Slashdot Mirror

Regardless of whether or not the 4th Amendment includes anonymity and privacy directly, the Supreme Court in many instances (Griswold v. Connecticut being the first) upheld a right to privacy that Justice Douglas (in his opinion in the above case) describes this way:

"In other words, the First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion"

Anonymity and privacy, generally, fall into the same bucket.

You considerably understate the danger posed by this chemical.

I didn't say that it would be fun stuff to go rolling around in. If you smelt an acrid smell and your eyes started tearing up, wouldn't you want to go to a different location?

Yes, if you cut osmium tetroxide into lines like coke and do a couple of them, you're going to have big problems. But under the exposures to which a person would be generally exposed during a chemical attack, the most dangerous thing would be people panicking and hurting each other, not the chemical itself.

This is why I used the word generally in my original post.

...You may recall a quote from Justice Goldberg that the Constitution "is not a suicide pact."

As a matter of fact, in the full context of the quote, all Justice Goldberg was saying was that Congress has the authority to compel an individual to live up to the civic duties laid upon them by the constitution.

I'd suggest reading the case and the opinion. It's very interesting.

Yes, Mr. (or Ms.) A.C. Google can be your friend. However, you should be more careful to take your quotes in context.

Highly unlikely.

If not, why won't these arrests be thrown out of court?

They weren't arrested by US authorities, nor are they being prosecuted in US courts - the agencies that arrested them, presumably the RCMP and MI5, are not bound by the US constitution, and operate under the laws of their own nations, not those of the United States. Even if they were being extradited to the United States, the law is quite clear - non-resident aliens not within the United States and/or its territories and possesions are not entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, specifically, the Fourth Amendment.

Or don't Canadian and Brittish courts care about search warrants?

The RCMP and MI5 undoubtedly conducted their own investigation, and didn't simply run off to arrest people just because NSA said so. During the course of that investigation, those agencies were bound by whatever laws were in effect in their respective nations. Canada does, IIRC, recognize an exclusionary rule similar to that of the United States, but the UK does not. IIRC, of course - detailed questions should be directed to qualified experts in the laws of those nations. ;)

Or don't warrants apply in international law?

Not the way you apparently think they do, anyway. Had the subjects been American citizens, a warrant for any sort of extended surveillance would have been in order for the NSA, if there were plans to prosecute in the US. The RCMP and MI5 operate according whatever the laws of Canada and the UK say about warrants and surveillance.

"the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."

No you're not. 17 U.S.C. 101 defines copies thusly,

''Copies'' are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term ''copies'' includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.

When I read it aloud, I am making a copy of it in audio form. This is not illegal.

Actually, you're performing the work. If done in public, it is illegal.

I find it somehow reassuring that Darl, in his statement about "seven U.S. Supreme Court justices", has failed to recall basic middle-school civics, let alone all news items regarding the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has 9 [NINE] justices.

What a nitwit.

For those of you so inclined, FindLaw has an excellent page on the U.S. Supreme Court, including a history of the court.

I find it somehow reassuring that Darl, in his statement about "seven U.S. Supreme Court justices", has failed to recall basic middle-school civics, let alone all news items regarding the Supreme Court.

The U.S. Supreme Court has 9 [NINE] justices.

What a nitwit.

For those of you so inclined, FindLaw has an excellent page on the U.S. Supreme Court, including a history of the court.

If it's "no photography" because of concerns about copyright (which is rarely the reason), the device might fall under the exception found at Section 121 of the Copyright Act, Limitations on exclusive rights: reproduction for blind or other people with disabilities. 17 USC 121

Lawyers use Word Perfect because it counts words properly, unlike Word which excludes footnotes etc. When a judge says he wants a 2000 word brief he does not mean 2000 words plus 500 words of footnotes. Word can be configured to do this properly but by default it does not. See here for full details.

Key questions you need to answer:

1) Did you sign a written consent form allowing the company to use your photograph?

2) Do you have the original photograph to use as evidence that you are in fact the one in the picture?

3) Do you have current contact information for the other employees in the photograph that have been similarly misused?

4) Do you know when the ads first appeared, how long they have been running, and in what medium (newspaper, TV, magazines, web, etc.)?

5) Do you have samples of the advertisment in question that could be used as evidence?

6) What jurisdiction applies? If the ad was shown in California you may have more protections for use of your photograph; Georgia only appears to have such restrictions for serious crimes like child pornography.

