South Carolina Says It's A Felony For Prisoners To Look At Facebook; Sends Many To Solitary Confinement

from the felony-facebooking dept

Dave Maass, over at EFF, has an absolutely insane story about how the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) added a special new level 1 felony charge (for reference: murder, rape, rioting and hostage-taking are all level 1 felonies) for... using a social network while in prison. Yes, these individuals are already prisoners, but this draconian law and even more draconian enforcement means that hundreds of South Carolina prisons are facing extended sentences and long stays in solitary confinement for... posting to their Facebook page. And that's not an exaggeration:

In October 2013, Tyheem Henry received 13,680 days (37.5 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 27,360 days (74 years) worth of telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 69 days of good time—all for 38 posts on Facebook. 

In June 2014, Walter Brown received 12,600 days (34.5 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 25,200 days (69 years) in telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 875 days (2.4 years) of good time—all for 35 posts on Facebook.

In May 2014, Jonathan McClain received 9,000 days (24.6 years) in disciplinary detention and lost 18,000 days (49 years) in telephone, visitation, and canteen privileges, and 30 days of good time—all for 25 posts on Facebook.

Why so harsh? The SCDC says that it's a separate felony for each day that an inmate uses a social media site (oddly, you can do as much as you want in a single day and it's just a single felony -- but new day, new felony). And, of course, "social media" is defined broadly as well:

South Carolina adopted a Level 1 social media offense [PDF] to punish “Creating and/or Assisting With A Social Networking Site,” defined as: “The facilitation, conspiracy, aiding, abetting in the creation or updating of an Internet web site or social networking site.”

SCDC defines “social networking” very broadly, covering everything from YouTube and Twitter to blogs and email, although all of the cases EFF reviewed [PDF] involved Facebook. Investigations are conducted by corrections officers and inmates are convicted during disciplinary hearings that often last mere minutes.

Since the policy was implemented, SCDC has brought 432 disciplinary cases against 397 inmates, with more than 40 inmates receiving more than two years in solitary confinement [PDF].

There's a lot more to Maass's article, and it's well worth reading. He also takes Facebook to task for helping the SCDC takedown prisoners' Facebook profiles. Facebook has set up an easy form, which can lead to widespread abuse, and it doesn't appear that Facebook does much, if anything, to check to see if the accounts actually abuse the company's terms of service. There are lots of problems with the criminal justice and prison systems in the US, and there may be legitimate reasons to limit access to social media for prisoners (though that seems like a stretch in many cases). But to make it an additional felony and to lock up people for years because of it? How is that not cruel and unusual punishment?

Filed Under: felony, scdc, social media, solitary confinement, south carolina, south carolina department of corrections
Companies: facebook

South Carolina Senator Aims To Criminalize The Recording Of Criminal Activity

from the a-new-high-in-low dept

Here's how stupid legislation is assembled.

HOT BUTTON TOPIC + BRIEFLY CONCERNED LEGISLATOR - COMMON SENSE = A proposed amendment so brain dead, its author should be immediately hooked up to an EEG.

The "hot topic?" The form of recorded violence known colloquially as the "knockout game." Said "game" is played by a minimum of one willing participant and one unwilling participant. The goal is to knock out the unwilling participant with one punch, preferably while being recorded for posterity/evidence. Video is then uploaded to YouTube (or other services) for appreciation by those who like this sort of thing.

The legislator who apparently failed to consider the mind blowing amount of unintended consequences built into his legislation? South Carolina senator Vincent Sheheen.

The amendment? Well, here's what Sen. Sheheen would like to see changed in the current criminal code.

SECTION   1.   Chapter 1, Title 16 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:

"Section 16-1-65.   (A)   It is unlawful for a person to produce or create, or conspire to produce or create, a video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime, as defined in Section 16-1-60 [violent crimes], during its commission. A person who violates the provisions of this subsection is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than five hundred dollars or more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(B)   A person who violates the provisions of subsection (A) and who publishes, or otherwise makes the video or audio recording, digital electronic file, or other visual depiction or representation available for public display is guilty of a separate offense and, upon conviction, must be fined not less than five hundred dollars or more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

(C)   A person who knowingly aids in the commission of a violation of subsection (A) or (B) or is an accessory before or after the fact in commission of the violation of subsection (A) or (B) is guilty of a felony and must be punished in the same manner prescribed in subsection (A) or (B), as applicable.

