"Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat."

Says Justice Scalia in today's 7-2 opinion in California v. Entertainment Merchants Association, striking down a California law that restricted the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

I wonder if Justice Scalia actually played Mortal Kombat before writing that in footnote 4. At least he ruled for the First Amendment and struck down the statute. More fun from his opinion:

California’s argument would fare better if there were alongstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence, but there is none. Certainly the books we give children to read—orread to them when they are younger—contain no shortageof gore. Grimm’s Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is made to dance in red hot slippers “till she fell dead on the floor, a sad example of envy and jealousy.” The Complete Brothers Grimm Fairy Tales 198 (2006 ed.). Cinderella’s evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. Id., at 95. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven. Id., at 54.
High-school reading lists are full of similar fare. Homer’s Odysseus blinds Polyphemus the Cyclops bygrinding out his eye with a heated stake. The Odyssey ofHomer, Book IX, p. 125 (S. Butcher & A. Lang transls.1909) (“Even so did we seize the fiery-pointed brand and whirled it round in his eye, and the blood flowed about the heated bar. And the breath of the flame singed his eyelids and brows all about, as the ball of the eye burnt away, and the roots thereof crackled in the flame”). In the Inferno, Dante and Virgil watch corrupt politicians struggle to stay submerged beneath a lake of boiling pitch, lest they beskewered by devils above the surface. Canto XXI, pp.187–189 (A. Mandelbaum transl. Bantam Classic ed.1982). And Golding’s Lord of the Flies recounts how a schoolboy called Piggy is savagely murdered by other children while marooned on an island. W. Golding, Lord of the Flies 208–209 (1997 ed.).FOOTNOTE 4

FOOTNOTE 4: JUSTICE ALITO accuses us of pronouncing that playing violent video games “is not different in ‘kind’ ” from reading violent literature. Post, at 2. Well of course it is different in kind, but not in a way that causesthe provision and viewing of violent video games, unlike the provision and reading of books, not to be expressive activity and hence not toenjoy First Amendment protection. Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat.But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy,and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny—a question to which we devote our attention in Part III, infra. Even if we can see in them “nothing of any possible value to society . . . , they are as muchentitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.” Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507, 510 (1948).

Justice Alito doesn't like the First Amendment

He was the lone dissenter in the crush video case. And now he is the lone dissenter in the funeral protester case:

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the First Amendment protects fundamentalist church members who mount anti-gay protests outside military funerals, despite the pain they cause grieving families.

The court voted 8-1 in favor of the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. The decision upheld an appeals court ruling that threw out a $5 million judgment to the father of a dead Marine who sued church members after they picketed his son's funeral.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion for the court. Justice Samuel Alito dissented.

Roberts said free speech rights in the First Amendment shield the funeral protesters, noting that they obeyed police directions and were 1,000 feet from the church.

"Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and - as it did here - inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker," Roberts said. "As a nation we have chosen a different course - to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate."

Alito strongly disagreed. "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case," he said.

Maybe the title to the post is too harsh... Justice Alito did side with corporate First Amendment rights.

In other SCOTUS news, the Court again reiterated that judges weren't tied to the guidelines, even on resentencing cases. In Pepper v. United States, Justice Sotomayor explained that a resentencing court could take into account post-sentencing rehabilitation. Doug Berman has more at his blog, but it is worth pointing out that the Court made sure to reiterate to district courts that there are times that the guidelines are based on "wholly unconvincing policy rationales not reflected in the sentencing statutes Congress enacted."

In other news, give your thoughts on Magistrate Judge Hopkins.

"Nudity itself is not per se indecent."

That was the Second Circuit, discussing Connie McDowell's scene in an NYPD epidosde. From the AP:

The Federal Communications Commission cannot fine broadcasters for showing a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of "NYPD Blue," a federal court ruled Tuesday, citing its earlier decision to strike down FCC rules regarding fleeting expletives uttered on live broadcasts as unconstitutionally vague.