Your action does not concern "fraud", per se. Fraud, legally, is decieving others for gain. What you need to focus on is the state statues that require an employee to provide written consent before that employee's photograph can be used for marketing purposes.

For more details, see a general discussion on the issue from FindLaw:

Many states prohibit employers from using an employee's photograph for commercial purposes (such as in an advertisement or in a company brochure) without your written consent. Cases have been won by female employees who discovered their likeness on such materials but did not authorize their employers to use them.

For instance, see California Civil Code Section 3344-3346. I'll quote a small portion of this section which directly applies to your situation:

3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.

The company is likely to argue that, because your head is not visible, you cannot be readily identified under 3344(b)(2):

(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.

The company may also insist that your likeness is not "essential" to the advertisement, per 3344(c):

(c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that the fai

Key questions you need to answer:

1) Did you sign a written consent form allowing the company to use your photograph?

2) Do you have the original photograph to use as evidence that you are in fact the one in the picture?

3) Do you have current contact information for the other employees in the photograph that have been similarly misused?

4) Do you know when the ads first appeared, how long they have been running, and in what medium (newspaper, TV, magazines, web, etc.)?

5) Do you have samples of the advertisment in question that could be used as evidence?

6) What jurisdiction applies? If the ad was shown in California you may have more protections for use of your photograph; Georgia only appears to have such restrictions for serious crimes like child pornography.

Your action does not concern "fraud", per se. Fraud, legally, is decieving others for gain. What you need to focus on is the state statues that require an employee to provide written consent before that employee's photograph can be used for marketing purposes.

For more details, see a general discussion on the issue from FindLaw:

Many states prohibit employers from using an employee's photograph for commercial purposes (such as in an advertisement or in a company brochure) without your written consent. Cases have been won by female employees who discovered their likeness on such materials but did not authorize their employers to use them.

For instance, see California Civil Code Section 3344-3346. I'll quote a small portion of this section which directly applies to your situation:

3344. (a) Any person who knowingly uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent, or, in the case of a minor, the prior consent of his parent or legal guardian, shall be liable for any damages sustained by the person or persons injured as a result thereof. In addition, in any action brought under this section, the person who violated the section shall be liable to the injured party or parties in an amount equal to the greater of seven hundred fifty dollars ($750) or the actual damages suffered by him or her as a result of the unauthorized use, and any profits from the unauthorized use that are attributable to the use and are not taken into account in computing the actual damages.

The company is likely to argue that, because your head is not visible, you cannot be readily identified under 3344(b)(2):

(1) A person shall be deemed to be readily identifiable from a photograph when one who views the photograph with the naked eye can reasonably determine that the person depicted in the photograph is the same person who is complaining of its unauthorized use.

The company may also insist that your likeness is not "essential" to the advertisement, per 3344(c):

(c) Where a photograph or likeness of an employee of the person using the photograph or likeness appearing in the advertisement or other publication prepared by or in behalf of the user is only incidental, and not essential, to the purpose of the publication in which it appears, there shall arise a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence that the fai

If you're going to talk about legal terms, you need to refer to legal sources. For example, Findlaw defines theft/larceny as: ... the taking of almost anything of value without the consent of the owner, with the intent to permanently deprive him or her of the value of the property taken. (Emphasis mine.) (Findlaw may ask you for your zip code before showing you the content of the link above.)

If I download a copy of Metallica's "One," I haven't deprived them, their publisher or whomever holds the actual copyright of anything, either temporarily or permanently. As I said, a better analogy is trespassing, where I enter your property without permission or against your express wishes. I haven't deprived you of anything of value, but I have ignored your wishes as to the use of your property.

And a fail safe for when "fair elections" aren't, as well.

Adult toys are illegal in some places in the US! See This Findlaw article . Facing arrest in the state of Texas is a bit worse than embarassing. Same with prescription medicines, some of which are controlled substances. Do you want to be harassed because you put a few aspirin in an old vicodin bottle? Or because you crossed a state line and what was legal in your home is now illegal?

A copy of the decision can be found at Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1238.html

A copy of the decision can be found at Nixon v. Missouri Municipal League

http://laws.findlaw.com/us/000/02-1238.html

The Republican FCC can out strong against the little guy in this case as you can see in the first two paragraphs of the Court's decision.

