Yale Law Prof. Lea Brilmayer has some interesting things to say to Congress on whether we need a Constitutional Amendment to let the states decide on gay marraige. See testimony here. I’m not the expert Professor Brilmayer is on Constitutional theory, but as a result of _Goodridge_, real legal analysis doesn’t matter anymore. And therein lies the true evil of judicial activism. Will four arrogant but well meaning judges give Bush the 2004 election, trigger a Constitutional Amendment, trash civil rights for gays for the forseeable future, and undermine confidence in our judiciary to the detriment of our society as a whole? (cue Odd Couple theme)
UPDATE: A somewhat clearer explanation of Ms. Lo’s commentary and what happened is now available from Time Magazine online here. As a result, I’ve modified my comments a bit.
Radio Commentator Sandra Tsing Lo got fired from her public radio spot for using a swear word in a pre-recorded piece that went unedited onto the air. You can hear her commentary on her experience and suddenly finding herself in solidarity whith Howard Stern here. My commentary below.
As some of you may recall, in 2000, Ralph Nader ran an ad as part of his Green Party candidacy for President satirizing the Mastercard ads. Mastercard sued for trademark and copyright infringement.
As one can see, the wheels of justice grind rather slowly. But occassionaly they come out right. A good decision on copyright and trademark . . . which proves a point I’ve long been saying on the impact of footnote 14 of _Accuff Rose_ on copyright analysis (how’s that for lawyer geek speak!) A copy of the decision is here. A bit of analysis below.
Well the House and Senate have been busy little, ahem, beavers on the indecency front. The surprise is the provisions on media ownership. Will they survive a House vote over the opposition of the Republican leadership? Will Bush veto indecency regulation to save his buddies in big media? Stay tuned to Survivor: Washington.
Granted its a cute headline, but what the heck am I talking about? Comcast and Disney had nothing to do with Ms. Jackson’s little “costume malfunction” and besides, isn’t this just a case of standard election year pandering by legislators on a nothing issue? Welcome, dear readers, to Washington Land, an E-Ticket Ride in the funhouse where surface appearances are very decieving . . .
O.K., this is a bit off the beaten tack for me, but it plays off what I read this morning. And side note to John, can we get some different catagories in our drop down menues? Everything I write is “general.”
In 2003, “wifi” went from geek toy to mainstream. But WiFi is only part of a much larger revolution in how people access and use the electromagnetic spectrum. Now, numerous competing and ill-fiting anaologies, “property,” “public commons,” “public trust” battle it out among Washington regulators. What’s at stake? While it sounds hyperbolic, this regulatory battle ground holds the key to the next stage of evolution of information technology. This is a background piece. I will post the current developments piece later.
This op ed appeared in the industry Magazine Broadcasting and Cable on Monday Feb. 23.