WebProNews

Tag: SCOTUS

  • SCOTUS Appears Reluctant to Overturn Section 230

    SCOTUS Appears Reluctant to Overturn Section 230

    The US Supreme Court appears reluctant to overturn Section 230, setting up a major win for tech firms and online platforms.

    Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act protects online companies from legal fallout for content posted by users on their platforms. The law is what shields Twitter, Facebook, and other from being legally liable, regardless of the kind of content their users post.

    In recent years, Section 230 has come under attack, with lawmakers and regulators on both sides of the aisle looking to see its protections repealed, or at least scaled back.

    SCOTUS is considering the first significant challenge to the law, a case brought by the family of Nohemi Gonzalez, one of the victims of the 2015 terrorist attacks in Paris. The case alleges that Google was partially responsible for the radicalization of the perpetrators by algorithmically pushing Islamic State videos to interested parties.

    According to The New York Times, the justices appeared unconvinced that fundamentally crippling how internet platforms recommend information will solve anything.

    “If you’re interested in cooking,” Justice Clarence Thomas said, “you don’t want thumbnails on light jazz.” He later added, “I see these as suggestions and not really recommendations because they don’t really comment on them.”

    Meanwhile, Google’s lawyer argued that repealing Section 230 would basically break the internet, causing it devolve into super-moderated zones that border on censorship, or lawless zones that are “a horror show.”

    Given how important Section 230 is, there’s sure to be people upset on both sides, regardless of how the court rules.

  • Oracle’s Copyright Case Against Google Goes to Supreme Court

    Oracle’s Copyright Case Against Google Goes to Supreme Court

    Google’s Android is by far the most popular mobile operating system (OS) on the plant. According to Oracle, however, it’s built at least in part on stolen code. Oracle filed a copyright suit nearly a decade ago, claiming Google stole code for its mobile OS.

    Oracle acquired Sun Microsystems, the creator of the Java Virtual Machine (VM) in 2010. The Java VM is an environment that runs on a wide range of platforms, such as Windows, Linux, macOS and embedded devices. Java developers then create programs that run within the Java VM, rather than having to create them specifically for each platform. The VM gives developers the ability to “write once, run everywhere.”

    Oracle has accused Google of copying 11,500 lines of Java code in its creation of Android. Two lower courts sided with Google, until the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit handed Oracle a victory. Now, according to TheStreet.com, the Supreme Court “will hear Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., granting the case a write of certiorari, or an order to review the decision of the lower court that originally ruled on the case.”

    While one might think software companies would be rooting for Oracle, Microsoft and Mozilla are just two of a number of companies who have filed friends of the court briefs in favor of Google. Both have argued that copyright law must allow a reasonable amount of reuse of software’s “functional aspects,” especially to insure compatibility and interoperability.

    Whatever the outcome, tech companies throughout the U.S. will be watching the case closely to see what precedent is set.

  • Kim Davis Charge of Official Misconduct Sent to Attorney General

    Kim Davis may have reached the end of her rope. Now we’ll see if she decides to do her job, walk away from that job, or risk arrest and impeachment.

    The County Clerk from Rowan County in Kentucky has been defying the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, refusing to issue marriage licenses to gay couples in her county, as she is bound by law and her oath of office to do.

    A judge ordered Davis to comply. She appealed. She lost her appeal. She asked for a stay. All the while, she refused to grant licenses. Now the Sixth District Court has denied Kim Davis’ request for a stay and left her with no legal option but to comply with the law of the land. On top of that, the Rowan County Attorney’s Office has referred a charge of Official Misconduct against Kim Davis to the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office.

    While waiting for the court’s decision last week, Davis and her staff closed the office temporarily.

    Davis had a sign posted on the door announcing that the office was “closed for computer upgrades.” She and her staff hustled past protestors gathered outside and drove away.

    Many have taken to social media to express their displeasure and embarrassment over Kim Davis and her legal fight. Some in Kentucky are particularly embarrassed.

    “She needs to just be dismissed so she can drift away like a fart in the wind,” one Facebook commenter said. “The longer this drags on, the more money she’ll make on her book deal.”

    Another pleaded, “Can this stupid woman please disappear from our lives? Please and thank you.”

    Mat Staver, founder of the Liberty Counsel that represents Davis, had said that he believed the original judge’s order was delayed until August 31. Staver had announced that he intends to file an emergency petition with the Supreme Court to keep the whole affair going for potentially several more months.

    With the decision of the Sixth District Court, and barring an emergency petition filing with the Supreme Court, Davis has no choice but to come in to work on Monday and start granting licenses. If she does not, Kentucky does not provide for a recall election. The only option is to charge Davis with contempt of court, impeach her, and remove her from office.

    Some have commented about Davis with much derision, arguing that her religious stance should not be imposed on others.

  • ’19 Kids and Counting’: Duggar Family Chides Nation for Sex Again; Hell Follows After

    The Duggar family, particularly the patriarch and matriarch of the clan, are speaking out about another sexual matter. Despite the censure the pair has suffered over the handling of their son’s molestation charges, Jim Bob and Michelle Duggar have seen fit to make yet another moralistic comment about what other people do in their own bedrooms.

    In a Facebook post coinciding with the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the Duggar heads expressed their chagrin that some people they meet might have the same rights their molester son now enjoys.

