Justice John Paul Stevens, Dead At 99, Promoted the Internet Revolution (arstechnica.com) 90
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens passed away Tuesday evening of complications following a stroke he suffered on July 15. He was 99 years old. An anonymous Slashdot reader shares a lightly edited version of Ars Technica's 2010 story that originally marked his retirement from the Supreme Court: In April 2010, the Supreme Court's most senior justice, John Paul Stevens, announced his retirement. In the weeks that followed, hundreds of articles were written about his career and his legacy. While most articles focus on 'hot button' issues such as flag burning, terrorism, and affirmative action, Stevens' tech policy record has largely been ignored. When Justice Stevens joined the court, many of the technologies we now take for granted -- the PC, packet-switched networks, home video recording -- were in their infancy. During his 35-year tenure on the bench, Stevens penned decisions that laid the foundation for the tremendous innovations that followed in each of these areas.
For example, Stevens penned the 1978 decision that shielded the software industry from the patent system in its formative years. In 1984, Hollywood's effort to ban the VCR failed by just one Supreme Court vote; Stevens wrote the majority opinion. And in 1997, he wrote the majority opinion striking down the worst provisions of the Communications Decency Act and ensuring that the Internet would have robust First Amendment protections. Indeed, Justice Stevens probably deserves more credit than any other justice for the innovations that occurred under his watch. And given how central those technologies have become to the American economy, Stevens' tech policy work may prove one of his most enduring legacies. In this feature, we review Justice Stevens' tech policy decisions and salute the justice who helped make possible DRM-free media devices, uncensored Internet connections, free software, and much more. As the report mentions, Stevens was the Supreme Court's cryptographer. "Stevens attended the University of Chicago, graduating in 1941. On December 6 -- the day before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor -- Stevens enrolled in the Navy's correspondence course on cryptography."
"Stevens spent the war in a Navy bunker in Hawaii, doing traffic analysis in an effort to determine the location of Japanese ships," the report adds. "He was an English major, not a mathematician, but he proved to have a knack for cryptographic work."
For example, Stevens penned the 1978 decision that shielded the software industry from the patent system in its formative years. In 1984, Hollywood's effort to ban the VCR failed by just one Supreme Court vote; Stevens wrote the majority opinion. And in 1997, he wrote the majority opinion striking down the worst provisions of the Communications Decency Act and ensuring that the Internet would have robust First Amendment protections. Indeed, Justice Stevens probably deserves more credit than any other justice for the innovations that occurred under his watch. And given how central those technologies have become to the American economy, Stevens' tech policy work may prove one of his most enduring legacies. In this feature, we review Justice Stevens' tech policy decisions and salute the justice who helped make possible DRM-free media devices, uncensored Internet connections, free software, and much more. As the report mentions, Stevens was the Supreme Court's cryptographer. "Stevens attended the University of Chicago, graduating in 1941. On December 6 -- the day before the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor -- Stevens enrolled in the Navy's correspondence course on cryptography."
"Stevens spent the war in a Navy bunker in Hawaii, doing traffic analysis in an effort to determine the location of Japanese ships," the report adds. "He was an English major, not a mathematician, but he proved to have a knack for cryptographic work."
Re: (Score:2)
Boomers or bust. (Score:2)
The pre-Boomers are giving way to the boomers who in turn are doing their best to ruin their parents legacies.
Not all of us.
But different factions would point to different subsets as the ones who are. B-)
Article makes him sound like a bad judge (Score:5, Insightful)
I know this article is intended as praise but, from where I am standing, it makes him sound like a terrible judge who ignored his responsibility to be impartial and pursued his own policy to promote technology. Judges are not supposed to have policies other than the impartial application of the law and if their decisions result in helping technology then it is the legislature that passed the laws that the judge is applying that should get the credit.
It would be interesting to know how US judges see themselves. Is this "crusader" role something that the US media has dreamed up or do US judges really see their job as reinterpreting and reinventing the law as they see fit rather than following the intent of the legislature?
Re:Article makes him sound like a bad judge (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you read the article?
".....A consistent theme of Justice Stevens' technology policy work is that it's up to Congress, not the courts, to extend the law to new technologies. He argued that the courts shouldn't expand patent protection to software unless Congress explicitly authorizes such an extension. And he made a similar argument about copyright law in what was arguably the most important tech policy decision of the 20th century, Sony v. Universal...."
Re: (Score:2)
".....A consistent theme of Justice Stevens' technology policy work is that it's up to Congress, not the courts, to extend the law to new technologies."
That sounds like a good idea, until it's not. For example the 4th amendment says "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" but for example phone calls and email are none of the above. Does that mean they're up for grabs? I'm aware of scope creep, but it seems to be that the law should generally extend to new ways of doing the same things. Even though that would make judges the arbitrators of what is actually "the same" and not.
