stand there while a federal judge, red-faced, shouts at you whilst you nod and take it and think about pending in limine motions and the Heiligenstadt Testament and reverse cowgirl and the merits of dual-classing (your dwell-upon subjects during judicial tirades may vary).

6. The New Zealand extradition treaty looks fun; it will be interesting to see how it pays out.

More to follow next week.

…when joined by Wikipedia, reddit, Google, and countless other sites….

Courtesy of ProPublica.com

You might have noticed that Popehat blacked out yesterday to join the protest against SOPA/PIPA. (The technical aspect of that effort was all David's work; if I had tried it . . . well, suffice it to say all these posts might have been lost, like tears in rain, etc.) The widespread protest seemed to succeed at its aim of raising awareness and led to defections from the ranks of SOPA/PIPA supporters.

All of that seemingly effective advocacy raises a question: did its participants have a First Amendment right to protest that way?

For folks like us at Popehat — mere individuals, not corporations or partnerships (we're more like an unincorporated mystical brotherhood) — the answer is rather clearly yes. Few would dispute it.

But for entities like Google, or Mozilla, or the Wikimedia Foundation, the answer is apparently unsettled in the minds of some of you.

Some of the criticism began with the Citizens United case, which held that the McCain–Feingold Act violated the First Amendment to the extent it purported to prohibit a non-profit corporation from producing and airing a film attacking Hillary Clinton. Elements of the Occupy Wall Street campaign took up the cry, asserting that corporations are not people and only people, not corporations, have constitutional rights.

These sentiments seemed largely absent yesterday when various business entities — from non-profits like Wikimedia Foundation to for-profits like Google — expressed themselves in opposition to SOPA/PIPA.

So, to critics of Citizens United, I have a question: should those business entities have had a right to engage in SOPA/PIPA protests like they did? If so, what is the source of that right, and by what mechanism is it vindicated?

After all, not everyone was happy with the corporate participation in the protest. As I discussed on Tuesday, the MPAA broadly hinted that such expression is permitted only at the sufferance of government and its favored lobbyists:

It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

Note how the MPAA cloaks itself in populist anti-corporate rhetoric, hoping you are too intractably stupid to grasp that the MPAA is the ultimate corporate lobbyist asking Congress to pass sweeping legislation favoring it over the rights of citizens and other corporations. Note also the MPAA's use of the core idea underlying opposition to Citizens United: incitement, the concept that corporate speech is illegitimate and dangerous because it leads citizens into false consciousness so that they vote and act in ways we don't like.

But the MPAA is just an industry mouthpiece. Surely the media — which prizes freedom of expression above all else — will reject this narrative, right? Wrong — or, at least, wrong in some cases, as with the sad rag-peddlers at the Boston Herald:

Within hours of the online protest, political supporters of the bill — including the usually sensible Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) — began dropping like flies, thus proving how very powerful these cyber-bullies can be.

"Cyber-bullying" is, of course, one of those Humpty-Dumpty categorical terms that we use when we disagree with speech but can't articulate a principled basis for saying it lies outside the protection of the First Amendment.

So: many were happy with the SOPA/PIPA protests, but some weren't. Some of the unhappy people are powerful — like the MPAA and its gang of censorship apologists.

If you think that Citizens United was wrong — if you think that corporations shouldn't have First Amendment rights — then why, exactly, can't the government punish Wikimedia Foundation or Google or any other non-human entity for speech that offended its favored lobbyist and contributor, the MPAA?

(Note that I'm addressing people who say corporations have no First Amendment rights, not people who say campaign donation restrictions do not violate the First Amendment because money is not speech, which is an entirely different ranty post.)

So:

1. If corporations have no First Amendment rights, why can't federal or state or local governments single out, say, Wikimedia Foundation for its SOPA/PIPA blackout? Why can't they penalize or fine or even dissolve it? Why can't they single Wikimedia Foundation out for disproportionate enforcement of unrelated laws in retaliation for disfavored speech?

