For the serious to be truly serious, there must be the serial, which is made up of elements, of results, of configurations, of homologies, of repetitions. What is serious for Lacan is the logic of the signifier, that is to say the opposite of a philosophy, inasmuch as every philosophy rests on the appropriateness, transparency, agreement, harmony of thought with itself. The unconscious means that thought is caused by the non-thought that one cannot recapture in the present, except by capturing it in its consequences.
Readers who are following the Lori Drew case know that back on July 2Judge Wu "tentatively" ruled that he was going to overturn the jury verdict. At the time, however, Judge Wu stressed that his decision was not final, and that he would eventually issue an opinion with his final ruling.
Late yesterday, Judge Wu finally handed down his opinion. You can read it here: Lori Drew, Final Opinion. Judge Wu did in fact grant the defense motion to dismiss, ending the prosecution against Drew and overturning her misdemeanor convictions.
To my surprise, it seems that Friday's final ruling in the case has been entirely ignored by the press; I couldn't find any reference to it on the web. The reasoning of the opinion is that whatever unauthorized access means, it cannot mean mere violation of Terms of Service without more.
Such a reading of the statute would render the statute unconstitutionally void for vagueness because it would give the government almost unlimited power to prosecute any Internet user and wouldn't give citizens sufficient notice as to what of their Internet conduct was criminal.
I'll probably have some more comments on the opinion soon, but for now I just wanted to post it so others could see it.
As you might guess, given all the pro bono efforts I put into this case, I am very pleased by the result. This was an extremely important test case for the scope of the computer crime statutes, with tremendously high stakes for the civil liberties of every Internet user.
I feel fortunate to have been able to argue the motion in Januaryand to have done what I could to bring about the correct result. Finally, I'm working on a draft article on the use of vagueness and overbreadth to challenge overly broad interpretations of 18 U.
I'll post the draft when I have something ready enough to share.Ball and argued that even though the oppression remedy and the derivative action may coexist, the similarity between the conclusions sought in these two actions attests to the bad faith of the.
Download-Theses Mercredi 10 juin Yet the Supreme Court's Ritchie decision took away the shareholder oppression claim, which was the primary legal protection for minority shareholders against minority shareholder oppression, leaving, as the Court admits, a "gap" in the law.
The problem with Attitude 2 is that once you dismiss what the patient has told you directly about his mental state, you have to deduce what his mental state actually is based on fairly slim evidence, when there are multiple choices, some of which are correct, and others wrong.
Abstract. One of the more important issues arising, under the statutory oppression remedy is whether the remedy embraces actions of a derivative character, in addition to those of a purely personal character. This web-friendly presentation of the original text of the Federalist Papers (also known as The Federalist) was obtained from the e-text archives of Project Gutenberg.