A New York City education council meeting recent attracted national attention after one member of the council (and its past President), Robin Broshi, accused another member, Thomas Wrocklage, of racism after he was seen in a zoom meeting bouncing a black child on his lap. The video below is rather breathtaking but the incident has led to countervailing claims of racism and slander. As is often the case, we tend to jump on any novel torts claims and this is a good example of the tension between opinion and slander, particularly in such overheated (indeed radioactive) moments in public debates. It is unfortunately an increasingly common legal question in today’s rage-filled politics. The video of his meeting has now been shown throughout the world. However, it has some interesting elements as a pedagogical tool for understanding the underlying applicability of tort liability, or lack thereof.
THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The entire 4-hour council meeting is available but here are the highlights. It began with references to a prior “ugly” meeting and a call for more civil discourse by President Maud Maron who notes that “it is possible to condemn racism and at the same time to extend grace and compassion to the people who disappoint you.” That hope however is quickly dashed whenCouncil member Eric Goldberg denounces her “hollow” statement as “deny[ing her] culpability in creating an environment of division and divisiveness.”
That is when Broshi enters with a bang and refers to a letter campaign and adds:
“a member of this council was racist and I did nothing and I’m ashamed I did nothing and I can sit here during a public meeting and say I’m sorry, I made a mistake, I didn’t speak out verbally when multiple times during the meeting one of the members engaged in behavior that made me ache and hurt for the non-white people that were logged in.”
With that, the meeting was off to the races with allegations of racism and slander.
Ironically, it is Broshi who is then accused by Council Vice-President Edward Irizarry. Irizarry states:
“You, in your comfortable white world can tell us about how we ought to reach down and help the poor Latino, and help the poor black, condescendingly look at us as though we are inferior. Because never, do I see anyone, or any of these advocates, really in communion with these poor students that are not getting the education that they deserve… We don’t want handouts… Cosmetic diversity, that’s what you’re looking for, you’re not looking for true change. You’re not looking to really educate all of the people of this district.”
Broshi then denounces her own white supremacy:
“I want to apologize to you. I want to acknowledge that calling out the one vote was an example of white privilege and it was an example of trying to silence the legitimacy of your space on this council . . . . There’s work — everyone has work to do and I have work to do. I have 40 plus years of white supremacy I need to undo and that was unfair of me to make that point and I don’t want to silence your voice, and your voice has merit, Edward.”
It is then that it is clear that Wrocklage was being referenced as a racist earlier and denies the allegation but Broshi again refers to his “racist behavior” and his example of “white people exhibiting their power over people of color.” She further notes “if you won’t even read a book about white fragility . . . I can’t sit here in a working business meeting and educate you.” (This issue of the book was raised repeatedly: “Tom! I’ve explained it to you! You can Google, you could read a book!”. “Read Ibram X. Kendi! Read White Fragility! Read How to Talk to White People… It is not my job to educate you! You’re an educated white man! And you could read a book! And you can educate yourself!”).
Well you get the idea, but here is a clip:
This is the relevant transcript:
Morden: During our last meeting you were talking about someone’s friend on someone’s lap when there were actual kids who were saying there are racist acts in your school! Sad! You are sad! But today you want to talk about…
Broshi: Ben!…It hurts people when they see a white man bouncing a brown baby on their lap and they don’t know the context! That is harmful! It makes people cry! It makes people log out of our meeting! They don’t come here! They don’t come to our meetings! And they give me a hard time because I’m not vocal enough! And I’m not trying to be a martyr! I’m trying to illustrate to you that you think I’m a f**k–excuse me–you think I’m a social justice warrior! And you think I’m being patronizing and I’m getting pressure for not being enough of an advocate! And I take that to heart and that hurts me! And I have to learn to be a better white person!
Wrocklage: I would like to know before this meeting adjourns how having my friend’s nephew on my lap was hurtful to people and was racist. Can you please explain?
Broshi: Tom! I’ve explained it to you! You can Google–you can read a book! Read [inaudible]! Read White Fragility! Read How to Talk to White People! It’s not my job to educate you! You’re an educated white man! You could read a book and you could learn about it yourself!
Others then join in on attacking Wrocklage for having a black child on his lap. Emily Hellstrom joins in attacking Wrocklage and demands an apology:
“You had a smirk and a grin on your face when you pulled that child in… you in a joking tone, said ‘my living room is integrated right now’… as if, as if, the hundreds of years of first slavery and then segregation were nothing, would go poof, because you happened to have a black friend… So the fact that—and perhaps you didn’t intend it to be racist—and that does not matter, actually, was racist… You need to look deep inside and say ‘wow, I hurt a lot of people.’ Whether you intended to or not, you did.”
Wrocklage insisted “I was also laughing at the absurdity of the cognitive dissonance of people like you. People exactly like you, who are telling people of colour how they should feel. How absurd that is.”
However, Council member Shino Tanikawa also demanded an apology from Wrocklage:
“If you’re not willing to read then you’re not doing the work. And this is work we all have to do. And you can disagree with people but this is not an ideological difference. This is how black and indigenous people of color see the world. And it’s not for you and me—East Asian affluent person–to deny that reality. And we have to get on board, we have to understand what these people are telling us, we have to do the work, we have to get uncomfortable. But I don’t see some of you willing to do that uncomfortable work.
…When somebody tells you that you did something wrong, the first thing to do is reflect on that and then apologize, even if you don’t agree, you apologize… That is what grown-ups do.”
That is just a part of the meeting, but it raises a common question for meetings and protests where such allegations fly of racism and other forms of bias.
PRIVATE CITIZEN OR PUBLIC FIGURE?
The first step is to determine the status of these council members. Until this meeting became an international sensation, none of these individuals were high visibility individuals. However, they are council members who appear at public meetings, including current or former officers of the council. A claim could be made that they are all at least limited public figures, if not full public figures, due to their thrusting themselves into the public eye. There is however a claim to be made that participating in such public meetings should not cause a private citizen to trigger the higher burdens of being a public figure. This video has gone viral but, until it did so, this was a small educational council meeting with an open mike. That threshold issue could create some very interesting arguments over the tipping point for public figures.
This issue will turn on Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 352 (1974) and its progeny of cases. The Supreme Court has held that public figure status applies when someone “thrust[s] himself into the vortex of [the] public issue [and] engage[s] the public’s attention in an attempt to influence its outcome.” A limited-purpose public figure status applies if someone voluntarily “draw[s] attention to himself” or allows himself to become part of a controversy “as a fulcrum to create public discussion.” Wolston v. Reader’s Digest Association, 443 U.S. 157, 168 (1979). Given the earlier controversy from the preceding meeting and the letter campaign referenced by Broshi, a court could find that Wrocklage is a limited public figure but there is a room for challenge on this point.
THE STANDARD
Under New York law, Wrocklage must show (1) a “defamatory statement of fact concerning the plaintiff; (2) publication to a third party; (3) fault [(actual malice for public figures)]; (4) falsity of the defamatory statement; and (5) special damages or per se accountability (defamatory on its face).” Biro v. Conde Nast, 883 F. Supp. 2d 441, 446 (S.D.N.Y. 2012).
The standard for defamation for public figures and officials in the United States is the product of a decision decades ago in New York Times v. Sullivan. Ironically, this is precisely the environment in which the opinion was written and he is precisely the type of plaintiff that the opinion was meant to deter. The Supreme Court ruled that tort law could not be used to overcome First Amendment protections for free speech or the free press. The Court sought to create “breathing space” for the media by articulating that standard that now applies to both public officials and public figures. In order to prevail, West must show either actual knowledge of its falsity or a reckless disregard of the truth.
THE ALLEGED DEFAMATION
At various points, it is clear that Wrocklage is being called an effective racist, which Wrocklage objects to as slander. There is no question that an allegation of racism is a serious matter but Broshi could challenge the basis for claiming a per se category of defamation. New York recognizes four categories: “statements (i) charging plaintiff with serious crime; (ii) that tend to injure another [plaintiff] in his . . . trade, business, or profession; (iii) that plaintiff has a loathsome disease; or (iv) imputing unchastity to a woman.” Liberman v. Gelstein, 605 N.E.2d 344, 347 (N.Y. 1992). This is not an allegation of a crime, but it certainly would injure the professional reputation of Wrocklage to be labeled a racist.
Yet, a defamatory statement “must do more than cause discomfort or affront”; it must lead “reasonable minds” to “think the speech attributes odious or despicable characterizations to its subject.” Chau v. Lewis, 771 F.3d 118, 127 (2d Cir. 2014). In this case there are countervailing statements that Wrocklage is being accused of acting like a racist rather than being a racist. For example, consider Broshi’s later comment:
“Integration is a system. Tom I don’t know what to tell you, I know you believe you did nothing wrong, but you have a 100 people that told you—I am not calling you racist… I’m saying that was racist behavior. . . We are all capable of racist behavior. I am capable of racist behavior… I owned up to it in this meeting! Right now, when I apologized to Edward… And we should apologize when we offend people of color! When they get upset. When they say this is a harmful space, when they log out of a meeting immediately because they see white people exhibiting their power over people of color… If you can’t even read a book about White Fragility or Ibrahim X. Kendi, I can’t sit here in a working business meeting and educate you about the distinction between interpersonal racism and systemic racism.”
For Wrocklage, the distinction between acting racist and being racist is a precious one. He is still being denounced as effectively or actually a racist.
That however leads to the next complication: opinion or hyperbole. The Supreme Court actually dealt with such an overheated council meeting in Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Association v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6 (1970), in which a newspaper was sued for using the word “blackmail” in connection to a real estate developer who was negotiating with the Greenbelt City Council to obtain zoning variances. The Court applied the actual malice standard and noted:
It is simply impossible to believe that a reader who reached the word “blackmail” in either article would not have understood exactly what was meant: It was Bresler’s public and wholly legal negotiating proposals that were being criticized. No reader could have thought that either the speakers at the meetings or the newspaper articles reporting their words were charging Bresler with the commission of a criminal offense. On the contrary, even the most careless reader must have perceived that the word was no more than rhetorical hyperbole, a vigorous epithet used by those who considered Bresler’s negotiating position extremely unreasonable.
Of course, calling someone repeatedly a racist is more than simply “rhetorical hyperbole.” However, it is also part of a public debate that is heavily laden with protected political speech. If Broshi can be sued for defamation in making such an allegation, it could chill political speech at a time when the entire nation is focused on our continuing struggle with racism. This is her opinion of the actions of Wrocklage– an opinion that has been subjected to both worldwide criticism and support.
Yet, the Supreme Court has shown that there are limits to opinion as a defense as in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1 (1990). In that case, there was another inflammatory allegation stemming from a public meeting. An Ohio high school wrestling coach sued over an opinion column alleging that he had lied under oath at a public hearing, saying that it was tantamount to an allegation of perjury. The trial judge granted summary judgment on the ground that the assertion in the newspaper column was opinion. The Court however rejected the defense in the case in 7-2 opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist. The Court noted that “expressions of ‘opinion’ may often imply an assertion of objective fact” and may inflict “as much damage to reputation” as factual claims. Moreover, some opinions are based on assertions that are “sufficiently factual to be susceptible of being proved true or false.”
I would submit that calling someone a racist is not one of those facts easily “susceptible of being proved true or false.” Moreover, the risk to chilling political speech is too great, particularly when the meaning and systemic presence of racism is being debated throughout our society.
THE VERDICT
Thus, Wrocklage’s denouncing the slander is likely as rhetorical as the allegation of racism from a legal perspective. That does not excuse any of these attacks, but the recourse for Wrocklage is to engage his critics in the court of public opinion, as he has with a global audience.
I’m sorry. I’m confused. Why would it hurt people to see a white person playing with a black baby? Why was that lady screaming hysterically about this “harmful” imagery?
Is this like a virtue signaling melee, where everyone calls everyone else a racist, until there is a last one standing?
We should stop normalizing racism against whites. All racism is wrong, regardless of what the target race is.
Also, stop pretending like all black people think and vote the same, or should be punished if they step off the Democrat Plantation. Blacks are no more a homogenous group than whites. Blacks have different opinions, different lifestyles, interests, socioeconomic levels, and behaviors, just like other races. I have more in common with a black conservative than with any of these crazy white Liberals as the subject of this post. I would have more in common with a black person who rode horses, than with a white person who lived in a city. No one speaks for the blacks, like they’re just a monolithic group. They don’t need a Democrat Lorax to speak for them. They should be viewed as individuals who have myriad possibilities on character, accomplishments, interests, and politics.
There is a trend to jump to conclusions, and then to defend their error in judgement. They should make it an Olympic sport. There have been multiple mobs formed over racist hate crimes…only to find out it was a hoax, or just a simple misunderstanding. In CA, there were two black men found dead, hanging in trees, in two completely different cities. People about lost their minds. There were massive protests. Kim Kardashian weighed in. People claimed that white supremacists were killing black people, hangin them out as a warning to others, and that the cops were in on it, and covering up for them. They just knew.
Then surveillance video was found that showed the act of one of them tragically hanging himself. Then evidence was discovered that the other one hanged himself, too. It was all just jumping a few miles to conclusions. But no one seems to learn from this. They become even more sensitized to trigger even faster to the next wrong conclusion.
How many people hear about these rumors and conjectures, but never learn the truth?
Listen to Brandon Tatum explain a time when Don Lemon made sense about the problems plaguing the black community.
https://youtu.be/k27qpQdV-Qk
I’m sorry. I’m confused. Why would it hurt people to see a white person playing with a black baby? Why was that lady screaming hysterically about this “harmful” imagery?
It wouldn’t. The woman is a nut. She either fancy it would or she thinks this is a good rhetorical power move.
Absurd– Beat me to it. She is nuts.
Young, she is not atypical of the radical left New Yorker.
Seems she isn’t. What a craphole full of loose nuts NY has become.
Young, Glenn Beck used to live on the West side of NYC. I spoke to him and asked him why he was moving to Texas. His response was chilling. He said he didn’t mind what people said to him but when in the park with his young children adults would walk up to the children and yell at them even when the father wasn’t sitting directly next to them.
Waal, that’s the gleichschaltung These people cannot recognize any sphere of life might be immune to their political struggle. So, you have a**wipes yelling at Glenn Beck’s kids and lawfare harassment of the Boy Scouts and Hibernians courtesy the gay lobby.(Not to mention what’s been done to school curricula and jurisprudence). It’s wholly unnecessary. The question is, what do we do to restore the autonomy of different spheres of life? It’s not going to be pretty.
DSS, do you have any answers as to what should be done aside voting the dems out?
+1 on your post Karen. I would note however that there are several regular posters here you couldn’t have helped but notice who regularly try to tie all black people to transgressions – real or imagined – by black individuals or groups. That is unarguably racist behavior and your calling them out when you see it would be welcomed by me.
Book– You are the racist who said black people are born with inherent disadvantages but are good at jumping. I suppose the last part of your observation has something to do with basketball. Very racist, Book.
I’m confused too. That was me being attacked.
Each of us is free to judge the image as we please.
People are free to criticise you for that – even if i think the action was innoucous.
But it was not relevant to the meeting you were a part of.
Further – accusations of moral failure – defamation, require proof or they redound on the accuser.
If you make false allegations – it is your integrity that is lost.
There are few accusations worse than racism.
Pelosi gets George Floyd’s name wrong…which democrat’s dementia is worse, Joke Biden, Nanny Pelosi, Pocahontas, Eccentric Emmet Sullivan or Obergruppenfuhrer Robert Mueller?
Republicans Against Trump “Banana Republic” ad
https://twitter.com/i/status/1281949701349289984
WHat a bunch of pathetic racialistic morons. 2 plus 2 = 7 right?
As usual, the holding of an opinion on race, as an exercise of the freedom of thought and opinion, is erroneously and maliciously conflated with violence. Americans enjoy the freedom of thought, per the 9th Amendment, and Congress has no authority to deny the constitutional right and freedom of thought and opinion, and Congress has no power to mandate whom citizens accept and whom citizens reject; whom they like and whom they dislike. The communistic fascists must be neutralized and eliminated from America with extreme prejudice for the sake of the Constitution and American freedom.
Mueller Report on Trump and Stone:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EcpD0qoWsAAYxuu?format=png&name=medium
Whose dementia is more severe, Mueller’s or Biden’s?
It’s a dead heat!
Like Mueller and all the communists’ (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) hoaxes, this link goes nowhere.
Four times, the American Founders established who may be an American citizen in their Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802.
The American Founders, in 1788, restricted the vote to Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
By design, turnout in the 1788 presidential election of George Washington was 11.6%.
The criminal acts of Abraham Lincoln, his successors and subsequent progressives, socialists and communists were and are unconstitutional and illegitimate.
The entire communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) American welfare state is unconstitutional whereas the 5th Amendment right to private property is absolute, Article 1, Section 8 restricts the power of Congress to tax only for “…general Welfare…” not individual welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth, and the same Article provides Congress the power to regulate only the value of money, the flow of commerce among States, Nations and Indian Tribes and land and naval Forces.
The real America has a massive overabundance of corrective action yet to be taken.
___________________________________________________________________
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
Allan, Thank you!! I read the entire linked post. Those traitors belong in PRISON.
Steele should be in prison.
