The award for the most half-baked remark of the week goes to Rep. Tom DeLay, the former pest control entrepreneur who's now a top Republican in the U.S. Congress.
"We've got Justice (Anthony) Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States?" DeLay told Fox News Radio. "That's just outrageous. And not only that, but he said in session that he does his own research on the Internet? That is just incredibly outrageous."
That was a memorable thing for any politician to say, up there with Hillary Clinton and Rick Lazio critiquing the phantom bill 602p and Al Gore's apparently serious claim to have "created" the Internet.
That said, did DeLay have a point?
Of course, as he should know, there are valuable Internet resources that any jurist should be able to peruse, starting with sites like Lexis, Westlaw and BNA, and including innumerable others such as Federal Register notices, the U.S. Congress' Thomas site, and government agency decisions.
Is it appropriate for judges to investigate the backgrounds of jurors, perhaps even scrolling through their home pages and family photo albums?
But there are also problems with unfettered Googling from the bench. Is it appropriate for judges to investigate the backgrounds of jurors, perhaps even scrolling through their home pages and family photo albums? Should judges scour the Net for reports on a topic rather than relying on traditional rules of evidence?
"If a judge is taking as proof facts that are reported in any public medium that pertain to individual actions by persons involved in a case, that is troubling," George Fisher, a Stanford University law professor, told me when I was writing an article on this topic last year. "Those are the sorts of facts that are supposed to be proved in the courtroom under the rules of evidence."
The California Supreme Court drew fire after it Googled for evidence showing that stun belts, which jolt prisoners with 50,000-volt electric shocks, can be harmful and should not have been used in a criminal trial.
In a bitter August 2002 dissent, California Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown upbraided her colleagues for relying on Google when deciding that stun belts should not have been used in a trial. The majority opinion cited newspaper and magazine articles, as well as pieces written by law students, that reported accidental activations of the React stun belt.
"We could have waited for a case that raised these questions on an adequate record," Brown wrote. "Instead, the majority, rushing to judgment after conducting an embarrassing Google.com search for information outside the record, has tied the hands of the
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.
Stop this disinformation (aka perpetuation of a lie)
I'm sick and tired of the lazy, stupid press perpetuating 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.
If you follow the link in the story that claims Hillary was 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
Mr. McCullagh seems to think judges should not use an internet 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?
No. A judge is not expected to not read newspapers or magazines or watch television or read an encyclopedia. Further a judge is not expected to refrain from doing his own research on the internet. 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.
You imply in the first portion of your article that Gore's claims of 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.
... to find any point Tom Delay has made that was correct. 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.
Would anyone accept a judge handing down a decision based on a street-corner poll during the lunch break? Makes just as much sense as basing a decision on a google search.
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.
Declan has raised valid and important points here, but the debate was begun in the gutter by DeLay's diatribe aimed at the know-nothing element (Bush calls them his "base"), so the discussion will never get to real issues such as these.
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...
First, what's Delay's point in attacking Justice Kennedy, a Republican Reagan appointee? Judges who inform themselves, practice fairness, and decline to operate from fixed dogma have always been attacked. Delay has no point. He's merely an opportunistic political panderer, wheeler-dealer, power abuser, and to use his statements as the jumping-off place to launch your point, Mr. McC., is giving him far too much credit for sincerity of convictions. Maybe he'll have some actual convictions soon.
I don't think that McCullagh's point was that DeLay was sincere in his convictions about Kennedy. In my mind, the idiocy and the broad-brush nature of DeLay's attack obscured the point that there is a right way (Lexis/Westlaw), a wrong way (judging the credibility of an expert by the number of Google hits) for a judge to use the internet, and probably lots of ways (an appellate court uses internet research to determine just how "unusual" a criminal sanction is) that fall in the gray area in between. I still have read nothing in any forum that actually discusses what Kennedy actually said he did. Does anybody know? Does anybody care?
Google is flawed, don't blame the Judges for being in the 21st Century
1. Googles search techniques are flawed buy the way there executed. It sounds good on paper, but the results for those that search for relevent information are marginal at best.
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".
"We've got Justice (Anthony) Kennedy writing decisions based upon international law, not the Constitution of the United States?" DeLay told Fox News Radio. "That's just outrageous."
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.
Don't infer from my previous comment that I think DeLay is wrong about Kennedy. I don't think the law in other countries should be a factor in judicial decisionmaking in our country. That's the whole point of being a different country--we have sovereign governments with different constitutional principles and unrelated legal systems.
... that a certain US Secretary of the Interior decided that, since 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.
Based on "Old Angry"'s comment above, I Googled Declan's history with the Al Gore comment.
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.
"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! <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html</a>
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.
What's really sad is that as a so-called journalist, he toots his own horn all the time based on his original story. It's clearly built on a foundation of crap but what do you expect from such a partisan hack?
have been available for years. That's computerized legal research. The content is cases, statutes and codes. Same exact content as in the paper books, but Sheppardizing (checking subsequent case histories) is much easier. You don't have to fumble through supplemental pocket parts, and periodic updates. That saves time and money. And at lawyer's rates (I charge $350/hr) that's a big saving to clients.
Yet DeLay, wants to distort this truth into the perception that judges are using Google and Blogs to do research. What fraud DeLay is.
He Just Wants To Make Sure He Gets Invited To Parties
This article is pretty weak as are most of his articles. He usually starts with a catchy headline and then fills in a few hundred words of fluff.
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 ?
I finally bothered to read the Hillary thing that DeClan quotes and it's pure crap! Hilary said "based on the information supplied" She didn't support any phantom bill you freaking moron. What kind of reporter are you?
Half baked. That's a pretty good description of our buddy and congressional "Leader", Tom Delay. The guy's as dishonest and as disingenuous as the day is long. Maybe Delay should try "Googling" himself sometime...then perhaps he'll experience some real outrage. The guy's a bonehead.
...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!
Mozilla plans to release a beta version this year for Microsoft's upcoming Windows interface. It'll be a lot of work, but Mozilla doesn't really have a choice.
The company says that manufacturing facilities in Shenzhen and Chengdu, China, will be inspected by a group "dedicated to ending sweatshop conditions in factories worldwide."
The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 S6500 could make its debut at the Mobile World Congress in Barcelona later this month, according to a leaked promotional image.
The space agency powers down its last System Z machine, years after IBM stopped selling them for the mathematical calculation jobs for which NASA originally bought them.
A group calling itself Evil Shadow Team reportedly hacked into Microsoft's online store in India, stealing usernames and passwords of the site's customers.
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:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.sethf.com/gore/" target="_newWindow">http://www.sethf.com/gore/</a>
(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!
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html" target="_newWindow">http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,39301,00.html</a>
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.