What does the Tennessee House Bill 3517 REALLY say?

Tennessee House Bill 3517 would make changes to sections 39-13-107 and 39-13-214 of the Tennesse Code so that the resulting code would read:

39-13-107. Viable fetus as victim.

(a) For the purposes of this part, "another," "individuals," and "another person" include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by this part, and when at the time of the criminal act the victim was pregnant.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend the provisions of § 39-15-201, or §§ 39-15-203 39-15-205 and 39-15-207.

(c) Nothing in subsection (a) shall apply to any act or omission by a pregnant woman with respect to an embryo or fetus with which she is pregnant, or to any lawful medical or surgical procedure to which a pregnant woman consents, performed by a health care professional who is licensed to perform such procedure.

39-13-214. Viable fetus as victim.

(a) For the purposes of this part, "another" and "another person" include a human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero, when any such term refers to the victim of any act made criminal by this part, and when at the time of the criminal act the victim was pregnant.

(b) Nothing in this section shall be construed to amend the provisions of § 39-15-201, or §§ 39-15-203 39-15-205 and 39-15-207.

(c) Nothing in subsection (a) shall apply to any act or omission by a pregnant woman with respect to an embryo or fetus with which she is pregnant, or to any lawful medical or surgical procedure to which a pregnant woman consents, performed by a health care professional who is licensed to perform such procedure.

This bill changes assault and homicide law in Tennessee to replace the words, "viable fetus of a human being" with the words, "human embryo or fetus at any stage of gestation in utero".

In other words, an attack on a woman carrying an embryo or fetus, at any stage of gestation, whether or not that fetus or embryo is viable, is the same as attacking (or murdering) two people.  If the woman survives, but the embryo fails to implant due to the attack, then the attacker is guilty of murder.

The law doesn't state whether or not it matters if the woman knows she is pregnant.  It also doesn't state how police will determine that a woman is (or was) carrying an embryo.  It is possible that the stress of the attack may induce a spontaneous abortion that is, as I've said before, unnoticed by the woman.  

So this may be rather difficult law to enforce in many cases.

In my last post on this law, I went overboard in believing that this law would criminalize regular behaviors that actually endanger the child.  It seems to be restricted to acts of assault or homicide.  The woman seems to be exempt from her own acts or omissions - possibly through intent.

But this law does set a dangerous precident.  It claims that any ovum is the same as any person in cases of assult or murder.  It is not clear that a pregnant woman's intent to terminate her own pregnancy is not assault or homocide upon her embryo or fetus, moving her from the class of "mother" to the class of "attacker".

This law is also dangerous in that it could make a murderer out of someone who merely committed assault and happened to be unlucky enough for the woman to miscarry naturally.  An aggressive shoulder-bump in a crowd could result in manslaughter charges due to natural miscarriage.

 

What have I learned from this?  Hopefully I've learned to not jump the gun and let my emotions run away with me.  I forgot that experts often comment in areas where they are amateurs - and I am not an expert in law.  So the next time I comment on a law, I'll do my best to get expert advice.

Read More...

Tennessee goes BATSHIT INSANE and attacks the rights of women.

Image of a Blastocyst

UPDATE: 27 April 2012 - 

As they say legally, "mea maxima culpa".  I made a mistake here, so please accept my apologies.  

My friend Richard called me on it in the comments, and he's right.  I'll be making a new post on this over the weekend, and will link to it from here when done.

For now, know that this law does not criminalize a woman's actions (or omission of action) toward the fetus.

The rest of this post will stay here, as a lesson on letting emotions overcome reason.

----------------------------------------

You know, when I posted "If Abortion is Murder, then Coffee is Manslaughter", I had several people tell me that I was being silly.  That my little fictional story was merely a "slippery slope fallacy" not worth taking seriously.

Well, let me be the first to say, "I told you so".

Tennessee is trying to pass a law that will criminalize all spontanious abortion, known commonly as miscarriage.

