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

Mary Anne Franks is still inventing First Amendment law in the cause of her political crusade to get her proposed statute outlawing revenge porn outlawed: PrometheeFeu, I do disagree with you, but much more importantly, the Supreme Court disagrees with you. The Court has never held that speech that has zero political, newsworthy, artistic, or scientific value receives First Amendment protection – and certainly not full First

In anonymous commentary on JD Underground, the subject being a lively discussion with a lawyer who publicly gave a wrong answer—I thought harmfully wrong—to an ethics question, "patentesq" ((1,238 posts on JD Underground since May 9, 2012)) wrote: I can't imagine a group of medical doctors acting this way… law is a sickening profession in so many ways. I confess that I don't know who JD Underground's

Momma calls cops for help with mentally ill son. Cops come, Officer Cardan Spencer shoots the son, who's standing with his hands at his sides. Son is charged with aggravated assault on the cops, which is what happens when the cops try to kill you and fail. Until the video turns up…