Guilty or Not Guilty: The New Facebook In-Trial Juror Poll
In the not-at-all-similar vein of my last post 2/12/10 regarding inclusiveness in language, I now find myself continuing in a downward spiral toward misanthropy. Citizen Media Law Project files a cogent report on the U.S. Judicial Conference’s suggested federal jury instructions regarding using social media:
You, as jurors, must decide this case based solely on the evidence presented here within the four walls of this courtroom. This means that during the trial you must not conduct any independent research about this case, the matters in the case, and the individuals or corporations involved in the case. In other words, you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information about this case or to help you decide the case. Please do not try to find out information from any source outside the confines of this courtroom.
This stems from the recent and more-oft-happenin’ reports of jurors tweeting and texting and “sharing” during trials. Now to determine which is scarier: 1) That jurors would do that in the first place; or 2) That the Judicial Conference feels compelled to make more clear that which already was clear. The comment to the Ninth Circuit Model Civil Jury Instruction 1.12 CONDUCT OF THE JURY
This instruction has been updated specifically to instruct jurors against accessing electronic sources of information and communicating electronically about the case, as well as to inform jurors of the potential consequences if a juror violates this instruction. An abbreviated instruction should be repeated before the first recess, and as needed before other recesses.
So, since the 9th has already adopted their version of the instruction, I’ll have to go from memory on what it used to say. It was something to the effect of, “Do not consult any outside sources.” “Any” is about as inclusive as words get in this context. But I guess we still gotta spell things out for folks.
In that vein, please don’t make a Facebook poll for jurors. That would not be cool.
Here’s some more takes on it: Jurors: Stop Twittering | Threat Level | Wired.com; No Talking, No Texting, No Tweeting – The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times.
So I Should Have Sexted that Minor Rather Than Sent a Letter?
The Boston Globe reports that Massachusetts’ highest court — the Supreme Justice Court (SJC) recently ruled that it is not illegal to send lewd messages to minors, as long as it’s done online — overturning the convictions of a dude who sent explicitly sexual text messages to a cop thinking she was a 13 year-old girl.
Although state law bans the dissemination of “any matter harmful to minors’’ - including photographs, magazines, movies, and “handwritten or printed material’’ – it does not mention instant messaging or other text sent online.
“The online conversations in this case, as they were not written with pen or pencil, cannot be considered `handwritten’ materials,’’ Justice Francis X. Spina wrote on behalf of the Supreme Judicial Court, in a ruling that illustrates how evolving technology outpaces changes in legal language.
“If the Legislature wishes to include instant messaging or other electronically transmitted text in the definition,’’ the court added in the unanimous decision, “it is for the Legislature, not the court, to do so.’’
Really! Talk about narrow interpretation. Does this court think that clam chowder does not “include” Manhattan style? I’m still too stunned to comprehend it. But let’s parse it out.
First: “any matter harmful to minors.” Well that’s all-inclusive. It could be lascivious Morse code under that clause (Di-di-dah Di-dah-dit, Di-di-di-dit Dah-dah-dah Dah), or maybe Pig Latin (Aryay ooryay arentspay omehay?).
Then there’s “including” which is one of my pet peeves. Legislatures can be forgiven for the ubiquitous statutory language “including, but not limited to” despite its redundancy. “Including” means “including, but not limited to.” But Legislatures must be careful about how things will be interpreted by the courts. Still …
Seriously Honorable Dudes, what was the real agenda here? No leap of logic is required to conclude that the statute encompasses texting — even if texting didn’t exist when it was drafted. Letting that guy go to make the point that a statute needs updating seems a little extreme — especially when done by bizarre statutory construction, by the same progressive court that legalized same-sex marriage.
Oh well, a burgeoning sexual predator has a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, and as the article notes, the Mass. Legislature is busy drafting clearer language — most likely by including what was already included by implication, to make it even more inclusive … or something like that.
Don’t Wanna Chuck Your Cell Phone in the Bay in Protest? Sue AT&T for Taxing your Internet!
I’ve been sitting on this blip in the Chicago Sun-Times about a guy who wants to sue AT&T for taxing his Internet access in violation of the federal Tax Freedom Act. Stories on people who want to sue people are … um, only interesting afterward, if at all.
Then looky what I found: Lawsuits: AT&T collects illegal taxes on Internet access. Now we’re talking. The article discusses several class action lawsuits over the taxes in various states — all run by the same counsel, who apparently can’t spell iPhone (I-Phone? Really?)
BlitzBlurb: Internet service not-taxable per the TFA ’til 2014; AT&T taxes Internet access; well, it depends on how you define Internet access; clear as mud; let’s sue to find out.
Of course, these cases may all wind up doing the settlement mad lib and pay the attorneys a whole bunch and AT&T stops taxing … although they claim they were going to do that anyway. But it’s certainly possible in the circumstance where we have over 81 million subscribers that AT&T might just want to see what the Courts have to say about this.
In any event, I kick AT&T their monthly juice, and I wouldn’t mind saving a few pennies, regardless of whether by judgment or settlement. It’s not likely I’ll ever get my money back. What I’d prefer is a gift card to In-N-Out Burger. That would make this potential class plaintiff very happy.
Make Money Stuffing Virtual Envelopes! (Google Don’t Think So)
When I was a young, largely unsuccessful entrepreneurial kid looking to make my own buck, I always eyed those classified ads saying: “Make $x a week stuffing envelopes at home! Our kit shows you how!” Never sent them the $20 because I suspected they’d send me a booklet that said to run classified ads saying “Make $x a week …” blah blah blah.
At 20ish, my girlfriend did not heed my concerns, which turned out to be correct — except it wasn’t even a booklet but just a single gazillionth-generation photocopy with instructions to make a copy of it, place classified ads, and send it to paying suckers like my girlfriend.
Enter the decas. Now it’s spam that says you can work for Google at home. The “kit” this time is usually set up as a rebilling scam (i.e., buyers subscribe for like $80 a month, and find it difficult to get out), and the product is generally useless publicly-available info, or malware-laden junk, etc. A sucker is indeed born every minute, and the good scams adapt to the times.
So Google sued a bunch of these scammer folks. I don’t know where the case is at right now, but I do know that my spam folder is suddenly bereft of the “Work for Google” scamspam, and has returned to a comfortable Viagracentric norm.
The really short blurb that got my attention is at LawyersandSettlements.com. Here’s ABC’s lengthy take on the scams, and of course Snopes, my favorite post-cynical resource, gives a fun history of the scam.
Moosehead and/or Moose Head = Concussion Repercussion
Hence the category “Random Hertz.” The only thing related to the Internet here is that the victim was an Internet Design Consultant. And the Moosehead was an actually actual moose head, in a NYC establishment. And it fell on the Internet Design Consultant’s apparently nonplussed nonmoose head.
Kumra is seeking unspecified damages from the eatery for “failing to ensure that the plaintiff and other patrons of the defendants would not be struck by the loosely affixed moose head,” according to the news source.
I’m pretty sure that is not an established cause of action in NY. Maybe try … uh, Negligence perhaps?
Falling Moose Head Leads to Concussion, Lawsuit | Avvo News.
Signing out of 2009 with CNN’s Top 10 Tech Fails
OK, technology sometimes don’t work as expected. Remember Rick Moranis as Dark Helmet in Spaceballs? “Out of order? F#%&! Even in the future, nothing works!” I think about that line a lot — as we constantly stumble over our own future.
My favorite failure this year wound up on CNN’s list. T-Mobile lost most of the data of a good chunk of its Sidekick users. And that wasn’t the first time. Some 17 million German customers lost all their personal data in 2006. Anyway, lesson not learned. All the techies I know … a lot, had virtually the same reaction as me: Redundant Backup. Duh!
So have a happy New Year’s Eve. Worry about the new year tomorrow.
Here’s the CNN article: #%@#! The top 10 tech ‘fails’ of 2009 – CNN.com.
FCC Moves Toward Net Neutrality Rules – PC World
Here’s a nice followup to yesterday’s post.
↓ (Down there)
Gives more details about what the FCC is up to to combat data discrimination.
Dang that term makes me laugh.
Hey, BitTorrenters are People Too!
FirstAmendmentCenter.org has been following an AP Story on the class action suit against Comcast for data discrimination(!) Seems Comcast didn’t like those bandwidth hogs using P2P networks like BitTorrent to download huge files; so it delayed or aborted their data transfers. Seems the FCC thought that kinda flew in the face of its policy guaranteeing unfettered Internet access to users. Seems that wasn’t helping their defense against the class-actioneers. So Comcast settled the class action — to pay up to $16 million.
Of course, Comcast denies any wrongdoing, and has ceased the complained-of practice. And here we have a fine example of the settlement mad lib that goes: [Defendant] denies any wrongdoing, and did not discriminate against [class] on the basis of [trait]. [Defendant] ceased [offending action] independently of [claim against Defendant], but will pay [=MULA] to make this go away.
* * *
Then there is the question of Data Discrimination. What if that were to become a protected class? Kinda doubt it. Obesity discrimination hasn’t really taken hold … yet. They’re both about volume. (Hey, this ties into my 12/12 post about the massive amounts of data we consume daily and ways to data diet.) But who’s to say either won’t find its way into the ranks of other protected classes, like, you know, race, religion, gender, etc.?
Maybe we’ll see a grassroots movement — obese data gluttons virtually descending on the Capitol to march bit by bit for their rights to equal treatment despite their digital and analog consumption. I’d totally download that.
Microsoft Continues to be EU’s Punching Bag
… this time over browsers. And Microsoft settles. Wired.com reports on the European Commission’s investigation — offspring of the antitrust wars with Microsoft in the early aughts — that this time focused on the bundling of Internet Explorer (IE) with Microsoft’s Windows Operating System (OS).
The recent settlement with the EC requires Microsoft to give users of 30 European countries an option to download an alternative browser to IE during updates and new installations of Windows. Basically they have to tell people, “You don’t have to use our stuff … just ’cause you’re using our OS.”
If Microsoft fails to deliver on its promises, the EC can levy fines of up to 10% of Microsoft’s revenues. That was $60 billion in 2008, so 10% of that would be … gee, a lot.
