We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. ...the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution.

Supreme Court Nominee, John Roberts

If you blog, and haven't gotten that J.D. yet, than checkout Nolo's helpful guide on fair use. Any blogger with more than 10 readers needs to know this stuff.  

(Hat tip To Corante)

Sounds like a joke, right? The AP reports:

Smoking rights groups, bar owners and Libertarian political parties are taking aim at some major charities. They say the charities support smoking bans that threaten civil rights and small business.

The groups in nine states complain that charities such as the American Cancer Society, American Lung Association and American Heart Association use their lobbying power to help write state and local smoking bans.

You know, I'm no supporter of cancer. However, I happen to agree with those who are opposing the ACS, ALA, and AHA's recent campaign to get smoking banned in all public places. I have two reasons:

1. Its fine to ban smoking in just about every public place. But why do they have to go after bars? I mean, folks: we're talking BARS here. At the very least, I think they should give us one last place to keep our vices, and a bar seems as good of a place as another.

2. Clearly, this tactic is intended to setup a legal precedent to ban smoking all together. And, if you don't already know why that's a terrible idea, than you're not worth talking to.

Independent Woman's Forum instructs: "It is time for every honest feminist worth her salt to stand up for Priscilla Owen." Gee, I didn't know that those who opposed Owens judicial nomination were being dishonest. Allow me to be the first to thank the Republican hacks running the "Independent Woman's Forum" for alerting me that 40 national groups ranging from planned parenthood, to Friends of the Earth, to the United Autoworkers are being dishonest in their opposition of her. After all, as we can see from Owen's sparking record, ONE court case involving a minor bypassing parental notification for an abortion isn't cause to oppose her.

Let’s begin with Justice Owen’s long history of supporting the rights of Woman. In one case, Read v. Scott Fetzer Co, the vacuum company Kirby did not think that it should require its employees to undergo background checks. Unfortunately, as a result it hired Mickey Carter, who had been fired from numerous jobs for sexual harassment, and had been arrested for indecency in front of a child. On one of his door-to-door vacuum-selling visits, Carter raped a woman named D.K.R. As a result, she and her family sued Kirby for negligence. The Texas Supreme Court, in a 6-3 vote, ruled that Kirby was negligent, and paid D.K.R’s family $160,000 dollars. Of course, Owen dissented. She did not think that Kirby should be held liable for a rape that resulted from them sending a convicted sex offender to someone’s home. Owens, stands up for woman, after all. I think all honest feminists would agree that the woman in question “was asking for it” when she opened the door for a Kirby salesman.  

A Practical Guide to Fair Use*, from Harvard Law School's Signal or Noise 2k5 conference.

*All praises to John Palfrey for sharing this knowledge

By Doug Ireland -- March 11, 2005

A new group baptized the Online Coalition is organizing a fight against the proposed Federal Election Commission crackdown on the political liberties of bloggers under the McCain-Feingold Act--a censorious outrage which was the subject of an earlier DIRELAND cry of alarm. The envisioned crackdown would, as we wrote when the story broke, change politics as practiced on the 'net as we know it.

The first step of this fight-back is an open letter to the chairman of the FEC from bloggers -- if you have a blog or are a journalist, sign on by clicking here (where you can also see the roster of bloggers and scribes from all political points of view who've signed on already.) The letter to the FEC says in part:

"As bipartisan members of the online journalism, blogging, and advertising community, we ask that you grant blogs and online publications the same consideration and protection as broadcast media, newspapers, or periodicals by clearly including them under the Federal Election Commission’s 'media exemption' rule.

Frontline's position on explicit language impressed me so much that I decided to post it:

This is a film about young men at war, often in combat, and always in danger. As one might expect, the language of these soldiers is sprinkled with expletives, especially at their moments of greatest fear and stress. As FRONTLINE edited the program, we were judicious, but came to believe that some of that language was an integral part of our journalistic mission: to give viewers a realistic portrait of our soldiers at war. We feel strongly that the language of war should not be sanitized and that there is nothing "indecent" about its use in this context...

FRONTLINE appreciates those stations who were willing to broadcast the unedited version of the film, but recognizes the difficulty any station would have in deciding to take a risk that might result in a penalty. However, we encouraged all stations that could to stand with FRONTLINE because we believe what is at stake here is not only the particulars of this case, but the principle of editorial independence. Overreaching by the FCC is at its heart a First Amendment issue. We think that the editorial integrity of future FRONTLINEs is at risk along with many other types of programs whether art, science, history, culture, or public affairs. Editorial decisions should be free from influence by the government and should be made in accordance with the standards, practices, and mission of public television. We hope you agree.

The Register(UK) Reports:

Death is no obstacle to feeling the long arm of the Recording Industry Ass. of America. Lawyers representing several record companies have filed suit against an 83 year-old woman who died in December, claiming that she made more than 700 songs available on the internet.

Dan Gillmor thinks that it is probably a P.R. Stunt:

Maybe these "mistakes" aren't mistakes at all. Maybe they're designed to get publicity, to make sure that we all get the message that the music companies are willing to be totally unscrupulous -- and not at all careful about aiming their lawsuits at actual infringers -- in their zeal to stop any unauthorized use of their material. Could they be that sleazy? Hard to believe, but then suing dead people is pretty far-fetched in a normal universe.

Mitch Ratcliffe has assembled a brief 'legal' guide on media law and blogging. As Mitch points out, "There is much bloggers can learn from journalists, who have learned how to cause the most trouble possible without landing in jail over the course of centuries."