(continued from previous page)
legislature, to the likely peril of judges, bailiffs and ordinary citizens called upon to do their civic duty." (Brown is the same Bush nominee who's embroiled in the current Senate confirmation flap.)
Other examples of judges using search engines in dubious ways:
• Linda LeBoon sued the Lancaster Jewish Community Center claiming she was fired from her bookkeeping job because she was an evangelical Christian. (The center said it was to save money.) The judge dismissed her case in part because of the results of his own Google search on religious community centers.
• An Ohio judge who ordered a mother not to smoke near her 8-year-old daughter cited medical journals and a Google search that lists 60,000-plus links for "secondhand smoke" and 30,000-plus links for "secondhand smoke children."
• Leon Carmichael set up a Web site to discuss drug-related charges brought against him by federal prosecutors. The judge thought Carmichael's site was not entirely legitimate--Drug Enforcement Administration agents tried to shut it down--because it didn't rank high in Google searches. "This means that it is less likely that a person previously unknown to Carmichael with information about his case will see the site," U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson wrote.
Such searches can be problematic. If a judge taps into search engines from his chambers and finds results that favor one party in a lawsuit, the other attorney can't offer a rebuttal. And it's hardly clear how the total number of hits for "secondhand smoke" or "community center" should be interpreted.
Contrary to Thompson's opinion, a Web site that's invisible through searches may still be influential if its address is passed around through word of mouth. And what if a Web site is dropped by Google for engaging in dubious optimization techniques, or if its owner has intentionally blocked search engines from visiting it? Few judges will know to check for a robots.txt file.
That's why Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence says trial judges may take notice of public information only when they "resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
We'll never know if DeLay was thinking through the courts-and-Net topic at this level of detail, or whether it was simply another front in the ongoing partisan spat over judicial activism and confirmations.
Democrats were quick to paint DeLay's remarks as falling into the second category. "Has the Internet become the Devil's workshop?" said Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois. "Is it some infernal machine now that needs to be avoided by all right-thinking Americans?"
Of course not. But while DeLay may not have been very careful in how he said it, right-thinking Democrats should admit that his half-baked remarks may have half a point.
Biography
Declan McCullagh is CNET News.com's chief political correspondent. He spent more than a decade in Washington, D.C., chronicling the busy intersection between technology and politics. Previously, he was the Washington bureau chief for Wired News, and a reporter for Time.com, Time magazine and HotWired. McCullagh has taught journalism at American University and been an adjunct professor at Case Western University.
See more CNET content tagged:
belt, evidence, Google Inc.
disinformation (in this case, a political lie) over and over without
actually checking the facts.
I'm referring to the "throw away" line in this article ... "Al Gore's
apparently serious claim to have "created" the Internet".
This is a political lie born in the days of George W.'s first run for
the presidency. The fact of the matter is that Al Gore never said
this, never meant this and that this lie began as a politcal
strategy on the part of the Republican party and George W. to
discredit Al Gore. To Declan's credit, he at least linked to the
original article here, which I followed to get the following
ACTUAL STATEMENT by Al Gore. Here it is:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."
Now, if you are really, really, really stupid and illiterate (which
apparently the Republican party is, conveniently in this case) you
could read this as Al Gore saying he created the internet. Mind
you, this isn't what he said. He said he "took the initiative in
creating the internet" and, if you were a competent journalist
and researched this statement, you would find that Al Gore was
a key proponent in Congress of the ArpaNet funding... which
ArpaNet eventually became the internet. No, Al Gore didn't
"create the internet" nor has he ever said he did, he simply said
he "took the initiative in creating it".
Shame on Al Gore on not making sure that this lie got killed at
its origin but shame on "journalists" perpetuating this lie over
and over and over.
Sick and tired of being lied to and misled
Thanks for your response. I quoted accurately from the original CNN transcript and linked to the transcript.
I think the problem you have in trying to defend Al Gore's remarks is a difficult one.
Politicians can create laws, taxes, and regulations and they can fund technology. They can't, as a general rule, create technology.
I'm happy they're moving to a blog format, because that's really what CNet has been for some time...unresearched opinion.
ignorantly commenting on a phony house bill you find in fact
this is not what happened at all. The linked articel which
apparently the dork commentator did not himself read simply
says she was asked on a show to respond to a call in question
about a a house bill to tax e-mailat 5 cents each to fund the
post office. She replied she did not know about it but "based on
the information being supplied" in the question she would be
inclined to oppose it. read it your self. this commentator is an
idiot
search engine for background information. Because such an
activity offers no rebuttal opportunity for an opposing lawyer.
So perhaps, they should never read books, magazines,
newspapers? Never look at an encylopedia? Never watch
television? Read only briefs?
Aren't those the logical extensions of his absurd viewpoint?
However, it is not appropriate for a judge to do independent personal research on matters of fact that are before the judge. The judge is expected to rule on factual matters that are admitted into evidence, and are subject to cross-examination and rebuttal from opposing counsel. That's why a judge will decide a case based on testimony from experts explaining what a video showed, cross-examined by opponents who will show the entire video. Politicians, on the other hand, will have a portion of the video shown to them, by one side of the dispute, and determine that the stupid judge got it all wrong.
You're right. Judges shouldn't read books, magazines and newspapers -- if that book, magazine, or newspaper happens to be about the people and facts at hand in the case they're supposed to rule on.
There's a reason why the rules of evidence exist. The Internet is just one new way to bypass those rules. I'm not saying it's terribly alarming right now but it's something we should pay attention to.
having initiated the creation of the internet should somehow be
lumped in with Hillary falling for an email hoax and DeLay
freaking out about online research.
I know you are aware that Gore sponsored and fought for many
programs that funded ARPA/DARPA among others with a clear
purpose of developing what eventually came to be known as the
internet.
