UNDERDOG - Criminal/Drunk Driving Defense in Maryland, Virginia, DC - First Amendment

When the Recording industry sues for copyright infringement.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0400

The Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)

Copyright infringement brings the risk of significant money damages and, sometimes, criminal prosecution. The First Amendment fanatic that I am, I feel very comfortable defending people accused of copyright infringement. As much as great music and great musicians are near and dear to my heart, my First Amendment concerns win out in my deciding which side I would represent for such litigation.

Here are some resources to help sharpen one's teeth in defending against copyright litigation:

- Nimmer on Copyright - With its price tag over $1500, I wonder how many people infringe on Nimmer's own copyright. By the way, the author, Melville Nimmer, successfully argued to the Supreme Court to overturn the conviction of a man who walked into a courthouse with a t-shirt proclaiming "F*ck the Draft". Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).

- Here is an overview of the fair use doctrine, from the U.S. Copyright Office's website.

- Here is an apparently standard type of copyright complaint for allegedly unlawfuil Kazaa-type downloading.

- Recording Industry v. The People blog presents itself as being "[a]bout the RIAA's attempt to monopolize digital music by redefining copyright law, through the commencement of tens of thousands of extortionate lawsuits against ordinary working people."

- Pike & Fischer publishes Internet Law & Regulation. Most of its articles apparently require a subscription.

- ArsTechnica.com covers copyright infringement lawsuits.

- Here is the website of the Recording Industry Association of America. Jon Katz.

Have love songs made everyone love one another?

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 00:00:00 -0400

Following are some Frank Zappa quotes relevant to this blog entry:

There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you do something we'd all love one another. Frank Zappa responding to Tipper Gore's and friends' notion that explicit music lyrics would poison the nation's children.

I wrote a song about dental floss but did anyone's teeth get cleaner? - Frank Zappa responding to the same notion about the correlation between music lyrics and individuals' behavior. (See Zappa's timeless Montana/Dennil Floss).

The more boring a child is, the more the parents, when showing off the child, receive adulation for being good parents — because they have a tame child-creature in their house.

I never set out to be weird. It was always other people who called me weird.

In 1985, the late Frank Zappa (who passed away from prostate cancer when he was only eight years older than I am now) implored Congress to reject censoring music and pressuring the music industry to impose ratings systems. His live testimony is transcribed here and his submitted written comments start at the bottom of the page here. (I do regret Zappa's emphasis on the gender of Tipper Gore and other Congressional spouses of the Parents Resource Music Center (PCRM) pushing for music ratings; if he wanted to emphasize any impropriety or conflict of interest involved with Congressional spouses pushing for action by the same committee on which Tipper Gore's husband Al Gore sat, for instance, he could have just referred to "spouses" and their names.) Curiously, Zappa's testimony indicates no opposition to a government requirement to reveal music lyrics in printed form, so long as they could be on a separate sheet (e.g., so as not to take away from the album/CD cover art and design) possibly printed at government expense.

Curiously, the "Filthy Fifteen" songs list that was apparently trumpeted by PCRM as a prelude to the group's Congressional testimony, included plenty of titles that sound particularly tame today.

The above 1986 video of Frank Zappa on Crossfire shows his true dedication to the First Amendment and individual liberties. He does a good job of distilling the whole matter as boiling down to words, and the stupidity and oppressiveness of censoring those words. In the process, he responds to John Lofton's inquiry about why Zappa is not smiling with "Why should I smile when I'm sitting here with you?" The music video shown near the beginning of this Crossfire episode looks and sounds so mild as to not be of much or any strength for those seeking music ratings and more onerous censorship than that.

Now, over two decades later, we find warning labels on music and video games. We find Hillary Clinton just two years ago pushing for a ban on selling minors video games rated mature, adults-only, or rating pending, and hiring a company to review the effectiveness of industry efforts to arrive at such ratings. See Hillary Clinton's video plea here, the bill here, and CBS's William Vitka's response here, asking "Where is our Zappa?".