(D)   The provisions of subsection (A) and (B) do not apply to:

(1)   viewing, photographing, videotaping, or filming by personnel of the Department of Corrections or of a county, municipal, or local jail or detention center or correctional facility for security purposes or during investigation of alleged misconduct by a person in the custody of the Department of Corrections or a county, municipal, or local jail or detention center or correctional facility;

(2)   security surveillance in bona fide business establishments;

(3)   accidental or incidental recordings;

(4)   any official law enforcement activities;

(5)   private detectives and investigators conducting surveillance in the ordinary course of business; or

(6)   any bona fide news gathering activities."

So, an amendment aimed at hauling in participants in the "knockout game" (the person holding the camera) will now criminalize all sorts of recordings. Sheheen pitches it this way:

“Really this is another tool for law enforcement to use to make sure that somebody can't claim, 'Oh, I didn't commit that crime, I just videotaped it,' when in reality they were part of the problem in the first place."

Really, this is another tool for law enforcement to make sure that somebody can't record police misconduct or use of excessive force. Sure, the person recording didn't commit the crime being recorded, but they have now committed the crime of recording criminal activity. If a law can be twisted by bad cops to prevent or seize recordings of their dubious behavior, it very definitely will be.

That's only one problematic potential consequence of Sheheen's Folly. Eugene Volokh has more, much more, in his take on the law.

So you see a robbery occurring, or the police illegally beating a citizen, and you videorecord it — you’ve now committed a felony, unless you can persuade a court it’s a “bona fide news gathering activit[y].” (The recording isn’t “accidental or incidental,” since you’re making it deliberately.) Or say your friend is being attacked, and you record the video to give to the police or to use in a civil suit; perhaps you even expected an attack, for instance if you’re going to a potentially violent demonstration or going past a place where thugs have routinely attacked people of some race, religion, or sexual orientation. That too is a felony.

And while one could interpret any citizen action aimed at gathering information as “bona fide news gathering activit[y],” that’s far from clear. It’s an argument I’d make as your defense lawyer, but it’s not an argument you can feel confident about if you’re deciding whether to make the recording. If the law is enacted, any suitably cautious South Carolinian would be well-advised just not to record any crime he sees, if he wants to avoid the risk of prison time.

Sheheen's amendment is ugly all over. While it makes exceptions for "bona fide business" surveillance, it makes no such exception for cameras mounted by private citizens to protect their own property. Someone breaks into your house and you've got the tape to prove it? Guess what: both you and the perp have violated the law.

Volokh points out the problems inherent in proving newsworthiness to prosecutors. The same uphill battle awaits those with accidental or incidental recordings. Try proving that negative in the courts while facing a zealous DA.

Not only does this criminalize citizens' recording (and citizen reporting -- bloggers aren't journalists, etc.) but it has the potential to curtail law enforcement efforts. Stupid people record their own criminal activity all the time but putting this law on the books may make them decide to leave the camera at home. Sure, they're already committing a crime, but why add additional months to the sentence? Why would someone purportedly trying to be tough on (a certain) crime want to discourage the generation of useful evidence?

This kneejerk amendment also overlooks the fact that many laws are already on the books for prosecuting camera-toting friends of assailants. Like aiding and abetting. Or conspiracy to commit a criminal act. There are ways to bring the "cinematographer" down without putting regular, law-abiding citizens at risk of violating an astronomically asinine law simply because they managed to capture evidence of criminal activity with their cell phone or personally-owned surveillance system.

Then there's this:

…or other visual depiction or representation of a violent crime…

Not only will it be criminal to record criminal activity, it will also be criminal to create a graphic novel depicting criminal acts, depict a criminal act in a play, movie, television show or YouTube video, or perform a classic Punch and Judy routine. "Visual depictions" of fake crime? Also a crime. Yes, these scenarios are blatantly ridiculous, but that's precisely what the law states. If Sheheen doesn't want people mocking his stupid amendment with scenarios no self-respecting law enforcement officer (and even some LEOs with no self-respect) would drop the hammer on, then he should have written his amendment less stupidly. Or not at all.

I now turn this over to the comment section, who should be able to top these "what if" scenarios in a heartbeat.

