This post is again in response to the question posed by Arthur Kegerreis in his blog post Censorship, Ann Magnuson, Lisa Douglass, David DePalo and the KGB, in which he asks: “when corporate interests dictate the rules for a society, online or not, [are] the community’s best interests . . . ultimately . . . served?”

[S]miley-face posturing aside, users should never forget that Facebook remains, at heart, not a community but a Silicon Valley startup, always hungry for exponential growth and new revenue streams. So be sure to review those new privacy “options,” and take Facebook’s recommendations with a huge grain of salt.   Valleywag  Facebook’s New ‘Privacy’ Scheme Smells Like an Anti-Privacy Plot.

Taking control of your own privacy by using the privacy settings that Facebook offers is a good start – but it’s time to start demanding more of the companies who hold our personal information. Tell Facebook that you want better privacy protection for your personal information.  ACLU   What Do Facebook Quizzes Know About You?

The Norwegian Consumer Council, has studied the privacy policies and terms and conditions of social networking sites and says that many do not properly protect Norwegian users and do not comply with Norwegian law.   Consumer group preps legal challenge to Facebook terms – Getting poked all the way from Norway.

 The Assistant Commissioner determined that Facebook did not have adequate safeguards in place to prevent unauthorized access by application developers to users’ personal information, and furthermore was not doing enough to ensure that meaningful consent was obtained from individuals for the disclosure of their personal information to application developers.   Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic.

 
So when you “check your Facebook page” today, also check your privacy page with this tool:  http://www.reclaimprivacy.org/facebook

This post is in response to the question posed by Arthur Kegerreis in his blog post Censorship, Ann Magnuson, Lisa Douglass, David DePalo and the KGB, in which he asks: “when corporate interests dictate the rules for a society, online or not, [are] the community’s best interests . . . ultimately . . . served?”

Although the concept of incorporation has been around since the Roman Empire and the oldest commercial corporation was supposedly chartered in Sweden in 1347, the British East India Company sets today’s precedence for corporations.

This corporation (or invention of the British Crown through the creation of Queen Elizabeth I in 1600) allowed the British to exploit their colonies while freeing the owners of the enterprise, for the first time, from the responsibility for their abhorrent behavior.  In short, the British East India Company allowed the British Crown to rape India without any of the Christian guilt.  (Get exceedingly rich being brutal and exploitive – sound good?)

The U.S. founding fathers recognized this danger and believed corporate charters should be granted only to those entities willing to serve the greater public interest.  Early on, states would restrict a corporation to one type of business and strictly limited the amount of capital it could amass.  The states also required stockholders to be local residents, detailed specific benefits that were due the community, and placed a limit on the life of a corporation’s charter.  States would withdraw a corporation’s charter if it deviated from its stated mission or acted in a manner inconsistent with its charter.

Eventually, the restrictions imposed to protect the public were eroded away.

The major change came in 1886, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a corporation has the right of “personhood” under the 14th Amendment (originally intended to protect the rights of freed slaves) and, as such, enjoys the same constitutional protections as all of us.

The corporation had, thus, become a super person– legally entitled to all civil rights without any civil responsibilities.

The corporation is a “legal fiction” that allows the investors (who own the business) to avoid personal responsibility for business dealings that are unethical (or illegal) even though that unprincipled conduct profits them enormously.  That is the antithesis of the community’s “best interests.”

I admit, the story has been fun but I was waiting for the legal fallout.

Yesterday, John Schwartz got things started with this New York Times article.

According to the article, Rekers (a clinical psychologist and ordained Baptist minister) has testified in cases concerning same-sex marriage and gay adoption that gay men and lesbians aren’t fit to parent.  (Read more about Professor George here.)

In one such case, he testified in a suit challenging a Florida law banning adoption by gay parents – his testimony was a major part of Attorney General Bill McCollum’s defense of the statute.  Florida paid Rekers $120,000.

The question is whether or not this scandal discredits Rekers’ testimony.

