This article in the New York Times (with graphics) tells how the polarization at the Supreme Court is reflected in clerkship hires. Conservative justices hire conservative clerks who previously clerked for conservative lower court judges. The same with liberal justices.  In Congress, too, moderate Republicans and Democrats are losing primaries to "true believers." Voters seem polarized as well. Are we really settling into a world in which we each believe we are simply at war with each other, each believing that we are fighting for good against evil opponents? When does reconciliation come back in style?

In a lawsuit filed yesterday in California, Hewlett-Packard (HP) has sued its former CEO, Mark Hurd, in an attempt to prevent Hurd from serving as president of and a director at HP's competitor, Oracle.

Enforcement of contractual restraints on employment are very difficult under California law.  California Business and Professions Code § 16600 precludes enforcement of "every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind."  There are a few exceptions to this prohibition, arguably including an exception for divulging trade secrets.  See Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP.

HP's complaint relies upon this exception and focuses on Hurd's access to and potential use of HP's confidential information on behalf of Oracle.  HP's complaint seems to base its concerns, at least in part, on Hurd's inevitable disclosure of HP's trade secrets.  However, California has refused to adopt the inevitable disclosure doctrine.  See FLIR Systems, Inc.  v. Parrish,174 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1277 (Cal. App. 2009) ("The doctrine of inevitable disclosure is not the law in California.").

It will be interesting to see Hurd's responsive pleadings and how this case proceeds.

The University of Akron will be participating in National Constitution Day with several days of activities. Constitution Day is a national celebration of the day the U.S. Constitution was signed. The United States Congress passed legislation in 2005 making it mandatory for every institution of higher education in the U.S. to celebrate Constitution Day on or around Sept. 17th on their campuses. For a full list of UA's activities click here .

     California Goveror Arnold Schwarzenegger and State Attorney General Jerry Brown have announced that they will not appeal the decision of Federal District Court Judge Vaughn Walker in the Prop 8 case.  Do they have to?  If not, does anyone else have standing to appeal the decision?

     First, some background on the legal doctrine of "standing."

     Under the Constitution, a person must have "standing"  to bring a case in federal court or to appeal it.  If the plaintiff or appellant lacks "standing" then the federal court lacks "subject matter jurisdiction" – it lacks power under the Constitution to hear the case.  This is because Article III of the Constitution provides that the federal courts have the power to hear "cases and controversies," and if the person bringing the lawsuit or appealing the decision of a lower court does not have standing then the dispute is not considered to be a "case or controversy" – it's just someone who is complaining about something.  

     In most cases it is easy to determine who has standing to bring a case or to appeal a decision of a lower court.  Almost all of the time the person challenging a law is someone who is adversely affected by it, and the law is defended by someone who benefits from it.  For example, when a worker sues his employer because of an injury suffered at work and seeks a favorable interpretation of the law of Workers Compensation, the worker may appeal any adverse ruling on that point.  Furthermore, the employer is also directly and materially affected by the interpretation of that law and will be permitted to defend its view in the trial court and in the appellate courts.  The employer has "standing" to appeal an adverse decision because it stands to gain or lose from the courts' interpretation of the law in that particular case.  But if a party is not directly affected by a court's interpretation of the law – if it had no stake in the outcome of the appeal – if its interest is purely theoretical – then it would not have standing. 

     The Supreme Court has ruled that to have standing in federal court a person must meet three requirements: (1) the person must prove that he or she has suffered an "injury in fact"; (2) the person must prove that the injury was caused by the government; and (3) the court must be able to fashion a remedy for that injury. 

     In this case the proponents of Prop 8 cannot even meet the first element, "injury in fact."  In several cases the Supreme Court has ruled that a moral injury is not enough to confer standing; a person does not have standing to challenge a law or to defend it on appeal simply because that person agrees or disagrees with the law itself.  Nor does a person have standing on the ground that, as a citizen, he or she wants the government to enforce the law or follow the Constitution.  Only people who are themselves affected by a law can defend it or support it as parties to a case.