This may not present a cause of action in a court of law but it definitely is a cause for either home schooling or charter schools.
Oh it does now. Another Community Education Council member accused me of being a teenage stalker and tweeted my firm to try to get me fired. I have enough now to pursue this in a court.
Thomas Wrocklage – they may have reached the level of libel per se, depending on the state you are in.
New York
Schulte, Roth and Zabel?
Thomas Wrocklage – Robert Barnes is defending the Central Park Karen, he would be a great advocate, if you could get him.
“Schulte, Roth and Zabel?”
No. Paul C. Schulte isn’t a lawyer.
Aren’t there some standards of conduct for the counsel itself ?
I would presume that unsupported moral accusatiuons would violate those.
Calling someone a racist or stalker without being able to prove it must have consequences.
Black Klans Matter. Gang of Four. Ocasio the Nazio.
On the question of defamation, there is an interesting tension between a state’s desire to protect those who serve voluntarily on boards and commissions and cases such as this which cry out for some kind of relief. In Texas, the officers and board members of nonprofit corporations are given immunity from liability for any damage done by them in their corporate capacity (with some exceptions, usually bad faith). In the case of governmental boards, people serving on them usually have either governmental or sovereign immunity. I do not know whether the Council is private or governmental, but if New York law on this point is similar to Texas, then wouldn’t those who attacked Wrocklage have immunity from liability for defamation (or any other tort) assuming they were not acting in bad faith?
Honest– As usual a well considered comment from you. It occurs to me there are other ways to make someone miserable than wasting time and money in fruitless lawsuits, or, perhaps, by engaging in fruitless suits. The process is the punishment. These reckless and evil accusations should stop.
So our CEC is setup by NY state statute. However, they were acting in bad faith. They knew the details of what happened and ignored them to malign me for their own benefit.
We’re really looking at two irreconcilable perspectives clashing here.
One is postracial and is focussed on how individuals develop the social skills and problem-solving techniques to thrive in a postracial meritocracy.
The postracial believes that rules of social etiquette be blind to racial/ethnic factors. The postracial is focussed on the present as prelude and opportunity gate to the future. The postracial is optimistic and generous in spirit, and willingly cedes full agency to others. This mindset is that of Wrocklage.
Broshi is coming from a radical multiculturalist perspective, where people are to be first assigned a racial ID, then the rules of social etiquette branch according to the racial IDs of the actors. However, these rules are expansive and nebulous, and are constructed in the moment by the multiculturalist in manner that obliges deference of a member of an “oppressor” group to a member of an “oppressed” group. Essentially, the multiculturalist attempts to apply reverse racism as a core principle, awkward as it may be in some situations. The multiculturalist is obsessed with the injustices of the long-ago past, and keeps up an exaggerated pretense that little progress has been made — thus justifying the flipping of those ancient roles in the style of reverse racism. The multiculturalist is always looking for slights and minor offenses, but since the multicultural rulebook is non-verbal and made up on the spot, cannot explain in any detail what is expected of people in the future….it’s a punitive system.
The multiculturalist goes looking for racism and consequently finds it everywhere he looks. He is not optimistic about the future.
pbinca– thank you for that explanation. It makes sense and was something I had never heard.
Last I knew, little kids love playing horsie! Shows that somebody cares about them. Council members are not too bright.
Come man, I did well on the LSATs
Thomas, as someone else commented, Prof Turley does not seem to read these comments but I am pretty sure he does look at emails to this address:
jturley@law.gwu.edu
Good luck.
Does this thing seem to be winding down or will there be repercussions of one sort or another? Not having seen the controversial toddler knee bouncing. I was struck by the co-opting of the meeting for repeated personal attacks on you over seemingly benign, and at worst ambiguous behavior. I would expect the moderator to cut that off immediately and get back to the agenda, and if there was repercussions they should be toward her and your attackers.
Thank you for your support and recommendation. Since that meeting people have contacted my firm insisting that I should be fired because of this incident. It is actually insane. They have called me a teenage stalker for responding to a college student on Twitter that called me a racist and they have constantly harassed me on Twitter.
Are you saying that the attacks against you on Twitter were not from those in the meeting?
Why don’t you provide the Twitter addresses of the comments?
This is exactly why Trump voters will NOT reveal their voter preferences to any screwed up biased poll. Only to be labeled as a racists, etc. That is why many have taken the course of action to let you argue with each other, and watch the disintegration reveal itself in front of the world. Just like CHOP in Seattle, murder, drugs, rape, arson and property destruction finely overtakes the stealing of public land to make a so-called free zone.