“Each lawyer must tell the court if he comes to know that one of his witnesses has given ‘false’ testimony,” said Stephen Gillers, an expert in legal ethics at New York University.

McCollum has distanced himself from Rekers. “It is safe to say that if this case moves beyond this stage, Mr. Rekers will have no further involvement in the case,” said Ryan Wiggins, a spokeswoman for McCollum. “We will certainly not be recommending him in the future.”

After a judge declared the Florida gay adoption law unconstitutional, McCollum appealed.  In his papers, McCollum called out the lower court’s “wholesale disregard” of testimony by Rekers and another expert, calling the decision “arbitrary.”

Rekers has denounced the “false reports,” stating: “I have not engaged in any homosexual behavior whatsoever. I am not gay and never have been.”

But still, does McCollum have a duty to bring the scandal to the attention of the appellate court?

According to Gillers, Mr. McCollum is now obligated both as a lawyer and as a public official to alert the appellate court. “It is not enough for the attorney general simply to refrain from relying on the testimony in his brief and argument,” he said. “He has an affirmative duty to speak up.”

You are the judge.  Has Dr. George Rekers been discredited – based on his trip to Europe with his “Rentboy”?

This is one side of the Virginia State Seal.  It appears on Virginia’s flag.

It depicts the Roman goddess Virtus (Virtue) standing victoriously over Tyranny.  Beneath him is the motto Sic Semper Tyrannis:  Thus Always to Tyrants.

Libertas, Aeternitas and Ceres (Roman goddesses) pose on the other side of the seal.

Below is the new lapel pin Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli recently handed out to his staff.

Cuccinelli has covered Virtus in “more modest attire” that “harkens back to an older version of the seal.”

This is the same Cuccinelli who, in March, advised state colleges and universities they lack the legal authority to protect gay employees from discrimination.

You are the judge.  How do you sentence Cuccinelli?  Is ridicule enough?

Unfortunately, the judge doesn’t think the slogan on the woman’s T-shirt – “I own the pussy, so I make the rules” – was funny and calls the woman to the bench to ask her if she thought the T-shirt was appropriate.

Apparently, the woman tells the judge that the T-shirt would have been inappropriate if she had been the defendant.

The judge thinks otherwise and holds the woman in contempt.  She is handcuffed and immediately incarcerated.  She was eventually released after an overnight stay.

You can read more of the story here – but I doubt that is the whole story.

You are the judge.  What would you have done?

From their meeting place, the “zombies” proceeded down Nicollet Mall, walking in a stiff, lurching fashion. They carried four bags of sound equipment. One bag contained an iPod, a radio transmitter, an antenna, and a wireless phone handset. The others contained radio receivers, amplifiers, and speakers. Some of the equipment, including wiring, was visible on the outside of the bags.

As they “danced” their way down the street, they played music from the iPod, through the radio devices, and over the speakers. They also broadcasted announcements such as “get your brains here” and “[b]rain cleanup in Aisle 5” by speaking into the wireless phone handset.  The “zombies” came within three feet of bystanders, and received “weird” looks from some they passed.

At around 7 p.m., Minneapolis police received word of an anonymous 911 call complaining about a group of “people covered in make up playing loud music from a boombox.”  According to the caller, the group’s members were “calling themselves zombies and almost touching people.”

Officers responded to the call and found the zombies playing music and dancing.  When approached by the officers, the zombies explained that they meant their actions as an “anticonsumerist” commentary.  According to the officers, the zombies” were “walking around, coming up close to people,” and pedestrians were “scooting away from them.”  The officers informed the zombies that their conduct had garnered a complaint, and asked them to turn down their music and keep their distance from bystanders.  After this brief exchange, the officers allowed the zombies to continue on their way.

One of the officers, who was in charge of patrolling the area for drunk people that evening, expressed concern that the zombies were affiliated with the Juggalos, a violent gang from Washington State known for wearing face paint.   The officers then decided to approach the zombies again, in an effort to identify them.

