Summary: For our first official The Law Review podcast, I'm joined by Fastcase CEO Ed Walters. These are the headlines we discuss: 1. While we typically embrace technology being the tech geeks we are, it’s always good to step back and think about how we’re using that technology. In a headline that sounds more like the introduction to a creepy dystopian sci-fi book, thousands of Ukranian protesters received a text message yesterday while protesting that read, “Dear subscriber, you are registered as a participant in a mass disturbance.” The overreaching future is creepy. 2. Former VA governor Bob McDonnell and his wife were indicted yesterday for allegedly accepting gifts valued at over $140,000 from a dietary supplement company. The couple claim they never accepted money with the intent of giving a government benefit, and instead allege the money was a personal gift (even though it’s since been paid back with interest). 3. Can emoji count as a death threat? A reporter recently wondered this after he initiated a drug deal, you know, for a story, and then backed out. It turns out drug dealers aren’t a fan of that. So the drug dealer tracked down the reporter’s real Instagram account and posted a threatening emoji on it. There’s no case pending, but it’s an interesting question – is it easier or harder for emoji to count as harassment. 4. Are more states going to start ticketing people for driving while wearing Google Glass? At least one person is looking at a ticket for driving while wearing the device. We’re going to talk a bit later on about whether or not these kinds of laws should exist, and when they might be appropriate. 5. The 9th Circuit held yesterday that a peremptory strike of a potential juror, just because he mentioned his same-sex lover in a case involving HIV medication pricing, was a violation of the equal protection clause. Striking counsel claimed he was unaware of the juror’s sexual orientation, but the authoring 9th Circuit judge rebutted, claiming that the attorney never asked him a substantive question about his ability to remain impartial. 6. The DC circuit isn’t giving any love to Common Clause’s attorneys seeking to overturn the filibuster rule. While their argument revolves around the majority rule language codified by the Constitution. It looks like this is going to a ripeness or lack of standing issue, especially given that it turns out none of the parties sued – including Vice-President Biden – has the ability to change the rules. Please also take note of our subreddit at reddit.com/r/thelawreview. Feel free to submit stories there or vote on the stories you'd like to hear us discuss that day. You can also email us at podcast /at\ fastcase /dot\ com. Thanks for listening!
