Corante

AUTHORS

Donna Wentworth
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile)

Ernest Miller
( Archive | Home )

Elizabeth Rader
( Archive | Home )

Jason Schultz
( Archive | Home )

Wendy Seltzer
( Archive | Home | Technorati Profile )

Aaron Swartz
( Archive | Home )

Alan Wexelblat
( Archive | Home )

About this weblog
Here we'll explore the nexus of legal rulings, Capitol Hill policy-making, technical standards development, and technological innovation that creates -- and will recreate -- the networked world as we know it. Among the topics we'll touch on: intellectual property conflicts, technical architecture and innovation, the evolution of copyright, private vs. public interests in Net policy-making, lobbying and the law, and more.

Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this weblog are those of the authors and not of their respective institutions.

What Does "Copyfight" Mean?

Copyfight, the Solo Years: April 2002-March 2004

COPYFIGHTERS
a Typical Joe
Academic Copyright
Jack Balkin
John Perry Barlow
Benlog
beSpacific
bIPlog
Blogaritaville
Blogbook IP
BoingBoing
David Bollier
James Boyle
Robert Boynton
Brad Ideas
Ren Bucholz
Cabalamat: Digital Rights
Cinema Minima
CoCo
Commons-blog
Consensus @ Lawyerpoint
Copyfighter's Musings
Copyfutures
Copyright Readings
Copyrighteous
CopyrightWatch Canada
Susan Crawford
Walt Crawford
Creative Commons
Cruelty to Analog
Culture Cat
Deep Links
Derivative Work
Detritus
Julian Dibbell
DigitalConsumer
Digital Copyright Canada
Displacement of Concepts
Downhill Battle
DTM:<|
Electrolite
Exploded Library
Bret Fausett
Edward Felten - Freedom to Tinker
Edward Felten - Dashlog
Frank Field
Seth Finkelstein
Brian Flemming
Frankston, Reed
Free Culture
Free Range Librarian
Michael Froomkin
Michael Geist
Michael Geist's BNA News
Dan Gillmor
Mike Godwin
Joe Gratz
GrepLaw
James Grimmelmann
GrokLaw
Groklaw News
Matt Haughey
Erik J. Heels
ICANNWatch.org
Illegal-art.org
Induce Act blog
Inter Alia
IP & Social Justice
IPac blog
IPTAblog
Joi Ito
Jon Johansen
JD Lasica
LawMeme.org
Legal Theory Blog
Lenz Blog
Larry Lessig
Jessica Litman
James Love
Alex Macgillivray
Madisonian Theory
Maison Bisson
Kevin Marks
Tim Marman
Matt Rolls a Hoover
miniLinks
Mary Minow
Declan McCullagh
Eben Moglen
Dan Moniz
Napsterization
Nerdlaw
NQB
Danny O'Brien
Open Access
Open Codex
John Palfrey
Chris Palmer
Promote the Progress
PK News
PVR Blog
Eric Raymond
Joseph Reagle
Recording Industry vs. the People
Lisa Rein
Thomas Roessler
Seth Schoen
Doc Searls
Seb's Open Research
Shifted Librarian
Doug Simpson
Slapnose
Slashdot.org
Stay Free! Daily
Sarah Stirland
Swarthmore Coalition
Tech Law Advisor
Technology Liberation Front
Teleread
Siva Vaidhyanathan
Vertical Hold
Kim Weatherall
Weblogg-ed
David Weinberger
Matthew Yglesias

LINKABLE + THINKABLE
AKMA
Timothy Armstrong
Bag and Baggage
Charles Bailey
Beltway Blogroll
Between Lawyers
Blawg Channel
bk
Chief Blogging Officer
Drew Clark
Chris Cohen
Crawlspace
Crooked Timber
Daily Whirl
Dead Parrots Society
Delaware Law Office
J. Bradford DeLong
Betsy Devine
Dispositive
Ben Edelman
EEJD
Ernie the Attorney
FedLawyerGuy
Foreword
How Appealing
Industry Standard
IP Democracy
IPnewsblog
IP Watch
Dennis Kennedy
Rick Klau
Wendy Koslow
Kuro5hin.org
Elizabeth L. Lawley
Jerry Lawson
Legal Reader
Likelihood of Confusion
Chris Locke
Derek Lowe
Misbehaving
MIT Tech Review
NewsGrist
OtherMag
Paper Chase
Frank Paynter
PHOSITA
Scott Rosenberg
Scrivener's Error
Jeneane Sessum
Silent Lucidity
Smart Mobs
Trademark Blog
Eugene Volokh
Kevin Werbach

ORGANIZATIONS
ARL
Berkman @ Harvard
CDT
Chilling Effects
CIS @ Stanford
CPSR
Copyright Reform
Creative Commons
DigitalConsumer.org
DFC
EFF
EPIC
FIPR
FCC
FEPP
FSF
Global Internet Proj.
ICANN
IETF
ILPF
Info Commons
IP Justice
ISP @ Yale
NY for Fair Use
Open Content
PFF
Public Knowledge
Shidler Center @ UW
Tech Center @ GMU
U. Maine Tech Law Center
US Copyright Office
US Dept. of Justice
US Patent Office
W3C


In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

Copyfight

« Conservative Copyfights | Main | Interesting Video re: Software Patents »

April 19, 2005

Someone Hire This Kid

Email This Entry

Posted by Alan Wexelblat

To put it mildly, Justice Antonin Scalia got "more than he bargained for" when he agreed to answer NYU Law students' questions. Student Eric Berndt asked Scalia to explain his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas, the case that overturned Bowers v. Hardwick and struck down sodomy laws. Not satisfied with the answer, Berndt asked Scalia, "Do you sodomize your wife?"