The Tennessee House last week voted 80-18 to make miscarriage — or the killing of any fertilized egg — murder. Last night, the Tennessee Senate passed by a 28-2 margin a companion version of the bill. The bill specifically includes all embryos “at any state of gestation in utero.” Tennessee’s Republican Governor Bill Haslam has not indicated if he will sign the bill.

To be clear, this bill goes further than covering, say, a violent attacker harming an expectant mother who then, unfortunately, miscarries. This bill, House Bill 3517 and the Senate’s companion, makes anyone’s actions that presumably cause a miscarriage murder. Opponents of the bill question how law enforcement would actually enforce this law or determine if someone’s action was a direct cause of a miscarriage.

This bill removes the "viability requirement" that currently exists for protecting fetuses.  In other words, it doesn't matter if the fetus is "viable" - that it can survive outside of the womb with medical attention - it doesn't even matter if the fetus, or the fertalized ovum, would never become viable - for example if the blastocyst failed to implant.

If the Prosecutor thinks that he or she can make the case against a woman who miscarries due to second-hand smoke, or job stress, or for even "ordering and consuming three 'Doppio Espresso' drinks" at Starbucks, then that prosecutor could bring murder - or at least manslaughter - charges against the mother of that zygote.

Not to put too fine a point on this, but this is a BATSHIT INSANE bill!  No matter what the intent is, the actual outcome would be to force women of child bearing age into a special class, where high stress jobs are denied to them, where they are not allowed to roam anywhere or participate in any activity that might endanger their possible fetus.  Because doing so would leave them liable for possible murder charges.

This law provides prosecutors the ability to expand liability beyond the mother, so it may be that others around the woman in question could join in with murder or manslaughter charges.  The clerk that hands the woman that espresso, the boss at the high stress job, the trainer at the gym could all possibly be held liable at the discretion of the Prosecutor.

What if the woman miscarries after going to target practice at the local shooting range?  Could another shooting range customer be charged with manslaughter for that?  Will there be a multiplier on his sentence due to the use of a gun?

"Oh no, that's crazy talk!"  Yes, you might think that, but when I first wrote about coffee being equal to manslaughter I was told THAT was crazy, and yet here is a bill that would criminalize that!

This isn't a "slippery slope fallacy" - because we have evidence right here that politicians are trying to actually create this greased slope toward the removal of the basic human rights. This isn't paranoia - it is actually being attempted.

This is what Lewis Black calls, "Fuck Nuts Crazy".  Pure and simple. 

Read More...

Ronald Lee Darsey to serve full sentence!

So I was wondering today, "What happened to Ronnie?"

If you'll recall, twice convicted pedophile Ronald Lee Darsey has been spending quality time in a Texas prison since September 26, 2003.  He was up for parole in 2008, which was denied.

He came up for parole again in August 2011, but Tanya and I have been busy with our lives and didn't pay much attention.  I checked on him in September, but couldn't get a firm answer out of the TDCJ.  And then I spent a few months living my life.

I just checked again, starting with a general Google search on his name to see that my blog was still his top entry.  (It is!  And I hope his future girlfriends Google him, and invite them to contact me.  Contact info is other there to the right - just click on my name under the "About Me" category.)

But I also found Ronnie in the Texas Tribune, under a listing for Texas Prison Inmates.  After verifying with TDCJ, I can now say for sure that Ronnie is still in jail.  He didn't make his August 2011 parole, and he must now complete his entire sentence.  He should be released on or about August 26, 2013.

Please be warned - Ronnie has been convicted of child molestation twice, but I know of several young girls he has sexually abused.

He is a habitual sex offender - and the best psychological theories that I've read all agree that such a person will re-offend eventually.  Ronnie can be charming and manipulative - he will put himself in a place or position where he will again have opportunity to re-offend.  And if Texas catches him at it again, he'll be put away for life.

I'm writing this as a warning - if you've googled his name, you already suspect something, or you've been abused by him.  Drop me an email or give me a call.  We'll talk.

Read More...

The creeping removal of women's right to privacy...

I hope that my readers are aware that the decision of Roe V. Wade was made as a balancing act - it balances the right of privacy with the State's interest in protecting prenatal life, and protecting the health of women.

The idea that a fertilized ovum is a person, deserving of the full rights granted to natural persons, is not a rational position to hold.

I've written about this before - human gestation is not straightforward.  A fertilized ovum is at best a potential person, and declaring it a person worthy of full rights of a natural person is problematic at best.

I've described what can happen at the worst - where declaring a blastocyst to be the same as a natural person leads to ridiculous tyranny where coffee could be a form of manslaughter.

Well, it's happening:
The "creeping criminalization of pregnant women" has begun.
Amanda Kimbrough is one of the women who have been ensnared as a result of the law being applied in a wholly different way. During her pregnancy her fetus was diagnosed with possible Down's syndrome and doctors suggested she consider a termination, which Kimbrough declined as she is not in favour of abortion.
The baby was delivered by caesarean section prematurely in April 2008 and died 19 minutes after birth.
Six months later Kimbrough was arrested at home and charged with "chemical endangerment" of her unborn child on the grounds that she had taken drugs during the pregnancy – a claim she has denied.
"That shocked me, it really did," Kimbrough said. "I had lost a child, that was enough."
She now awaits an appeal ruling from the higher courts in Alabama, which if she loses will see her begin a 10-year sentence behind bars. "I'm just living one day at a time, looking after my three other kids," she said. "They say I'm a criminal, how do I answer that? I'm a good mother."

Read More...

Tasha 9 May 2001 - 21 February 2012


Tasha in a topknotI knew it was coming, but when it happened it was very sudden. Today I lost a family member. My little dog.

Our dog Leena was 7 years old, and starting to show her age.  We had lost another dog just before we got Leena, and we wanted to have a younger dog to help comfort us when Leena finally passed away.

The "pocket dog" craze was sweeping through Korea, and Won was in love with all things "pocket dog".  She wanted something tiny, 3-4 pounds when full grown.

I resisted.  

I wanted a dog that was tough, easy to care for, and something that was big enough that it could get out of the way of my feet - I did NOT want to step on a micro-dog.  I'm of the firm belief that something that small should live in a cage with a hamster wheel attached to the side.  So after some research, I suggested that we get a Yorkshire Terrier.  

Won wasn't sure, so I found a Yorkshire Terrier show that was going on in Orange County.  We took a weekend to drive down and catch the show.  We saw hundreds of Yorkies in a range of sizes from "Teacup" to 8-10 pounds.  I knew I could live with an 8 pound dog.

And the Yorkies we saw were gorgeous! Beautiful silky hair ("No, they don't shed" we were told. I had my doubts - but they turned out to be unfounded.) They wore bows and ribbons, and little top-knots. They were happy, and calm, and eager to play. We watched one woman put her dog through a sort of obedience course, where she had the Yorkie off-leash, and commanded the obviously intelligent little fellow to perform a series of exercises. He jumped hurdles, climbed ramps, fetched, carried, put down and then picked up again a variety of toys.

I was enchanted. And as soon as we got home Won started scouring the local newspapers for Yorkie puppies.

Here's the thing, a "Teacup" sized Yorkie easily cost $2,500 to $3,000. A "Pocket" sized Yorkie ran about $2,000. "Small" Yorkies were
Tasha asleep as a puppyeasily $1,500. Tasha cost us $600. At her maximum 'fat' weight she weighed 10.2 pounds. Her healthy weight was right at 8 pounds.

We found a family in Fresno that had a litter. We went over and picked Tasha from the litter using our usual method, by disqualifying puppies that tried to chew on our hands.

From the very beginning, Tasha was amazing.  She was absolutly fearless.  She treated Leena like her own personal plush pillow, and would follow Leena around like a tugboat snugged against a cruiser.  Leena, used to being the only fur child on the premises, took it with quiet exasperation. 

When Tasha was a small puppy, I would worry that she might miss her litter mates.  I got her a small stuffed bear to sleep with so she wouldn't feel alone.  But Tasha was fearless, and she soon found out that the stuffed bear could be played with.  She would pounce on it with all the ferciousness of a 12 week old puppy and shake it so hard and so viciously that she would get dizzy and fall over.

