From the pen of New Jersey Supreme Court Justice Albin to Snooki’s ears. Analysis here, but it doesn’t really matter.
This headline from my hometown newspaper, The Staten Island Advice, merges two of my passions: Jersey and the First Amendment. So Jersey has a law that prohibits strip clubs within 1,000 feet of homes, parks, houses of worship, etc. But, this exception applies only if there are other forms of adult entertainment nearby. In other words, you can only ban strip clubs in Jersey if the goods can be had nearby.
So, according to the Advance, the Supreme Court of New Jersey (SCONJ sounds so dirty), ruled that Jersey towns near Staten Island can ban strip clubs because alternative accommodations are available right across the border in Staten Island!
Which shines the red light on Staten Island.
Update: Because some of my commenters do not trust the reporting of the SI Advance, I link to the SCONJ’s opinion in Borough of Sayreville v. 35 Club, LLC. From the syllabus:
The question in this appeal is whether a court may consider, as part of its determination of an as-applied challenge to the State’s statute limiting the places where sexually-oriented businesses may operate, the availability of alternative channels of communication that are located in another state. . . .
In evaluating the adequacy of alternative channels of communication when deciding an as-applied constitutional challenge to the State’s statute limiting the places where sexually-oriented businesses may operate, trial courts are not precluded from considering the existence of sites that are located outside of New Jersey but that are found within the relevant market area as defined by the parties’ experts. . . .
First, as a practical matter, it may be far more convenient for a patron to travel a few minutes into New York or Pennsylvania than to travel twenty minutes away to Newark or Elizabeth.
And from the opinion:
Finding Kasler’s exclusion of any and all sites in Staten Island to be without justification, the Chancery Division reasoned that Staten Island was “no different than any other site in the market area . . . except for a bridge and a toll.” The Court concluded that including sites in New York, although they would potentially require the business to navigate another state’s land use regulations, was reasonable in light of the fact that New Jersey’s municipalities have different land use regulations.
This part is true. Travelling through Jersey is a bitch. Much easier to just go to SI:
For a person living close to one of our State’s borders, the trip into another state may be preferable to driving on a highway or riding a bus or train to a more distant location within New Jersey. One who lives, for example, in the shadow of the Goethals Bridge might find a site in Staten Island more easily accessible than a trip up Routes 1 and 9 to patronize a like establishment in Newark, Union or Elizabeth. Such a patron might equally find a short trip to Staten Island preferable to the routes south on the New Jersey Turnpike or the Garden State Parkway that could be used to access defendant’s preferred location in Sayreville. Our citizens regularly cross into our neighboring states for employment opportunities and entertainment of other kinds, making an analysis that would preclude any consideration of sites in those states unnecessarily restrictive in light of the behavior of our modern mobile populace.
This argument is somewhat akin to the argument Chicago made in Ezell. If someone wants target practice, they can go outside of Chicago. Judge Sykes had an point during oral argument, to the effect of, could Chicago require all journalists go to Evanstown to Northwestern for journalism training? Can the 1st Amendment be restricted based on location? Neither can the Second Amendment. The dissenting Justices would so hold to strip clubs:
It cannot be that the right to exercise expressive rights in this State under the New Jersey Constitution depends in any measure on whether alternative avenues of communication are available in another state. If our State places restrictions on disfavored speech or expressive activities, the solution is not that New Jersey citizens can exercise their rights in another state. However convenient it may be for New Jersey citizens to travel to Staten Island, that cannot be a basis to abridge their rights in this State.
However convenient it may be for New Jersey citizens to travel to Staten Island, that cannot be a basis to abridge their rights in this State. I must find a way to cite this somewhere!
Update 2: I just sent EV a note. Please, oh please, let them file for Cert. Please oh please. There is a Justice from Manhattan (Kagan), Brooklyn (Ginsburg), the Bronx (Sotomayor), and Queens (Nino). Alito is from Jersey. This is a perfect opportunity to give Staten Island, the forgotten borough, some SCOTUS Love.
Imagine the world of a future. Artificial intelligence has advanced to a point where robots, in various forms, can perform not only rote tasks (such as vacuuming or driving), but also tasks that we would think are reserved to the human mind.
Say hi the Lawyer-Robot. In much the same way that you would explain to a lawyer what your problem is (contract dispute, family issue, personal injury, etc.), the Lawyer-Robot will ask you questions (the same questions one would be asked during an attorney-client interview) to understand the nature of your situation. The Lawyer-Robot will scan any relevant documents, and research the positions of any potential opponent parties. The Lawyer-Robot will understand what the law is in various jurisdictions. Eventually, the Lawyer-Robot will recommend a course of action.
