Colbert on Telecomm Contracts, Privacy: Feds Bound More by Phone Service Agreement than U.S. Constitution

Here's a biting bit of irony blown up by the Colbert Report about the U.S. Department of Justice publicly suing Sprint for overcharging $21M on their top secret wiretapping service, which federal judges have declared illegal and unconstitutional.

"That takes balls. It's like a guy telling his wife, 'I'm suing the prostitute who gave us both herpes. And by the way, I go to prostitutes, and you have herpes."

How's that for a way to start off a discussion about government surveillance and taxpayer money? So, that joke in the caption probably makes this useful for discussion with the college/adult crowd only (who should also notice the casual insensitivity of using sex workers as a vehicle for the joke), but it's certainly worth discussing both the ethics/legality of government spying (especially in connection to some research about how they're spying a la the Snowden leaks), and Colbert's clever method for bringing up the fact that taxpayers pay for all of this. Of course, Colbert's satirical impersonation of a right wing pundit demands that he couch the economic issue as due to Obama's mistakes, which he brilliantly frames from the point of view of a disappointed parent chastising a kid for jacking up the family bill through irresponsible cell phone use.

"Someone is going to have to pay for this, sir. Because even the President of the United States is bound by his cell phone agreement, though apparently not by the Constitution."--Stephen Colbert

So, what's left out of that critique? For starters, taxpayers had been paying for the service either way, and now pay for the law suit. I'd love to hear from you--what are the most important questions to ask to frame debate about the ethics of government wiretapping/data-mining, transparency of government action, and use of taxpayer money? And what research questions does this piece inspire?
[clip autostarts after the jump]

The Big Game That Shall Not Be Named (For Fear of Trademark Infringement Litigation)

Trademark law in the U.S. is copyright's badass older brother who doesn't want to hear you whining about fair use or parody--he doesn't care if you're kidding or adding value--because he said shut up because he came first and because he said so. This Colbert Report segment highlights the absurd power of intimidation that trademark law gives to big companies along with all the rights reserved to control the names of the culture we buy into. Wait, you mean we risk getting sued out of existence for mentioning the name of the most watched annual media event in the world?!? Viacom thinks so...

Stephen Colbert's coverage of "Superb Owl" satirizes trademark litigation.

U.S. trademark law is a tricky thing, and different from copyright. The distinction is something important for all of us who say or post anything online or make anything for a public audience--because ignorance of the law is not a defense! So, try using the Colbert clip above as a springboard to some research to find out when you can and can't say...