     The proponents of Proposition 8 do not have standing for the same reason that the District Court declared the law unconstitutional.  The existence or non-existence of Proposition 8 does not affect them in the slightest.  It does affect gays and lesbians.  The law prohibiting gays and lesbians from marrying harms gay and lesbian couples – it stigmatizes them and classifies them as second class citizens.  But the decision striking down Proposition 8 and allowing gays and lesbians to marry does not harm anyone.  It does not harm heterosexual couples; they are still free to marry.  It does not harm the Church of Latter Day Saints or the Roman Catholic Church; they are free not to perform same-sex marriages or to otherwise recognize them for religious purposes.  It does not harm people who wish to object to same-sex marriage; the First Amendment protects that right, now as always.  It does not harm people who wish to discriminate against gay and lesbian couples; the law does not permit them to discriminate anyway.  It does not harm the State of California or any political subdivision of the state; couples in domestic partnerships are entitled to all of the same benefits from the state that married couples are.  

     This really is a very unusual case.  Almost all of the time a law that harms one person benefits another, and so there are parties on both sides of the dispute who can challenge and defend the law.  Proposition 8 harms a great many people but it benefits no-one.  Accordingly, no-one has standing to defend it on appeal except the original defendants in the case, Governor Schwarzenegger and State Attorney General Brown.

     Do the Governor and State Attorney General have a legal duty to defend the law on appeal?  The Pacific Justice Institute sure thinks so.  Here is an excerpt from their posting on the subject:

     Whether or not the citizens of California realize it, the social contract that the people have made to govern themselves with is being breached. We are witnessing what is essentially a coup. Although Governor Schwarzenegger and Attorney General Brown do not support a traditional definition for marriage, it is imperative that they recognize that nothing less than preservation of a republican form of government is at stake. If they still believe in the radical experiment which is democracy – that the people are wise enough to govern themselves – it is crucial that they take the simple procedural step of filing a notice of appeal so that a lawfully enacted amendment to the Constitution can be weighed in the scales of justice by the full judicial process. This is necessary to preserve the system and form of government which they vowed to support and defend. Otherwise, what will occur is a usurpation of power that is violative of the fundamental constitutional structure that California has in place. If not resisted, their legacy will be that of plunging the state into a constitutional crisis.

     Bridgette P. LaVictoire reports in this posting that a California appellate court, the Third District Court of Appeals, has ruled against PJI in its attempt to force the Governor and State Attorney General to defend Proposition 8.  PJI intends to appeal this question to the California Supreme Court.  In addition, PJI is seeking a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that would allow it to appeal the ruling of the District Court.   

     When the constitutionality of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" was challenged in federal court, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Holder defended the law, infuriating many supporters of gay rights.  But they did the right thing.  The Executive Branch of government is constitutionally bound to "faithfully execute the law," and that includes defending the law in court when it is challenged. 

     How far does that duty extend?  Does the Executive Branch have to appeal adverse rulings?  I doubt it.  The Executive Branch also possesses "prosecutorial discretion" – it has the power to decide whether to prosecute a case, and whether to take an appeal when it loses in the trial court.  Some cases are stronger than others, and the Executive Branch must be free to decide how it wishes to allocate its resources.

     In short, do the Governor and State Attorney General have a moral duty to appeal this decision?  Yes.  Do they have a legal duty to file the appeal? No.  Does PJI or the other proponents of Proposition 8 have legal standing to file an appeal? No.

Wilson Huhn teaches constitutional law at The University of Akron School of Law.  Visit his website at http://sites.google.com/site/huhnconstitutionallaw/.

This article from the NY Times describes how some content owners have permitted fans to upload copyrighted TV shows to YouTube in exchange for sharing in the targeted advertising revenue generated from showing these programs on YouTube.

This is a good example of using IP to build bridges rather than using IP solely as either a sword or a shield.

     One of the remarkable things about Judge Vaughn Walker's decision in the Prop 8 case is the extent to which he treats Proposition 8 as a form of gender discrimination.

     Laws that deny gay and lesbian couples the right to marry obviously discriminate on the basis of gender; such laws confer a valuable legal status upon a man and a woman but deny the same benefit to two men or two women.  But Judge Walker takes the argument further and explains why such laws are a classic form of gender discrimination.

     To the extent that the proponents of such laws depend solely upon religious teachings or moral tradition their cause is doomed.  In this country people can't force their unfounded assumptions upon others, particularly when those assumptions consist of the unsupported belief that one group of people is superior to another.  In court, appeals to God and appeals to nature are fruitless.  The proponents of these laws must appeal to reason if they wish to prove that heterosexual couples are superior to gay and lesbian couples.

     The reason that was given in court was that "children need a mother and a father" – not two mothers or two fathers.  The proponents of Proposition 8 invoked reliance upon the specialization of gender roles in parenting.  This was a natural position for the Church of Latter-Day Saints and the Roman Catholic Church, who were the two principal forces behind the adoption of Proposition 8.  Essentially, they argued, to grow up healthy and strong children need a male and a female parent.  The mother shares unconditional love, while the father instills discipline; the mother, warmth, the father, heat; the mother tends the heart and hearth, while the father hunts and protects.

     The proposition that "children need both a mother and a father" or at least the idea that these roles are best performed by a woman and a man turned out to be difficult to prove.  Research shows that intact families with a mother and a father in the home are in general superior to single-parent families – parenting is a tough job, and it's great to have help – but studies do not support the conclusion that stable heterosexual couples are superior to stable gay and lesbian couples in raising healthy, happy children.

     There is another sense in which the opponents of same-sex marriage may stand a chance in proving that the law may make a difference.  They also contend that a mother is a role model for her daughters and a father is a role model for his sons.  A mother shows her daughters how a woman should act, while a father shows his sons how to be a man.  This may be true.  In my opinion it is not only possible but probable that gender roles are taught, and taught most effectively, in the home.  Accordingly, if the government seeks to maintain and reinforce men and women in strict gender roles it makes sense that families should be encouraged to reflect this pattern – through legal compulsion if necessary.

     This type of legal gender-assignment may comport with fundamental religious doctrine, particularly within religions that encourage women not to work outside the home and that permit only men to serve as priests.  But our society has now rejected any role for the law to play in determining how "manly" or how "womanly" individuals choose to be.  Under the Constitution a man can be a "mother" and a woman can be a "father" if they choose.  Judge Walker's decision goes far beyond gay rights.  It concerns the right of every single person in society to accept or reject traditional gender roles.

Wilson Huhn teaches constitutional law at The University of Akron School of Law.  Visit his website at http://sites.google.com/site/huhnconstitutionallaw/.

Some thoughts here.

     A century ago Louis Brandeis filed his brief on behalf of working women in the case of Muller v. Oregon.  That brief started a movement that has revolutionized how our courts analyze and interpret the law.  The result has been a change in our jurisprudence from "faith-based" to "reality-based" thinking, from deontological to consequentialist philosophy, from reliance upon religion and ideology to resort to reason and social science.

     In 1903 Oregon enacted a maximum hour law for women.   Business interests challenged the law on the then-prevailing theory that such laws are unconstitutional because they impair "freedom of contract," which was considered to be a violation of the Due Process Clause.

Louis Brandeis

Louis Brandeis, a corporate lawyer who nevertheless had progressive ideals, filed a brief on behalf of the State of Oregon in support of the law.  His brief was over 100 pages long.  It consisted of less than 2 pages of legal argument; the rest was summaries of dozens of social science and economic studies proving that maximum hour laws improve the lives of working women and their families.  This brief was a milestone in American law.  From this point forward lawyers and judges became more and more concerned with the practical implications of the laws they sought to interpret and apply.  This movement, called "legal realism" or "policy analysis," is marked by careful and thorough consideration of the consequences that will ensue, both for the parties to the case as well as for the rest of society, depending upon how the law is interpreted.  As Brandeis said,

The method I have tried to employ in arguing cases has been inductive, reasoning from the facts.

