On BART last night, I saw the sign below. In these lean economic times, it's nice to know there are stable jobs in the fast paced world of ballroom dancing.

Warning: Filing of frivolous lawsuits should lead to court-imposed sanctions including multiple attorney's fee awards.

The nonprofit Cancer Project filed a lawsuit today on behalf of three New Jersey plaintiffs asking the Essex County superior court to compel [Oscar Meyer, Hebrew National, and Nathan's Famous] to place cancer-risk warning labels on hot dog packages sold in New Jersey.

The plaintiffs seek class action status on behalf of all New Jersey citizens who have eaten, or are likely to eat, hot dogs.  The theory is that by placing such labels on hot dogs, frankfurters, sausages and the like, consumers will be able to make an educated choice about the foods they eat, in full knowledge that the inevitable consequence of an all hot dog diet is colorectal cancer.

The Cancer Project is a branch of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.  Of course the people behind the suit know full well that their case has no chance of success.  The suit is a stunt, or as the plaintiffs might put it, an educational project.  That court rules, even in New Jersey, demand punishment for those who file lawsuits with no prayer of success is no deterrent.

And why would it be?  The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, despite its name, is not a health organization.  Rather, it is closely and strongly affiliated with People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, receives donations from PETA, and advocates for a vegan diet not out of a commitment to health, but because it believes animals, including hot dogs, should enjoy the same rights as humans.  In the words of former PCRM spokesman Jerry Vlasak, "'I don't think you'd have to kill – assassinate – too many [animal experimenters]. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, two million, 10 million non-human lives."  That may not be responsible medicine, but it's entirely consistent with the ideals of PETA.

Perhaps more than a Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, what America needs is a Lawyers Committee for Responsible Litigation, devoted to naming and shaming lawyers and the clients who use them to promote illegitimate social agendas or to extort money from defendants, using litigation as a substitute for politics.

Perhaps we could begin by placing warning labels on such people.

As I've mentioned before in other odd contexts, few internet complaints are more ubiquitous, more wrong-headed, and more personally annoying to me than the cry "OMG I got banned from a web forum, my free speech rights have been violated!!" As anyone with a junior-high-school education and a low-average intelligence knows, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution binds the government, not private parties. A private forum can kick your trolling ass off for any reason or none. It might violate a private contract with you by doing so. It might even conceivably violate federal or state law if it kicks you off because of your race or gender or some other suspect category. But you have no right to be free from private censorship on a private forum. Nor could you in any coherent system; booting your ass is an exercise of the private forum owner's free speech and free association rights.

Yet this simple concept continues to elude people. Meet Erik Estavillo of San Jose. Erik has filed, pro se, a federal lawsuit against Sony Computer Entertainment America, in which he asserts the following:

1. He is a graduate of UCLA. Hence he has more than a junior high school education, and, one would think, more than a low-average intelligence.

2. He suffers from various psychological and physical ailments, making online games a primary form of human interaction for him.

3. Sony violated his First Amendment rights by banning him from Playstation Network online games for his behavior while playing "Resistance: Fall of Man" on his PS3. He claims that game is a public forum. He complains that Sony is mean because Xbox only bans people for repeated violations and Nintendo doesn't ban at all.

4. Sony violated his rights by banning him from the Playstation Network because now he cannot use the credit he bought on that network.

Now, if Sony's Terms of Service did not spell out that a fellow can get banned for being an ass and therefore lose all the network credits and games one has bought, item #4 might state some sort of contract or consumer claim. I'm rather certain Sony's TOS spells that out, however.

But #3 is simply infuriating. The Playstation Network is not a public forum under the First Amendment. Estavillo has no First Amendment rights enforceable against Sony, and it's appalling that a UCLA graduate would think otherwise. It's likely that Sony will succeed in a motion to dismiss, or at least in a motion for summary judgment. In the meantime, though, Sony will probably incur (on the low end) tens of thousands of dollars responding to this frivolous suit.

