One of the most important legal skills is the ability to process the credibility of information in a short time. From sensational legal news to emotional witness testimony, seasoned lawyers know to never trust a source without verification, investigation, and consideration of competing perspectives. 

Therefore, as a law school applicant, you should be highly cautious of what you read on various internet forums, social media, or message boards. Even though it’s highly tempting to take a sneak peek into the legal world and seek solace when law school is at the top of your mind.

Nevertheless, internet forums can be helpful and a fun release valve during the high-pressure admissions process. Internet forums can also be a great place to find time-saving advice or just to take your mind off of things while scrolling trough fun industry-related memes.

Be sure to keep the following in mind.

Find a credible and trusted source.

Too often, anonymous law school forums have a low ratio of signal to noise, and misleading information and speculation is something that happens all the time. 

For credible and well-curated resources online, look to law school websites, Law School Admission Council, prelaw counselors, clubs, and nonprofits geared to aspiring lawyers. Also, you can rely on the industry’s famous Top Law Schools forum, which regularly checks the credibility of posts and includes the ones only relevant to the topic.

Avoid mindless browsing and focus on specific topics.

The law school application process can be exhausting and incredibly stressful. So, it’s completely normal to feel stumped at least a few times during the process. While it’s not always clear when to seek guidance and how the instructions apply to your specific situation, crowdsourcing was invented for times like these.

Search a verified internet forum, and look if someone has already addressed a question related to your specific problem. If not, post it yourself. Make sure your question is short, concise, direct, and actionable. You might spark a constructive conversation or turn up a straight answer from someone with similar experience and relevant knowledge.

Avoid mindless browsing, and ignore an irrelevant post that can just send you into a tailspin of anxiety. 

Be grateful and polite.

The internet is not always the best place for mindful and respectful exchanges, as most users see forums and social media platforms as a figurative punching bag to releasing stress and anxiety. Offensive and snobby rants are par for the course. With that in mind, stay cool toward hot takes and trolls, and focus on the entries that include a constructive solution to your question. 

Remember, internet trolls feed on your attention, and you have far more important things to focus on right now. If you are annoyed by vulgar and rude posts, set an example and reply politely to those who addressed your question.

Don’t rush to conclusions.

The upside of internet forums is that everyone has their own perspective and opinion. The downside of internet forums is that everyone has their own perspective and opinion. Therefore, don’t rush into making a conclusion after reading a particular post. If one post says an LSAT practice book is a waste of money and time or that a specific school is overrated, gather more opinions.

While internet forums can be helpful in many situations, they are full of braggarts droning on about how they nailed the LSAT or drove a hard bargain in scholarship negotiations. Regardless of whether these big talkers really achieve what they say, they may be making false assumptions about what worked for them.

A common logical fallacy that happens in such a situation is called “survivorship bias” — when you focus on why certain individuals succeed, without considering why others in a similar situation failed.

For instance, many top scorers on the LSAT will accredit their success to hard work, and the training materials they used. Still, you’re unlikely to hear from those who also worked hard and used the same materials but underperformed.

If someone claims to have found a magic key to master the LSAT, don’t let your brain rush to judgment. Stick with a tried and true study process with documented results, based on regular and purposeful practice.

The post How to Read Law School Forums Without Going Crazy first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that he has filed a multi-state lawsuit to stop the end of net neutrality. 

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced yesterday that he would fight the repeal of net neutrality that the FCC voted on Thursday. “Net neutrality” refers to open internet, meaning that service providers such as AT&T or Verizon cannot slow down or block websites or apps that users visit.

“We will be filing a claim to preserve protections for New Yorkers and all Americans. And we’ll be working aggressively to stop the FCC’s leadership from doing any further damage to the internet and to our economy,” Schneiderman said in a press release.

Schneiderman, a leading voice in the fight against the repeal, said that his office intended to “stop the FCC’s illegal rollback of net neutrality.” He cited his investigation into the FCC’s public comments process before the vote, and he stated that his probe found that there were millions of fake comments that corrupted the feedback given to the government agency.

Schneiderman spoke to TechCrunch and said that the lawsuit will be filed “in the coming days” and will involve multiple states, which he did not name. Schneiderman said that the FCC’s vote could result in internet service providers (ISPs) unfairly influencing consumers’ internet usage.

“Today’s new rule would enable ISPs to charge consumers more to access sites like Facebook and Twitter and give them the leverage to degrade the quality of video streaming until and unless somebody pays them more money. Even worse, today’s vote would enable ISPs to favor certain viewpoints over others,” Schneiderman said.

On Thursday, the FCC voted to end net neutrality protections put in place during President Barack Obama’s administration. FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wanted the internet to be controlled by the FTC and to not be regulated with rules that he called “heavy-handed.”

According to NBC News, “The FCC voted 3-2 on Thursday afternoon to roll back the 2015 Open Internet Order. The change classifies internet service as an information service, rather than a utility, and allows ISPs to treat internet traffic differently depending on its type, origin or destination. For instance, ISPs could create bundles of various internet services at different prices, or slow down video traffic from rival services.”

Before the votes, Schneidermann asked for a delay due to the discovery of the fake comments during the FCC feedback process. New York had written a letter joined by attorney generals from Virginia, Delaware, Hawaii, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Iowa, Illinois, Maryland, Maine, Mississippi, Oregon, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Washington, Vermont and the District of Columbia.

“The FCC’s vote to rip apart net neutrality is a blow to New York consumers, and to everyone who cares about a free and open internet,” Schneiderman said. “The FCC just gave Big Telecom an early Christmas present, by giving internet service providers yet another way to put corporate profits over consumers. Today’s rollback will give ISPs new ways to control what we see, what we do, and what we say online. That’s a threat to the free exchange of ideas that’s made the Internet a valuable asset in our democratic process.”

• Advocates Plan Legal Action if FCC Repeals Net Neutrality 

What do you think of the repeal of net neutrality? Let us know in the comments below.

The post New York Attorney General Will Challenge FCC's Repeal of Net Neutrality first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: An activist Chinese lawyer faces trial for posts on the internet.

China faces scrutiny yet again for suppressing free thought and speech, now that civil rights lawyer Pu Zhiqiang is facing trial for posts he made on the internet. Seven posts in particular, made on a Twitter-like service called Weibo, landed the liberal-leaning lawyer in jail in 2014, where he stayed without charge, while his health deteriorated. Now the world is in an outcry as the lawyer, 50, faces up to eight years in prison for charges of ‘inciting ethnic hatred’ and ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble.’

Diplomats from around the world have come to the court room to witness the proceeding, but were violently barred from entering, with police shoving even American Diplomats.

Mr. Pu said that if his posts “hurt anyone, he would like to apologize,” and his lawyer said “He said he will face and accept whatever verdict the court might hand down, but he hoped this would be a verdict that would stand the test of history.”

He is standing trial in the Second Intermediate People’s Court of Beijing, which began at 9 a.m. and lasted a little more than three hours.

“It was smooth and regulated,” said Mo Shaoping, Mr. Pu’s lawyer.

American diplomat Dan Biers read an embassy statement outside the courtroom, saying, “We remain concerned that Pu Zhiqiang, a prominent Chinese defense lawyer, is being tried under vague charges of ‘inciting ethnic hatred’ and ‘picking quarrels and provoking trouble.’ Lawyers and civil society leaders such as Mr. Pu should not be subject to continuing repression, but should be allowed to contribute to the building of a prosperous and stable China.”

Necessarily there is some America rhetoric of free speech buried beneath this plea, as Hu Jia, a rights activist imprisoned from December 2007 to June 2011, said “Under Xi Jinping, our society has been regressing. The authorities are doing this because they want people to feel that their fingers are loaded with a lot of weight when typing on the keyboard.”

In fact, it is as recent as 2013 when China’s two legal bodies included “picking quarrels” charges to include online comments – a peculiar idea to us Westerners, since the internet may have been invented solely for the purpose of “picking quarrels,” – or at least a casual onlooker may judge that to be so from looking at his Facebook updates. Nevertheless, the officials have since charged artist, poets, and essayists for expressing liberal thoughts online.

“The law in China today is nothing more than an instrument of the leadership’s political impulses – a reality with frightening consequences inside and outside the country,” said Sophia Richardson, the China director of Human Rights Watch. Though there has been some globalization of law firms in China, and outreach, many feel the government is working in two directions as far as growth goes.

As for the supposedly incendiary posts the lawyer made, they include political opinions, such as that “If Xinjian belongs to China, then don’t treat it as a colony.” He also made post from March 2013 after the Uighurs knifed people on the Kunming train station that “the murders are very sinful … Xinjiang separatist forces made the terror attack.”

Such political commenting on world events seems a matter of course for those in the West, but in China, every word and post is scrutinized for political implications.

Source: NYTimes

The post China Tries Rights Lawyer for Posting on the Internet first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: An AT&T customer emailed the CEO with some ideas for better service. AT&T responded…with a letter from its attorney.

According to ArsTechnica.com, Alfred Valrie, a Los Angeles citizen, uses several of AT&T’s services: cellular, a landline, Internet, and television.

Recently Valrie emailed the CEO of AT&T, Randall Stephenson. In her letter, she offered a friendly proposal, suggesting that AT&T could offer unlimited data to its DSL customers. She also recommended the company provide cheaper text messaging plans for those who don’t need unlimited texts. According to the Los Angeles Times, Valrie suggested $10 per month for 1,000 texts. She closed the email, “Your lifelong customer, Alfred Valrie.”

Valrie was shocked when, instead of hearing back from Stephenson, she heard back from one of the company’s lawyers.

AT&T’s Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Thomas Restaino, responded to the long-time customer: “AT&T has a policy of not entertaining unsolicited offers to adopt, analyze, develop, license or purchase third-party intellectual property…from members of the general public. Therefore, we respectfully decline to consider your suggestion.”

To his credit, Restaino did thank Valrie for being a lifelong customer.

AT&T was recently fined $100 million for misleading customers.

When news of the letter got out, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, David Lazarus, decided to follow up. The reporter assumed the response was probably a mistake, so he reached out to AT&T.

AT&T spokeswoman Georgia Taylor explained it wasn’t an error. According to Taylor, “In the past, we’ve had customers send us unsolicited ideas and then later threaten to take legal action, claiming we stole their ideas. That’s why our responses have been a bit formal and legalistic. It’s so we can protect ourselves.”

According to the company, AT&T has attorney-approved routes for customers to provide feedback, such as on the phone with a support specialist or on the Internet with a form. Apparently a friendly email to the CEO is not an approved method.

The FTC has filed a suit against AT&T for slowing data speeds.

The reporter, Lazarus, quickly pointed out that AT&T’s behavior was not matching its code of business conduct, which reads, “Our customers should always know we value them…We listen to our customers…We earn and preserve their trust by treating them with honesty and integrity and in a professional, courteous manner.”

In the past couple days, news of the lawyer’s letter and AT&T’s response has spread on social and mainstream media. In light of the unwanted attention, chief executive Stephenson finally acknowledged on Wednesday that the company “blew it” in passing the loyal customer’s suggestions off to a lawyer.

“At AT&T, our top priority is to treat our customers to a premium experience every time they interact with us,” Stephenson wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Times on Wednesday. “[O]ur consistent award-winning service demonstrates we usually get it right.”

In 2012, a Muslim woman won a discrimination suit against AT&T, taking home $6 million.

A few years ago, AT&T threatened a different customer with a cease and desist letter. The company told the customer he must immediately stop emailing Stephenson about iPhone upgrade eligibility dates and data plans. After the story hit the media, AT&T apologized.

Source: ArsTechnica

Other source: LA Times

Photo credit: digitaltrends.com

The post AT&T Lawyer Reminds Us Why People Hate J.D.'s first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Noel Biderman has resigned as CEO of Ashley Madison, weeks after a hacking scandal rocked the company.

Noel Biderman, the founder and CEO of Ashley Madison, has stepped down from his position after hackers breached the website and revealed personal details from millions of users, according to USMagazine.com. Avid Life Media made the announcement earlier today.

Many of those whose data was leaked have offered explanations as to how their information was linked to Ashley Madison accounts.

In the statement, Avid Life Media said, “This change is in the best interest of the company and allows us to continue to provide support to our members and dedicated employees,” Ashley Madison’s parent company said in a statement. “We are steadfast in our commitment to our customer base.”

For now, the website will be led by its “existing senior management team” until a new CEO replaces Biderman.

Read about the lawsuits filed against Ashley Madison here.

Several celebrities have had their information released as a result of the hacking. Josh Duggar and Josh Taekman of “Real Housewives of New York City” are just two of the accounts that were unveiled. Both, of course, have apologized for their behavior.

Biderman was also accused of having several affairs. Last year, he told the New York Daily News that he had never cheated on his wife. He said, “If I wanted to have an affair, I would have one.”

Well, it looks like Biderman wanted to have one. Or maybe several. BuzzFeed News reported that around 300 emails were sent over nearly a three-year period between Biderman and a woman from Toronto. She called herself “Melisa from the spa.” Biderman was also linked to several other women. The Guardian adds that the emails from both Biderman’s personal email and work email accounts were hacked and leaked online.

A $578 million lawsuit was filed against Ashley Madison in Canada.

Since the hacking, several lawsuits have been filed against Ashley Madison. The company stands to lose close to half a billion dollars.

In a statement, the company said, “We are actively adjusting to the attack on our business and members’ privacy by criminals. We will continue to provide access to our unique platforms for our worldwide members.”

Source: US Magazine

Photo credit: femalefirst.co.uk

The post Ashley Madison CEO Steps Down first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Many of the individuals whose Ashley Madison profile information was released by hackers have desperately tried to explain away how their names or email addresses were linked to profiles on the affair website.

Two Republican politicians from Louisiana are just two of the millions of individuals whose Ashley Madison profile information was released by hackers. Ashley Madison is a hookup website for married men and women. The politicians, of course, denied any wrongdoing, and argued that they could explain how their information just happened to end up on the website.

Jason Dore, the Louisiana GOP executive director, explained that an account listed under his name, which listed his credit card billing address, was simply used for “opposition research” at his law firm, Dore Jeansonne.

Dore said, “As the state’s leading opposition research firm, our law office routinely searches public records, online databases and websites of all types to provide clients with comprehensive reports. Our utilization of this site was for standard opposition research. Unfortunately, it ended up being a waste of money and time.”

The site was flooded with traffic after adultery was legalized in South Korea.

Ryan Heck, Baton Rouge Metro Councilman, also explained away any wrongdoing on his part. He stated on Facebook that he “went to Ashley Madison as a joke 5 years ago. Never went back.” To further emphasize his innocence, he added, “#smokinghotwife.”

Talab Abu Arar, a Bedouin Arab lawmaker in Israel, was also busted. His parliamentary email address was found in the list of leaked information. However, he laughed it off, since he, like many Bedouin Arabs, practices polygamy. He said, “I’m not lacking in women.” Still, he expressed frustration that his information was on the list. “Someone wanted simply to hurt my good name…it is very annoying,” he complained.

Hackers stated that they posted the details of millions of individuals who had registered with the website. The massive leak may change how the Internet is used altogether.

In fact, hundreds of U.S. government employees, including some with jobs in law enforcement, Congress, and the Whitehouse, used their Internet service in federal offices to browse the site for potential hookup partners and pay their membership fees. Defense Secretary Ash Carter stated that the Pentagon was examining the list of names associated with military email addresses.

In 2014, Monica Lewinsky said that her affair with Bill Clinton was consensual.

Business Insider actually released a chart, demonstrating how many dollars per capita were spent on the site by each state. Alabama was at the top of the list, followed by Colorado and Washington, D.C.

Individual cities and states are also looking into the leaked information. For example, one news station in Memphis noted that it discovered seven Ashley Madison accounts linked to City of Memphis employees, “six with the state of Tennessee, one with a Shelby County government domain, one from Germantown and eight from the city of Nashville.”

As for California, the Los Angeles Times reported, “email addresses on the list included those for employees of the state departments of Transportation, General Services, Public Health, Corrections and Rehabilitation, Industrial Relations and Water Resources, as well as the state judiciary. No elected officials were on the list of government emails.”

Several accounts from government officials in Illinois were also found, and Cincinnati City Manager Harry Black was studying whether employees should be fired for using their city accounts to sign up for Ashley Madison. “We will look at our Internet-use policy,” he remarked.

According to some reports, John Travolta had a six year affair with another man.

Of course, the United States wasn’t the only country whose citizens were looking for an affair. In Ireland, “more than 300 email addresses linked to some of the country’s most prestigious” institutions were released.

Use of the site would be much more serious for those in Saudi Arabia. Its citizens may be put to death for committing adultery. For the 1,200 Saudi Arabians whose emails were released by the hackers, this could mean serious trouble.

