There is an interesting controversy brewing in California after four California university professors threatened a political candidate, Richard Lucas, for criticizing them for their roles in the “Billionaire Tax” and sent him a “cease and desist” letter. David Gamage from the University of Missouri, Brian Galle and Emmanuel Saez from UC Berkeley, and Darien Shanske from UC Davis claimed that the public criticism violated anti-doxxing laws by sharing contact information. They are clearly wrong. One of the aggrieved professors, Brian Galle, teaches at Berkeley Law School called Lucas “a clown,” but insisted that sharing public information is unlawful.
Attorney Catha Worthman sent the letter, but has reportedly refused to respond to inquiries after attorneys for the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) pushed back on her legal claims and those of her clients.
I have long been a critic of such wealth taxes, specifically California’s Billionaire Tax, as economically moronic and legally questionable. The proposal has already cost the state trillions in lost wealth as wealthy taxpayers have fled, taking their businesses and jobs with them.
As I discuss in Rage and the Republic, these wealth taxes have a terrible track record and, on the federal level, face serious constitutional challenges. In California, the drafters included a retroactive clause that can also be challenged.
One of the four professors — who Lucas referred to as “the looter dream team” — destroyed the claims of many supporters that this is just a one-time tax. Some of us have written that this is simply the first salvo. Once they succeed in targeting billionaires, the same measure will likely be used for those in lower tax brackets.
In a recent debate, Berkeley professor Emmanuel Saez admitted that he could not seriously claim this would be a one-time tax, as many in the public have asserted. He said they would have to wait to see if it passes, but it is likely to be repeated, and noted that there may also be a federal wealth tax on the way.
He said:
“I don’t think it’s going to be a one-time tax…because you can’t surprise billionaires more than once.
Even then, you know, maybe some of them were expecting something like this.
So it’s going to be a debate about this time, you know, a permanent wealth tax at a low rate that’s going to last for a number of years.”
Saez has publicly taunted the wealthy who are fleeing the state:
He noted the move on the left to create a federal wealth tax which has been pushed by Bernie Sanders and Ro Khanna.
The legislation, “Make Billionaires Pay Their Fair Share Act,” echoes the growing “eat-the-rich” mantra on the left — seeking to replicate a disastrous push in California that has led to an exodus from that state and an estimated loss of $2 trillion in taxable assets.
It is also flagrantly unconstitutional.
Under the plan, Congress would target 938 billionaires to tap them for $4.4 trillion. That money would then be redistributed as a $3,000 direct payment to every man, woman, and child in a household making $150,000 or less – $12,000 for a family of four.
Now back to the legal threat. I believe that the threatened legal action is wildly off base. Putting aside the fact that this is protected speech, the two anti-doxing statutes, Penal Code §653.2(a) and Civil Code §1708.89, contain clear scienter or intent requirements.
They must show that Lucas demonstrated an “intent to place another person in reasonable fear for their safety, or the safety of the other person’s immediate family.” Penal Code §653.2(a); Civil Code §1708.89. There is no evidence of such intent. If simply posting such identifying information is a violation, a significant range of protected speech would be proscribed.
There are ample reasons to criticize this tax and the claims made by its champions. There is a type of self-sustaining pattern on the left in support of such measures. Universities have largely purged conservatives and libertarians from departments, leaving most faculties with professors who run exclusively from the left to the far left.
These professors then added intellectual support for radical proposals like wealth taxes. The media then reports that experts have reviewed and approved the measures. It becomes an entirely closed loop from political groups to academics to media creating a uniform narrative.
The ADF wrote a strong letter pointing out the flaws in the claims of these professors under anti-doxxing laws from the lack of intent to the protection of free speech. These professors became public advocates for this ill-conceived plan and, as a result, have drawn criticism for that advocacy.
Lucas was one of those critics:
Nevertheless, the professors sent two cease and desist letters to Lucas, requesting that he remove their names and contact information from his website “California Wealth Exodus.” Lucas has remained adamant that he will not remove their contact information.
The site for figures like Galle link to his academic page, as I have done above. We routinely link to such sites for people to look at the background of figures discussed in columns. In the case of Lucas, it is also meant to allow citizens to express their views to those pushing this proposal.
In my view, the threat of legal action is fundamentally flawed and would not prevail in the courts. These professors will need to respond to their critics rather than work to silence them.
Core Democrat beliefs are based on falsehoods perpetuated by their leaders and the media and swallowed whole by their lemmings-like voters. Just two examples. First the need for a “billionaire tax”. There does not seem to be any debate that the top 1% of earners in the US pay approximately 40% to 50% of all federal taxes while the bottom 50% (those the Democrats pretend to care about) pay approximately 3%. Unless the Democrats are arguing that the bottom 50% should pay less than 3% or the top 1% should pay more than half of all taxes, this core belief rings very hollow. Then there is the need for reparations. In New York, a leading proponent of reparations, a few nights ago in New York at the Tony Awards, seemingly half of the award winners were black. In professional sports, the ratio is even greater. And, in society at large, there are huge numbers of blacks who are successful lawyers, doctors, business people and others who have seized legally mandated equal opportunities and made the most of them. The logical conclusion is that this core belief also is based on a myth. The truths are that billionaires pay taxes and black citizens can be and are successful if they, like the rest of us, work hard and are motivated. But, none of this matters. Democrats will continue to vote as they are told because lemmings do not think, they just vote for whomever has the “D”.
Once upon a Time I use to say “thank god for Georgia and Alabama” – because whenever the supreme court would allow further infringement on a right – GA and AL would take it to far and the court would backtrack.
Today it is CA and NY and VA that I am thankful for.
It will take time to get rid of Stupid left wing nut laws.
Some of these will be be shot down by SCOTUS as unconstitutional.
Others will just fail catastrohically.
I am sorry for the residents of these states that they are afflicted by abysmal government passing stupid laws.
But the people of these states voted these idiots into power.
If you look at Lucas’s site, the so-called doxx information, is their professional, public, contact information i.e .edu. Not a personal email address.
Once again Mr. Upstate points out the facts that crush these fascist’s argument.
Exactly the one point that truly matters.
I was curious to what doxxing information Lucas had up on his web site.
If you read the College Fix article linked above, Ryan Riedmueller, a legal fellow at Vanderbilt Law School’s First Amendment clinic, said,
“In California, a party moving for relief under the Anti-SLAPP statute must first show they are engaged in protected activity,” he said. “Mr. Lucas’s speech at issue here involves debate on California tax policy, and as a candidate for public office, this sort of speech falls squarely within the First Amendment’s core protections for political speech.”
Not only is Lucas’ speech public and legal, but neither does it categorize as doxxing, according to Ryan Riedmueller’s analysis. He explained to The Fix the two issues with the doxxing claim against Mr. Lucas.
He said it is “unclear” that Lucas is acting with “malicious intent.”
“Second, the information he shared about the six individuals appears to be public,” he said, which would undermine claims of doxxing.
“Given those problems, it might be a difficult claim to prove in court.”
https://www.thecollegefix.com/four-professors-threaten-candidate-for-criticizing-their-billionaire-tax-proposal/
Those who can, do. Those who can’t, teach. Those who can’t teach… teach teachers. Prior conversations as to why the towers of academia sre overcrowded with self-satisfied, self-aggrandizing ultra liberal louts are supported by their brain dead allegations
Those who cannot spell or complete a sentence are typically commenting here in support of Turley.
Get a life. Or don’t. Who cares?
The professors seem to want the influence of political actors and the immunity of private citizens. Those are two different roles. If you help write a major tax proposal that affects millions of people, citizens have every right to know who you are, read your work, and criticize your ideas. The answer to bad criticism is better argument, not cease-and-desist letters. The courtroom is a poor substitute for persuasion.
