Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

Winning Plaintiffs & attorney in CA Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage decision. Rev. Troy Perry & husband Phillip Ray De Blieck, Robin Tyler & Diane Olson and their attorney Gloria Allred holding Baby Milo Reifsnyder-Smith, son of 2 gay dads

A split (4-3 decision) California Supreme Court this morning overturned the ban on Gay Marriage that California voters approved by a 61% majority in 2000 in the California Defense of Marriage Act.

The California Supreme Court ruled today that same-sex couples should be permitted to marry, rejecting state marriage laws as discriminatory.

The state high court’s 4-3 ruling was unlikely to end the debate over gay matrimony in California. A group has circulated petitions for a November ballot initiative that would amend the state Constitution to block same-sex marriage, while the Legislature has twice passed bills to authorize gay marriage. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed both.

The issue may be settled to the glee of California homosexual rights organizations today but 27 states have constitutional bans on the practice. And, this fall, California voters may be asked again to weigh into the fray with the California Initiative and Consitutional Amendment 07-0098, should it qualify for the ballot.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has already stated he will not support the initiative. But, the Evangelical Right, conservative organizations and other churches will view this as a direct assault against marriage and the family.

Stay tuned for a heated campaign that may very well decide the Presidency by driving turnout of Christian RIGHT voters.

Carol A. Corrigan, left, smiles while being sworn in by Supreme Court of California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, right, as an associate justice to the Supreme Court of California in San Francisco, Wednesday Jan. 4, 2006. Corrigan was selected by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to succeed Janice Rogers Brown, the seven-member court’s most conservative judge, and only black member. Brown resigned June 30 after the U.S. Senate confirmed her to a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia.

CNET News: Calif. court ruling seeks to protect bloggers, Web publishers

In a victory for bloggers, newsgroup participants and other Web publishers, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday that individual Internet users cannot be held liable for republishing defamatory statements written by others.

The unanimous ruling appears to be the first to make clear that a 1996 law called the Communications Decency Act protects not only providers, but also users of online services who redistribute content. Earlier court rulings had established that Section 230 of that statute shields companies such as AOL and eBay from such liability, provided that they make good faith efforts to restrict access to material that could be considered “obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable.”

By passing that law, Congress “has comprehensively immunized republication by individual Internet users,” intending “to protect online freedom of expression and to encourage self-regulation,” the justices concluded in their majority opinion (click for PDF) penned by Associate Justice Carol Corrigan.

Another victory for freedom of expression and open access to information in the internet age..

Flap is glad he made the RIGHT choice and voted earlier this month to confirm Justice Corrigan (heh, it was a unanimous opinion).

The justices acknowledged that “recognizing broad immunity for defamatory republications on the Internet has some troubling consequences.” But unless Congress revises the law, anyone who claims to be defamed by an Internet posting may seek damages only from the “original source of the statement,” they wrote.

Indeed and as it should be unless publishers conspire with the originators of libelous content.

Volokh has more here.

A long line of cases had already held that when a user posts material on a site, the operator of the site (or of the computer), can’t be held liable, even when it’s notified of the potentially tortious nature of the activity. Thus, for instance, we wouldn’t be liable for libels posted in our comments. But this case, as well as Batzel and some others, apply this principle even to immunize those who actively repost material, rather than just serve as passive conduits for what others post. This means that if a commenter posts excerpts from others’ work, even the commentator himself would be categorically immune from liability for the contents of those excerpts, at least unless he’s “active[ly] involve[d] in the creation of [the] posting,” or unless he’s conspiring with the original author.

Note that when I say “immune from liability” or “can’t be held liable,” this is shorthand for “immune from liability except under intellectual property law, communications privacy law, or federal criminal law,” see 47 U.S.C. § 230(e)(1).

Update:

Justin Levine has more here.

Wizbang does as well.

But, Michelle Malkin dissents:

But aren’t bloggers the ones arguing that we should be treated like MSM journalists? Isn’t that what the Apple vs. bloggers case was all about? Remember? Seems to me that some bloggers want to enjoy the benefits of MSM status (fighting for the same coverage as traditional journalists under shield laws, as in the Apple case), but avoid the consequences (getting sued if they re-publish defamatory material online).

Strictly speaking, Barrett v. Rosenthal applies only to those who re-publish defamatory statements. It does not apply to the author of the original defamatory post. Anyone who wants to immunize himself from liability, however, can easily bypass that limitation by posting the original defamatory statement anonymously (for example, from a public library or Kinko’s or by using an anonymizer such as Torpark) then re-publishing it under his or her own name. Those savvy enough to game the system in this way will be able to libel their enemies with impunity.

As one commenter at Volokh points out, “This [ruling] is not a victory for free speech, which was already protected; it is a victory for the perpetrators of libel and slander.”

Stay tuned ……

California has indefinitely postponed Tuesday’s planned execution of convicted killer Michael Morales

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa listens to a question about President Bush’s immigration policies, as he comments on Bush’s State of the Union address Tuesday, Jan. 31, 2006, outside the mayor’s official residence, the Getty House, in Los Angeles. Villaraigosa, in a nationally televised Spanish-language speech, faulted the White House Tuesday for policies he said pushed more Americans into poverty and failed to address a crisis in education.

ASSociated Press: L.A. Mayor Blindsided by Bush Announcement

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said Thursday he was blindsided by President Bush’s announcement of new details on a purported 2002 hijacking plot aimed at a downtown skyscraper, and described communication with the White House as “nonexistent.”

“I’m amazed that the president would make this (announcement) on national TV and not inform us of these details through the appropriate channels,” the mayor told The Associated Press. “I don’t expect a call from the president — but somebody.”

“I go to work every day knowing that we are a target,” Villaraigosa said.

The mayor said homeland security needs better funding, including for the protection of high-risk targets in Los Angeles. He said some funding could be redirected from the war in Iraq, but he did not advocate an immediate withdrawal of troops.

Mayor AV is whining……after your partisan comments on the President’s State of the Union address what do you expect?

RESPECT?

No way……..

Mayor AV you can do better……..

Technorati Tags: MayorAntonioVillaraigosa, GlobalWaronTerror, PresidentGeorgeWBush, AlQaeda, Terrorism, LosAngeles

Carol A. Corrigan, left, smiles while being sworn in by Supreme Court of California Chief Justice Ronald M. George, right, as an associate justice to the Supreme Court of California in San Francisco, Wednesday Jan. 4, 2006. Corrigan was selected by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to succeed Janice Rogers Brown, the seven-member court’s most conservative judge, and only black member. Brown resigned June 30 after the U.S. Senate confirmed her to a federal appeals court in the District of Columbia.

San Francisco Chronicle: Corrigan sworn in to California Supreme Court

Appellate Judge Carol A. Corrigan, a former prosecutor, was sworn in Wednesday to the California Supreme Court after being confirmed to replace the most conservative justice on the state’s highest court.

Corrigan, 57, who until her confirmation was on the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, is a former trial judge and Alameda County prosecutor and was elevated to the appeals court in 1994 by former Republican Gov. Pete Wilson after changing her voter registration from Democrat to Republican.

Immediately after her confirmation, she told reporters she was a “centrist,” that she could not discuss upcoming cases and said judges “do not own the law.”

“Generally, Americans think everybody should be equal before the law,” she said, noting she changed her party affiliation to Republican because it was a more “accurate” designation of her political beliefs.

Congratulations to Justice Corrigan.

By the way, she stands for confirmation by California voters in November.

Previous:

California Supreme Court Watch: Judge Corrigan Rated “Well Qualified”

California Supreme Court Watch: Schwarzenegger Names Carol A. Corrigan to High Court

Technorati Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carol Corrigan, California Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown, Ronald George, Bill Lockyer, Joan Dempsey Klein, Commission on Judicial Appointments

The ASSociated Press has Judicial vetters hang high rating on court hopeful

A judicial vetting committee of the State Bar is ranking California Supreme Court nominee Justice Carol A. Corrigan with the second-highest rating the panel offers, according to documents released yesterday.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated Corrigan, a San Francisco appeals court justice, to the state’s highest court Dec. 9 to fill the vacancy on the seven-member court created when Justice Janice Rogers Brown resigned to fill a federal judicial post in the District of Columbia.

The Commission on Judicial Nominees Evaluation, which consists largely of attorneys in various practices, told Schwarzenegger that, after reviewing her extensive record as an Alameda County prosecutor, trial judge and appellate judge, that she was “well qualified” for the Supreme Court post. The highest ranking is “exceptionally well qualified.”

“Justice Corrigan is brilliant, decisive, articulate, courteous, compassionate, collegial and (a) scholarly bench officer with a solid grasp of varied and complex criminal and civil law issues,” wrote commission chairman Todd Irby.

Judge Corrigan has impressive credentials:

Judicial and Professional Positions: Associate Justice, 1994 – Present (Appointed 1994; confirmed by voters, 1994). Judge, Alameda County Superior Court 1991-1994 (Appointed 1991; elected by voters. 1992). Judge, Oakland, Emeryville Piedmont Judicial District 1987-1991 (Appointed, 1987; elected by voters, 1988). Senior Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County 1985-1987; Deputy District Attorney, same county, 1975-1985.

Professional Activities: California Judicial Council, 1997-present. Judicial Council Task Force on Jury Instructions, 1997-present (Chair). Commission on Future of California’s Courts 1991-1994. Center for Judicial Education & Research, Governing Board, 1994-1997. President’s Commission on Organized Crime, 1983-1986. Special Consultant, President’s Task Force on Victims of Violent Crime, 1982. Adjunct Professor of Law: U.C. Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1984-1987, 1990-1994; U.C. Hastings College of Law, 1981-1987, 1989; University of San Francisco School of Law, 1988-1990; University of Puget Sound School of Law, 1981. Faculty: California Judicial College, 1988-present; Continuing Judicial Studies Programs, 1989-present; National Institute of Trial Advocacy, 1981-present (Distinguished Faculty Award, 1997).

Community Involvement: Board of Directors: Holy Names College 1988-present (Chair, 1990-present); Saint Vincent’s Day Home, 1982-present (Chair, 1991-present); Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay, 1985-1989.

Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Holy Names College, 1970 (Student Body President, Founder’s Medal). J.D., Univ. of California, Hastings College of the Law, 1975 (Law Journal, Note and Comment Editor). Doctoral program, Clinical Psychology, Saint Louis University, 1970-1972.

Personal: Born: August 16, 1948, Stockton, California.

Her nomination will be considered Wednesday by the state Commission on Judicial Appointments, consisting of Chief Justice Ronald George, Attorney General Bill Lockyer and the state’s senior presiding appellate justice, Joan Dempsey Klein of Los Angeles. If confirmed, Corrigan would join the court for arguments the following week.

Governor Schwarzenegger has made a solid choice for the California Supreme Court. Corrigan is a moderate but NOT an activist/ideologue and sometimes that is what you want on the bench.

Previous:

California Supreme Court Watch: Schwarzenegger Names Carol A. Corrigan to High Court

Technorati Tags: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Carol Corrigan, California Supreme Court, Janice Rogers Brown, Ronald George, Bill Lockyer, Joan Dempsey Klein, Commission on Judicial Appointments

State appeals court judge Carol Corrigan smiles in her San Francisco office Sept. 15, 2005. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated Corrigan to the California Supreme Court on Friday, Dec. 9, 2005, deciding on a moderate Republican and former prosecutor to fill the post of conservative jurist Janice Rogers Brown. Corrigan, 57, an associate justice on the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, succeeds Brown, who resigned in June after the U.S. Senate confirmed her to the federal appeals court in Washington.

The ASSociated Press has Schwarzenegger names San Francisco appellate judge to high court

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger nominated San Francisco appellate judge Carol Corrigan to the California Supreme Court on Friday, deciding on a moderate Republican and former prosecutor to fill the post of conservative jurist Janice Rogers Brown.

“This is the best of the best that we have in the state,” Schwarzenegger said during a Capitol news conference called to introduce her.

Corrigan, 57, an associate justice on the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco, succeeds Brown, who resigned in June after the U.S. Senate confirmed her to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.

Brown was the only black on the seven-member court, prompting speculation that Schwarzenegger would name another black to maintain the court’s ethnic balance. He also was said to have closely considered Vance Raye, a black Republican sitting on the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento. Corrigan is white.

Schwarzenegger said his only concern in naming a successor was finding the most qualified person and making a decision that “was best for California.” He praised Corrigan as being someone of “unimpeachable character.”

Judge Corrigan has impressive credentials:

Judicial and Professional Positions: Associate Justice, 1994 – Present (Appointed 1994; confirmed by voters, 1994). Judge, Alameda County Superior Court 1991-1994 (Appointed 1991; elected by voters. 1992). Judge, Oakland, Emeryville Piedmont Judicial District 1987-1991 (Appointed, 1987; elected by voters, 1988). Senior Deputy District Attorney, Alameda County 1985-1987; Deputy District Attorney, same county, 1975-1985.

Professional Activities: California Judicial Council, 1997-present. Judicial Council Task Force on Jury Instructions, 1997-present (Chair). Commission on Future of California’s Courts 1991-1994. Center for Judicial Education & Research, Governing Board, 1994-1997. President’s Commission on Organized Crime, 1983-1986. Special Consultant, President’s Task Force on Victims of Violent Crime, 1982. Adjunct Professor of Law: U.C. Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law, 1984-1987, 1990-1994; U.C. Hastings College of Law, 1981-1987, 1989; University of San Francisco School of Law, 1988-1990; University of Puget Sound School of Law, 1981. Faculty: California Judicial College, 1988-present; Continuing Judicial Studies Programs, 1989-present; National Institute of Trial Advocacy, 1981-present (Distinguished Faculty Award, 1997).

Community Involvement: Board of Directors: Holy Names College 1988-present (Chair, 1990-present); Saint Vincent’s Day Home, 1982-present (Chair, 1991-present); Goodwill Industries of the Greater East Bay, 1985-1989.

Education: B.A., magna cum laude, Holy Names College, 1970 (Student Body President, Founder’s Medal). J.D., Univ. of California, Hastings College of the Law, 1975 (Law Journal, Note and Comment Editor). Doctoral program, Clinical Psychology, Saint Louis University, 1970-1972.

Personal: Born: August 16, 1948, Stockton, California.

Corrigan spoke briefly, saying the cornerstone of her judicial philosophy is that “the law doesn’t belong to judges, it belongs to people.”

At the news conference Friday, she said her nomination was a tremendous honor and thanked Schwarzenegger for the consideration.

“I will do my very best to live up that expression of your confidence,” she said.

Notable opinions:

People v. Ray, 64 Cal.App.4th 868,

Vorse v. Sarasy, 53 Cal.App.4th 998,

Rivero v. Superior Court, 54 Cal.App.4th 1048

Flap handicaps an easy confirmation for Judge Corrigan.

This is a “SAFE” Republican pick for the Governor.

Stay tuned……..

Please Vote for FullosseousFlap at the 2005 Weblog Awards.