The little guy in this case was a group of rural counties.

The court ruled that the word "any" in the federal law prohibiting states from regulating any telecom does not mean that states cannot regulate counties because they are political subdivisions of the states and therefore states should have a right to regulate themselves.

So much for the Rublican idea of local control!

See for yourself:
Findlaw.com

If Jesus was just a clever, wise or insightful man, his entire life was essentially wasted, and on top of that he is recorded as lying about his abilities. All of the serious documentation we have available from the time (and there's a surprising amount of it) indicates that he was considerably more than that. Jesus is better documented than any of the Caesars. There's also a heck of a lot of non-literate archaeological evidence which is very difficult to explain if the canonical record is not reliable.

It is simple enough for a one-word summary explanation: bias.

Anecdotes are not considered good evidence these days.

Look at any modern-day cult leader, then analyze what their followers write about them and their abilities.

What if Jesus and L. Ron Hubbard had switched places and times... what if his followers' documentary 'evidence', written decades after the fact, were what persisted in history? Would you then argue that indeed he was a war hero who used the power of his mind to heal crippling war injuries?

How about if Jesus and Sun Myung Moon swapped? After all, on objective record Jesus was a criminal, just like Sunny boy, but his followers say differently. His followers also have documented his mystical powers.

History would make all three of these men liars if their followers' word can't be trusted and they weren't really supernaturally connected. Yet Jesus is exempt because he got a headstart on the other two gentlemen?

Give it some perspective.

Botanically speaking, tomatoes are the fruit of a vine, just as are cucumbers, squashes, beans, and peas. But in the common language of the people, whether sellers or consumers of provisions, all these are vegetables which are grown in kitchen gardens, and which, whether eaten cooked or raw, are, like potatoes, carrots, parsnips, turnips, beets, cauliflower, cabbage, celery, and lettuce, usually served at dinner in, with, or after the soup, fish, or meats which constitute the principal part of the repast, and not, like fruits generally, as dessert.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&court=US&case=/us/149/304.html

...and more than that, totally ignorant regarding matters of US Law. Please STFU.

In this case, it is well known that Google is a search engine that finds information on somebody else's website.

"I'm still not convinced on global warming so how can I condemn another man who also isn't convinced."

Ok. That shows you're as ignorant as Bush. The difference is that you don't have to make decisions that can change the world, so you're excused to be ignorant. Even though Bush is dumb, he has specialists to help. And all these specialists, including those from Pentagon, are warning him about this. And he doesn't care. I strongly suggest you read this this

I love how you just say he lied to a whole nation in order to get support for the war. What did he say or even insinuate that was a lie?

You must been brain-washed if you din't notice the lies. He tried to picture Saddam as a threat to the US. But Saddam, althought being a son-of-a-bitch crazy loon, was harmless to the world at that point. His army was almost dismanteled, specially if compared to what it was some years ago. He didn't have any missile able to reach the continental US. He didn't have any WMD (in fact I am surprised the US didn't plant any WMD in Iraq, to be found). He was not affiliated with Al-Qaeda. And all reports Bush received indicated all this. But he tried to supress and change these reports and fabricate others, that would incriminate Saddam.

I suggest you read this excelent explanation, this and this. Please tell me what you think after reading these links.

Seriously. We here in Europe can't for the love of god understand what's up with this..first a giant fuss about that ugly nipple and now this. It's just pathetic!

Really?

Please refresh my memory, in how many European countries can you get actual jail time for drawing Swastikas? What about selling Nazi artifacts on eBay? How many years does that get you?

What about this?
The Council of Europe has added provisions to its European Convention on Cybercrime that criminalize certain Internet content.
Link.
Link 2
Need I go on?

I just love it when you Euros try to display your superiority by criticizing the Yanks on the issue of free speech.

Don't forget to read the opinion of the SCOTUS in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (which resulted from the airing of the actual Carlin routine). Just don't read the Court's decision on the air or the FCC will probably come after you (the controversial bits of the routine are in an appendix to the ruling). ;)

There's no way in hell what they did is deserving of life in prison, and no way in hell any judge is going to sentence them to that. Get a grip, man. Haven't you heard of the 8th Amendment? Proportionality?

The "deal" that the grant of a patent expresses is that in exchange for sharing the invention with the public, the inventor gets exclusive use of the invention for a limited time. If the public already knows about the invention, then there is no point to granting a patent to someone as a reward/compensation for disclosing the invention. That's why prior art invalidates patents.

