Politics, open government, and safe streets. And the constant incursion of cycling.

Category: Law Page 7 of 27

Make It Happen, California

John Marcotte is on a mission to protect traditional marriage.  And I am 100% in support of his efforts.  What is he trying to do?  He’s asking the people of California to step up and help him put the “2010 California Protection of Marriage Act” on the ballot.  The act reads:

SECTION 1.  Title.  This act shall be known as the “2010 California Protection of Marriage Act.”

SECTION 2.  Section 7.6 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

No party to any marriage shall be restored to the state of an unmarried person during the lifetime of the other party unless the marriage is void or voidable, as set forth in Part 2 of Division 6 of the Family Code.

That’s right, no divorces.  At all.  One you’re married, that’s it.*  Some might object, saying that that this is giving the state far too much power of the lives of two consenting adults.   But as Marcotte explained, in a recent interview:

[s]ometimes other people need to sacrifice in order to protect my ideas about traditional marriage. It’s just a fact of life. It’s not about their soul-sucking sham of a marriage, it’s about what we value as a society. We live in a divorce-promiscuous society. It’s on the television, it’s in movies, the newspapers. It’s even in our kids textbooks. I’m Catholic. In my religion, divorce is a sin — completely impermissable.

And how does he think he’s going to do this?

We’re going to set up a table in front of Wal*Mart and ask people to sign a petition to protect traditional marriage. We’re going to interview them about why they thing traditional marriage is important, and then we’ll tell them that we are trying to ban divorce.

People who supported Prop 8 weren’t trying to take rights away from gays, they just wanted to protect traditional marriage. That’s why I’m confident that they will support this initiative, even though this time it will be their rights that are diminished. To not support it would be hypocritical.

We’re also going to collect signatures in front of “Faces,” the largest gay nightclub in Sacramento.

Get on it, California.

*Okay, some marriages might be not be forever.  Marcotte does acknowledge that “[t]he only exception would be if the marriage was “voidable” — if you married an 8-year-old, you don’t get to keep her. She goes back on the shelf. You can’t marry the mentally incapacitated, etc.”

Homicide

Read.

It’s About )(*#$@#@ Time: Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) Convicted

I’d rather have slow justice than a swift railroading, but good lord does it feel like this was a very long time in coming:

Former Rep. William Jefferson — the Louisiana Democrat in whose freezer the FBI found $90,000 during a 2005 raid — has been found guilty on 11 out of 16 federal charges.

AP Fail

Honestly, I just don’t know what to say about the Associated Press and its lawyers, these days:

The Associated Press — which thinks you owe it a license fee if you quote more than four words from one of its articles — doesn’t even care if the words actually came from its article. They’ll charge you anyway, even if you’re quoting from the public domain.

I picked a random AP article and went to their “reuse options” site. Then, when they asked what I wanted to quote, I punched in Thomas Jefferson’s famous argument against copyright. Their license fee: $12 for an educational 26-word quote. FROM THE PUBLIC FREAKING DOMAIN, and obviously, obviously not from the AP article. But the AP is too busy trying to squeeze the last few cents out of a dying business model to care about little things like free speech or the law.

Yay, DC!

As of the midnight that just passed, DC recognizes the equality of all marriages performed outside of DC (still working on those performed inside).

US JAG Lawyer for Detainees: “I’ve given up on American media.”

This interview with Major Barry D. Wingard, Jr.  – defense counsel to a number of Guantanamo detainees – has garnered a lot of attention today, but not nearly as much as it should.  Go check it out.

Welcome, New Hampshire

It’s happening. Really.

Obama’s Transparent Motives

Glenn Greenwald asks:

What kind of a country passes a law that has no purpose other than to empower its leader to suppress evidence of the torture it inflicted on people?

This country, if Obama gets his way.  Follow that link.

Doing It Wrong: US, Canada, EU Opposing the Right of the Blind to Read

Once again, we’ve got an ugly illustration that “Big IP” has almost completely captured the US government’s policy positions, resulting in absurd things like this:

Right now, in Geneva, at the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization, history is being made. For the first time in WIPO history, the body that creates the world’s copyright treaties is attempting to write a copyright treaty dedicated to protecting the interests of copyright users, not just copyright owners.

At issue is a treaty to protect the rights of blind people and people with other disabilities that affect reading (people with dyslexia, people who are paralyzed or lack arms or hands for turning pages), introduced by Brazil, Ecuador and Paraguay. This should be a slam dunk: who wouldn’t want a harmonized system of copyright exceptions that ensure that it’s possible for disabled people to get access to the written word?

The USA, that’s who. The Obama administration’s negotiators have joined with a rogue’s gallery of rich country trade representatives to oppose protection for blind people. Other nations and regions opposing the rights of blind people include Canada and the EU.

And what’s the awful thing that the US, EU, and Canada won’t stand for? From James Love:

I am attending a meeting in Geneva of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This evening the United States government, in combination with other high income countries in “Group B” is seeking to block an agreement to discuss a treaty for persons who are blind or have other reading disabilities.

The proposal for a treaty is supported by a large number of civil society NGOs, the World Blind Union, the National Federation of the Blind in the US, the International DAISY Consortium, Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic (RFB&D), Bookshare.Org, and groups representing persons with reading disabilities all around the world.

The main aim of the treaty is to allow the cross-border import and export of digital copies of books and other copyrighted works in formats that are accessible to persons who are blind, visually impaired, dyslexic or have other reading disabilities, using special devices that present text as refreshable braille, computer generated text to speech, or large type. These works, which are expensive to make, are typically created under national exceptions to copyright law that are specifically written to benefit persons with disabilities…

The opposition from the United States and other high income countries is due to intense lobbying from a large group of publishers that oppose a “paradigm shift,” where treaties would protect consumer interests, rather than expand rights for copyright owners.

Citizens?  They’re just consumers.  Shut up and buy what we want you to.

Not “rooted in American values”?

I want to know what idiotic “senior administration official” made this statement in the context of justifying the new Obama military tribunals:

One of the senior administration officials said that although federal courts bar many kinds of hearsay evidence, “the hearsay rule is not one of those things that is rooted in American values.”

This is such an incredibly stupid statement I don’t know where to start.   If one were asked to name off a few of the core foundations of the jurisprudence underlying the American justice system, the principles of hearsay rule would be among them, along with the right to face your accuser and trial by jury.  It doesn’t get any more American than that.  Unless, I suppose, you’re talking about lynching.

Page 7 of 27

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén