Posts Tagged ‘ruling’

Google Seeks the “Right Balance” on the Right To Be Forgotten: “Expert Advisory Council” to Hold Meetings in Europe Soon

Friday, July 11th, 2014

The latest from the Google Blog on the so-called Right To Be Forgotten in the First Amendment-free EU:

Searching for the right balance

[So in five words I’m counting two puns and one subtle jab at the possibility of an absence of balance in this latest unappealable edict handed down from the Court of Justice.]

So here’s the wind-up:

“In May, the Court of Justice of the European Union established a “right to be forgotten.” Today, we published an op-ed by David Drummond, senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal officer, in the U.K.’s The Guardian, Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, France’s Le Figaro and Spain’s El Pais, discussing the ruling and our response. We’re republishing the op-ed in full below. -Ed.”

And here’s the pitch – the final two grafs:

“That’s why we’ve also set up an advisory council of experts, the final membership of which we’re announcing today. These external experts from the worlds of academia, the media, data protection, civil society and the tech sector are serving as independent advisors to Google. The council will be asking for evidence and recommendations from different groups, and will hold public meetings this autumn across Europe to examine these issues more deeply. Its public report will include recommendations for particularly difficult removal requests (like criminal convictions); thoughts on the implications of the court’s decision for European Internet users, news publishers, search engines and others; and procedural steps that could improve accountability and transparency for websites and citizens.”

“The issues here at stake are important and difficult, but we’re committed to complying with the court’s decision. Indeed it’s hard not to empathize with some of the requests we’ve seen—from the man who asked that we not show a news article saying he had been questioned in connection with a crime (he’s able to demonstrate that he was never charged) to the mother who requested that we remove news articles for her daughter’s name as she had been the victim of abuse. It’s a complex issue, with no easy answers. So a robust debate is both welcome and necessary, as, on this issue at least, no search engine has an instant or perfect answer.”

“Posted by David Drummond, Senior Vice President, Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer

Well played, G!

Well That’s It, the Great Multi-Year Battle Over the Stow Lake Boathouse is Over – Judge to Allow New Tenant Tomorrow

Monday, May 16th, 2011

[UPDATE: Well, geez, Rachel Gordon had this hours ago but she didn’t use the words “boathouse” or “boat house” so I didn’t notice her bit. I prob. wouldn’t have made this post if I had known. Oh well.]

Here’s the news, right from the source, about tomorrow’s case number CPF11511130 regarding the contract for the Stow Lake Boathouse:

“ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION/ ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE. PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION/ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDATE IS DENIED. PETITIONERS HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT THEY ARE LIKELY TO PREVAIL ON THE MERITS.

THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT THE RFQ PROCESS WAS CONDUCTED IMPARTIALLY AND WITH FAIRNESS TO ALL BIDDERS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF FAVORITISM, FRAUD OR CORRUPTION.

THE FACT THAT RESPONDENT REFERRED REAL PARTY IN INTEREST TO A LOBBYIST TO ASSIST WITH PR BEFORE THE AWARD ISSUE WAS PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION AND BOARD OF SUPERVISORS BUT AFTER THE AWARD, IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANY IMPROPRIETY INVOLVING THE EVALUATION PROCESS.

IN FACT, PETITIONER ALSO EMPLOYED LOBBYIST IN PRIOR BID PROCESSES AND DURING THIS PROCESS AS WELL.

MOREOVER, THE OTHER ALLEGED IRREGULARITIES PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DO NOT RENDER THE RFQ PROCESS IMPROPER OR INVALID.

FINALLY, THE BALANCE OF THE HARM TO PETITIONERS VS. RESPONDENT AND REAL PARTY IS OF EQUAL WEIGHT. MOREOVER, ANY HARM PETITIONER MAY SUFFER CAN BE MONETARILY COMPENSATED.

(The references to Stow Lake Corporation’s lobbying efforts are right here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.)

Will the Stow Lake Boathouse rise from the ashes of all the vitriol and whatnot? Sure, why not?

