Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Stuff Which is True and Not at All Funny

Posted on September 18, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Stuff which appears all true, and quite horrible:

Sickening Beyond Belief. Here’s just a small bit:

In the midst of administering chest compressions to a dying woman several days after Hurricane Katrina struck, Dr. Mark N. Perlmutter was ordered to stop by a federal official because he wasn’t registered with the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

“I begged him to let me continue,” said Perlmutter, who left his home and practice as an orthopedic surgeon in Pennsylvania to come to Louisiana and volunteer to care for hurricane victims. “People were dying, and I was the only doctor on the tarmac (at the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport) where scores of nonresponsive patients lay on stretchers. Two patients died in front of me.
The follow-up posting detailing other examples of the deadly refusal of assistance.
Meanwhile FEMA still can’t get its act together.

PS. Here comes Tropical Storm Rita, soon to be Hurricane Rita. See the details via the University of Miami’s cool Google hack that plots hurricane track observations and predicted path. (Note that in this case the track is a little misleading, maybe, as it is quite possible the center will reform farther north during the next 36 hours. That is, right here. Although the real hurricane force may not grow until it hits the Gulf.)

Posted in Unspeakably Awful (Katrina) | 3 Comments

It’s All Going to the Dogs

Posted on September 16, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

First there was this…but now there’s this.

(Click, it’s worth it.)

Posted in Internet | Comments Off

And When They Came For Me…

Posted on September 16, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

Once again, a “what he said” reference to Eric Muller at IsThatLegal.org for Is That Legal?: I Propose The Government Maintain a List of Everyone Who Eats Baba Ghanouj

Massachusetts governor (and 2008 Republican presidential candidate) Mitt Romney seeks the wiretapping of mosques.

Naturally, the Boston Globe article reporting on this charming proposal casts those alarmed by the proposal as “civil libertarians” and “immigrants’ rights advocates.”

Have we really reached the point where it’s just “civil libertarians” who get nervous when powerful politicians propose the suspicionless wiretapping of houses of worship?

Remember this?

In Germany, the Nazis first came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics, but I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me…By that time there was no one to speak up for anyone.

–Reverend Martin Niemoller

Posted in Civil Liberties | 6 Comments

Blogs, Ads, and Insurance

Posted on September 16, 2005 by Michael Froomkin

When stuff on this blog doesn't work like it should, I start thinking about maybe taking the blog off a shared server and putting on its own machine. The trouble is, it would cost a lot to have my own machine to host this blog, and while I'm happy to pay a little for what is basically a hobby, I'm not sure if I'm willing to spend what it takes to have my own hosted machine run by professionals. (I could run it at home, but I want it done right, and the upload bandwidth on my home line is rather puny.)

One solution many people adopt to defray the cost of a server is to run ads. I intend to resist that option unless I have no choice. There are two reasons.

First, I don't like ads, so I don't want to foist them on the people kind enough to follow my ramblings.

Second, I am pretty confident that my homeowners insurance policy covers my hobbies: Suppose, for example, someone were someone crazed enough to sue me for something related to one of my postings. Not only would they lose, but there would be someone who'd pay to defend me. (Otherwise I'd have to throw myself on the mercy of the EFF.)

The trouble is, I am not certain how my insurance would treat a hobby that had a revenue-producing component, even if I wasn't making a profit off it. Could it be considered a business, in which case it wouldn't be covered? I could imagine an insurance lawyer making that argument. Heck, if I were the insurance lawyer I'd make that argument. I think the counter-argument is better — it's a hobby that happens to bring a few bucks — but would I count on a judge inevitably seeing it that way? No I would not.

Then again, lots of other academic bloggers run ads. So what does it mean? There are lots of possibilities:

I have a more restrictive insurance policy than most other bloggers
Other academic bloggers have not thought about this aspect of blogging
Other academic bloggers have thought about and are less risk-averse
Academic bloggers as a class are judgment-proof¹

Update: Turns out that Eugene Volokh not only had the same thought some time ago, but he actually did some research on the question, which pretty much supports my instincts (although laws do vary by state). And one of the trackbacks to that post, Antinome sounds knowledgeable and recommends David J. Marchitelli, Construction and Application of “Business Pursuits” Exclusion Provision in General Liability Policy,35 A.L.R.5th 375, which I will make it a point to read the next time I have insomnia.

¹ To be judgment-proof is to have little or no property (or income) that a creditor can legally take to collect in the foreseeable future.