2. If your answer is "the political process — the voice of the people — will stop them from suppressing expression in this way," what is the historical basis in America for the assertion that the political process, standing alone, without judicial review based upon application of constitutional rights, is sufficient to stop governmental overreach? How's that working out for, say, the rights implicated by the War on Drugs, or the post-9/11 Security State? How well does the political process work to protect freedom of expression from government efforts to, say, ban mean pictures on the internet? The political process will protect corporations from governmental retaliation against disfavored expression? Are you shitting me?

3. If courts adopt your view — if the Supreme Court says "corporations have no First Amendment rights" — is it really your view that government restrictions on corporate speech will be imposed in a neutral and even-handed manner? Really? You think that corporate influence will be so driven from politics that, for instance, the MPAA and RIAA won't be able to induce the government to retaliate against the Wikimedia Foundations and Googles of the world? Again, on what historical precedent — on what logic — do you premise that belief?

4. You say that people, not corporations, have First Amendment rights. Fine. Tell me: as a person, how do you plan to exercise your freedom of speech if corporate venues for doing so may be restricted by the government? SOPA/PIPA is actually an excellent example of this. SOPA/PIPA did not merely attack accused pirates directly — it used ISPs as its minions. SOPA/PIPA threaten ISPs and major web sites — corporations — with dramatic consequences if they so much as link to sites that the government (or its preferred lobbyists) disfavor. So. If the government is allowed to use this method, what, exactly, protects us when the government decides to bully corporations into making us vanish from the internet? If the government says "you writers at Popehat have First Amendment rights; we can't punish you. But you, Google, you have no First Amendment rights; you have no right to list Popehat in search results. You, ISP, you have no First Amendment rights, you have no right to host sites like Popehat. You, Major Publisher, you have no First Amendment rights, you have no right to publish Popehat's exciting upcoming book, In Which Snark Substitutes For Grammar And Serious Analysis: The Taint-Snorting.

For that last, you might say, "they can't do that, because you have First Amendment rights, and those corporations are just the vehicles through which you are exercising those rights." To which I say: exactly. That's what entities are — vehicles through which people do things. Sometimes they are objectionable things, sometimes they are stupid things, soometimes they are things that, if accepted, would lead to deplorable results. But entities — corporations — are vehicles for human activity, including expression.

So. Advocates of the "corporations have no First Amendment rights" position: why can't the government punish the corporations that blacked out yesterday?

Popehat will be blacking out tomorrow, January 18, 2012, to protest SOPA and PIPA. Even though those measures appear to be on the ropes, vigorous resistance is essential.

If we had any doubt, the MPAA helped clear it up today with a press release that reveals it and its allies for what they are: rent-seeking thugs using their political influence to push through legislation beneficial to them and detrimental to everyone else.

In the MPAA's release, shill Chris Dodd comes out swinging:

Only days after the White House and chief sponsors of the legislation responded to the major concern expressed by opponents and then called for all parties to work cooperatively together, some technology business interests are resorting to stunts that punish their users or turn them into their corporate pawns, rather than coming to the table to find solutions to a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging.

Only the MPAA and a used-up ex-Senator like Dodd could imbue "technology business interests" with a mock-populist sneer whilst lobbying for one of the titans of American business interests. Note also the sneer at internet users, who are mere "pawns" of sites participating in the blackout. Also note the ambiguity of the last phrase, "a problem that all now seem to agree is very real and damaging." What problem is that? SOPA and PIPA's creation of dangerous avenues of censorship and MPAA-driven government control? Piracy? The MPAA's and RIAA's long-standing hostility to technological change?

It is an irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information and use their services.

As opposed to the actions of the MPAA and RIAAA, which propagandize to make fundamental changes to the way the internet works, increase government control of it, and rent-seek in order to protect their 1950s-era business model. That's perfectly responsible.

It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today. It’s a dangerous and troubling development when the platforms that serve as gateways to information intentionally skew the facts to incite their users in order to further their corporate interests.

Nice freedom you've got there, Reddit and BoingBoing and Wikipedia. Shame if something happened to it. Shame, shame if influential lobbyists from the MPAA and its allies had to start thinking more about how it might be restricted. [Note to people who decry Citizens United and despise the idea that corporations have free speech rights: I think Dodd and the MPAA agree with you in this instance.]

