Amplify Amplify your take on things.  Join eric g young on Amplify

Ampli-Gistics
« Amplog Home   Posts in category: Cyber Law
17444166

eric g young's Recent Activity

recommended A. A. Lee's clip
A Brief, Isolated Historical Mention of...
recommended A. A. Lee's clip
Little-known Thousand-year-old Haunted Adobe Pyramids
commented on cakebelly's clip
Living Jewels of the Sea
commented on Open Intelligence's clip
It's later than you think - Oldest 'writing' found on 60,000-year-old eggshells
commented on Managed Solutions's clip
Searching for Corey Haim leads to Rogue Antivirus Software

Categories

Supreme Court Splits 5-4 In Banning The Televising Of Prop. 8 Trial

And, the Supreme Court (or at least the right-wing of it) strikes a blow for non-transparency in governmental proceedings…This decision may have far-reaching and chilling effects on the televising of important judicial disputes of our lifetime.

Amplify’d from cyberesq.wordpress.com
After an initial ban of two days (vote = 8-1 [J. Breyer, dissenting], the U.S. Supreme Court voted Wednesday to permanently ban any public broadcast of the Prop. 8, same-sex marriage trial.  In an unsigned, 17-page ruling – in which the Court spends considerable time chiding both District Court Judge Vaughn Walker and the 9th Circuit for issuing their orders to televise the Prop. 8 trial – the Supreme Court banned any televised broadcast of the trial “around the country.”

The vote was 5-4 along ideological lines, as follows:

Majority:  Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas

Dissent:  Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Stevens

The order televising the Prop. 8 trial was to be part of a pilot program instituted by the 9th Circuit.  The goal of this program is, or perhaps was, to increase public awareness of the federal court system and federal proceedings by bringing video cameras into the courtroom.

Read more at cyberesq.wordpress.com
 

Supreme Court Says No Cameras At Prop 8 Trial

You can always count on the Supreme Court to do what's right for the greater public good. After all, they haven't allowed cameras in their own proceedings since the invention of cameras. It has only been releatively recently that they allowed audio.

Now, they rule - without a hint of explanation of their rationale - that one of the most significant federal... read more

Amplify’d from cyberesq.wordpress.com

After hearing arguments from proponents of California’s anti-gay marriage initiative — known as Proposition 8 — arguments from the measure’s opponents, as well as the media, the U.S. Supreme Court weighs in on whether the trial can be video-taped for delayed release on YouTube.

The Supreme Court ruled – the Prop. 8 trial must go forward without cameras in the courtroom.  Without explaining their reasoning, the Court simply said that Judge Walker’s order allowing videotaping for delayed released on the Internet would compromise the fairness of the trial.

Justice Breyer dissented, stating that in his view the standard for an emergency stay of Judge Walker’s had not been met by Prop. 8 proponents.

Read more at cyberesq.wordpress.com
 

Murder By Twitter?

This criminal case may bring some unwanted attention to Twitter. What do you think?

Amplify’d from cyberesq.wordpress.com

Recently, I posted an article on the Kim Kardashian fiasco entitled “Defamati0n By Twitter?”  Now, an even more provocative legal development is preparing to cast more attention on the micro-blogging giant – murder by Twitter.

According to an article just released on Mashable.com, and citing the New York Daily News, police are investigating what is believed to be the first case where an argument on Twitter resulted in homicide.  James Blake, 22, is accused of fatally shooting Kwame Dancy, also 22, in a shotgun blast to the neck – he pleaded not guilty this Wednesday.

New York Police have indicated that the tweets between the two men may be subpoenaed to bolster the theory that there was bad blood between the two old pals.  However, it is not yet clear to what extent the tweets will be used as evidence.  If they are used, it is believed that this will be the first time that tweets are offered as evidence in a criminal proceeding.

Read more at cyberesq.wordpress.com
 

Update In Ongoing Dispute Over California Prop. 8 YouTube Trial

I will be providing continuing coverage today on this issue, as a ruling is expected shortly from the Supreme Court.

Amplify’d from cyberesq.wordpress.com

Prop. 8 Opponents Urge Supreme Court To Permit YouTube Trial

Opponents of California’s Prop. 8 ban on same-sex marriage, along with a coalition of media organizations, argued to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Sunday that televised viewing of the trial on the measure’s validity should not be barred.  Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker of San Francisco recently ordered that the trial, set to begin tomorrow and expected to last several weeks, not be televised, but rather, be recorded for delayed released on YouTube.

Read more at cyberesq.wordpress.com
 

Defamation By Twitter

I think this is just the beginning, folks. Celebrities tweeting bad attitude about a cookie diet, rappers tweeting while drunk, the sky’s the limit in how idiotic this may become. Oh well, it keeps those in my profession chuckling - Enjoy!

Amplify’d from cyberesq.wordpress.com

There is an interesting article this week by FindLaw’s Julie Hilden, addressing a fascinating case of “Twitter Defamation.”  The lawsuit was brought on December 28 in Florida against Kim Kardashian by Dr. Sanford Siegal on behalf of himself and the company through which he distributes his COOKE DIET® products.

According to Hilden’s article, citing the complaint filed in the case, the dispute appears to have started as a misunderstanding.  Siegal’s company relied on third party statements that Kardashian was on the COOKIE DIET®.  Kardashian was not, and apparently took great offense to the suggestion that she was on the diet.  The complaint alleges that Kardashian tweeted at least the following tweets:

  • “Dr. Siegal’s Cookie Diet is falsely promoting that I’m on this diet. NOT TRUE! I would never do this unhealthy diet! I do Quick Trim!”
  • “If this Dr. Siegal is lying about me being on this diet, what else are they lying about? Not cool!”
    • Read more at cyberesq.wordpress.com
     

    Is Apple Blowing Smoke By Refusing To Honor Smokers’ Warranties?

    Like some other writers have commented, I have to agree with Apple, but their publicly-stated rationale seems like a smoke screen. What do you think?

    Amplify’d from cyberesq.wordpress.com

    This week, ZDNet reported on some interesting developments at Apple.  Apparently, the tech giant is refusing to honor warranties under its AppleCare Protection Plan if the device at issue has been exposed to smoke.

    Apple is taking this position, at least in part, because it claims that nicotine is on the OSHA list of toxic and hazardous substances, and the company will not force an employee to work on anything deemed hazardous to their health because of liability concerns.  Hmmmm….

    In fact, OSHA does keep a list of toxic and hazardous substances, called the Chemical Sampling Information file, and if one runs a search of the file on the OSHA website, sure enough, nicotine shows up.  However, it is possible that Apple is the one blowing smoke here.

    See more at cyberesq.wordpress.com