Tasha was so fearless that she would take flying leaps from the back of the couch or the back of the recliner as a shortcut to get to her bear.  And when she found out that we could throw the bear for her... well!  The game was on!  I would toss the bear, and she would race to catch it before it even hit the ground, then shake it until it came apart at the seams before racing back to give it to me to throw it again.  How many times would she do this?  I don't know - easily over 200 times before I got tired and had to call it quits!

Won was returning to school that fall, and we didn't want Tasha to have the run of the apartment while we were out, so I purchased a 4-foot high cage fence to go across the kitchen door.  By this time Tasha was about 5 months old.  

The first day that Won went to school, Tasha stayed in the Kitchen, unhappy, behind the fence.  The second day I came home, opened the apartment front door, and found Tasha there at the door, outside of the Kitchen, waiting for me.  She had apparently climbed up 4 feet of cage fencing, and then down the opposite side.  And in doing so, she had somehow broken the first bone in big toe on her right front foot.  It didn't seem to bother her too much to have a broken toe.  She limped a little, and curious, I felt her foot until she winced, then felt her toe flop in my hand.

Tasha in laundry basket... notice the stuffed "bear" behind her?We took her to the vet.  It cost about $200 and a cast that she wore for several weeks.  The cast didn't slow her down one bit... she still wanted us to throw that bear!

This became a "thing" with Tasha - her fearlessness caused me to gasp in worry many times.  She would tumble off the couch and land on her head, and yip in pain while I was sure that this was it - that she had finally brained herself.  But she was tough!  After a moment she'd shake it off, and off she would go again, running at high speed.

She once ran through a park so fast that she didn't see a drainage grate, fell into it and flipped head over heels in a multiple summer salt, the stood up and seemed to shake as she whined.  I went running to her, sure she would be in convulsions any moment, but she shook it off and ran around me, thinking I was playing.

Another time, she was walking quickly ahead of me on her leash in a park, over a little bridge.   But Tasha didn't realize she was on a bridge.  There was a concrete curb on each side of the walk, and she had jumped up over the curb earlier to explore the grass.  So when she was in the middle of the bridge, she must have thought this would be a great time to jump the curb again.  She jumped off the bridge and dropped 2 feet into a little ditch filled with several inches of water!  We were all very surprised!  I still laugh thinking of this.

When Leena died, Tasha was so confused.  We came home without Leena, and Tasha spent a long time searching for her.  Sometimes she would go to the door and just whine for her friend.

Won and I had aquired a cat - Samuel Francisco, aka "Cisco".  Cisco was one of a litter of 7 kittens, from a stray cat that we had brought into our apartment.  After the kittens had grown a little, I let them roam around the living room.  Each kitten was a little smaller than Tasha's "bear", and so I watched Tasha closely, waiting for the moment that she decided these fuzzy kittens were "toys".  Yes, I was worried!  By this time she had literally distroyed several "bears", with most of them requiring minor surgery with a thread and needle.  

But it went much better than I thought.  Tasha's mother instinct kicked in, and she started hearding the kittens like a sheepdog, keeping them from running out of sight.  Tasha was a small dog, but these kittens could walk completely under her like a bridge, and she would freeze there and let the kitten pass.

We kept Cisco and he and Tasha would play.  They would chase each other around, or Cisco would sneak up on and pounce on Tasha suddenly.  Tasha would push Cisco down and sort of sit on him, until he squirmed away and went somewhere safe.  I used to tease Tasha that Cisco wouldn't always be so small - but even when he outweighed her by 4 pounds, they would wrestle and play like puppy and kitten.

Won spoiled Tasha rotten. She would feed Tasha fruit, or tidbits from her plate, until I started calling Tasha a "little sausage dog", and the vet started warning us about the dangers of being overweight.  Still Tasha had Won figured out, and would beg for more.

