"I think US Code 36, Subtitle 1, Part A, Chapter 3, Section 301 B.1.C covers it" (http://twitter.com/arhayward/status/166556532199272448)

"the U.S. Flag Code says that the hand should go over the heart during the anthem."

"Remix culture is the new Prohibition, with massive media companies as the lone voices calling for temperance. You can criminalize commonplace activities from law-abiding people, but eventually, something has to give."

"On Tuesday 21 June 2011 six photographers were assigned different areas of the City to photograph. Some used tripods, some went hand held, one set up a 5 x 4. All were instructed to keep to public land and photograph the area as they would on a normal day." "All six photographers were stopped on at least one occasion. Three encounters led to police action."

A story about privacy, law, the internet, and the future. Go and read it (if you haven't already).

Anna Minton in the Guardian: "Urban regeneration has seen entire districts pass into the hands of private companies – and their security guards". Most of the recent photography horror stories seem to start with a jobsworth security guard getting annoyed with someone taking a picture of a building, which should be legal, but in these half-private spaces, isn't.

"The curious case of the carbolic smoke ball forced companies to treat customers honestly and openly and still has impact today." On why a quack cure still influences our law.

If you wanted to come up with an example of how democracy and "transparency" could work together to end up with something utterly dystopian, you'd have to work hard to try harder than the US system of sex offender registries, detailed in this depressing, but good, Economist article. (Of course, the UK is rapidly following it. Sigh.)

Robert Peston on the wider journalistic practices behind the NOTW phone conversation affair. "In a series of reports and in evidence to the House of Commons culture, media and sport committee, [the retiring information commissioner] made a series of disclosures about newspaper activities that he regarded as "prima facie" illegal."

"The New York Times, via its reporters acting as proxies, steals documents. It violates laws that everyone else must follow. It uses the information in these documents to sell newspapers, and profits by it. And most important, it uses this process to exercise political power [..] The fact that the Times may commit this class of crime with impunity, while I can't and you can't, enables it (with the true press, of course, as a whole) to act as almost a sovereign force. [..] This is considered a normal and ethical practice in early 21st-century journalism. It is actually a criminal practice, which any other century would recognize as such." (Title shortened for space.)

A good Nick Cohen opinion piece on the Simon Singh case, concluding with the rallying cry that "the greatest threat to freedom of speech in Britain is not the state or the security services or the press barons, but a fusty and illiberal legal system, which has become a public menace".

Comments by Evan Harris; the only one at the time of posting is on the subject of the Simon Singh vs BCA case.

I'd been blissfully unaware of this until this weekend, when the New Scientist and Economist both covered it, but this is perhaps the best summary I've seen of a ridiculous legal ruling on a piece Simon Singh wrote in the Guardian about chiropratic treatments of illnesses in babies.

"Mr Sarkozy is determined to push [the 'three strikes' law] through parliament later this month. He first met his wife, Carla Bruni, a musician who has supported the law, at a presentation of a report on internet piracy by Denis Olivennes, former boss of Fnac, a retailer. Mr Olivennes’s report led directly to the HADOPI law."

"Shaun Ley examines the work of the people who actually write our country's legislation - the Parliamentary draftsmen - and whether laws should be gender-neutral, simpler and fewer." I know it's easy to draw parallels between law and code, but there were moments in this short radio show when it was unavoidable.

'Sebastian Przygodzki took a photograph with his camera, which upset Rebecca Smith and her friends called police ... Sheriff Kenneth Hogg said the matter "could be best described as exceptionally unchivalrous"'. Hence a £100 fine for "breach of the peace", one of those handy UK "anything can be illegal" laws.

A really good post noting that "there is nothing unique about the frequency with which cyclists as a class break the law when compared with drivers" which goes on to explain what drivers also do and why cyclists make the decisions they often do.

Danny O’Brien is really on form in his fresh burst of sponsored blogging, and this is a great post. "her confusion comes from two very separate matters that get blurred in the idea of 'intellectual property': copying as the tapping point for revenue redistribution, and correct attribution and sourcing as a side-effect of that".

A long but worthwhile post on Britain's constitution, considering election timing, the EU, civil service, local government, the character of PMs, devolution, and finally, the prospects for codifying the constitution before a crisis.

Appeal Court overturns the High Court's decision two to one, and say that Critical Mass must give notice of their route before it's allowed.

Taking photos of people in a public place is probably neither an infringement of privacy nor harassment, but international sales rights may be harmed without a model release. Apparently.