     This type of brief – heavily reliant upon policy analysis and social science – is known as a "Brandeis Brief."  However, Brandeis' method of reasoning was not what won the case for the women of Oregon.  In its decision the Supreme Court agreed with Brandeis that the law was unconstitutional, but for an unfortunate reason: the opinion of the Court is laced with historical prejudices, overbroad generalizations, and stereotyping about women's shortcomings, from their lesser "capacity for long continued labor" to their lack of "self-reliance which enables on to assert full rights."  The Court asserts that "history discloses the fact that woman has always been dependent upon man," and states that the justification for the law

rests in the inherent difference between the two sexes, and in the different functions in life which they perform.

          A century later Judge Vaughn Walker of the Federal District Court for Northern District of the State of California issued his ruling in the Prop 8 case, and it illustrates the extent to and manner in which the law has evolved during the intervening time.  In their campaign for the adoption of Proposition 8 the proponents of the law appealed to every prejudice they could muster against gays and lesbians – that if allowed to marry gay and lesbian couples would somehow harm children, destroy the institution of marriage, or interfere with other people's rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.  At this trial it was the opponents of the law who called expert witnesses and who stuck to the facts; the proponents of Proposition 8 called but two witnesses who presented no evidence – I repeat, no evidence – that same-sex marriage will harm any child, interfere with the marriage of any heterosexual couple, or trample on the rights of any person to speak or worship in the manner they see fit.

     Is it not astonishing that in the space of a single century the law has thoroughly embraced Louis Brandeis' approach – and that of other leading judges of his generation, Benjamin Cardozo, Learned Hand, and Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. – that courts must consider the realistic consequences of their decisions when interpreting the law, and that their decisions must be based upon sound social science?

     Gay and lesbian relationships are no different from heterosexual relationships in any significant regard relevant to the right to marry.  As Judge Walker points out, the ability to procreate is not a requirement for marriage in any state of the union.  The two couples opposing the law were able to prove to the court's satisfaction that gay and lesbian couples love each other just as much and can care for children just as well as heterosexual couples.  The proponents of the law were reduced to relying upon religious doctrine, moral teaching, received faith – in short, traditional notions of right and wrong.  The court appropriately found these considerations to be insufficient – indeed, illegitimate – as justifications for a law denying gay and lesbian couples the right to marry.  In the modern era, the parties to a lawsuit had better be able to back up their assertions about the law with valid and reliable social science – not ideology.

     There is another respect in which Judge Walker's opinion in Perry v. Schwartzenegger differs from the Supreme Court's opinion in Muller.  A century ago the Supreme Court based its decision on "the inherent difference between the two sexes."  Judge Vaughn's decision is based in part upon the general elimination of strict gender roles from our law and from our daily lives; in short, the relative similarlity of the two sexes.  I will discuss that portion of Judge Vaughn's decision in tomorrow's posting.

Wilson Huhn teaches constitutional law at The University of Akron School of Law.  Visit his website at http://sites.google.com/site/huhnconstitutionallaw/.

In my Law and Theology seminar, the students (and I) are authoring a course blog. My latest entry is about a recent decision in the 7th Circuit on the funding of student worship and proselytizing activities by the University of Wisconsin. Check it out here.

More here.  Also, the Business Law Prof Blog gets nominated as one of the Top-25 Business Law Blogs.

Go here to find out how I manage to plug my nomination for the best house music podcast of the year into a business law blog post.

DRAGNET stands for "Database Retrieval Access using Google's New Electronic Technology," a specialized search engine that was developed by librarians at the New York Law School. This feature enables you to "drag the net" through a group of free law-related Web resources. A DRAGNET search is like a Google search, except that it runs in only a select group of websites, produced by the organizations and entities listed below. The sites were chosen by library staff for their reliability and utility to legal researchers.  Your search retrieves the top 100 hits, ranked for relevance by Google’s search engine.

How to Use
The search box at the top of the page searches all sites listed on the page.  If searching for state law information include the state name in your search.  For instance, if you are searching for the residency requirement for divorce in Ohio, type -> ohio divorce resident.  For national level information just type your words.  Try searching -> Guantanamo.

You can find some (hopefully) interesting commentary here.  Also, do I have to use casebooks to teach corporate law?

     Here are links to competing views about the Park51 Islamic Cultural Center.  I also offer my opinion on the subject.

