BLS Library Blog

Marking the end of Black History Month, the Black Law Students Association (BLSA) is celebrating the life and legacy of Percy Sutton this Friday, February 26th, 6pm – 9pm at the Subotnick Center on the 10th Floor of 250 Joralemon Street. He passed away at the age of 89 on December 27, 2009. Sutton, who graduated Brooklyn Law School with the Class of 1950, was a pioneering civil rights attorney, political leader and one of the nation’s most influential African-American leaders. The son of a slave, he became a Tuskegee Airmen in World War II. After graduating Brooklyn Law School, he opened a law office in 1953 and represented Malcolm X and the slain activist’s family for decades. When he served as Manhattan borough president between 1966 and 1977, Sutton was New York state’s highest ranking black elected official. Aside from his law practice, Sutton built a small media empire. In 1971, Sutton and his brother bought WLIB-AM, the first black-owned radio station in New York City. His company Inner City Broadcasting Corp. then acquired WBLS-FM, which became New York’s top-rated radio station. He also had stations in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit and San Antonio along with Harlem’s landmark Apollo Theater. For more about Sutton’s life, see the National Visionary Leadship Project’s page with links to ten video clips of Sutton discussing aspects of his life. Shortly after Sutton’s passing, President Barack Obama issued a Statement remembering him for his service to the country.

BLS Alum former New York Mayor David Dinkins, Class of 1956, will make the opening remarks. Dinkins was the Mayor of New York City from 1990 through 1993 and was the first African American to hold that office. The Keynote speaker of the evening will be BLS Alum Errol Louis, Class of 2005. Louis is a columnist for the New York Daily News and is also on the editorial board, and also hosts a radio program on WWRL in New York. He is frequent guest on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, as well as other CNN news programs as a CNN contributor. In the past, he has been a contributor on many local news programs in New York City.

Dinner will be served with a cocktail hour set to begin at 6pm. Those who want to attend should RSVP to ashleyrallison@gmail.com.

Today’s post on the Official Google Blog, Serious threat to the web in Italy, has background on an Italian court convicting three Google executives in a trial over a YouTube video showing an autistic teenager being bullied. The Google employees were accused of breaking Italian law by allowing the video to be posted online. While the judge cleared the three Google employees of the the defamation charges, he convicted them of privacy violations and imposed suspended six-month sentences. A fourth defendant was acquitted. Google claimed that pre-screening all YouTube content was impossible. The video was posted on YouTube in 2006 shortly before Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion in an all stock transaction.

Italian prosecutors argued that Google violated Italian privacy law in not obtaining the consent of all the parties involved before allowing it to go online. Google’s lawyers said that the video was removed as soon as it was brought to its attention and that it provided information on those responsible for posting it, four students who were later expelled from their school in Turin. 

The NY Times article Google Loses in Italian Privacy Case has more detail on the facts of the case. Google plans to appeal the findings of the Italian court. More than the fate of these three employees are at stake. It seems that Italy may pursue similar cases against other net giants, such as eBay, Yahoo and Facebook. Broader legal issues are the subject of a post at Concurring Opinions, Google Officials Criminally Culpable for YouTube Video, where the author Daniel Solove suggests that the case go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) under Article 8 and Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Jurist reports that the Italian case is just part of Google’s privacy-related legal troubles. Last week, an internet privacy group filed a complaint with the US Federal Trade Commission to investigate whether Google Buzz violates privacy laws. Canada’s Privacy Commissioner also issued a press release asking Google to explain how Google Buzz has addressed privacy issues since its recent launch. The privacy concerns about Google Buzz are spelled out in detail in a Jurist post Google’s “Buzz” should have required consent for secondary use of private information. The new product has led to inadvertent disclosures of personal information to unintended people. Google Buzz links to Gmail so that if a new user accepts the default options and does not opt-out or edit this Gmail list during profile creation, the whole list becomes part of the user’s profile available to the public. 

