In another win for free speech rights over an overly aggressive gov't attempt to censor, a federal judge issued an injunction barring a Massacusetts law that tried to ban certain works from the internet for being "harmful to minors." The judge noted that since the law did not require that the works be "purposefully sent to a person the sender knew to be a minor," it went way too far. There have certainly been a lot of attempts by governments to legislate parts of the First Amendment away, and it's nice to see the courts still believe strongly in protecting at least that Amendment.

For quite some time now there have been reports about how carmakers have been forcing car owners to take cars to the dealers for (expensive) repairs, by using special software to diagnose problems in the computer system, and only giving the necessary software to dealers. This is actually one of many nasty consequences of the DMCA's anti-circumvention rules (pay attention Canada), whereby it should be perfectly legal for anyone you ask to work on your car -- but thanks to digital locks placed on your car's computer by automakers, other mechanics would be breaking the law just to figure out how to get around the locks. Every year for the past decade, there are attempts to pass a national "right to repair" act at the federal level to take care of this, but it never goes anywhere.

However, it looks like at least some states are trying to take matters into their own hands. jjmsan points us to the news that Massachusetts is apparently close to creating just such a statewide law, and many are hoping it will drive other states to follow suit. The automakers, of course, are fighting it, but their logic doesn't make much sense:

A spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, an association of 11 vehicle manufacturers including Chrysler Group LLC, Ford Motor Co. and General Motors Co., said aftermarket parts companies are seeking information that would enable them to make inexpensive parts in foreign countries without incurring research and development costs.

"This is a thinly veiled attempt by parts manufacturers to lower the cost of remanufacturing original equipment of manufacturer parts," alliance spokesman Charles Territo said. "Once this information is released, that intellectual property will be in China by the end of the month."

So? If you can't compete with other aftermarket companies, that's your problem. You shouldn't be able to unfairly lock them out of the market and jack up prices just through some software code.

In a case that at least brings to mind the Lori Drew lawsuit, prosecutors in Western Massachusetts have figured out how to charge nine teenagers over the suicide death of a fellow student. Like the Drew case, there's an emotional issue here: which is that the bullying and the suicide are horrible stories, and it's a situation where certainly people have a natural inclination to want to punish someone. But it's a lot trickier than that. Punishing people because someone commits suicide sets a really dangerous precedent that could encourage more kids to commit suicide -- thinking that it will get their tormentors "punished." Now, there may actually be much more to this case -- and some of the charges at least suggest there's a possibility of additional activities, such as statutory rape, that happened with some of the teens. However, all of the news reports seem to focus on the fact that these charges were brought because of the suicide.

For the past few years, it's become increasingly common for police to put GPS devices on suspects' cars to track where they are. But, that's kicked up a bunch of legal questions concerning whether or not it's legal to do that without a warrant. So far, the courts have not really agreed. Earlier this year, we saw one court (a federal appeals court, 4th circuit) say that police didn't need a warrant, but then, just days later, a court in NY ruled the other way, saying that it was a violation of the 4th Amendment. Now, the state Supreme Court in Massachusetts has weighed in as well, again saying that a warrant is needed to put a GPS device on your car. So that makes NY and Massachusetts as states where police can't randomly stick GPS devices on your car. The other 48 states? Good luck...

You may have heard that the new iPod Nano that was just released happens to include a voice recorder among other new features. But if you get one, you might want to be careful how you use it -- especially in certain states, such as Massachusetts. Slashdot points us to a story about a guy who was arrested in a dispute-gone-wrong with a car repair shop, but the really odd part is that beyond disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, the guy was charged with both "unlawful wiretapping and possessing a device for wiretapping." Wiretapping? In a dispute involving a mechanic? Apparently the guy had a simple Olympus digital voice recorder in his pocket, which was on during his argument with the repair shop. And Massachusetts is one of twelve states with a law that forbids taping conversations without the approval of everyone involved. Even if you accept such a law (and it doesn't make much sense to me), the inclusion of "possessing a device for wiretapping" seems really problematic. Digital voice recorders are quite common. Plus, many mobile phones and even cameras include similar things. And, of course, now with the new iPods including that, does it mean it's illegal to carry one in Massachusetts (or those eleven other states) without first announcing it and getting permission? Obviously no one's likely to get arrested just for carrying around an iPod Nano, but the fact that the law makes such a scenario possible demonstrates a pretty serious problem with the law.

Thanks to Jon, for pointing to us a very scary recent court ruling that appears to have done away with one of the most basic free speech rights: that truth is an absolute defense against libel. Apparently, a federal appeals court in Boston feels that there are exceptions to this rule, and that even the truth can be libelous. If that seems incredibly problematic, you're right.