Thought it was unusual that a prof at the University of Missouri would choose to be included in the letter about policy concerning California.
Looked him up. He’s got two degrees from Stanford and his JD from Yale. He spent nine years at UC Berkeley before coming to Indiana (seven years) and now Mizzou since 2024.
There is already a wealth tax – it’s just called property tax, a tax on the wealth that is held as property. It mainly burdens the middle and lower class as a larger percentage of their wealth and income than it does the 1%.
The property tax is obsolescent, dating back to when one’s property was one’s source of income: farm or ranch, store, boarding house, saloon, stables, blacksmith’s shop, or doctor’s office.
And property was easy to measure, in terms of acres of land, or square fdet of building.
But land is seldom a source of income any more. Moreover, we now can measure income directly, and have for over a century.
Priced Out: Relocation Amidst California’s Affordability Crisis
https://capolicylab.org/priced-out-relocation-amidst-californias-affordability-crisis/
Executive Summary
Growing costs of living are squeezing Californians’ pocketbooks and causing some households to consider relocating. Using unique data that anonymously tracks the same households over time from 2016 to 2025, this report examines how many Californians are moving, who is leaving the state, where they are going, and what happens to their finances after they move.
The findings suggest that affordability plays a major role in Californians’ relocation decisions. Californians who leave move to much more affordable areas and see large increases in homeownership, on average. At the same time, the data show how more people continue to leave the state than choose to move here, a gap that is reshaping California’s population.
Key findings
Californians are leaving the state for more affordable communities and improving their financial position. On average, movers relocate to neighborhoods where monthly housing costs are $672 less. After seven years, they are 48% (or 11 percentage-points) more likely to own a home.
People moving out of California increasingly come from higher-income neighborhoods and appear financially weaker than their neighbors. The share of exits from higher-income neighborhoods rose 19% over the last decade. Those who leave have $5,500 more in student debt, on average, and credit scores that were 17 points lower than their neighbors.
Proximity drives relocation popularity, with Nevada claiming the top spot. Nearby states receive the most Californians per capita. Nevada is the standout, receiving a net 81 Californians per 10,000 residents annually, followed by Idaho, Oregon, and Arizona. Contrary to most headlines, Texas and Florida rank only 11th and 20th, respectively.
There is still a gap between entrances to California and exits, though it has narrowed since the pandemic. While exits have moderated from their pandemic peak, there are now fewer people moving into the state, a trend that continues to drag on California’s population growth.
Ah ha! The old Streisand Effect again.
The CA anti-doxing law Prof. Turley is referring to went into effect at the beginning of 2025:
The recently enacted AB 1979 (The Doxing Recourse Victims Act)…. allows victims to seek damages and restitution by suing the doxer(s).
I don’t care what side of an issue is driving an activist, the publishing of personal details in order to intimidate, harass, and silence an opponent takes public speech over the line into deranged militancy. I’m personally glad to live in a state that draws a red line in this way, even if the state is being seriously mismanaged in other ways.
I wonder why JT did not say more about this legal innovation. As a free speech champion, what does he make of it?
Is doxing an abuse of free speech deserving of being dragged into civil court? Or, is it “speech I don’t like, but will defend to the death your right to say”???
the publishing of personal details in order to intimidate, harass, and silence an opponent takes public speech etc.. That has to be proven – it can’t. Is that why you post as anonymous, afraid to stand by your words?
Juries in court settings almost always go beyond the provable facts to ascertain the motives (mens rea) of the accused. That is not only accepted legally, it is the genius of our legal system to give this common sense judgment over to a panel of 12 average Americans. The intent of the doxer to intimidate is so obvious, it easily meets the preponderance of the evidence standard in civil court.
pbinca – “Mens Rea” means “guilty mind” it is NOT about motive or intent – though these can be used to prove “mens Rea”
It is about knowing that what you did was WRONG. Why you did it is mostly irrelevant. What is relevant is that you KNEW it was wrong.
