Well, it's official: After indicating in early July that he was inclined to toss Lori Drew's conviction for a MySpace hoax that ended with the suicide of 13 year-old Megan Meier, District Court Judge George Wu of the Central District of California has issued his opinion overturning the conviction.

For those unfamiliar with the story, Lori Drew was the mother of one of Megan Meier's classmates.  Mother and daughter decided to torment Megan by creating a bogus MySpace account for a fictional teenage boy, whom they called "Josh Evans."  This creation of a false account violated MySpace's terms of service.

Unless you haven't been watching the news lately (or unless you live in a country that doesn't have an 800-lb. health care problem in the room), you're probably aware that there's a health care debate raging in the United States right now.

Both sides of the debate have accused the other of spreading misinformation about what proposed reforms to the health care system actually entail.  As part of its effort to combat what it perceived as false claims about health care reform, the White House set up an email address where people could report any "fishy" information they came across.

In a gift to legal bloggers everywhere, the Supreme Court has made sure that we will have Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" to write about for some time to come.

The Court vacated a judgment of the Third Circuit Court of appeals and remanded the case back to the lower court for reconsideration in light of FCC v. Fox Tel. Stations, Inc., last week's opinion that upheld the FCC's decision to change its regulations of fleeting expletives.

The FCC fined CBS $550,000 for Jackson's breast-baring halftime show performance, but the Third Circuit overturned the fine after it determined that the agency had violated its own policy of treating words and images under the same standards for when considering claims of indecency. 

The Supreme Court has held in FCC v. Fox Tel. Stations, Inc. that the Federal Communications Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it created new regulations governing the broadcasting of "fleeting expletives."

The Court declined to rule on the constitutionality of the regulations, however, since the issue was not raised on appeal.  This opens up the possibility that the regulations might come before the court again on a constitutional challenge.