Meet the Doctor-Robot. By measuring your vital signs, taking tests, instantly analyzing the results, and asking you questions, the Doctor-Robot can provide highly accurate diagnoses almost immediately at a very low cost.
Assume that both Lawyer-Robot and Doctor-Robot can perform at a level at, or above, that what a human could do.
The actual doing–in the case of the Lawyer-Robot, that would be litigation or transactional work, or in the case of the Doctor-Robot, that would be surgery or other form of treatment–would still be done by humans. Rather, the initial screening work of both professionals would be automated, and that screen would aid and facilitate the human expert’s job.
Handing over to machines tasks which we reserve for humans is a big jump. I suppose ethicists can consider whether this is a desirable end, and would it actually improve our lives. I’ll assume (for better or worse), that the answer to that question is yes. My assumption, frankly, is based on how technology has progressed, and how it will progress. I’m not sure if—even assuming this technology is a bad thing–it can be stopped. That is, it can be stopped, but by other concerns.
Putting aside the technological issues, let’s consider the implications of such robots.
Let’s start with the Lawyer-Robot.
First, regulatory issues. Today, the practice of law is regulated by state bar associations. In order to engage in the practice of law (a term that is quite vague, maybe even void because of vagueness)—under any definition, what I describe above would constitute practicing law—one would have to be licensed (presumably by going to law school and passing the bar). Bar associations are already going after firms like LegalZoom which effectively provide templates which laymen can fill out. I’d imagine bar associations would have a field day with Lawyer-Robot. How would occupational-licensing regimes work for artificial intelligence?
Second, ethical issues. How would the rules of professional conduct apply to Lawyer-Robot. Would an attorney-client relationship be possible? What about rules of confidentiality? What about conflicts of interest? What about (getting meta here) doing the right thing? Would Lawyer-Robot have an obligation to report unethical conduct by a client? Would it withdraw under the circumstances where a real lawyer would withdraw?
Third, liability issues. What happens if Lawyer-Robot gives bad legal advice? Would a malpractice suit lie? If so, against whom? The developer of the software? Would Lawyer-Robot have malpractice insurance? Who would insure that?
Fourth, marketability issues. I suspect that laymen would love this product. Get easy to access and cheap legal advice. This would do wonders for access to justice. But what about corporations? Would GC, who are wedded to the old ways, turn away law firms and adopt such technology? Law firms that bill by the hour sure-as-hell would have no interest in using a system that can render them obsolete. Unless this technology can disrupt existing interests, it would go nowhere fast.
These four issues–and not the technology–seem to be among the most pressing issues to consider before we can reach a state where artificial intelligence can accomplish a transformation of our society.
If the regulatory burdens, ethical limitations, and liability rules are not reconsidered, technology will be unable to progress.
Apple seeks to reinvent the school textbook industry by offering electronic textbooks on the iPad. They even created an app to allow authors to easily put together textbooks. My primary objection is that the books, by license, must only be available on Apple devices. Exclusivity. So if a student has another tablet, no luck. This almost seems to be a deal-breaker. I’d rather wait to see what Amazon or Kno comes up with. Devices that work on all platforms would be much better.
A related story is that Thomson Reuters is selling its law school publishing business.
Textbooks, as we know it, are on the way out.
I’m not sure what I think about this.
Its detractors may end up dubbing it “Dementiaville”, but Switzerland is brushing aside a debate raging among geriatric-care experts with plans to build a mock-1950s village catering exclusively for elderly sufferers of Alzheimer’s and other debilitating mental illnesses.
The newly approved €20m (£17m) housing project is to be built next to the Swiss village of Wiedlisbach near Bern and will provide sheltered accommodation and care for 150 elderly dementia patients in 23 purpose-built 1950s-style houses. The homes will be deliberately designed to recreate the atmosphere of times past.
The scheme’s promoters said there will be no closed doors and residents will be free to move about. To reinforce an atmosphere of normality, the carers will dress as gardeners, hairdressers and shop assistants. The only catch is that Wiedlisbach’s inhabitants will not be allowed to leave the village…
Would this amount to false imprisonment, both in the physical and metaphorical sense? Keeping people who cannot make decisions for themselves in a village, but also keeping them in a world of fiction.
Kinda reminds me of The Truman Show.