We have previously discussed the plight of women and girls subject to Sharia law and extreme Muslim traditions of marriage. The nightmare faced by many women was captured in a horrific guide being distributed by in Turkey by former religious affairs department employee Hasan Caliskan. The guide supports the beating of women who do not “beautify” themselves, supports the marriage of 10-year-old girls, and advances absurd notions like the danger of having a stuttering child if a woman talks during sex.
Category: Constitutional Law
New York State Supreme Court Judge Barbara Jaffe has dismissed the defamation case against against President-elect Donald Trump brought by political strategist and TV pundit Cheryl Jacobus. Trump slammed Jacobus during the campaign and said that she “begged him for a job” at one time. Jaffe, however, held that such tweets are manifestly opinion and not facts for the purposes of defamation law. It is perhaps fitting that the first major ruling related to Trump would be over the character of tweets. If upheld, this could be a major new rule. As if on cue, Trump make more headlines today in the wake of the decision on Twitter with a tweet attacking the intelligence agencies saying “Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to “leak” into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany?” That is clearly opinion and hyperbole but the scope of Jaffe’s decision certainly adds a layer of protection not just for Trump but other regular tweeters.
Continue reading “New York Judge Dismisses Defamation Lawsuit Against Donald Trump”
Matt Krause is a deeply religious man who feels that people too easily divorce. That is clearly understandable view and probably speaks well of his own marriage. However, Krause is also a Texas state representative and wants to make that decision more difficult for his neighbors. He has introduced bills that should more divorces more expensive and more time-consuming and thus more difficult for couples to secure. This is a point where libertarians and some conservatives part ways. As someone with strong libertarian tendencies, I recoil at the government enforcing moral codes on a couples in making it difficult for them to divorce after they have made that difficult decision within her marriage or families. He would specifically bar no-fault divorces to protect the sanctity of marriage.
There is an interesting controversy brewing on Capitol Hill where Missouri Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., wants California Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Ca) criminally charged after Hunter took down a painting by one of Clay’s constituents that contains insulting images of police as pigs and other animals. The question is what the crime might be in such a circumstance since the painting was not damaged. It is analogous to the recent controversy at the University of Pennsylvania where students pulled down a portrait of William Shakespeare and replaced it with a portrait of a black feminist author. The painting (as in this case) was brought undamaged to the office. Of course, this is the removal of art from a Capitol building.
It is with profound personal sadness that I share the passing of one of the true great commentators of our generation. I have known Nat for decades. I knew him before he knew me. When I started to write as a columnist, Nat recognized a kindred spirit and reached out to me. I was floored to be getting a call from a man who I had so long admired. We kept up the communications on hot button sides. Nat didn’t use email (indeed he continued to use a typewriter). You would just get a call out of the blue with that unique gravely voice on the other end. He would immediately delve into something he read of mine or some idea that he had. I cherished every call. Nat was a mentor and a friend. With his passing goes one of the most authentic and brilliant minds of our generation. Many of us lost a friend but more importantly this country lost something that is becoming far, far more rare and precious: an honest voice. Nat was 91
CNN has issued an apology after one of its on-air pundit called Julian Assange a Pedophile. Wikileaks threatened to sue for what would be clear defamation if untrue. However, that might not be the end of possible litigation. Another guest appears to have made the same allegation and the first pundit, Philip Mudd, a former CIA agent and CNN counterterrorism analyst, could still be sued in his own right.
We have been discussing the crackdown on “fake news,” including my view that this has become the latest rationale for various countries to rollback on free speech, including most recently top lawyers in Italy. This includes the question yesterday of whether newspaper like the Washington Post could be charged as the purveyors of “fake news.” Now that speculation appears to be reality in China where Apple took down the App for the New York Times, a move assumed to be part of China’s transparent campaign against what it deems “fake news” — which obviously means real news revealing truths about the authoritarian regime. Critics have charged that Apple has agreed to be the agent of censorship in order to pursue business in China. In the meantime, government controlled newspapers have invited the New York Times to “reflect” on it being barred from the App store. Not surprisingly, the Obama Administration’s effort to limit free speech has not gone unnoticed by the Chinese, who are citing the Obama policies (and new propaganda office) as support for its own legitimacy as an authoritarian system.