    Their post read, “Praying for our nation today,” and featured a Bible quote from 2 Chronicles 7:14.

    “If my people which are called in my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”

    The implication is that same-sex marriage is “wicked,” and that the United States will experience God’s displeasure if it does not return to a time when LGBT folks were denied the same rights as the Duggar family enjoys.

    Needless to say, the reaction to the Duggars’ reaction was not mild. Many people see the SCOTUS decision as having been a long time coming, and they do not want to see a return to pre-Civil Rights-era mentality in the United States.

    Commenters on that Facebook post alone were adamant in their opposition:

    “Save your prayers for Josh. The nation doesn’t need them, especially from your family.”

    “but its okay for a brother to molest his sisters…bravo duggars…you are disgusting…you are warped and pathetic…love how your platform shows its okay to molest but not to genuinely love…”

    “Wow pure ignorance. This post is disgusting.”

    “Because what your son did wasnt sinful…rightttt. You are disgusting.”

  • Sonia Sotomayor Rips Court a New One

    Sonia Sotomayor Rips Court a New One

    The dust from the “Hobby Lobby” ruling at the Supreme Court has not even settled yet, and the next SCOTUS scandal is already hitting the ground.

    In the landmark case involving the Affordable Care Act, certain forms of contraception, and whether corporations can claim religious differences that exempt them from following the law of the land, the Court handed down a ruling that divided the country sharply. Through the loads of misinformation on both sides of the issue, the Court sought to allay fears that their decision would have far-ranging consequences. They assured the public that their stance was only applicable to “closely-held” corporations.

    The IRS defines closely-held corporations this way:

    Generally, a closely held corporation is a corporation that:

    * Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and
    * Is not a personal service corporation.

    In her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, “In a decision of startling breadth, the Court holds that commercial enterprises, including corporations, along with partnerships and sole proprietorships, can opt out of any law (saving only tax laws) they judge incompatible with their sincerely held religious beliefs.” She said the Court had “ventured into a minefield,” and that her dissent was because she was “mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce.”

    Now, mere days removed from that case, the Court has expanded on its decision, just as Ginsburg feared.

    The new development is a case where Wheaton College objects to having to fill out a simple form for the Department of Health and Human Services, which would exempt them from providing the contraception in question. The form is simple; one page, front and back. You can see it here. The College says that the act of having to fill out a form burdens their religious freedom. They see it as making them “complicit in the provision of contraceptive coverage, in violation of [their] religious beliefs.”

    Churches do not have to fill out the form. Thus, non-profits like Wheaton are asking to be treated as churches.

    The Court agreed, and said that Wheaton did not have to fill out the form.

    This time, it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor who took the heat to the five male justices who made that call. In a dissent coming from all three female justices, she said the Court had assured the American public that their decision only affected certain types of companies, but now they were going back on their word.

    “Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “Not so today.”

    “After expressly relying on the availability of the religious-nonprofit accommodation to hold that the contraceptive coverage requirement violates [the Religious Freedom Restoration Act] as applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Court now, as the dissent in Hobby Lobby feared it might, retreats from that position.”

    The fears that the Hobby Lobby ruling would sprawl to include other organizations, even to the extent of telling companies not to even bother with the paperwork of the law that would make them exempt, appear to be coming to pass.

    Keep in mind that it was Sotomayor who temporarily blocked the contraceptive provision in the first place, as seen in this news story. So this is not about birth control, it is about Supreme Court decision creep.

    Image via Wikimedia Commons

  • Hobby Lobby’s Divisive SCOTUS Win

    Hobby Lobby’s Divisive SCOTUS Win

    The Supreme Court case that featured Hobby Lobby and their protest against Obamacare wrapped up with a Hobby Lobby win yesterday. Within minutes your Facebook and Twitter feeds probably blew up with statements of indignation or triumph, depending on where your friends came down on the issue.

    Unfortunately, much of what you see tossed around out there is probably just as confusing as it ever was. Bear with me as we try to make sense out of what happened and what it could mean in the future.

    One of the statements that is getting tossed around is that Hobby Lobby wanted to be able to refuse to pay for all contraceptives for its female employees. This is not the case, though the ruling may leave that possibility open.

    There are 20 forms of contraceptive that are covered under the Affordable Care Act. Of these 20, Hobby Lobby has issue with only four that they considered “abortifacients.” These four treatments are different from the other 16 due to the fact that they may prevent an already fertilized egg (a “conception”) from implanting and growing. These four include Plan B, Ella, as well as copper and hormonal IUDs.

    Hobby Lobby’s contention was that, since they believe that life begins at conception, these four treatments cause de facto abortions. The medical community at large does not consider these treatments to be abortions, since their definition of viability must include the implant stage.

    The Supreme Court’s decision came down to the fact that the owners of Hobby Lobby and other businesses believe that life begins at a different point than most doctors do. Therefore, this became a religious issue.

    Opponents of this position say that this decision is a slippery slope that could cause many other issues of a religious nature, even some that have not yet been thought of, to become major headaches. These may not even be in the healthcare realm.

    One example that has been proffered is: What if a business owned by a Jehovah’s Witness, who believes that use of blood products are forbidden in the Bible, says that they should not be forced to cover life-saving transfusions or hemophiliac treatments, even for non-Witness employees?

    This was an example used by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her dissent from the 5-4 decision. She went on to ask:

    “Would the exemption…extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations[?]…Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.”

    The Court’s decision is designed to be narrow and limited only to “closely-held corporations” — which comprise most of the businesses in the United States. MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow acknowledged this in her commentary on the ruling.

    “The justices in the majority, they went out of their way to say that your religious objections can only get you out of this one part of this one law,” she said. “They said specifically that only contraception laws are subject to religious beliefs. Other laws aren’t.”

    Even so, many on both sides of the issue say that the genie is out of the bottle and there will be further effects.

    “Justice Ginsburg is right — this is sweeping,” said Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University. “People should not get lost in the reference to ‘closely held corporations.’ These types of businesses are huge in this country and most of the businesses people relate with in their daily lives. We’re still working out the details of how far that goes. … That’s what’s going to happen here. It is a significant game changer.”

    On the other side of the aisle, Lori Windham, senior counsel with the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said, “This case is about the freedoms of all Americans — women and men — and it’s something that all Americans should celebrate today.”

    Image via YouTube

  • Hey Twitter, the Hobby Lobby Ruling Isn’t SCOTUSblog’s Fault

    SCOTUSblog is a private blog, sponsored by Bloomberg Law, that’s “devoted to comprehensively covering the U.S. Supreme Court without bias and according to the highest journalistic and legal ethical standards.” It’s one of the most-respected sources for Supreme Court coverage and analysis. It has its own Twitter account.

    The Supreme Court, yesterday, made a controversial 5-4 ruling in a case known to many as the ‘Hobby Lobby’ case. Using 1993’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the majority decided that closely held corporations aren’t required to provide contraceptive coverage for employees. Unsurprisingly, this pissed a lot of people off. The Supreme Court does not operate a Twitter account (because that would be ridiculous).

    I can see some of you are ahead of me.

    Angry folks took to Twitter to vent, thinking they were blasting The Supreme Court’s official Twitter account – @SCOTUSblog.

    They weren’t, of course. But that didn’t stop SCOTUSblog from having a lot of fun. They spent hours responding to dozens upon dozens of misdirected hostilities.

    Ah, a call to action:

    And then things hit a whole other level when people started catching on to what @SCOTUSblog was doing.

    And finally…

    Just FYI, the Twitter bio for @SCOTUSblog reads “A private blog about the Supreme Court of the U.S.”

  • First Video from Inside Supreme Court Hits YouTube

    “What you’re about to see has never been seen before. This is video from inside the chamber of the US Supreme Court. Under their arcane rules, no one is allowed to record the proceedings, not even C-SPAN–in the year 2014.”

    Here’s a first. Thanks to YouTube and someone’s shifty device-hiding skills, we now have the first ever video recorded and publicly published from inside the Supreme Court of the United States.

    The first part of the video shows a very brief clip from last year’s oral arguments in the McCutcheon v. FEC case, which campaign finance reform activists call “Citizens United Part Two.” You can’t really make out much of what the justices are saying, but it’s still pretty fascinating to get a glimpse into the notoriously secretive arm of our government.

    The second part of the two-minute video shows a protestor, referred to as Kai in the clip, who disrupts the Court’s proceedings to protest Citizens United.

    “I rise on behalf of the vast majority of the American people who believe that money is not speech, corporations are not people, and our democracy should not be for sale to the highest bidder. Overturn Citizens United. Keep the cap in McCutcheon. The people demand democracy.”

    After that, Kai is taken down by guards. That’s where our short glimpse into the chambers ends.

    The Wall Street Journal identifies the protester as 33-year-old Kai Newkirk. He’s already pleaded not guilty to a handful of misdemeanors–including one that makes “a harangue or orations” in the US Supreme Court building illegal. He was released on the condition that he’d stay away from the SCOTUS.

    Not only is this video super rare (one of a kind, really), but even photos from inside the Supreme Court Chambers are pretty rare. As Americans, we’re used to getting our glimpses of the highest court in the land from sketches and audio clips.

    Although many Americans would argue that it’s not only silly and pointless, but downright undemocratic to ban video recording equipment from one branch of the federal government, the Justices themselves have stuck by the rule. Though Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan both suggested that they would be support cameras in the courtroom during their confirmation hearings, both have since backtracked.

    Image via YouTube

  • Same-Sex Couples Rush to Walk-In Weddings

    Same-Sex Couples Rush to Walk-In Weddings

    In the County Administration building in downtown San Diego it is called “Walk-in Wednesday”. Most days of the week, couples need to make an appointment to come in and get married. On Walk-In Wednesday, couples can show up, get their license, and get married right then and there without an appointment.

    And after the Supreme Court decision that effectively overturned Prop 8 in California, followed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals waiving the 25-day wait for same-sex marriages, couples lined up to get hitched.

    According to Val Wood, Chief Deputy Recorder-County Clerk, San Diego County, all couples need to do is show up before 5:00 p.m. with valid, unexpired identification, fill out some paperwork on a clipboard while in line, and they are set to go. He said that it does expedite things if they have gotten their paperwork filled out ahead of time, but it is not necessary.

    San Diego’s Walk-In Wednesday will continue all summer until September 25 so that more couples can go forward with wedding plans. Some couples may have had plans for marriage between the time same-sex marriage was approved in California and when Prop 8 took it back away again. They have been waiting a long time for the whole issue to wind its way through the courts. Even after Prop 8 was overturned, its appeal to Circuit Court and then the Supreme Court held up any same-sex marriages.

