by TChris

In preparation for his Supreme Court argument yesterday, Solicitor General Ted Olson spent part of his weekend searching for free porn on the internet. It should not surprise most readers to learn that his exploration was rewarded, although he was not prepared to say whether every website returned by his search engine was actually obscene. Nor was Justice Sandra Day O'Connor surprised to learn that there is porn on the internet; she asked why Olson was in court defending new anti-porn laws when no serious effort has been made to enforce old ones.

At issue is the Child Online Protection Act, enacted in 1998 after the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional the Communications Decency Act.

The new law prohibits commercial Web sites from publishing material "harmful to minors" unless the site can show that it has made good faith efforts — requiring a credit card, for example — to keep out all Web surfers younger than 17. Violators could be fined as much as $50,000 and spend six months in jail, with higher penalties for repeat offenders.

The Third Circuit declared the law unconstitutional last year, but the Supreme Court instructed it to reconsider its decision. The Third Circuit again struck down the law on various First Amendment grounds. Joining the American Civil Liberties Union in this second trip to the Supreme Court were "a broad coalition of Web sites, booksellers and civil liberties organizations, as well as online stores like Condomania and online publications like Salon." Those entities worry that the law's overly broad coverage will chill their ability to engage in frank discussions of graphic subject matter. They also worry that their content will not reach interested members of their potential audience who may be reluctant to surrender credit card information as proof of age.

Those concerns are legitimate. As ACLU lawyer Ann Breeson said in her argument, "The government can't burn down the house to roast the pig."

by TChris

Bernard Ebbers, the Worldcom CEO who allegedly cooked the corporate books to conceal the company’s financial woes from investors, has been indicted. The indictment adds Ebbers to what the Associated Press terms the “swelling ranks of corporate chieftains facing criminal prosecution and possible jail time for financial misdeeds.”

The “swelling” of the federal prison population to date has been the product of the war on drugs (pdf), not a war on corporate fraud. Will those who puff profits now be prosecuted with the vigor once directed at those who puff roaches? Apparently they will, if you believe John Ashcroft (and who wouldn’t?), who wants the indictment to send a message: “No one,” Ashcroft said, “stands above the law.” Reassuring words from that bastion of respect for the rule of law.

But why hasn’t the Attorney General protected investors by hauling Ebbers to a detention camp, denying him access to lawyers or courts? If Ashcroft truly believes that the law applies equally to all, shouldn't he be giving Ebbers the Jose Padilla treatment?

We'll be taking a few days off to have surgery on our wrist for DeQuervain's Tenosynovitis.

Surgical management involves incising the skin, identifying and cutting the diseased tendon sheath under local anesthesia, and applying a compression bandage. Patients can usually return to their normal activities within 2-3 weeks after surgery. This procedure is successful 90% of the time.

Actually, we're opting for general anesthesia, and we're told our entire arm will be bandaged. That's our right arm, and we're right-handed. Nonetheless, we're pleased to report that our wonderful guest blogger TChris has agreed to take over for Wednesday and Thursday, so TalkLeft won't be going dark. We expect to be back by Friday, but if that's not possible, keep checking in as we'll be back as soon as we can resume typing.

John Edwards is out, John Kerry is in. It will be Kerry vs. Bush this fall.

The Judge in the Scott Peterson trial ruled today that the prosecution may introduce evidence of Peterson's wiretapped calls:

Judge Alfred A. Delucchi was unswayed by the arguments, saying investigators followed proper procedures when monitoring the calls and any privileged information they heard was "so minimal to be of no consequence."

....During the first few months of 2003, investigators monitored about 3,000 of Peterson's calls, including 76 between the former fertilizer salesman and his first attorney.

Since the hearing was held behind closed doors yesterday, we don't know what those calls contain. But, earlier reports are that there is no smoking gun or confession on them.

Jury selection begins tomorrow.

Liberal Oasis dissects four questions from reporters that Scott McClellan refused to answer yesterday on Haiti:

1. “Did the United States at any point say that it would not protect him if he stayed?”

2. “Who is it that gave permission for the plane [that took Aristide away] to land in Haiti?”

3. “You said we took steps to protect him as he left Haiti [but] our forces were not around him as he left, [so] then what were the steps we took to protect him?”

4. “Three weeks ago, the administration was stressing the fact that Aristide's was a democratically-elected government. Two days ago, you began saying that Aristide had failed as a leader. What changed over that time period to shift your focus?”