The 2nd U.S. Court of Appeals in Manhattan decided Tuesday to nullify a $27,500 penalty that the FCC imposed on ABC and 45 of its affiliate stations after the image was broadcast on the police drama for less than seven seconds in February 2003. The combined fine was greater than $1.2 million.

The appeals court said its finding was consistent with its decision last year that TV stations can no longer be fined for fleeting, unscripted profanities uttered during live broadcasts.

The FCC had created its fleeting-expletive policy after a January 2003 NBC broadcast of the Golden Globe Awards in which U2 lead singer Bono uttered the phrase "f------ brilliant." The FCC said that word in any context "inherently has a sexual connotation" and can lead to enforcement.

Fox Television Stations, owned by Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., and other networks challenged the policy in 2006 after the FCC cited the use of profanity during awards programs that were aired in 2002 and 2003. The FCC has appealed that ruling.

In its Tuesday ruling, a three-judge 2nd Circuit panel wrote that there was "no significant distinction" between its decision in the expletives case and its findings in the "NYPD Blue" case.

The FCC is way over-zealous and over-protective, so the Second Circuit was right to slap the the agency down. Still, broadcasters are afraid of airing anything close to the line, and something more needs to be done than a circuit court opinion... In better news, Howard Stern now has an app!

"Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim." -- Justice Scalia during oral argument yesterday

So were some of those election results...

Here's the NY Times article on the violent video game argument in the Supreme Court:

The law would impose $1,000 fines on stores that sell violent video games to people under 18. It defined violent games as those “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being” in a way that is “patently offensive,” appeals to minors’ “deviant or morbid interests” and lacks “serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.”
“What’s a deviant violent video game?” asked Justice Antonin Scalia, who was the law’s most vocal opponent on Tuesday. “As opposed to what? A normal violent video game?”
“Some of the Grimm’s fairy tales are quite grim,” he added. “Are you going to ban them, too?”
Justice Stephen G. Breyer took the other side. He said common sense should allow the government to help parents protect children from games that include depictions of “gratuitous, painful, excruciating, torturing violence upon small children and women.”

Scalia got the better of Alito in this exchange:

But Justice Scalia said there was nothing in the tradition of American free speech that would allow the government to ban depictions of violence. The thought, he said, would have been foreign to the drafters of the First Amendment, drawing a needling comment from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the lone dissenter in the Stevens case.
“What Justice Scalia wants to know,” Justice Alito said, “is what James Madison thought about video games.”
“No,” Justice Scalia responded, “I want to know what James Madison thought about violence.”

And they better not ban Mortal Kombat!

Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s newest and youngest member, seemed to be the only justice with even a passing familiarity with the genre under review, even if it was secondhand.
“You think Mortal Kombat is prohibited by this statute?” she asked Mr. Morazzini. It is, she added, “an iconic game which I am sure half the clerks who work for us spent considerable time in their adolescence playing.”
Mr. Morazzini said the game was “a candidate” for government regulation.

There was another big oral argument yesterday -- US v. Skilling:

A three-judge appeals court panel grilled attorneys for former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling and the government on Monday, trying to decide whether to throw out or order new trials on any of Skilling's 19 convictions.
His defense lawyer, Daniel Petrocelli, argued the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that the government was wrong to use a particular legal theory in charging Skilling with conspiracy means that charge and the remaining 18 should be thrown out.
The government contends that a rational jury would have convicted even without the faulty theory that he deprived Enron of his "honest services," because evidence overwhelmingly supported Skilling's guilt.
But the hearing, in which each side had 30 minutes to provide oral arguments, was more about the judges' questions than the lawyers' answers.
Judge Edward Prado asked if it would make more sense for the federal district court where Skilling was tried in 2006 to decide the issues raised by the Supreme Court decision.
Determining if the "honest services" theory tainted the other charges would involve digging into the voluminous details of the five-month trial, Prado said.
Petrocelli said nothing would prevent the appeals court from sending the issue to the trial judge, but that the question is one of law.
"The court isn't being asked to act as a 13th juror," or guess what the original jury was thinking, Petrocelli said. Rather it needs to look at the court record and determine if a "reasonable jury" could find Skilling not guilty based on the evidence.
"The record is filled with acquittal evidence," Petrocelli said.