A so-called “blackout” is yet another gimmick, albeit a dangerous one, designed to punish elected and administration officials who are working diligently to protect American jobs from foreign criminals.

The "punishment," of course, comes in the form of lack of financial and electoral support, which the MPAA apparently views as inappropriate. It is "dangerous" to "punish" elected and appointed officials by organizing opposition to measures they support when you disagree with that message. That does not comport with the MPAA's view of what America is: a protected market. A feeding ground. The role of the citizenry is to pay for the MPAA's products through the venues the MPAA favors, and the role of the government is to protect the MPAA's market, using any means necessary.

It is our hope that the White House and the Congress will call on those who intend to stage this “blackout” to stop the hyperbole and PR stunts and engage in meaningful efforts to combat piracy.”

It is my hope that everyone involved will invite the MPAA to snort their taint. But that's probably too much to ask for.

The MPAA is crossing into Westboro Baptist Church territory: it has the Constitutional right to do what it's doing, but decent people everywhere should regard it with contempt and rise up against it.

I hoped that President Obama would live up to campaign promises to protect civil liberties in post-9/11 America. So far, he's been a grave disappointment on that subject.

But let's give his administration some credit on the occasions it is due. Kudos are due to the Department of Justice for taking the right position on the right of citizens to record police in public:

The Obama administration has told a federal judge that Baltimore police officers violated the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments by seizing a man's cell phone and deleting its contents. The deletions were allegedly in retaliation for the man's use of the phone to record the officers' arrest of his friend. According to the Maryland ACLU, this is the first time the Obama Justice Department has weighed in on whether the Constitution protects citizens' right to record the actions of police with their cell phones.

. . . .

"Although defendants have taken some remedial actions, these measures do not adequately ensure that violation will not recur," the Obama Administration said in a Tuesday court filing. While the city's new training materials acknowledge that it's legal to record the actions of the police, they "do not explicitly acknowledge that private citizens' right to record the police derives from the First Amendment, nor do they provide clear and effective guidance to officers about the important First Amendment principle involved."

As readers know, citizens' right to record cops without abuse is a major issue for us, and I submit that it is a canary-in-the-coal-mine issue on limits on police power. Good for the Obama DoJ on this one issue.

Thanks to tipster Andrea on the link.

Edit: In the course of shaking his palsied fist and yelling at me to get off of his lawn, Scott Greenfield points out that he already wrote about this, as did Radley Balko. Perhaps. But Andrea was the one who used a shiny object to attract my attention at the price moment when I needed something to post about. So there.

Back in December I wrote about Rhys Morgan, the 17-year-old British skeptic-blogger who stood up to legal threats from the transcendentally nutty fake lawyer Marc Stephens. As I said then, the internet needs more people — whether 17 or 70 — like Rhys, who are willing to stand up against such censorious intimidation tactics.

But standing up is sometimes easier said than done. Legal threats — like physical threats — can have real-world consequences. Rhys is learning that this week, as online threats and complaints have led him to censor his Facebook page upon pain of suspension or expulsion from his school.

Rhys is in what we in America would call high school. In the U.K. I believe they call it Secondary School or Twentieth Form or the loo or lorry or Toad in the Hole or Spotted Dick or something. Recently Rhys saw fit to comment upon something that I discussed here — a controversy at University College of London regarding a cartoon of Mohammed and Jesus, which became embroiled in a discussion of the imagined right not to be offended. Rhys — both as a skeptic and as a supporter of free expression — changed his Facebook profile picture to the cartoon in solidarity with the UCL skeptics.

Then all hell broke loose. Rhys was deluged with demands to take the picture down, insults, and threats. His school got involved, and threatened him with expulsion or suspension — apparently upon the theory that his actions his expression may have brought the dispute into the school, and because his posting causes offense to some classmates. Rhys' critics are employing the classic categorical dodge I've written about, saying that his actions have "nothing to do with freedom of expression" — because, see, if we say it's offensive, if we say it's "hate speech," then it no longer belongs in the free speech box.