I would further note – that while you are correct that Juries incorrectly go way beyond what they are allowed to – which is to determine guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, The fact that they do is not genius – it is a FLAW. Common sense has no place in court – Courts are about conformance tot he law and violations of our rights.
You rant about what is obvious – as if everyone shares your values – when even YOU do not share your values
LEft wing nuts rant about being harrassed as a result of public information – but it is Charlie Kirk that was assassinated
It is Brian Thompson that was murdered, it is Conservative Supreme court justices that are harrassed or subject to violence.
It is Rand Paul that was assaulted, it was the Republican Baseball team that was gunned down, it is ICE agents whose families are harrassed in school and at home.
You claim there is an obvious intent to intimidate – What is the Intent of BLM riots ? No Kings nonsense ? The attacks on ICE
If you beleive that public intimidation is illegal – why isnt the entire left in prison right now ?
As always you play stupid word games – without actually thinking about how what you push will work.
Can Trump sue anyone that calls him Hitler, Nazi, Fascist in CA ? That is clearly “intimidation”.
Obviously Trump is a public figure – but So are these professors. That is what happens when you seek to change the law – you become a public figure.
Regardless, the standard for this type of speech was established long ago – Brandenburg Vs. Ohio.
“The Brandenburg test is a legal standard established by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) to determine when speech advocating illegal action can be restricted. It states that speech can only be prohibited if it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action”
This law fails that test.
FWIW, I would remind you that the judge in the George Floyd case informed the jurors that he would be releasing their names and addresses publicly. Normally this would be considered jury intimidation, but, you know..
That’s an outrageous act of judicial power. That was one of the most corrupt prosecutions ever brought into Court. That Judge was anything but neutral.
I have little knowledge of the CA antidoxing law – though I am hard pressed to think of how a law against doxing would be constitutitonal.
“I don’t care what side of an issue is driving an activist, the publishing of personal details in order to intimidate, harass, and silence an opponent takes public speech over the line into deranged militancy. ”
Is perfectly legitimate and what left wing nuts do all the time.
You protested in front of Supreme Court Justices homes. You call people you do not like Fascists, and Nazi’s and Hitler,
You assassinate health care company CEO’s and speakers whose ideas you do not like.
You demand that ICE agents unmask an you threaten their families if they do.
The FACT is when you join the public debate – you have made your personal details relevant.
You do not get to lobb grenades into public discourse shielded from the public.
Participate, Don’t. But if you join the parade you can not complain because others took pictures.
You continue to enjoy the govenments protection from actual crimes – that is ALL.
If you do not trust government to protect you from those who would do you violence – then you should not be shilling for them to confisated other peoples wealth.
Turley did address this “legal innovation” – restrictions on free speech are unconstitutional.
But this case egregiously points that out – These professors did not just join the public debate they CREATED it.
They made themselves public figures.
You can not parade naked down the streets and then demand privacy.
Ironic that CA has enacted a law establishing recourse to those who are doxxed yet the public officials of that bluest of blue states would take away the facial masks worn by federal agents to protect them from real doxxing that threatens themselves and their families. These agents like the professors are public employees. The difference is that the professors are publicly advocating for public policy while the latter are engaged in law enforcement in support of laws passed by Congress. They are under the command and supervision of superiors. The professors are not threatened in any way by those who wish to debate them. The is ample evidence of the physical threats to ICE agents enforcing the law.
pbinca – we have spent milenia actually working these things out.
Contra your claim – this is not innovation – it is regression.
While Our founders framed free speech as a near absolute right, even they unconstitutionally infringed on it.
We have sent another 250 years getting rid of lunacy such as this nonsense.
You may restrict “intimidating speech” that advocates for immediate violence AND is likely to produce immediate violence.
Notice there is no mining for your intent – you must explicitly advocate for violence AND you must demand it NOW.