These counsil members are a disgrace to the human race! Especially those ignorant loudmouths. And they think they will be the leaders of this Country?
They only thing they will lead is security for a pit toilet!
This is why the country is in trouble. These people are blooming idiots. They shouldn’t be in any kind of office. They’re good examples of what one pundit referred to as “educated, yet idiot. “
They are parents elected by PTA officers and have limited power,mostly recommending. This is a Seinfeld column by JT – it’s about nothing.
Except deflection.
Wrong, Seinfeld wasn’t about nothing.
I’d love to see Paint Chips and Gainesville try to contend with the Soup Nazi.
“This is why the country is in trouble.”
– semcgowanjr
____________
Four times, the American Founders established who may be an American citizen in their Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802.
The American Founders, in 1788, restricted the vote to Male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
By design, turnout in the 1788 presidential election of George Washington was 11.6%.
The criminal acts of Abraham Lincoln, his successors and subsequent progressives, socialists and communists were and are unconstitutional and illegitimate.
The entire communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO) American welfare state is unconstitutional whereas the 5th Amendment right to private property is absolute, Article 1, Section 8 restricts the power of Congress to tax only for “…general Welfare…” not individual welfare, charity or redistribution of wealth, and the same Article provides Congress the power to regulate only the value of money, the flow of commerce among States, Nations and Indian Tribes and land and naval Forces.
The real America has a massive overabundance of corrective action yet to be taken.
___________________________________________________________________
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
Allan– thank you for the incredibly disgusting information. That whole group really was composed of traitors to one degree or another, doing all they could to undermine and even destroy a duly elected President for no reason other than their thirst for power. It is too bad they cannot be prosecuted as traitors. Instead, a very large percentage of the democrat party and the MSM still praise them for their criminal actions. The cynical side of me keeps wondering whether Black Lives Matter was paid to capitalize on Floyd’s death in order to create and keep going the civil unrest we are experiencing. It certainly is deflecting attention from the crimes of Hillary, Obama and their gang of co-conspirators. Is there any doubt that Black Lives Matter would be for sale? And if the stories about financial contributions to BLM going to the democrat party are accurate as they seem to be, it would show that they are in league together.
Instead, a very large percentage of the democrat party and the MSM still praise them for their criminal actions.
That is the most disgusting thing of all. The issue of criminality is not even a close call. In a rational world, where there were red lines neither party would cross, this entire saga would have had convictions long ago, Pulitzer’s awarded and the movie version would be in theaters everywhere. Instead, Democrats and the MSM are riding this thing like the first 72 seconds of the Challenger launch, not even recognizing they’re 5 minutes into a national disaster.
Olly– although this is OT, keeping in mind that Black Lives Matter is an admittedly Marxist organization that obviously cares nothing about black lives unless they are killed by the police, and the fact that BLM is responsible for much of the recent riots, arson and even murder, and the fact that one of its three founders is a woman hiding in Cuba from an arrest warrant for executing a state trooper during a routine traffic stop, read this statement from the University of Southern California’s School of Cinematic Arts (where John Wayne was a student in the 1920s):
“I am writing to update you on plans for the Wayne exhibit, located in the main building of the School of Cinematic Arts Complex. Conversations about systemic racism in our cultural institutions along with the recent global, civil uprising by the Black Lives Matter Movement require that we consider the role our School can play as a change maker in promoting antiracist cultural values and experiences. Therefore, it has been decided that the Wayne Exhibit will be removed…”
I shouldn’t be surprised since I am sure many of the woke Hollywood stars came passed through USC but it still makes me cringe to see adults in leadership positions who have lost touch with reality.
honestlawyer – John Wayne was not a film student while at USC.
Wasn’t he studying to be an athletic coach or something? I seem to recall he got into films after an injury.
DSS- He and Yakima Canute invented the film fight that we know today and between the two of them invented some of the best film stunts for the Westerns.
That’s an innovation and accomplishment. Such things are no longer valued.
DSS – and John Wayne was the first singing cowboy in Singin’ Sandy. He was dubbed. He suggested Gene Autry be the next singing cowboy.
Paul C and Absurd– I was sloppy in the way I wrote that. You both are correct. I don’t think he got interested in acting until some time later but if we don’t include O.J., he probably is the most famous alum ever to pass through USC. I don’t recall anything in any of his films that could be considered racist by any rational person. Did I miss something? I think he is being cancelled because he said racist things– sort of like Abraham Lincoln and most of my family in the old days.
