From April 11, 2005 (Evan Schaeffer’s Blawg Review #1) to July 2, 2012 (Paul Kennedy’s Blawg Review #324) “Ed.,” the anonymous editor of Blawg Review, midwifed into existence a weekly (for the first six years, intermittent after that) “blog carnival,” in which one law blogger or another, hosting on his or her blog, gathered interesting law blog posts from the previous week and connected them together in

In light of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals decision holding Section 33.021(b) of the Texas Penal Code (the “dirty talk” portion of the Online Solicitation of a Minor Statute) unconstitutional under the First Amendment, there is a good constitutional challenge to Section 33.021(c) (the “solicitation” portion of the Online Solicitation of a Minor Statute): A person commits an offense if the person, over the Internet or

Choose your poison: In Houston, “Big Guy” lay dead in the street at the intersection of Travis and Anita for nearly a day on Monday. Passersby thought it curious enough to take pictures, but not curious enough to check on him or even call the authorities. I’m with my old friend and adversary, HPD Homicide Sergeant Brian Harris, on this one: "If they just had used their

So now that the dirty-talk portion of Texas's online-solicitation-of-a-minor statute, Section 33.021(b) of the Texas Penal Code, has been held unconstitutional, what happens to those people who have been convicted or put on deferred-adjudication probation for violating the statute in the last eight years? Alan Curry, Chief of the Harris County District Attorney's Office's Appellate Division, "said pending cases would likely be dismissed and the office will

Today I got an opinion from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals that culminated four years of appellate litigation on the unconstitutionality under the First Amendment of the "talking dirty" portion of Texas's "online solicitation of a minor" statute, Texas Penal Code Section 33.021(b). The State could file a motion for rehearing with the Court of Criminal Appeals, but it's a 25-page unanimous opinion penned by Judge

A confidante describes him thus:  I think [he] knew that he had God-given talents that were extraordinary. He knows exactly how smart he is. . . . He knows how perceptive he is. He knows what a good reader of people he is. And he knows that he has the ability — the extraordinary, uncanny ability — to take a thousand different perspectives, digest them and make

California Highway Patrol thug pointing rifle at innocent man. (AP Photo/The Sacramento Bee, Randall Benton, via KTVU) It sure looks to me like that cop is pointing a rifle at the guy in the Mustang. Which he shouldn't be doing. I thought he was doing it because he's scared, but the more I think about it, the more it seems it's all for show: an

Here’s what Marc Randazza said to an academic about her proposed revenge-porn statute: While you’re sitting on your ass “teaching people how to think like a lawyer,” I’m actually out front on this issue, *litigating* these kinds of cases. I think your law is fucking idiotic. Absolutely. Fucking. Idiotic. Nothing but the academic circle jerk and a few vote-starved legislators could possibly consider *criminalizing* the publication of

I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am. I knew it. I had written about it. But still I tried to engage Mary Anne Franks on the law, to explore the truth. Like Charlie Brown with his football, I allowed myself to be surprised by more of the same: Overstate your case. Misstate the law. Make handwaving generalizations. Demonize disagreement. Use false analogies. Lie. Mary Anne Franks won’t

In a comment to this post, in which I wrote: I con­fess that I don’t know who JD Underground’s denizens are. Drop­ping in there is like vis­it­ing a party at which a bunch of doughy masked frat boys alter­nately slap-fight and mas­tur­bate each other. It’s frankly dis­turb­ing. …JD Underground denizen "patentesq" asks, "Hey, Bennett how about arguing your points on JDU?" I wonder: what part of my