Re: (Score:2)
At one point in the early 20th century, the Supreme Court did rule that phone calls were up for grabs. To quote Taft, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, Justice Stevens probably deserves more credit than any other justice for the innovations that occurred under his watch.
Giving him credit implies that he deliberately made decisions to boost innovation rather than impartially apply the law. If true this would make him a bad judge however much we might agree with the bias. However, I think you have probably partly answered the question I asked at the end: at least in this case, the crusader role is a fiction invented by the media which this judge tried to avoid.
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure what you are talking about. The article specifically mentions he did not vote based on strict ideological lines.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice sentiment, no basis in reality. If judges had to rely upon Congress closing every loophole, legislation would back up in Congress and in the court system. Your are forgetting the ingenuity of lawyers in finding nits to pick in every law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Godels incompleteness theorm says you are wrong. You can never build the laws so well that they dont have contradictions or loopholes
I said reduce, not eliminate, loopholes. Well written laws will reduce the number of problems to a manageable level where a legislature can keep up with making the necessary fixes (although there will always be disagreements about what needs fixing!). This is how most countries operate.
Re:Article makes him sound like a bad judge (Score:4, Interesting)
First, what you label as crusading others label as judicial philosophy. Second, where is this "supposed" role specified? Because it's certainly not consistent with a common law tradition, which is the system that the U.S. adopted and maintains. U.S. copyright law specifies but does not define fair use. U.S. judges are charged to determine which activities qualify as fair use. Advancing a cause such as video recording technology using the discretion and tools expressly provided to them, and where a legislature sitting generations ago could not have "intended" any particular outcome, is hardly "crusading."
Many conservatives disagree with you [wikipedia.org]. Legislative intent is irrelevant. They believe that rule of law is the rule of the law as written, not the rule of men who could not craft text to actually say what they intended, then convince their peers to vote for that text.
Judges are "supposed" to function in may ways, no one of which trumps all others, and none of which you and you alone are privileged to define.
Re: (Score:2)
BUT IF HE DOESN'T JUDGE THE JUDGES THEN WHO WILL BE LEFT TO THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!??!
Re: (Score:2)
Second, where is this "supposed" role specified? Because it's certainly not consistent with a common law tradition, which is the system that the U.S. adopted and maintains.
In the UK it is specified in the UK rules on judicial conduct [judiciary.uk] and in the oath judges take which requires them to be responsible to the law and not their own personal agenda. This is the common law system which the US supposedly adopted. Specifically, judges are prohibited from any sort of political activity or appearance of political ties (page 12). In the US they can stand for election tied to a political party.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, "in the UK" was the first stop sign that you blew past.
Next, "in the UK rules on judicial conduct" and "[t]his is the common law system which the US supposedly adopted," was the second one, because those rules were promulgated well after the U.S. adopted a
Re: (Score:2)
I forget, was the topic whether a U.S. Supreme Court justice was a good judge within the context of the U.S. court system, or whether a modern code of conduct for U.K. judges said several things that yes, I didn't feel necessary to dispute.
I did dispute something he said. That any of that material was relevant to an analysis of Justice Stevens' performance of his role.
Y
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, "in the UK" was the first stop sign that you blew past.
Let's review a few facts you seem to have missed. I started my original post with: "I think this article beautifully sums up why so many non-Americans find the US justice system very troubling.". This clearly indicates I am looking at it from a non-US perspective and that, outside the US, this article makes him look like an extremely bad judge.
Then you said: "it's certainly not consistent with a common law tradition, which is the system that the U.S. adopted and maintains.". The common law tradition is
Re: (Score:2)
As I already pointed out to you, that is subject [tandfonline.com] to [springer.com] debate [judicialpo...ect.org.uk].
Re: (Score:2)
They have to "be free to come up with their own interpretation," yet only the interpretation that the legislature intended
I am frankly amazed that you are struggling with this. The intent of the legislature is not always clear and/or does not always apply easily to a given situation. This is why we have judges: to take the intent of the law (and hence the intent of the legislature who passed it) and apply it to a particular case in a way that is consistent with that intent and precedent.
Judges are not free to interpret the law in a way that is openly biased towards their own political beliefs, they have to follow precedent
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not at all amazed at your amazement. You keep selectively editing what I say and avoiding answers to the questions that I've posed.
Re: (Score:2)
Yet precedent and the intent of the legislature do not specify outcomes in every particular circumstance.
Yes, that's why we need judges. However, that still does not mean that judges are free to ignore either when making their decisions as you keep saying.
That decision was at the heart of your characterization of Stevens appearing to be a "bad judge." Answer it.
Really? Was it? When did you develop this delusional belief that you could read minds? Since I'd never heard of it I think it is pretty safe to say that it wasn't any part of any "characterization". In fact, even the "characterization" part is delusional since I never said Stevens was a bad judge, only that the article made him appear so to a non-american.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's neither what I said nor what I wrote.