In an open letter (here reprinted as an op-ed in The Nation), Berndt explains his reasoning and why he felt it necessary to engage in what was clearly a hostile form of expression.

Comments (9) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Speech


COMMENTS

1. Crosbie Fitch on April 19, 2005 2:05 PM writes...

Is heterosexual sodomy legal?

If not, would Scalia be permitted to incriminate himself by answering in the positive?

If not, then presumably Scalia could not answer the question truthfully and thus was obliged to demur.

That's the trouble with the law. It's polluted by the 'right-minded' on a mission to tell people how they should behave nicely, rather than how they do behave nicely.

We all share music. We're all sodomists. Well, at least the majority who enjoy a bit of culture anyway. And which penalty would be preferable? Being sued for thousands by the RIAA for sharing music, or... what's the punishment for sodomy these days?

Permalink to Comment

2. Dr. wex on April 19, 2005 3:11 PM writes...

The point of Lawrence was that the state has no compelling interest in criminalizing or inquiring into adult sexual contacts. Scalia's dissent in that case portrayed the intrusion as minimal. Berndt's point, as he eloquently puts it, is that the intrusion is far from minimal. The point of law, in general, is to tell people how they should behave - it's got nothing to do with "right-minded people". If there's a point to your comment, I'm missing it.

Permalink to Comment

3. Crosbie Fitch on April 19, 2005 3:41 PM writes...

The point of the law is to tell people how they DO behave, i.e. in a free, democratic society, the law represents the codification of how people behave with each other (to the minimum extent tolerable). It must therefore adapt with the people.

The point of the church (and other 'right-minded' people) is to tell people how they SHOULD behave. Various bibles pretend to represent a definitive 'moral law' and do not adapt with the people (though some try and adjust their interpretations of it).

The problem with sodomy is that some rules have leaked from one book into another.

However, my primary point is to wonder if Scalia had a good reason for failing to answer a perfectly good question.

Permalink to Comment

4. Rafael Venegas on April 19, 2005 4:24 PM writes...

I must take exception with the following text: "The point of the law is to tell people how they DO behave, i.e. in a free, democratic society, the law represents the codification of how people behave with each other (to the minimum extent tolerable).".

The law is not a codification. It is a plate of spaghetti which hardly anyone with a law degree can fully understand. Go to 10 lawyers for a leagal opinion and you get ten answers, depending on which jurisprudence the lawyer remembers or finds first among the contradictory jurisprudence our there. The idea that ignorance of the law is no excuse is nonsense because laws are incomplete without the jurisprudence and with jurisprudence the confussion of the law is complete.

I have always wondered , why are not laws updated with jurisprudende? Why, that would mean that the laws are written in the court, not the legislature. Anyway, clear and simple laws are bad for the legal business and require smarter people (not smart politicians) to write. That is why they are likely to stay that way. That is why so many things are illegal and everyone is a criminal.

Permalink to Comment

5. Crosbie Fitch on April 19, 2005 5:50 PM writes...

OK, you're right, the law is a pile of doggie do. However, at least it's supposed to reflect society, even if reading law is a more arcane art than reading tea-leaves.

Maybe it's good that there's an inevitable shear force between the way society is going and the way the law incompetently attempted to codify what society was 50-500 years ago?

"Thou shalt not republish another's manuscript" becomes "The provenance of every binary digit must be exhaustively recorded for the hindsight of the judiciary in all networked communications".

Permalink to Comment

6. Gavin on April 19, 2005 7:23 PM writes...

I'm sort of failing to see what this has to do with the copyfight.

Permalink to Comment

7. Crosbie Fitch on April 20, 2005 5:06 AM writes...

I suspect editorial rigour costs money.

I did my best to try and link sodomy to copyright issues...

Basically, it's another example of the law being an ass, applying anachronisms where they are patently counter popular practice.

It is not that file-sharing is wrong, but that the law against it is based upon the pragmatics of the Dickensian era - and supported by industries still clinging to business models wholly incompatible with the instantaneous diffusion provided by the Internet.

Permalink to Comment

8. Dr. wex on April 20, 2005 12:01 PM writes...

I specifically put this post into the "Speech" category. Whether it's relevant to digital music or not is both a bit of a stretch (link Berndt's question to challenging rap lyrics) and beside the point.

As I've tried to say a few times, I feel that the point of copyfighting is to create a space for free and open expression, whatever the medium. What SCOTUS members think is highly relevant to that, as is how they respond to challenges to their views.

To quote Salman Rushdie: "What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist."

Permalink to Comment

9. Crosbie Fitch on April 20, 2005 12:30 PM writes...

The whole 'offense thing' is overblown if you ask me. Berndt's question was not offensive in the given context. If the law and lawyers/justices like Scalia have business asking the same question of the general populace then Berndt has business asking it of Scalia. Moreover, I find it difficult to believe that an old hand like Scalia would be fazed by such a question. This is precisely why I wondered if there was a better reason than say indignation as to why Scalia failed to answer the question.

As to free and open expression, well copyright definitely and unnecessarily restricts it.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
That Sound You Hear is the Anti-Neutrality Dam Breaking
Having (Mostly) Failed with Authors, Amazon Makes a Pitch for the Readers
And No Kill Switches, Either
Uncle Amazon Knows What's Best for You (and Itself)
Duplitecture
Muddying the Natural (Patent) Waters
Congress Restores Bulk Unlock Rights
When is a Game a Clone?