As a torts professor, I admit to ranking new products by their likely litigious profiles. Amazon’s Alexa is a particular favorite. First there are the privacy concerns over the security of data on the devices. Then there was the constitutional criminal procedure concerns in a murder case in Arkansas. Alexa is an example of new technology potentially outstripping existing legal doctrines. The company is certainly making good on its final pledge of its slogan: “Work hard, have fun, make history”
We have been discussing the crackdown on “fake news,” including my view that this has become the latest rationale for various countries to rollback on free speech. Now Italy has has joined this ignoble list of Western countries using the ill-defined problem of “fake news” to justify the criminalization of speech and regulation of the Internet. Giovanni Pitruzzella, head of the Italian Competition Authority (an anti-trust body), has called for a crackdown by the European Union.
Continue reading “Leading Italian Lawyer Calls For A Crackdown On “Fake News” In The European Union”
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has handed down a major ruling that will likely shock many dog owners. Judge Eric Clay wrote the opinion that police can legally shoot and kill any dog that is barking at them during a raid. Since this is a common response to intruders, it would mean that police have virtually complete discretion to kill dogs during raids. The case is Brown v. Battle Creek Police Dep’t, 2016 FED App. 0293P (6th Cir.).
Our close ally Saudi Arabia has again proven that it imposes the same type of extreme and arbitrary justice as nations like Iran. The latest outrage out of the Kingdom was the jailing of a man for campaigning against the nation’s repressive state control over women. For merely speaking up for women, the man is now reportedly in jail for a year.
I recently wrote about the growing threat of government regulation of speech on the Internet under the guise of combatting “fake news.” Germany has been ground zero for civil libertarians for the rollback of free speech. 
German Chancellor Angela Merkel long ago established herself as a menace to free speech, particularly in her decision to first apologize to authoritarian Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan for a satirical poem and then approve the prosecution of the comedian is a shocking and chilling disgrace. Now, Germany is considering imposing a legal regime that would allow fining social networks such as Facebook up to 500,000 euros ($522,000) for each day the platform leaves a “fake news” story up without deleting it. Governments have finally found a vehicle to get citizens to allow them to curtail or chill speech — ironically in the name of facilitating “real news” or “truth.” It is perfectly Orwellian and Merkel’s latest contribution to the erosion of free speech in the West. I recently discussed the issue as part of an interesting segment with Ted Koppel.
Continue reading “Germany Moves To Impose Crippling Fines On Social Networks For “Fake News””
We have long discussed the rapid decline of free speech protections in the West. I have long argued that the West appears to have fallen out of love with free speech, which is more often viewed as a rising scourge rather than a defining value in some countries. That trend was reinforced by Israel this week, which became the latest country to criminalize some statements on social media. A new law would give the government the ability to move against any speech deemed as threatening or encouraging violence to be “removed immediately.” The law would cover the dangerously ambiguous category of language deemed “incitement.”
Continue reading “Israel Moves Crackdown On More Speech On Social Media”
The Obama Administration and many Democratic leaders have made “fake news” a rallying cry for more government and private regulation of the Internet — as well as a rationale for the devastating loss of Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump. Below is a column exploring the dangers of this new justification for speech regulation, which are already becoming evident in various countries around the world. I recently discussed the issue as part of an interesting segment with Ted Koppel.
Continue reading “THE REAL DANGER OF FAKE NEWS”
There is a controversy at the University of Oregon that embodies our long debate over the free speech rights of employees over statements and conduct in their private lives. Law professor Nancy Shurtz triggered a firestorm after she wore blackface to a Halloween party. She was dressed as Dr. Damon Tweedy, the author of Black Men In A White Coat. The school launched a formal investigation and found that, while there was no “ill intent”, Shurtz violated the school’s anti-discrimination policies. That has caused a debate over the extension of such rules to the conduct of faculty or students off campus and off hours.