    Opponents of same-sex marriage had gone back to the Supreme Court just a few days ago to protest the sudden onslaught of marriages, saying that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had violated their own rules by waiving a 25-day the wait after the SCOTUS decision. The Supreme Court turned down their request for an emergency stay on marriages.

  • Same-Sex Marriage Emergency Stay Filed With SCOTUS

    With the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last week that opponents to same-sex marriage in California had no standing to appeal the overturn of Prop 8, same-sex marriage proponents were ready to fire up the wedding planning in earnest. But everyone said it could take a month before all the bells could start ringing. Someone apparently forgot to tell the folks in California. The ruling happened on Wednesday. On Friday they were cutting the cake.

    And now opponents of same-sex marriage are running back to SCOTUS to stop the weddings. They have filed an emergency petition. But on what basis? SCOTUS ruled. It was in a few papers.

    The organization ProtectMarriage issued a statement on Friday that explained their reasons for thinking they have basis for appeal to SCOTUS now.

    We just received word that the Ninth Circuit, without waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision to become final and depriving us of our right to ask for reconsideration, has rushed forward to order same-sex marriage licenses.

    This outrageous act tops off a chronic pattern of lawlessness, throughout this case, by judges and politicians hell-bent on thwarting the vote of the people to redefine marriage by any means, even outright corruption.

    Homosexual marriage is not happening because the people changed their mind. It isn’t happening because the appellate courts declared a new constitutional right. It’s happening because enemies of the people have abused their power to manipulate the system and render the people voiceless.

    The resumption of same-sex marriage this day has been obtained by illegitimate means. If our opponents rejoice in achieving their goal in a dishonorable fashion, they should be ashamed.

    It remains to be seen whether the fight can go on, but either way, it is a disgraceful day for California.

    The entire issue hinges on a mater of wording and timing. The ProtectMarriage folks explain it this way.

    When the Ninth Circuit originally put in place its stay to prevent same-sex marriage pending Supreme Court action, it stated clearly that “the stay shall continue until final disposition by the Supreme Court.” Under Supreme Court procedural rules, “final disposition” comes when the Supreme Court issues a “mandate” to the Ninth Circuit, at least 25 days after announcing its opinion in the case. The 25-day waiting period is provided to allow parties such as Prop 8′s proponents to petition the Supreme Court for a re-hearing of the case.

    Today’s petition asks the Supreme Court to find that the Ninth Circuit had no jurisdiction to order same-sex marriages on Friday, since the case had not yet come back down from the nation’s highest court.

    However, there are some interesting twists to whether the Ninth Circuit Court’s statement about waiting until final disposition is even still in effect. What SCOTUS actually did was not to declare Prop 8 invalid. That had already been done by the original district court ruling in California. SCOTUS ruled that proponents of Prop 8 had no “standing” to appeal the district court’s decision. Thus they never heard any further argument in the case. But they also ruled that the Ninth Circuit should have never heard the case in the first place either, and ordered the decision of the Ninth – possibly including the stay itself – to be vacated. The argument could be made that such a vacating also undoes the statement by the Ninth about waiting until the “final disposition” of SCOTUS.

    ProtectMarriage went even further in their statement, raising the question about why so many people seemed ready to perform marriages within minutes of the Ninth ordering them valid again on Friday.

    Suspiciously, the Ninth Circuit’s announcement late Friday ordering same-sex marriages came as a surprise, without any warning or notice to Proposition 8′s official proponents. However, the same-sex couple plaintiffs in the case, their media teams, San Francisco City Hall, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the California Attorney General all happened to be in position to perform same-sex marriages just minutes after the Ninth Circuit’s “unexpected” announcement.

    Most statements issued by this group appear to come from one man, an attorney named Anthony Pugno, who serves as General Counsel for ProtectMarriage. Pugno ran for a California State Assembly seat in 2012, but lost to the incumbent Republican in a 69-to-31 percent shellacking.

  • DOMA Talk on Facebook Hit 4 Million Mentions, Zuck Issues Personal Statement

    According to Facebook, chatter on the social network concerning the Supreme Court’s ruling to overturn parts of the Defense of Marriage Act reached a fever pitch by early afternoon on Wednesday. And from the hours of 9 am EST to 4 pm EST, Facebook counted 4 million related mentions.

    As you might expect, “DOMA” was the most popular terms yesterday, with “unconstitutional” coming in second. The latter saw a spike in mentions of almost 60,000%.

    And for the first time with a major national event, Facebook was able to track uses of their “action-based” statuses – you know, the “feeling excited” tags complete with emoticons that we’ve been seeing since April.

    Here’s what the map for people who said they were “feeling wonderful” following the decisions. As you might expect, California is the darkest yellow for the mood – the SCOTUS’ actions also made way for the dismissal of the state’s Prop 8 gay marriage ban.

    Facebook as a company didn’t make a statement on the ruling, but there’s not much doubt as to where they stand on the issue. Facebook was part of the amicus brief that dozens of tech companies sent the U.S. Supreme Court before they heard the DOMA and Prop 8 cases – and in that brief they urged the SCOTUS to overturn DOMA.

