If you still have any lingering question about the journalistic aspects of weblogging, dig this: Ernest Miller and Raul Ruiz of the Yale Law School’s LawMeme covered the Eldred v. Ashcroft oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court nearly live. Here’s the link: Live from Eldred v. Ashcroft - I.
Traditionally, taking notes in the gallery of the Supreme Court is prohibited, so Miller and Ruiz are outside the building using a WiFi-equipped PDA:
“PS. This blogging brought to you via 802.11b equipped PDA (please excuse typos, etc.) and warchalked wireless access point, somewhere in the vicinity of the Supreme Court building (thanks warchalkers!)”
According to the Miller and Ruiz analysis, the Court appears to be arranging itself along predictable lines, and they speculate that Eldred’s First Amendment arguments are falling on deaf ears (Justice Ginsberg asked Lessig a single question about the First Amendment issue; none of the Justices had anything to ask the Solicitor General about that particular issue).
Reading between the lines of the Miller and Ruiz commentary, it would appear that Eldred will lose in a 5 - 4 vote. Much closer than I thought, but a bruising defeat nonetheless.
The Supremes are expected to release their decision next summer.
As big as this story is, I think the bigger story is the excellent, near-real-time commentary from two professional observers who are not professional journalists.
Quick update: Donna Wentworth’s Copyfight has outstanding coverage of the oral arguments as well.
0 responses. Comments closed for this article.