Legally Blonde or Legally Blind

In July, Reese Witherspoon is supposed to start in Legally Blonde 2. This time, she’s supposed to go to Washington to lobby.

I don’t think even she’d do anything as ditsy as this in the movie, though.

The article says that there is a bill before the Oregon (state in the US) legislature which make an unlawful labeling of an MP3 an act of terrorism subject to a minimum 25 years in prison without parole.

If true, this would be a little much even for me. 🙂

Fortunately, this is complete nonsense.

All the bill would do is to define terrorism under Oregon state law, make it an Oregon state crime (it already is under U.S. national law), define the penalty for that specific crime of terrorism, and adds it to the list of other crimes in Oregon, which does includes things like unlawful recordings and dog fighting.

That’s all. It has absolutely nothing to do with MP3ing (or any of the other offenses listed in the article).

Section 1 (11)(b), chapter 666, Oregon Law 2001 refers to “prohibited acts” listed in section 19 (same link that began the sentence) of that chapter. That means crimes.

Section 19, chapter 666, Oregon Law 2001 lists all the “prohibited acts.” The bill in question simply reprints the list and adds terrorism as item number 132 on the list.

BTW, MP3s would not fall under “unlawful labelling of a sound recording,” as a little more research would have easily shown (see item 164.868). If MP3s fit anywhere, they’d fit under “computer crime” (section 164.377).

You’d think a little common sense might have indicated that even the biggest legislative loon wouldn’t define activities like dogfighting as terrorist activities that would get you 25 to life, but I guess not.

For some reason, geeks and law are like oil and water. They just don’t mix right.


Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply