Thus, the defendants failure to "materially contribute to direct infringement" (as compared to Napster) leads them not to be liable in this particular case. [Prof. Volokh notes they did so contribute, but the legal uses counterweigh, and as the Court says, they didn't know particular individuals would misuse the technology.] The opinion compared it to the use of VCRs -- potential illegal use does not make useful technology illegal. This is the path to a reasonable middle road that protects the First Amendment, computer technology, and copyrights as well. VCRs okay, knowingly assisting a pirating business, not. Prof. Lessig should be happy; his guest bloggist discusses the decision here.
A core reason for opposing President Bush is opposition to his ideology (as with some on the other side, values in my case trumps economic concerns per se, though I'm with those who are concerned with this bunch in that area as well). This ideology has an authoritarian mindset that includes such troubling things as excessive secrecy, inability to admit error, simplification (a useful device to obtain control), and so on. I'm using "ideology" in perhaps an inexact way here, but simply put, I just don't oppose the guy because he's conservative.
Anyway, major ways to carry forth ideological goals are administrative action and judicial picks. Two areas I have discussed in the past as well as other things in this brief summary, but Legal Fiction has an excellent take on a trio of articles over in the Washington Post that deals with the first category. Balkanization has some discussions that highlight some of the importance of the second. See also, Juan Gonzalez's latest on the EPA mishandling of air quality at Ground Zero. [Others picked up the Sierra Club report, but Gonzalez has done yeoman work on this issue.]
I also do not think much of the ability of this administration to do it's job. Kevin Drum cites Juan Cole on how the Najaf battles have not been handled all too well, while also mentioning one particular example of how the whole affair has been handled in a heavy handed way, one not "sensitive" to the complexities on the ground. In part:
Needless to say, Prof. Cole is not very happy that "ignoramus Marines in Najaf" are making these decisions. On the other hand, if Paul Bremer hadn't shut down Sadr's newspaper back in March, maybe none of this would have happened in the first place.
Sports Illustrated also reports that the Iraqi Soccer Team aren't happy to be used as props for Bush campaign ads. No friends of Saddam Hussein and company, voices like these must be faced:
"My problems are not with the American people," says Iraqi soccer coach Adnan Hamad. "They are with what America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The American army has killed so many people in Iraq. What is freedom when I go to the [national] stadium and there are shootings on the road?"
And, to round things off, there is also the fact that some of the people on the other side just play mean. Julie Hilden has a good discussion on the First Amendment concerns arising from one particularly heinous example. I'd just add that she fails to emphasize that the concurring opinion in the key 1970s Supreme Court opinion she cites has been used (somewhat flimsily) to defend the middle ground she suggests should be taken.
Dahlia Lithwick, guest columnist over at the NYT, suggests today that calling President Bush in effect a stupid child is not the best way to go because it antagonizes key voters, but also because it is the adult misdeeds of this administration that must be underlined. Quite true. Still, even in a library, I had to laugh when she cites how voters in 2000 felt "he represented a return to honesty and morality." Along with the suggestion he would be advised by a bunch of serious professionals who knew what they were doing, that is just TOO funny.
In a sad way.