Rhys is experiencing harassment and suppression in the U.K., but his situation reflects a universal problem, and one that is at the cutting edge of First Amendment litigation in the United States. The extent to which American public schools can punish students for out-of-school speech — especially speech on the internet — is in flux. First, student free speech rights in general seem to be on the wane, declining from a high-water mark with Tinker as the Supreme Court has given school administrators more discretion to determine what speech is "disruptive" and to police "inappropriate" speech at school-related events. The Supreme Court has not yet applied this line of cases to student expression on social media or other internet venues; just today, in a move that may or may not be significant, the Court declined to review a number of Circuit cases involving off-campus internet speech, leaving the area in doubt.

Though it takes place in another country under notably different legal standards, Rhys' situation perfectly illustrates the dangers of giving schools an unrestricted and unprincipled license to police students' online speech based on their "disruptive" or "offensive" qualities. A compliant school gives Rhys' critics a perfect heckler's veto: merely by attacking, harassing, and threatening him online, even anonymously, they can convince the school that his expression is "disruptive," and therefore make his school feel justified in demanding that he change his Facebook profile to satisfy his censors. Similarly, an utterly subjective and unprincipled notion of "offense" — one that focuses on the feelings of people who voluntarily visit Rhys' Facebook page, and not on the question of whether Rhys is doing anything to interfere with students' day-to-day activities at school — allows anyone who disagrees with Rhys to demand that the school censor him by making the irrefutable claim "this offends me." Under this arrangement, students can only write online under the sufferance of their most censorious critics.

Yet as I suggested before, Rhys Morgan is precisely the sort of student that should thrill schools: engaged in important adult issues, curious, expressive, self-motivated, and involved in larger communities of ideas. Don't we want 17-year-olds thinking and writing about subjects that involve controversy? Don't we want them to engage the big ideas that historically have caused division? Or do we want them to proceed ploddingly from one standardized test to the next, concerned only with dining on the reheated and prefabricated meals that schools put before them, never dabbling in anything that might offend or cause controversy or headlines? Of course, young people who explore and learn and engage and write on their own are independent in ways that might not please people whose power depends upon them acting like junior stenographers. Could there be something about Rhys Morgan — something more than posting a cartoon depicting Mohammed — that threatens and offends modern "education professionals" even more than it angers and offends interest groups? Could part of the conflict between free speech and "disruption" be not so much about harmony on campus, but about "professionals" seeking control over the ways that students think, interact, and learn?

. . . and damn, are they ever right.

I mean, if you get involved with marijuana, and the cops catch you with a small amount, they may bully you into cooperating with one of their drug investigations — which can get you killed.

Or, if you use marijuana, and have a small amount of marijuana in your home, you may get shot to death by police during a raid. In fact, marijuana is so dangerous that police may shoot you when they raid your home if they just think you may have it. And it goes without saying that marijuana is dangerous to your dog, who may get shot during a raid.

And I need not remind you that if you have preexisting health condition, marijuana can kill you. For instance, if you are a paraplegic who requires adequate medical care to live, if you get caught with marijuana a sociopathically indifferent judge may condemn you to death by sending you to a jail that cannot care for you.

But that's not all. Marijuana encourages lawlessness — by encouraging law enforcement to disregard laws. It turns parents against children — through state-run programs encouraging children to inform on their parents. In fact, marijuana is so dangerous that merely speaking of it in less than condemning tones can lead to you losing your job . . . with the government.

If you were a hand-wringing soft-on-crime looney liberal, a damned dirty hippie, you might say that the thread running through all of this is that the War on Drugs is dangerous, not marijuana. If you were a wild-eyed Paulbot glibertarian, you might conclude the common thread is that government is dangerous.

But of course good Americans have listened to Nancy Reagan, listened to the nice DARE officers, listened to the decades of public officials exhorting us to win the War on Drugs, and they know the truth: it's marijuana that's dangerous.

Hat tip: Jacob Sullum.