The Park51 website, which includes this vision statement:

Park51 will be dedicated to pluralism, service, arts and culture, education and empowerment, appreciation for our city and a deep respect for our planet. Park51 will join New York to the world, offering a welcoming community center with multiple points of entry.

With world-class facilities, a global scope and strong local roots, Park 51 will offer a friendly and accessible platform for conversations across our identities.

August 23, 2010 story from CBS News, "Ron Paul Backs 'Ground Zero Mosque, Splitting with Son Rand."

August 21, 2010 article by Tom Rogan of the Guardian contending that there is considerable dispute within each major American political party over the building of the community center, citing on the one hand statements from Republicans Sarah Palin and Newt Gingrich opposing the community center and responses from other Republicans such as Ted Olson, Pat Buchanan, Chris Christie, and Grover Norquist against what they perceive as overreaction to the project.  He also cites conflicting views among Democrats.

August 17, 2010, post by Valerie Elverton Dixon in the Washington Post, entitled "The Park 51 Islamic Cultural Center and American Values."

August 14, 2010 article by Pauline Jelinek of AP describing President Obama's statements on the subject and reaction from other major political figures.

July 28, 2010 Statement of the Anti-Defamation League taking the position that people have a constitutional right to build the center, but that they should choose another location.  The ADL states:

the proponents of the Islamic Center may have every right to build at this site, and may even have chosen the site to send a positive message about Islam. The bigotry some have expressed in attacking them is unfair, and wrong. But ultimately this is not a question of rights, but a question of what is right. In our judgment, building an Islamic Center in the shadow of the World Trade Center will cause some victims more pain – unnecessarily – and that is not right.

     The ADL also has a page with links to stories in the media about the project.

     Although I acknowledge the truth of the ADL's statement that the proposed location of this building near Ground Zero will cause some victims more pain, ultimately I believe that permitting the construction of the Islamic Cultural Center in this place demonstrates faith in fundamental American values of tolerance and freedom of religion.  In some Islamic countries Christians and Jews face brutal discrimination - no churches or synagogues are permitted in Saudi Arabia, and evangelism is punishable by death.  The construction of an Islamic cultural center in a place that is sacred to all Americans will serve as a beacon for freedom and the American way of life, and a repudiation of the prejudice and hatred that the terrorists stand for.  Our Constitution protects the Free Exercise of Religion.

     Governor David Patterson generously offered state land in an alternative location for the project.  Although this proposal was made with the best of intentions, in my opinion its implementation would have been unconstitutional because it violates the other constitutional provision protecting freedom of religion – the Establishment Clause.  Just as many Islamic countries do a poor job of protecting the Free Exercise of religion, many also do not observe the Separation of Church and State.  The government should not be offering land to any religious body.

     It is no coincidence that some of the loudest voices expressing outrage over the building of what is popularly called the "Ground Zero Mosque" belong to the people who are most vociferous in promoting Christian symbols and doctrine in the public sphere – the teaching of creationism and prayer in the public schools, government aid for parochial schools, and the prominent display of the Ten Commandments in courthouses and on statehouse land.  These people fail to recognize that what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.  If it is constitutional to have Christian symbols and ideology in schools, courthouses, and public squares, then Islamic symbols and ideology also belong there. 

     Freedom of religion means that the government must remain neutral as to religion – neither favoring nor opposing it.  Under the Constitution religion is a private matter.  It is up to individuals and private groups what their religious beliefs shall be, and where to erect their religious institutions.  Americans don't dictate to people where they can build their churches, synagogues, and mosques.

     The student chapters of the Federalist Society and the American Civil Liberties Union are hosting a debate at the University of Akron School of Law tomorrow  entitled "Battle at the Border: Is Arizona's Immigration Law Constitutional?"  More information about the debate and links to sources of information about the subject are below the fold.

     The student organizations have invited Hans Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation and Gary Daniels of the American Civil Liberties Union to debate the constitutionality of the Arizona law.  The program will be held at noon tomorrow in Room 151 of the law school. 

Below are some links to information about the Arizona law:

Article by Randal C. Archibald of the New York Times, "Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration," posted April 23, 2010.

