And so to the University of Keele, for the centenary conference of the Society of Legal Scholars in the United Kingdom and Ireland (SLS). The SLS is a leading learned society for those who teach law in a university or similar institution or who are otherwise engaged in legal scholarship, and many of the events at this year’s conference are centred around the celebration of its centenary. Over four days this week, there are several plenary sessions and nearly 30 subject sessions with several papers each, so I won’t be live-blogging the whole thing, but I hope over the next few posts to give a flavour of some of the papers and presentations I attend. It’s usually a great conference, and I hope that it’s not hubris to hope that the SLS is around for the next 100 years as well.

Update (10 September 2009): the centenary was a theme in many of the set-piece presentations at the conference. Two in particular stand out. First, on Tuesday 8 September, Prof David Sugarman reflected on key moments in legal scholarship and education in the UK in the last 100 years – what struck me was just how much like 1950s UK law schools Irish law schools currently are. Second, on Wednesday 9 September, Prof Ray Cocks and Prof Fiona Cownie (this year’s President of the Society) spoke in a largely light-hearted way about the highs and lows of the Society’s history. They drew upon their book A Great and Noble Occupation! The History of the Society of Legal Scholars (Hart, 2009) which was launched at the conference. Founded in 1909, the Society was lucky to survive two world wars, the low esteem in which university law schools were held both in the academy and by the professions, and self-inflicted wounds in the refusal to admit women until the late 1940s or law teachers outside universities until much later in the century. Nevertheless, it survived, and in the last third of the twentieth century, it began to prosper – it is now a learned society promoting research scholarship, a central point for policy debate within the legal academic community, and the means by which that community can engage with the professions and wider society.

From xkcd, via Rumble Strips, a flowchart with which we can all identify – sometimes I’m the tech support, sometimes the baffled “not computer person”:

Bonus links from xkcd (1): some other entertaining flowcharts; (2) a very clever Legal Hack; and (3) my favourite, a chess photo!

There is a wonderful essay by Michael Massing in the current edition of the New York Review of Books about the deepening relationship between print and online journalism. In form, it’s a review of Eric Boehlert Bloggers on the Bus: How the Internet Changed Politics and the Press (Free Press | Amazon), which traces the online events that affected the 2008 presidential campaign and reveals the stories of the internet activists who made them all possible, and Bill Wasik And Then There’s This: How Stories Live and Die in Viral Culture (Viking | Amazon), which seeks to demonstrate that the rise of the internet means that our culture is now created from the ground up. Common to both books is the argument that a small online quiver can easily become a massive earthquake in the real world. In fact, Massing’s piece is a fascinating assessment of the state of journalism on the internet, filled with references to all sorts of blogs, but which only tangentially touches on Boehlert’s and Wasik’s book. In that, I suppose, it’s much more like a long blogpost than a traditional book review.

Indeed, Massing’s piece almost resembles a blogpost in another way: the online version has links to many of the online sources referred to in the piece, a practice other publications could adopt, to save me having to add links when I quote paragraphs from newspaper websites – it is this kind of added value that makes online reporting different from the paper kind, and the sooner newspapers realise that the online version is not simply the text of the paper version, the better. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not advocating that the online version replace the paper version – indeed, I read the paper version of the article first – just that online versions should fulfill their potential. And anyway, the Review’s practice of putting a list of links at the start of the article rather than embedding them in the text only goes half way, so in the extracts below, I’ve still had to add the links.

The core of his argument is in this extract (though the whole thing is well worth reading, even on paper, over a cup of coffee):

The News About the Internet

In an online chat with readers earlier this year, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller deplored the “diminishing supply of quality journalism” at a time of “growing demand.” … Keller’s lament—one of a steady chorus rising from the industry—contains a feature common to many of them: a put-down of the Web and the bloggers who regularly comment on Web sites. …

This image of the Internet as parasite has some foundation. Without the vital news-gathering performed by established institutions, many Web sites would sputter and die. In their sweep and scorn, however, such statements seem as outdated as they are defensive. Over the past few months alone, a remarkable amount of original, exciting, and creative (if also chaotic and maddening) material has appeared on the Internet. The practice of journalism, far from being leeched by the Web, is being reinvented there, with a variety of fascinating experiments in the gathering, presentation, and delivery of news. And unless the editors and executives at our top papers begin to take note, they will hasten their own demise.

Massing traces the history of journalistic blogging from the Mickey Kaus and Andrew Sullivan “snip-it-and-comment approach”, via blogs that not only comment on the news but also break it, to “an emerging new breed of ‘hybrids,’ schooled in both the practices of print journalism and the uses of cyberspace” as well as to online commentators and citizen-journalists (though he uses neither of these terms); the internet offers a podium to those

… of all ages and backgrounds who are flush with ideas but lack the means to transmit them. A good example is Marcy Wheeler, … [who] first began blogging in 2004, gaining notice for her posts on the Valerie Plame leak case; in early 2007 she “liveblogged” the Lewis Libby trial. Later that year, after giving up her consulting job, she began blogging full-time for FireDogLake …

“The idea that our work is parasitical is farcical,” Wheeler told me by phone. “There’s a lot of good, original work in the blogosphere. Half of all journalists look at the blogosphere when working on a story.” At the same time, she said, “I’m happy to admit I’m still utterly reliant on journalists …” … “We ought to be talking about a symbiotic rather than a parasitical relationship,” she told me. What disturbs bloggers, she added, are those journalists who reside in “the Village”—shorthand, she said, “for the compliant, unquestioning, conventional wisdom that comes out of Washington. …”.

The blogosphere, by contrast, has proven especially attractive to those who, despite having specialized knowledge about a subject, have little access to the nation’s Op-Ed pages. … Beyond such individual sites, the Web has helped open up entire subjects that were once off-limits to the press. …

But Massing admits that it’s not all roses here in the world of electrons and computer screens; and this allows him a paragraph each on the books putatively under review. First, bloggers often reject the attempts at “balance” that are made by mainstream print publications, though of course

… it’s their willingness to dispense with such conventions that makes the blogosphere a lively and bracing place. This is nowhere more apparent than in the work of Glenn Greenwald. A lawyer and former litigator, Greenwald is a relative newcomer to blogging, having begun only in December 2005, but as Eric Boehlert notes in his well-researched but somewhat breathless Bloggers on the Bus, within six months of his debut he “had ascended to an unofficial leadership position within the blogosphere.” In contrast to the short, punchy posts favored by most bloggers, Greenwald offers a single daily essay of two thousand to three thousand words. In each, he draws on extensive research, amasses a daunting array of facts, and, as Boehlert puts it, builds his case “much like an attorney does.”

Second, Massing quite rightly acknowledges

… some of the more troubling features of the journalism taking shape on the Web. The polemical excesses for which the blogosphere is known remain real. In And Then There’s This, an impressionistic account of the viral culture on the Internet, Bill Wasik describes how “the network of political blogs, through a feedback loop among bloggers and readers,” has produced a machine that supplies the reader with “prefiltered information” supporting his or her own views. According to one study cited by Wasik, 85 percent of blog links were to other blogs of the same political inclination, “with almost no blog showing any particular respect for any blog on the other side.” …

Finally, the Internet remains a hothouse for rumors, distortions, and fabrications. … For all these problems, the Web is currently home to all kinds of intriguing experiments … [which t]aken together … suggest a fundamental change taking place in the world of news.

Massing’s piece offers insights into where this change has come from as well as tantalising glimpses of where it might be going. The key point is that, whilst the world of print journalism may not be dieing, it will need to rejuvenate if it is to thrive. How it responds to that challenge will be interesting. And remember, as it does, please embed those links!

Bonus links: the Review’s podcast page has a conversation between Manning and Charles Petersen about the rise of blogs and the ascent of online journalism (mp3); and while you’re there, check out Fintan O’Toole’s gripping interview by Sasha Weiss about the genius and misfortune of Flann O’Brien (mp3).

Via ContractsProf, I learn that US discount retailer Best Buy will not honour a $9.99 big-screen TV deal which it had offered for sale on its website, because the terms on the site reserved its right to revoke offers or correct errors even if a credit card has already been charged. This is just the latest example of a common phenomenon; the biggest Irish example was last year’s Aer Lingus mistakenly priced flights fiasco; and they are in good company: it has happened to Amazon (2003); Argos (1999 and 2005); Avon (2004); Buy.com (1998); Dell (several times: 2001, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2008 – twice); Hoover (1992); Kodak (2002); Thai Airways (2003), Sony products in France (2004), and (hat tip Legal Eagle in the comments) JB Hi-Fi in Australia (2009).