It's not just the file disclosure failure in the Terry Nichols case that is under scrutiny. The failure may have been routine--and may impact cases nationally--giving some defendants cause to seek to reopen their cases:

In an oversight that could impact cases nationwide, the FBI hasn't routinely searched a special computer space where agents store investigative documents to see whether those materials should be sent to defense lawyers, Congress or special investigative bodies like the Sept. 11 inquiry.

The existence of the unsearched "I-drive" computer files, brought to the attention of The Associated Press by concerned FBI agents, could give lawyers an avenue to reopen numerous cases to determine whether documents that could have aided the defense of criminal defendants were withheld.

The FBI is uncertain about the nature or breadth of the documents on the computer space and has asked its internal investigation unit, its inspection division, to determine how many documents on I-drives in FBI offices across the country did not make it into official case files, officials said Monday.

If a large number are found, a review would begin to determine whether they should have been turned over to defense lawyers, bodies like the Sept. 11 commission or Congress, officials said. FBI supervisors said they were unaware of the problem until it was brought to their attention by AP.

A group of anti-war lawyers in Britain have submitted a petition to the International Criminal Court in the Hague seeking to indict British PM Tony Blair for war crimes:

The group Legal Action Against War have submitted a petition to the international criminal court in the Hague today, asking them to investigate alleged offences by Mr Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, and the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith.

The group said "a principal charge" was "intentionally launching an attack knowing that it will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians". The legal team said the reasons given for the war - from weapons of mass destruction to the violation of UN resolutions and regime change - were not justified under the UN charter. Michael Mansfield QC, who is leading the campaign, said "The consensus of international legal opinion suggests the basis for the war was illegal."

The latest, misguided target of the Bush Administration's War on Drugs is prescription abuse--for pain killers, sedatives and stimulants. A crackdown was announced yesterday.

Under the strategy announced Monday, the government will pay states to help develop monitoring systems to track patients' drug use. The programs would flag cases indicating a pattern of abuse, such as ``doctor shopping,'' where a patient gets prescriptions for drugs from multiple physicians.

Federal officials also plan to seek out pharmacies that sell controlled substances illegally over the Internet, which will entail deploying modern Web-crawler technology. to search out those peddling prescription drugs online.

Under President Bush's proposed 2005 budget, funds to attack the illicit use of prescription drugs would increase by $20 million, to $138 million. Most of the money would be directed at reducing the abuse of opium- and morphine-based painkillers, which are among the most widely prescribed medications.

Pain doctors and some advocates for patients with chronic pain say the government has become overzealous and has created a "chilling effect" that keeps many doctors from prescribing painkillers that patients need. They argue that the more pressing problem regarding painkillers is that so many patients in pain are not getting them.

What effect will this have on consumers? Plenty.

Some progress in fighting drug war hysteria: The Drug Enforcement Administration will allow a South Carolina doctor to treat 12 trauma victims with Ecstasy to study the drug's therapeutic potential.

The DEA's move marks a historic turn for a drug that has long been both venerated and vilified. Ecstasy, also known as MDMA, is popular among casual drug users for its reputed capacity to engender feelings of love, trust and compassion. The government classifies it with LSD and heroin as a drug with no known medical use and high potential for abuse.

Although the study's approval is by no means a federal endorsement of uncontrolled use, it will give ecstasy's proponents their first legitimate opportunity to prove the drug can offer medical benefits.

Eric Alterman on the Kerry-Edwards debate:

I was amazed at how hard Edwards came after Kerry, given that I thought he was running for vice president by this time. He’s not. He may end up with the job, but it will take a lot of swallowing by Kerry, and it’s weird that Edwards would want to go down making so much noise. On the other hand, Edwards was terrific, again, and Kerry seemed uncomfortable. That line about God and Abe Lincoln was a killer. Kerry, I dunno. I tried for some pre-debate reassurance from his people that he had a plan for dealing with his Q-rating problem. They wouldn’t grant a thing. They told me people say he’s more likable than Bush. I’m not buying. And I’m certainly not buying when you combine it with the words “Massachusetts liberal” and Bush’s two hundred million plus, and the whole thing gives me a headache.

Jury selection began today in the state trial of Terry Nichols. Oklahoma is seeking the death penalty against him. The Judge denied the latest defense request for a continuance based on news that the FBI had not turned over all documents regarding other suspects, however, he gave the prosecution a stern warning:

"This case is going to trial today because this court has been assured" by state prosecutors and federal officials that they have turned over to the defense all relevant documents, Taylor said. Should that prove to be false, the judge said, "There will not be a mistrial. There will be a dismissal of this case."

Given the repeated failure of the FBI to get its act together regarding the documents in this case, our money is on a dismissal.