ZDNet is reporting that Assange’s lawyers are laying out their arguments today to the seven law lords of the Supreme Court. The basis of their argument is that Swedish prosecutor Marianne Ny acted beyond her powers in issuing a European Arrest Warrant. They say that the High Court made a bad judgment in recognizing the EAW as valid.

The argument states that Ny “cannot act as judicial authority” when issuing an EAW. They go on to argue that she “lacks the impartiality and the independence from both the executive and the parties which constitute essential features of the exercise of judicial authority under domestic and European law.”

In court, the defense attorneys gave the judges 15 volumes of legal findings to back up its arguments. The key point is for the judges to consider the the definition of “judicial authority.”

For those just joining us, Assange is battling extradition to Sweden over two charges of sexual assault.

This of course has sprung up conspiracy theories that the U.S. is pulling the strings of Sweden’s push for extradition. It’s not hard to see why when you take into account the embarrassment the U.S. suffered last year when Wikileaks leaked thousands of U.S. embassy documents.

If his Supreme Court appeal fails, he can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR has 14 days to respond. If the appeal is rejected, Assange will be extradited. If the appeal is accepted, he will remain in the U.K. until the case is resolved.

We’ll keep you updated on any changes, including the decision, as they happen.

[lead photo courtesy of acidpolly on flickr]

The Taiwanese animation company’s timely video enactments of America’s top news have become staples of YouTube. The breadth of what they choose to cover is impressive. Just today they animated the New York gay marriage bill, Obama’s YouTube channel, and Lady Gaga news.

And then there’s this, which I can only describe as transcendent.

NMA has decided to give their interpretation of yesterday’s landmark Supreme Court decision about the sale of violent video games to minors. In that decision, the SCOTUS ruled a California state law prohibiting the sale of mature games to children unconstitutional.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia ruled that the state law does not fall into line with the first amendment and that video games, like books and films, deserve freedom of speech protection. Not only is this a win for the video game industry, but also a win for first amendment advocates everywhere. Opponents of the SCOTUS ruling say that the games are obscene and the government should be allowed to regulate their distribution.

NMA’s take on the whole thing is worth watching for its use of the violence motif even during the Supreme Court hearing sequences. Add an American flag, some kids and Grand Theft Auto and this becomes gold.

They are also able to point out the strange disconnect that we, in America, have about sex and violence in a 60 second clip. One is okay, while the other is highly restricted. Swell commentary, NMA. Swell.

Check it out below –

But the SCOTUS has made a ruling on the case based on first amendment free speech rights, and in doing so has declared videos games on par with other forms of artistic expression like books, film and music.

The case was originally titled Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, but the filing party was changed to Brown. The state of California originally passed bill AB 1179 which attempted to make the sale of the violent games illegal. Here is the criteria from the original bill on whats makes a game fall into that “ultra-violent” category –

A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would
find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
(ii) It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the
community as to what is suitable for minors.
(iii) It causes the game, as a whole, to lack serious literary,
artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.
(B) Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon
images of human beings or characters with substantially human
characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or
depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the
victim.

The California courts subsequently ruled this law to be unconstitutional. The state appealed to the SCOTUS, and they agreed to hear the case.

And today, in a 7-2 ruling, the SCOTUS upheld that the new law is in fact unconstitutional. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia says that the act “does not comport with the First Amendment” and that “video games qualify for First Amendment protection.”

From the opinion –

The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test. See United States v. Stevens, 559 U. S. ___, ___. Unlike the New York law upheld in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U. S. 629, California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children. Instead, the State wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and mistaken. This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. And California’s claim that “interactive” video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its out- come, is unpersuasive. Pp. 2–11.

It looks like the court thinks that the California state law unjustly and unprecedentedly opens up a can of worms when it comes to content regulation. Scalia went on to say that the gaming industry’s voluntary rating system (E, Teen, Mature, etc.) allows enough help for parents who wants to restrict their children’s access to violent content. He also added that the act is “overinclusive” because not all parents want their children restricted to violent video games.

So, besides being a huge win for the gaming industry, does this ruling give even more legitimacy to video games as an art form? If so, that may ruffle Roger Ebert’s feathers a little bit.

