April 2008

Justine Bateman, Net Neutrality & Celebrity Witnesses

by on April 22, 2008 · 19 comments

So there’s another Net neutrality hearing today. I’m beginning to think we’ll have to endure one every week for the rest of time. Anyway, today’s took place in the Senate Commerce Committee and it featured the testimony of 1980s TV star Justine Bateman, who was in the sitcom “Family Ties.”

Before I get to the “substance” of her arguments, I have to say that celebrity testimony has long been a fascination of mine. Whenever a celebrity or pop star shows up in the hollowed halls of Congress, the collective knees of lawmakers simply melt like butter as they fawn over them and all rush to get snapshots and autographs for their office walls.

It would be tough for me to single out my favorite celebrity testimony moment. Kim Basinger on banning animal research? Meryl Streep on banning Alar? Kevin Richardson of the Backstreet Boys on coal and water regulation? While those were all certainly great moments in the history of our republic, my favorite celebrity testimony of all-time had to be from 1993, when Sheri Lewis and her sock puppet “Lamb Chop” testified in favor of the Children’s Television Act, a law regulating educational TV programming. What made is so special was not that Ms. Lewis testified alone. Lamb Chop testified too! I wish I had the video of that to post here. I mean, there was a woman with a hand in a sock making it talk to elected members of Congress… and they were listening. Awesome.

Anyway, if you ever want to read a fun paper about the softball treatment these celebs get when they go up to the Hill to impart their wisdom on the masses, you’ll want to check out Harry Strine’s “Your Testimony Was Splendid: The Treatment of Celebrities and Non-Celebrities in Congressional Hearings.” After studying celebrity testimony over the past few decades, Strine concluded that:
Continue reading →

SHARE: 19 comments

Lady Chatterley’s Lover

by on April 22, 2008 · 11 comments

I’ve been rereading Lady Chatterley’s Lover lately, and also reviewing some of the literature about it. The central theme of this book, the rootedness of mankind in his physical body and in “animal” pursuits, is still very fresh today and well worth thinking about (but one notices this only if one is not distracted, as I was when much younger, with looking for the naughty bits, which are a) not very naught b) include not-so-bad descriptions of female orgasms… how does DHL DO that?)(there is a consensus among critics that Clifford’s paralysis is a flaw in the book that makes Lady Chatterley’s departure “vulgar;” I cautiously disagree–that is, if it does make if vulgar, that is part of the point). And I’d not realized before that the book set such important free speech precedents. The litigation surrounding the publication of the book in England and in the United States marked a significant shift by the judiciary of the lower courts towards considering the actual community of readers in conceiving of “community standards.”

If one considers recent history, one might get the impression that the movement of tolerance for offensive speech was steadily growing greater. That is, if one considers only the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, it looks as though tolerance grows continuously, perhaps due in part towards a market mechanism. Producers and publishers continually push the bounds of the scandalous outwards, hoping to gain attention for their works. The public becomes continuously more jaded. If this process continues indefinitely and courts actually pay attention to community standards, this means that the content of what could be considered “obscene” or otherwise offensive steadily shrinks.

Whether this perspective can be maintained, though, depends very much on what period of history one chooses to start with. Starting in the nineteenth century with the Victorians biases the outcome considerably. This was a world in which young wives were permitted to die of veneral disease contracted from their husbands without anyone ever explaining to them how it could be prevented, or even what was wrong with them. Naturally taking this as a starting point of comparison, the category of what is taboo to speak of is likely to seem to shrink, it could hardly grow much larger.

Starting with the ancient Greeks, though, who were forever painting artistic images of couples frolicking about in various positions on their lamps and other household goods, what is taboo seems sometimes to shrink, and sometimes to grow, within certain parameters. One starts to wonder if certain visceral responses to sexual content are not only learned or cultural, but to some extent hardwired, which would be natural for mammals, which we are, after all (back to Lawrence’s thesis).  If this is true, does this justify censorship, or make it inevitable? I think not. That we may react to certain imagery as mammals does not dictate that we must react as censors, by empowering the government to control those things. The risks of delegating that sort of control are too great.

But it does explain, in part, why the battle for free speech is so difficult.

