For the millions of people losing their jobs and having to obtain health insurance on their own, they are in for quite some difficulty if they have a pre-existing condition. According to the Miami Herald:
Recently, I blogged about Professor Robert Martin’s article about his experience serving as a juror. He makes another point in his article that is worth discussing:
According to Legal Profession Blog:
The New Jersey Appellate Division reversed an $876,000 plaintiff’s verdict in a slip-and-fall case where the plaintiff had fallen while looking for pantyhose in aisle five of a supermarket owned by the defendant. . . . [T]he jury foreperson was a New Jersey State Senator, full-time law professor and lawyer who had published an article in the New Jersey Law Journal about his experiences serving as a juror. The defendant contended that the article “disclosed that he improperly influenced the jurors and that there was apparent misunderstanding of the jury charges.”
When does civil liability for speech trigger First Amendment protections?
Recently, Professor Neil Richards and I posted on SSRN our new article exploring this question: Rethinking Free Speech and Civil Liability, 109 Columbia Law Review (forthcoming 2009).
There’s an interesting new podcast up on Intellectual Property Colloquium, and it includes a terrific lineup of guests:
Over at Emergent Chaos, Adam Shostack raises an interesting issue regarding Alex Rodriguez (A-Rod) and confidentiality. According to the rules in place about the baseball steroid testing back in 2003, the results of these tests were supposed to be confidential. According to Gregg Doyel at CBS:
I’ve blogged in the past about FreeCreditReport.com and the fact that I think it ought to be shut down. This is one of the rather obnoxious attempts by the credit reporting agencies to exploit people’s fears of identity theft as a tool to generate money.
FreeCreditReport.com is not free. You can get your free credit report at the official site, AnnualCreditReport.com.
I blogged earlier about the recent privacy kerfuffle with Facebook’s potentially permanent control over user data. In that post, I critiqued the “trust us” response that Facebook and so many companies make when responding to issues involving the use of people’s data.
The other day, I blogged about Facebook’s change in its Terms of Service, indicating it would keep user data potentially forever. In response to a public backlash, Facebook is restoring its old Terms of Service and will work to revise its Terms of Service to better define user rights. From CNN:
Recently, Facebook changed its Terms of Service (TOS). According to the New York Times: