Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor's Cyberlaw Record

Hugh Pickens writes "Thomas O'Toole writes that President Obama's choice for Associate Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, authored several cyberlaw opinions regarding online contracting law, domain names, and computer privacy while on the Second Circuit. Judge Sotomayor wrote the court's 2002 opinion in Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., an important online contracting case. In Specht, the Second Circuit declined to enforce contract terms (PDF) that were available behind a hyperlink that could only be seen by scrolling down on a Web page. 'We are not persuaded that a reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would have known of the existence of license terms,' wrote Sotomayor. Judge Sotomayor wrote an opinion in a domain name case, Storey v. Cello Holdings LLC in 2003 that held that an adverse outcome in an administrative proceeding under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy did not preclude a later-initiated federal suit (PDF) brought under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). In Leventhal v. Knapek, a privacy case, Judge Sotomayor wrote for the Second Circuit that New York state agency officials and investigators did not violate a state employee's Fourth Amendment rights when they searched the contents of his office computer (PDF) for evidence of unauthorized use of state equipment. While none of these cases may mean much as far as what Judge Sotomayor will do as an Associate Supreme Court Justice 'if confirmed, she will be the first justice who has written cyberlaw-related opinions before joining the court,' writes O'Toole."

Comments

scroll down

[Lord Ender]

Claiming you shouldn't be expected to read the parts of a contract you need to scroll to see is about like claiming you shouldn't be expected to read anything other than page 1 when reviewing a paper document.

Re:Cyberlaw

[eln]

We can't. The nomination of a Chief Justice is not in any way News for Nerds and would not fit anywhere on Slashdot except maybe the Politics section. However, the Slashdot editors also know that this discussion has been driving traffic through the roof at other discussion sites, and want in on the action. I'm guessing maybe a lot of people have the Politics section blocked, so they need to find a way to put it in another section to generate the maximum hit count. So, we now have "cyberlaw". I'm sure we'll eventually have "cyberidle" so samzenpus can get more of his lame stories out of the Idle section.

Re:That's what she said

[Bobb Sledd]

Well, 60% of her decisions have been overturned... some by the Supreme Court Justices she will join... so...

I'm just pointing out that it's a whacky thing for a judge to say. And that's not the only thing:

"I'm not supposed to say this but guess what? We legislate from the bench. Oops, I'm being recorded, I shouldn't say that."

C'mon, really?

Re:Cyberlaw

[lgw]

So let's talk about the politics. I thought we were beyond the days when a nominee for the SCOTUS would say things like this:

I would hope that a rich white male with the wisdom of his experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life. - Sotomayor

I had really hoped that the days of open racism by those in the highest offices was a thing of the past. (Some details of the above quote may have been reversed in ways that do not change it's racist nature.)

Re:Sotomayer is a nightmare

[fyngyrz]

I found her name spelled both ways in many locations; I had to pick one, so I chose the one Google kept correcting me to use in the searches. Frankly, I don't feel threatened by her name, only her actions.

With regard to my research, follow the links and argue the data, or be ignored. Your initial sally, trying to impeach my political position over the spelling of a name, is about on the 3rd grade level. If I give you extra credit, that is. Ah, the Internet. Where anyone can post. [stares]

Re:Sotomayer is a nightmare

[fyngyrz]

No, the reason you don't put people like me on the court is because you're not allowed to. The political parties control this process. Not you, or anyone like you. They control it by controlling who you get to vote for. Then they tell you who will be a judge. Because you -- and most people like you -- don't have the stones to stand up and say "wait a minute... these people aren't doing their jobs." As for "twentieth century jurisprudence", again, this is not the solution. This is one of the core problems.

In any case, my position has something real and important to back it up, that document known as the constitution. Your position has oodles of "jurisprudence" to back it up; reams and reams of reasoning like "interstate" means "intrastate", and I have no use for the mass of sophist nonsense you cite. These people have proven, over and over again, that they do not have the best interests of the citizens in mind, are not obeying the authority that allows them some very limited powers, and are rarely above declaring black is white in the soberest of tones.

Good luck with all that. Truly. I hope you never end up in Guantanimo, or even the local ass-fuckery (AKA prison.) I hope you never need your free speech, for you have abandoned it. I hope you never need to defend yourself and find yourself legislated out of the tools required. I hope you never need pot to give you appetite over your chemo, and find yourself dragged, again, off to the local ass-fuckery. I hope no one sends you "unacceptable" materials, and you find yourself on the wrong end of the moral indignation these putzes think stands in for clear thought. I wish you all the luck in the world. Your best luck would not agree with your vision of the world, and that would be a proper, liberty-centric civilization with a moderate dose of social intercare. But again, that's ok. Good luck anyway. Ta.