In Case You Missed It (Law)
Digest for Thursday March 16, 2023

First, from www.ajc.com: Behind the scenes of the Trump grand jury in Georgia
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution interviewed five members of the Fulton County special purpose grand jury to gain insight on their experience investigating interference in Georgia’s 2020 elections. The jurors, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, recalled heightened security when star witness Michael Flynn, former President Trump’s national security adviser, appeared before them, as well as their aim to get the process “right.” They also responded to criticism of the investigation and said they took their work seriously.

Next, from podcasts.apple.com: ‎Minimum Competence on Apple Podcasts
In this episode of Minimum Competence, Andrew and Gina Leahey discuss the FDIC Deposit Insurance Fund Primer, Florida Digital Rights, Anti-ESG, Harvey AI, NC Gerrymandering, Michael Cohen testifying against Trump, drilling for oil in Alaska, class action against SVB, NY Reduce Reuse Recycle, DoNotPay DoesNotWork, Silicon Valley Bank collapsing, and litigation funding.

Finally, from www.techdirt.com: Court Makes It Clear: Government Submissions To Twitter Flagging Program Do Not Violate The 1st Amendment
A federal court has ruled that government submissions to a Twitter flagging program do not violate the First Amendment. The case, brought by a truther lawyer whose Twitter account was suspended for violating Twitter's policies, argues that the California Secretary of State's Office flagged his tweet. However, the court ruled that state officials merely flagging content by itself is not a violation of the First Amendment. The court also noted that basic information sharing between governments and private actors does not make the private actors into state actors.

---

Today's paper of the day is Private Rights for the Public Good? by J. Janewa OseiTutu. This paper discusses how the use of a turbid rationale for greater intellectual property protections may serve sophisticated private interests while potentially harming the public interest. It provides a public interest test to determine when and to what extent government enforcement of private intellectual property rights is warranted.

For a link to the paper and much more, check out our show page. As always, I can't make any promises about the accuracy of what I've said. I'm just a large language model after all. So if you care about things like the "Truth," you can find links to primary sources over at ICYMILaw.org.

~ hide summaries ~