The case involved the office supply company Staples, who had fired an employee for abusing the company's travel and expense reporting system. After letting the guy, Alan S. Noonan, go, the company sent an email to many employees letting them know why Noonan was fired: "A thorough investigation determined that Alan was not in compliance with our [travel and expenses] policies." Noonan sued for libel, but Staples pointed out that since it was entirely accurate, there was no case.

However, the appeals court noted a century old Massachusetts law that suggests that truth is a defense against libel except if the plaintiff can show "actual malice" by the defendant in publishing the statement. Even though an earlier ruling had ruled that particular law was unconstitutional, the appeals court said that earlier ruling didn't apply. Instead, it said that since Staples had never named an employee fired for similar reasons, there was "malice" in sending out the email it sent. This may only apply in Massachusetts and it's highly likely to eventually be overturned (either in a rehearing by the entire appeals court, or eventually the Supreme Court), but in the meantime, it represents a very troubling change in the commonly accepted understanding that true statements can't be found as libelous.

For several years, authorities in Oregon have been pursuing a plan to put GPS units in every car in the state to track and tax drivers' mileage. Now, Massachusetts wants to get in on the act, and replace its gas tax with a mileage-based tax (via Boing Boing) generated by GPS units in cars. The state wants to ditch its gas tax because rising fuel efficiency is leading to decreasing tax revenue, so the new plan would instead charge drivers a quarter of a cent for each mile they drive. The state's governor is talking not just about boosting tax revenue, but says he likes ideas that are "faster, cheaper, simpler." It's not clear how replacing the current gas tax by forcing drivers to install GPS trackers in their cars and building an infrastructure to gather data from them, then assess and collect a mileage tax will be fast, cheap or simple. This doesn't even mention the myriad privacy concerns of giving state employees access to records of Massachusetts drivers' activity. This idea continually pops up, whether as a tax idea or a new way to charge for auto insurance -- but it never seems to hold any more value beyond a soundbite.

Last year, we had a discussion looking through all of the research showing how harmful noncompete agreements can be to entire industries and regions. In fact, the research suggests pretty clearly that Silicon Valley's success compared to Boston's high-tech region is in large part due to the lack of enforceability of noncompete agreements in California. While much of this research had been ignored, it looks like some people in Massachusetts are trying to make more people aware of how much harm noncompete agreements are doing to business in the state.

The problem is most people only think about noncompetes from the perspective of the company offering the noncompetes. That leaves out the perspective of both employees and other companies. With noncompetes, there's a lot less movement of employees around an industry. That means less cross-pollination of ideas -- which is a key element towards faster and better innovation. It also means employees less willing to go work for startups, because if it doesn't work out, it's much more difficult for that employee to leave and go work elsewhere. Finally, when everyone's enforcing noncompetes, it's much harder for companies (even who use noncompetes themselves) to hire the important employees they need from other companies. All in all, noncompetes are a lose-lose initiative hurting all the companies in a space as well as their employees. It's good to see a push in Massachussetts to get rid of them.

Remember the ridiculous Julie Amero case in Connecticut? That was the one where a substitute teacher was facing jail time because the computer she used in a classroom had malware that displayed pornographic images. The local prosecutors wanted to send her to jail, despite the fact that it was the malware that put up the porn. It looks like a similar situation (luckily, without the jailtime) is playing itself out in Massachusetts. There, a "computer illiterate" state employee was fired for child porn found on his computer. After hiring a computer forensics expert, who pointed out that the state's IT department hadn't configured the machines securely and that it was chock full of malware, the guy has been cleared of child porn charges -- but that doesn't change the fact that he's been disgraced and out of work for over a year.

After yet another court recently tossed out yet another law that would ban the sale of certain video games to children, it appears that the state of Massachusetts is next up in the lengthy list of states wasting taxpayer money in order to appease some grandstanding politicians who want to "protect the children." However, the video game industry has an interesting ally this time around. Writer Stephen King spoke out harshly against the proposed ban while stating plenty of common sense:

"What makes me crazy is when politicians take it upon themselves to play surrogate parents. The results of that are usually disastrous.... What really makes me insane is how eager politicians are to use the pop culture as a whipping boy. It's easy for them, even sort of fun, because the pop-cult always hollers nice and loud. Also, it allows legislators to ignore the elephants in the living room."

While perhaps not quite as eloquent as some others, it's nice to see the press picking up on King's feelings, rather than simply parroting the politicians' dubious claims concerning the need for such laws.