With partisan battles being fought in Washington over Supreme Court nominees and other controversies, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said last night in a speech in Richmond that it is important to maintain a civil national dialogue in order to uphold a healthy democracy.

Perhaps my recent comment on the FBI anti-porn effort was a breach of civility. I strongly agree with this sentiment. I am strongly concerned that it needs to be said. Im still really pissed off about disingenuous commentary. I'm concerned about the way that analysis of government response to Katrina has turned into a pissing match over whose politicians fucked up worse. I'm wondering where this is all heading...

TimesDispatch.com | Kennedy stresses need for civil national dialogue

"Honestly, most of the guys would have to recuse themselves."

Recruits Sought for FBI Anti-Porn Squad

The Bush administration is objecting to the creation of a .xxx domain, saying it has concerns about a virtual red-light district reserved exclusively for Internet pornography.

"The Department of Commerce has received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mails from individuals expressing concern about the impact of pornography on families and children," Gallagher said in a letter that was made public on Monday.

-------

ICANN's vote this year represents an abrupt turnabout from the group's earlier stance. In November 2000, the ICANN staff objected to the .xxx domain and rejected ICM Registry's first application.

At the time, politicians lambasted ICANN's move. Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., demanded to know why ICANN didn't approve .xxx "as a means of protecting our kids from the awful, awful filth, which is sometimes widespread on the Internet." Sen. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., told a federal commission that .xxx was necessary to force adult Webmasters to "abide by the same standard as the proprietor of an X-rated movie theater."

They were damned either way.

Bush administration objects to .xxx domains | CNET News.com

Rattle wrote:
Wikipedia has some of the best resources on the the history of the court.

How could you miss the article on the new nominee?

John Roberts Jr.

Dear President Bush:

This is to inform you of my decision to retire from my position as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States effective upon the nomination and confirmation of my successor. It has been a great privilege, indeed, to have served as a member of the Court for 24 Terms. I will leave it with enormous respect for the integrity of the Court and its role under our Constitutional structure.

Sincerely,
Sandra Day O'Connor

O'Connor is a moderate, or in the parlance of Republicans an "unreliable conservative." They will not accept a similarly unreliable replacement, like Gonzales. The end result of this will almost certainly be a shift to a more Conservative court.

The political firestorm will kick off immediately, but why care? It will not impact the final outcome. It is merely a marketing campaign, wherein Bush will attempt to show the radicals that he is a serious conservative and the moderates that the liberals are unreasonable. The liberals will attempt to show the moderates that Bush is a radical. Its all posturing for the next election and only useful if you haven't been paying attention.

Bunnygrrl had some thoughtful comments on O'Connor's resignation.

As for me, well, she came down on the wrong side of the CDA court case, which puts her (along with a large majority of Congress and the Senate include John Kerry) on my long term mildly irrational grudge list. She writes:

The universe of material that is "patently offensive," but which nonetheless has some redeeming value for minors or does not appeal to their prurient interest--is a very small one. Appellees cite no examples of speech falling within this universe and do not attempt to explain why that universe is substantial "in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep."

This is one of the most ignorant things that has been written in any modern Supreme Court dissent. I think she should be required to listen to a selection of the most abrasive and angry punk, industrial and hip hop at a high volume until she decides to die her hair flourescent orange or she realizes what was at stake in that case.

Sandra Day O'Connor Announces Retirement - July 1, 2005

This intent standard...will invite all sorts of strategic behavior that will dramatically increase the cost of innovating around these technologies.

Lessig on Grokster.

That's the thrust of a new law about to take effect in Utah and Michigan that could become a harbinger for the rest of the nation.

Starting Friday, parents in those two states will be able to add their children's e-mail addresses to a "do not contact" registry. Anyone who goes ahead and sends e-mail deemed to be off-color or "harmful to minors" could be imprisoned for up to three years.

Reason number 45 why I'm glad I'm no longer running a mailing list. This is essentially a mini-CDA. It will either die, or it will be amended through the courts, or it will kill internet mailing lists.

Why ribaldry could earn you prison time | Perspectives | CNET News.com

The following statement is from Gigi B. Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, on the Grokster decision today: "Today's Court decision in the Grokster case underscores a principle Public Knowledge has long promoted -- punish infringers, not technology. The Court has sent the case back to the trial court so that the trial process can determine whether the defendant companies intentionally encouraged infringement. What this means is, to the extent that providers of P2P technology do not intentionally encourage infringement, they are exempt from secondary liability under our copyright law. The Court also acknowledged, importantly, that there are lawful uses for peer-to-peer technology, including distribution of electronic files 'by universities, government agencies, corporations, and libraries, among others.' The Court is clearly aware that any technology-based rule would have chilled technological innovation.

Public Knowledge seems happy with the result. Don't market your stuff as a criminal tool. Other commentators seem to see an empty victory here for MGM, as "well-advised bad actors rarely leave smoking guns lying about."

Tech Law Advisor: Grokster Decision

Links to the actual opinions here.

No. 04-480, MGM Studios v. Grokster, reversed 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Souter. Justice Ginsburg concurred, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy; and Justice Breyer concurred, joined by Justices Stevens and O'Connor.

SCOTUSblog: Today's Opinions

Internet file-sharing services will be held responsible if they intend for their customers to use software primarily to swap songs and movies illegally, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting warnings that the lawsuits will stunt growth of cool tech gadgets such as the next iPod.

WaPo says the EFF lost. It will be interesting to see what the EFF says. The reasoning seems reasonable, but consider that this same reasoning might prohibit the distribution of hacking tools, for example.

Court: File-Sharing Services May Be Sued