Fortunately, Hillary Clinton's proposed video censorship law died, but Clinton now seeks to return to the White House,and who knows what she would do there with the First Amendment? In the 1990's, Bill Clinton -- who undoubtedly will wield substantial influence in a Hillary Clinton administration -- signed into law the censorious Child Online Protection Act (1996) and Children's Internet Protection Act (1999).

Addressing the remaining presidential candidate front runners, John McCain's hands already are dirtied when it comes to the First Amendment. For instance, he introduced the Children's Internet Protection Act, and he was not too concerned about First Amendment rights in pushing for campaign reform. As to Barack Obama, I am still trying to make sense of the harm and good he has done and will do for the First Amendment.

Considering the foregoing efforts to censor music and video games, what comes next? Censoring books? (What am I saying? Books have been banned for decades and long before that.)

I miss Frank Zappa. Jon Katz.

Of Monty Python, Hormel, and unsolicited bulk email.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:00:00 -0500

Technical difficulties interfered with my including the following addendum to my blog entry this morning about the 4-3 Virginia Supreme Court decision upholding Jeremy Jaynes's nine-year spam sentence:

In the face of this wrongly-decided Jaynes opinion, I offer the following spam humor. I found the CompuServe court opinion that explains, at footnote 1, how Monty Python's spam skit led to the coinage of the "spam" phrase for unsolicited bulk email. This Wikipedia article discusses the subject further. Monty Python's spam skit is as funny today as ever, and is here and above on YouTube. Jon Katz.

Wikileaks.org is back.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:00:00 -0500

Computer hard drive. (Image from Pacific Northwest Laboratory's website).

Following up on my February 24 blog entry, my closer reading shows that the permanend injunction issued for the Wikileaks case plaintiffs was by consent of one of the defendants, but not by Wikileaks. Also, my closer reading shows that the February 15 permanent injunction led to the disconnection of Wikileaks's domain name, rather than a disconnection of the sitehost used by Wikileaks. Thanks to Windypundit for reviewing this issue and for alerting me to the latter matter.

Wisely, on February 29, the trial judge reversed the above-described permanent injunction. Wikileaks.org is back at present. The next court hearing in this case is May 16, 2008. The order reversing the permanent injunction is here. The docket entries through March 2, 2008, are here.

Thanks to Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press for listing an update on this case. Jon Katz.

Wikileaks continues at .cx domain.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:00:00 -0500

Computer hard drive. (Image from Pacific Northwest Laboratory's website).

On February 15, 2008, a federal trial judge in San Francisco ordered that wikileaks.org be closed. Although wikileaks.org no longer functions -- after its sitehost apparently carried out the judge's order to close down the site -- wikileaks.cx (.cx is the Christmas Island domain) appears to be a mirror of wikileaks.org, operating with full force. After the injunction was ordered, Wikileaks vowed to defy the judge's injunction order.

This permanent injunction order against Wikileaks (the case docket is here) apparently came about just nineteen days after a lawsuit was filed against Wikileaks. That sounds like too short a time period to give the defendants a fair chance to receive and review the lawsuit (the injunction motion is here), to hire counsel, and to be heard. Hopefully Wikileaks will obtain an attorney to try to overturn this court order that was issued when the defendants were unrepresented.

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Windypundit for correctly pointing out that Wikileaks.org was made inactive not by a sitehost, but by its domain registrar Dynadot. As of March 1, 2008, the site is running again.

Jon Katz.

Who is Maryland's 2007 legal newsmaker?

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:00:00 -0500

Image from Library of Congress's website.