[update: Thinking about this issue further, I realized my discussion of the free speech rights of children could be misinterpreted to cast me as an advocate for eight-year-olds reading some really appalling stuff. No, no, that’s not the point!  (Don’t forget, the parents are still in charge). There is a larger issue, whether the government has more expansive powers to control the speech or religion of children than it does of adults, and an interesting question of constitutional interpretation… how some things that people just seem to assume about reading the constitution turn out to be problematic…]

 

 

 

 

SHARE: 11 comments

World IP Day on Thursday, the 24th of April

by on April 22, 2008 · 4 comments

I again post regarding: IPI’s Third Annual World Intellectual Property Day Event

WASHINGTON, D.C.–In our global knowledge-based economy, intellectual property (IP) is the key driver of economic growth, trade—and controversy. Debates over IP policy now rage both within and between countries, affecting domestic legislation and international agreements. Join the Institute for Policy Innovation (IPI) on April 24 for this year’s third annual World Intellectual Property Day policy forum, as we examine IP issues and solutions in America and across the globe.

Keynote Speaker:
Michael D. Gallagher
President, Entertainment Software Association

Digital Technologies: Emerging Challenges, Evolving Strategies
The online IP debate that was once framed as ‘content versus conduit’ is now more nuanced, with increased interdependence on both sides.  This panel will discuss strategies for allowing legal content to flow, in the face of new challenges from both free-riders and over-regulation.

Mitch Bainwol, RIAA
Dan Glickman, MPAA
Steve Largent, CTIA, The Wireless Association

Social and Economic Benefits of IP: Who Wins? Who Loses?
The debate over implementation of IP rules has frequently foundered over the issue of capacity building and the related challenge of demonstrating concrete social and economic benefits from improved IP protection.  This panel will look closely at current international capacity building efforts.

Lien Verbauwhede Koglin, WIPO
Michael A. Gollin, Venable LLP, Public Interest Intellectual Property Advocates (PIIPA)
Mohit Mehrotra, Excel Life Sciences

The Intellectual Property Marketplace: The Role of IP Valuation & Tech Transfer
IP is vital to the growth of wealth in today’s economy. Investors, firms, and universities strive to leverage their intellectual capital, converting “shelfware” into real assets, and attracting needed capital for product development. This discussion will examine the latest trends in new methods for the valuation of IP.

Usha Balakrishnan, Collaborative Social Responsibility Solutions
Abha Divine, Techquity
Robert Cresanti, Ocean Tomo

Combating (Dangerous) Counterfeits:  How Countries are Policing their Borders
The global trade in illicit goods is growing more sophisticated, harming —even killing— consumers around the world, funding organized criminal enterprises and undercutting sales of legitimate products. This panel will explore the challenges businesses and law enforcement face in their efforts to combat dangerous counterfeits.

Michael M. DuBose, U.S. Department of Justice
Nicholas J. Smith, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Charles Williams, Cisco

EVENT DETAILS:
Thursday, April 24, 2008, 9:00 AM to 2:00 PM
Reserve Officers Association (ROA) Headquarters Minuteman Memorial Building
Minuteman Ballroom, 5th Floor
One Constitution Ave NE
Washington DC 20002

*A complimentary lunch will be provided

Seating is limited- please register today to confirm your participation

RSVP: Erin Humiston
(972) 874-5139 or erin@ipi.org

 

 

SHARE: 4 comments

Crovitz’s Information Age

by on April 21, 2008 · 3 comments

L. Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, has started what has the potential to be a terrific new column for the Journal called “Information Age.” In it, he says, he will focus on how the Information Age “affects us as consumers, businesspeople and citizens” and “the accelerating impact of new technology.” In particular, he plans on dealing with the public policy issues surrounding this space.

His first column, entitled “Optimism and the Digital World,” is excellent. In it, he argues that:

[T]echnologists are optimists, for good reason…. as information becomes more accessible, individuals gain choice, control and freedom. Established institutions – governments, large companies and special-interest groups – need to work harder to justify their authority. As information and knowledge spread, financial and human capital become more global and more competitive. The uncertainties and dislocations from new technology can be wrenching, but genies don’t go back into bottles.

The First Law of Technology says that “with every change in technology that affects consumer behavior, we always overestimate the impact in the short term, but then underestimate the full impact over the long term.” The original dot-com era a decade ago was overhyped, but by now the Web has become a utility, increasingly available anywhere for any purpose. This is the Information Age, yet we’re just beginning to gather the information and understanding to know how it changes our lives.

