A new example! Ranaan Katz, part owner of the Miami Heat (pro basketball team), decided to sue an unknown blogger over a mildly unflattering photo and a hefty dose of criticism regarding the owner's commercial dealings. In the next logical step, Katz sued Google for failing to take the picture down. The blogger is represented by Marc Randazza, one of the foremost First Amendment litigators in the country. She's in good hands and will do just fine, especially when Google joins the fight. I also learned from Randazza's blog that someone registered censoriousdouchebag to satirize Carreon. Randazza seems to think it's a bad idea, but the site is clearly parody (even labeled as such), and Carreon certainly deserves it.
I always get a little kick of out stuff like this. Guy is all butthurt so he tries to bitch and moan and instead just gets smurfed over even more and everybody laughs at him. Only brought it upon himself. Too bad, so sad.
I just remembered, what internet post about the Streisand effect could be complete without reference to Joseph Rakofsky, who basically sued the entire internet for saying mean things about him? Long story short: as his first-ever client, he defended a criminal suspect in a murder case (dubious ethics) and proceeded to completely screw the pooch so badly that the judge declared a mistrial when the defendant requested a new attorney (dubious ability). Various mainstream media and blogs accurately reported on the issue, which resulted in Rakofsky suing all of them, including the Washington Post, the American Bar Association, and various legal bloggers. Further mocking commenced.
I think Carreon has Christoforo beat. Carreon is the pro version of Christoforo's amateur hour. Although Jack Thompson may have been the King Douchebag of his time. Has he done anything at all recently? I don't think I've heard anything about him since he was disbarred (and you have to be a world-record douchebag in order to get disbarred for anything besides stealing/mismanaging client money).
I prefer Wil Wheaton's assessment of the situation: "Paul Christoforo, Jack Thompson, and Charles Carreon are two idiots short of forming the ultimate Douchebag Voltron."
Yeah I've been keeping an eye on this. I do love his pure Windows 95 letterheads.
It's times like this I'm glad I decided not to be a lawyer.
foa: feel free to mention my distaste for real property law. Jiro: No, it doesn't make sense. It's stupid. It's everything that most areas of the common law stopped being 100 years ago. Thankfully I will never have to deal with real property law ever again after the bar. There are much, much more interesting fields to which I can devote my time. Constitutional law and criminal procedure are both fantastically interesting and don't involve any magic words.
Should I mention this in your reference?
Obviously you know what you're talking about, but I would have thought Example 2 would have been the one that gave the property immediately to Alice once the farm stopped being a farm. I mean it even says "if he is a dick then she gets it back" in the quotation marks and everything. I cannot for the life of me be jealous of you and your studying for this bar exam but you just keep on soldiering. This sort of crap is why I gave up law after highschool.
:D I'm very strongly opposed to BSL (breed specific legislation - you called it laws. whatever). It does NOT work. There is a movement here in Toronto apparently to fight lawmakers, but it is a very uphill battle. It makes me sad to know this is spreading.
Godly facepalm.
Oh my god I can't believe this. There's such a lack of common sense and rational thinking going on when these things happen. I have no words...
:D In regards to Obama and SS marriage: 1) who cares? he's the president, not your role model. And if he's your role model get a better one 2) he's the government. You do not need the government to justify, notarize, or authorize your relationship 3) the state government shouldn't have anything to do with that as well! To me the only definition of marriage are: 1) as defined and sanction by your religion 2) a private legal contract between consenting adults - more than one. I don't care about race or relations. You can marry your 18 y/o daughter if you want, in my world. 3) election election election election - from what i heard he got a million dollar contribution just within the next 3 hours of that revelation ugh.
Oh man I have so many painkillers. BUt i've had a lot of surgeries so, woo! I'm sure if some junkie would raid my house they'd feel like they landed in painkiller heaven. I'll be the "PILLS HERE" person in the zombie apocalypse. I know I had prescriptions for them but yeah I have far too many that I never used. I'm sure more junkies abused it more so than I did in getting refills. No really, my mom got refills because she said "well what if there is some Apocalypse, we're gonna need meds." Yahhhhhh. If only my family were junkies instead of crazies.
"America, smurf yeah!"
You unwaveringly assert that a person downloading images creates "demand" for the product and "participates in the process of exploitation." I've heard that claim a lot, but have yet to see any actual evidence. Unless there is actual evidence of that in a specific case, that argument is baseless. I agree whole-heartedly with the notion that people who produce or actively promote the production of child porn should be prosecuted. Obvious example: buying the porn, which at the minimum funds its further distribution (if not the producer himself). But unless you can actually prove that one more anonymous download materially affects its production, our criminal justice system should not be guided by that knee-jerk reaction. I would not be opposed to a separate crime, in addition to production and distribution, for materially aiding the production or distribution of child porn. That would make affecting production/distribution an element of the crime, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone were then, say, downloading child porn from a specific site that clearly responded to such demand (or hell, even sent an email asking for more), I could maybe see a viable prosecution. But someone who downloads a 5-year-old torrent of 1,000 images from a general torrent site, where 100 of them are underage? No way.
Oh wait, you said faux child porn. Even so, my point stands. Besides, if it was demonstrably faux child porn who would be getting in trouble in the first places?
I would think the reasoning behind the image law is supply and demand? A person downloading the image is creating demand for the production of underage/child pornography which is... not a good thing to create child pornography? I mean I would definitely agree that actually creating the pornography is the worse offense of the two. However viewing the pornography is still active participation in the process. This is a situation in which the consumer has a hand in the exploitation of the subject. I don't have any issue with a person who has specific desires. In point of fact, I likely would feel a great deal of sympathy toward a person who had desires as succumbing to them would have severe repercussions. I have a major issue with a person who acts upon their desires in an exploitative manner. A person who views child pornography participates in the process of exploitation. That being said, there is an enormous difference in a person who seeks out sexually provocative photos of, let's say a 9 year old, and an 18 year-old person who views a sexually provocative photo of their 17 year-old partner provided with the consent of the partner.
Blog Categories
Recent Visitors
Go to Profile
Mark as Read
