Blog

So what’s the book about?

“Untitled,” by Anonymous, was described as a 320-page, nonfiction, hardcover book with photos that will retail at $26.99. Order the book now, the publisher said, to ensure delivery by its November release date.

It is, the e-mail said, “the inside story of life with one of the most controversial figures of our time.”

The Times suggests its about Madoff. Whatever, don’t really care about that. What I care about is the massive embargo.

In its e-mail the publisher promised a “massive media rollout” with a confirmed “60 Minutes” appearance. Bookstores were instructed to comply with a highly orchestrated release on Nov. 14, with no sales permitted until then, an embargo arrangement typically reserved for splashy debuts of political memoirs or Bob Woodward books.

What I am curious about, is how they expect to sell an embargoed book in the year 2011. Are they not going to accept presales on Amazon? Will it be available on Kindle right away? This embargoed approach kills any blogosphere buzz in advance (lest the book get leaked to bloggers).

Here’s what one book store owner said:

Gayle Shanks, an owner of Changing Hands Bookstore in Tempe, Ariz., said she reluctantly ordered 10 copies of the book after receiving the publisher’s e-mail.

“The note I sent back to my sales reps was, ‘I hate these books,’ ” Ms. Shanks said. “Generally we don’t know what they are, so we have no sense of how large it’s going to be. But you cannot not buy it.”

This just seems like a foolish way to market a book. To quote Ghostbusters, “Print is dead.”

When the first sentence of an article in the Times includes a Jersey Shore reference, you know you made it.

Also this sentence:

“Today, people dress in costume,” she said. “We wear what we wish to be seen as,” whether that’s an emo kid, a Guidette (a female Guido) or a gangster.

Idiot mother tries to light her cigarette with what she thought was a novelty light, except the lighter is actually a .22. The bullet hits the floor, ricochets, and enters her daughter’s arm.

Avila and her 12-year-old daughter “were talking with friends in front of their mobile home when Avila found what she thought was a novelty lighter…Avila picked it up and tried to light it by pulling the trigger. The first time Avila pulled the trigger, nothing happened. The second time she pulled the trigger, a .22-caliber bullet was fired. The bullet struck the ground, and then ricocheted upward and entered her daughter’s upper right arm.”

With Google Reader, I peruse through 100 RSS feeds. And here are my stats:

From your 100 subscriptions, over the last 30 days you read 15,098 items, clicked 884 items, starred 0 items, shared 0 items, and emailed 39 items.

Since October 9, 2005 you have read a total of 196,468 items.

Yesterday I was busy all day, and did not have access to Google reader from about 8 am to 5 pm. When I got back to my computer I had 400+ stories to read (and read them I did!). That would explain my blogging pause yesterday.

WSJ Law Blog links to a habeas opinion from the Middle District of Florida in which a District Court Judge found the Florida Drug Abuse Prevention and Control law–which criminalizes the delivery of a controlled substance– facially unconstitutional because it lacks an intent requirement.

“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” – – except in Florida.2

Florida exempts itself from the age-old axiom: “The act does not make a person guilty unless the mind be also guilty.”

Here is how a brief digest of some of the key quotes from the section finding the statute facially unconstitutional:

Petitioner’s facial challenge to Florida’s drug statute is properly premised on allegations that the State’s affirmative elimination of mens rea and scienter from this felony offense violates due process.  . . .

Petitioner’s facial challenge to Florida’s drug statute is properly premised on allegations that the State’s affirmative elimination of mens rea and scienter from this felony offense violates due process.  . . .

To be sure, the law recognizes the authority of government to fashion laws that punish without proof of intent, but not without severe constraints and constitutional safeguards.  . . .

From this body of law it is clear that while “strict liability offenses are not unknown to the criminal law and do not invariably offend constitutional requirements,” their use is very limited and they are accorded a “generally disfavored status.”  . . .

Thus, under Staples and its progeny, the tripartite analysis for evaluating a strict liability offense under the strictures of the Constitution involves consideration of: (1) the penalty imposed; (2) the stigma associated with conviction; and (3) the type of conduct purportedly regulated.