    Plus, Facebook is one of the most outspoken companies in the U.S. when it comes to protecting LGBT rights and fighting for LGBT causes.

    CEO Mark Zuckerberg did make a personal statement on the rulings:

    “I’m proud that our country is moving in the right direction, and I’m happy for so many of my friends and their families. #PrideConnectsUs — feeling proud,” he said.

  • ‘Equality’ Is Facebook’s Top Term Surrounding Same-Sex Marriage Debate

    Yesterday you may have noticed that your Facebook news feed was very red, and that there were a bunch of equals signs everywhere. This was the result of the Supreme Court beginning to hear arguments on California’s Prop 8 same-sex marriage ban. All of the red equals signs were simply marriage equality supporters, well, showing their support.

    The red equals sign was a play on the standard blue and yellow equals sign logo for the Human Rights Campaign.

    Today, Facebook has some quick numbers on the top-buzzing terms over the last day, and it looks like equality has won out.

    According to Facebook’s Talk Meter, which looks at buzz around specific events, the term “Equality” was the most-used term surrounding the gay marriage debate. Facebook says its use was up 5,000% on Tuesday.

    Also:

    The top age group talking about the landmark cases yesterday, in advance of oral arguments, was the 35-44 range followed by 25-34 and 45-54.

    Geographically speaking, people in Washington, D.C. were buzzing the most in anticipation of the hearings, followed by users in Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, California, Oregon, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Colorado.

    Here’s Facebook’s full list of the top ten terms buzzing on the network on Tuesday.

    1. Equality
    2. DOMA
    3. Supreme Court
    4. Perry
    5. Kennedy
    6. Prop 8
    7. Kagan
    8. SCOTUS
    9. Scalia
    10. Defense of Marriage

    Don’t expect the Facebook buzz for same-sex-related and Supreme Court-related topics to die down today. Tuesday, the court heard arguments on California’s Prop 8. But today, the court will begin to hear arguments on the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, which barred many federal agencies from recognizing same-sex marriage (in terms of some benefits and such). Many high-profile tech companies and other American businesses (including Facebook) have filed a amicus brief arguing that DOMA is simply bad for business.

  • Pelosi/Boehner Photo Goes Viral Thanks To Twitter

    Thursday was a landmark day for some people as the Supreme Court voted 5-4 in favor of upholding President Obama’s health care initiative, which would make Medicaid available for tens of thousands of people and change the rules about pre-existing conditions for all health care providers. The catch is that it would also make individual insurance mandatory for every U.S. citizen and would impose a tax otherwise.

    That last part has a lot of people upset.

    A lot of people took to social media yesterday to voice their opinions on the matter. A lot. So many, in fact, that I’m surprised the internet didn’t break. Among some of the funniest and most scathing comments were, of course, on Twitter, which is nothing new. However, what’s different about this topic is the photo that went viral to accompany it.

    When the decision was announced, emotions ran high, and that is proven no better than it is in this picture of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who is the picture of elation, standing next to House Speaker John Boehner, who looks a bit like a kid who just watched a bully take away his favorite toy.

    Actually, it’s been reported that this photo was really taken a few hours before the ruling, but because of its obvious potential for hilarity, it’s being associated with the SCOTUS announcement.

    pelosi boehner

  • SCOTUS Was Probably Too Busy Today for Facebook, Zynga, LinkedIn, & Yahoo

    It’s reasonable to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court only had one item to mark off on its to-do list for today, the last day of the term: make a decision on President Obama’s health care law. Given the gravity of the court’s ruling, the internet has been buzzing about little else since the decision was announced shortly after 10AM this morning. While proponents and opponents alike vociferously add their comments to the discussion currently being waged on the innernets, the monumental SCOTUS decision had some collateral side-effects to a few of the top tech companies who were left empty-handed as they awaited a decision on an unrelated case.

    Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, and Yahoo, among companies from other industries, had filed a brief with the Supreme Court earlier this year related to a lawsuit filed by an Ohio woman against the title company, First American Financial Corp., that handled her house purchase due to allegations that it violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. She hadn’t actually incurred any direct harm from First Financial’s dealing with her bank but she staked her case on the premise that the company violated the federal law and, thus, she sued for monetary damages.

    According to Kashmir Hill of Forbes, the appeal is what piqued the interest of the aforementioned tech companies because, given all of the legal matters involved with online privacy, the companies have a particular interest in what it calls “no-injury lawsuits,” which would include class action lawsuits.

    Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, and Yahoo joined forces to file a brief [pdf] in the case urging the Supreme Court not to allow people to sue them for breaking federal laws when those people suffered no actual injury. Specific federal laws that folks tend to get these companies on are the Electronic Communications Act, the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act — all laws designed to protect the privacy of your communications.

    While the companies had a vested, albiet self-preserving, interest in this case, they were all left empty handed today as the Supreme Court changed course and decided to not make a ruling on the First Financial case.

    Meanwhile, Facebook, LinkedIn, Zynga, and Yahoo will have to find another hardly related case to hitch themselves onto in order to try to preclude any possible lawsuits stemming from potential violations of privacy law. The collaboration of several big tech companies to try to attach themselves to this particular case about real estate dealings is somewhat puzzling because it really does require a detailed imagination to relate the two topics. At any rate, if these companies felt they could broadly interpet a SCOTUS decision that overturned the ruling against First Financial, there are likely many other lawsuits and appeals that the companies will likely try to poach for their own cause.