Yes. It was. I didn't. It was in the summary, which you were responding to, and the article, which you admit to reading.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, the article didn't say that.
The article implied, by giving him credit for promoting the US' IT sector, that his decisions were deliberated designed to do that. That characterizes him as a bad judge all I did was point that out. Indeed, your vehement defence of the article, as if it's fine for judges to promote US IT interests, frankly shows why so many non-americans find the US justice system rather appalling.
Re: (Score:2)
It did nothing of the sort. In fact, even the "implication" part is delusional since it never suggested that Stevens was a bad judge. So it was the you doing the characterization, not the article.
Re: (Score:2)
While I realize interpreting the law is highly subjective it is somewhat like a
Re: (Score:2)
It's fun that you've created this rule for yourself, but the rest of us reserve th
Re: (Score:2)
It's fun that you've created this rule for yourself...
Oh but I haven't. The US is the only place I have ever heard judges getting credit for outcomes so clearly this rule seems to work for those of us outside the US. It's a bit sad that you think that judges having to follow the law is a "science fiction trope" but at this point, I think it is very clear that you are either just trolling or are smoking something that is likely to get you up in front of a judge.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, but you really have. Please, identify any third party espousing this rule.
An evidence free assertion if I've ever seen one. And again, stop slandering others by attributing your deeply flawed beliefs to them. There is no "rest of us" that includes you.
Re: (Score:2)
And again, stop slandering others
Well, if you don't know the difference between slander and libel you really don't know much about the law do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Weak. In addition to being a colloquially proper use of the verb [lexico.com], as opposed to a legal cause of action, you haven't identified any particular person who concurs with your inanity. I know enough about the law to know that you cannot libel large groups [dmlp.org].
But you have fun doing everything possible to avoid answering my question concerning Congressional intent concerning time-shifting. You really c
Re: (Score:2)
They are as "bad" as in the U.S. [lexology.com] if you apply your afactual criteria.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interpretation (Score:1)
Judges interpret and apply existing law, which is important.
For example, I had a co-worker who had a big chunk of property. A culvert owned by the county got blocked by debris one spring, flooding the back portion of his land. He asked the county to clear the culvert, but an official said his property is now considered a wetland, and by law you cannot drain wetlands without going through a lengthy regulatory appeal process. He took it to court and, though *factually* his property is now a wetland, the judge
Re: (Score:3)
Something similar happened in Half Moon Bay, California. The city botched a drainage project and flooded a 24 acre parcel. They didn't drain it, and the area was colonized by birds and other wetland species. When the property owner sued, the city claimed that it was now a wetland and could not be drained or developed. So the property owner sued again for the loss of his property value, and won a $36M judgement that bankrupted the city, and forced them to impose budget cuts and across the board property
"Balls and strikes" isn't a thing (Score:2)
You think the job of a judge is to read and apply the law. The thing is, at the SC level (and actually at lower appeals court levels) that's not a thing. The only reason the SC takes a case is if the laws are murky and to clarify them. There are contradictory laws, especially where new laws clash with the constitution. There are unclear laws. Then there are laws that are being applied to a new situations.
That's because a lot of laws are fairly limited in text. Suppose there is a clause in an anti-gery
Re: (Score:2)
Keep going on, we're enjoying your complete lack of understanding what a judge does.
He was part of the legendary team that saved us. (Score:2)
He was part of Cmdr. Rochefort and his legendary HYPO team that give us our miracle at Midway. That guy recognized that technology was to be a driving part of our lives to come, and helped mold and shape the laws that govern it today.
Please take that back (Score:2)
It was never meant to be racist and I frown upon that, being someone who sees everyone as equal to each other, no matter what gender, race, or religion.
But personalities and attitudes I take exception to.
So take it back, please.
Re: (Score:2)
Not racist at all. I simply discriminate against opportunistic thieves and scammers. It may sound indiscriminate, but this case with their own country's government in shambles, unable to enforce their own laws for a variety of reasons, including corruption and embezzlement, isolating them from the rest of the world to inspire their country to take action is a logical step.
But If you wish to label me, it's safe to say you could say I am an "equal opportunity asshole".
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, when they say he was vehemently anti-Second Amendment what they mean to say is he probably just interpreted the law as written.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A lot of people like to gloss over that "Well regulated Militia" part. It says it right there, in the constitution : "Well regulated Militia"
Is Jim-bob from Alabama with 32 guns, not in a gun safe a "Well regulated Militia"?
I submi
VCRs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And unlike VCRs there are no constitutional language that prohibits the infringement of the RKBA
Scary, huh.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'd find they all support restricting bearing firearms in various circumstances. Try carrying a gun in a government run airport. Try buying a gun if you have a non-firearm related criminal convictio. Try going into the Supreme Courts building with weapons, or most government buildings.
The 2nd clearly says the right will not be infringed and doesn't mention any exceptions excepting perhaps arms that aren't suitable for a militia
ROT in peace! (Score:2)