In order to qualify as "prior art," public disclosure of an invention potentially doesn't have to be very public, if it was known or someone was using it in the US (I assume you are asking about US patents) before the "inventor" trying to obtain the patent invented it. See 35 USC 120. Prior art can also be public disclosure after invention but more than a year before the patent was filed.

A person shall be entitled to a patent unless -
(a) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for patent, or
(b) the invention was patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country or in public use or on sale in this country, more than one year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States, or
. . . .

A useful basic article entitled "When is something prior art against a patent?" can be found at
http://www.iusmentis.com/patents/priorart/.

The second example of purchasing a silent track isn't as ridiculous as it sounds (pun intended). There are people who will intentionally pay for what they consider to be art, or at least to reward the creator(s) of what they consider to be art. A silent track certainly falls into this category.

What you failed to mention is that the track violates Copyright law. Here's a note about a related case concerning silence, plus a thread on SlashNOT that includes links to the CNN article. That is the part that is really sad.

He's posted 371 comments so he should be aware how Slashcode breaks long strings (to foil page-widening troll posts)

He wrote:
see here. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9940632cv0.h tml

he should have written:
<a href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcas e.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9940632cv0 .html">see here</a>

which displays like:
see here

Norelo (a division of Philips) had their patented "lift and cut" system of rotary blades, the patent of which just ran out recently (you now see no-name brands of razors in discount stores which look just like Norelcos -- with 3 rotary heads).

Personally I never liked Norelcos, since their rotary blades irritate my skin and don't even cut close enough.

Which is why, like Victor Kiam, I prefer Remingtons.

Kiam bought Remington from Sperry before Sperry joined with Burroughs to become Unisys.

Today, Rayovac, the battery maker, owns Remington.

Bush is the least qualified President we have ever had

After checking the Wikipedia...
Kennedy - Bachelor's degree
Carter - Bachelor's degree
Reagan - Bachelor's degree
Bush I - Bachelor's degree
Clinton - Bachelors and JD
Bush II - Bachelors and MBA

Least qualified? Not by comparison to some other recent presidents.

His ties to Enron alone are enough to want him out.

Much of the Enron shenanigans were ongoing before he even took office. Clinton had some ties also. Would that have made you impeach Clinton too, or only Bush?

Bush squandered the greatest chance for peace in our time by calling all of the world "Evil"

It was 3 countries, and those countries are either state sponsors of terrorism, genocidal regimes, or rogue nations pursuing WMD. If that's not evil, I'd love to see how you define "good."

say a big fuck you to the world

Kerry supported it... No, Bush got tired of UN corruption and inaction, and going around the UN was arguably the right thing to do. Check out the latest dirt on the UN's "Oil for Pala^H^H^H^H Food" program.

think of America as a "play by its own rules" bully

If those "rules" include reining in WMD proliferators and demolishing terrorist states, screw the opposition; The Right Thing (TM) isn't always the easy or popular thing. If finding and killing terrorists before they can strike is wrong, I don't want to be right.

Not to mention the fact that he wants to hold Americans without trial or due process indefinitely

If they're terrorists, they have almost no rights. To be considered lawful combatants and thus entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention, you must meet four conditions: have a responsible chain of command (autonomous terrorist "cells" don't qualify), carry weapons openly, have a distinctive uniform or insignia, and follow the laws of war... Al-Queda meets NONE of these (the commentary I cited above is interesting... I recommend reading it).

It's OK that you hate Bush... really.

You make a lot of assertions, but you back them up with nothing

Which ones do you dispute?

I refuted your claim that "Fair use is a very narrow allowance to use small portions of copyright works subject to severe limitations, no more" with your own refference to the Betamax decision. If you need a link, fine, here's a link.

The court said:
"The District Court denied all relief, holding that the noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement."

Obviously recoring a movie or TV show involves recording an entire work. The court said it was fair use. The narrow definition you gave for fair use is clearly over-restrictive.

You read the Title 17Chapter 1 Section 107 as if the four items listed must ALL be met:

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

However the law actually sayd "In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include ". They are merely factors to consider. Moreover it is not an exhaustive list. The factors to consider merely include those four examples. Judges routinely include any number of other factors in the evaluation. One could conceivably qaulify for fair use while "failing" on all four listed factors. The Pretty Woman case comes pretty close to failing all four. The decision that it was fair use was reached largely on a non-listed consideration, namely that it was "transformative".