You can access the audio of yesterday's Fifth Circuit oral argument via this link (53.7MB Windows Media audio file). Why don't we have that in the 11th Circuit?

The Broward Bar Association has nothing better to do...

... than ask whether the JAABlog is acting professionally. From this morning's DBR:

A Broward County Bar Association committee will meet to determine whether the legal blog JAABlog — the premiere place for courthouse gossip — meets its professional standards. The professionalism committee plans to hold a closed-door meeting April 1 at the behest of association president Carlos Llorente.

Closed door? Really? I guess that they can regulate the internet or punish lawyers, right?

But the Broward County Bar Association does not have any authority to regulate or punish lawyers. Judges may have themselves to blame for some of the blog activity. Two Broward judges were charged by the state judicial watchdog with ethics violations in the past two weeks. Llorente said he has received a number of recent complaints after someone posted racial slurs on JAABlog. The comments have been removed, and the blog states the poster has been banned. “When I see lawyers in Broward County acting unprofessionally or complaints of lawyers acting unprofessionally, my obligation as president of the Broward County Bar Association is to act upon that,” Llorente said. “We’re all trying to figure out if there’s something that can or should be done. … We have no agenda, no plan. We’re just investigating it.” He said the committee will examine the blog as a whole, not just the derogatory comments. Gelin’s response? “Bring it on.” “I frankly welcome it as an opportunity to gain more exposure for the blog and our message,” he said. “This seems to be hugely ironic that they seem to have a problem with a communication medium that, despite the fact there’s a lot of negativity on there, has done more to reform this county than their organization has done since day one.” Gelin is not concerned about violating Florida Bar rules, saying he is cognizant about not crossing the line. The Florida Bar told the Review that Gelin does not face any complaints.

The Broward Blog has done an excellent job exposing serious problems in the justice system. So what's the problem?

Llorente insists the issue lies with Gelin’s extracurricular activities. “I have no problem with him being a journalist,” Llorente said. “If he wants to be an expose-type journalist, so be it. But do it as a journalist. Don’t pose as a lawyer with an inside knowledge.” When asked what is specifically offensive about the blog, Llorente said he would withhold comment until he hears from the professionalism committee.

Huh? Does that make any sense to anyone? Maybe the Broward Bar Association should be asking whether the judges and lawyers that the blog continues to expose are acting professionally....

UPDATE -- SFL weighs in here: "Let me offer a prediction: by convening such a panel the BCBA likely will do more to discredit and denigrate their own organization than anything some goofball could ever post anonymously on a blog."

Too bad they didn't have Facebook when I was in highschool

Okay, so SFL got us hooked on this Scribd thing, so here goes. Judge Garber issued this very interesting order in a case involving a student who was suspended for starting a Facebook page about the "worst teacher [she] ever met!" The student sued, with the help of the ACLU, saying that she shouldn't have been suspended for exercising her First Amendment rights. The principal filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Garber denied (for the most part). The student's suit can proceed:

Facebook Order
UPDATE -- The Herald weighs in here:

A student who set up a Facebook page to complain about her teacher -- and was later suspended -- had every right to do so under the First Amendment, a federal magistrate has ruled.

The ruling not only allows Katherine ``Katie'' Evans' suit against the principal to move forward, it could set a precedent in cases involving speech and social networking on the Internet, experts say.

The courts are in the early stages of exploring the limits of free speech within social networking, said Howard Simon, the executive director of the Florida ACLU, which filed the suit on Evans' behalf.

``It's one of the main things that we wanted to establish in this case, that the First Amendment has a life in the social networking technology as it applies to the Internet and other forms of communication,'' Simon said.

