Odds and Ends: Privacy, Film, SCOTUS

Danielle Citron was on Strict Scrutiny Podcast to help preview the two big Internet cases (which might turn out to be busts). 

She is a privacy advocate and helps to speak out against cyber threats.  Her latest book is The Fight For Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age.  The book is helpful but some might not find it great reading as a book you read straight-thru.  

Prof. Citron is one of the various people who remind us that libertarian-sounding arguments have limitations. I myself do not like limits of freedom of speech while realizing we limit speech in various ways but admit to being somewhat favored.  Do I have to worry about revenge porn?  Not that men also can avoid being harmed in a variety of ways here.  

I still think limits on truly consensual porn should be quite limited indeed. The latest soft porn on Showtime is Naughty Nashville, which involves the music industry.  It amused me that the opening bit had a radio station with two digits ("next on the ten" or something) and the ingenue heroine is talking to an older relative (I suppose) who is having chemo.  I think this is the first time I heard that word mentioned in a porn film.  

I only got a limited feel of the film but doesn't seem too notable.  The aforementioned woman, hoping to make it big in country music, looks better clothed in my view.  She has these huge fake-looking boobs.  The film is from a collection of films that has the same older non-porn actor playing various "straight" roles.  Big tattoos continue to be popular.

The latest slew of DVDs I took out of the library (more to come) is The Secrets We Keep, which I found while looking for someone else.  The lead is very good, no wonder since she's the original (not the American version) actress in the girl/tattoo movies.  

I only saw the opening twenty or so minutes but it sets things up nicely.  The film has a sort of revenge porn plotline, so I really didn't feel like seeing the next hour or so. Nonetheless, again, the lead-in, with a restrained mother of a young boy suddenly cracking when she sees someone she thinks was involved in a WWII-related atrocity was handled well.  

Nifty how I connect this together, huh?  Talking SCOTUS, the student debt cases were heard this week.  The Order List involved them taking a clusterf case out of the 5CA, maybe to fix it (we will see how much). 

And, Jackson had her first opinion, which she handled with a carefully written discussion about money orders and such. The Barrett Four silently didn't join a section using legislative history.  It's a "using this too" section, people.  You can join it without it being a necessary part of the decision.  

The was also a non-ideological split in a banking prosecution case, including Gorsuch (with Jackson) talking about the rule of leniency. As noted here, it seems to be a minor case, even if some appreciated Gorsuch showing his libertarian side.  While not stripping people of abortion rights or whatever, you know.  

===

ETA: I guess I should add a bit on the ERA.  I talked about this before and don't think repeating too much is warranted. 

An appellate court unanimously (the headline might be a tad misleading; seems to rule on fairly narrow grounds) rejected an attempt to get the archivist to declare it ratified.  That was a somewhat silly long shot. 

There was also a Senate hearing on declaring it ratified, in effect, to declare the time limit waived. Nothing special. I also listened online to a local law professor talk about the general issue.  

My question was basically ignored with talk of general needs for sexual equality, angels on pin talk about the power to declare the amendment ratified, and how we don't need it anymore (but "sex" equality will mean trans rights run amuck, etc.).  That is, what does the text (including "abridged" over and above "deny" as cited in the 14th Amendment) cover?  

It sounds like any Senate measure will be open to a filibuster and with the "bipartisan" effort maybe at the moment (if Collins agrees) having two Republicans, the whole thing continues to be moot.  So, my general concern that yes things did change, so the forty-year-old votes for ratification in a rather different time is iffy is you know, academic.