Actually, he said some fairly sensible things in a magazine interview ca. 1968. He wasn’t playing let’s pretend, which the left does and attempts to bully everyone else into doing.
honestlawyer – Wayne and Ward Bond played football together at USC. I think the story is that Bond had gotten a summer part-time job in the prop department and got Wayne a job with him. 500 films later, John Wayne is a star. 😉
” The cynical side of me keeps wondering whether Black Lives Matter was paid to capitalize on Floyd’s death in order to create and keep going the civil unrest we are experiencing. ”
Your thoughts are realistic not cynical. I don’t know that BLM was paid but Antifa has been using BLM for its own purposes and the Marxist base of BLM is using blacks for their purposes. The entire Floyd incident has been turned into a scam to promote anarchism, Marxism and the democrat party. The biggest losers are black people followed by the poor and poorly educated followed by the rest of the nation including the animals that are destroying the nation . Eventually the animals turn on each other and destroy themselves.
Boy, that sure is a pretty squirrel JT!
WTF?
Is there a law suit? You don’t mention one but use discussion of possible legal issues as excuses to show and discuss citizens on an obscure “educational council” with very limited power acting like jerks. Good work Sherlock, I bet this hasn’t happened anywhere else over other topics, and it must not stand.
Hey, do you have one of those pocket lasers? I bet you can get most of your readers running up and down the hall trying to catch the beam.
Was that her sister in Central Park, with the dog?
‘Thus, Wrocklage’s denouncing the slander is likely as rhetorical as the allegation of racism from a legal perspective.’
So, why does Turley spend so much time mired in this bull*&#@?
Read the f*&^$()#paper. There are far more important things going on. Somehow this nonsense seems to entertain the level to which Turley panders.
It’s about the “hits” which he proudly notes. That 80% are from racists and alt-right paranoids does not concern him and in fact he chums for them.
Turley put his foot in the swamp. and now he’s neck deep. No articles about SCOTUS decisions, he deflects always on a bad Trump news day which is almost everyday. And you’re right bythebook just like Trump, all he cares about is his hits on the blog. Ratings is what it’s all about.
His influencer $ depends on the numbers no doubt.
And if loses in November, every single day between the election and inauguration will be like this.
Playing cards would be fun with Turley, cause he’s got a tell. Ask yourself a question, why in the world would Turley go silent on SCOTUS decisions. Because if he was truthful with himself on Trump and Barr’s BS, Turley would lose his Trump base in a NY minute.
Once again, you find yourself disappointed JT hasn’t quenched your thirst. He may have decided it wasn’t as consequential as you apparently believe. Here’s a portion of a very balanced analysis of the two decisions:
The “doomsayers” who oppose Pres. Trump in these cases point out that in both instances the Court rejected the claim of “absolute immunity” for a President, which was an argument put forth by the President’s attorneys but not embraced by the Solicitor General of the United States. They point out that in both cases the Court upheld the proposition that subpoenas from Congress and a local prosecutor could be issued to a President for personal financial records. But both cases were sent back to the lower courts for further consideration of issues which the Supreme Court said were not sufficiently considered by those courts in reaching their decisions on the validity of the subpoenas issued. The nature of those issues are such that it would be quite easy for the Court to later turn around and invalidate those same subpoenas based on further information gathered as part of such lower court consideration.
https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/07/09/the-supreme-court-gives-pres-trump-two-wins-in-subpoena-cases/
Professor Turley’s “base” consists of the precious few who still want to conduct a reasoned and civil discourse. Obviously, that doesn’t include you!
You don’t know him. And you are wrong.
If you actually read what Turley wrote and noted that this is a legal blog that educates the public about the law you would never have made this comment. Here is Turley’s response.
“this is a good example of the tension between opinion and slander, particularly in such overheated (indeed radioactive) moments in public debates. It is unfortunately an increasingly common legal question in today’s rage-filled politics. The video of his meeting has now been shown throughout the world. However, it has some interesting elements as a pedagogical tool for understanding the underlying applicability of tort liability, or lack thereof.”
I read it. There’s no law suit.
Legal scholars don’t confine themselves to pending lawsuits.
Ignorance. One can attempt to sue for anything.
A better answer would be is there a suit that can win significant damages that are worth the resources spent?