Erik Estavillo, you are an ignorant asshat illiterate in American civics.

[n.b.: Estavillo styled his claim under the First Amendment. The analysis might be slightly different under California law, given the loathsome Pruneyard Doctrine..]

Looking for old service records?  At last, those British mustering rolls are online… for military service between 1369 and 1453.

It's time for the Road to Popehat, the feature in which we check out the traffic logs, look at what searches brought you here, and write our members of Congress to make sure the public option includes good mental health coverage. The following searches have brought wanderers to our shores in the last month:

eye gouging methods: Feel free to use any approach you like, so long as it is not government-subsidized.

why i want to be a model: Honey, if you don't know, Google ain't gonna tell you.

trauma bunny: That would be an awesome name for a comic strip character.

Van Nuys whores: Van Nuys is a working-class neighborhood in the San Fernando Valley. The person searching for whores in Van Nuys was using AOL search at 9:30 on a Tuesday morning. This is why our economy is in the toilet.

we are human looking for human rights in iran with out islamic molas: Twitter: instrumental to getting the revolutionary message out during the Iranian uprising of '09. The Google searchbar: somewhat less so.

peta 497 people came here searching for "peta". What the hell?

mad nude party: This person left bitterly disappointed.

erotic Also this person. Seriously, how many pages of search results for that query did they have to go through to get us?

condescending middle aged men Someday, as God is my witness, we will be the FIRST result for that.

There are some (I'm not among them) who'd argue that Google has become so omnipresent in the world of internet search that it ought to be regulated, like a public utility or some trust from the 1890s.  I use Google for my search needs because I find it, well, good enough, and better so far than the competition.  With a little effort I can find anything I like on Google, from kids' sites to reference to the vilest pornographic filth imaginable.

Consider Scott Greenfield, of Simple Justice. Scott seems to believe that Google, because it holds the power to block my access to information through its search portal, ought to be regulated in some fashion, either through litigation or bureaucracy (knowing Scott, I'll choose litigation), to prevent it from silencing those whose political views may cause offense to Google or its more sensitive customers:

While we pretend that the internet is huge, open, level playing field, the reality is that essentially none of us can access it, whether to add to it or take from it, without going through a private entity.  When those entities start messing with content, the only question is when will they take a hard look at yours.

The context in which Greenfield writes is the flagging as "inappropriate" of the Blogspot-hosted weblog known as "Just A Girl In Short Shorts Talking About Whatever." Blogspot, or Blogger, is a subsidiary of Google which allows beginning bloggers to get their feet wet, for free, before eventually moving on to the deeper end of the blogging pool: self-hosted WordPress or Moveable Type blogs, which require a little more technical work on the part of the writer than a Blogspot blog, and in return allow the author more freedom to "talk about whatever."  It is an unfortunate truth that one cannot "talk about whatever" on Blogger because readers are allowed to "flag" blogs as "inappropriate," for any reason or no reason.  I've done this myself, to spam blogs that try to flood our comments, but at Blogger I could do it just because I disagreed with the author's opinions, and if I do it enough, something bad might happen to that blog.

So far as I can tell, Just A Girl In Short Shorts was flagged, and now sits behind a "warning: you are attempting to read a site which has been identified by some users as objectionable" screen, not because it featured images of girls in short shorts or other revealing attire (it did), but because some ninnies out there disagreed with the author's words.  Her words and political opinions were saucier than the images, and that's just too much for some idiots to bear.  And that's a damned shame, because Google, through its subsidiary Blogger, now rests the site behind a wall that makes it appear to the reader that he is about to click on Japanese vomit-rape porn, rather than cheesecake and political commentary.

What's more of a shame is that Google allowed this to happen in the first place.  Despite its hippie-granola image and "Don't Be Evil" motto, Google is as evil, and profit-motivated, as any bank, insurance company, or coal-mining company.  I agree with Greenfield on that.

