Richard Blumenthal Grandstands Over Violent Video Game Ban, While Publicly Displaying Ignorance Of Facts

from the your-next-senator? dept

We've seen all sorts of grandstanding state attorneys general seeking higher office, but Connecticut's Richard Blumenthal (running for the Senate) seems to work hard, not just at picking up on ridiculous anti-technology and anti-innovation topics to grandstand over, but he seems to do so with amazing cluelessness both about the law and whatever it is he's talking about. His latest is that he's filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in the case about California's failed attempt to ban the sale of violent video games. As noted, more than 10 states have enacted such laws, and every single one of them has been struck down. You might think that an attorney general in charge of upholding the law would recognize that.

But, as Ben Kuchera at Ars Technica notes, Blumenthal seems to have announced this particular grandstanding campaign with a rather stunning number of factual errors that demonstrate an immense level of ignorance about what he's sounding off about.

Blumenthal also seems sadly ignorant of the state of video games and retail. "In the face of continued industry inaction--enabling unattended children to buy such games--states must preserve their critical right to protect children," he stated.

The problem with Blumenthal's argument is that the industry has not been in a state of inaction, as the ESRB has long assigned ratings to games, giving an accurate idea of the content included in them, and has made serious efforts when it comes to community and parental outreach to make sure the ratings are both understood and used. Chains such as GameStop and even Walmart actively check the ID of customers buying M-rated games.

Then there's the claim that video games should "follow the leadership of the motion picture industry" in its system to prevent children from viewing certain content. What he seems to be missing is that video games already have a very similar system, and have for years, and, in some ways, it's even more restrictive than the movie industry's.

And, of course, none of this notes that the research seems to show that violent video games aren't actually harmful to kids after all. But, you know, when you have a Senate campaign to run, "think of the children" just plays so well with the ignorant masses...

Filed Under: connecticut, first amendment, laws, richard blumenthal, video games, violence

Connecticut Police Use Craigslist To Fight Prostitution; As Their Attorney General Grandstands To Take Away That Tool

from the what-a-tool dept

We've been covering Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal's totally misguided crusade against Craigslist on the topic of prostitution. For years, he's complained and threatened Craigslist because prostitutes use the service. Of course, he's never taken legal action because he must realize that there is no legal action he can take. The law is pretty clear: the liability is on the users of the service, not the makers of the service. Even so, Craigslist has repeatedly changed the way its service works to appease Blumenthal, and while he initially seems happy with those changes, months later, he's always back to complaining (just in time for elections too...).

Of course, the point we've made all along in response to Blumenthal is that for smart law enforcement officials, Craigslist is an excellent tool for monitoring and cracking down on prostitution. In fact, it appears that some police in Connecticut are doing exactly that. Eric sends in the story of police in Naugatuck, Connecticut using Craigslist to crack down on prostitution in their city.

The police responded to a few ads that they believe were from prostitutes seeking money for sex, and arrested two women. Separately -- and a bit more questionably -- the police also put up an ad themselves, waiting for men to reply, and eventually arrested eighteen men who replied (including a city official). It's difficult to see how that latter part of the sting isn't entrapment, but they insist it's not. Either way, it does seem like a bit of a contradiction when the state's Attorney General is seeking to block Craigslist from dealing in such ads entirely while police in the state are using it as a tool against prostitution at the same time. Maybe they should talk to each other. But, of course, when Blumenthal's real purpose is not about stopping prostitution, but instead making sure he's re-elected, suddenly the seemingly contradictory actions make a lot more sense. Oh, and if Blumenthal is really looking to grandstand about Craigslist, why not complain about the fact that the guy who bought the Nissan Pathfinder used in the failed Times Square car bomb attack this weekend supposedly bought it via Craigslist. Surely, if Craigslist can be blamed for prostitution, now it can also be blamed for terrorism...

Filed Under: connecticut, liability, prostitution, richard blumenthal, section 230
Companies: craigslist

Attorneys General Upset That Craigslist Is Profiting From Procedure He Forced Craigslist To Put In Place

from the banging-your-head-on-the-virtual-wall dept

The grandstanding of some Attorneys General never ceases -- even when they created the "problem" they're now grandstanding against. Case in point: Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and his crusade against Craigslist. Two years ago, Blumenthal blamed Craigslist for prostitution ads that appear on the site. Blumenthal, as the state Attorney General should know about the law, right? He should know that he has no legal basis for this complaint, and that under Section 230 of the CDA, Craigslist is not liable for the actions of its users. In fact, legal attempts to pin the blame for such ads on Craigslist have been quickly dismissed on just those grounds. Even more importantly, from a common sense standpoint, Blumenthal should realize that when police work with Craigslist in partnership, they're able to use it as an effective tool to track down lawbreakers who use the site.