(And hey, speaking of vitriol, you know if the City and County paid me five figures a year to express my political views via a small blog, well, I’d take some of that money to pay an SEO optimizer to get old posts from 2009 into search results for the recent news regarding our famous boathouse. Thusly:

A post from 2009 has risen to live again as if it had been made this week – isn’t that nice? Anyway…)

As close as Stow Lake gets to having a real, live Phoenix Rising. Leave Us Begin the Healing, Oh Great Fire-Bird:

Click to expand

So you can look forward to eating a $3.95* gourmet Boat House Hot Dog come Autumn…

*Uh, and this is just one other thing to add to the record for Santa’s Naughty List Appeals Board (cause you know, if Saint Nick put the people at SaveStowLake! on the Naughty List then the SaveStowLake! people would attempt to crucify Santa in the press and, shortly thereafter, begin endless legal proceedings), the $8.50 price for “a hot dog” at the world-famous de Young Museum is incorrect. That is (or was) the price of a quasi-gourmet hot dog kids meal – you get like three things or something. (No toy though.)

Dennis Herrera Throws Down: Explains the Gritty Nitty of Today’s Prop 8 Gay Marriage Ruling

Wednesday, August 4th, 2010

City Attorney Dennis J. Herrera‘s office does a good job of explaining today’s ruling from Judge Walker on the Perry vs. Schwarzenegger case.

It’s pretty accessible (compared with the actual ruling itself) and not too long, so why not give it a read?

“S.F.’s arguments, evidence lent key assist to federal ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional

Failure to relate ‘a legitimate state interest’ pivotal to U.S. District Court finding that Prop 8 violates U.S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment

SAN FRANCISCO (Aug. 4, 2010) — A federal court decision that today found Proposition 8 in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses relied on key arguments and evidence presented by City Attorney Dennis Herrera’s office about the adverse governmental consequences of the 2008 ballot measure, which eliminated fundamental marriage rights for same-sex partners in California.”

San Francisco’s Happy Warrior, DJH:

“Herrera’s motion to intervene in the case originally brought by the American Foundation for Equal Rights on behalf of two California couples was granted by Judge Walker nearly a year ago.  In doing so, the court held that the City and County of San Francisco was the only party in the case — including the Governor and State Attorney General — then willing to represent a public sector interest on the question of the initiative’s validity.  At trial, Herrera’s office provided extensive evidence that state and local governments derive societal and economic benefits when same-sex couples enjoy equal marriage rights — and, conversely, that denying such rights inflicts grave harm on lesbians and gay men, which in turn imposes significant  costs on government and society.  The City’s case made a showing that when governments participate in discrimination against their own citizens, there can be little hope of eradicating private discrimination.

The rest of it, after the jump.

(more…)

Will a Recent State Judge Ruling Affect San Francisco’s Feral Cat Neutering System?

Tuesday, January 19th, 2010

San Francisco’s method of handling feral cats might be affected by a recent ruling down in L.A., where Judge Thomas McKnew just suspended the entire county’s Trap-Neuter-Return program. So people can still bring in feral kitties for sterilization at various clinics but the county can’t subsidize or promote any such program now.

Do we have a similar TNR program in San Francisco? Oh yes. If you call the SPCA about a feral cat in your backyard, they’ll help you trap it, they’ll perform the operation and then they’ll release the kitty right back in your backyard.

Judge McKnew didn’t like that fact that there was no CEQA Environmental Impact Report done and then he read up on county reports stating that TNR was ineffectual. I don’t think San Francisco supports TNR the way Los Angeles did, but certainly it works with the SF SPCA on some issues, anyway.

This feral cat in Golden Gate Park has a notched right ear – a sure sign that it’s been through a TNR program – that’s how they mark “graduates.”

This feral kitty from the West End of GGP has yet to be trapped:

Learn more about this issue from the Chinatown Pet News Examiner (yes, the Chinatown Pet News Examiner!) and then bone up on San Francisco’s Feral Fix Program here, and below.

