Nov 20
California commented on Teabaggers Turn On Palin.
Wake me up when they're mad about the content of her book instead of not getting her autograph.
Oct 24
California commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day.
@40: Can you point me to something that says that people in the U.S. are successfully devising their bodies to Body World? I don't see it in that link, but I'd like to read how it is being done.
The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act allows body donations to (1) a hospital, physician, surgeon, or procurement organization, for transplantation, therapy, medical or dental education, research, or advancement of medical or dental science; (2) an accredited medical or dental school, college, or university for education, research, advancement of medical or dental science; or (3) a designated individual for transplantation or therapy needed by that individual. A for-profit entertainment property (Body World) does not appear to qualify as a permissible donee under the UAGA, even if there is collateral educational value. And you confuse the legality of donating a body to Body World with the legality of exhibiting the bodies in the U.S.--those are very different issues, the latter of which I'm not addressing.
And, again, no court will enforce a will provision that calls for a crime to be committed (here, necrophilia). That's kinda obvious (i.e., not dubious), don't you think?
The tort of interference with a dead body creates a cause of action for the relatives of the deceased, who have a quasi-property right in the disposition of the body.
More...
The Uniform Anatomical Gift Act allows body donations to (1) a hospital, physician, surgeon, or procurement organization, for transplantation, therapy, medical or dental education, research, or advancement of medical or dental science; (2) an accredited medical or dental school, college, or university for education, research, advancement of medical or dental science; or (3) a designated individual for transplantation or therapy needed by that individual. A for-profit entertainment property (Body World) does not appear to qualify as a permissible donee under the UAGA, even if there is collateral educational value. And you confuse the legality of donating a body to Body World with the legality of exhibiting the bodies in the U.S.--those are very different issues, the latter of which I'm not addressing.
And, again, no court will enforce a will provision that calls for a crime to be committed (here, necrophilia). That's kinda obvious (i.e., not dubious), don't you think?
The tort of interference with a dead body creates a cause of action for the relatives of the deceased, who have a quasi-property right in the disposition of the body.
Oct 23
California commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day.
I wrote about something similar this past year, but it was in the context of art. And, Dan, you are right: There's no statutory exemption for necrophilia, quasi-consensual or not. Good guess.
In nearly all states there are, however, laws allowing you to leave your body to hospitals and universities for research and organ donation. But the policy supporting these laws is not grounded in an "it's-my-body-and-I'll-do-what-I-want-with-it/me" sentiment. So, yeah, this would be a criminal offense. Depending on the state, it may also trigger a civil action by Cancer Corpse's family, but those actions are limited.
While courts will enforce to a reasonable extent clear, unconventional wishes, as expressed in a will, for the disposal of someone's own body, no court will enforce such a wish if it is criminal (e.g., necrophilia).
In nearly all states there are, however, laws allowing you to leave your body to hospitals and universities for research and organ donation. But the policy supporting these laws is not grounded in an "it's-my-body-and-I'll-do-what-I-want-with-it/me" sentiment. So, yeah, this would be a criminal offense. Depending on the state, it may also trigger a civil action by Cancer Corpse's family, but those actions are limited.
While courts will enforce to a reasonable extent clear, unconventional wishes, as expressed in a will, for the disposal of someone's own body, no court will enforce such a wish if it is criminal (e.g., necrophilia).
Oct 6
California commented on Thom Yorke's New Band.
@12, that song closed last night's show. The arrangement is a bit different than the version from the 2002 Gorge show. The chorus is particularly distinct.
The show was great. Going in, I was a little concerned about Flea, but his playing was appropriate all night. Many of his parts were essentially bass leads, and it was not too busy. Oh, and @3, there wasn't a splash cymbal in sight--just driving, intricate, synocpated rhythms. Shit was good.
The show was great. Going in, I was a little concerned about Flea, but his playing was appropriate all night. Many of his parts were essentially bass leads, and it was not too busy. Oh, and @3, there wasn't a splash cymbal in sight--just driving, intricate, synocpated rhythms. Shit was good.
Oct 5
California commented on Thom Yorke's New Band.
@12, they did. I'm going to the Orpheum tonight, and I am excited to hear the tune.
Sep 18
California commented on New Video from Portugal the Man.
And did you know that their agent's name is Matt Hickey?
They were great at Outside Lands.
They were great at Outside Lands.
Sep 10
California commented on Judge Shields Names of R-71 Signers.
Political speech--participation in the political process--is our most protected type of speech. Our right to freedom of political speech is what's called a "fundamental right." That label carries magnificent significance in constitutional law. When a law infringes on a fundamental right, the law is almost always unconstitutional.
Anonymous political speech is just that--anonymous. The best example is the Federalist Papers (mentioned in the opinion), which is political speech written under a pseudonym.
These concepts are the result of decades of Supreme Court rulings.
Anonymous political speech is just that--anonymous. The best example is the Federalist Papers (mentioned in the opinion), which is political speech written under a pseudonym.
These concepts are the result of decades of Supreme Court rulings.
Sep 10
California commented on Judge Shields Names of R-71 Signers.
Lurleen,
There are three levels of injunctive relief. From shortest to longest in duration, they are temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions.
A TRO lasts for ten days and can be granted without notice to the party that is to be restrained from acting. Within that ten-day period, the court will hear arguments from both parties whether a preliminary injunction should issue.
A preliminary injunction stops the restrained party from acting until there's a trial on the merits of the plaintiff's claims. One of the things a plaintiff has to show to get a prelim is a likelihood of success on the merits of their underlying claim.
Here, that claim is a First Amendment challenge to the state law authorizing release of the names based on the argument that signing a referendum petition is protected anonymous political speech. A sub-issue is whether signing such a petition is a waiver of the fundamental right to anonymous political speech.
To satisfy this portion of the prelim injunction test, all this court had to do was find that there was better than a 50/50 chance that the plaintiffs will succeed on those claims at trial. So, the prelim is effective until those issues are resolved. If the plaintiffs win at that trial, they will get a permanent injunction, which will--you guessed it--permanently bar the release of the names under that state law.
Probably more than you wanted to know, but there's your crash course in injunctive relief.
More...
There are three levels of injunctive relief. From shortest to longest in duration, they are temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions.
A TRO lasts for ten days and can be granted without notice to the party that is to be restrained from acting. Within that ten-day period, the court will hear arguments from both parties whether a preliminary injunction should issue.
A preliminary injunction stops the restrained party from acting until there's a trial on the merits of the plaintiff's claims. One of the things a plaintiff has to show to get a prelim is a likelihood of success on the merits of their underlying claim.
Here, that claim is a First Amendment challenge to the state law authorizing release of the names based on the argument that signing a referendum petition is protected anonymous political speech. A sub-issue is whether signing such a petition is a waiver of the fundamental right to anonymous political speech.
To satisfy this portion of the prelim injunction test, all this court had to do was find that there was better than a 50/50 chance that the plaintiffs will succeed on those claims at trial. So, the prelim is effective until those issues are resolved. If the plaintiffs win at that trial, they will get a permanent injunction, which will--you guessed it--permanently bar the release of the names under that state law.
Probably more than you wanted to know, but there's your crash course in injunctive relief.
Sep 10
California commented on Territorial Pissing (on Kurt's Ashes).
So, she licensed Kurt's name and likeness to one of the most lucrative game properties there is and did such a marvelous job of looking out for the estate's (i.e., Francis') interests that the estate gets nothing?!?!? No royalties? No fee? Well played. Fire your attorney. Shit, fire yourself.
RSS
Facebook
Twitter