While Lori Drew is evil and deserves whatever Karma has for her, a Missouri resident should not be required to answer charges in California for conduct directed towards other Missouri residents. This is scary stuff, folks.
UPDATE: Orin Kerr analyzes the issues beyond my, "Um, this is, like, really scary, dude." Check it out.
I'm happy for my friend, and jealous for myself. I think anyone who has the chance to see Gerry Spence and action and who doesn't is crazy. I was hit with some extraordinary unexpected expenses or else I would have flown up there, too. Maybe I should have put the trip on a credit card? Isn't that what those damned things are for, after all?
I imagine once Spence dies, I will have major regrets at not having seen the Darrow of our time in action.
Don't be a fool like me. Find a way to Detroit.
Why is blackmail a crime? More importantly, how can blackmail be criminalize in light of the First Amendment?
Here is how the federal blackmail statute reads:
Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 873. In other words, I can't say, "Gimme 50 grand or I'll tell the cops you're a tax cheat." Well, why can't I?
I have a constitutional right to speak the truth. I have a constitutional right to report your crimes. By "blackmailing" you, I am simply refusing to exercise that constitutional right in exchange for money. I suppose the argument would be that although I have a right to speak, nothing prevents the government from preventing me from selling my right to speak (or, in this case, not speak). That's not satisfying to me.
But what I think is even more worrisome is the law against extortion. The federal extortion statute provides:
Whoever, with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, knowingly so deposits or causes to be delivered, as aforesaid, any communication, with or without a name or designating mark subscribed thereto, addressed to any other person and containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another, or the reputation of a deceased person, or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
18 U.S.C. Sec. 876(d). In other words, I can't mail you a letter saying, "Pay up or I'm going to tell everyone this stuff that will harm your reputation."
The federal extortion statute is an unconstitutional viewpoint based on restriction on speech. Hear me out.
I could legally mail you a letter saying, "Pay me money or else I won't say good things about you that will help your reputation." That's what advertising is, right?
So the content of the speech - stuff about you - is constitutional. It's the viewpoint that is regulated. That is, if I promise to take a negative viewpoint of you, my conduct is illegal. If I promise to take a positive viewpoint on you, my conduct is legal.
What am I missing?
Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals offers some advice.
What's testilying? It's a real word that means "lying under oath." You testilie when you testify and lie. Pretty clever, huh?
Three years ago I noted a clear-cut case of testilying. It was a "There is no doubt the officer was lying" example of it. To date, Officer Matthew Wohl has not been punished for his perjury. Nor has any prosecutor been punished for suborning his perjury.
Having learned a valuable lesson, New York police continue testilying. Walter Olson has more here.
This is either really funny, or really sad.
Dead, I tell you:
A confluence of groups customarily inclined toward Hillary Clinton was voting in the West Virginia primary, with less-educated, lower-income Southern whites predominating....
Racially motivated voting appeared to be running higher than usual: Two in 10 whites said the race of the candidate was a factor in their vote, second only to Mississippi. And only a third of those voters said they'd support Obama as the nominee against John McCain, fewer than in other primaries where the question has been asked.
Thank God Obama isn't gay.
UPDATE: More proof.
For proof, go here.