 

Tasha asleep on a pillowWhen Won died, Tasha was my comfort.  She had always slept on the bed, and after Won died Tasha started sleeping curled up close to me.  We cuddled, she gave me something to take care of on those nights where all I could do was watch Stargate and grieve.  Over the months I went from numb to interested in life again, and I credit Tasha a great deal for that transition.  In return, I put Tasha on a diet, and worked to get her down to a healthy weight.

And then I met Wendy.

Over the last year Wendy and I have grown close. I proposed to Wendy on Christmas eve, and we will be married in April - just two months from now.

Tasha and Wendy adopted each other. And Wendy learned to accept that there was a little dog that insisted on the privilege of sleeping between us.  Tasha doted on Wendy and Wendy would take her on walks around the block.  Wendy's two dogs were jealous of Tasha at first, but they later worked things out.  Tasha again started acting like a little tug boat up against Wendy's big dogs, steering them in whatever direction that Tasha pleased.

And then something scary happened.  

Last October Tasha started breathing weird, like she was gasping for air.  You could hear her little lungs make "gurgling" noises when she breathed.  I took her to see the Veterinarian, who diagnosed Tasha with Congestive Heart Failure.  This was the same disease that Won had, the same disease that ultimately killed Won.  I feared the worst.

The Vet said that she didn't know why Tasha's heart was failing, but that she could put Tasha on medications that would allow her heart to function better.  I immediately started comparing Tasha's treatments to Won's treatments.  Won had CHF due to a blown Mitral Valve, that was later replaced with an artificial valve.  In order to find out that Won's mitral valve was bad required a lot of equipment and testing, including an echocardiogram and a PET scan.

The vet had an x-ray machine.  If I wanted anything else, it would have bankrupt me.

The initial medication, a diuretic, helped.  But Tasha's symptoms got worse, and the worried vet added additional medications to support her heart.

Tasha, being fearless, soon got used to having to pant heavily when she ran and attacked her bear (by this time her "bear" was only a distant relation, replaced numerous times).  She would run and pant, and once she actually fainted - only to wake up surprised.  She shook it off and again ran after her bear.

We learned that she was water loading, that her heart couldn't always clear her lungs of fluid.  Tasha would start coughing, deep chesty coughs, which was an indication of too much fluid buildup.  Wendy or I would then take Tasha outside to pee, to clear some of the fluid loading.

Tasha on the bedThis behavior increased.  Over the last month, Tasha started needing frequent pee breaks outside, even several times in the middle of the night.  

Yesterday, Tasha ran around the back yard with the big dogs.  She fell asleep in my lap as I read a book.  She chased her bear.  Last night she slept between us again.  I got up four times during the night to take her outside to pee.

This morning, she took her morning medications, and went outside with me to pee and do other doggie things in the front yard.  As I left, she settled onto the couch to await the coming of the mailman (that mail slot HAD to be guarded!).

When Wendy came home at 3pm, she noticed that Tasha was breathing strange, that she seemed to be in pain, that her stomach was distended a little.  She called me, and we met at the Vet.

Tasha didn't make it.  Her heart gave out.  The Vet gave her something for the pain, and Tasha passed away.

I caressed her one last time, and cried my eyes out as I held her lifeless body to me.  I took her collar, and it is here with me now as I write this.

I hate loss.  Hate is too tame a word for what I'm feeling - rage like you wouldn't believe at the unfairness of it all, and sorrow, and sadness.  I'll never see my little dog again.  

Tasha was fearless, incredibly happy, full of a joy for life literally until her last day.

I miss her terribly.

Read More...

Same Sex Marriage - Where I agree with Santorum

So perhaps you've seen this on the blog of the Friendly Atheist, the video clip of Rick Santorum comparing gay marriage to plural marriage?

First, I'll point out that polyamorous marriage is not legally the same as a "binary" marriage. The law in most societies is set up already to easily handle marriage between a couple - no matter the sex. There are no legal complexities in a marriage of two people.  While the legal complexity of a union of three or more people can get complicated very quickly.

But I still find that I'm in agreement with Rick Santorum in that I see no ethical reason to restrict a legal union to an arbitrary number of two people.

