http://www.reuters.com/…

A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Roommates.com, which obliges users to list their sexual orientation, was different than Internet sites where people can volunteer or withhold personal information.

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling that partly overturns a lower federal court decision.

“If such screening is prohibited when practiced in person or by telephone, we see no reason why Congress would have wanted to make it lawful to profit from it online,” 9th Circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski wrote. “Not only does Roommate ask these questions, Roommate makes answering the discriminatory questions a condition of doing business.”

Can someone please tell me why sexism is allowed and orientationism is not? How exactly are these people “obliged?” oblige: 1. To constrain by physical, legal, social, or moral means. 2. To make indebted or grateful. 3. To make indebted or grateful. No one is requiring them to use the service. There is craigslist and dozens of other roommate sites. Are they going to outlaw people from asking each other in person next? Or making a descision on that information?

http://blogs.enotes.com/…

Asset forfeitures are known as “in rem” actions, meaning that the government is proceeding against a thing, not the owner of the thing. So the “defendant” in an asset forfeiture action is the thing being forfeited. This legal conceit always results in interesting case names, such as “U.S. v. $29,568.23 in U.S. Currency” or, say, “U.S. v. 1981 Cadillac Eldorado Biarritz.” But today’s Ninth Circuit decisions bring a case name that takes the crown.This asset forfeiture involves the King Diamond II, a boat operating out of Hawaii. The Hong Kong company Tai Loong Hong Marine Products (TLH) chartered the King Diamond II to meet up with various fishing boats on the high seas to pick up shark fins and then deliver them to Guatemala. The problem for the King Diamond II and TLH is that it is illegal to harvest shark fins. Indeed, under the Shark Finning Prohibition Act of 2000, any shark fins found aboard a fishing vessel without a corresponding shark carcass are presumed to be the result of illegal harvesting. So when law enforcement boarded the King Diamond II off the coast of Guatemala and found 64, 695 pounds of shark fins with no corresponding carcasses, they detained the boat and seized the fins.

Which brings us to the name of today’s Decision of the Day:

U.S. v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins, 05-56294 (9th Cir., March 17, 2008)

Best part? The Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins won. As Robert Loblaw over at Decision of the Day asks: “what is TLH going to do with 32 tons of shark fins that are five and a half years past their prime?” I’d really like to know if they still have them. I’d hope not.

http://www.ballot-access.org/…

On March 13, the 9th circuit refused to rehear Porter v Bowen, 06-55517. Last year, the 9th circuit had voted 3-0 that a past California Secretary of State had no authority to try to shut down an internet site that let Gore voters in “safe” states pair up with Nader voters in “swing” states. The purpose of the internet was for two strangers to “meet” and make a promise to swap their votes, to the mutual advantage of both.

Last year’s decision, upholding the right of such internet sites to exist, came down on August 27. Now, over six months later, the 9th circuit has refused to rehear the case. Only one judge of the 9th circuit wanted to rehear it. He is Judge Andrew Kleinfeld. He wrote an eleven-page dissent from the denial of rehearing. It ended, “If people in one state want people in another state to vote a particular way, they can go there and ring doorbells, send them letters, buy ads on their media, publicize arguments on the internet, and otherwise explain to them why they ought to vote a particular way. But they do not have a constitutional right to buy their votes, with money or promises.”

Which part of the Constitution and its amendments describe what rights the government enshrines on us? Trick question. The Declaration of Independence + Constitution work within negative rights/liberty theory. Judge Andrew Kleinfeld apparently has never read the document he’s sworn an oath to defend. Besides… who exactly would be the victim in this case?