This page serves to remind me that (a) legal citation formats are unusually strange, and (b) law reviews need to understand proper archiving and DOIs, instead of relying on commercial legal reporting services. Half of these links will probably be broken by the time you read this.
See also Policing, the First Amendment.
Kozinski, A. (2015). Criminal law 2.0. Georgetown Law Journal, 44, iii–xliv.
Forty pages on the weaknesses in forensic evidence and confessions, treatment of prosecutorial misconduct, sentencing reform, and many other issues, with a long list of proposed reforms. And the best concluding paragraph ever seen in a law review article with 243 footnotes.
Richard A. Posner, “What Is Obviously Wrong With the Federal Judiciary, Yet Eminently Curable”, parts 1 and 2, Green Bag vol 19 nos. 2 and 3, http://greenbag.org/v19n2/v19n2_articles_posner.pdf and http://greenbag.org/v19n3/v19n3_articles_posner.pdf
Yes, it exists!
Randazza, M. J. (2016). The freedom to film pornography. Nevada Law Journal, 17(1), 99–139. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2864532
This isn’t exactly humor, but insofar as it is a serious treatment of an amusing subject, and contains paragraphs like the ones below, it is still far funnier than nearly any other law review article you will ever find:
But, of all the legal tropes that lawyers hear shouted over the din of a somewhat crowded bar smelling of last night’s spilled beer and roach spray, nothing annoys this author more than the oft-repeated, but never true, “it is legal to film porn only in California and New Hampshire.” This is, at best, an uneducated fool repeating a myth. At worst, it is a lie—and a convenient one that politicians, journalists, and assorted fools continue to repeat. Therefore, this article is primarily aimed at the curious, but it is also intended to educate the misinformed and to embarrass those who knowingly misrepresent the state of the law.
But, if I am going to be that bold, I had better be able to answer some questions. For example, why isn’t commercial porn production actually “filmed prostitution?” A simplistic view of the commercial pornography industry might suggest an easy, and contrary, answer.
- A: Prostitution is paying for sex.
- B: Commercial pornography actors take money to have sex.
- A + B = commercial porn actors are prostitutes, and commercial porn directors are pimps.
Robert A. James, “The Jurisprudence of Paper Clips”, 19 Green Bag 2d 249 (2016) https://ssrn.com/abstract=2795728
Fred Rodell, “Goodbye to Law Reviews”, 43 Virginia Law Review 38 (1936), https://www.refsmmat.com/files/goodbye.pdf
“There are two things wrong with almost all legal writing. One is its style. The other is its content. That, I think, about covers the ground.”
Kevin Underhill, “If Great Literary Works Had Been Written By Lawyers”, parts 1 and 2, Green Bag vol 2 no 4 and vol 4 no 1 (1999, 2000).
Moby Dick, Or, The “Whale”: A Narrative About, But Not Necessarily Limited to, the Species Enumerated at 50 C.F.R. § 224.101(b)(xiv)
COMES NOW the protagonist (hereinafter “Ishmael”).