    [Via Forbes.]

  • Health Care Decision: Sarah Palin One Of Many Politicians Tweeting

    Sarah Palin has never been known to hold her tongue, particularly when it comes to President Obama and his initiatives, and she took to Twitter about a half hour ago to voice her opinion about the surprising and controversial vote made by the Supreme Court today to uphold Obama’s health care initiative.

    Of course, she was not alone. Thousands of politicians and celebrities have taken to social media to start a conversation about the act, which would tax citizens in 2014 who don’t have health insurance/Medicaid. Under the mandate, everyone would be required to purchase health insurance, Medicaid would be made available to over 16,000 people, and no one could be denied by health care providers over a pre-existing condition.

    Palin and several others tweeted about the news as soon as it broke.

  • Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Tenenbaum File-Sharing Case

    We reported last week on the efforts of Charles Nesson to have the Supreme Court hear his client’s (Joel Tenenbaum) case. The Supreme Court has denied Nesson’s petition. It’s unfortunate since a Supreme Court verdict would go a long way in clearing up the mess we’re in right now.

    As we explained on Friday, the problem came in the form of the original jury award in Tenenbaum’s case. The judge overturned the jury’s decision, however, saying that the award was unconstitutional. When the case went to the appellate level, the judge said that the trial judge couldn’t denounce the award as unconstitutional without first using remittitur.

    That funky word – remittitur – is the main problem here though. Remittitur is a process that the judge can use to slash the award before reaching any kind of constitutional question. As Ars Technica points out, judges must try to resolve processes using “lower-order issues” before they can even approach any questions of constitutionality.

    So what does the refusal of the Supreme Court mean? Tenenbaum will be heading back to the trial level where the judge will more than likely apply remittitur. Unfortunately, remittitur has a drawback – the RIAA can accept the lesser amount or they can force Tenenbaum through the legislative process again. The goal, according to Nesson, is to get Tenenbaum to settle so they can send a message to other would be file-sharers.

    The message according to Nesson is that the RIAA controls the Internet. He says that the RIAA is creating an “urban legend” of sorts that will scare people away from using the Internet. He says their goal is to “reverse the tide of the digital future.”

    While I regret that the Supreme Court didn’t choose to hear this case, I think that Nesson may have played a part in their refusal. I agree that the RIAA was trying to create this “urban legend” during the last decade, but they have cleaned their act up in the last few years. While their tactics may still seem awful and draconian to us, they probably appear far less offensive to the Justices.

    Nesson’s argument that Tenenbaum wasn’t responsible because the songs would have been pirated anyway probably didn’t win over any of the Justices either. The fact of the matter is that Tenenbaum was caught and he admitted to the file-sharing. While we may agree that the music would have been pirated either way, Tenenbaum has already submitted himself to the courts with his admission.

    The only thing we can hope for now is that the Supreme Court will hear a similar case someday, but it looks like it won’t be Tenenbaum. The only thing he can do is keep on fighting or just settle. Considering that the RIAA seems to spare no expense when it comes to court battles, I’m putting my money on a settlement happening anytime soon.

    We’ve reached out to Nesson for comment and we’ll update this story if we hear anything back.

    UPDATE

    Nesson got back to us and provided this short comment:

    “Back to the district court for judge to consider remitting the verdict to a reasonable amount.”

  • Charles Nesson Says RIAA Creating “Urban Legend” Around Copyright

    You may recall the story of Joel Tenenbaum, the young man who chose to fight the RIAA when the group began to go after individual file sharers during the last decade. He has been caught in a legal hell for the latter half of the decade going from court to court and it looks like it will never end.

    Enough is enough or says Tenenbaum’s lawyer, Charles Nesson, in a petition to the Supreme Court. The document obtained by Ars Technica shows a passionate argument against the RIAA and its tactics of threatening users unless they settle outside of court for a few thousand dollars.

    The first part of the petition points out that the DOJ is in cahoots with the RIAA by pursuing the remittitur procedure against Tenenbaum to keep him in “endless litigation.” He calls it an “unnecessary and unwarranted extension of power” to the RIAA that only gives them more reason to attack people who have no knowledge or power to fight against copyright claims.

    Remittitur is good thing though, right? It allows the judge to overturn the damages awarded by the jury because the amount awarded was too high. That’s where you’re wrong says Nesson as he points out that remittitur in this case only subjects Tenenbaum to more trials instead of being able to fight against the unconstitutionality of what the RIAA is doing. He says that the RIAA is using remittitur over and over agains until the defendant is forced to settle.

    All of this is a ploy by the RIAA and the DOJ to force people into settling without ever reaching the constitutional question. As proven time and time again, groups like the RIAA don’t want to take these things to court. Instead of being forced to answer questions about the constitutionality of their absurd claims that a single song costs them thousands in damages, they want to force defendants to settle in the lower courts.

    The RIAA has stopped targeting individuals though, so maybe Tenenbaum should just settle. Nothing like this will happen again, right? Wrong says Nesson as he points out that other groups, especially porn studios, have taken up the RIAA’s old tactics. It would be in the nation’s best interest if the Supreme Court were to offer an opinion so that all current litigation can be laid to rest.

    Nesson also points out that every copyright case that the RIAA uses to defend their right to sue citizens for absurd amounts of damages comes from the old 1909 copyright law. The updated law from 1976 makes it so that plaintiffs are only awarded what they truly lost instead of the ridiculous statutory damages.

    The true crux of Nesson’s argument is in the third section though. Here is where he lays down the true motive behind the RIAA’s assault on individuals:

    RIAA’s litigation assault on individual file-sharers, Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset among them, is procedurally unfair and profoundly unethical. It pits an industry against an individual and punishes the individual for what others have done and will do. It seeks to punish him beyond any rational measure of the damage he conceivably caused, not for the purpose of recovering compensation for actual damage caused by him, nor for the primary purpose of deterring him from further copyright infringement, but for the ulterior purpose of creating an urban legend so frightening to children using the internet, and so frightening to parents and teachers of students using the internet, that they will somehow reverse the tide of the digital future. The individual is to be grievously punished as an act of public education.

    He also makes the excellent point that one man’s actions can not be made tantamount to the actions of million of file sharers around the world. It’s almost like the RIAA is punishing Tenenbaum for the millions of shared files going around the world at this very minute when in fact he only downloaded 23 songs.

    Plaintiffs attempt to substitute the action of one individual for the actions of millions. They seek to leverage the damage attributable to all file sharing tojustify heinous punishments for one. Tenenbaum, acting as one individual, did not (and could not) cause the injuries the RIAA describes. Nor is he answerable for the amount of damages that they seek to collect from him. File sharing as a whole caused the injuries about which the RIAA complains. Had Tenenbaum never shared, the songs would have been shared and available nonetheless. Tenenbaum did not create filesharing and he was not in any way critical to its spread or its effects. It cannot be that he, individually, caused the destruction of the complete value of each of plaintiffs’ copyrighted works. It was not Tenenbaum alone who reduced income and profits for the recording industry; it was not Tenenbaum who cost employees their jobs — it was the global millions engaged in filesharing that did all this

    It’s a valid question that the Supreme Court needs to address. Of course, the RIAA has already found their solution – trying to block access to, or shutting down, sites that they see as a threat to their monopoly over creative works. It’s already proven that it doesn’t work so it’s only a matter of time before the RIAA starts going after dead people and grandmothers with settlement letters.

  • Video Games Need More Warnings Says Congress

    After the Supreme Court ruling and a wide variety of other laws attempting to police video games getting thrown out, you would think the blokes in Congress would finally learn. H.R. 4204 proves they have not learned a thing.

    Congressmen Joe Baca from California and Frank Wolf from Virginia introduced H.R. 4204 on Monday. What does the bill have to do with video games? They want games to be slapped with a sticker that says, “Warning: Exposure to violent video games has been linked to aggressive behavior.”

    According to Game Politics, the creators of the bill are pushing this forward because they feel there is an ever increasing amount of evidence that links game violence to real-world violence. Let’s hear what Congressman Baca has to say:

    “The video game industry has a responsibility to parents, families and to consumers — to inform them of the potentially damaging content that is often found in their products. They have repeatedly failed to live up to this responsibility.”

    You’re right, Congressman Baca, the game industry does have a responsibility to parents, families and consumers. That’s what the Entertainment Software Ratings Board is for. The ESRB rates games and puts that handy E-AO rating on the case so parents can make informed decisions about their game purchases.

    The FTC does an annual review of the ESRB’s effectiveness as a ratings agency. Turns out a majority of parents (89 percent) are involved with the purchase of video games for their children with 87 percent of them aware of the rating system. That doesn’t sound like failing to “live up to this responsibility.” That sounds like a rating system that works and does its job well.

    What does Congressman Wolf have to say then?

    “Just as we warn smokers of the health consequences of tobacco, we should warn parents — and children — about the growing scientific evidence demonstrating a relationship between violent video games and violent behavior. As a parent and grandparent, I think it is important people know everything they can about the extremely violent nature of some of these games.”

    With all due respect Congressman Wolf, don’t compare violent video games to smoking. We have years of scientific data that proves a direct link between smoking and death. There is no such proven correlation between violence in gaming and violence in the real world. In fact, violence among children and teens has decreased as video game popularity has increased.

    The absolutely hilarious thing is that this bill would require all games, regardless of rating, to be slapped with this sticker. It’s like putting, “This product has been found to cause lung cancer” on a pack of candy cigarettes. It’s absolutely ridiculous and couldn’t be held up in a court of law.

    Expect this bill to die alongside every other games bill that has crept up over the years. Until the ESRB stops being effective, and it wont anytime soon, these bills have no chance of passing.

  • Supreme Court To Decide If Tech Firms Can Be Responsible For Assisting In Human Rights Violations

    Supreme Court To Decide If Tech Firms Can Be Responsible For Assisting In Human Rights Violations

    How do you feel about U.S. and European companies selling surveillance equipment to authoritarian regimes to better equip them in oppressing their people? Well, the Global Online Freedom Act that we reported on before would seek to combat this particular problem. Problem is that the bill in question has failed to pass multiple times in the past. What else can address this issue? The EFF may have the answer.

    The Electronic Frontier Foundation is reporting that there are now two pending cases in the U.S. right now that raise claims against Cisco. What claims, you ask? The company is accused of selling the Chinese government specially made surveillance tools that allow it to persecute democracy activists and those belonging to the Falun Gong religious minority.

