In one of the most reckless and chilling attacks on free speech, the former chair of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) and Berkeley lecturer Ann Ravel is pushing for a federal crackdown on “disinformation” on the Internet — a term that she conspicuously fails to concretely define. Ravel is pushing a proposal that she laid out in a a paper co-author with Abby K. Wood, an associate professor at the University of Southern California, and Irina Dykhne, a student at USC Gould School of Law. To combat “fake news,” Ravel and her co-authors would undermine the use of the Internet as a forum for free speech. The regulation would include the targeting of people who share stories deemed fake or disinformation by government regulators. The irony is that such figures are decrying Russian interference with our system and responding by curtailing free speech — something Vladimir Putin would certainly applaud.Category: Media
There are now eighteen states and the District of Columbia lined up to challenge the executive order by President Donald Trump to rescind the Obama order giving insurance companies billions in subsidies . . . without an appropriation of Congress. As explained below, this challenge advances a rather curious claim that Trump cannot rescind an earlier order found to be flagrantly unconstitutional by a federal court. In most high-profile litigation cases, counsel spends considerable time exploring whether a challenge will allow a bad case to make bad law on appeal. That would seem the most likely outcome here but much of the litigation by Democratic Attorneys General have been driven more by political than legal calculations. Voters now expect every act of Trump to be challenged and no Democratic AG wants to be the only one to sit out a challenge to an unpopular order. The result is a type of perpetual litigation machine where bad precedent is being cranked out because it is viewed as good politics.
Here is the column:
We have been discussing the increasing scrutiny being applied to teachers and professors over their political views and social media commentary. A particularly problematic case has been taken up by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) involving Kansas teacher Esther Koontz. The long-time math teacher (and something called a “curriculum coach”) at Horace Mann Dual Language Magnet School in Wichita, Kansas, Koontz was barred from renewing her contract as teacher because she supports the boycott of Israel over the occupation of Palestinian territories. This is not simply reflective of her political views but a religious based obligation as a member of the Mennonite Church USA. The church in July voted to divest itself from American companies that profit off of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories. The Kansas law therefore collides head on with the rights of free speech, free exercise, and free association.
Continue reading “Kansas Teacher Barred From Employment Due To Her Support For Boycott Movement”
Many of us have been warning for years about the anti-free speech activities of various protest groups in barring speakers and even taking over classrooms. I have long advocated suspending students who prevent others from speaking or attending such events and expelling those who are repeat offenders. Now the University of Wisconsin system has adopted such an approach, though some of the terminology is problematic in my view. Nevertheless, while the policy (found here) could be more specific in defining terms like “disrupt,” it is a move that could go a long way in restoring free speech protections.
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has Cowboys owner Jerry Jones saying that any players who protest during the anthem will be disciplined and not allowed to play. The NAACP has denounced the policy as “unconstitutional.” While one can certainly disagree on the merits over the protests, teh NAACP is wrong on the constitutionality of such a policy. An employer can clearly bar political protests during work hours. Moreover, the First Amendment is primarily directed to limiting government interference or regulation of speech. While a public university qualifies as a state actor, it does not necessarily mean that protests are protected. Even on college fields, school are giving considerable leeway in setting such rules, including the recent dismissal of a college quarterback for kneeling.
Continue reading “NAACP Denounces Demand For Players To Stand At NFL Games As “Unconstitutional””
UC Berkeley Professor Harley Shaiken probably did not expect to be denounced as a tool of the racist establishment when he came to class recently. After all, he was simply giving a midterm exam when protesters appeared to demand that he checked his “privilege” and cancel his exam due to the stress that it was causing for students. Instead, the students demanded that he assign a “take-home essay with significant time to prepare.” The scene was truly Felliniesque but whatever humor might be found in the moment was lost by the fact that this is not an isolated occurrence on our campuses, as we have previously discussed.
Feminist attorney Lisa Bloom is under fire from all sides over her work on behalf of Harvey Weinstein, a producer who is accused of breathtaking attacks of sexual harassment against those under his control or influence. Much of the criticism has accused Bloom as well as Clinton advisors like Lanny Davis. However, there appears to have been push back from her actual clients at the Weinstein company, particularly after Bloom’s television appearances where she seemed to struggle with defending Weinstein. Bloom called Weinstein “an old dinosaur learning new ways,” as if calling women to your room in a bathroom and demanded massages was an acceptable old way in the last two centuries. Bloom also said publicly that her media client engaged in “illegal” conduct — a surprising admission for someone serving as a spokesperson who happens to be a lawyer. Critics raised the hypocrisy in Bloom’s past attacks on accused harassers and her awkward defense of Weinstein. Now reports suggest that company board members raised not only a possible conflict of interest in the case but some remarkably ill-conceived advice from Bloom in managing the scandal. Weinstein himself was fired yesterday. Bloom has responded to conflict issues raised in her Weinstein contracts by distinguishing legal from non-legal conflicts of interests.
Continue reading “Bloom Out As Weinstein Adviser Amidst Questions Over Conflicts and Tactics”
For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state. Now the government is pursuing a law that would make the repeated viewing of extremist Internet sites a crime punishable to up to 15 years in prison. It appears that the government is not satiated by their ever-expanding criminalization of speech. They now want to criminalize even viewing sites on the Internet. As always, officials are basically telling the public to “trust us, we’re the government.” UK home secretary Amber Rudd is pushing the criminalization of reading as part of her anti-radicalization campaign . . . which turns out to be an anti-civil liberties campaign.