Best Buy protected themselves against such errors by providing for them in their Conditions of Use:

Errors on Our Site
… Errors will be corrected where discovered, and Best Buy reserves the right to revoke any stated offer and to correct any errors, inaccuracies or omissions including after an order has been submitted and whether or not the order has been confirmed and your credit card charged. If your credit card has already been charged for the purchase and your order is cancelled, Best Buy will issue a credit to your credit card account in the amount of the charge. …

Amazon’s Conditions of Use are similarly clear:

Pricing
… Despite our best efforts, a small number of the items in our catalog may be mispriced. If an item’s correct price is higher than our stated price, we will, at our discretion, either contact you for instructions before shipping or cancel your order and notify you of such cancellation.

Please note that this policy applies only to products sold and shipped by Amazon. Your purchases from third-party sellers using Marketplace Payments by Amazon are charged at the time you place your order, and third-party sellers may follow different policies in the event of a mispriced item. …

Nevertheless, the wonder is not that it happens at all, but that it happens so infrequently. In any event, the legal principles are well settled; and I suspect that online retailers will increasingly include and rely on similar terms. However, the Aer Lingus General Conditions of Carriage do not seem to have been updated since October 2004 – and so far as I can see, they do not contain a similar clause. Perhaps Aer Lingus haven’t learned their lesson yet?

It is exciting news that there is to be a new online peer-reviewed Irish law journal, the Irish Law Quarterly. (Don’t be cynical: it is exciting news; and the world – or at least Ireland – really does need another one). According to the home page:

The ILQ is an innovative journal which aims at broad coverage of legal issues, national and international, both purely doctrinal and interdisciplinary. We aim at a diversity of high quality discussion of the law from any angle. Both commentary on current matters and more considered pieces are invited.

The ILQ is run by members of the Faculty of Law, UCC; and it is supported by a grant from the National Academy for Integration of Research, Teaching and Learning (NAIRTL – I have a similar list in the comments to this post). Contributions are encouraged and readers are needed. Both will benefit: the ILQ will consist of the full mix of articles, review articles, book reviews, notes and comments, and in doing so it will provide another outlet for academic scholarship and considered debate about important legal topics.

Publication will be online (and, as a bonus, the website has a wonderful collection of links to other similar online journals). This is undoubtedly a good thing. But although I fully support this kind of open online publication, I have one quibble; it seems that publication is only to be in pdf format – now, pdf is a good thing if you want to print it out, and it is often a good thing if you want to read onscreen. However, in my view, it is not so good if you want to navigate on screen. For that, a html version is much better. In a perfect world, the ILQ would come in both flavours; but this is a very minor quibble about what is otherwise a very exciting development.

Read the website, email the journal, write something for it, and read it when it’s published. Long may it prosper!

Here we go again with yet another case of a head of state seeking to use the courts to curb uncomfortable press coverage. It is a popular tactic the world over – Charlie Haughey infamously relied on threats of libel action to stifle investigation of his private and financial affairs – and it is a game to which Silvio Berlusconi seems to devote himself with some alacrity, both at home and abroad. It gives a whole new meaning to globalisation. His latest forays are summarized by the TimesOnline (with added links):

Umberto Eco leads writers’ revolt against Silvio Berlusconi’s attempt to gag press

Richard Owen in Rome

Italy’s artistic and intellectual elite was in open revolt yesterday against Silvio Berlusconi’s moves to sue at least three newspapers at home and abroad. More than 120,000 people have signed an online petition defending press freedom.

Umberto Eco, perhaps the country’s leading writer, Dario Fo, the playwright, and Roberto Saviano, author of Gomorrah, the bestseller about the Naples Mafia, were among those signing the petition, started by La Repubblica. The paper is being sued for questioning the Prime Minister’s behaviour and private life.

Mr Eco said: “When someone has to intervene to defend freedom of the press it means that the society, and with it a great part of the press itself, is already sick.” He added that in robust democracies there was no need to defend press freedom “because it enters nobody’s mind to limit it”.