You can expect the interwebs to respond heavily when either free speech or video games are discussed. Put them together and whoa. Here are some of the top responses of Twitter –

Most of the comments rolling in on Twitter take this shape and agree with the decision. There are a few, however, that have a different opinion –

I, for one, would not be the well-adjusted man that I am today without ripping out some spinal cord as a fatality in Mortal Kombat when I was nine. The argument can rage on whether young kids are harmed by violent video games, but the SCOTUS, with this ruling, is leaving that debate up to the parents. I’m sure most of us can be happy that with this decision, video games as an art form just scored another one in the win column.

"This case is about the ability of an innocent defendant accused of copyright infringement to defend himself in court, litigate his defenses, and, if successful, recover his attorney’s fees to the same extent as a prevailing plaintiff would under the same circumstances," argued Cliff Thompson of San Antonio, Tex. in his petition.

The RIAA filed a suit against Thompson in 2004, but later dropped the case. The RIAA then went after Thompson’s adult daughter alleging she was the one at fault. Thompson said he spent about $7,500 to defend himself.

The RIAA normally goes after individuals after tracking a users IP address to uploading activity on a peer-to-peer site. Frequently the user that is linked to the IP address is not the one violating copyright law.

So far the RIAA has sued more than 20,000 people for copyright infringement. Most of the cases are settled out of court for $3,000 to $4,000. The courts have ordered the RIAA to pay attorney fees in two cases where the defendants were falsely accused.
 

A Bloomberg report said AT&T already had a decision in hand against Microsoft and its use of speech technology for VoIP. That partial settlement came in 2004, and Microsoft has been seething ever since as they believe a lower-court ruling tripled their liability exposure.

The justices get to try and sort out whether or not Microsoft violated a 23-year-old law on patent protection:

Roberts won’t be participating when the Supreme Court hears arguments tomorrow because he owns Microsoft stock. The rest of the justices will scrutinize a 1984 law aimed at preventing companies from circumventing U.S. patent rights by shipping components overseas to be assembled into an infringing product. The export law says supplying those components constitutes patent infringement.

Microsoft says that provision doesn’t apply because the versions of Windows it sends to foreign computer makers –either on “golden master” disks or as encrypted digital files — don’t end up on computers.

The Cornell Law School said the Supremes have two questions before them in considering the case:

(1) Whether digital software code

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/microsoft-at-t-in-supreme-patent-spat-2007-02/feed 0 http://www.webpronews.com/online-libel-suits-2006-11 http://www.webpronews.com/online-libel-suits-2006-11#comments Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:07:33 +0000 Dustin Brewer http://www.webpronews.com/?p=33068 t looks like the Supreme Court has ruled protection over online libel suits.

This means that if you post malicious or defaming information or write something of that nature about someone online that you can not be sued for it. Only the source of the defaming information can be at fault. For example, if someone in my comments posts something bad about George Bush I won’t get in trouble but the source could be tracked down and sued for defamation. Granted, that is an extreme case.

This move will help help to protect the freedom of speech online as well as ensure that companies like Amazon, AOL and Yahoo don’t get sued for libel for pointless things that they have no control over. It also protects blogger who reposts information that they received from a source or information they obtained by other means. They can’t directly be sued unless they are the direct source of the malicious information.

The decision was made in California Supreme Court and decided in the case of Rosenthal who was being sued for posting a piece to two newsgroups about a doctor and the defamation of his character through supposed health frauds. The lawsuit accuses Rosenthal of republishing the information after being warned it was untrue and defamatory. In reversing an appellate court’s decision, the state Supreme Court ruled that the Communications Decency Act of 1996 provides broad immunity from defamation lawsuits for people who publish information on the Internet that was gathered from another source.

Comments

Tag:

Add to Del.icio.us | Digg | Yahoo! My Web | Furl

Bookmark WebProNews:

Dustin Brewer is a web and graphic designer with a passionate interest
in everything that is technology. He currently is the webmaster and
editor for tech filter, a technology news web site, as well as a writer
for Gadgetell– a similar web site about technology news with a strong
focus on new gadgets.

]]> http://www.webpronews.com/online-libel-suits-2006-11/feed 0