Washington Post interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio about the Arizona immigration law, posted April 30, 2010.

Blog entry by Wilson Huhn, "Key Portions of Arizona Immigration Law Struck Down by Federal Court" posted at Akron Law Cafe on July 30, 2010.

Article by Paul Davenport, AP, "Arizona Shelves Idea of Changing Immigration Law," August 16, 2010.

Article by Brian Montopoli of CBS News, "Michael Steele: Arizona Immigration Law Doesn't Reflect Entire GOP," describing the statements of the Republican National Chairman on Univision, August 24, 2010.

FAIR (Federation for American Immigration Reform) position page supporting the Arizona law entitled "Immigration in Arizona: Fact Sheet"

NCLR (National Council of La Raza) position page generally opposing state and local initiatives that "create mistrust, fear, discrimination, and intolerance in communities," and a link to an NCLR document, "Five Facts About Undocumented Workers in the United States"

Akron Law in conjunction with the Akron Bar Association will present a continuing legal education (CLE) program titled “Brief Writing and Oral Advocacy” on Thursday, Sept. 30 from 8 – 11:45 a.m. at the Akron Bar Association (57 South Broadway, Akron).

The program will address how to be most effective in court. Ninth District Court of Appeals Judge Beth Whitmore and Director of the Legal Clinic and Appellate Review Office and Professor of Law J. Dean Carro will provide insight on written and oral advocacy.

 The cost to attend is $105 for Akron Law Alumni/Akron Bar Association Members; $130 for non-alumni/non-members; and free for Akron Law Students. Three CLE credits are included in the cost. Register by e-mail at manovac@uakron.edu ; phone at 330-972-6363 or online here .

     The principles of Constitutional Law are expressed in many voices.

     I begin with the individual. Americans accept as fundamental the principle that all persons are endowed with certain inalienable rights – that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – and that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Individual rights are not an exception to the rule, an anomalous conceit that society and the rule of law must sometimes reluctantly acknowledge. Instead, the first duty of government is to protect the inalienable rights of the individual from both public and private interference. Each of us has the right to think what we want, to say what we think, and to act in accordance with those thoughts so long as we do not harm other individuals or interfere with their lawful rights.

     The Constitution also reflects the wishes of We, the People. It is a social contract, an agreement as to how we shall govern ourselves. The foundation principles of our Constitution are democracy, tolerance, and the rule of law, and although we disagree about many specific applications of the Constitution, adherence to these principles means that we are devoted to the nonviolent resolution of disputes. We do not resort to mobs or even untrammeled majority rule; instead we resolve our collective differences peacefully, through persuasion, legislation, litigation, and voting. The principle of democracy means that all persons have an equal right to participate in our government – in choosing our leaders, in the enactment of legislation, and in the enforcement of laws. The principle of tolerance means that while we reserve the right to criticize others, we may not act or legislate solely on the basis of irrational prejudice or unfounded fear. Finally, the Constitution has meaning only insofar as it is a law, and only so long as we and our government are faithfully obedient to it.

     In addition, in interpreting the Constitution we must take into account what our forebears have said and done. What the framers wrote – what the framers and ratifiers intended – how the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court, have interpreted the Constitution – how our society has conducted itself over the centuries – all contribute to our understanding of the Constitution. Our ancestors speak to us through the text of the Constitution, the intent of the framers, judicial precedent, and societal tradition, and their views must be taken into account.

     But one final voice must also be heard. We must listen as well to the Other – the outcast, the despised – the criminal, the heretic, the drug addict, the prostitute, the mentally retarded, the homosexual, the pregnant teenager, the illegal alien – we must reason with Kant’s categorical imperative, we must don Rawl’s veil of ignorance, we must welcome Buber’s concept of “thou,” we must apply the Golden Rule, we must love our neighbor as ourselves. Compassion, empathy, reciprocity – all of these are also necessary for constitutional analysis. If we believe that above all the Constitution stands for the principle that all persons are endowed with inalienable rights, we must be willing to put ourselves in the place of others in order to truly understand the meaning of the Constitution.