Without Gore's work, we would probably not be having this
discussion today, but more likely sometime in the future, if at
all. Technology development is often a happy accident of the
right people meeting the right resources at the right time.
Technically, I guess his apparent lack of ethical behavior will pass
legal scrutiny, by maybe a hair or two, but it will pass. And his
crocodile teaared attempt to hijack the Terri Schiavo case for
political leverage may be legal, no matter how stupid. I'm just very
glad that Delay doesn't represent me in Congress.
On the other hand, if he did, then I could help in voting this
overwhelming example of political greed out of office.
Folks need to remember that there is no such thing as burden of proof or peer review on the internet. Any whack job is free to post whatever he likes in his personal web space.
As for Al creating the internet, it was his free choice to use the word "create". He could jsut as easily said "fund the reasearch of". Get off it and get on with life.
Let's at least put to rest the DeLay diatribe. On the point of international law, the US government upon signing a treaty makes itself bound as a point of law to honor its terms. The xenophobic Bush administration has failed to honor the terms of a number of binding treaties, such as the Geneva Convention (handling and processing of prisoners), the UN Charter (forbidding the use of war without permission of the General Assembly), and treaties governing the rights of foreign citizens in US custody (Bushes' state of Texas has been allowed to execute numerous foreign citizens without allowing them to speak with their embassy staff during their legal proceedings). Whether right-wing xenophobes like it or not, the US is intricately bound into the system of international law BECAUSE GENERATIONS OF OUR PRESIDENTS AND CONGRESS HAVE AGREED THAT IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE COUNTRY TO MAKE LEGALLY BINDING AGREEMENTS ON YOUR BEHALF TO DO SO. What's more, the American legal system did not spring up in the virgin forests of the new world; our legal system is a version of the legal systems of Europe, particularly Britain, so examining their approaches to a problem is a valid concept.
As for a Supreme Court Justice using an internet search engine, De Lay is obviously unaware that it's impossible to do legal or any other kind of research in this decade without going to the internet. No university grads, undergrads, faculty, librarians, Fellows, Lecturers, etc. in America are considered competent in the current generation if they don't make use of internet resources, so a Supreme Court Justice who uses the Web is to be commended and encouraged (not impeached).
What's shameful here is that so many judges in Declan's example indulge the hypocrisy of bringing all resources to bear on their understanding of a case while trying to keep citizen jurors sequestered and stupid...
2. You shouldn't ban 21st Century technology and the knowledge gained from it, just because it pertains to our Judicial System. Lawyer's use the Net, why can't Judges?
3. Judges need to base there decision's soley on the information received. As you in the Law field know, information can be left out, tainted, or otherwise not known at all. Judges using the Net only create's an even "playing field".
I'm otta here, Go buy a Mac!
I'm sure he's much happier with Justice Scalia, who basing his judicial opinions on his particular religious faith, his particular conception of morality, and his selective view of what is "traditional" in this country in preference to what is found in the Constitution.
the second coming was due any day now, there was no point in
trying to conserve any natural resources. He made some really
asinine decisions based upon that premise.
And everywhere you turn, you'll find people who decide things
based upon their particular religion, including suicide bombers
looking for a quick trip to paradise. You can't avoid them. The
best you can do is limit their effect on the real world. And that
takes either real talent or lots of patience.
And while my subject line may be harsh, if one looks into his history of Declan with this quote, one is lead to the inescapable conclusion: Declan is lying and he knows it.
Turns out, this lie really did start with Declan, and he has made no bones about how proud he is of it.
Here are all the links you need:
http://www.sethf.com/gore/
(But since I know no one follows links)
It starts with the actual quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
And then Declan's original article where he fails to quote Al Gore, and writes:
"Blitzer, unfortunately, didn't appear to know any of that. After Gore took credit for the Internet, Blitzer simply moved on talk about polls showing Texas governor George W. Bush and Elizabeth Dole ahead of the vice president."
One can see how this has changed into Declan's misquotation of Gore in the current article.
Incredibly, not only did Declan mislead people in his original article, he can't help but take credit for the original lie!
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html
And as that first link details, Declan's original article has been repeatedly refuted. Yet today, in 2005, he still repeats the lie. Does anyone believe that Declan doesn't know it has been refuted? Does anyone believe that Declan doesn't know what the actual quote is and what Gore's point was?
Of course not. Declan knows full well that if he accurately quoted Gore, then he would be left with nothing and this claim to "fame" would be worthless.
Moreover, in the article where he takes credit for the original story, he writes:
"The short answer is that while even his supporters admit the vice president has an unfortunate tendency to exaggerate, the truth is that Gore never did claim to have "invented" the Internet.
During a March 1999 CNN interview, while trying to differentiate himself from rival Bill Bradley, Gore boasted: 'During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.' ...
My article never used the word 'invented,' but it didn't take long for Gore's claim to morph into something he never intended."
Indeed, his original article in 1999 never said invented. But today, Declan, instead, uses the synonym "created" to lie to readers in the same fashion he once criticized.
Yet DeLay, wants to distort this truth into the perception that judges are using Google and Blogs to do research. What fraud DeLay is.
I am pretty sure that our judicial system can operate in the internet age without Tom Delay's lame partisan ideas backed by the encouragement of Mr McCullagh.
Surely there is something of interest and substance in Washington regarding technology that can be reported on. Does CNET have an editor? Does the editor make assigments, and read the finished articles ?
Maybe Delay should try "Googling" himself sometime...then perhaps he'll experience some real outrage. The guy's a bonehead.
- Of course Delay doesn't think justices...
- by Michael Grogan April 29, 2005 11:30 AM PDT
- ...should use the internet for research. He most likely thinks the bible should be their only source. As for the Constitution, I doubt he's ever read it!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(38 Comments)