This blog had its 10 millionth hit today.

I have now received, in the entire five-year history of this blog, as many page views as Hot Air gets in a month.

Sweet.

. . . for traffic here. We had over half a million page views here in June — easily double the normal month.

You can see from the graph that it’s an outlier and is unlikely to repeat. Still, we may have picked up a couple dozen extra permanent readers somewhere in there, and that’s always good.

And we’re about to pass 10 million page views for the life of the blog, sometime in the next few days.

Thanks for reading, and spread the word!

P.S. Just to put it in perspective, my entire month of June was like a couple of days’ worth of traffic at Instapundit.

P.P.S. It’s not even two average days at Hot Air. Speaking of which, did you guys realize that Hot Air’s traffic has significantly surpassed the traffic of Instapundit and Michelle Malkin? I think it might be the most highly trafficked conservative blog there is.

If you want to get bloggers to link to something, talk about blogs. This is a site that purports to provide linking information about the 297 most influential political blogs. Apparently your circles are bigger if you are linked by more sites, and your position on the map (right or left) is dependent on the character of the sites that link you (the more uniquely conservative your links, the further right your positioning).

If I understand it right.

Here’s the pretty map, with this blog’s position:

Smack dab in the middle of the conservatives. Seems about right.

Don’t refuse to quote them.

Just don’t link them.

There’s no law that says you have to link what you quote. Just use a quote that fits within fair use, do your commentary, and deny them the link.

Me, I’m going to keep on doing what I’ve been doing. I think it’s good to give people the chance to read quotes in context. So I’m pretty much just going to ignore this little campaign on the part of the AP to frighten bloggers out of relying on the concept of fair use.

But if you’re bound and determined to punish them, just don’t send any traffic their way. That’s all.

You most certainly did get my attention. Thank you for your wise and insightful concurring [PDF] opinion which should be read by all California bloggers.

Oh, by the way, WTF is up with designating this very important opinion as ‘unpublished’?? Please do what you can to correct this travesty.

Yours Truly,

Justin Levine

[Guest blogger at Patterico.com]

Xrlq wants to go shoot guns or something. If you vote for him, maybe he can. So vote for him.

Also, if I link him on that post, it means he will link my post about how Barack Obama sucks, which will propel me higher in the Google rankings for the search term “Barack Obama sucks.”

Because he does. Suck.

Not Xrlq. Barack Obama. He sucks.

Badger 6 signs off.

[posted by Justin Levine]

Let history record that I was the first blogger to point out that the California gay marriage decision was far more significant than many first realized due to the fact that it labeled homosexuals as a “suspect” class entitled to “strict scrutiny” under an Equal Protection Clause analysis (essentially treating laws that discriminate against homosexuals the same way as it would treat laws discriminating against racial minorities).

But now that Marty Lederman has followed my lead on this, it seems to be getting all sorts of attention. Alas, my legal genius seems destined to continue in relative anonymity in the blogosphere. [Hey Court TV…Call my agent!]

But seriously, this is a vital aspect of the decision that has been largely drowned out in the more immediate political debate over the marriage issue. It may have a far reaching impact that has yet to be studied in legal circles.

[Justin Levine]

[Guest post by DRJ]

Is sexually enticing speech on the internet a crime if it’s directed at minors? The Utah Supreme Court heard argument today on just that issue:

“Can the state convict someone of enticing a minor over the Internet based on their words alone? That issue was the subject of lively debate among justices of the Utah Supreme Court on Wednesday.

At issue is whether or not Utah’s Internet Enticement statute is unconstitutional by saying a person engaged in sexual speech over the Internet need only believe they are chatting with a minor in orded to be convicted.

“All you’re doing is criminalizing speech,” said attorney Ann Taliaferro. “There has to be something more.”

The Utah case concerns James Gallegos who was convicted and sentenced to a year in jail for enticing an adult Utah Internet Crimes agent posing as a 13-year-old girl on the internet. Gallegos chatted with the agent/girl twice online and described how he wanted to sexually touch her. They arranged a meeting but when Gallegos drove by the designated place, he sped off. Agents tracked him using his license number.

Gallegos claimed he just wanted to see what the person looked like:

“Gallegos claims he had never believed the person he was chatting with was a minor. At some point, Gallegos said he was convinced the person was a gay man posing as a girl because in the past he had arranged meetings with supposed females only to meet a man. The reason he showed up at the meeting site, was out of curiosity about this person.”

