Non-Legislative Counsel May Get Involved
From bhwblog.com:

Aside from being prudes, the bill's authors are also plagiarists. Does that list of words ring a bell with anyone else? Sounds to me like the authors based their bill on George Carlin's famous Seven Dirty Words routine....They lobbed off the @@@@ and stuck in an @@@@@@@. Guess what, that's still plagiarism. Wouldn't it be hilarious if George Carlin sued the House of Representatives for copyright infringement?

Perhaps they can claim fair use. This is getting @@@@ingly ridiculous.

The following question is then asked: "What if the House debates the bill and the reps start arguing over which words do and don't belong on the list? Wouldn't the C-SPAN broadcast of the debate violate the bill itself?" My answer: if the bill has not yet passed, the debate would not violate the law.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Random Braveman...Random Contest Discoveries With all the hits that he's been getting, it's obvious that Mitzzee and I are not the only ones who have discovered Daily Dancer . Blogpulse and other sources list the following references to Daily Dancer: jrnev.blogspot.com/2005/06/i-might-do-this.html aprilshah.blogspot.com/2005/06/so-much-stuff-so-little-time.html bamapachyderm.com/archives/2005/06/01/omglollmaowtf/ andrightlyso.com/archives/2005/06/01/daily-dancer/ badhairblog.blogspot.com/2005/06/this-is-what-watching-clive-owen.html mickey.ondragonswing.com/archives/006310.html www.tabulas.com/~lainie/877653.html dailydancer.com/plesk-stat/webstat/usage_200506.html showdown.contagiousmedia.org/ The post from Lainie is especially illuminating: Daily Dancer. A computer geek who posts up videos of himself dancing to a different song everyday. This is part of the Contagious Media Showdown awards. Since he needs to get as many visitors per day as possible, I doubt he's reall...
Read more

In which we enter the alternative universe in which police always believe dreadlocked individuals

I previously raised the question about whether Interference Inc. was prompt in letting the authorities know that the so-called bombs in Boston weren't bombs. Now a new question has been raised - was Peter Berdovsky prompt in letting Interference Inc. know that the guerilla marketing campaign had gone sour? And should he have informed the on-scene officers that there was nothing to worry about? The issue was raised because Berdovsky videotaped police at a (supposed) bomb site. This is what the Associated Press said : One of the men criminally charged after placing blinking cartoon advertisements around the city videotaped a police bomb squad removing one of the electronic devices, but did not tell the officers the object was harmless. Surveillance cameras caught 27-year-old Peter Berdovsky videotaping officers removing what they thought was a possible bomb. But Walter Prince , Berdovsky's new layer (replacing semi-guardian Michael Rich ), puts a different spin on the whol...
Read more