We have arrived here after we have found laws like your antidoxing law to have failed by chilling legitimate and important speech.
The Dems are sizing up a pretty fair to do list when next they win next year.
1. Impeach Trump and everybody he knows.
2. Tax the living crap out of billionaires, and then everybody else.
3. Reinstate their NGO gravy train and USAID.
4. Give China every advantage they don’t already steal. (Thanks Bernie)
5. Reopen those borders.
6. Back to wind turbines and solar farms.
I watch all the cable channels. I haven’t heard one Democrat talk about reopening the border Biden-style. They seem to be OK with cutting off the uncontrolled flow of new illegals. They just lacked the political guts themselves to do it. But now that it’s proven beyond a doubt that CBP has the capability, I don’t think a Dem Congress or President could get away with the lame excuses Biden/Harris/Mayorkas hid behind.
This is the time for Trump to be pushing Congress to pass Merit-based Immigration Reform, in exchange for regularization of status of the DACAs. Let’s lock in some permanent changes, so that a Dem Congress and President cannot ever return to what Biden did as a way of childishly trolling their opposition..
The last reasonable chance for immigration reform died when Obama chose DACA by executive order over political compromise int he senate.
It is likely to be a long long time before we see immigration reform, and any that we do so will likely be that sought by the right.
There are lot of changes to immigration law that would be improvements over what we have – but neither democrats nor republicans are behind any actually good reforms.
Republicans have the laws they can live with, and Democrats have the laws they can ignore.
And both parties think they have a politial issue that appeals to their base.
I’m pretty sure the Hitler loving dem from Maine wants open boarders.
Better add mail in ballots for all federal elections so the democrats can lock in place all six items above in perpetuity
To give $3,000 to every household man, woman and child making less than $150,000. This is laughable, $4.4 Trillion stolen from the producers to give to the less productive people of the free market.
$4.4 Trillion is about two years of interest due on our National debt these ftards have saddled us with.
This is just more typical dead end Fascist Democrat logic on display once again.
These Professors must think they live in the EU and criticism is misinformation. I think the victim of this legal threatening should send his own cease and desist order.
All sorts of new legal standards-public information is doxing-criticism of voodoo economics as practiced by the left is misinformation or doxxing or both.
Personally I think the wealth tax in California is a great idea. It gives us a marker on the voters there. I think any voter or businessman who is thinking of leaving because of the tax shows a certain amount of sanity and fiscal understanding and would be welcome in many other states. Those that stay are obviously too poor to leave or think the tax is a good idea and I think most other states would like to see those people stay in California.
Maybe the mass exodus will leave California irrelevant and we can just make it a big national park and emphasize the mountains, the redwoods and the beaches. The only problem would be the remaining wildlife and I don’t mean the animals.
I would like to see progressives in their primitive state as long as there is large reinforced wall between me and them.
Mass exodus you? Where did you get that stupid idea?
The narrative of a recent “California mass exodus” is largely disproven by recent data, as the state saw its population increase by 232,570 (0.6%) from July 2023 to July 2024, marking the second consecutive year of growth. While net domestic migration remains negative—with more residents leaving than arriving—the overall population rebound was driven by increased international immigration and a smaller domestic outflow returning to near pre-pandemic levels.
Yeah, funny how Magagots’ believe everything Fox News spews. A simple Wiki search would have left any reader with questions about that assertion.
“Between the year 2000 and 2024, California’s population peaked in year 2020 at 39.52 million.”
Regardless, the tax base is collapsing.
It’s still happening.
In December, the state agency declared that as of last July, California’s population was 39.529 million, a gain of 19,200 since 2024. Although arithmetically insignificant, the tiny gain was hailed by officialdom and media as proof that California is no longer losing people.
Last month, the Census Bureau released its latest estimates, fixing California’s population at 39.355 million, a decline of 9,465 souls from the previous year. It implies that California’s slide, which began in the COVID-18 pandemic, is still happening, with a net loss of 200,394 residents since the 2020 census.