I also said "What fair use applies what it does mean is that you are completely immune to all copyright law rules and restrictions". Well, according to Title 17 Chapter 1 Section 107:

"the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright."

If a use is fair use then it is not an infringement of copyright. You have blanket immunity from all infringment claims. Copyright rules and restrictions are only enforced through upholding infringment claims, therefore you are immune from copyright rules and restrictions.

Also note that that quote includes much the same list of examples of fair use as I gave, and it specificly confirms my statement of multiple copies for classroom use.

I only know of two copyright court cases reffering to educational fair use. Here's one link, and I could probably dig up the other if you want. While both cases were decided as infringment, neither case was actually against teachers or students. Both were against commercial copyshops (Kinko's and someone else). They were creating copies for a fee and selling them for class use. The commercial copyshop cannot borrow someone else's fair use right to create copies.

"The use of the Kinko's packets, in the hands of the students, was no doubt educational. However, the use in the hands of Kinko's employees is commercial.

The court specificly added a footnote stating that the ruling would NOT have applied had the teacher/students gone in, paid for use of the copiers, and created the c

Disney, the core of "Hollywood", is the greatest IP monopolist running amok in our marketplace of ideas. Meanwhile, they have built their empire on appropriating public domain "improperty". Somebody build a better mousetrap!

My reading is that the Supreme Court allows use taxes as long as they do not penalize interstate commerce. Your use tax rate may not be higher than your sales tax rate.

What he did wasn't criminal. The proper venue for this disagreement is civil court.

I really can't see how this can possibly be criminal extortion. Findlaw defines extortion as requiring the use of violence, damage to reputation, vandalism, or unfavourable government action.

The proper owner of the website was the web designer. He said "Pay me, or I take it down", they didn't pay, he took it down. Since the website was his to take down or not, I don't see any element of extortion that can apply.

....at least not by the web designer. The Sherrif's dept. might not be so lucky.

Pierre

Well, it's not exactly what you are looking for, but in 1886 the Supreme Court used the fourteenth amendment to give corporations the same legal rights as citizens.

You can read about it here.

With regards to what the founding fathers had in mind vis-a-vis corporations, Thomas Jefferson himself said this:

"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."

--Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816.

Proof enough for me that they saw this train wreck coming. Also, don't forget that up until the '70s, the tax-rate for rich folks was really high stemming from a post world war ii emphasis on "shared sacrifice." Post WWII, for at least a decade or two, the top tax rate was 90%!!! Interesting, eh? Good luck in your search!

---macshune

Thanks for the tip. :)

I did some googling and came up with this interesting piece.

-- Confidence is the feeling you have before you understand the situation.

The Declaratory Judgment Act, under which HardOCP is "suing," allows "any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought."

Also, "Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such." So even if this isn't technically a "lawsuit," its result will have the same effect as the result of a hypothetical suit against HardOCP.

(You don't really need to be told that IANAL, do you?)

That case is FEIST PUBLICATIONS, INC. v. RURAL TEL. SERVICE CO., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).

Good grief, you are correct;

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9940632cv0.h tml

Insane.

As for database overlap, that wouldn't be a problem if this law were implemented. Separate creations of the same set of facts are still separate.

According to the language in the lawsuit's complaint, it looks like they want to go on a fishing expedition to see exactly what they're running on their machines.
*And* they're using Napster's old law firm (David Boies & Co.) to help do it.

Looks like they're suing to demand that D-Chrysler let 'em inspect their machines.
Then comes a demand for $$$$$
And they're using Napster's old legal defenders, Boies' firm

Sort of. There's a couple of reasons, really. First, as you say, WP gained a large portion of the market back in the day - for a long time, word processing on a PC was WP and precious little else. Because of this early adoption, what's happened since is that many, many law firms have a sizeable investment in WP templates, and I do mean sizeable - as in many thousands or tens of thousands, in some cases. Lawyers live and die by the written word, and if you walk into any medium or large law firm, odds are that no matter what your problem is, they already have a form letter tailored to that problem. Because of this investment, there is a significant barrier to switching, as it means either converting or recreating those thousands of templates. And in such a case, the general rule is, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

And one other reason is the ever-amusing Rule 32 ;)

so if somebody decided to put up these materials for free that anybody could view without having to pay, it would be legit?