Nine months after its enactment, the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009 or the Credit CARD Act of 2009 (Public Law No. 111-24) becomes effective today. The CARD Act, introduced by Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY), was signed into law by President Obama on May 22, 2009. Consumer advocates praised the new legislation for putting restraints on a loosely regulated industry. Among its most prominent features, the law bars retroactive rate increases, requires more notice of impending increases and limits how quickly banks can impose late fees. In addition, it includes changes aimed at protecting young consumers from excessive credit card debt.

The Federal Reserve Board approved its final rule last month. Among other things, the rule:

• Protects consumers from unexpected increases in credit card interest rates by generally prohibiting increases in a rate during the first year after an account is opened and increases in a rate that applies to an existing credit card balance
• Prohibits creditors from issuing a credit card to a consumer who is younger than the age of 21 unless the consumer has the ability to make the required payments or obtains the signature of a parent or other cosigner with the ability to do so
• Requires creditors to obtain a consumer’s consent before charging fees for transactions that exceed the credit limit
• Limits the high fees associated with subprime credit cards
• Bans creditors from using the “two-cycle” billing method to impose interest charges
• Prohibits creditors from allocating payments in ways that maximize interest charges.

The new rule amends Regulation Z to address CARD Act amendments to the Truth in Lending Act, For more information, visit the Federal Reserve’s page What You Need to Know: New Credit Card Rules.

Unfortunately, the CARD Act’s delayed effective date has resulted in the legislation falling short of its consumer protection goals in significant ways. If the bill had become effective on the day after it was signed, it would have achieved what it set out to accomplish. Many of the new law’s important provisions do not become effective until August 2010 allowing credit card companies ample time to escape most of the provisions with real teeth.

Another major flaw of the legislation is it does not set a cap on credit card interest rates. While the new legislation puts curbs on when and how the industry can increase interest rates, it does nothing to limit card issuers’ ability to charge interest rates in excess of 30%. An amendment to put a ceiling on credit card interest rates at 15% was rejected by the Senate by an overwhelming majority. In advance of the law’s effective date, some credit card companies have tested 39.9% 59.9% and even 79.9%APR cards in recent months in the sub-prime market or people at the very bottom credit rung. See Cost of Bad-credit Credit Cards Rising Due to Reform Law posted at Personal Finance News. Interestingly, CreditCards.com reports that one of the card companies offering the 79.9% APR has called the response to its offer “phenomenal” saying that 2% of people receiving the offers have applied for the cards compared to the normal response rates of 1% to 1.2%.

Starting in August of 2010, card issuers will no longer be able to increase the interest on existing credit card balances, unless the cardholder falls 60 days behind on payments on any bill, not just their credit card bill. Credit card companies will be able to raise interest rates on future purchases at their discretion, as long as they provide 45 days notice. Further, credit card companies will not be able to increase interest rates at any time in the first year after issuing a credit card.

The controversial Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill of 2009 has generated a great deal of attention. The proposed law would sentence HIV positive homosexuals to death for having sex and punish homosexuals by life imprisonment. International pressure on Uganda is mounting to withdrawal the bill. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in a speech on human rights, said that the “law should not become an instrument of oppression”. Even President Obama called the proposed law “odious” in a recent speech saying “We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are — whether it’s here in the United States or … more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.” See Reuters report.

A close reading of the proposed law shows it to be more wide-reaching than its proponents suggest. Ugandans don’t have to be gay or have gay sex to face the death sentence under the law which makes being a “serial offender” punishable by execution. A serial offender is a person who has “previous convictions” for “homosexuality OR RELATED OFFENCES.” In other words, if a Ugandan has one prior conviction for a violation under the Bill and then has a subsequent conviction he or she will be classified as a serial offender and face execution. “Related offences” in the Bill include non-sexual acts such as:

• aiding and abetting homosexuality
• advocating same-sex relationships or LGBT rights
• having a same-sex marriage
• publicising or funding pro-LGBT organisations
• using the internet or a mobile phone for the purpose of homosexuality or its promotion
• being a person in authority who fails to report an offender to the police within 24 hours

Under the Anti-Homosexuality Bill, all convicted serial offenders are liable to execution, regardless of their sexuality so that not just LGBT Ugandans are subject to this legislation. This YouTube video explains the Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill in an instructive analysis.