So, Will a Recent State Judge Ruling Affect San Francisco’s Feral Cat Neutering System? I don’t know. Just asking.

Anyway, the system in place now is about as convenient as it could be:

“Free Feral Fix Program (http://www.sfspca.org/veterinary-services/feral-fix)

In most cities, there is no care available for feral cats. But since 1993, The SF/SPCA has teamed up with feral cat caregivers to control, monitor, feed and provide veterinary care to feral cat populations — and even help adopt some into loving homes.

We provide spay/neuter procedures for San Francisco’s feral cats for free on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays — no appointment necessary.

Read the Adoption Pact between The SF/SPCA and ACC.

The new Leanne Roberts Center dramatically increases our capacity to care for and treat feral cats. See the tips below for how you can help.

How Our Feral Fix Program Works
We accept trapped cats Monday, Wednesday and Friday (excluding major holidays).
Drop off time is between 7:30 a.m. – 8:00 a.m.
Bring a trapped cat to the Leanne Roberts Center Feral Cat Department Entrance at 220 Florida Street. Be sure to cover the trap with a towel or sheet.
No need to park your car! We offer a curbside drop-off service. Simply pull up between 7:30 – 8 a.m., and a staff person will assist you.
You will be offered the option of purchasing a Feline Leukemia Test ($27.50) and/or a one-time treatment of Revolution ($8) or Advantage ($7) for fleas. If interested, please be prepared to pay by credit card or check.
Same-Day Feral Cat Pick-Up Information
Feral cats must be picked up the same day between 4:30 – 5:00 p.m.
We offer curbside pick-up at the Feral Cat Department Entrance, 220 Florida St.
Recovery Information
A recently altered feral cat must remain indoors for recovery for two to three days.
If the cat is semi-social, you can use a garage space or bathroom.
For cats that cannot be handled, plan on keeping the cat in the trap. Ask us for advice on cage cleaning and feeding during the recovery period.
If you want to rent a trap from The SF/SPCA, contact us at 415.522.3539.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What is a feral cat?
A: An unsocialized “community cat” that cannot be safely handled and must be trapped to be transported.

Q: How young can a feral cat be to be spayed/neutered?
A: Feral kittens can be altered at 2 months of age and/or 2 pounds.

Q: What if I have found a feral mother cat and kittens?
A: If possible, trap the mother and kittens and provide in-home care and daily socialization of the kittens until they are eight weeks of age. At that time, the kittens can be surrendered to The SF/SPCA for adoption. The mother cat will be spayed at no charge and returned to you for release.”

Mayor’s Office vs. Towleroad.com – Prop 8 Ruling Delayed to Avoid Riots?

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

Now let’s see if we can get today’s Prop 8 timeline straight here. This morning, this bit went up on the Azire Times:

“Our source tells us that the [CA Supreme] court has now decided to push pack the ruling for another week or two fearing the ruling would inflame tensions if it ruled on the same date. He said, “‘tensions are running high and the court was asked to move date of ruling.’”

Fair enough. After that, came this “exclusive” from Towleroad.com”

Exclusive: SF Mayor Gavin Newsom Asked Court to Delay Prop 8 Ruling
Confidential sources close to San Francisco City Hall told Towleroad’s Corey Johnson that the California Supreme Court was prepared to release its opinion on Proposition 8 tomorrow,
but decided to delay the ruling after a call from Mayor Gavin Newsom.

Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots,” said our source.

After that, came this:

              STATEMENT FROM NATHAN BALLARD
               COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, MAYOR GAVIN NEWSOM

“Today a website posted an item that quoted a false allegation from an unnamed source: “Mayor [Gavin] Newsom reached out to the Supreme Court and asked them to hold off releasing their decision so it did not coincide with the White Night riots.”

“This allegation is not true. We have asked the website to correct the item immediately.”

Is this last statement a “pregnant denial“? Seems a little skimpy, anyway. Is this whole thing a big deal? 

Only Time Will Tell. 

Does the anti-Prop 8 crowd look the rioting type?

via Steve Rhodes Click to expand