Where I disagree is with Greenfield's apparent notion that something must be done about the search-engine trust, apart from getting the word out that Google is not your friend, and that its Blogger service is a particularly shitty platform from which to host one's blog.  If we ran Popehat from Blogger, yes, any moron could flag our content as "inappropriate," whatever that means, and if enough of them did Blogger would shut the site down or place it behind a wall.

But we've chosen not to do that.  We're in control of the Popehat domain, and pay a company that hosts, among other things, genuine porn sites, for the comfort of knowing that if someone tries to "report" us for what we write, we can laugh at him.  (Try it.  There's a button below which will allow you to report this post.  If you do so, I'll know about it and laugh at you, because you're reporting it to me.)  There are hundreds or thousands of companies only too happy to take our money for the privilege of letting us write anything we want.

Google is of course perfectly free, but more importantly it should be free, to offer a blogging service which allows idiots and hammerheads to "takedown" sites whose content they find objectionable.  And as long as there are competitors, and there always will be as long as there's a buck to be made, I'm free not to use it.

So it falls to the author of a blog like Just A Girl In Short Shorts Talking About Whatever, if she truly wants to talk about whatever, to move on to another platform.  It falls to Google to remain a hypocritical money-making giant.  And it falls to Scott, to me, and to other bloggers out there to warn potential consumers of blogging platforms that if they choose to host with Blogger, they can be silenced at any time by idiots, with no recourse whatsoever.  And that there are alternatives to Google, as a blog host or as a search engine.

Caveat lector.

Update: Through other channels, Scott Greenfield advises that I should be careful about attributing a desire for regulation to him.  In fairness to Scott, he did not say that.  In fairness to me, Scott's post, veering off-topic to call out libertarians and the like, does not make that point at all clear.  His comments, particularly toward the end of the thread (and if you don't read the comments at a blog like Simple Justice, you're missing half the content and more than half of the fun) do make that point more clearly.

On Wednesday, the Senate votes on an amendment to the Military Funding Bill that will force States to recognize concealed-carry permits from other States. This means that Illinois and Wisconsin (the only States that do not issue concealed-carry permits) would be forced to accept them from Texas (where you are issued one at birth.) It would sweep under the Federal rug, multiple instances of States regulating who can and cannot have these permits. Some States refuse them to felons, some States require at least a minimum of training and some States pretty much merely require that you are breathing. None of that would matter with this amendment.

Put aside the obvious concerns that various States have about expanding the concealed-carry exemptions and look only at the Constitutional argument. In an Olympic level gymnastics move, the State's right crowd is (for this issue only) arguing that the "Jackbooted thugs" know best. Of course, we cannot trust the judgement of the individual States. Surely mother government knows best. What is wrong with the picture when Wayne LaPierre and John Thune are so anxious for Federal action. It demonstrates the utter hypocrisy of most of their arguments.

Imagine the outrage if Dianne Feinstein proposed an amendment that suggested that this reciprocity be recognized for gay marriage, or abortion? Of course, when it comes to those issues, only the States can truly decide.

It feels weird to be on the State's rights side of the argument for once, but here's hoping the Senate does the right thing and strikes this amendment. Of course, thanks to the Blue Dog Democrats I would not be surprised to see it pass.

It's pretty easy to understand why Philadelphia Police Officer Albert Lopez failed to appear in court, four times, for the case of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Agnes Lawless.  He'd have been charged with obstruction of justice or perjury when this video emerged as evidence:

Officer Lopez entered the store with his son and got into a physical confrontation with Lawless. Lawless ended up in cuffs, charged with assaulting Lopez.

At a preliminary hearing four days later, Officer Lopez testified that he'd come into the store and ordered Lawless and the three young men with her to the floor, and that "she freaked out, started punching, slapping and kicking me multiple times."

Lawless, who'd been involved in a minor fender bender with Lopez's son a few minutes earlier, was charged with assaulting an officer as a result of the altercation shown above.  She'd scraped the barrel of Lopez's revolver with the back of her neck.