This sounds very much in line with our thinking and coverage here at the TLF. [In fact, I would be remiss if I did not point to some of my own work on “The Media Cornucopia” and my ongoing “Media Metrics” series of essays, which I am about to tie it all together into a big PFF special report.] Anyway, I for one will be eagerly awaiting Mr. Crovitz’s future columns.

SHARE: 3 comments

No Intelligence Allowed

by on April 21, 2008 · 10 comments

Since ads for Ben Stein’s “Intelligent Design” movie is on heavy rotation over on the right-hand side of the page, now seems like a good time to reiterate that most of the ads on this site are automatically placed by Google, and shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement by TLF or any of its contributors. Ron Bailey’s take on Expelled seems pretty spot-on to me.

SHARE: 10 comments

ALF 5 Tonight!

by on April 21, 2008 · 8 comments

The big day has arrived. Tonight at 5:30, we’ll be getting together to drink, talk tech policy, and raise money for the Jefferson 1. Please note that the location has been changed from what was originally announced: it’ll be at Science Club, 1136 19th Street, NW, Washington D.C. Hope to see you there.

SHARE: 8 comments

MN Gov. Pawlenty Supports National ID Law

by on April 21, 2008 · 4 comments

Says WCCO.com:

Pawlenty has threatened to veto a major transportation bill because it includes language that would hamper Minnesota’s ability to comply with the [REAL ID Act].

SHARE: 4 comments

Hans Reiser: A Creep but not a Murderer?

by on April 19, 2008 · 5 comments

Threat Level has been providing gavel-to-gavel coverage of the murder trial of Linux developer Hans Reiser, who is accused of killing his wife. His defense attorney’s argument is that Reiser is an jerk, but being an jerk doesn’t make you a murderer:

Hans and Nina met in 1998, in Russia, when he was overseas hiring programmers. He picked her out of a mail-order bride catalog, where she was advertised as “5279 Nina.” They married the following year after she became pregnant with their first of two children.

DuBois, as he displayed for jurors Nina Reiser’s bride advertisement, said she moved to divorce him five years later, just as she became a U.S. citizen.

“She had an ulterior motive to marry Hans,” DuBois said.

“It couldn’t have been out of love that she married Hans Reiser,” DuBois said. “I can’t see anybody loving Hans Reiser.”

“He has to be one of the least attractive people you can imagine,” DuBois continued. “And she’s a doll.”

Sounds like a charming guy. I feel really sorry for his two kids.

SHARE: 5 comments

Sensors and Social Consequences

by on April 19, 2008 · 6 comments

A “sensor” is a device that measures a physical quantity and converts it into a signal that can be read by an observer or instrument. Sensors that convert analog information into digital form are the most interesting. The information they collect is easy to store, transmit, and reuse.

Digital sensors are all around – the keyboard on your computer, your cell phone, the surveillance cameras in your office building, and so on.

Lots of good things come from having these sensors around, and the systems they attach to – that’s for sure. But they don’t always serve our interests. Let’s take a look at an example of digital sensing gone wrong.

A colleague of mine recently returned from a business trip to Las Vegas, where he engaged in important and sober work. He arrived home late from his trip, and his patient and loving wife, already in bed, engaged him in some conversation. Fairly quickly, she asked him whether he had enjoyed himself at the strip bar (!). My hard-working and serious colleague was concerned. Why, on returning to the warm glow of his happy home-life, should he be asked this question?

Continue reading →

SHARE: 6 comments

What Did He Say?

by on April 18, 2008 · 4 comments

Normally when you quote someone extensively but selectively and you’re making a different (arguably opposite) point, you acknowledge that.

Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig, who got a chance to lecture a captive Federal Communications Commission during a special public hearing on broadband network management this week, began the lesson quoting from remarks Gerald R. Faulhaber, Professor Emeritus of Business and Public Policy at Wharton, made at Stanford on Dec. 1, 2000 when he was chief economist at the FCC.

I think Prof. Lessig is a gifted and well-intentioned scholar and educator. And Prof. Faulhaber framed the issues well, so it’s understandable why Lessig quoted him.

But Faulhaber wasn’t on Lessig’s page.

Continue reading →

SHARE: 4 comments

← Previous Entries

Next Entries →