When the officers found them, the zombies were no longer dancing or playing music, but were gathered on a sidewalk.  As part of a larger crowd, the zombies had just finished watching an outdoor performance by a high school drumline.   According to the officers, a young girl with her father saw the zombies and became frightened.

The officers asked the zombies for identification, but most of them were not carrying identification with them. The officers informed the zombies that they were being taken to the police station to be identified.  One of the zombies asked whether they were being “detained,” and one of the officers responded, “Yes.”  The zombie asked, “What’s the charge?” The officer said, “I don’t know, let’s call it disorderly conduct for now.”  The officers escorted the zombies to a station several blocks away.

At the station, the zombies were met by numerous officers, including the officer in charge, who acted like “a drill sergeant with new recruits,” and said that he didn’t “give a g**damn about anybody’s constitutional f***ing rights.”   The zombies were patted down and placed in a holding cell, from which they were removed one at a time for questioning about their identities.  In addition, officers searched the zombies’ bags.  Based on the equipment inside, the police became concerned that the bags were dangerous, and requested that they be inspected by a bomb technician who determined that the bags did not contain explosives.

However, the officer in charge, ordered the zombies booked into jail on charges of displaying simulated weapons of mass destruction (“WMD”), a state offense punishable by up to ten years’ imprisonment.

All but one of the zombies were transported to the Hennepin County Adult Detention Center (the juvenile went to the juvenile detention center).  During the booking process, one of the zombies refused to reveal his last name.  Jail officials noted that he had metal accessories in his hair, and placed him in a holding cell where he could remove them. They also noted that he had a prosthetic left leg, from the knee down,  that contained metal parts. After discussing his medical condition with the nurse on duty, the zombie was taken to another room, where his prosthetic leg was confiscated by a detention deputy.  The nurse explained to the zombie that the leg was seized out of concern that it could be used as a weapon.  The zombie agreed to provide his last name in order to finish the booking process and obtain a property receipt for his leg.  He was given a wheelchair and was eventually placed in an ADA-compliant cell.

On the following Monday, after spending two nights in jail, the zombies were released from custody.  A sergeant reviewing the zombies’ arrests had examined the equipment seized from their bags, and concluded that the equipment did not meet the definition of simulated WMD. At the time of release, the zombies received back all of their seized property, including the prosthetic leg. Authorities never filed a formal criminal complaint against any of the zombies.

The zombies filed suit in Minnesota state court against the City of Minneapolis and thirteen of its police officers.  Their complaint included allegations that they were arrested “without any cause to believe that they had committed a crime,” in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that they were seized in retaliation for “exercising their basic and fundamental right to engage in artistic and political expression,” in violation of the First Amendment.

You are the judge.  What is your decision?

Take a look at the ad here:  Grab Some Air – (it starts at about 8 sec.)

Recognize that tune?

If not, take a look at this video: Fell In Love With A Girl

Nope; the White Stripes were not amused.

Last Monday, they wrote on their Third Man Records site:

We believe our song was re-recorded and used without permission of the White Stripes, our publishers, label or management.

The White Stripes take strong insult and objection to the Air Force Reserve presenting this advertisement with the implication that we licensed one of our songs to encourage recruitment during a war that we do not support.

The White Stripes support this nation’s military, at home and during times when our country needs and depends on them. We simply don’t want to be a cog in the wheel of the current conflict, and hope for a safe and speedy return home for our troops.

We have not licensed this song to the Air Force Reserve and plan to take strong action to stop the ad containing this music.

The next day, according to the New York Times, the Air Force Reserve issued this statement:

In response to the claims being made today regarding the Air Force Reserve regional ad that aired in select markets during the Super Bowl, the Air Force Reserve, through its advertising agency [Blaine Warren Advertising], hired Fast Forward Music of Salt Lake City to score original music for its commercial. There was never any intention to utilize any existing music or to sound like any music by the band White Stripes or any other musical performer. Any similarity or likeness to any other music is completely unintentional.

