Troubling Report: Law and More is allegedly being blocked in RI State Court Law Library

This evening I received a troubling report.  I will begin to investigate it myself.  But lead paint watchers, both on sides of the defendants and plaintiffs, should be aware of this allegation.

Jon Pincince, who heads the RHODE ISLAND LAW JOURNAL and practices law in Rhode Island, sent me an e-mail.  In it Pincince reported:

"Thought you'd be interested to know this: Earlier today I was on the public computer at the Law Library at the RI Superior and Supreme Court Building on Benefit Street, and I tried to click over to your blog from mine [RHODE ISLAND LAW JOURNAL], and it seems that Law & More is blocked by whatever blocking software the court employs on its computers, or at least the computer I was on at the back of the library in the periodicals room. 

"Don't know what content on your blog any blocking software would find objectionable, but I thought it was ironic, given how much you have blogged about issues before the RI Supreme Court, for your blog to be blocked from the Court's library computers."

Pincince is very committed to RI legal issues. In fact, he was the point person who helped make it possible for the RI SC lead paint oral arguments on May 15th to be transmitted by webcast. Yesterday in THE PROVIDENCE JOURNAL, the spokesperson for the RI SC Craige Berke was quoted by writer Peter Lord as saying, "Chief Justice Frank J. Williams decided to allow the Webcast because of the strong nationwide interest in the case."  So, in the eyes of the readers of this blog, Pincince is a hero in the lead paint public nuisance litigation hall of fame.

I thank Pincince for reporting this information and for allowing me to share it with readers on the record.

It will probably take some digging to find out:

• If access to this blog is being blocked by software in the State Court [Superior/Supreme] Law Library
• Why that is being done
• What options do I have to remove the block
• And will the author of the blog [me] be allowed to attend the RI SC oral arguments on lead paint on May 15th.

We know from the Dickie Scruggs' indictment that his lawyers made motions about the extensive media coverage, including blogging, to request a change of venue.  The irony about those motions is that, with the exception of restricted blogs meant only for special audiences such as employees or members of organizations, blogs' reach is global.  The most credible blogging on Scruggs had been done on a site in Portland, Oregon.

Could someone in the RI lead paint public nuisance loop also be building a foundation for a change of venue if there is a RI Lead Paint Public Nuisance Trial III. Both sides are requesting new trials, for different reasons.  The irony is that this particular blog, especially the sections on lead paint, are translated by Google into many languages, including Mandarin.  You bet, the Chinese are quite interested in lead paint litigation, public nuisance and personal liability.

If any reader has any insight into this contention, please leave a comment or contact Mgenova981@aol.com.  All this seems bizarre to a working-class kid from Jersey City.

Comments

[viagra online]

this information has helped me much help as I am working on a project about this issue, I hope to get something more on the subject. Thank you.

[x-ray fluorescence]

Hi,
I think court employs to keep objectionable content from being viewed on the library's computers..

[teqjack]

I suspect, with Mr. Pincicne, that the blocking software has picked up a word, picture, or link it finds objectionable. Blockers are notorious for such behavior, it is nearly impossible for a programmer to check consequences of automated blacklisting prior to implementation. There should be a whitelist you can get on.

But ask: how many other sites are blocked without being made aware? What are the parameters being used?

[Jon Pincince]

Hi Jane - I didn't intend to imply that there is any sort of conspiracy against Law & More, or that the blocking of your site is even intentional on the part of anyone at the Court; rather, I assume it is the result of whatever software or program the Court employs to keep objectionable content from being viewed on the library's computers, and for some reason that software or program is identifying your blog as something not to be allowed through its filter. There is probably a way for you to contact the operator of the filter to have your site reviewed and determined to be a site that should not be blocked.