From the Desk of Bob Mankoff:

When it comes to humor, everyone is his or her own judge. If you decide that something is funny, it is for you. If you don’t, it’s not. End of story. That is, unless you are an actual judge with an actual case involving humor and the law. Then it’s a whole different story, one that I’m going to let Laura E. Little, a law professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law, tell.

Professor Little’s scholarship integrates law, linguistics, and philosophy. She has concentrated her study recently on the legal regulation of humor, and has studied the topic both in the U.S. and Australia. Take it away, Laura: http://nyr.kr/YZ1nyd

(Source: newyorker.com)

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is the most outrageous criminal law you’ve never heard of. It bans “unauthorized access” of computers, but no one really knows what those words mean. Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department attorney and a leading scholar on computer-crime law, argues persuasively that the law is so open-ended and broad as to be unconstitutionally vague. Over the years, the punishments for breaking the law have grown increasingly severe—it can now put people in prison for decades for actions that cause no real economic or physical harm. It is, in short, a nightmare for a country that calls itself free.

What can be done? Here, Tim Wu considers: http://nyr.kr/WRAXAA

This week in the magazine, Jeffrey Toobin writes a Profile of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who even before her time on the Supreme Court played an important role in shaping the legal framework for women’s rights and gender discrimination. Here Toobin and Margaret Talbot talk with Amy Davidson about Ginsburg’s legacy and some of the current issues the Court is addressing. Also, fiction from a veteran of the war in Afghanistan.  Click-through to listen now: http://nyr.kr/15sjBe5

Tim Wu on why “Escape from Tomorrow,” an indie film shot entirely inside Disney World, is not a violation of fair use law: http://nyr.kr/dfaDes

The case would depend on the appearance of Disney’s trademarks or copyrighted works in the background of the film, like when Goofy wanders by or when we see the waving robots in “It’s a Small World.” Filming these works without justification would be an infringement of the copyright law. The question is whether they are “fair use”—or in other words, whether technical infringements are negated because they are justified by public policy.

…

“Escape from Tomorrow” ultimately raises a larger question of what you might call cultural freedom, or the freedom to comment on or reimagine the great cultural icons of our time. It’s the same question raised by fan fiction and remix artists like Jeff Koons. Disney would surely have preferred that Moore and his team have asked for permission before making the film. But it seems unlikely to have been granted: and a world where Disney gets to determine everything said about Disney World would be a poor place indeed.

There was another big win for gay marriage today, as the Defense of Marriage Act was ruled unconstitutional by a Federal appeals court: http://nyr.kr/LKJ8mS