The story is also in The Financial Times and The Telegraph, and Forbes magazine has more detail about Berlusconi’s lawsuits (with added links):

Berlusconi’s Libel Lawsuits

Javier Espinoza

Italian PM is suing some media companies he doesn’t own for reporting on his parties with young women.

Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, who owns Mediaset, the country’s largest private broadcaster, is launching legal actions against media companies that he doesn’t own in Italy, Britain, France and Spain, for libel in their coverage of his private life, his lawyer said on Friday. …

Berlusconi’s lawyers in France have sued weekly Nouvel Observateur for a story headlined “Sex, Power and Lies” and Spain’s El Pais for publishing photos of naked guests at the premier’s Sardinian villa, the billionaire’s lawyers said. In Italy lawyers have sued left-leaning La Repubblica for repeating the Nouvel Observateur story and for defaming Berlusconi by repeating daily its “10 Questions” about his private life and political aspirations. …

La Repubblica has the full story of the petition (in Italian): Appello Repubblica, le adesioni firmano Benigni e Jovanotti; the petition is here (in Italian) and here (in English); the original 10 questions are here (in Italian) and here (in English), whilst 10 new questions are here (in Italian) and here (in English); and La Repubblica’s website has an excellent and regularly updated page on the scandal in the international press. Le Nouvel Observateur has the full story of Berlusconi’s case against it (in French): Silvio Berlusconi va porter plainte contre le Nouvel Observateur. El Pais has the full story of Berlusconi’s case against it (in Spanish): Berlusconi denunciará a EL PAÍS por publicar fotos de sus fiestas.

Freedom of the press in Italy is in a sorry state, and Berlusconi’s three cases are simply the latest in a long line of such law suits instigated by him (not all have gone his way: last year, The Economist successfully defended a libel case taken by him against it). And even if these cases are successful at first instance, I’ve commented here on previous occasions that such cases are unlikely to survive scrutiny in the European Court of Human Rights.

It has become a rite of passage to stand in lines overnight or longer to be early in line to buy concert tickets, or houses off the plans (at least during now extinct Celtic Tiger years), or places in a school, or early into a sale in a favourite shop. Indeed, sometimes, shops advertise (in the shop window, a newspaper, etc) extra-special offers for the first few people in line. Have you ever wondered whether the shop’s advertisment of the special offer is enforceable? If so, you will consider that Lefkowitz v Great Minneapolis Surplus Store 251 Minn. 188, 86 N.W.2d 689 (Minn. 1957) (pdf | pdf | pdf | summary | wikipedia) is an entertaining contract law case (no, really, it is).

The store advertised in a Minneapolis newspaper that it would sell 3 fur coats for $1 each on a first-come first-served basis the following Saturday; the following week similarly advertised that it would sell 2 mink scarves and 1 lapin stole for $1 each on a first-come first-served basis the following Saturday (the image on the top left might or might not be one of the furs). On each occasion, Mr Lefkowitz was first through the door; on the first occasion, the store refused to sell on the grounds that the offer was intended for women; on the second, the store refused on the grounds that he now knew the store’s rules. The question was whether the newspaper advertisements were offers which accepted by turning up, with the effect that the store had a contract to sell. The case is a staple on the ContractsProf blog (see eg here | here), where Jeremy Telman has recently summed it up in a limerick:

Mo Lefkowitz made his career
Finding ads explicit and clear.
He’s the first to the store;
Now he’s got furs galore,
And the price that he pays isn’t dear.

Bonus links: the leading case on this issue is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co [1893] 1 QB 256, [1892] EWCA Civ 1 (07 December 1892) (which has featured on ContractsProf here, here, here and here); the leading Irish case is Tansey v College of Occupational Therapists Ltd [1995] 2 ILRM 601, [1986] IEHC 2 (27 August 1986) (which – unaccountably – doesn’t seem to have featured on ContractsProf!); and the most recent entertaining illustration of the principle is provided by Leonard v PepsiCo 88 F.Supp.2d 116, (S.D.N.Y. 1999), aff’d 210 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 2000) (which has featured on ContractsProf here, here, here and here).