“Please accept these terms and conditions in order to continue Life.” Hilarious and unnerving: “Your stored mind contains one of more patterns that contravene the Prevention of Crime and Terrorism Act of 2050. Please stand by while we adjust these patterns.” And don’t miss, at 1:57, the fate of memories covered by other people’s copyright [Tom Scott, YouTube video, 2:44]
Archive for July, 2017
Police roundup
- “My dad was a cop. He despised the bad guys. But he always told me, ‘we’re the good guys and people should always know the difference.'” [Rep. Eric Swalwell on Twitter, Daniel Dale/Toronto Star on President’s “You can take the hand away, okay?” remarks about handling of suspects in custody; reactions from IACP and rounded up at NYT; related Caroline Linton, CBS News on Suffolk County, N.Y. police department]
- New legislation in Texas, pushed by police unions, authorizes special courts for cops, guards, and first responders who seek to blame misbehavior on job-related mental conditions [Jolie McCullough/Texas Tribune via Radley Balko]
- Providence has bad habit of ticketing drivers over parking practices you’d assume were legal [Susan Campbell/WPRI, Scott Shetler/Quirky Travel Guy, 2011]
- Boston cop to be reinstated with five years’ back pay after nearly choking unarmed man to death; victim, a corrections deputy, had settled with city for $1.4 million [Boston Herald via Jonathan Blanks] Camera saves footage from 30 seconds before activation button pushed: “Baltimore is reviewing 100 cases after video leaks appearing to show police planting drug evidence” [Veronika Bondarenko/Business Insider, Justin Fenton and Kevin Rector/Baltimore Sun] What’s it take for cops to get disciplined, anyway? [Jonathan Blanks on Fort Worth, Tex. whistleblowing case]
- From the Des Moines Boy Police to D.A.R.E.: America’s long history of enlisting kids as cops to watch peers, family [Joshua Reeves, Reason]
- Among the public policy involvements of the Fraternal Order of Police: arguing in the Bank of America housing-disparate-impact case for more bank liability to municipalities over lending practices [Liz Farmer, Governing]
Sangria served to kids by mistake and someone must pay
Two kids accidentally got served sangria at a suburban Boston restaurant. Despite lack of any report of ill effects from the mix-up, the mom is still suing, just because [NBC Boston]
Amazon as antitrust target
“Is Amazon a monopoly? And if so, should regulators begin the process of separating the massive retailer’s operations?” Caleb Brown and I discuss for the Cato Daily Podcast. Plus: Joshua Wright Federalist Society podcast on antitrust law.
Judge Janice Brown on cy pres, cont’d
In the D.C. Circuit case of Keepseagle v. Perdue, mentioned in this space last month, Judge Janice Rogers Brown had some choice words regarding the constitutional status of class-action slush funds arising from the settlement of a suit against the federal government on behalf of Native Americans claiming discrimination against them by the Department of Agriculture:
$380,000,000 is, to use the late Senator Dirksen’s wry phrase, “real money.” That is what has been left on the table for private disbursement in this case. Perhaps one day, I will possess my colleagues’ schadenfreude toward the Executive Branch raiding hundreds-of-millions of taxpayer dollars out of the Treasury, putting them into a slush fund disguised as a settlement, and then doling the money out to whatever constituency the Executive wants bankrolled. But, that day is not today….
The Executive Branch may wish to favor certain interests on the taxpayer’s dime. It may wish to use the Judicial Branch’s enforcement of settlement agreements to avoid asking Congress for an appropriation. But the Constitution’s design gives the People’s elected representatives a means to thwart these “overgrown prerogatives.” . . . By limiting the “judicial Power” to resolving “Cases” and “Controversies,” . . . the Constitution ensures the Judicial Branch has “no influence over . . . the purse.” . . . Expenditures toward the fulfilment of public policy are integral to policymaking itself, and policymaking is left to the legislature. . . . In short, congressional control over the People’s purse is a structural limit on both the Executive and Judicial Branches.
Alas, the analysis came in a dissent. Mark Pulliam writes up the case at Liberty and Law.
Libel, slander, and defamation roundup
- After nearly four years federal judge grants summary judgment to blogger/prosecutor Patrick Frey, one of many defendants sued by Brett Kimberlin [Patterico] That took a lot of thankless pro bono work by attorney/Likelihood of Confusion blogger Ron Coleman (who writes about it here) and Maryland employment lawyer Bruce Godfrey [Eric Turkewitz, more reactions]
- India: “editor explains how threat of legal action is used to silence journalists” [Aayush Soni, Committee To Protect Journalists]
- Liberty Counsel v. GuideStar, Maajid Nawaz v. SPLC: “How the Southern Poverty Law Center Enraged Nominal Conservatives Into Betraying Free Speech Values” [Popehat]
- “Former University Official Files Libel Lawsuit Against His Replacement For Things A Journalist Said” [Tim Cushing, TechDirt, Tennessee]
- “Ted Rall Is Incensed That Anti-SLAPP Laws Protect Everyone” [Popehat]
- Conjuring up notional John Doe defendants can help get injunctions forcing websites to take down stories [Paul Alan Levy, Arizona]
Vicarious criminal liability for managers: how we got there
In Dotterweich v. U.S., a 1943 case that established a persistent and troublesome doctrine in criminal law, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed that a pharmaceutical company manager could appropriately be convicted over the misdeeds of an underling without having to show that he knew of the violation, participated in it, intended it, or was negligent in failing to prevent it. My new Cato post summarizes new research by Craig Lerner on Dotterweich’s trial, in which the court seemed to struggle with the idea of imposing vicarious guilt without mens rea (a guilty state of mind). I also link to the chapter I wrote on white-collar prosecution in this year’s new edition of the Cato Handbook for Policymakers.
Privacy a casualty in war on opioids
Law enforcement officials in some states are seeking warrantless access to prescription databases. A New Jersey bill “would require officials to ‘certify’ that they are engaged in a specific investigation,” seeking to calm fears that enforcers will begin trawling data for people to investigate. Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo has already signed a similar bill. “In California, the Supreme Court ruled recently that the state Medical Board can dig through prescription drug records without a warrant or subpoena.” [Associated Press via Scott Shackford, Reason]
Race, poverty, and Child Protective Services
Libertarians have been warning approximately forever about CPS’s power to yank kids from homes. (For instance.) Could the race angle finally spur reform? [Stephanie Clifford and Jessica Silver-Greenberg, New York Times]
CFPB anti-arbitration rule
Why it should go [Rafael Mangual and Jarrett Dieterle, Investors Business Daily] And Thaya Brook Knight, Cato:
If customers were really upset about arbitration, it seems they would have presented a terrific market for a company that would offer them contracts free of arbitration clauses. The trade-off would likely have been slightly higher fees for their products to off-set the costs. That is, effectively the trade-off the new rule presents: no arbitration clause, but higher costs. To my knowledge, no one offered this trade-off. Given the competitiveness of the market, it seems that if there were customers willing to pay for a product, banks and credit card companies would have offered it. The fact that no one did suggests to me that arbitration clauses are not that important to consumers. Not important enough, at least, to justify higher costs. This makes the rule a bit strange. It forces on consumers an option they never chose, all in the name of protecting their best interests.