Congratulations to Jessica Carvalho Morris, UM Law's very dynamic and stylish Director of International Graduate Law Programs, who has just been elected Vice Chair of Amnesty International USA.
Here's a striking portion of the press release,
Carvalho Morris’s father was tortured while serving as a U.S. missionary in Brazil during the military dictatorship. He was kidnapped by the Brazilian military and subjected to electric shocks, beatings, and food and sleep deprivation. After 17 days, he was expelled from Brazil even though official charges were never brought against him. As a result of her father’s experience, Carvalho Morris has dedicated her life to ending torture and other kinds of human rights violations in the world.
Paul Gowder argues that an “amendment” which didn't state the actual language amended, but only the result it sought to accomplish, would be valid. See Uncommon Priors » Lex posterior derogat priori and the elusive performative.. This is in response to an argument saying it would not.
My knee appears to be making a spasmodic movement suggesting that, in the absence of a firm rule to the contrary in the relevant jurisdiction, Gowder is correct.
How, after all, is this different from passage of a law that says (as they so often do), “notwithstanding any prior provision to the contrary…”? Does the difference turn on the use of the term “amendment”? And if so, why should one give the term such weight?
Here's a great chart, via TPM
Among the many fine conferences I've missed (hello, Privacy Scholars) and will be missing (hello, TPRC) this year, was Computers, Freedom & Privacy. There's a nice write-up of a chunk of it by Wendy Grossman at net.wars.
And some of the good folks who attended sent me a poster with get-well messages on the back, for which I am very grateful.
President Obama fired Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal today.
This is not a big deal because Obama Says Afghan Policy Won’t Change. The policy is a big deal. The identity of the General implementing it isn't (much).
Viacom Loses To YouTube In Landmark Copyright Case. Key point: YouTube isn't liable for copyright infringement so long as it pulls stuff promptly when owners complain properly.
In other words, YouTube doesn't have a duty to proactively police its users; that's the copyright owner's job.