In Australia, radio DJs asked listeners to call in if they wanted to see if their spouse’s information was listed. A woman called, explaining that her husband had been acting weird since the news of the hacking broke. Unfortunately for her, his information did come up in the search results. She cried, “Are you serious? Are you freaking kidding me? These websites are disgusting.” She then hung up.

Source: Washington Post

Photo credit: CNBC

The post Busted Ashley Madison Users Scramble to Explain first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: A recent ruling from British Columbia stated that Google must remove references to certain links in its global search engines, causing many to worry about censorship and other such issues.

Around two decades ago, John Perry Barlow, the Grateful Dead lyricist and founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, stated that governments have no sovereignty in cyberspace. He wrote, “Your legal concepts of property, expression, identify, movement and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter.”

Sorry, Mr. Barlow, but British Columbian courts have ruled otherwise.

CorpCounsel.com reports that the Court of Appeal for British Columbia has affirmed a lower court decision that ordered Google Inc. to block certain sites from the search engine—no matter where the search originated.

The ruling is the first of its kind in Canada, and, according to the Financial Post, it is the most expansive ruling on Internet jurisdiction to date. Many have questioned the power that courts have over the Internet, arguing that it challenges the concepts of free speech, an open Internet, and extraterritoriality. Additionally, it increases the odds that intellectual property owners will file more suits in British Columbia if it holds itself out as a venue willing to exercise power beyond its borders.

David Post, a fellow at the Institute for Information Law and Policy at New York Law School, said, “This touches off a troubling jurisdictional tangle. Different countries have different laws, and issuing global injunctions does not make for a sensible international order.”

The ruling comes from an intellectual property dispute between Equustek Solutions Inc., a network equipment manufacturer, and Datalink Technologies Inc. Equustek argued that Datalink was taking its software, repackaging it, and selling it as its own software. Equustek sued Datalink in Vancouver, alleging trademark infringement and unlawful appropriation of trade secrets.

Ashbury Heights LLC recently filed a lawsuit, alleging misuse of intellectual property.

The court ruled in favor of Equustek, and ordered Datalink to stop selling the products. The court also stated that Datalink had to publish a notice online that redirected purchasers to Equustek. However, Datalink completely ignored the ruling, going so far as to stop responding to the courts and to move its business elsewhere. It ran websites from secret locations and sold infringing products under different names. Datalink depended on Web search engines to direct customers to its websites.

However, Equustek wasn’t going down without a fight. It argued, if customers were discovering Datalink sites from a search engine, why not stop the search engine? Equustek asked the court to issue an injunction that stopped Google from providing search results that led to Datalink’s websites around the world.

Google was not a party in the case and was not charged with any wrongdoing. It voluntarily delisted 345 URLs from the google.ca domain that directed customers to the infringing products.

However, the court stated Google needed to do more. It granted the injunction, and told Google to delist the sites around the world from hundreds of country-specific engines, including Google.com.

Google appealed, arguing that the court had exceeded its jurisdiction. It also argued that it improperly operated against an innocent nonparty, and that it had an impermissible extraterritorial reach.

In February, Canada decided to legalize doctor-assisted suicide.

However, in June, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia upheld the court’s decision, creating what many call a slippery slope.

Post commented, “It’s a slippery slope. Are more countries going to feel empowered to issue worldwide injunctions against Google and other search engines? Will they mandate global online censorship?”

Countries do sometimes make extraterritorial legal claims, but they cannot be enforced unless the person or company has a presence or assets in that country. Google argued that because it had no operations or employees in British Columbia, it could not be subject to an injunction issued by British Columbian courts. However, the judges argued that because Google gathers data in the province and sells advertising to users and companies there, the injunction was proper.

Vera Renieri, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said, “The ramifications of this logic are huge. Based on the court’s reasoning, there is no place on earth that Google would not be subject to a jurisdiction.”

Google further argued that courts cannot exerciser power over its international operations using their domestic laws because it would lead to restrictive and conflicting orders. The court disagreed again, stating that if issues do arise, it is because Google operates on a global basis, not because there are issues with the law.

Justice Harvey Groberman wrote in the opinion, “Google raises the specter of it being subjected to restrictive orders from courts in all parts of the world, each concerned with its own domestic law. I agree with the chambers judge that it is the worldwide nature of Google’s business and not any defect in the law that gives rise to that possibility.”

