Monthly Archives: February 2011

Grimmelman on Sealand, HavenCo, and the Rule of Law

Sealand

James Grimmelman has posted a draft what may be his best paper to date, Sealand, HavenCo, and the Rule of Law. It is thoughtful, wry, informative, and entertaining.

Here is the abstract:

In 2000, a group of American entrepreneurs moved to a former World War II anti-aircraft platform in the North Sea, seven miles off the British coast, and launched HavenCo, one of the strangest start-ups in Internet history. A former pirate radio broadcaster, Roy Bates, had occupied the platform in the 1960s, moved his family aboard, and declared it to be the sovereign Principality of Sealand. HavenCo’s founders were opposed to governmental censorship and control of the Internet; by putting computer servers on Sealand, they planned to create a “data haven” for unpopular speech, safely beyond the reach of any other country. This article tells the full story of Sealand and HavenCo — and examines what they have to tell us about the nature of the rule of law in the age of the Internet.

The story itself is fascinating enough: it includes pirate radio, shotguns and .50-caliber machine guns, rampant copyright infringement, a Red Bull skateboarding special, perpetual motion machines, and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of State. But its implications for the rule of law are even more remarkable. Previous scholars have seen HavenCo as a straightforward challenge to the rule of law: by threatening to undermine national authority, HavenCo was implacably opposed to all law. As the fuller history shows, however, this story is too simplistic. HavenCo also depended on international law to recognize and protect Sealand, and on Sealand law to protect it from Sealand itself. Where others have seen HavenCo’s failure as the triumph of traditional regulatory authorities over HavenCo, the article argues that in a very real sense, HavenCo failed not from too much law but from too little. The “law’ that was supposed to keep HavenCo safe was law only in a thin, formalistic sense, disconnected from the human institutions that make and enforce law. But without those institutions, law does not work, as HavenCo discovered.

Photo credit: Casey Hussein Bisson

Posted in Internet, Law: Internet Law | 1 Comment

When the Inexplicable Strikes

Apparently, this is the hot new Internet joke du jour: Bill O’Reilly – Can’t Explain That Meme.

Posted in The Media | 4 Comments

Is Hosni Mubarak Still President of Egypt?

IsMubarakStillPresident.com has the news:

via techPresident.

Posted in Politics: International | Comments Off on Is Hosni Mubarak Still President of Egypt?

Governor’s Budget Abandons the Homeless

Governor Voldemort targets the homeless:

Last year, agencies that help Florida’s homeless received nearly $7 million in state funding to assist more than 74,000 people.But that money was wiped out of the budget unveiled by Gov. Rick Scott on Monday, which called for elimination of the state’s Office of Homelessness.

via Miami Herald, Gov. Scott’s budget cuts could hit needy.

Yes, that’s almost $95 per person served that will no longer be wasted on homeless people, saving each Floridian almost 37 cents.

Posted in Florida | Comments Off on Governor’s Budget Abandons the Homeless

Nixonian Dirty Tricks Are Alive and Well and Living at the Chamber of Commerce

Crooks and Liars (yes, linking to them again), has a justifiably angry posting relating to revelations that ThinkProgress, SEIU and Others Targeted by US Chamber of Commerce for Smears.

It’s worth reading in full — this is ugly and subversive action by the Establishment trying to discredit critics. The more this is institutionalized, and the less there is accountability for it, the more hobbled our democracy. And so far, there is no accountability.

Posted in Politics: The Party of Sleaze | Comments Off on Nixonian Dirty Tricks Are Alive and Well and Living at the Chamber of Commerce

Justice Thomas’s Disclosure Problem

Crooks & Liars goes to town on the unfolding Supreme Court disclosure scandal: Clarence Thomas “Forgot” 20 Years of Disclosure? Really?. The author argues that there might even be felony exposure under 18 USC § 1001. I’m a little dubious, although it’s not the sort of law I do so I welcome comments from those who know this stuff.

And even if it’s theoretically right, there’s surely about a zero percent chance that the Obama Justice Department would act, or that the Tea Party House would indict.

Although I have to say that this all reminds me of the classic Steve Martin routine

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt9y1Dv7T4c

(Apologies for the silly cartoon version, but it is all I could find on YouTube.)

Posted in Law: Ethics, Law: The Supremes | Comments Off on Justice Thomas’s Disclosure Problem