Va. Republicans try to restrict minors’ access to two books after judge’s obscenity finding; Virginia Mercury, May 19, 2022

GRAHAM MOOMAW, Virginia Mercury; Va. Republicans try to restrict minors’ access to two books after judge’s obscenity finding

‘They’re basically treated like adult magazines now’

"Anderson said he’s only trying to restrict the books’ availability to minors, not to censor or ban them entirely."

“It’s just, they’re basically treated like adult magazines now,” Anderson said. “You can’t go watch an R-rated movie without your parents there. Same concept.”

The legal maneuver was already drawing backlash Thursday.

“Virginia Republicans want to ban books. Everywhere — they aren’t stopping at schools & libraries,” Del. Marcus Simon, D-Fairfax, said on Twitter. “They are authoritarian bullies who want to control what you see, hear, learn and read. Everything they baselessly accuse the left of doing, they do.”

A little-utilized state law allows “any citizen” to ask a court to weigh in on books alleged to be obscene.

After reviewing the two contested books, retired Petersburg-area Judge Pamela Baskervill issued two orders on May 18 finding probable cause the books could qualify as obscene, an initial step that allows the books’ authors and publishers to respond in defense of their work within 21 days of being notified of the court proceedings. Baskervill is handling the case because all other judges in Virginia Beach recused themselves, according to Anderson.

Once a probable cause finding is made, the law also allows the court to grant a temporary restraining order “against the sale or distribution of the book alleged to be obscene.”"

A win for digital privacy — but that’s just the tip of the government surveillance iceberg; The San Francisco Chronicle, July 4, 2018

Catherine Crump and Megan Graham, The San Francisco Chronicle; A win for digital privacy — but that’s just the tip of the government surveillance iceberg

"It’s 2018. Digital technologies have been woven into the fabric of daily life for more than a decade. It’s time for courts and legislatures to start resolving at a more rapid pace the circumstances under which our cell phones and smart appliances will also be snitches."

Can words kill people?; Washington Post, June 20, 2017

Kathleen Parker, Washington Post; Can words kill people?

"Too much free speech is better than too little, the courts have decided.

But what rules apply when a teenager allegedly persuades her boyfriend to kill himself? Aren’t we free to say whatever we choose in a private conversation with another person?..

Carter may have been despicable for her damning encouragement, but we should be very clear: She didn’t kill anyone. Words do matter, but they’re not lethal."

Chimpanzees are not ‘persons,’ appeals court says; Washington Post, June 10, 2017

Karin Brulliard, Washington Post; Chimpanzees are not ‘persons,’ appeals court says

"Chimpanzees are not legal persons who have a right to be free, a New York state appeals said in a ruling Thursday that denied a request to move two captive apes to a sanctuary.

The unanimous decision was another setback for the Nonhuman Rights Project, a group that for several years has sought to persuade New York courts to grant writs of habeas corpus to chimpanzees. A court that agreed would be allowing the animals to challenge the legality of their “detention” — like human prisoners can do — and would also be acknowledging that the apes are not things but rather are legal persons entitled to bodily liberty...

The Nonhuman Rights Project said in a statement that it was reviewing the decision, but it made clear that it would continue in its quest.

“For 2,000 years, all nonhuman animals have been legal things who lack the capacity for any legal rights. This is not going to change without a struggle,” Wise said. “Public opinion has begun to tilt in our favor since we started filing these lawsuits, likely as a result of them.”"

EFF Says No to So-Called “Moral Rights” Copyright Expansion; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), March 30, 2017

Kerry Sheehan and Kit Walsh, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF): 

EFF Says No to So-Called “Moral Rights” Copyright Expansion

"The fight over moral rights, particularly the right of Integrity, is ultimately one about who gets to control the meaning of a particular work. If an author can prevent a use they perceive as a “prejudicial distortion” of their work, that author has the power to veto others’ attempts to contest, reinterpret, criticize, or draw new meanings from those works...

A statutory right of attribution could also interfere with privacy protective measures employed by online platforms. Many platforms strip identifying metadata from works on their platforms to protect their users' privacy, If doing so were to trigger liability for violating an author’s right of attribution, platforms would likely be chilled from protecting their users’ privacy in this way.

For centuries, American courts have grappled with how to address harm to reputation without impinging on the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. And as copyright’s scope has expanded in recent decades, the courts have provided the safeguards that partially mitigate the harm of overly broad speech regulation."

Do You Own Your Own Fingerprints?; Bloomberg, 7/7/16

Dune Lawrence, Bloomberg; Do You Own Your Own Fingerprints? :

"There’s one place where people seeking privacy protections can turn: the courts. A series of plaintiffs are suing tech giants, including Facebook and Google, under a little-used Illinois law. The Biometric Information Privacy Act, passed in 2008, is one of the only statutes in the U.S. that sets limits on the ways companies can handle data such as fingerprints, voiceprints, and retinal scans. At least four of the suits filed under BIPA are moving forward. “These cases are important to scope out the existing law, perhaps point out places where the law could be improved, and set principles that other states might follow,” says Jeffrey Neuburger, a partner at law firm Proskauer Rose.

The bankruptcy of fingerprint-scanning company Pay By Touch spurred BIPA’s passage. Hundreds of Illinois grocery stores and gas stations used its technology, allowing customers to pay with the tap of a finger. As the bankrupt company proposed selling its database, the Illinois chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union drafted what became BIPA, and the bill passed with little corporate opposition, says Mary Dixon, legislative director of the Illinois ACLU."