Filed Under: criminal, filming, legislation, south carolina, vincent sheheen

Judge In South Carolina Poised To Dismiss Righthaven Suit There As Well

from the down-goes-another-one dept

Ah, the hits just keep on coming for Righthaven. Having already had judges in Nevada and Colorado dismiss Righthaven cases for lack of standing, the one remaining state where Righthaven had tried its questionable legal tactics was South Carolina, which had prompted a somewhat epic countersuit. Not surprisingly, it's looking like it's a trifecta of losses for Righthaven, as magistrate judge Jacquelyn Austin has made it clear that she's not buying whatever it is that Righthaven is selling. She's given the company until October 28th to explain why the case shouldn't be dismissed for lack of standing.

Defendant contests Plaintiff�s ownership of the disputed copyright and argues the case should be dismissed for lack of standing. Plaintiff�s ownership of its assigned copyrights has been contested in Nevada and Colorado. Judges in Nevada have dismissed complaints for lack of standing and issued orders to show cause why these cases should not be dismissed for lack of standing. The copyright assignments in the Nevada cases are governed by a Strategic Alliance Agreement between Righthaven LLC and Stephens Media LLC which appears to be very similar to the Copyright Alliance Agreement (the �CAA�), including its Schedule 1 � Terms and Conditions, between Plaintiff and MediaNews Group, Inc. (�MediaNews�) that Defendant asserts governs the copyright assignment at issue in this case.* Moreover, the CAA appears to support Defendant�s claim that Plaintiff does not have standing to sue for copyright infringement. Specifically, the CAA appears to qualify any copyright assignments it governs such that Plaintiff is left only with a bare right to sue and does not own any exclusive rights in the copyright, as would be required for Plaintiff to have standing to allege an infringement claim on those copyrights. See Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entm�t, Inc., 402 F.3d 881 (9th Cir. 2005) (holding that an assignee who held an accrued claim for copyright infringement, but who had no legal or beneficial interest in the underlying copyright itself, could not institute a cause of action for infringement); Eden Toys, Inc. v. Florelee Undergarment Co., 697 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1982) (holding that one who owns no exclusive right in a copyright may not sue for infringement; only the owner of an exclusive right under a copyright may bring suit).

Although Plaintiff argues substantive analysis of the assignment must await discovery, the Court believes this issue should be addressed because it goes to Plaintiff�s standing to bring a copyright infringement claim at all. Thus, in the interest of judicial economy, the Court issues this Order to Show Cause why the case should not be dismissed for Plaintiff�s lack of ownership of any exclusive rights in the copyright and, therefore, lack of standing to sue.

I'm assuming that this is really just more guidance to Righthaven competitors from a judge who recognizes Righthaven's "genuine" legal arguments, right Steve?

Filed Under: copyright, fraud, south carolina, unauthorized practice of law
Companies: righthaven

Petition To South Carolina Supreme Court Charges Righthaven With Unauthorized Practice Of Law

from the gift-that-keeps-on-giving dept

We just wrote about the effort by one of the people sued by Righthaven to file a massive response with counterclaims. One of those claims was that Righthaven was involved in the unauthorized practice of law in South Carolina. Now, the very same legal team has petitioned the South Carolina State Supreme Court -- which has specifically asked people to petition it on the unauthorized practice of law -- in order to get a declaratory judgment on the issue. The claims in this petition match, pretty much exactly, the claim in the original response lawsuit (with some more detail), but taking it straight to the state Supreme Court is definitely an interesting move.

To be honest, I've always found statutes or rules against "the unauthorized practice of law" to be a bit questionable in general. People should be able to avail themselves of the legal system without a lawyer, if they so choose (even if it's not very smart), and requiring one to become "licensed" has always struck me as much more of a method of limiting supply (and increasing costs), rather than any real attempt to maintain quality. That said, the unauthorized practice of law, remains against the law, and it appears that Righthaven may have to defend itself on this one.

The filing does list out some interesting cases, basically state by state by state by state, that highlight "sham" assignments for the sake of lawsuits, and compares them all to Righthaven... and then notes that Righthaven is worse than almost all of those other cases:

Righthaven is far worse than the debt collectors referenced in the cases cited above. In every single one of those cases, the debt collector at least tried to collect the debt prior to litigation.... But with Righthaven, its first and only act in the collection of alleged debts is to prosecute a lawsuit. That is all Righthaven does and all it ever did. Righthaven is not a debt collector who unintentionally ran afoul of the law of unauthorized practice, Righthaven is an entity set up ab initio for the express purpose of committing the unauthorized practice of law.