Wilson Huhn teaches Constitutional Law at The University of Akron School of Law.

The link is here.

Some thoughts here.  Also, a post on the increasing role of state securities regulators.

Some thoughts here.

How do countries’ values and political system shape citizens’ access to online content?

If you have been following the Google and China struggle this year, you saw the Internet giant attempting to offer their search engine to the people of China but having to filter/censor to abide by China law.  In the end, Google kept Google.cn (China) alive but offers a link to unfiltered Hong Kong!   July update here.  

The U.S. State Department issued an entire online journal about internet censorship.    “The first part of this journal addresses the difficulty agreeing on a universally applicable definition of Internet freedom. Nations impose many different kinds of restrictions. Some represent the efforts of authoritarian regimes to repress their opponents, but others instead reflect diverse political traditions and cultural norms.

Other materials survey the current state of ‘net freedom in different parts of the world. Freedom House, a leading nongovernmental organization, has studied government efforts to control, regulate, and censor different forms of electronic social communication. Its findings are explained.

The issue also explores a number of issues that help define the contours of Internet freedom. The term “intermediary liability” may not pique one’s interest, but it assumes new relevance phrased as whether YouTube is liable for an offensive video posted by a third party. From dancing babies to public libraries, the issues that will delimit global citizens’ access to information are being contested every day.”

Access or download the journal here.

At least according to one Akron professor: here.  Also, links to a new book on the failures of college education.

More information here.

The National Conference of State Legislatures has created a web site called the “Immigrant Policy Project.”  It pulls together on one page lists to hundreds of state immigration laws.  Arizona is not the only state to take on immigration enforcement.  You can see a list by state or by subject.  Check out Ohio’s efforts.

“With no federal immigration reform in the foreseeable future, state legislatures continue to step up to the plate to address the complex and challenging issue of immigration. In the first six months of 2010, every state in regular session considered laws related to immigrants or immigration. State legislators introduced 1,374 bills and resolutions in 46 states relating to immigrants and refugees. The number of bill introductions is comparable to the first half of 2009, when 50 states considered more than 1,400 bills and resolutions pertaining to immigrants. Montana, Nevada, North Dakota and Texas are not in regular session in 2010.

As of June 30, 2010, 44 state legislatures passed 191 laws and adopted 128 resolutions. Five bills were vetoed, for a total of 314 enacted laws and resolutions, a 21 percent increase over 2009. An additional 10 bills were pending governor’s approval. For the same period in 2009, 44 states had enacted 144 laws and adopted 115 resolutions; 23 were pending governor’s approval and three bills were vetoed. Delaware and North Carolina have introduced bills but have yet to enact legislation.

Getting the most attention this year has been Arizona’s immigration enforcement laws (SB.1070 and HB.2162). Key provisions include: law enforcement must attempt to determine the immigration status of a person involved in a lawful stop, detention or arrest when the officer reasonably suspects the person is an illegal immigrant; state residents may sue state and local agencies for noncompliance; and failure to carry an alien registration document is now a state violation. More information on these Arizona laws can be found under the omnibus category, and online.”

“As of June 30, bills similar to Arizona’s had been introduced in five state legislatures:  South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Rhode Island and Michigan.  Minnesota and South Carolina legislative sessions have ended.

State laws related to immigration have increased dramatically in recent years:

• In 2005, 300 bills were introduced; 38 laws were enacted and 6 vetoed.
• In 2006, 570 bills were introduced, 84 laws were enacted and 12 resolutions adopted.
• In 2007, 1,562 bills were introduced, 240 laws were enacted and 50 resolutions adopted.
• In 2008, 1,305 bills were introduced, 206 laws were enacted and 64 resolutions adopted.
• In 2009, more than 1,500 bills were introduced, 222 laws were enacted and 131 resolutions adopted.” 

Summaries of all enacted laws and resolutions are available online sorted alphabetically by state and by category at www.ncsl.org/programs/immig.   

• Enacted laws and resolutions as of July 20 2010 by state
• Enacted laws and resolutions as of July 20 2010 by subject

Source

At least a couple, here.  Also, when corporate political spending goes wrong.