As mentioned, it's easy to understand why Lopez failed to testify against her when video emerged. What's difficult to understand is why Lopez still has his job, as do the other Philadelphia cops who pressured the store clerk to erase the videotape.

Philadelphia is fast surpassing Los Angeles as the last city in America where a law-abiding citizen would want to encounter a cop.  If it was ever behind Los Angeles in the first place.

Wow, what a shock: Mark Sanford is talking more about his infidelity and about his resulting spiritual journey of self-discovery.

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, still clinging to office after admitting to an extramarital affair, wrote in an opinion piece released Sunday that God will change him so he can emerge from the scandal a more humble and effective leader.

"(W)hile none of us has the chance to attend our own funeral, in many ways I feel like I was at my own in the past weeks, and surprisingly I am thankful for the perspective it has afforded," Sanford wrote in the opinion piece widely published online Sunday by South Carolina newspapers.

I'm fine with Sanford thinking he needs to get right with God. I just wonder why, at this stage, with his family's wounds so raw, he feels the pressing need to share about it at every turn through mass media. (It's an ongoing habit discussed this top-notch Jon Stewart clip, which includes the deathless line "That's Episcopalian for shut the fuck up.")

Sanford's behavior reminds me of a line from a play, Shaw's Man and Superman (which I saw in England in the early 80s with Peter O'Toole, drunk off of his ass, effortlessly nailing the lead role):

My dear Tavy, your pious English habit of regarding the world as a moral gymnasium built expressly to strengthen your character in, occasionally leads you to think about your own confounded principles when you should be thinking about other people's necessities.

Mark Sanford, think of your family, and shut up.

Part the first: Mike Morgan was not a fan of Goldman Sachs. He started a web site called GoldmanSachs666, which was somewhat unflattering to the investment giant. Goldman Sachs' lawyers at Chadbourne & Park did what has, regrettably, become standard procedure for lawyers in these situations: they sent a threatening letter complaining of alleged trademark violation. (Because there are six or seven institutionalized people with occasional internet access who, in between their treatments, might get onto the internet and confuse GoldmanSachs666 with something by the actual Goldman Sachs.) But this time, the blogger getting the threatening letter did not back down — he sued for declaratory relief, and recently Goldman Sachs agreed to a settlement quite favorable to him. Hat tip: Mike at Crime & Federalism.

Part the Second: The FIRE reports on the defeat of another college speech code: the Alliance Defense Fund, headed by my law school classmate David French, convinces U.S. District Court judge George H. King to strike down the Los Angeles Community College District's vague and overbroad "offensive speech" ban. Continuing vigilance is warranted, though — if the District appeals, the Ninth Circuit has previously demonstrated a loathsome tolerance of viewpoint discrimination.

Part the Third: Box Turtle Bulletin, which devotes substantial coverage to same-sex marriage and related issues and is a strong voice in support of gay rights, offers a strong and principled argument against Canadian litigation seeking to force a church to accept an openly gay man as an alter server. The notion that most gays and lesbians seek to use the force of law to tell churches what to do remains propaganda.

Glad you didn't break that ankle. Here, lemme break that back:

A plucky Eagle Scout who probably should get his own episode on the Discovery Channel’s “Survivorman” instead has been hit with a $25,234 rescue bill – after he lasted three days in wintry conditions with an injured ankle on Mount Washington.

The law in New Hampshire provides that the state may bill for the cost of a rescue if the person rescued was negligent.  Scott Mason knew that he had twisted his ankle a bit, but he also knew he had good training.  He knew he was leaving the trail he had intended to take, but he also thought he was taking a shortcut.

It's not immediately obvious to me that a reasonable person would always turn back under these conditions, especially if the sprain seemed minor and the way forward seemed navigable.  But that's not how Maj. Tim Acerno sees it.  He oversees revenue enhancement law enforcement for Fish and Game, who have given Mason "30 days to cough up the cash":

Mason was negligent in continuing up the mountain with an injury and veering off the marked path, Acerno said. Negligence, he said, is based on judging what a reasonable person would do in the same situation.