The composer, Kem Kraft, a freelance musician based in Salt Lake City, said:

I’m sorry it sounds the same. It wasn’t my intention, truly, truly, truly.

[If the White Stripes] want to call me and talk to me, as far as I’m concerned, I’m responsible for this. Just me.

I’m pretty much a one-man band here. It doesn’t have anything to do with the Air Force. They didn’t know anything, and I didn’t know anything either.

Mike Lee, the owner of Fast Forward Productions, said:

We went back and forth on the song several times. We changed stuff quite a bit, just to match the tempo of how I cut it together.

I wasn’t familiar with the White Stripes song. I’ve heard of the White Stripes but I’m not a listener of theirs. I had no idea there was similarity until after the fact.

So if the White Stripes sue for copyright infringement they will need to prove that the composer had access to their song and that there is a “substantial similarity” between the music.  They do not need to prove “intent.”

You are the judge.  Did the Air Force grab some music?

Allison entered into a written agreement with her friend Lisa to design, decorate and furnish the interior of Allison’s new wine bar “Drinking Divas.”

The work was to be completed for a fixed fee of $50,000.

After completing about half of the work, Lisa asked Allison for half the contract price.  Allison agreed and paid Lisa $25,000.  The next day, Lisa assigned the remainder of her rights under the contract to her friend Jimmy “the Weasel” as security for a $20,000 loan.

Jimmy “the Weasel” immediately notified Allison of the assignment.

The following week, Lisa took off to Cabo San Lucas for a little “get-away” and has not been heard from since.  She abandoned the “Drinking Diva” project and defaulted on the loan from Jimmy “the Weasel.”

Allison eventually found another designer to complete the interior design of her wine bar to her satisfaction for an additional $20,000.

Jimmy “the Weasel,” unable to find Lisa, sues Allison for breach of contract.

You are the judge.  How do you decide?  Who gets what?

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today.

The contract called for Lisa to design the interior of Allison’s new wine bar “Drinking Divas” and, upon Allison’s approval of the design plan, to decorate and furnish the wine bar accordingly.

The agreement is silent as to assignment or delegation by either Allison or Lisa.

Shortly after the contract was signed but before she had a chance to begin work on the “Drinking Divas” project, Lisa finally realized that she just had too many projects going at the same time and something had to give.

Lisa made the decision to sell her design business to her friend Heidi.  Under the contract with Heidi, Lisa assigned to Heidi, and Heidi agreed to complete, the “Drinking Divas” project.

Heidi, an experienced designer with an excellent reputation and portfolio, informed Allison of the assignment and supplied her with documentation confirming both Heidi’s financial responsibility and her past commercial and critical design success.

Allison balks.

You are the judge.

Is Allison legally obligated to allow Heidi to perform the “Drinking Divas” project?

 Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in comments later today. 

On Monday morning, Lenny e-mailed his big-spending buddy Nicholas that he wants to sell his ride:  “you know the car – the Rolls that I took you for a ride in last year in Vegas – I know you love it – I was thinking I might take $100,000 for it.”

The next day, Tuesday, Lenny received an email from Nicholas:  “I will buy your Rolls-Royce for $100,000.”

On Wednesday, Lenny e-mailed back to Nicholas: “OK, it’s a deal.”

Later that day, before Nicholas had a chance to check his e-mail account and see Lenny’s e-mail, Lenny received a phone call from Nicholas.

Nicholas tells Lenny that he just got a notice from the government that claims he owes $10M in back taxes.  So, although it goes against his instincts, he will have to pass on the Rolls-Royce.

You are the judge.

Did Lenny and Nicholas have a contract on Tuesday?  Or on Wednesday?  Or was there no contract?

Any Resemblance to Actual Events or Persons Living or Dead is Purely Coincidental.

Answer below in Comment #6.