The majestic petulance of John Roberts: Via Salon: Glenn Greenwald.

The petulance and sense of self-importance on display here is quite something to behold:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" . . . . Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case. . . . Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.
"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.
"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court -- according the requirements of protocol -- has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

New York Court Scores Over Oregon In Recent Email Privacy Opinions: Via EFF.org Updates.

Last week, two new district court opinions took opposing views on the question of whether the Fourth Amendment protects stored email. One of the cases easily adopted the prevailing view that the Constitution protects electronic communications, while the other ignored existing U.S. Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent to find consumers have no expectation of privacy in messages stored with third parties. EFF will be watching these developments closely as we continue to press for email privacy rights in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Warshak and in other matters.

Email -- like letters, telephone calls or documents you keep in a rented locker -- should be fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. As with letters, calls or rented property, your expectation of privacy against the government does not weaken simply because you entrust the document to a third party for delivery or storage. [ Read more ... ]

SCOTUS To Hear Small ISPs' Case Against AT&T - Via Slashdot: Your Rights Online:

snydeq writes "The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear an antitrust case that alleges AT&T squeezed out small ISPs by charging too much for wholesale access to its phone network. The case, originally brought to US District Court in 2003, had been appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. But AT&T requested the case be heard by the Supreme Court on the grounds that prior conflicting appeals court decisions in this area should be resolved at that level. As part of the case, the Supreme Court will likely also ascertain whether AT&T could be held to violate antitrust law without setting its retail prices below its own cost."

(Read Original Article - Via Slashdot: Your Rights Online.)

Ten Years After ACLU v. Reno: Free Speech Still Needs Defending: "Online free speech faces many threats today, but the Internet's incredible abundance and variety of expression might never have blossomed to begin with if the first major court battle had gone the wrong way.

Tuesday marks the ten year anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Reno v. ACLU, which recognized that free speech on the Internet merits the highest standards of Constitutional protection. EFF participated as both plaintiff and co-counsel in the case, which successfully challenged the online censorship provisions of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996. The Court’s decision -- its first involving the Internet -- was issued on June 26, 1997. [ Read more ... ]