Countries have asked for sites to be removed for dozens of reasons. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the United States, courts can order search engines to remove infringing content. In France, where displaying Nazi paraphernalia is illegal, Yahoo Inc. was sued for showing Nazi artifacts on its auction website. Since Yahoo had operations in France that could have been shut down, it agreed to ban the sale of any Nazi items.

The European Court of Justice has even ruled that search engines may be ordered to remove links throughout Europe if individuals believe they infringe their privacy rights—even if the information is public record and factual. Under France’s “Right to Be Forgotten” law Google must remove links to certain sites around the world.

Google and Oracle have been fighting about the use of code lines.

Richard Stobbe, an attorney and editor of IPBlog.ca, a blog that discusses intellectual property and Internet laws in Canada, said, “The idea that courts issue orders with extraterritorial jurisdiction is not new. But this is a first for Canada, and you have to wonder where it will lead.”

Many attorneys also feel that when attorneys begin forum shopping for the best places to file their cases, they will turn to British Columbia as the place to file infringement suits. Stobbe remarked, “Rights holders will definitely take a second look at British Columbia, which could become popular much like the Eastern District of Texas. Lawyers may rush to British Columbia, knowing that if they can win on the merits, they can seek an injunction against Google.”

The International Federation of Film Producers Associations and the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, which are both groups that represent the film, television production, and music recording industries, actually argued that the court’s order against Google was proper. Of course, these groups are very concerned about online infringement.

Robert McConchie, an attorney who specializes in trade libel, media, privacy, defamation, and Internet law, said the ruling could impact freedom of speech and the Internet. Those who believe they have been defamed, he explained, could seek a worldwide injunction against search engines in British Columbia.

Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa who specializes in Internet law, blogged, “What happens if a Russian court orders Google to remove gay and lesbian sites form its database? Or if Iran orders it remove Israeli sites? The possibilities are endless, since local rules of freedom of expression often differ.” Tech Dirt added that China doesn’t want anyone to know about the Tiananmen Square protests, so does that mean that all references on the planet should be removed?

The judges did note, “Courts should be very cautious in making orders that might place limits on expression in another country. Where there is a realistic possibility that an order with extraterritorial effect may offend another state’s core values, the order should not be made.”

For now, Google is reviewing the judgment closely and has not decided whether or not it will appeal. McConchie said, “If it does, I’d expect that our Supreme Court will hear it. And it will be closely watched.”

Source: CorpCounsel

Photo credit: nationalrighttolifenews.com

The post Ruling from British Columbia Impacting Search Engines Causes Concern first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The FCC has posted their new rules for net neutrality Monday, opening the window for US Telecom to sue to have those same rules blocked, which they immediately did.

Regarding net neutrality legislation, Monday has marked a significant date: not only did the Federal Communications Commission publish their net neutrality rules, which triggered an effective date of June 22 when they will go into place, but a telecommunications industry trade group has also filed suit to prevent the rules from becoming law.

“As Chairman [Tom] Wheeler has said, we are confident the FCC’s new open Internet rules will be upheld by the courts, ensuring enforceable protections for consumers and innovators online” said FCC spokeswoman Kim Hart Monday.

The 400-page order posted by the FCC marked the point when their 3-2 vote approved rules and regulations, as of Feb. 26, would be published with the Federal Register, and also when the rules could be legally challenged.

US Telecom, who are suing to stop the rules, are a trade group including AT&T and Verizon Communications. They filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Their president, Walter McCormick, claims they do not oppose the goal of a free flowing legal content online, without internet providers having the ability to boost speeds for higher bidders, or block other sites. Instead, he opposes the FCC’s changing of the legal classification of wired and wireless broadband as a highly regulated telecommunications service.

“Reclassifying broadband Internet access as a public utility reverses decades of established legal precedent at the FCC and upheld by the Supreme Court,” said McCormick. “History has shown that common carrier regulation slows innovation, chills investment, and leads to increased costs on consumers.”

The suit therefore calls the rules “arbitrary and capricious,” and in violation of federal law.

News Source: LA Times

The post Upon Net Neutrality Rules Being Published, Legal Challenge Filed first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: Two South Florida officers have been recorded brutalizing arrestees.

The world has changed for law enforcement. Cell phone video cameras have given them a sense of accountability never before so pervasive: any passerby can record a policeman properly or improperly doing his duty and turn it into an internet video, lacking context, that could go viral. Two South Florida law enforcement officers are under scrutiny for just this when they were recorded seemingly mistreating the people they were arresting.

Sunday afternoon Fort Lauderdale police officer Victor Ramirez was recorded arresting a 58-year-old homeless man. The video depicts the officer arguing with the man, and telling him repeatedly to “get up,” before slapping the man across the face.

“I’m not fucking around with you. Don’t fucking touch me,” Ramirez said before cuffing the man.

Because of the video, Ramirez is on paid leave while his conduct is being investigated.

“The video is concerning,” said Fort Lauderdale police Capt. Francis Sousa. “We realize what the perception of the video [is]. However, we ask that the public be patient and allow the process to play itself out. The Broward County State Attorney’s Office is going to investigate this first, and upon completion of that, we’ll conduct our own thorough and unbiased investigation.”

On Monday, Broward Sheriff’s Deputy Christopher Johnson was recorded dragging a handcuffed woman by her leg restraints as she screamed and howled. The woman, who was mentally ill, had refused to sit on a bench as the officer instructed her to.

The officer claimed she was being “loud, disrespectful, and uncooperative,” towards the judge.

Fearing she would “cause a commotion in the public area, I then physically grabbed [her] by her leg [restraints],” the officer later explained.

The video depicts him hauling her as she screams and clasps on to a nearby sign.

“It reminded more of the Wild West when they would rope those guys and drag them from a horse by their feed – but this was actually metal shackles,” said the attorney who videotaped the incident, Bill Gelin. “When I first came out I didn’t know if this women had attacked somebody or needed to be on the ground like that, but I’m telling you, within seconds it became apparent that she was completely and totally mentally ill, and this is not how you do things in 2015.”

Since videos can readily expose an officer’s behavior to millions of viewers online, police accountability means something it never has before: an officer on duty can become an infamous celebrity at any time.

The post Two Videos Expose Police Brutality in South Florida first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Summary: The federal electronic filing system is allowing sexually charged cases to go viral on the internet before a trial.

When federal judge James Robertson aided the inception of federal electronic filing, he lacked insight into where it would lead. “I don’t think any of us had any idea what the words ‘going viral’ meant when we rolled this out 10 or 12 years ago,” he said. But nowadays, social media can pick up on a given case, and popularize embarrassing details, as soon as they are filed, rendering a plaintiff or defendant notorious, before any legal proceedings take place, as a de facto vigilante system.

A former saleswoman from Zillow, for instance, filed a suit against her former employer regarding pornographic messages received from male colleagues. The internet attention the case gained, before anything like evidence had been applied, lead to a public relations crisis for Zillow.

“If I file a complaint and call a press conference and tell the world what the allegations are, and if those allegations are defamatory, I might get sued,” said Dan Siegel, the lawyer for Shannon Miller, a female coach who was cut from her job, while her male counterpart was not. However, if those allegations are circulated on the internet, no suit will arise.

The former Zillow employee, Rachel Kremer, found herself an internet celebrity. Her filing that said she had received graphic photos and was subjected to “sexual torture” gained incredible feedback on Facebook.

“From the plaintiff’s perspective, it’s one of the great equalizers,” giving them ground against wealthy defendants, said Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer who has handled sexual harassment suits for three decades. But is this fair, does it help? “These cases are a mess,” said Katz.

Imagine that, internet smear campaigns may be biased and cloud justice?

“You’ve been accused of something without an opportunity to defend yourself” said Juan Monteverde, a Manhattan lawyer who received a call from his wife regarding an email she received of a complaint a younger colleague had filed against him that he coerced her to sex. Monteverde had not even heard of the case yet.

Not only could these cases lead to a defendant being socially judged before a fair trial, but they could also make some victims reluctant to file as well if they do not want online media attention or are afraid that their private plight will go viral.

Even a successful suit can render a client “the complainer, or the slut who allegedly slept with the boss,” through a simple Google search, explained Danielle Citron, a University of Maryland law professor.

These are some of the travails that the legal system currently faces, and it must adapt to the new social setting, as always.

News Source: New York Times

The post How Embarrassing Lawsuit Details are Going Viral Online first appeared on JDJournal Blog.