Link Banana

Perhaps the fact that I discovered this on Metafilter is a commentary on the nature of news-flow or my inattentiveness, but it seems that Raphael Correa got a new constitution of the term-extending type that Hugo Chavez recently failed to secure.

Perhaps more interesting, the document gives inalienable rights to nature, like:

Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.

Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution.

An interesting bit of cocktail chatter, if nothing else:

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president, has filed a lawsuit in Texas demanding Senators John McCain and Barack Obama be removed from the ballot after they missed the official filing deadline.

“The seriousness of this issue is self-evident,” the lawsuit states. “The hubris of the major parties has risen to such a level that they do not believe that the election laws of the State of Texas apply to them.”

(via Slashdot)

The internet’s a place where people often call themselves strange things. In the legal realm, however, a judge has to allow you to take such a name. Eugene Volokh documents some of the most interesting names, and the judge’s ruling:

1. 1069. No dice. The North Dakota Supreme Court (1976) and Minnesota Supreme Court (1979) both say: Names can’t be numbers.

2. III, to be pronounced “Three.” Nope, on the same grounds, said the California Court of Appeal in 1984 to Thomas Boyd Ritchie III. A concurring judge asserted that the problem was that III was a symbol, rather than just that it was a number. Such subtle distinctions are what law is all about.

I haven’t been following too closely, but I found both of these pieces on the (recommended) indictment of the Sudanese president to be useful:

• John Boonstra clarifies a few points — like that Bashir hasn’t yet been “indicted” — that don’t come across clearly in most reporting of the story.
• Richard Goldstone considers whether this will help or hinder the prospects for peace.

This list of lists of of “The Cases that Changed Britain” is rather interesting. I’d be even more interested in seeing a similar thing compiled for the US.

• Part one: 1785-1869
• Part two: 1870-1916
• Part three: 1917-1954
• Part four: 1955-1971
• Part five: 1972-2006

(via Lone Gunman)

Perhaps the most absurd part of the High Court’s ruling that Pringles are exempted from the VAT on crisps is that Proctor & Gamble happily pointed out how completely unnatural and unfoodlike their product is.

“It has a shape not found in nature, being designed and manufactured for stacking, and giving a pleasing and regular undulating appearance which permits comfortable eating.

“In this respect, it is unlike a potato crisp and, I would add, a potato stick or puff.”

He added: “A Pringle does not taste like a crisp or otherwise behave like one. Crisps give a sharply crunchy sensation under the tooth and have to be broken down into jagged pieces when chewed.

(via Slashfood)

The New Scientist’s Technology blog point to some odd facets of the iTunes EULA:

“Licensee also agrees that Licensee will not use the Apple Software for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.”

(via Freakonomics, who found another odd clause in a different iTunes EULA)

This month, the libertarian Cato Unbound is discussing copyright. The first two (of four — the others haven’t been posted) essays are rather interesting reading. Rasmus Fliecher kicked off with a rather bleak vision of the future:

The real dispute, once again, is not between proponents and opponents of copyright as a whole. It is between believers and non-believers. Believers in copyright keep dreaming about building a digital simulation of a 20th-century copyright economy, based on scarcity and with distinct limits between broadcasting and unit sales. I don’t believe such a stabilization will ever occur, but I fear that this vision of copyright utopia is triggering an escalation of technology regulations running out of control and ruining civil liberties. Accepting a laissez-faire attitude regarding software development and communication infrastructure can prevent such an escalation.

More optimistically, Timothy Lee offers a (radical-sounding) new paradigm:

The starkness with which the copyright debate is often framed reflects a misunderstanding of the function copyright served in the 20th century. Copyright is commonly conceived as a system of restrictions on the copying of creative works. But until recently, it would have been more accurate to describe copyright as governing the commercial exploitation of creative works. From this perspective, the inevitable legalization of non-commercial file sharing looks less like a radical departure from copyright’s past, and more like an incremental adjustment to technological change. It will require the rejection of some misguided policy developments of the last decade, to be sure, but in a sense it will simply restore the common-sense principles of 20th-century copyright law.

(via Matt Yglesias)

Melinda Henneberger tells an emotive story about the complicated love between a couple with adult-onset dementia. This line sums it up effectively:

This was a 21^st-century Romeo and Juliet.

This may surprise people:

The number of sex workers in New Zealand does not appear to have increased since legislation decriminalising prostitution became law, according to a new report.

(via Passport)

The Economist is sounding the alarm about the troubling ease with which the extremely wealthy are stifling free speech worldwide by pressing cases in the most friendly countries. A few cases that have taken of Britian’s libel laws:

That followed a similar judgment last year against Rachel Ehrenfeld, a New York-based American author who has written about the support of some Saudis for Islamist terrorism. She was successfully sued in London by a Saudi for a book she had published in America that had sold only a handful of copies in Britain.

Obozrevatel (Observer), an internet news site that does not even publish in English. Like Ms Ehrenfeld, the defendants did not appear in court and judgment was entered against them in default. Damages will be set in a compensation hearing later this year. Schillings declined to comment, but a statement on its website reads: “By seeking redress in the courts of England, Mr Akhmetov will ensure that there will be a fair legal process.”

In school, I was told that “the rule of law” was good for stability and good for economic growth. What exactly “the rule of law” was I was never completely sure of. Turns out there are essentially two definitions:

Thick definitions treat the rule of law as the core of a just society. In this version, the concept is inextricably linked to liberty and democracy. Its adherents say a country can be spoken of as being ruled by law only if the state’s power is constrained and if basic freedoms, such as those of speech and association, are guaranteed. …

Thin definitions are more formal. The important things, on this account, are not democracy and morality but property rights and the efficient administration of justice. Laws must provide stability. They do not necessarily have to be moral or promote human rights. America’s southern states in the Jim Crow era were governed by the rule of law on thin definitions, but not on thick.

Yes, and even if you knew that, I didn’t. What’s more interesting (or troubling) is that they still hang people. But this is what really raised my eyebrows:

In a country with a conviction rate of over 99%—and where even defence lawyers urge clients to plead guilty…

The Economist, like most Western observers, has some strong words about the election of Dmitry Medvedev earlier today.

The polling station, and the country, have been hijacked by security men who do not even pretend to follow the law. The location of this incident, a busy shopping area, was also symbolic. Overwhelmed by the cornucopia of foreign goods, Russian consumers have so far been distracted from the Kremlin’s shenanigans.

From the you-can’t-really-be-serious-about-trying-to-legislate-this category:

RICHMOND, Va. - Drive across Virginia with an outsized rubber replica of testicles dangling from your trailer hitch and you face a fine under a bill before the General Assembly. Delegate Lionel Spruill introduced the legislation Tuesday, saying the sight of masculine genitalia is a safety issue because it distracts drivers.

The Virginia legislature has some experience with offbeat bills. Three years ago, it attracted worldwide attention for its effort to outlaw baggy pants worn so low they expose underwear