law

“Experts are divided”   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged journalism law on by

A Washington Post article header has drawn outrage on Bluesky. Here it is:

How Trump is blasting through norms and testing limits of his power
 
Experts say President Donald Trump’s actions have pushed the country into fraught territory. They are divided on whether he has breached constitutional guardrails.

That implies that a significant number of experts think Trump hasn’t “breached constitutional guardrails.” Who are these experts? The one person they cite is Steven Calabresi, a law professor at Northwestern University and co-chair of the Federalist Society. The article says:

He praised Trump’s embrace of a concept called the “unitary executive theory,” which posits that the president has supreme power over the executive branch, including the ability to remove officials.
 

In particular, Calabresi said, he was pleased with Trump’s moves to dismiss members of the Federal Trade Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.

(more…)

Trump goes after voters 1   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary News and tagged law liberty on by

Donald Trump’s latest decree takes his power-grabbing to a new level. He has commanded the states to alter their laws to require proof of citizenship for voting. He has no legal authority at all to do this. The Constitution lets the states run elections; Congress has a limited ability to set requirements, and the president has no authority without an act of Congress. He is relying on intimidation of state officials and federal judges to get his way. Claiming the personal authority to decide who can vote is the action of a dictator or would-be dictator.
(more…)

Equating harassment with protest, and denying due process   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged education journalism law on by

The situation with harassment of Jewish students and the Trump administration’s actions is a mess where serious wrongs turn up on all sides. It’s vital, and difficult, to evaluate actions on principles rather than on tribal criteria. On the one hand, there is harassment and intimidation that hides under the innocent name of “protest.” On the other, there’s the improper invocation of laws and denial of due process against people accused of doing that.

Governmental overreach is the bigger concern, especially when the current executive branch is aggressively expanding its power. At the same time, intimidation on campus is a serious concern, and downplaying it as mere “protest” only gives the administration’s actions a facade of credibility. An example is a Washington Post article with the headline “New Trump demand to colleges: Name protesters — and their nationalities.”
(more…)

Anatomy of Trump’s SSA data grab

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged law liberty technology on by

In my previous post, I talked about inconsistencies in the reporting about what DOGE is doing and can do. I wrote the article on March 9 and had it appear publicly early on March 10, following my usual practice. About the time it appeared, I came upon a Washington Post article that linked to a detailed court filing that helps to clarify things. It’s a terrifying story, so here’s another post on the same day.
(more…)

Unraveling DOGE reporting

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged journalism law liberty on by

A lot of what’s allegedly happening with DOGE doesn’t make sense. Some things just can’t be happening as reported; others need explanations that no one is giving. The news media are doing their usual bad job of delivering facts.

To start with, what is DOGE? The “Department of Governmental Efficiency” isn’t a department of the government, in spite of its name. Officially, it’s a “special commission” created by the president. It has no power over anybody beyond its own employees. Yet we keep hearing of government employees being fired by DOGE. A notice of termination by DOGE to, for example, a Department of Energy employee has no more significance than one from me. Either the terminations are actually coming from somewhere else, or people are complying for no apparent reason.
(more…)

Trump reverses the meaning of censorship

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary News and tagged censorship law liberty on by

In Newspeak, freedom is slavery. In Trumpspeak, freedom of speech is censorship.

Brendan Carr, whom Trump wants to head the FCC, has declared his intent to “smash the censorship cartel” using the agency’s power. According to the Washington Times, “He is threatening the platforms with revocation of their federally granted immunity against content-based lawsuits.” He’s presumably referring to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, one of the few parts to survive legal challenges. It says that in general operators of websites that allow public posting of commentary can’t be held liable for what third parties post. Without it, website operators would have to keep a quick finger on the “Delete” button to keep potentially defamatory comments from showing up. They’d need to err on the side of caution. Many sites would probably find it easiest to eliminate the comments section.
(more…)

Why is it so intimidating to subscribe? 1

This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged Internet law on by

I believe in paying for what I get. Various websites get my financial support when I think they’ve earned it. I’ve complained regularly on this blog about the news media, but Vox is more concerned with facts and objectivity than most, so it seemed worth a paid subscription. However, when I went to sign up, I was pointed at the terms of use, a document of 12,081 words. That’s long enough to be a novelette by the Hugo Awards’ definition.

Agreeing to terms of service without knowing exactly what they say can have serious consequences. By signing up for Disney Plus, you waive your right to file a wrongful-death lawsuit, or at least so their lawyers claim. Disney later backed off in that particular case, but it was a one-time exception in the face of heavy publicity.
(more…)

A look back at the Valancourt case

This entry was posted in Publishing and tagged books copyright law publishing on by

This post presents the finish of a story that I first blogged about in 2018. Court cases can take a long time to reach a resolution, and I missed it when the decision came out last year. Before the resolution of Valancourt Books’ lawsuit, the US copyright office demanded a free copy of every book published in the US. It was uneven in pressing its demands; for reasons I don’t know, it came down hard on Valancourt, a small-run publisher. The requirement was especially burdensome for such publishers; it costs a bigger part of your assets to send out an unpaid copy when you print a hundred copies or do print-on-demand than when you print a hundred thousand. Regardless of the number, it was a clear-cut violation of the Fifth Amendment, which says the government can’t take private property for public use without paying “just compensation.”

In 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed with this reasoning and said the requirement for free copies was unconstitutional.
(more…)

Surgeon General wants compulsory warnings on the Web 1

This entry was posted in Censorship Commentary and tagged censorship Internet law on by

Threats to freedom on the Internet keep popping up. The latest outrage is a proposal by Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to compel social media websites to deliver a warning of “potential mental health harms.” He doesn’t claim that social media have been scientifically shown to damage mental health; rather he says “social media has not been proved safe.”

What would it take to “prove” them safe? When the burden of proof is shifted to the negative, people can make unlimited claims of possible harm, and the defenders must somehow show these arbitrary assertions are false. Murthy has even cited lack of evidence as a cause for panic.

He has asserted that the situation is an “emergency.” In other words, he wants Congress to rush the decree through without debate.

Compulsory speech is, except in limited cases, a violation of the First Amendment. Freedom of speech has to include the freedom not to speak. Americans may not be compelled to pledge allegiance to the flag or to recite a prayer. Forcing website owners to say “We haven’t proven our site won’t harm your mental health” is an outrage.
(more…)

What can you do with Steamboat Willie?

This entry was posted in Writing Writing as business and tagged copyright law writing on by

What can you do with Steamboat Willie, early in the next year?

I won’t try to write a filk about it just now; answering the question is complicated enough in prose. You may have heard that “Mickey Mouse is going into the public domain,” but that’s true only in a limited sense. The first two released Mickey Mouse cartoons, Steamboat Willie and Plane Crazy, will enter the public domain on January 1, 2024, after 95 years. If you’re thinking of creating your own cartoons, drawings, fan fiction, or professional fiction based on them, you can do that legally, but you need to be careful. Mickey Mouse changed significantly over the years, and later versions of him, along with the vast majority of his cartoons, are still under copyright protection. In addition, Mickey Mouse™ remains a Disney trademark. If your work steps over certain bounds, you could hear from Disney’s lawyers.

Duke University’s website has a detailed article on what you can and can’t do. It’s not a substitute for a lawyer’s advice, but it’s a good place to start, and it could be enough if you aren’t creating stuff for profit.
(more…)