SECOND UPDATE -- And here's the NY Times:

Lawyers for Ms. Evans, 19, now a sophomore at the University of Florida, said that they were pleased by the ruling and that they hoped to bring the case to trial in the spring.
One of the lawyers, Maria Kayanan, associate legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, said the judge’s decision had clearly extended the protection of First Amendment rights to online writings of a nonthreatening manner.
“This is an important victory both for Ms. Evans and Internet free speech,” Ms. Kayanan said, “because it upholds the principle that the right to freedom of speech and expression in America does not depend on the technology used to convey opinions and ideas.”

The Conway briefs are in

Our previous coverage of Sean Conway's bar issue and proposed settlement is here (He agreed to settle his bar case for calling Judge Aleman on the Broward Blog an "evil, unfair witch" for a public reprimand). The Florida Supreme Court didn't accept the settlement with the bar, asking if Conway's speech was protected by the First Amendment.

Courtesy of JAABBlog, the briefs are in:
CONWAY RESPONSE BAR RESPONSE ACLU AMICUS BRIEF

The one worth reading is the ACLU brief.

Blogging about your own criminal trial...

... as a defendant.
UPDATED BELOW

Yup, you can read about photographer Carlos Miller's trial in state court from Miller's perspective.

I find it fascinating. Apparently, the prosecutor asked Judge Joe Fernandez (in state county court) to prohibit Miller from blogging about the trial. Fernandez denied that request.

Interesting that in a trial about First Amendment rights that the prosecutor would ask for the defendant not to be able to blog about the case....

Good for Judge Fernandez.

Hat Tip Rumpole.

UPDATE -- Well, the trial is over. And blogger/defendant Carlos Miller is not happy with the result. And apparently, Judge Fernandez is not happy with Mr. Miller, sentencing him to more probation than requested by the prosecutor.

Gagged?

Unfortunately, I will not be blogging about the Liberty City 7 case any more until the following issue is cleared up:

As regular readers know, Judge Lenard gagged the defendants for the retrial. She also gagged acquitted defendant Lyglenson Lemorin and his lawyer Joel DeFabio. I recently filed a notice of appearance for Mr. DeFabio to litigate the gag order, and Judge Lenard issued the following order:

"[T]he gag order previously issued by the Court on December 13, 2007 applies to Lyglenson Lemorin, who is now a witness for the defense in this case (see D.E. 772), and his agents, as well as to Joel DeFabio, Esq., who has been appointed by the Court to represent Mr. Lemorin as a witness associated with the defense in this case, and TO MR. DEFABIO'S AGENTS as well. . . " (emphasis added)

Because I am now one of DeFabio's agents, I take it that I cannot speak about the case. I filed a motion to clarify that today, but until that is ruled on, I don't think I will be posting about the case.

Should an acquitted defendant, his wife and his lawyer be gagged

That's the issue raised in this morning's article by Vanessa Blum:

A federal judge who declared a mistrial last month for six South Florida men charged with conspiring to support al-Qaida is taking aggressive steps to limit publicity related to the case, including silencing lawyers for a man the jury found not guilty.With a sweeping gag order imposed Dec. 13, U.S. District Judge Joan Lenard cited the need to damp down media coverage that could complicate efforts starting Jan. 7 to find impartial jurors to rehear the case.

Her order at the close of the first trial prohibits the defendants, their lawyers, prosecutors, and others, such as agents, investigators and witnesses, from talking to reporters, raising issues for defenders of free speech and drawing a challenge from one of the lawyers covered by the order.

Lenard extended the same restrictions to Lyglenson Lemorin, who was acquitted, and his criminal defense lawyer, as well as an attorney representing the Haitian national in immigration proceedings.The gag order is so broad that federal prosecutors preparing to retry the case contend it applies to Lemorin's wife, who was once listed as a potential defense witness.

I give my opinion in the article, which is that an acquitted defendant and his family should be permitted to speak.