The three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Federal Communications Commission "acted arbitrarily and capriciously" in issuing the fine for the fleeting image of nudity.

The 90 million people watching the Super Bowl, many of them children, heard Justin Timberlake sing, "Gonna have you naked by the end of this song," as he reached for Jackson's bustier.

The court found that the FCC deviated from its nearly 30-year practice of fining indecent broadcast programming only when it was so "pervasive as to amount to 'shock treatment' for the audience."

"Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing," the court said. "But it cannot change a well-established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure."

The 3rd Circuit judges — Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and Judge Julio M. Fuentes — also ruled that the FCC deviated from its long-held approach of applying identical standards to words and images when reviewing complaints of indecency.

Chen Shui-bian entered the Taipei District Court building as police barred dozens of supporters and opponents from approaching him. But CTI Cable News reported that an elderly man managed to kick the former president before being taken away by two policemen.

Although Chen left the presidency in May, many Taiwan still revile him for alleged corruption and pro-independence policies.

Chen's Democratic Progressive Party lost the presidential election to the Nationalist Party's Ma Ying-jeou.

The libel suit was filed by retired Nationalist Admiral Lei Hsueh-ming, who is demanding $66 million in compensation.

Chen told reporters in 2005 that Lei and several other officials together took $20 million in bribes in a US$2.7 billion deal to buy six French-made frigates.

The deal turned into a scandal in 1993 following the death of a Taiwanese navy captain who was widely believed to have been killed because he was about to blow the whistle on colleagues who allegedly took kickbacks.

"The Marriage Protection Act" otherwise known as Proposition 8 goes to the California voters in November 2008. But what exactly is this proposition? It would amend the California Constitution to include the phrase "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California."

In May 2008 the California Supreme Court ruled banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional thus allowing gay and lesbians to marry as early as June 17, 2008. Many did and many more are to follow, reveling in the fact that the gay and lesbian individuals are now equals in the state for marriage. But that was short lived for as soon as that ruling was past those who oppose, filed for a measure to be placed on the ballot to amend the constitution.

It is believed that those who wish to have the constitution amended convoluted the truth when they obtain the requested signatures to have the proposition placed on the November ballot, thus ensuring that it would stay. The California Supreme Court denied a motion to have the proposition stricken from the ballot as they would not hear same, thus California gets to vote on same.

Churches of various denominations as well as non-denomination support the change to the California constitution stating that they are doing same to "protect one of our nation's most sacred institutions." This is the second attempt to change the constitution to prohibit same sex marriage and supporters are confident that it will pass based on a random polling. For all the rhetoric that is being said, individuals hide behind their religious texts to support their cause who no real basis for having the constitution amended. Those who oppose spend massive amounts of money in trying to force their will on others. This is not right; there are far more important issues to address such as the war in Iraq, the economy and those who really do need help.

A federal judge has granted class-action status for a lawsuit over wages filed by two former Dell Inc. customer service employees in Roseburg.

The order signed July 10 by U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Coffin in Eugene covers Dell customer service employees in Oregon, Texas, Idaho, Tennessee and Oklahoma from February 8, 2004, to the present.

More than 80 people have already joined the lawsuit that could include as many as 5,000 current and former workers for the Round Rock, Texas, computer manufacturer.

The two Roseburg workers, David Norman and Walter Romas, claim in a lawsuit filed in February 2007 that Dell failed to pay overtime or keep accurate records.

Coffin said in his order that Norman and Romas "submitted evidence indicating a significant degree of commonality among the experiences" of Dell customer service workers.

Dell closed the Roseburg center last August, five years after it opened, laying off about 200 workers. Dell spokesman David Frink said the closure was part of worldwide reductions announced in May 2007 and had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Frink said Wednesday the company has since closed service centers in Ottawa and Texas. He said the company does not comment on pending litigation but noted that Dell has said in its response to the lawsuit that the claims are inaccurate.

Canada transferred US Army deserter Robin Long back to US custody Tuesday following a decision by the Federal Court of Canada denying his asylum request. Long is the first of an estimated 200 US military personnel avoiding deployment in Canada to be returned to the US. Last week the court allowed another soldier, Joshua Key, to remain in the country while he appeals an initial denial of refugee status. In that case, the court named a number of key factors in determining whether or not the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) should grant an applicant asylum, including the reasons for the objection to deployment, the likely legal consequences of resisting deployment, and the availability of remedies other than Canadian refugee status. Quoting Article 171 of the UN Refugee Agency Handbook regarding the justification for a soldier to be granted asylum in another country, the court wrote:

Not every conviction, genuine thought it may be, will constitute a sufficient reason for claiming refugee status after desertion or draft-evasion. It is not enough for a person to be in disagreement with his government regarding the political justification for a particular military action. Where, however, the type of military action, with which an individual does not wish to be associated, is condemned by the international community as contrary to basic rules of human conduct, punishment for desertion or draft-evasion could, in the light of all other requirements of the definition, in itself be regarded as persecution.

In Long's case, the court said he had not adequately substantiated his risk of persecution in the US were he to be denied asylum, and under Canadian law, being granted the status is the only way he could remain in the country.

Earlier this month, Canada's House of Commons voted in a non-binding resolution to grant US military deserters asylum. In November 2007, the Supreme Court of Canada declined to hear the appeals of Jeremy Hinzman and Brandon Hughey, two US military deserters who applied for asylum before the IRB. The Board had concluded that the two men would receive a fair trial if they were returned to the US and that they would not face persecution or cruel and unusual punishment.

The California Supreme Court Wednesday rejected without comment a challenge seeking to remove a November ballot initiative that would ban same-sex marriage in the state. The petition, filed by Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal and the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that the amendment would deprive same-sex couples of fundamental rights. If approved by voters, the California Marriage Protection Act would amend the state constitution to read, "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The ballot initiative comes in reaction to a May 15 California Supreme Court decision overturning a ban on same-sex marriage in the state.

The approval of the ballot initiative came after the Attorneys General of ten states submitted a brief to the Supreme Court of California, asking it to stay its decision until after the November elections. They asserted that allowing same-sex marriages would cause citizens in their own states to become "marriage tourists" in California, and their own state courts would then face unfair, extensive, and burdensome litigation on whether to recognize the marriages. A conservative advocacy group filed a similar petition requesting a stay until November. In May, the California Office of Vital Records issued a memorandum setting June 17 as the start day for issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.