California Assemblyman Ed Chau (Democrat, Monterey Park) appears to be finally running into opposition over one of the most chilling, anti-speech pieces of recent years. Chau is trying to criminalize “fake news” and in the process would curtail free speech for everyone from parodies to comedies to opinion writers. He is the latest example of how some of the greatest threats to free speech around the Western world today appears to be coming from the left of the political spectrum from speech restrictions on campuses to new criminal laws on inciteful or intimidating speech.
Category: Media
With the health care reform defeat, the Trump Administration is moving aggressively toward new goals including tax cuts in Congress. Today, however, he will keep another pledge and dismantle Obama orders protecting the environment and combating climate change and environmental protection. With the rescinding of the orders, Trump will place the United States in the most anti-climate change posture of any major nation, rivaling even China in the lack of hard commitments to move away from fossil fuels. Indeed, he is expected to open up new leases for coal and relax regulations to allow increased fossil fuel consumption. As I have previously discussed, this move is not only running against the grain of other major nations but against the market itself. While other countries are moving aggressively toward clean energy and green markets, the United States will be moving aggressively backward.
There is a controversy in Montreal where Jordanian cleric Sheikh Muhammad bin Musa Al Nasr was invited to speak at the Dar Al-Arqam Mosque and quoted a version calling for the killing of Jews. The imam recited in Arabic the verse: “O Muslim, O servant of Allah, O Muslim, O servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” People have called for his prosecution for hate speech, rekindling the debate over Canada’s roll back of free speech with hate speech and discrimination laws. Continue reading “Group Calls for Prosecution of Muslim Cleric After He Reads Passage Calling For The Killing Of Jews”
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
I featured three articles in November, 2015 (HERE, HERE, and HERE) depicting a controversy caused by the Washington State Department of Labor & Industries’ promotion of artwork made by Leonard Peltier, who was convicted for the June, 1975 murders of FBI Special Agents Jack Coler and Ron Williams. The display furthered the controversy in that it marked the 40thanniversary year of the agents’ murder. After considerable outcry on both sides of the issue, the dispay was taken down two weeks prior to its scheduled conclusion date.
Now, a lawsuit has been filed in U.S. District Court by Leonard Peltier and his son Chauncey against the state naming L&I Director Joel Sacks, Governor Jay Inslee, the L&I spokesman, retired FBI Special Agents, and two hundred John Does as defendants, claiming that the Peltiers were denied their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by the state’s removal of the artwork.
The lawsuit indicates strongly how controversies such as these can be avoided and that allowing state employees to promote controversial issues often leads to disaster.
Continue reading “Washington State Governor Sued For Removal Of Leonard Peltier Art Display”
This morning, our blog hit 31,000,000 views. We have had an increase in visitors and our new voices are heartily welcomed to our little band of commentators. We try to offer a place for civil but passionate discourse on legal and policy issues of our time (and perhaps a few wacky stories). We continue to rank in the top legal blogs in the world and we are continuing to see a growing international readership. We often use these milestones to look at the current profile of the blog and its supporters around the world.
As always, I want to offer special thanks for our weekend contributors: Mike Appleton, Larry Rafferty, Darren Smith, Kimberly Dienes, and Cara Gallagher. I particularly want to thank Darren who has continued to help manage the blog and help out folks who encounter posting problems.
I also want to thank our regular commentators and readers. We try to keep this blog as an open forum with as little interference or monitoring of the comments as possible. Given our free speech orientation, we try not to delete comments and, for that reason, we are deeply appreciative of how most people avoid personal or offensive comments in debating these issues. The success of this blog is due to the fact that we offer something more than the all-too-common troll-driven, angry, and insulting commentary of the Internet. Thank you for voluntarily assuming restraint over the tenor and content of your comments. Continue reading “RES IPSA REACHES 31,000,000”
We discussed earlier how Donna Brazile, the former chair of the Democratic National Committee and CNN commentator, denied the legitimacy of emails that showed her leaking a question to Hillary Clinton that would be asked verbatim at the CNN downhill event. I was highly critical of the failure of the media to investigate the claim, including confirming the receipt of the earlier emails from Clinton communications director Jennifer Palmieri. Brazile stuck by her false statements even after additional emails allegedly showed Brazile secretly feeding information to the Clinton campaign. Again, there was relatively little media attention to the story and CNN initially issued a remarkably weak response that it was “uncomfortable” with the new disclosures on Brazile’s actions while a CNN commentator. While CNN Worldwide President Jeff Zucker later called Brazile’s actions “disgusting” and others have denounced her actions and later contradictions, the DNC stuck with Brazile — even praising her post-scandal appearance before staffers (with one notable exception). Then, the declassified intelligence report directly disputed what Brazile has said. Yet media remained relatively passive and again failed to press Palmieri on the issue. Now, Brazile has admitted that she gave the questions to the Clinton campaign in a Time magazine essay. She simply says it was a “mistake” but does not address her lying to the media. Again, the coverage is quite limited and no one has asked Palmieri how she remained silent despite knowing that Brazile was lying and misleading the public. Palmieri is now a regular guest on various news outlets.