Keep taxing away and more will leave.
It will keep happening when they can no longer afford to live there
California has the highest poverty rate in the nation (tied with Louisiana at 17.7%). Nearly 7 million Californians lack the resources to meet basic living needs. The crisis is driven by skyrocketing housing costs, expiration of pandemic-era financial aid, and a massive divide between top earners and low-income residents
And way too many residents..
Who don’t pay into the system
DustOff,
Additional evidence of the exodus,
Which US States Gained The Most Residents In 2025
CA was number 47 at -25.1%.
https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-which-u-s-states-gained-the-most-residents-in-2025/
California says it lost $2 billion in state income taxes from earners leaving
“Foregone revenue increased more (three-fold) than net domestic outmigration of people (two-fold) because, prior to the pandemic, outmigration was concentrated among lower-income households,” continued the LAO. “Since then, more middle- and higher-income households have moved to other states, meaning the effect on state revenue has been greater because these tax filers tend to make larger income tax payments.”
Note the source of that report is the California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, using IRS data.
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/california-says-it-lost-2-billion-state-income-taxes-earners-leaving
U-Haul Growth States of 2024: South Carolina Tops List for First Time
“California experienced the greatest net loss of do-it-yourself movers in U-Haul equipment and ranks 50th for the fifth consecutive year.”
https://www.uhaul.com/Articles/About/U-Haul-Growth-States-Of-2024-South-Carolina-Tops-List-for-First-Time-33083/
California loses one taxpayer per minute, Florida gains
“The states losing taxpayers most frequently are California, New York and Illinois. California loses a taxpayer every 1 minute and 44 seconds; New York loses a taxpayer every 2 minutes and 23 seconds; and Illinois loses a taxpayer every 6 minutes and 4 seconds.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/states/center-square/california-loses-one-taxpayer-minute-florida-gains
Your cherry-picked examples don’t really support your argument.
Show us where.. Noticed you failed to do just that
Yes, CA is rapidly becoming a banana republic – increasingly large portions of the population are people from banana republics.
I would also ask how you think the CA population fared in 2025 – when ilegal immigration was reduced to near zero ?
Regardless, who do you think pays more taxes ? 232K illegal immigrants or Elon Musk ?
This is an argument only a left wing nut would make.
“Yes, we are riving out all the successful productive tax payers, but we are gaining larger numbers of non-productive people who pay no taxes”
Thwe man on the video SOUNDS like he LIVES in the EU!
Much like Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr von Braun
Conservatives want to clear cut the big redwoods and sell the sand from the beaches to China construction for pennies a ton. They look at national parks as private profit opportunities.
I would like to see conservatives create something new, anything, but they cannot. They see what progressives invent and then copy or steal it.
Make sure to keep those strawman arguments well away from open flames.
All It Takes Is a New President: Take a Look at DC’s Columbus Circle Then and Now
https://redstate.com/bobhoge/2026/05/28/all-it-takes-is-a-new-president-take-a-look-at-dcs-columbus-circle-then-and-now-n2202796
Stunning new before-and-after renderings reveal what’s in store for NYC’s Penn Station
https://nypost.com/2026/06/08/us-news/stunning-new-before-and-after-renderings-reveal-whats-in-store-for-nycs-penn-station/
Yawn…
Thanks to both Oregon & WA state. They have major forest fires, year after year because they fail to clean up the forest or have little firefighting equipment .
Look what happen in LA. No water supply… Talk about stupid.
Come On Man! You gotta get out and take some deep breaths of that good Cali AIR (pollution) to clear your mind of those logical thoughts! Application of the LAW in the Land of Californicators is in the EYE of the Whacky Beholder! And this bunch of NUT CASES is a Class Action for Whack Jobs!
Legal action against critics? It should not be allowed!
Only if one can afford it?