Recently I learned that a legal affairs writer suggested, on the Maryland Daily Record's blog, that I might have been among Maryland's top 2007 legal newsmakers in terms of having "the greatest impact — positive or negative — on Maryland law or the Maryland legal community", for my defense of the First Amendment in Snyder v. Phelps, et al. In this litigation, and as detailed here, I defended the Westboro Baptist Church and its pastor against counts of defamation (count dismissed on summary judgment), intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy for church members' very strong messages (quite the understatement) while picketing on a street in Westminster, Maryland, before the funeral proceedings for a soldier killed in Iraq.

I did not know how much of a grain of salt to take with the suggestion that I might be one of Maryland's top 2007 legal newsmakers. On the one hand, the rigor of the list is brought into question by the writer's inclusion of Paul Minnich alongside my name, even though it was two of his co-counsel who were the only lawyers at trial for the plaintiff and at the depositions; perhaps mistaken identity took hold, possibly all the more from the parties having been subjected to a gag order throughout the trial. On the other hand, I am more than happy for the recognition, to the extent that it recognizes my ongoing fight for robust First Amendment rights, so that perhaps others will be influenced to join the same fight. The irony is not lost on me that during my fight for the First Amendment in this case, all lawyers were gagged from speaking with the press about the case, until after the jury returned its verdict. Jon Katz.

ADDENDUM - Pending before the Maryland federal trial court in the Westboro Baptist case are timely-filed post-trial defense motions including a motion to reduce the jury verdict, and a motion to stay the judgment pending appeal.

Controversial (in New Jersey, at least) Super Lawyers adds Jon Katz to its Maryland criminal defense lawyers list.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:30:00 -0500

This posting follows up on my November 30, 2007, discussion of the highly subjective nature of lawyer rankings on the one hand, but my welcoming recognition in rankings and the media, nevertheless. The Washington, D.C., area, is an incredibly competitive market for providing legal services. Such free publicity helps us avoid spending much on marketing, and to focus our time on serving our clients and our revenue on quality support staff.

In that regard, Super Lawyers recently added me to its Maryland criminal defense attorneys list. Fewer than fifty other Maryland criminal defense lawyers also are on the list, plus seventeen more for drunk driving and white collar criminal defense (which I also handle). Super Lawyers seeks advertising revenue from its ranked lawyers for display ads; our firm has never paid Super Lawyers a dime, so we have no display ad.

Concerning the Maryland listing, Super Lawyers explains: "Maryland Super Lawyers is published in January in a special advertising section in Baltimore magazine, which reaches 194,000 readers, and in Maryland Super Lawyers magazine, which is delivered to more than 25,000 readers, including Maryland lawyers, the lead corporate counsel of Russell 3000 companies and the ABA-approved law school libraries. Super Lawyers names the top 5 percent of Maryland lawyers, as chosen by their peers and through the independent research of Law & Politics. 2007 Maryland Super Lawyers based on the survey of more than 21,000 attorneys across the state."

Super Lawyers' selection process does not sound very rigorous. Scott at Simple Justice heavily pans the Super Lawyers list and the AVVO list.

Flying in the face of the First Amendment, in mid-2006, the Committee on Attorney Advertising appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court, concluded in its Advertising Opinion 39 that: "[A]dvertisements describing attorneys as 'Super Lawyers,' 'Best Lawyers in America,' or similar comparative titles, violate the prohibition against advertisements that are inherently comparative in nature, RPC [Rule of Professional Conduct] 7.1(a)(3), or that are likely to create an unjustified expectation about results, RPC 7.1(a)(2)."

The latest developments that I could find on this New Jersey matter are from mid-2007, as follows in reverse chronological order. If you have more recent information, please send it my way:

- Law.com provided an update on the then-pending court controversy on June 19, 2007.

- The Federal Trade Commission filed an amicus/friend-of-the-court brief opposing Opinion 39, and providing a useful chart on how the different states treat comparative lawyer advertising. This is particularly noteworthy when considering that the FTC is not always a friend of the First Amendment, including its active role to regulate cigarette advertisements (with Congress banning cigarette television commercials in 1970).