The statute requires that the suspect must believe the person they are chatting with is a minor. At one end of the spectrum was Gallego’s defense counsel who argued that internet chat is fantasy, not grounded in reality, and people can be anyone they want online. At the other end, a Justice suggested that if a party says they are a minor, “log off.”

Chief Justice Christine Durham noted that Gallegos went beyond sexual speech — he solicited a meeting with someone who claimed to be a minor and he showed up at the meeting place. She likened it to sexual solicitation of a 13-year-old on the street. However, another Justice was troubled by the law:

“Justice Michael Wilkins asked Gray if it was illegal for someone to have “cyber-sex” with someone claiming to be a minor. “Does the state consider cyber-sex to be sexual activity?” Wilkins asked. Gray said the state did not, but if the person solicited sex and believed it was a minor, that is what the law requires.

Wilkins wondered how the state can establish what a person believes short of having a full confession. He said he was “troubled” by the law and concerned about its constitutionality. In this case, Wilkins said it appeared all the state needed to do to convict someone was to go online, set up a meeting for sex and that is enough.

Typically, state agents will try to get the suspect to show up at a pre-arranged location and time in order to prove legal intent.”

Gallegos also complained that he was not allowed to call an expert witness whose testimony was offered to show that Gallegos is not attracted to young girls and is not a pedophile. The trial court ruled the evidence was not relevant but some justices indicated that if a crime involved intent, defendant should be allowed to challenge that with expert testimony.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard an appellate case today that pits internet freedom against protection of minors:

“The family of a teenage girl who says she was sexually assaulted by a 19-year-old man she met on MySpace.com asked a federal appeals court Monday to revive their lawsuit against the social networking Web site.

A federal judge dismissed the $30 million suit in February 2007, rejecting the family’s claim that MySpace has a legal duty to protect its young users from sexual predators.

U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks in Austin, Texas, also ruled that interactive computer services like MySpace are immune from such lawsuits under the Communications Decency Act of 1996.

On Monday, a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans heard arguments on the family’s bid to overturn Sparks’ rulings.”

The unidentified girl created a MySpace page when she was 13 but claimed she was 18. MySpace requires that users be at least 14. After corresponding for several weeks with a 19-year-old man she met through MySpace, they met in Travis County where he sexually assaulted her.

The parties’ positions were clear and succinct:

“A lawyer for MySpace and parent company News Corp., Harry Reasoner, told the 5th Circuit panel Monday that Congress enacted the 1996 law to promote the growth of the Internet and protect online companies from tort litigation.

Gregory Coleman, a lawyer for the girl’s family, said the law only gives MySpace a “limited shield” from liability. “It has a responsibility to (protect) children,” he said.

MySpace denies any wrongdoing, and says it warns members that its safety protections are not foolproof.”

I think Judge Sparks decided this case correctly but I’m sure it’s hard for the parents of this girl to accept.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Google has a black homepage today “as a gesture to raise awareness of a worldwide energy conservation effort called Earth Hour.”

This may be a great idea but I’m changing my homepage.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

I love the internet and even though I don’t browse any controversial websites, I don’t mind that they exist. But articles like this from Oregon make me think twice about whether we need to rein in the internet:

“A pair of hoax ads on Craigslist cost an Oregon man much of what he owned.

The ads popped up Saturday afternoon, saying the owner of a Jacksonville home was forced to leave the area suddenly and his belongings, including a horse, were free for the taking, said Jackson County sheriff’s Detective Sgt. Colin Fagan.

But Robert Salisbury had no plans to leave. The independent contractor was at Emigrant Lake when he got a call from a woman who had stopped by his house to claim his horse.

On his way home he stopped a truck loaded down with his work ladders, lawn mower and weed eater.

“I informed them I was the owner, but they refused to give the stuff back,” Salisbury said. “They showed me the Craigslist printout and told me they had the right to do what they did.”

Salisbury lost most of his property to numerous people, although he was able to take down the license plates of some. Apparently most of the people who took items were convinced they had the right to take the items because of the notices they saw on Craigslist.

Fortunately for Salisbury, the woman who wanted the horse had the sense to check to see if the notice was valid or he might not have had any information about what happened. In addition, authorities are working to track down who placed the Craigslist notices.

It’s an interesting dilemma. The law can deal with property issues like theft and conversion, and the fake notice may be actionable as criminal or civil fraud. However, I don’t think people will be happy with an unregulated internet if stories like this become more common.

UPDATE 4/1/2008: The perpetrators have apparently been caught. See NK’s comment.

– DRJ