Petr Chovanec's blog

Vzpomínáte si na “kdo jmenuje i odvolává” od Václava Klause? Sice to nedopadlo podle jeho představ (Ústavní soud zrušil jak jeho rozhodnutí, tak i tu část zákona), ale stále se mohl ohánět tím svým tvrzením. Pan tehdejší prezident nepochopil smyl “independent agency”.

Donald Trump má nyní podobný problém. On jmenoval Jay Powella a ten dělá svoji práci dobře. Ač dobře, tak politicky to není dobré pro Donalda Trumpa. Asi by mu někdo měl připomenout smysl independent agencies.

It is interesting that the fight for freedom, esp. for speech and the press, is fought by people and companies that you would not call mainstream. Larry Flint is famous (Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)).

Playboy is not known for the freedom of speech, but mainly for aggressive copyright enforcement (some wins – Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Frena, 839 F.Supp. 1552 (1993), some losses –  Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Welles, 60 F. Supp. 2d 1050)

Now we have another nice situation – White House suspended Brian Karem’s pass based on some altercation, Playboy is appealing. Let’s see whether it reaches SCOTUS.

Keep tuned.

Julian Assange was arrested by the UK authorities and was charged with hacking (!) by helping Chelsea Manning who is in jail for contempt for refusing to testify.

This case has very strong First Amendment implications. The leaker and the publisher. Who is liable? Will it have a chilling effect?

This has also strong European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) implications. Julian Assange was accused by politicians of capital crimes, and the UK cannot extradite anybody under those circumstances (see Soering v United Kingdom 161 Eur. Ct. H.R.).

Or are they afraid the Mueller report would get leaked (oh, trust me, if Barr misrepresents, what is clearly doing now, someone will leak eventually leak it)?

Spoiler alert – blbe.

Urad prace je nevyrizuje, a jestli ano, tak jen po velke namaze a jeste dopisem. Vydolovat z nich ten dopis mi trvalo kolem peti let.

Dalsi Uzasnakovi jsou na UOOU, kde tvrdi, ze takove zadosti jsou nicotne. Co to znamena, to vi jen na UOOU. Mestsky soud se tim vubec nezabyva a kdyz, tak vydava spatna usneseni.

Edit: The White House, most likely after the first govt lawyer read what Sarah Huckabee Sanders wrote, threw the towel in, for now…

As you know, the White House is somehow trying to justify why they took away Jim Acosta’s pass. It was clearly unconstitutional, and that must be seen even by the caliber of lawyers Trump hires. However, there should be a guidance on what is allowed and what not.

Up to now (ie, before Trump) everything went okay. Nixon with his Watergate was trying to kick journalist out, but was not aggressive. Trump is not willing to answer tough questions and makes it journalists fault (you are fake news, or lying on stage and then denying it). Journalists are also tougher, and don’t want to give up mikes (and interns are somehow more aggressive too, watch SNL skit on that).

Let’s have a guidance, and also the other side will have to behave. I am waiting to see it.

I am also happy that Trump appointed judge told Trump to stfu. At least we don’t have Obama appointee; Trump would have a theatrical  moment what decreases judiciary’s power again.

Tiskem probehla zprava, ze MF nechce zverejnovat kolik zaplatil za odskodneni (zde).

Nedivim se jim. Od rozhodnuti Nejvyssiho soudu, ze ministerstvo plati za spravni soudnictvi, protoze jsou zde dva urady, plati i za chyby, ktere vubec neudelalo.

Otazka je, co je tech 55 milionu. Jestli to jsou jen chyby MF nebo i jinych uradu.

Jak si mozna vzpominate, v roce 2014 jsem pozadal o plat p. Ing. Necasove, byv. Nagyove a ministerstvo prace a socialnich veci tehdy odmitlo vydat. Po trech prohranych soudech (brzo ctyrech) se to znovu dostalo k pani ministryni, ktera rozhodnuti zrusila…. a nyni ministerstvo znovu zamitlo.

Zpusob, jakym zamitlo je obdivuhodny, porusili snad vsechny principy spravniho rizeni, takze nejaka odchylka od konstatni judikatury Evropskeho soudu pro lidska prava nikoho prece neprekvapi. Timto tempem to mozna dostanu v roce 2025.

Budu informovat o prubehu.

Pozadal jsem si o dane rozhodnuti citovane pani vrchni statni zastupkyni v tiskove zprave. Plny text rozhodnuti zde.

Prvne cituji z rozsudku Vrchniho soudu 5 To 20/2016:

“V dané věci lze odkázat i na judikaturu ELSP, a to především na rozsudek ve věci Campos Daâmaso proti Portugalsku. ESLP v uvedeném případě dospěl k závěru, že postup státních orgánů, které zahájily trestní řízení proti novinářům, kteří v novinách uveřejnili obsah obžaloby, byl legitimní.”

To je minimalne velmi pochybne, spise bych rekl, ze to je lez. ELSP dospel k zaveru, ze to bylo poruseni cl. 10 Umluvy a naridil Portugalsku vratit pokutu. Rekl, ze dana ustanoveni portugalskeho trestniho zakoniku jsou obecne legitimni (a cituje Radu), ale v tom pripade to legitimni nebylo. ESLP resil, ze dane omezeni vubec nic nevyresi, a proto neni legitimni. Dane rozhodnuti je k dispozici pouze ve francouzstine a portugalstine, tak si statni zastupce asi myslel, ze muze soudu lhat (a soud mu na to skocil).

Dale v dane veci (5 To 20/2016) slo o publikaci celeho neverejneho usneseni o zahajeni trestniho stihani. To by mozna mohlo byt v poradku, protoze to usneseni asi nemohlo byt ziskano v souladu se zakonem.

Soud se ale vubec nevyporadal s tim, ze ta vyzva nema zakonny podklad.

Vypada to, ze nebyla podana ustavni stiznost. Skoda.

This post will talk about data-driven research on disability. Whenever big data is used.

In this blog post, I will collect links to data sets that were used in disability research or potentially can be used.

There are many economic datasets that I will write about elsewhere later, for the time being I will link them below.

CDC:

 http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandh…

General economic datasets:

aggregators