- Curiously, an official May 2007 announcement from the New Jersey State Bar Association mentioned that its new treasurer had been included in the Super Lawyers list.

- In January 2007, the Maryland Daily Record reported that the large Venable law firm decided not to be included in that year's Maryland Super Lawyers list: "The [New Jersey] ethics panel decision is, of course, not binding on lawyers in other states, but Venable decided it 'should be given some consideration,' firm counsel G. Stewart Webb Jr. said. New Jersey's lawyer advertising rules are based on the model rules followed by other states, he pointed out. 'We basically decided prudence dictated we should not participate in the survey while the issues were still out there,' Webb said." Even though a final court decision on New Jersey Advertising Opinion 39 still seems pending, ten months later, on November 29, 2007, Venable issued a press release entitled "14 Venable Lawyers Named to Washingtonian Magazine’s 2007 List of D.C.-Area’s Top Attorneys," which is a list that has included me twice in a row since 2004. It does not appear that touting a Washingtonian top lawyer listing would be any more permissible under Opinion 39 than touting a Super Lawyer or Best Lawyer listing. Is this a matter of changed policy at Venable, or a case of one hand not following or controlling what the other hand is doing?

- Super Lawyers' online position on the matter is here.

Commentary and information from 2006 on New Jersey Advertising Opinion 39 follows, in chronological order:

- Law.com provided extensive coverage of the story on July 25, 2006.

- The Associated Press reported in August 2006 that the New Jersey Supreme Court stayed Advertising Opinion 39 pending litigation over the matter.

- On August 1, 2006, Law.com provided information about the lawyers hired by Super Lawyers and the Best Lawyers directories against Advertising Opinion 39.

- On September 15, 2006, the New York Times covered the story.

- On November 17, 2006, Law.com reported on the New Jersey Attorney General's backing Opinion 39, but also supporting flexibility on lawyer advertising.

So it goes. Jon Katz.

Biometrics, Big Brother, and the Bill of Rights.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0500

"There are no nations; there are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There is no third world. There is no west. There is only one holistic system of systems; one vast interwoven, interacting, multivariate multinational dominion of dollars. Petrodollars, electrodollars, reichmarks, rubles, rin, pounds and shekels. It is the international system of currency that determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today." (Ned Beatty's Arthur Jensen to Peter Finch's Norman Beale, in Network.)

No matter how much I like Ned Beatty as an actor, I despise his Arthur Jensen character, depicted above, who claims the world to be nothing but "the international system of currency." In reality, governments exist, and must be fully answerable to people. Governments will only be answerable to people if people insist on it.

For instance, when the United States proceeds with an ambitious biometrics program to identify and track people worldwide through images of their faces, fingerprints and palm patterns, people need to recognize the harm such a program can cause to civil liberties, and they need to speak up, starting with me and with everyone reading this blog entry. Jon Katz.

Adult video store wins grandfathering right (Georgia).

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:00:00 -0500

Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)

My law practice includes criminal and civil representation of those in the adult entertainment industry. In that context, I learned from a fellow listserv member that a Georgia adult video store in September 2007 won a partial federal court victory by winning the right to be grandfathered under an otherwise much more stringent legal scheme for regulating adult entertainment businesses. Augusta Video v. Augusta-Richmond County, No. 06-16053 (11th Cir. Sept. 6, 2007) (unpublished).

In some respects, this case's appellate holding relies on the grandfathering zoning provisions of Georgia law that do not apply to every state. At the same time, the opinion addresses some issues that repeatedly arise in adult zoning cases nationwide, including the Constitutional requirement for limiting discretion to government officials who issue operating and zoning permits for adult entertainment businesses.

Adult entertainment litigation typically involves First Amendment issues that go to the heart of everyone's First Amendment rights, and not merely to the rights of those in the adult entertainment industry. Jon Katz

Seventh Circuit limits government's authority to ban alcohol in strip clubs.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 00:00:00 -0500

Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)

On November 19, 2007, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit limited the government's authority to ban alcohol in strip clubs. The case is , Eric Joelner Fish, Inc. v. Village of Washington Park, __ F.3d _ (7th Cir. Nov. 19, 2007).