Continue reading “Britain Moves To Criminalize Reading Extremist Material On The Internet”
CBS has fired Hayley Geftman-Gold, the network’s vice president and senior counsel, after a bizarre and disgraceful tweet saying that she is “not even sympathetic” to victims of the Las Vegas shooting because “country music fans often are Republican gun toters.” We have been discussing the free speech concerns over employees being disciplined for expressing their political or religious viewpoints on social media. However, this is a news network that contractually reserves the right to terminate employees for conduct deemed inimical to its journalistic image or mission.
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
After the recent controversy involving NFL players kneeling before the National Anthem at the beginning football games, long time NFL sponsor Papa John’s Pizza no longer displays the NFL Logo or indications of sponsorship on its official website.
While no reference as to the reasons given has been made readily publicly available, there exists the possibility the company might be having at least reservations with presently displaying a logo engendering increasing disfavor with large segments of its customer base.
Papa John’s once branded itself as the Official Pizza of the NFL.
Continue reading “NFL Logo No Longer Shown On NFL Sponsor Papa John’s Website”
I have previously criticized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her continued political comments in speeches to liberal and academic groups. While not unique on the Court, Ginsburg is something of recidivist in abandoning the long-standing avoidance of justices of political discussions. Indeed, justices previously avoided most public speeches where Ginsburg has readily embraced her public persona. Her latest comments occur on the eve of the start of the new term, a term with an array of major cases that arose from highly charged political conflicts over immigration, discrimination, and gun rights. In her latest comments, Ginsburg echoed comments by Hillary Clinton that sexism was a big part of Trump’s victory. It is precisely the type of political commentary that has cast a shadow over the credibility of the Court in earlier controversies.
Continue reading “Ginsburg Declares Sexism Was Major Factor In Trump Win As Court Starts New Term”
As I discussed in a column in the Hill, the controversy over the anthem protests has expanded into the area of constitutional law with suggestions that comments by President Donald Trump could be part of the basis for his impeachment. While I do not place much credence in such calls (though they constitute a worrisome trend), I do find the political dimension of the controversy fascinating. Polls show that a majority of citizens still share the President’s view that such protests are not appropriate though this percentage has fallen a bit and a majority also rejects Trump’s call for players to be fired for such protests. In the meantime, there is a controversy directed not at Trump or the NFL, but broadcasters like ESPN, which reportedly avoided showing booing fans during these games. There appears to have been a very large and vocal opposition in the stands to the appearance of kneeling players that was not shown as the cameras focused instead on the kneeling players while discussing their protest.
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent demand by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of material in over a dozen different areas. The most intriguing is likely to be the two documents referenced by Trump personal counsel Ty Cobb in an overheard conversation at a popular D.C. restaurant. The conversation has many in the Beltway scratching their heads and a few smirking. Cobb is an experienced lawyer who sees this investigation as unlikely to produce any compelling basis for a criminal charge. Conversely, White House Counsel Don McGahn is properly concerned with the danger of establishing precedent in the area of executive privilege that could undermine future presidents. Cobb is a bit too experienced in this town to make such an amateurish mistake as discussing loudly an internal fight over the documents in McGahn’s safe — a previously undisclosed dispute. It would certainly be intriguing if the reporter was told to have lunch at BLT and bring his notebook (Technically Cobb did not leak anything in being overheard). It would have been a truly Machiavellian move against McGahn. However, there is no evidence supporting such a theory. Ifthat were the case, the reporter’s story would be highly misleading since he clearly conveyed that this was a pure coincidence and a surprise. Moreover, such an arrangement would be unethical in my view even if Cobb thought it in the best interest of the President. These remain documents under a claim of privilege and presumably there was a decision not to make the disclosure. I am inclined to give Cobb the benefit of the doubt, though that means assuming that he committed a rather rookie error.
Continue reading “The Mystery of Don McGahn’s Safe: The Special Counsel Demand Could Shed Light On Two Mysterious Documents”
Saudi Sheikh Saad al-Hajari has reportedly come out strongly against the movement to allow women in the Kingdom to drive. Sheikh Saad al-Hajari said that the ban should remain because women possess a “lack of intellect” compared to men. He explained that they have only half the brainpower of males.
Continue reading “Saudi Cleric Declares That Women Lack the Intelligence To Drive”
Sometimes being a supporter of free speech can be really really really hard. A leading expert of “comparative jurisprudence” and Sunni cleric at al-Azhar University, Dr. Sabri Abdel Raouf, has been placed under review by his university (and ordered by the state media regulator to stay off the air) after dispensing some rather chilling advice on Sharia law and Islamic values. Abdel Raouf had told viewers that it is is permissible under Islamic law for a husband to have sex with his dead wife in what is called “goodbye intercourse.” The action taken by the university and the government highlights the curious line drawn over the discussion of Islam in Egypt. Moreover, it is a rather bizarre example of the debate that we are having in this country over the right of academics to engage in free (and controversial) speech outside of their schools. In this case, both the university and the government have moved to prevent anyone from airing these views as an insult to Islam.