    While that sounds bad, this story isn’t so much about them, but two cases that are already before the U.S. Supreme Court right now. The two cases in question are Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum and Mohamad v. Rojaub and they both deal with the question of whether or not a company can be held accountable for human rights violations.

    EFF says that there is evidence pointing to domestic corporate involvement in various countries where massive human rights violations have occurred over the past year. They claim that political prisoners in Bahrain have said their captors read back to them text messages they sent that could have only been obtained using Western spy technologies.

    Syria has been a hot ticket for the past few months and grew even hotter once it was revealed that Marie Colvin had been killed in the country while covering the carnage. It’s alleged that tracking equipment provided by Western companies is what led to her execution.

    On the flip side of these atrocities, it appears that the surveillance business is doing better than ever. The EFF pegs the market for their devices at about $5 billion a year.

    Both cases, Kiobel and Mohamad, will be argued tomorrow with a decision expected by late June. The key to this is whether or not corporations can be seen as individuals. There are already laws in place that convict individuals for assisting oppressive foreign regimes.

    EFF is hoping that the decision made in Citizen’s United two years ago that said corporations are individuals will be applied here as well.

    We here at WebProNews love technology and strive to report on all the benefits it brings to our daily lives. It’s also important to remember, however, that technology is a double-edged sword and can be abused in the wrong hands.

    So, what do you think? Even if tech companies provided the tools that led to the death of people like Marie Colvin, do we hold the company or the people who used the technology in that way responsible? Let us know in the comments.

  • Jon Stewart Takes On Supreme Court Violent Video Game Ruling

    The internet has been buzzing about the recent Supreme Court decision that said it was unconstitutional to restrict the sale of graphically violent video games to minors. In a 7-2 vote, the SCOTUS struck down a California State law that would fine retailers $1,000 for distributing the mature games to children.

    Justice Antonin Scalia, in his majority opinion, argued that video games must be protected as free speech because of their status as art. This put them alongside things like books, film and music in the court’s eyes.

    Another part of Scalia’s argument was that there was no precedent for the restriction of violence to children in the same way that there was a restriction to sexual imagery like pornography. The ruling basically said that it is OK to sell violent imagery to kids, but not sexual imagery.

    This distinction has people talking, mostly about the hypocrisy of such a dichotomy. Why, in this country, do we demonize sex much more than violence? Are we a violent culture? Are our sexual sensibilities warped because of our puritanical beginnings? All of these questions were at the heart of Jon Stewart’s take on the SCOTUS ruling on last night’s episode of The Daily Show.

    Talking over footage from a recent Mortal Kombat game where a woman is pulled apart at the groin and disemboweled, Stewart points out the strange nature of the ruling.

    The U.S. Supreme Court determined seven to two that the State of California has no interest in restricting the sale of this game to children, but, if while being disemboweled this woman were to suffer perhaps a nip-slip – regulate away.

    Stewart also debuts a new game for Wii that looks promising. Check it out below –

    It seems as though people both agree and disagree with Stewart’s take on the SCOTUS decision. Check out these responses from Twitter –

    @AnneMurata
    Anne Murata    Supreme Court #FAIL: It’s OK for minors to purchase graphically violent video games that disembowel women, but no sex vids? #Sick 1 hour ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    @JTonWNES
    J.T. Murphy    For the record, I’m psychotically defensive of video games. Thus, one dumb statement can make even Jon Stewart forever dogshit in my eyes. 12 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    @JeremyDStanley
    Jeremy Stanley    Wholly disagree with Jon Stewart’s interpretation of the Supreme Court ruling on video games. Has he heard of the ESRB? 13 hours ago via Tweetbot for iPhone · powered by @socialditto

    @bobzuercher
    Bob Zuercher    Dear John Stewart: if you don’t want your kids to have violent video games – don’t buy them. Simple. 2 hours ago via web · powered by @socialditto

    So what do you guys think about the SCOTUS ruling? Is it hypocritical to allow our kids violence but shield them from anything sexual? Let us know how you feel.

  • Supreme Court Video Game Decision Gets Animated

    Okay, let’s just say that Next Media Animation is a treasure of the interwebs.

    The Taiwanese animation company’s timely video enactments of America’s top news have become staples of YouTube. The breadth of what they choose to cover is impressive. Just today they animated the New York gay marriage bill, Obama’s YouTube channel, and Lady Gaga news.

    And then there’s this, which I can only describe as transcendent.

    NMA has decided to give their interpretation of yesterday’s landmark Supreme Court decision about the sale of violent video games to minors. In that decision, the SCOTUS ruled a California state law prohibiting the sale of mature games to children unconstitutional.

    Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that the state law does not fall into line with the first amendment and that video games, like books and films, deserve freedom of speech protection. Not only is this a win for the video game industry, but also a win for first amendment advocates everywhere. Opponents of the SCOTUS ruling say that the games are obscene and the government should be allowed to regulate their distribution.

    NMA’s take on the whole thing is worth watching for its use of the violence motif even during the Supreme Court hearing sequences. Add an American flag, some kids and Grand Theft Auto and this becomes gold.

    They are also able to point out the strange disconnect that we, in America, have about sex and violence in a 60 second clip. One is okay, while the other is highly restricted. Swell commentary, NMA. Swell.

    Check it out below –