In case you thought that the greatest threats to free speech in Latin America is coming from the leftist Maduro regime, Honduras President Juan Orlando Hernandez is showing that such repressive policies can be found on either end of the ideological spectrum. The Trump Administration supported Hernandez in his contested election despite widespread questions of election irregularities. Faced with various sites discussing these allegations, Hernandez’ government is pursuing a new and chilling law to criminalize any “hate campaigns” on the Internet. This is one of our closest allies in Latin America and it has set itself on the course of criminalizing political speech.
Category: Constitutional Law
We recently saw a national outcry over a teacher dragged from a school board meeting for raising concerns over school policies. Now, the West Virginia House of Delegates is under scrutiny for the treatment of a woman, Lissa Lucas, who appeared at a hearing over a drilling bill and attempted to list the contributions accepted by both Democrats and Republicans from the gas and oil industries. She also raised an event the night before where the members wined and dined with industry lobbyists. She was forciably removed from the hearing after Chairman, John Shott (R-Mercer) ruled her comments as non-germane and personal. Many voters would likely disagree and say that the extent of corporate-related money is not relevant to the legislation.
Recently, the Utah Law Review published a study of sexual harassment at universities and there are a growing number of cases involving students coming forward with accounts of prior misconduct by professors. Notably, this movement has even extended to China, which is not known for its enforcement of sexual harassment laws. In the meantime, Congress is considering legislation entitled “Federal Funding Accountability for Sexual Harassers Act” that would make it more difficult for academics to avoid responsibility by moving to other universities. [For full disclosure, one of the cases this month concerns a former GW colleague, Ezra Wasserman Mitchell, who changed his name from Larry Mitchell before leaving for China.]
Below is my column on the ongoing controversy over the majority and minority memos from the House Intelligence Committee. President Donald Trump has sent the Democratic memo — which is much longer and detailed — back to the Committee for revisions. He accused of the Democrats of intentionally loading up the memos with classified information to argue that the White House was withholding embarrassing information. This column below argues for disclosure of not just as much of these memos as possible but underlying material.
Continue reading “In The Case Of The FISA Memos, Transparency Is National Security”
Below is my column in USA Today on the increasing talk of treason by both Democrats and Trump in recent weeks. President Donald Trump has indicated that his comments about Democrats being traitors was only a joke. That is hardly compelling in a speech that also denounced the Democrats as “unAmerican.” Clearly, many in the audience do not take such comments as a joke. At the same time, many Democrats have been calling Trump or his family traitors in the actual rather than rhetorical sense. There is no basis on the existing evidence to charge Trump with treason. These comments are equally reckless and unfounded. The Framers sought to remove this charge from the political discourse by not just adopting a narrow definition but incorporating that definition into the Constitution.
Here is the column:
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent tweets from former Director James Comey attacking allegations that he (and others) abused the secret FISA surveillance system. It is an ironic twist for Comey who is now acting in the same fashion as Trump in commenting on pending investigations and compromising himself as a potential witness or even target in future investigations.
Here is the column:
Continue reading “Twitter War: Comey Drops Pseudonym and Judgment In Social Media Attacks”
We have previously discussed the courage of women in Saudi Arabia, Iran, and other Muslim nations in fighting sexist rules that prevent them from engaging in basic acts or pursuing their own futures. As I have said before, these women are the most inspiring civil libertarians of our generation — risking jail and beatings to fight for equality. That struggle is evident in the dozens of arrests of women in Iran who are pulling off their headscarves in public in Iran to fight for the individual choice in wearing the religious cover. One activist Masih Alinejab has gone further to denounce Western feminists and reporters who celebrate the selling of a Barbie doll with a veil while giving minimal attention to actual women fighting the mandatory wearing of such items.
I will be discussing the memo today in a column in the Hill as well as in the segment with Tucker Carlson. I fail to see the “grave” classified information that would put the national security at risk. Indeed, my column addresses the disconnect between the objections made by the FBI and Democratic members and the actual memo. The use of classification laws to prevent disclosure of embarrassing information is itself an abuse of federal law and standards.
The Republicans may have undermined their case by building up this memo as a smoking gun document. Portrayals seems to make this memo the virtual combination of the Pentagon Papers and the Zimmerman telegram. After all of the build up, anything short of a depiction of Hillary Clinton forcing a judge to sign a secret warrant at gunpoint would disappoint most readers. However, there is plenty in this memo that should deeply concern people.
