A call for an immediate correction
CNet should issue an immediate correction to a story that is getting a LOT of attention in various quarters.
See here and here for examples. (I made a number of comments on the first link and a couple on one of the sites Glenn Reynolds linked as well).
I spent a goodly amount of time on this yesterday trying to run it down. Mostly, I commented or emailed others since my little blog hasn't exactly hit the bigtime on readership.
McCullagh's article needs to be corrected ASAP to stop any further spread of incorrect information. If it is not corrected as soon as practical, both McCullagh's and CNet's credibility takes an enormous hit.
And someone really needs to clue in the ACLU if one of their spokespersons is so incapable of reading and understanding a statute. I mean, I'm not even a lawyer and I arrived at essentially the same conclusion as the folks at Volokh, without even having the benefit of understanding the relevant case law.
Update 1-11-2006: Instapundit has a link to an opinion by Eugene Volokh that raises some potential issues with the wording of the law. As I read his analysis there may or may not be concerns depending on how it is interpreted. I still believe the original article from CNet is factually incorrect and should be corrected however.
See here and here for examples. (I made a number of comments on the first link and a couple on one of the sites Glenn Reynolds linked as well).
I spent a goodly amount of time on this yesterday trying to run it down. Mostly, I commented or emailed others since my little blog hasn't exactly hit the bigtime on readership.
McCullagh's article needs to be corrected ASAP to stop any further spread of incorrect information. If it is not corrected as soon as practical, both McCullagh's and CNet's credibility takes an enormous hit.
And someone really needs to clue in the ACLU if one of their spokespersons is so incapable of reading and understanding a statute. I mean, I'm not even a lawyer and I arrived at essentially the same conclusion as the folks at Volokh, without even having the benefit of understanding the relevant case law.
Update 1-11-2006: Instapundit has a link to an opinion by Eugene Volokh that raises some potential issues with the wording of the law. As I read his analysis there may or may not be concerns depending on how it is interpreted. I still believe the original article from CNet is factually incorrect and should be corrected however.
posted by Gaius Arbo | 8:48 AM
<< Home