Thanks to my friend Marc Randazza for linking to fellow First Amendment Lawyers Association member Cari Wiggins' discussion of this Eric Joelner Fish case. Jon Katz.

Some statutes are unconstitutional on their face.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 00:30:00 -0500

First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)

Some statutes are unconstitutional on their face. When a facial challenge against a statute is made on First Amendment grounds, one good case to cite is Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc'y of N.Y., Inc. v. Vill. of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002).

Watchtower Bible invalidates ordinances that require people and organizations to register with the government before they may solicit door-to-door. In Watchtower , the Supreme Court said that:

"The breadth and unprecedented nature of this regulation does not alone render the ordinance invalid. Also central to our conclusion that the ordinance does not pass First Amendment scrutiny is that it is not tailored to the Village's stated interests. Even if the interest in preventing fraud could adequately support the ordinance insofar as it applies to commercial transactions and the solicitation of funds, that interest provides no support for its application to petitioners, to political campaigns, or to enlisting support for unpopular causes. The Village, however, argues that the ordinance is nonetheless valid because it serves the two additional interests of protecting the privacy of the resident and the prevention of crime.

"With respect to the former, it seems clear that §107 of the ordinance, which provides for the posting of 'No Solicitation' signs and which is not challenged in this case, coupled with the resident's unquestioned right to refuse to engage in conversation with unwelcome visitors, provides ample protection for the unwilling listener. Schaumburg, 444 U.S. at 639 ('[T]he provision permitting homeowners to bar solicitors from their property by posting [no solicitation] signs ... suggest[s] the availability of less intrusive and more effective measures to protect privacy'). The annoyance caused by an uninvited knock on the front door is the same whether or not the visitor is armed with a permit.

"With respect to the latter, it seems unlikely that the absence of a permit would preclude criminals from knocking on doors and engaging in conversations not covered by the ordinance. They might, for example, ask for directions or permission to use the telephone, or pose as surveyors or census takers. See n. 1, supra. Or they might register under a false name with impunity because the ordinance contains no provision for verifying an applicant's identity or organizational credentials. Moreover, the Village did not assert an interest in crime prevention below, and there is an absence of any evidence of a special crime problem related to door-to-door solicitation in the record before us."

The Watchtower Bible majority opinion garnered six of nine votes, with Justices Scalia filing a concurring opinion with which Justice Thomas joined, and with the late Chief Justice Rehnquist as the only dissenter. Both due to the language and voting lineup of Watchtower Bible , the Supreme Court should not be expected to deviate from the opinion for a long time. Jon Katz.

From here, the Westboro Baptist Church case will be appealed.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 01:00:00 -0400

First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)

From October 22 to October 31, my life was consumed with my defense of the Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) and its pastor before a Maryland federal jury against charges of intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion. Each day, I drove to the heart of Baltimore for this trial, not once getting the time to enjoy the city except for the last day, during lunch while the jury deliberated.

Only after the jury issued its verdict on October 31 did the court lift its gag order preventing the parties from communicating with the media, whose members daily covered the trial. A general overview of the case is here from the Baltimore Sun.

The case arises from the picketing and related activities of WBC members concerning a soldier's funeral. I very much disagree with WBC's views, including its decision to picket soldiers' funerals. Of course, I believe strongly in responding to reviled speech with counterspeech.

In addition to the above-listed emotional distress and intrusion upon seclusion charges, the lawsuit filed by the soldier's father alleged defamation, which the court dismissed the week before trial commenced. Committed to robust First Amendment protection, I accepted the role of defending WBC and its pastor in this lawsuit, while departing strongly with their message and actions.