Clearly, it seems the lawyers are hoping for a sympathetic ruling here in the South Carolina Supreme Court, which will, in turn, help even further the claims in the original case, that this whole thing is really racketeering. I still think that claim is a long shot, but if this petition actually goes forward, Righthaven may be in a lot more trouble than it had ever imagined.

As with the response in the lawsuit, this petition has some amusing moments. My favorite, concerning Righthaven's continued (and continuing) efforts to rewrite its agreement with Stephens Media to get just enough control to be allowed to sue, the filing mocks the repeated attempts by Righthaven to find the magic words, and says:

It's a wonder Righthaven's pleadings don't end with 'arbracadabra.'

It also later claims: "Righthaven and the truth are not well acquainted." It's always fun when you find a lawyer who's willing to go out on a limb a bit with some humor in these filings, though, certainly, some courts have problems with such cheeky attitudes. Either way, if these lawsuits do well, Righthaven may be in a lot more trouble than people already think it's in.

Filed Under: copyright, fraud, south carolina, unauthorized practice of law
Companies: righthaven

Guy Sues Wikipedia & Craigslist For $1 Billion Because (He Claims) He Found Nudity On Both

from the pro-se-me dept

Admittedly, most pro se lawsuits (filed by an individual, without a lawyer) are complete junk -- and on any given day you can find some really silly lawsuits. But sometimes they're worth highlighting anyway, just for how amusing they can be. Eric Goldman alerts us to the following lawsuit, filed by one Russell Dan Smith, arguing that both Craigslist and Wikipedia should be barred from being available in the state of South Carolina, and that each should be forced to pay $500 million, with half going to the state of South Carolina (might help with the budget) and half going to Russell Dan Smith (might help with the monthly payments he has to make on his $10,000 Puma camper).

What, you might ask, should force both sites to be blocked in the great state of South Carolina, as well pay up a billion dollars, combined? According to Mr. Smith, both sites "have been and still do openly promote child prostitution and the distribution of child pornography." Also, "both defendants also promote adult prostitution and nudity designed to excite prurient interests in the people viewing it." How does Mr. Smith know this? Because, he notes, he discovered such things on both sites, but "not intentionally." You see, "the pictures came to him by way of his surfing defendants' websites for valid non-pornographic purposes." You see, "plaintiff does not and does not want to view such nudity as heretofore described." Understood, of course. And "for allowing such nudity of children and adults to be seen by those who do not want to see it, both defendants are liable of attempting to lure other persons to share in this crime."

Mr. Smith also highlights the fact that Craigslist sued South Carolian Attorney General Henry McMaster -- a lawsuit that was tossed out, but is being appealed. He claims that "there is a probability shown by the preponderance of the evidence that defendant Craigslist was a criminal organization suing the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina for no other reason than that the State had been investigating the organization and intended therefore to paralyze by fear of further action." Of course, as covered in detail at the time, McMaster had been threatening to put Craigslist execs in jail, for actions of its users -- actions clearly protected under Section 230 of the CDA, which other courts have highlighted. Craigslist's offensive lawsuit was not to "sue McMaster," so much as to get a declaratory judgment that it had done nothing wrong, so as to stop McMaster from continued grandstanding.

As one final point, it does seem worth pointing out that, on the documents filed, there is a note reading that "frivolous civil proceedings may be subject to sanctions...." Seems worth pointing out...

Filed Under: lawsuits, porn, pro se, south carolina
Companies: craigslist, wikipedia

Why Craigslist Should Be Allowed To Sue South Carolina's Attorney General

from the chilling-effects dept

We've covered how various state attorneys general have used this unfortunate grandstanding process to push companies into settlements, despite a lack of any actual legal basis. Target #1 (and #2 and #3) has, of course, been Craigslist. And one of the most ridiculous of the grandstanders was South Carolina attorney general Henry McMaster, who not only threatened Craigslist over its adult services ads, but threatened to press criminal charges against Craigslist's execs. As you would hope McMaster knows, such claims are pretty ridiculous. Other courts have already made clear that Craigslist is protected by Section 230.

Craigslist got sick of McMaster's threats and sued first, with a few rather interesting legal theories. First, the company claimed that since Craigslist was protected by Section 230, the mere threat of criminal prosecution violated Section 230. That's an interesting -- and as far as I know, untested -- theory around Section 230. It's quite clear that the safe harbors do protect you from a lawsuit, but does it also protect you from threats of a lawsuit? If so, that could make for some rather interesting cases. On top of that, Craigslist claimed that the threats were unlawful prior restraint on protected speech and an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. The prior restraint argument is also quite an interesting one, and, if it worked, suggests that these grandstanding attorneys general could face serious pushback if they keep running these grandstanding schemes.