Today marks the 201st anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, the 16th President of the US. Born in 1809 and known historically as president and politician, Lincoln spent most of his life (nearly twenty-five years) as a practicing lawyer. Students and scholars can access several items in the Brooklyn Law School Library collection to learn more about Lincoln the Lawyer. The newest item about Lincoln in the BLS Library collection is Lincoln the Lawyer by Brian Dirck (Call #E457.2 .D575 2007) which uses items from a database of Lincolns documents to give an overview of Lincoln’s practice. One of the most interesting chapters is the one on Lincoln’s debt practice which concludes that “insofar as Lincoln specialized in any area of law, he was a debt-collection attorney”.

Stories like this one (registration required) in the Washington Post report on Democrats from Vice President Joe Biden to freshman Sen. Tom Udall (NM) calling for changes to the filibuster, a century-old parliamentary device used by the minority party to draw out debate and block the wishes of the majority party. In his column in today’s NY Times, Paul Krugman states: 

The truth is that given the state of American politics, the way the Senate works is no longer consistent with a functioning government. Senators themselves should recognize this fact and push through changes in those rules, including eliminating or at least limiting the filibuster. This is something they could and should do, by majority vote, on the first day of the next Senate session.

What to do about the filibuster is a topic that has been around for a long time. The US Senate website has a brief history of Rule XXII on filibusters and cloture. Views about amending the rules governing its use change depending on whether the speaker is part of the majority party or part of the minority party. The Washington Post article contrasts Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell, (KY) on his effort, five years ago when he was Majority Leader, to change nearly century-old filibuster rules with his oppostion to the move now. As a US Senator, Biden supported filibusters to block President Bush’s judicial nomination, most notably the nominations of Miguel Estrada, Caroline Kuhl and Priscilla Owen. Likewise, Mr. Krugman, in his March 29, 2005 column, warned of efforts by extremists to eliminate the filibuster to pack the courts with like-minded judges. Clearly, one’s opinion on the topic changes depending on whether one is in the majority or the minority. 

The Brooklyn Law School Library has in its collection two worthwhile items for students interested in the history of the filibuster. Politics or Principle?: Filibustering in the United States Senate by Sarah A. Binder and Steven S. Smith (Call #JK1161 .B56 1997) has a Table on page 7 showing the Major Rule Changes Affecting the Senate Filubuster dating back to 1806. The book dispels much of the conventional wisdom about the filibuster and focuses on five major myths: that unlimited debate is a fundamental right differentiating the Senate from the House of Representatives; that the Senate’s tradition as a deliberative body requires unlimited debate; that the filibuster was once reserved for a few issues of the utmost national importance; that few measures are actually killed by filibuster, and that senators resist changing the rules because of a principled commitment.

The more recent item is Filibuster: Obstruction and Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate by Gregory John Wawro and Eric Schickler (Call # JK1161 .W39 2006). The introduction to the book has a section titled “The Centrality of Obstruction to Senate Lawmaking” that says “Whatever the reason, the Filibuster is deeply ingrained in the political culture of the United States.” It goes on to say “Even though the filibuster is the most popularly known procedural maneuver in the Congress, it has received scant scholarly attention.” Its recitation of the history of the filibuster tells the reader that before 1917, there was no way to end a Senate filibuster. In that year, the Senate adopted its first “cloture rule,” which enabled a two-thirds majority to end debate.

PrawfsBlawg recently had an interesting post The legal debate over the Senate’s rules: a dialogue that begins to discuss scholarly aspects of the US Senate as a continuing body, arguably the most powerful constitutional consideration in favor of the permissibility of entrenched Senate rules. There is a link to an SSRN paper Burying the ‘Continuing Body’ Theory of the Senate by Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl of the University of Houston Law Center.