At Slate, Jack Shafer argues for the abolition of the FCC, drawing heavily from Peter Huber’s book, Law and Disorder in Cyberspace. For a critique of Huber, see Tom W. Bell’s “The Common Law in Cyberspace” from the Michigan Law Review (1999, vol. 97, pp. 1746ff). (Hat tip to Jesse Walker at the Reason blog.)
From the Pensacola News Journal: Pensacola evangelist Kent Hovind was sentenced Friday afternoon to 10 years in prison on charges of tax fraud. After a lengthy sentencing hearing that last 5 1/2 hours, U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers ordered Hovind also: – Pay $640,000 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service. – Pay the prosecution’s court costs of $7,078. – Serve three years parole once he is released from prison. Hovind’s wife, Jo Hovind, also was scheduled to be sentenced. Rodgers postponed her sentencing until March 1 to allow her defense attorney an opportunity to argue possible discrepancies in sentencing guidelines. I’ve added a label for Kent Hovind. UPDATE (January 21, 2007): Ed Brayton points out that Hovind, at his sentencing, suddenly adopted a newly-found meekness: Before his sentencing, a tearful Kent Hovind compared his situation to that of the lion and the mouse in Aesop’s Fables. “I feel like the mouse,” Hovind told U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers. “I stand here in great fear of the power of this court. Your decision can destroy my life, my ministry and my grandchildren." ...
Judge Jones’ ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case found the Dover Area School District’s policy on intelligent design a violation of the First Amendment’s establishment clause on two grounds. First, on the ground that it had a specifically religious purpose, and second, that intelligent design is not science but religion, and so the policy was an endorsement of religion. These are two of the three prongs of the “Lemon Test” for whether a state action violates the establishment clause. The Discovery Institute has argued that Jones’ ruling should only have used the “purpose” test and not the “endorsement” test. Ed Brayton points out that this position is contrary to the position that creationists and intelligent design advocates have argued for the last three decades–that the “purpose” prong of the Lemon Test for violations of the First Amendment’s establishment clause is unfair and should be abandoned. Ed observes that at least four DI personnel–Casey Luskin, Frank Beckwith, Mark Ryland, and David DeWolf–have all argued this way in the past. His post also responds in some detail to the specific arguments made by Philip Italiano, a law student at Rutgers Law School, who is the latest to argue that Jones should only have used the “purpose” test.
Radley Balko of The Agitator paid a visit to David Ruttenberg’s bar in Manassas Park, Virginia, and witnessed firsthand the police harassment. (Also see previous coverage.)
Dahlia Lithwick gives a rundown.
Ed Brayton’s detailed dissection of the Sternberg affair (see Ed’s post here and Steve Reuland’s here) has been responded to by Krauze at the Telic Thoughts intelligent design blog, including a response by Richard Sternberg. Ed Brayton responds quite ably.
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced with the most enjoyable traditions of religious persuasion or secular practices of your choice with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all. We also wish you a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2007, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make our country great (not to imply that the United States is necessarily greater than any other country) and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual preference of the wishee. ...
Looks like the FCC had a hard day before the U.S. Court of Appeals defending its arbitrary indecency standards, and Susan Crawford points out an example of just how absurd those standards have become in the era of YouTube. UPDATE (June 4, 2007): The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has issued its decision in Fox Television Stations v. the FCC, and the FCC has decisively lost. Adam Thierer points out how the case could pave the way for completely removing the FCC’s authority to regulate content for indecency. Susan Crawford reports on the content of the decision in the form of a letter to the FCC. UPDATE (April 28, 2009): The U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the 2nd Circuit in a 5-4 ruling.
Via Bruce Schneier’s blog: Historical Comments AlisonM (2006-12-23): Funny, and yet scary at the same time. . .
Sheldon Richman has a nice three-part series criticizing the legal reasoning of tax protesters who claim they don’t have to pay U.S. income tax titled “Beware Income-Tax Casuistry." With any luck, somebody tempted by such nonsense will read it and avoid jail or fines. UPDATE (December 28, 2006): Sheldon Richman also points out this excellent GWU law professor’s website on tax protestor claims.