Blawg Review 325.6

Print This Post

9 Responses

  1. Sharon says:

    Broken link report – "Brian Tannebaum linked here" is going to http://mylawlicense.blogspot.com/2013/10/blawg-review-3255.html and gives the text "Sorry, the page you were looking for in this blog does not exist.".

    (feel free to delete this post, I made it only to let you know of the link issue … I'm still reading the rest of the article. Fascinating information)

  2. Steven H. says:

    I'm guessing I'm going to sound rather like an idiot for asking this, but what is the First Amendment distinction between "private speech" and "public speech" that the one could be used as a grounds for firing someone and the other could not?

    Is it just that if you have to ask the NSA what he really said, it becomes okay to use as justification?

  3. Matt says:

    But complicated questions remain. For instance: is an entry on a Facebook account set to "private" public speech, or not?

    Maybe this is a "no duh" kind of question, but doesn't this perhaps indicate a need to at least re-look at whether technology is transparent vs transformative?

    I dunno. I mean, if the wrong person sees your Facebook post complaining about your boss at work, there's a definite parallel to say, the wrong person overhearing you do the same complaining in person. But… in some ways, our online presence can make it easier for the wrong person to see these things. (And given all that, if I in my private sector job get fired cuz I said something on Facebook about my boss, am I still just SOL because I don't work for the government, work in an at-will state, and am not in a protected class?)

  4. Marc J. Randazza says:

    I'm very sad to hear that Ed has passed on. I had many an enjoyable evening, rich with beer and funny stories, with him. One of the most fun things was making sure to never show his face in a photo. I have one somewhere, and I'll never release it.

    You can probably tell that I'm affected by his passing… I'm not even being irreverent. :(

  5. Anonsters says:

    and at Simple Justice Scott Greenfield examines how some elements of legal academia want to weaken Section 230 in an effort to address things like "revenge porn."

    Thank God no one listens to legal academics, then.

  6. Hmmm. We also have a censorship board (technically "The Office of Film & Literature Classification") and I'm not convinced that's a bad thing.

    The way it works is, if you've got some pr0n, and you'd kind of like to know whether it's legal or not before you start selling it, you send it to the board, and they'll tell you. In the US, if I understand correctly, all you can do is start selling it and wait and see whether you get prosecuted or not. Whatever happened to "No one may be required, at peril of life, liberty or property, to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes." ?

    (I'm not sure how to properly reference that quote, but I first came across it here.)

  1. November 4, 2013

    […] of you arrived here from Popehat (Blawg Review 325.6), a blog based in San Diego. In honor of Ed., please fly back to the west […]

  2. November 4, 2013

    […] Ken White at Popehat […]

  3. November 4, 2013

    […] so we can get a case called for pre-trial. But as Ken White of Popehat — author of Blawg Review #325.6 — […]