This is one of the key questions in front of the Court. The 3rd Circuit (from which the case was appealed to the Supreme Court) ruled that COPA's definition of "commercial purposes" was overbroad. We will see in the next few months whether or not the Supreme Court agrees.

This is not the first time COPA has come before the Court. Two years ago, the 3rd Circuit ruled that the definition of "community standards," the standards by which the obscenity of questioned material must be judged, is overbroad. The Supreme Court agreed, but stated that this was not enough to overturn COPA by itself. It remanded the case, and now the 3rd Circuit has come up with even more reasons to overturn it.

Case I recall, which was settled out of court, so it didn't go anywhere potentially biased site

This appears to be the only applying case law I could find: Consolidated Edison

Check out the Eminem's lawsuit

I believe the quote you're looking for is Democracies die behind closed doors. (fourth paragraph)

Your sarcasm is only partially correct. Though the settlement constitutes a fraction of their resources, you are wrong to haphazardly label this award as insinificant. If you read page 20 of the settlement, you will find the amount awarded to over 3.5 million people is $143,075,000. That is not trivial and sets a useful legal precedent. You do damage to the cause against the RIAA by belittling this victory.

Here's a good article
that does a nice job of summarzing why it would be a Bad Thing for the Supreme Court to find against Mr. Hiible.

Text mirrored here without permission:

---
Must Americans Carry Identification, or Else Risk Arrest?
This Term, The Supreme Court Will Decide
By DANIELLE SUCHER
----
Wednesday, Nov. 12, 2003

In France and many other countries, citizens and travelers alike are required to have their identification on their person at all times. In the U.S., however, that is not the case. We live in a society that prizes the right to privacy, of which anonymity is a facet.

This may soon change. This Term, in the case of Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the Supreme Court will decide a case that asks the following question: Does the Constitution permit a police officer to arrest someone simply because, when stopped under reasonable suspicion, that person fails to produce identification?

The federal judicial Circuits have split on this issue. The Tenth Circuit has upheld a similar statute in Oliver v. Woods, while the Ninth Circuit has struck another down in Carey v. Nevada Gaming Control Board. The Nevada Supreme Court -- which issued the decision the Supreme Court is reviewing -- has already held that this type of arrest does not violate the Constitution.

It would be a serious mistake for the Supreme Court to agree. Because the standard for reasonable suspicion is very low, the upshot of such a decision would be to require all citizens, immigrants, and travelers in America to carry identification at all times -- and to be prepared to produce it for inspection.

The Low Standard of Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is an extremely low standard -- even lower than probable cause. In practice, it merely requires the police officer to be able to articulate some reason why he found you suspicious -- which is generally very easy to do, particularly under the vaguely defined "totality of the circumstances" test that is used.

Under the leading Supreme Court decision in Terry v. Ohio, passing by the same storefront too many times can trigger "reasonable suspicion." Under the recent Supreme Court decision Illinois v. Wardlow, it may trigger reasonable suspicion if, in a dangerous area of town, a person runs when he sees a police officer approaching. Under a case decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States v. Cruz, simply walking alongside the wrong acquaintance can trigger "reasonable suspicion." Racial profiling can be factor when articulating reasonable suspicion, as can the crime rate of the neighborhood you are in or the activities of people you know.

In sum, no one can be sure he or she will not trigger "reasonable suspicion," in the eyes of a police officer (and in the eyes of the law). Suppose that the Supreme Court affirms the decision in Hiibel that "reasonable suspicion" plus the failure to produce identification can constitutionally lead to arrest. If so, all Americans will be well-advised to carry I.D. at all times.

Otherwise, they may risk unwittingly triggering "reasonable suspicion," and thus being arrested merely, in effect, for failure to produce identification.

Why It Would Be Wrong To Force All Who Travel in America to Carry I.D.

Being required to carry I.D. may not seem to be a problem. Many people carry identification with them at all times already -- carrying a driver's license in their purse or wallet, or if they are younger, a student I.D. card. For them, having to show I.D. would be only a slight inconvenience.

Moreover, in this age of the "war on terrorism," some may consider it to be a good idea for the police to be able to "card" anyone on the street about whom they have a hunch. There are those who believe that the inconvenience is somehow balanced by an increase in the safety and effectiveness of the police.

If we do not g