Don't get me wrong, Santorum is being pretty smug in this video where he thinks he's cornered the questioner with a foolproof "gotcha".  But even a stopped (analog) clock can be right twice a day.  And Santorum is right here, when it comes to ethics.

If it is ethically okay for two people to get married, no matter their gender, then it is okay for three or more to get married.  This is an argument that works even without considering same-sex marriage.  Bringing gender into this argument is unnecessary, and may be a Red Herring fallacy.

In the Supreme Court decision of Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Stevens concluded that:

(1) the fact that a State’s governing majority has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,

(2) individual decisions concerning the intimacies of physical relationships, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by due process.

...

This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention.

...

The Texas statute furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the individual’s personal and private life. 

If two adults, "with full and mutual consent" can engage in "private conduct" without government intervention - then why can't three, or four?

A reading of Polyamory in Wikipedia showed me that the law is still pretty tangled up, even though Lawrence v. Texas has resulted in some state legislators reviewing their laws on marriage.  According to the Wikipedia article:

Bigamy is the act of marrying one person while already being married to another, and is legally prohibited in most countries where monogamy is the cultural norm. Some bigamy statutes are broad enough to potentially encompass polyamorous relationships involving cohabitation, even if none of the participants claim marriage to more than one partner. For instance, under Utah Code 76-7-101, "A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person."

Having multiple non-marital partners, even if married to one, is legal in most U.S. jurisdictions; at most it constitutes grounds for divorce if the spouse is non-consenting, or feels that the interest in a further partner has destabilized the marriage. In jurisdictions where civil unions or registered partnerships are recognized, the same principle applies to divorce in those contexts. There are exceptions to this: in North Carolina, a spouse can sue a third party for causing "loss of affection" in or "criminal conversation" (adultery) with their spouse, and more than twenty states in the US have laws against adultery although they are infrequently enforced.

So, the law seems to be all over the place, and some conservatives believe that the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas opens the floodgates to polyamorous marriage.  And there are several forms that a poly marriage can take, which further complicates any possible future changes to marriage law.

But as someone who bases my decisions on reason and rationality, I cannot see any ethical reason to condemn a relationship between "n" number of people, as long as everyone in that relationship gives their informed consent.  I can see a legal reason to prohibit such a union - in that today's laws are not constructed to be fair to such a marriage.  But I can see a way to counter that objection by learning from and perhaps adapting laws of incorporation to marriage.  Why not?  A couple is often legally treated as a union, a single entity; and so is a corporation.

Santorm smugly thinks he has found a counter to same sex marriage, but I think he is one of many who (unknowingly) are working for the legality of plural marriage.

Read More...

Internet insanity

While reading about the plight of one of my friends, I came across a little bit of Internet Insanity.  (Yea, I know, how unusual, right?)

Sue Basko, "Lawyer for Music and Film", is one of those "colorful" personalities who makes a living off of Hollywood.  She also has a blog.  I'm not interested in her blog, not at all.  But I am interested in the warning she placed on her blog.  It says:

COPYRIGHT: ALL MATERIAL COPYRIGHT 2010-11 Susan Basko. You may not copy or use or link to or quote or cite ANY material herein without explicit written permission from the Owner. No "Fair Use" applicable. Permission easily granted to good people/uses. Don't be shy to ask.

You see what I did there?  By copying her text, and linking to it, I've done what Ms. Basko says I cannot do.

I especially like how she says that Fair Use is not applicable!  It's like she gets to make up the law as it applies to her own website!

EFF logoThis is why I like and support the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  They offer a legal guide to bloggers that helps bloggers know when someone like Sue Basko is full of it.  For instance, several court cases in America have ruled that I CAN link to Sue Basko's website, with or without her permission.  I can even "deep link" to a place on a website where normal users of that site would have to go through several layers first.  This has been ruled to be legal.

I'm also allowed to copy and paste "short quotes" from anyone else's blog just so that I can comment from it.  This is lawful for me to do.  Let me give you an example from Ms. Basko's blog:

EDUCATION: I have a Juris Doctorate magna cum laude from Southern Illinois University School of Law; have completed all coursework for a Master of Arts in Mass Communication Media Arts in the department of Cinema-Photography/ Radio-TV at Southern Illinois University; have a Bachelor of Arts in Film and Video from Columbia College Chicago.

This seems to be a pretty impressive education, until you realize that Ms. Basko really doesn't understand copyright in America - you would think that someone working in the entertainment industry would know copyright law inside and out!  She has a JD degree from Southern Illinoise University School of Law and still says that I am not allowed to link to her blog, or use parts of it as "fair use"?

This is incredibly hilarious.

Taken with her other blog postings, Ms. Basko comes off as another one of the (all too common) tinfoil-hat wearing brigade, who try to force the world to be what they want it to be, instead of taking it for what it really is.  

If you are seeking legal advice from Ms. Basko, I would advise you look long and hard at this first.

Also, if you have the time, money, or legal expertise, and you want to donate to an excellent cause, then support the Electronic Frontier Foundation.  I do, and you should too!

Lastly, because I've been warned that Ms. Basko has a habit of deleting her own writing and claiming to have never written it, I've taken a screen shot of the offending page, which I will post here if it ever disappears or changes.


Update 24 Dec 2011:

Before and After screen captureWow, it was predicted, and so it came to pass!  Quietly, and without fanfare, Ms. Basko has updated her copyright warning.  Since I saved her page, I can give you a before and after screenshot of it to the right here.  (Click on the image to see it bigger).

The top shows her orginal text with the silly copyright warning that prevents you from copying or linking to her text.  
She's almost got everything set here.  But there is still a little bit of sillyness.  The text now reads:

COPYRIGHT: ALL MATERIAL COPYRIGHT Sue Basko 2010. Materials on this site may be used and shared only for the purposes of learning. They may not be used for any form of cyberstalking, bullying, or harassing. Legal action will be taken against any cyberstalker or harasser. If that's you, get off this page.

I'm glad she's made this clear.  Right now, I'm using her text to demonstrate that she still doesn't understand copyright - so I guess technically I'm teaching someone reading this blog something.

But still, she's completely wrong here.  According to the US Copyright Office, I'm allowed to copy and reproduce a fair amount of Ms. Basko's work, "... for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports."

For the record, I'm criticizing Ms. Basko's words, her "so-called" proficiency with Internet Law.  I'm doing so because she purports to be an entertainment lawyer who I would think is supposed to KNOW something about the law and the Internet, while also understanding basic facts about the Internet - namely "The Streisand Effect".

For a great example of what you can do with Fair Use and Copyright, I suggest you watch the movie "A Fair(y) Use Tail" by Eric Faden.  (I would guess that there is very little chance that Mr. Faden is represented by Ms. Basko).

 

Another aspect of Fair Use is parody.  If I wished, I could modify the image of Ms. Basko in Photoshop to make her look like a Klingon, and then translate part of her web site into Klingon words (called "tlhIngan Hol" in English).  I could then put a word bubble above her head showing the Klingon Ms. Basko shouting her own words in Klingon.

I could, if I wished, use Photoshop to redraw the photo of Ms. Basko as a clown.  This would be a neat parody because it would hook into the whole entertainment industry (better than a Klingon) while at the same time making a statement about Ms. Basko's abilities.

I could do this, but I won't.  Not out of fear, but because it is Christmas eve and I've got other things to do with my time.  Call it laziness if you wish.  

One other thing I would like to point out is the Copyright Date on the updated text.  Copyright is good for a long time, so a Copyright of 2010 is not going to run out any time soon.  However, according to the Copyright Office, Copyright happens automatically when you write something.  Using a date or the (c) symbol is merely a formality.  But back-dating your copyright by a year doesn't make sense, it makes it seem older than it really is, and would allow it to fall into public domain one year sooner than necessary.

The only reason why Ms. Basko would have a 2010 Copyright on this material is if she is trying to make it seem like she didn't REALLY change her website - or if she merely forgot.  

Personally, I think she just forgot.  We will see it updated correctly soon.  Especially after I tell her about it.

Read More...