But that doesn't get headlines.

Instead, Blumenthal, based on no legal basis whatsoever, used his soapbox (along with some other attorneys general) to get Craigslist to changing its policies on "adult" advertisements. Whereas, previously, those ads had been free, Craigslist now required that anyone putting up such ads pay for them with a valid credit card, eliminating many of the ads and making it much, much easier to track down whoever placed them in the first place. You would think that would make the AGs happy. Six months later, however, the AGs were still upset, and got Craigslist to change again, boosting the fee on such ads from $5 to $10 and reviewing more of the ads.

Almost all of these moves came in response to public posturing and baseless legal threats from Blumenthal. So what's he doing now?

He's apparently doing more public posturing and issuing more baseless legal threats, because Craigslist stands to make an awful lot of money from these ads -- the very same ads that Craigslist only started charging for because of Blumenthal's pressure:

"I believe Craigslist acted irresponsibly when it unilaterally decided to keep the profits from these posts," Mr. Blumenthal wrote in the letter...

Yes, and I believe Blumenthal acted irresponsibly when he put bogus grandstanding pressure on Craigslist to put in place the tollbooth in the first place. At what point does he recognize that Craigslist isn't the target here. It's the people using Cragslist to break the law -- and that Craigslist is more than willing to help law enforcement track down those law breakers?

Filed Under: attorney general, connecticut
Companies: craigslist

Connecticut Town Tells ASCAP, BMI, SESAC To Get Lost Over Royalty Bills

from the get-lost! dept

Three years ago, the town of New Milford, Connecticut got a bill from ASCAP demanding $280 in licensing fees, because the local town center sometimes will have music playing. Even at that amount, the mayor felt it was ridiculous, since it was a municipality playing music for non-profit community purposes. So the town council voted to ignore the bill, tabling it "indefinitely." As far as I know nothing else has happened between ASCAP and New Milford, but reader Bill Waggoner recently alerted us to the news that BMI and SESAC -- the other two collection societies in the US -- sent bills to New Milford as well. BMI's was a whopping $3,000. SESAC's was $1,500.

After being asked about it, BMI realized that it had made a "mistake" in calculating the bill, and lowered it to $305 (funny that they don't make mistakes in the other direction, do they?). However, the town council has told them to go take a hike. "They're not going to get that either" was the quote from council member Roger Szendy. The town's mayor, Patricia Murphy, says she's standing up for the principle of the whole thing, claiming that it's silly that a municipality should have to pay. BMI apparently says it's not going to sue, but it hopes that the city will "do the right thing."

I'm guessing that BMI (and ASCAP) realize it would be a public relations nightmare to sue a municipality, but if other cities start taking similar principled stands, you have to wonder if they'd reconsider.

Side Note: As regular readers know, it's our common practice to link to our source for information on stories. In this case, however, our main source is The News Times. I had the story about this open in my browser for a few days before getting around to writing it up. Then I discovered that The News Times locks up its content after a few days. So... I can no longer actually get to the article or send any traffic to the newspaper site. Perhaps I don't quite get the economics of news publishing, but I would imagine ad traffic from a bunch of our readers visiting their site would greatly outweigh the expected value of people actually paying $3 to read the article (yes, that's what they want). Oh well. I guess it's just their loss.

Filed Under: collections societies, connecticut, new milford
Companies: ascap, bmi, sesac

Politician Recognizes That Students Deserve Free Speech Rights Too

from the free-speech-is-good dept

There have been a number of cases recently concerning students getting punished for writing mean things about teachers or school administrators on social networking sites or blogs. In the past, there was a pretty clear legal line in terms of what was and what was not allowed: if the speech took place on campus, the school had the right to do something about it. If it took place off campus, it was the student's free speech rights. However, some courts have begun to change that bright line, by saying that since internet sites can be reached from the school, schools now have the right to punish students for things they say online. This has numerous troubling implications when it comes to basic free speech.

Amazingly, there appear to be some politicians who actually recognize this. Up in Connecticut, where a 16-year-old girl was disciplined for calling school administrators "douche bags" on her blog, state Senator Gary LeBeau is actually proposing a law that would protect student free speech in such cases. Even more impressive, LeBeau was a teacher for 35-years, so he certainly understands where teachers and administrators are coming from -- but he says that the free speech issue is more important. He says that it's not right that a school should be able to interfere with a student's conversations. Not surprisingly, the National School Boards Association is fighting against the bill, and it would be surprising if it got enough support to pass -- but it's nice to know at least one politician out there recognizes a student's right to speak their mind from home.

Filed Under: connecticut, free speech, students

Connecticut Government Bails Out Newspapers

from the will-it-impact-coverage? dept

A few readers have sent in the news that Connecticut lawmakers have stepped in to save two newspapers in the state, that were about to be shut down. This is raising all sorts of questions about the separation of government from the press. What's scary is that just a few years ago, such an idea was used as satire. Then it became a serious suggestion and now it's happening. Of course, the big question is about how this will impact coverage. It is possible for the government to own a newspaper and still have that newspaper report critically on that government... but it's definitely harder, and a lot of people may wonder about how closely the papers will monitor government officials.

Filed Under: bailout, connecticut, government, newspapers

Connecticut Finally Drops Charges Against Julie Amero

from the too-little-too-late dept

In a case of what appears to unfortunately be "too little, too late" Techmeme points us to the news that Connecticut officials have finally agreed to drop felony charges against Julie Amero. As you may recall, Julie Amero was a substitute teacher who was randomly surfing some webpages on a classroom computer while students were working on some projects. On one webpage, the computer started opening a never ending series of windows showing pornographic pictures -- symptomatic of a computer infected with some malicious spyware. However, Connecticut police and prosecutors chose to try Amero on felony charges, threatening to put her in jail for 40 years, and getting a conviction.

After numerous security experts brought attention to the case, a judge finally granted a new trial, and Connecticut police and officials refused to admit a mistake and still intended to try Amero. However, as noted above, the state finally worked out an agreement with Amero, where the state dropped most of the charges, after Amero agreed to plead guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct (a misdemeanor) and give up her teacher's license. The article also notes that, due in part to stress from the case, Amero has been hospitalized and is in declining health.

It's great that Connecticut finally decided to drop the charges, but the whole thing remains a travesty. It's unclear what Amero did that was "disorderly conduct" or why she deserves to lose her teacher's license. On top of that, the fact that the state still refuses to admit its mistakes in the case is a tremendous shame. A bunch of technically illiterate folks basically destroyed this woman's life and still stand by what they did.

Filed Under: connecticut, julie amero, malware

Connecticut Gives Up Banning Cameraphones In Court Rooms

from the still-can't-use-them,-though dept

It's been somewhat amusing watching as various folks overreacted to the rise of cameraphones over the past few years, with some companies banning them entirely, and a few clueless industry analysts insisting that they were just a fad that should be banned from any workplace. However, as cameraphones have become much more common, it seems that this mass hysteria is, thankfully, dying down. Over in Connecticut, they've even backed down on a rule that banned cameraphones in the court room. You're still not allowed to use them, but the courts realized now that nearly every mobile phone is a cameraphone, that it was becoming ridiculously time consuming to stop everyone from entering the courthouse, and make them tag and bag every mobile phone for storage and later pickup. Apparently, the lines to get into the courthouse were getting rather long.

Filed Under: cameraphones, connecticut, courts

Connecticut Still Wants To Try Julie Amero

from the sickening dept

You may recall the case of Julie Amero, a substitute teacher in Connecticut who was found guilty of charges that she had showed pornography to children in her classroom, and who faced 40 years in jail. The problem was that the police and the prosecutors seemed unable to understand what had actually happened. The computer in the classroom had been infected by malware, which tossed up porn pop-up ads. It wasn't that she was surfing porn, but that the computer had malware. As news of this wrongful conviction got out, more and more security experts tried to explain to everyone involved why Amero was not the guilty party. Eventually, the judge agreed, and struck down the guilty verdict.

However, the state still has not dropped the case.

In fact, as reader Phil K lets us know, the state has no intention of dropping the case, and appears to want a new trial. No one involved in the case will explain why they won't drop it. In fact, they won't even apologize for what was clearly a wrongful prosecution in the first place. The prosecutors, the police and the school Amero worked for haven't said a word. The fact that they're planning to go through another trial over this matter suggests they still don't even realize what they did.

Filed Under: connecticut, julie amero, malware

Can Legislation Let People Opt-Out Of Having Their Info Show Up Online?

from the seems-like-a-long-shot dept

The "Do Not Call" list has been something of a success over the past five years, but the various attempts at similar "do not X" lists always seem a bit ridiculous. The latest, coming from the state of Connecticut, would institute an impossible to enforce and most likely unconstitutional universal opt-out list for your info online. The idea is that there are so many directory sites/people search engines/list sites online, many of which have your name, address and potentially other information such as where you work. The law proposed by Connecticut's governor would allow you to "opt-out" and require all of these sites to take your info offline. Of course, as the article notes, much of that info is already public info and there's nothing illegal about compiling a list of public information. Where would the line be drawn? If your info shows up in a Google search, is Google suddenly liable? It's also unclear how you could possibly enforce a requirement that someone's name and address never get posted online. If anything, it sounds like more grandstanding legislation designed to make a politician look good rather than deal with the very real issues at hand concerning privacy.

Filed Under: connecticut, do not call, opt-out, privacy