In recent years, Google has faced both international and national criticism over its privacy policy. In April the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned an order [JURIST report] dismissing a $1 billion copyright infringement suit against Google, by Viacom [corporate websites], for Google's YouTube [media website; JURIST news archive] service. Last March a Japanese court ordered Google to remove certain search terms [JURIST report] that a Japanese man claimed violated his privacy, by suggesting his name in connection with crimes he did not commit. In February 2012 a judge for the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed [JURIST report] a suit from the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) [advocacy website], a consumer privacy group, asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) [official website] to block Google's proposed privacy policy changes. The new policy allows a user's information to be shared among different Google products, including YouTube, Gmail, and Google Maps. In April 2010,Germany's Federal Court of Justice ruled that the use of thumbnail preview images [JURIST report] pulled from websites by Google is not a violation of copyright law.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting [WSJ backgrounder], the gun control debate [JURIST comment] has been at the center of attention in Washington, DC, and state capitols and across the nation. In mid-January, on the one-month anniversary of the Newtown shooting, US President Barack Obama [official website] announced his signing of 23 executive orders [JURIST report] intended to strengthen existing gun laws, as well as urging Congress to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Just the day before New York Governor Andrew Cuomo [official website] signed legislation [JURIST report] intended to impose tighter restrictions on gun and ammunition sales, banning any magazine that can hold more than seven rounds and implementing instant background checks on all ammunition purchases at the time of sale.

Our holding today is not a judgment on the wisdom of requiring a supermajority for the passage of tax legislation. Such judgment is left to the legislative branch of our government. Should the people and the legislature still wish to require a supermajority vote for tax legislation, they must do so through constitutional amendment, not through legislation.

In 2010 Washington state voters overwhelmingly rejected an attempt to institute an income tax [JURIST report], with over 65 percent of the electorate voting against the initiative. Washington is one of seven states in the US that does not have a personal income tax [DOR backgrounder], instead raising revenue through sales taxes and business taxes. Voters have rejected any attempts to create personal income tax, through several ballot initiatives. Although a graduated income tax was accepted in 1932, the state supreme court found it unconstitutional in 1933. The court held that income was property and that Article VII, Section 1 of the state constitution [text] precludes the non-uniform taxation of property.

More than ever, the imperative of putting people and their rights first is paramount. This is the raison d'etre of the United Nations, and must be reflected both in the decisions of its intergovernmental bodies and throughout the work of the Organization. It must be at the very heart of the Organization's peace, security, development and humanitarian agendas. I encourage the Human Rights Council to continue to play its role to ensure that it does.

The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has addressed a variety of human rights abuses around the world in the past. In February Pillay urged [JURIST report] the international community to continue to prevent human rights abuses and hold perpetrators accountable. Speaking at the opening of the 22nd session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, Pillay specifically mentioned the ongoing situations in Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Palestine, Iraq, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Mali, Sudan and Syria. Also in February, Pillay expressed concern [JURIST report] over reports that three Palestinians being held in Israeli custody are in poor health from hunger strikes protesting Israel's use of administrative detention. In the same timeframe, Pillay unveiled a report [JURIST report] criticizing Sri Lanka for failing to investigate widespread reports of killings and other atrocities during the latter days of the nation's 26-year civil war it fought with the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Also in February, Pillay expressed shock and sadness [JURIST report] concerning the brutal rape and murder of 17-year-old Anene Booysen in South Africa. Pillay urged South Africa to take a stronger approach to prevent the ongoing sexual violence incidents against tens of thousands of South African women every year.

Earlier this week, the Bahrain Higher Criminal Court acquitted two police officers [JURIST report] in the shooting death of a Shiite protester during the nation's pro-democracy protests in Manama that began in February 2011. Last month a Bahrain police officer was sentenced to seven years [JURIST report] in prison for fatally shooting a protester. Bahrain authorities banned all protests [JURIST report] effective October 2012. In January a court in Bahrain released [JURIST report] human rights activist Sayed Yousif Al-Muhafda on bail pending trial for charges of spreading false news to harm security. Also in January the highest Bahraini appellate court upheld the convictions [JURIST report] of 13 prominent pro-democracy protestors convicted by military tribunal in 2011 on charges of plotting to overthrow the monarchy. In December Bahrain's High Criminal Court of Appeals commuted death sentences [JURIST report] for two protesters, instead sentencing them to life imprisonment. Earlier in December the prison sentence for outspoken Bahraini rights activist Nabeel Rajab was reduced by one year [JURIST report]. In November Amnesty International released a brief detailing how Bahrain had failed to meet its obligations [JURIST report] and promises to ensure respect for human rights and prevent further torture within the country.

Two weeks ago a court in Norway sentenced a Rwandan man to 21 years for being an accomplice to the 1994 Rwandan genocide [JURIST report]. In January a Rwandan genocide suspect was arrested [JURIST report] in France. Earlier in January the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) [official website] convicted [JURIST report] former Rwandan minister Augustin Ngirabatware [case materials], sentencing him to 35 years in prison and concluding the tribunal's final trial. Ngirabatware was found guilty on charges of genocide, incitement to commit genocide and rape as a crime against humanity. In December the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution [JURIST report] to extend the term of office of five judges of the ICTR.

Last week a Haitian judge ordered [JURIST report] Duvalier to appear in court for a hearing on whether he should face charges for human rights abuses. The summons followed a previous order [JURIST report] from nearly two weeks ago by a Haitian appeals court for Duvalier to appear for the hearings, a directive which the ex-president failed to follow]. Duvalier returned to Haiti in 2011 after 25 years in exile, prompting an investigation for crimes committed from 1971-1986. Last January a magistrate judge dismissed human rights charges against Duvalier [JURIST report], including allegations of rape, torture and murder, on the grounds that the statute of limitations had expired.

That California law authorizes domestic partnerships for gay and lesbian couples and expressly grants them the incidents of marriage--a fact about California's legal regime that could be taught just like any other fact relevant to a class--makes this interest all the more tenuous as a purported justification for Proposition 8. California's extension of all of the substantive rights and responsibilities of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners particularly undermines the justifications for Proposition 8. It indicates that Proposition 8's withholding of the designation of marriage is not based on an interest in promoting responsible procreation and child-rearing--petitioners' central claimed justification for the initiative--but instead on impermissible prejudice.

Last week, advocates for same-sex marriage submitted briefs [JURIST report] to the Supreme Court in the Hollingsworth case for the respondent couples, as well as for the City and County of San Fransisco [briefs, PDF]. The advocates urged the court to find California's 2008 ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, claiming that the law served only to "stigmatize gay men and lesbians." The ban, Proposition 8, was a voter-approved state measure to limit the meaning of marriage to include only a man and a woman. In 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that Proposition 8 was unconstitutional [JURIST report], as it "stripped same-sex couples of...an important right." In addition to this case, the court is also scheduled to hear a challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) [text, PDF; JURIST news archive] this month.