Having declined to dismiss the remainder of the lawsuit, the judge sent the case to the jury, which on October 31 returned a total verdict of $2.9 million in compensatory damages and $8 million in punitive damages. These are huge numbers, to say the least.

This case stirs people's passions. I have heard from people taking issue with my defending WBC and its pastor in this case, and from others agreeing with my standing up for First Amendment rights, which I do again and again for people from across the political spectrum, believing that picking and choosing within the political spectrum is disingenuous to upholding the First Amendment. I went to law school idealistic about using my law degree for civil liberties, learned during law school that First Amendment rights are suppressed all the time, and feel heartened about being able to light a candle rather than to curse the darkness, through my First Amendment defense work.

Protecting free expression often requires defending dark and/or controversial views and actions. It includes defending against cross burning statutes, defending the right of neo-nazis to march in Skokie, and defending the rights of the adult entertainment industry, As the American Civil Liberties Union's website proclaims: "It is easy to defend freedom of speech when the message is something many people find at least reasonable. But the defense of freedom of speech is most critical when the message is one most people find repulsive. That was true when the Nazis marched in Skokie. It remains true today."

This WBC case will now proceed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, where the First Amendment issues will be argued and reviewed. Jon Katz.

ADDENDUM II/II - November 7, 2007. A Google search reveals many views supportive of the jury's verdict. The webpages opposing or seriouly questioning the verdict on First Amendment grounds are much fewer and take longer to find, so I list some of them here: Herald-Argus, Press-Dakotan, News Journal, News Tribune, Legal Blog Watch, Renew America, Debate Nation, and Daily Irrelevant,

ADDENDUM I/II - November 4, 2007. Several people have been emailing me about this case, all disagreeing with the defendants' views and actions, some cheering the verdict, some taking exception (and sometimes strong exception) to my representing Westboro Baptist Church and its pastor, and some supporting my standing up for the defendants' Constitutional rights.

My responses to those expressing dissent about my representation include, but are not limited to, the following:

"As you apparently recognize, I do not share the Westboro Baptist Church's views. At the same time, I believe strongly in having their speaking, picketing, and preaching activities protected by the First Amendment, lest First Amendment protection not be extended to speech that I hold dear.

"I have been very much influenced by the American Civil Liberties Union to represent such clients as the Westboro Baptist Church. The ACLU lost many members when it supported the right of nazis to march down the streets of Skokie, IL, through a neighborhood with many Jewish people, including Holocaust survivors. I was in high school at the time, and it took some time for me to understand and support that position. Ultimately, the ACLU enjoyed a surge in membership, including with the PATRIOT Act-related substantial curbing of civil liberties.

"More behind my decision to defend this case is here http://markskatz.com/justiceblog/archives/821-From-here,-the-Westboro-Baptist-Church-case-will-be-appealed..html .

"As to where the picketers stood, please see the news article here. It was conceded at trial that my clients never entered the funeral building. The testimony of law enforcement and church members was that they were on county-owned property, not on church property. Defense testimony showed that the picketing took place over one thousand feet from the building where the funeral took place."

Underdog visits underground comix fest.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:10:00 -0400

First Amendment and the rest of the Bill of Rights. (From the public domain.)

On September 30, I blogged about the October 13 whirlwind weekend of local appearances and performances by Bill Griffith, Andrew White and Ben Lo.

Happily, I got to the Small Press Expo, where the shadow of Zippy creator Bill Griffith loomed large. Unfortunately, I missed attending another annual t'ai chi learning session with superstar teacher and practitioner Ben Lo, and missed hearing Andrew White perform jazz live.

My main motivation for visiting the Small Press Expo -- which focuses on underground and alternative comics -- was to catch a glimpse of Bill Griffith. I got much more than I bargained for, having been second in line to meet with him immediately upon arriving in the exhibition hall.