"When I twist my ankle, I turn around and come down. He kept going up," Acerno said.

On that judgment hinges a $25k fine, due in a month from a kid who managed to save his own bacon after getting lost in the woods of New Hampshire.  It's not as if this Eagle Scout was a high-handed, fist-shaking loner setting out to survive on random roots and unrefined idealism.   He just got lost.

And why's the fee so high?

Mason’s rescue was particularly expensive because the helicopters the state typically used were unavailable, and a helicopter from Maine had to be brought in, Acerno said.

Clearly, it's Mason's fault that Acerno's pool of whirlybirds isn't big enough.  Maybe the $25,000.00 can serve as down payment on another one.

Well, Rebecca Ritzel at WaPo has an idea:

the problem with playing polo in Wales is that if you whack the ball once, it rolls straight down a mountain and into a hedgerow, never to be seen again. Except maybe by a sheep….

Here's the first thing you need to know about riding holidays in Wales: They are not, like polo, just for the rich and famous. Once you are in the United Kingdom, staying at a horse farm is an affordable way to get out and see the countryside.

A weekend of riding that includes meals and lodging == thirty dozen clams.  What better way to lament our economically downcast state than to pitch everything aside and ride wildly over the rolling green?

Allow me to be blunt: if we required our elected officials to read, understand, and be conversant with the bills they voted upon, Congress would not be able to enact more than a fraction of a percent of the legislation it currently considers, and the legislative branch as we know it would collapse. More later — soon, I hope — on whether that is a consummation devoutly to be wished.

Today I only have time to point to one glaring example, ably documented by Walter Olson at Overlawyered: a recent draft of the vast and fluctuating health care reform bill in the House included buried and unannounced terms that would result in a bonanza for lawyers and a surge in officious litigation. Specifically, the draft contained qui tam provisions (to nonlawyers, provisions letting private persons sue on behalf of the government without prior government approval) that would permit lawyers to sue anyone they claimed was responsible for Medicare incurring costs — from the guy who runs over grandma's foot in the parking lot (thus causing her to use Medicare to get treatment) to the companies that sold grandma gin, cigarettes, and fatty foods for the last half-century. Read Walter's post to get a sense of it; its scope can hardly be exaggerated.

Meanwhile, contemplate this: what does it say about our society that it is impossible — absent a revolutionary reboot — for our elected officials to read and understand the laws they vote upon?

I am doomed to take the six-year-old and the two-year-old to a birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese tomorrow, so believe me when I say that I know such events can be horrifying collections of the unquiet damned. Nevertheless, even the foul mouse's parties can usually be broken up by one or two cops, tops. In England, they needed a "riot van", four police cars, and a helicopter to break up a bloke's 30th birthday party. The cops claim that they were concerned because of how it had been promoted:

Yesterday, police insisted they were right to end the party. 'We were extremely concerned how the event had been advertised on the internet as an all-night party,' a spokesman said.

By which they apparently mean it had been promoted through the invitation function on Facebook. At the time the all-night rave was crashed by eight cops in body armor, it was four in the afternoon, fifteen people were there, and there was no music. Kind of sounds like the party sucked, really, so I guess no great loss.

Microsoft, which occasionally gets bored doing pure evil, has posted videos of a series of lectures that extraordinary scientist and teacher Richard Feynman gave 45 years ago. Watch them, and be amazed not just at his skill as a communicator, but at the admirably elevated level of what was once considered "accessible to the public" science, before the teevee became mostly about people eating bugs for money. pretty people peering fleetingly into fake microscopes, and Michael Bay blowing shit up.

You'll have to install a Microsoft program. It may turn you into a flabby uncool guy with glasses. Fortunately I'm immune.