Unfortunately, however, the court tossed out the lawsuit last month, with the really bizarre reasoning that since Craigslist no longer faced the likelihood of a lawsuit from McMaster, the lawsuit was meaningless. But, of course, that reasoning was shown to be ridiculous when, almost immediately after the ruling was announced, McMaster announced he was continuing his investigation (pdf) into Craigslist. As Thomas O'Toole notes, the court really seems to have ignored some compelling arguments from Craigslist:

I personally thought that the court gave short shrift to craigslist's arguments that McMaster's high-profile railing against it created a chilling effect on protected speech. If a state attorney general, in South Carolina, is repeatedly threatening in the news media to prosecute me and my company for crimes that carry hefty prison terms, associating my company and my good name with prostitution, and hauling my company officials into negotiations over what can and can't appear on my website, then yes I am going to feel more than a little bit inhibited in what I do and don't publish on my website. Color me chilled.

The good news is that Craigslist is trying to push this case forward, and has filed an amended complaint and a motion to reconsider, and hopefully, after another look, the court will realize that there are some serious problems with the way this sort of grandstanding chills free speech with little legal basis. If the court favors Craigslist, it could provide a useful tool for companies targeted in these political media campaigns.

Filed Under: chilling effects, harry mcmaster, section 230, south carolina
Companies: craigslist

Did South Carolina Use Second-Hand E-Voting Machines That Louisiana Decertified?

from the conspiracy-theories dept

The election situation in South Carolina keeps getting stranger. Last week, we noted how the controversial election of Alvin Greene, a broke, out of work guy currently facing felony obscenity charges, who did no campaigning and no advertising of his campaign, had people looking at the e-voting machines in the election as one possible culprit. The ES&S iVotronic machines used in the election have no paper or audit trail, so there's really no way to go back and check, but the differences in voting patterns between the e-votes and absentee ballots certainly raised some eyebrows, as did a test of randomness in voting results using Benford's law (a useful tool for suggesting data was faked).

Now, reader Pickle Monger alerts us to the news that the previously expected winner of the campaign, Vic Rawls, is claiming that the ES&S e-voting machines used in the campaign were bought secondhand from Louisiana after Louisiana outlawed their usage:

Third is the well-documented unreliability and unverifiability of the voting machines used in South Carolina. It is worth noting that these machines were purchased surplus from Louisiana after that state outlawed them.

In response, the state is insisting there is no truth to this claim at all:

South Carolina's election commission begs to differ about the provenance of the voting machines. Spokesman Chris Whitmire says the state's 12,000 iVotronic voting machines were bought brand-spanking-new from Election Systems and Software, an Omaha-based behemoth that boasts of operations in 39 states.

Rawls' campaigns' response is hardly reassuring:

"That was what the word around the state was -- heard it from several people."

In other words, total hearsay. I'm all for pointing out the problems of e-voting systems, and ES&S certainly does have an exceptionally long history of having problematic machines that have been decertified in certain states, but claiming that such machines were used in South Carolina without any evidence other than "heard it from several people," seems pretty silly.

Of course, South Carolina's election commission has its own credibility problems. Apparently, its been telling local news media that the iVotronic systems do have an auditable paper trail. They don't. They have a paper tally, but that's not the same thing.

Either way, if you've been following the whole e-voting mess for many years, this sort of situation was bound to happen. Even if it turns out that e-voting machines were not the problem, the very lack of a voter verifiable paper trail, combined with massive security problems and ridiculous levels of secrecy from the e-voting companies has created a world in which no one actually trusts those machines. Even if the results were accurate, the voting machine companies' own actions have created so much doubt in people's minds, that they don't trust the results at all.

Filed Under: alvin greene, e-voting, south carolina
Companies: es&s

Red Flags Suggest Potential E-Voting Issues In Bizarre South Carolina Election

from the where's-the-paper-trail? dept

Earlier this week, Pickle Monger pointed us to the very, very bizarre story of Alvin Greene winning the South Carolina Democratic primary despite being broke, unemployed, holding no campaign appearances or rallies, and having raised no money. No one knew who the guy was, basically, until after the election happened... which is certainly quite strange. Also, once the news came out and the press scrambled to figure out who the hell this guy was, it came out that he's facing felony charges for obscenity. The question in the submission was "did they use e-voting machines in South Carolina." At the time there weren't enough details, so I didn't follow it up.

