Health Care Reform ruled "Unconstitutional"

This is sure to go all the way to the Supreme Court, so neither opponents or proponents should get too excited, but a Federal Judge has ruled the Health Care Reform Bill unconstitutional. The reason? The individual mandate which would require all Americans to buy Health Insurance.

“Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications.,” he wrote in his ruling...

The suit was filed by the state of Florida shortly after the reform law was signed in March. But since then, 25 additional states and the National Federation of Independent Business joined the case, making it the most high-profile and politically charged lawsuit against health reform.

The individual mandate was always the weakest part of Health Care Reform. Liberal legislators wanted it to avoid "free rides" or people not having health care due to their own actions. But the Constitution has always been harshest in its restrictions on the extension of Federal power over individuals. This is a good call.

That being said, I don't think it will be hard to come up with an amendment to the original bill which does pass Constitutional muster.

Court strikes down FCC ban on unscripted profanity

One things TV does NOT need more of, it is profanity. Slowly, networks have been allowing more profane images onto their screens and have been flirting with adding profane language as well in the service of "realism" or "gritty feel." During the George W Bush years, the FCC got very aggressive, especially after the so-called wardrobe malfunction. But now a 3 judge panel in NY has overturned FCC rules against profanity in "unscripted" events. This is likely to free to networks to allow any level of profanity at events like award shows.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals did not have the power to strike down the 1978 Supreme Court decision that affirmed the FCC's right to police the airwaves for objectionable content. But it reversed the aggressive stance the agency took starting in 2004 that found even a slip of the tongue that got by network censors was a violation subject to fines for the stations that aired it.

The court said that policy on so-called fleeting expletives was "unconstitutionally vague" and created a "chilling effect" on the programming that broadcasters chose to air. The court echoed complaints from network executives that the FCC's standards were nearly impossible to gauge, noting that the agency allowed the airing of the f-word and s-word in broadcasts of the World War II movie "Saving Private Ryan" but not in the PBS miniseries "The Blues."

What I want to know is what an "unscripted event" entails. Specifically, how does this ruling affect reality TV shows like SURVIVOR which technically are unscripted, but are all over the airwaves?

The Internet banned from Courtrooms?

The last time my brother was called for Jury Duty, he was surprised to learn that his iPhone would be confiscated at the courtroom door (though returned when he was done for the day). CT judges had banned all cellular devices with cameras from even jury duty waiting rooms. Now, it appears all states may take the same step for any device capable of browsing the internet. While absolutely logical, and in line with the long history of controlling the information juries can see/hear to ensure justice, this is sure to be a shock to the internet-addicted public.

Specifically, those instruction spell out that jurors should not you should not consult dictionaries or reference materials, search the internet, websites, blogs, or use any other electronic tools to obtain information either before the trial, during deliberations or after until the judge instructs otherwise.

The instructions state jurors must not use cell phones, e-mail, Blackberry, iPhone, text messaging, or on Twitter, or communicate through any blog or website, through any internet chat room, or by way of any other social networking websites, including Facebook, MySpace, LinkedIn, and YouTube.

It will be interesting seee how enforceable such a ban will be in the long term as our lives become more and more online. Will there be a new niche for "court-ready" devices which allow one to send and receive e-mail from spouses/children, but which edits out inappropriate details? Will there be a new "Courtroom Mode" on devices similar to the Airplane mode available today? Or will the salvation of the paper book be the fact that electronic books won't be permitted in courthouses?

Microsoft banned from selling Word!

The great Empire of Microsoft stands on two pillars: Windows Operating System and Microsoft Office. These are the two products which enable them to produce everything else - often at a loss. Some might argue that the XBox has become a third pillar, but most consoles are still sold at a loss.

Now, the Empire is threatened as a Texas judge has ordered Microsoft to stop selling Microsoft Word - an essential part of Microsoft Office - within 60 days over an alleged patent infringement in the handling of XML-based files. This is akin to Ford being banned from selling trucks or Sony from selling CDs and DVDs.

Most commentators believe Microsoft will be able to appeal and overturn the order before it becomes effective. But this may be the most direct threat to the software giant since the European anti-trust cases.

Should courts decide what is said in schools?

I know many people will say this is a case of "What's good for the goose is good for the gander." But I am disturbed by news of a court case where the courts are deciding exactly what it is appropriate for school teachers to say about the Creation/Evolution debate. In this case, a student took an teacher to court for calling creationism "religious, superstitious nonsense". And he won the case.

Now, I am one who has challenged the assumptions behind evolution from time to time. I have read a lot of Creation Science, and a lot of Evolutionary Science as well. So, I am sympathetic to anyone looking to get equal time. But the courts do not belong in discussions like this. It can only lead to bad things. With rare exceptions, these kind of issues should be handled locally. Do you really want the Supreme Court taking a position on scientific issues?