Bill Griffith is a class act. He very much likes and appreciates his fans. While keeping one eye on Bill and the other on my son -- who started walking back towards the sign-in area -- I thanked him for his sharing his amazing creativity with the world. I often forego seeking autographs, but was interested in having both the karma and artistry of Bill's. I e-mailed him the next day seeking his permission to upload his autograph, which he gave. I have e-mailed Bill before, also receiving specific replies that clearly were from him. Imagine such an accomplished creator who stays in such frequent contact with his fans; in fact, his webpage says an effort is made to answer within twenty-four hours.

I also got a chance to hear most of Bill's slide show presentation later the same afternoon, which included Bill's initial efforts to become a "serious artist" and later efforts to make some easy money by offering his cartooning talents to Screw magazine. Bill talked about the origins of Zippy from one or more actual circus sideshow characters from many generations ago, at least one of which had "pinhead" in his name. Bill's mother was a science fiction writer, and his dad a stiff career military person; he thinks his personality displays some of both.

Returning to the exhibition upstairs, I had to take the escalator and pass by a very formal wedding party, with the professional photographer snapping away while trying to crop out the very informally-dressed (to say the least) comics expo attendees passing by. It is rather strange if the convention hotel did not think to tell the wedding party that they might want to consider the crowd next door.

At nearly every exhibition table was the actual creator of the material being promoted. Without exception, the many creators I met were very accessible to me and the other attendees, and seemed very happy to have a chance to interact with the alternative comic-reading public. High quality comics and accessories abounded. In addition to my meeting with Bill Griffith, I particularly enjoyed speaking with Ted Rall, whose work previously was carried in the Washington, D.C. City Paper.

The Small Press Expo took place at the Marriott hotel about ten miles up the street from Georgetown in Washington, D.C. The West Coast probably has a parallel and larger annual shindig in San Francisco; meanwhile, I am very happy to have such an annual event just a few miles from where I live.

I understand that proceeds from the event partially benefit the very worthy Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, which apparently has been at the forefront of defending the First Amendment rights of alternative comics. It is sad that such censorship exists in the first place. Jon Katz.

When "fart" is expressed in august courtrooms.

nospam@example.com (Jon Katz) — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 00:00:00 -0400

The Seventh Circuit sniffs out the to do with Pull My Finger Fred. (Image made available for copying under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.)

My brother lawyer Marc Randazza certainly finds humorous legal-related tidbits to blog about. One day I'll ask him if his secret to finding such stories goes beyond panning for gold. Marc is an adjunct law professor who introduces his students to the saga of fartman

How much more fun law school would have been had I been assigned to read the essence of the unanimous panel opinion in JCW Investments, Inc. v. Novelty, Inc., 482 F.3d 910 (7th Cir., March 20, 2007), which opens as follows:

"Meet Pull My Finger® Fred. He is a white, middle-aged, overweight man with black hair and a receding hairline, sitting in an armchair wearing a white tank top and blue pants. Fred is a plush doll and when one squeezes Fred’s extended finger on his right hand, he farts. He also makes somewhat crude, somewhat funny statements about the bodily noises he emits, such as 'Did somebody step on a duck?' or 'Silent but deadly.'"

First, John Wayne Bobbit's case made it easier for Al Bundy to say the p word (almost) on television. Now, Pull My Finger® Fred makes "fart" acceptable to be expressed in a court opinion. This is one judicial chambers conference and opinion drafting session that I would have wanted to witness. Perhaps the judges' law clerks will expel some light on such developments. (Speaking of this case's judge lineup, one of the panelists approving the opinion is none other than Daniel Manion, who barely squeezed by his Senate nomination vote, by a tally of 48-46.)

For anyone wondering, this Pull My Finger® Fred case is a serious intellectual property case upholding over a half million dollars of relief for a blatant ripoff of Pull My Finger® Fred.

Thanks for Copyright Law's link to Marc's annals (Marc's selected description) of finger-pulling dolls. Patently O also covered the story. Jon Katz.