Of course, there are many different theories as to why Greene won -- from the popular charge that he was a "plant," to the idea that he was just first on the ballot. However, as Liberty McAteer sends over, it does seem like some are starting to notice (you guessed it) the e-voting machines.

It turns out that South Carolina uses ES&S e-voting machines. ES&S has a long history of problems with its e-voting machines. Here are just a few highlights (there are a lot more where these came from). ES&S machines have lost votes in Florida. The company gave California machines that were not certified. After stalling, it finally let security experts review its machines, which were found to be severely lacking, leading California to decertify machines (yes, remember this is the same state that was also given machines that weren't certified in the first place!). In one election ES&S gave the vote tallies to a totally different election. People using ES&S machines have found that they voted for the wrong candidate. It's also quite easy for anyone to recalibrate certain ES&S machines, so that it's easier for people to make mistakes while voting. In South Dakota, ES&S machines added thousands of phantom votes. And then there's Kentucky, where officials were recently arrested for using the confusing interface of ES&S e-voting machines to get people to leave the polling place before submitting their votes, so those officials could change their votes.

Oh, and the best part? Most of these ES&S machines have no audit trail. So there's no way to go back and check what happened. Fantastic. And that's what was used in South Carolina. But, if you do some statistical analysis, it's possible to discover if there are some red flags of problems. And boy are there red flags:

One potential red flag: A significant difference between the results of absentee and election day ballots.

According to [expected primary winner Vic Rawl campaign manager Walter] Ludwig, of the state's 46 counties, half have a disparity of greater than 10 percentage points between the absentee and election day ballots.

"The election day ballots all favor Mr. Greene. We don't know what it means," Ludwig said in an interview. "We did significantly better on absentees than Election Day, which is according to the mathematicians, quite significant. The other reason is, it didn't happen in any other races on the ballot."

In Lancaster County, Rawl won absentee ballots over Greene by a staggering 84 percent to 16 percent margin; but Greene easily led among Election Day voters by 17 percentage points.

In Spartanburg County, Ludwig said there are 25 precincts in which Greene received more votes than were actually cast and 50 other precincts where votes appeared to be missing from the final count.

"In only two of 88 precincts, do the number of votes Greene got plus the number we got equal the total cast," Ludwig said.

Greene also racked up a 75 percent or greater margin in one-seventh of all precincts statewide, a mark that Ludwig notes is even difficult for an incumbent to reach.

While not proof, those points certainly raise serious questions about the e-voting machines and how they were used.

Filed Under: alvin greene, e-voting, south carolina

If You're Subversive, And Live In South Carolina, Please Register With The State Gov't

from the before-hiking-the-appalachian-trail dept

Slashdot points us to the news that South Carolina has a new law requiring every member "subversive groups" to register with the government or face up to $25,000 in fines and a ten year prison sentence. Seriously:

"every member of a subversive organization, or an organization subject to foreign control, every foreign agent and every person who advocates, teaches, advises or practices the duty, necessity or propriety of controlling, conducting, seizing or overthrowing the government of the United States ... shall register with the Secretary of State."

Oh, and it will cost you $5 to let the state government know you're a terrorist wannabe.

Now, of course, it's already illegal to plot against the US government, so this law doesn't add anything, other than something else to throw at anyone arrested for being "subversive." Prosecutors can also point out that they "failed to register."

Filed Under: south carolina, subversives

Court Says U Of Southern California Only One Who Can Use USC; Sorry U Of South Carolina

from the trademark-madness dept

DEF points us to a recent appeals court (federal circuit) ruling that held that the University of South Carolina cannot use the letters USC on its sports uniforms because the University of Southern California already claims those letters. Seriously. It's hard to see how this makes much sense at all. USC is an accurate acronym for both schools, and it makes no sense to limit it. In an amazingly obnoxious gloating victory note, the lawyer for the USC from California "suggested that the letters were more deservedly linked to the Trojans' warrior image than to 'a goofy little chicken,'" by which he meant the logo of the South Carolina teams. The lawyer for the USC from the east coast noted that "Southern manners" kept him from responding to that point.

Filed Under: south carolina, southern california, trademark, usc