Civil libertarians have complained for years about the tactical use of classification authority by the federal agencies. This seems a rare and important example of that problem. As to the specific factual representations, they raise clearly troubling questions that need to be addressed on the failure to disclosure information to the FISA court and the alleged heavy reliance on this dossier.
Below is the full memo:
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the move by the House Intelligence Committee to release the four-page memo on alleged FBI abuse. The FBI has objected that “omissions” have made the memo “inaccurate.” However, that does not sound like a classification defense. Indeed, a long-standing objection is that the intelligence agencies classify material that is embarrassing or damaging to the agency politically. Since the memo reportedly deals with the use of the dossier for a FISA warrant, it would seem possible to draft a memo that did not compromise methods and sources. We will soon likely know, according to reports that President Donald Trump has reviewed the document and decided to release it. He is ultimately the final word on classification status in the Executive Branch.
Here is the column:
We recently discussed the striking down of one of the state laws barring contractors who support the boycotting of Israel. In New Zealand, however, a similar law is in effect and a pro-Israel group is suing two people for simply encouraging pop singer Lorde not to hold a planned concert in Israel. The lawsuit demonstrates the danger to free speech in these laws, which seeks to punish people for their political views, association, and speech. As many on this blog know, I generally oppose any laws that curtail free speech and view the solution to bad speech to be better speech — not criminalized speech. This has nothing to do the merits of the boycotts; only the means used to oppose such views. I have not problem with fans or promoters suing Lorde over a cancelled concert if they lost money. This goes to the right of people to boycott a country due to their personal or political views.
The plot thickened last night over the anticipated release of a four-page memo from the House Intelligence Committee. California Rep. Adam Schiff (D) publicly accused House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) of giving President Trump a “secretly altered” version of the memo to review for possible release. The Schiff allegation raises an interesting issue under the House that could theoretically warrant judicial review (though the outcome is far from certain). The Committee staff is arguing that the changes were minor edits, including grammatical changes.
A District Court judge in Kansas has handed down a major free speech victory this week in striking down the state law requiring all state contractors “to certify that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel.” We have previously discussed these laws and my view that they impinge upon the first amendment. The laws include making victims of natural disasters attest that they do not support a boycott of Israel as well as similar bans on student groups. Now the Kansas law has been struck down as a denial of free speech by District Court Judge Daniel Crabtree. It is the Koontz case that we previously discussed.
Continue reading “Federal Court Strikes Down Kansas Law Against Israeli Boycotters”
According to Bloomberg, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the White House he opposes the release of controversial four-page memo from the House Intelligence Committee. What is notable about the report is that the objection is allegedly due to what Wray views as a false and inaccurate narrative. However, that should not be a reason alone to classify and withhold a document under Rule X.
Continue reading “Report: Wray Opposes Release of Nunes Memo”
President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address covered a wide array of domestic and international issues. At eighty minutes, it was long of the longest such speeches. Putting the policies aside, Trump’s delivery last night was one of his strongest. Indeed, while many have objected to the content, it was a much better delivery than his inauguration in my opinion. CBS News is reporting that 75 percent of Americans watching approved of the speech.
However, most of us in the Beltway were watching the awkward tension between the members, including the absence of boycotting members and at least one incident of loud booing from the Democratic members. Rep. Luis Gutierrez was shown walking out as members chanting “USA, USA.” (He later remarked “Whoever translated it for him from Russian did a good job.”) Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi led most Democrats out of the door immediately after the President finished and most Democrats did not applaud for most of the speech. I have been previously critical of a Republican member protesting during the State of the Union\ and a serious breach of tradition by Associate Justice Sam Alito.
Here is my column in the Hill newspaper on the controversy.
Continue reading “The State of The Union and the State Of American Politics Of Division”
The Polish legislature has joined other Western countries in criminalizing free speech, including threatening to jail people who challenge the state-supported view of history. The legislature approved a bill making it a crime to use statements suggesting Poland bears responsibility for crimes against humanity committed by Nazi Germany. You could receive up to three years in prison for calling Auschwitz-Birkenau a “Polish death camp.”
Continue reading “Poland Moves To Criminalize Claims Of Polish Culpability In Nazi War Crimes”