Last night, U.S. District Judge Derrick K. Watson issued a
temporary restraining order that prevents the second immigration order of President Donald Trump from going into effect on Thursday. The 43-page opinion is scathing and relies not only on the statements of President Trump but the recent statements of his chief aide Stephen Miller. While I respectfully disagree with Judge Watson and view his decision as contrary to the weight of existing case law, the opinion again shows the perils of presidents and their aides speaking publicly about litigation. Political facing saving comments can be case legal damaging comments. Yet, I still believe that Judge Watson relied too much on campaign statements and television interviews to overcome the facial neutrality of the language of the executive order.
Continue reading “Federal Judge In Hawaii Enjoins Second Executive Order”
Below is my recent column about a type of new article of faith for lawyers in opposing President Donald Trump and his Administration. Here is the column:
Continue reading “Opposing Trump Is The New Article Of Faith For Lawyers”
The build up last night on MSNBC had my phone ringing off the hook. Rachel Maddow proclaimed “we’ve got the Trump returns.” It turned out to be just the 2005 filing. Well, not the 2005 filing, the first two pages. Worse yet, it turned out to be an entirely predictable tax return for a wealthy businessman with tons of deductibles. It seemed like the tax version of Al Capone’s safe with Geraldo Rivera. What was particularly odd is that MSNBC was “all in” — even after seeing that there was little there. Maddow led with a long list of things we want to know from Trump’s tax return. But none of those things were in the return. They lined up experts who seemed a lot like the “weather center” reporters the night before covering the major snow storm in D.C. Reporters literally showed a dusting on cars in parking lots and spoke breathlessly about the possible storm that never came. The tax experts were left in the same curious position — discussing what might have been shown. As a legal commentator, I bowed out. It was like being called as a seismologists to discuss an earthquake that never happened. It is certainly true that Trump and Melania paid is a rate of less than 4 percent on their personal income — $5.3 million. However, they paid an additional $31 million under the alternative minimum tax, or AMT. They used every loophole and tactic to reduce payments but those loopholes were legal and used by many in his tax bracket.
Having said that, the White House and others went too far in raising allegations of criminal conduct by Maddow and MSNBC in reporting on the story. There was also a return to the mantra of the “dishonest media.” There was nothing dishonest in publishing the return. It was clearly overplayed but it was not dishonest to cover the leak.
Below is my column in The Hill newspaper on the reappearance of Obama officials in the contemporary debates over surveillance and health care. Here is the column.
The United States Attorney for Manhattan, Preet Bharara, appears to believe that he is working for a different branch of government. After Attorney General Jeff Sessions asked for the resignations of all U.S. Attorneys, a standard change of political appointees in a new Administration, Bharara reportedly indicated that President Donald Trump would have to fire him. Just as with the bizarre conduct of Sally Yates as Acting Attorney General, Bharara has shown a curious understanding of this position and his obligations as a federal officer. If these media reports are true, President Trump should immediately accommodate him and Bharara will have to explain to future employers how he justifies such an unfounded stance. [Update: Bharara has been fired]
I sincerely hope that the reports are not true or that Bharara quickly reconsiders and gets his letter of resignation in today. This is not the way to close a successful career as U.S. Attorney. In the end, I am not sure what the basis for refusing a letter of resignation is. Bharara seems a rebel without a cause.
Continue reading “Fire Me: U.S. Attorney In Manhattan Reportedly Refuses To Resign [UPDATED]”
As someone who has done interviews at home with four kids and a large dog, this is an all too familiar scene. Professor Robert Kelly learned of these dangers as he tried to explain the implications of the impeachment of South Korea President Park Geun-hye live on BBC.
Continue reading “The Perils of Press: BBC Interview of Professor From Home Goes Viral”
I recently criticized the ethics complaint filed against Presidential Advisor Kellyanne Conway by 15 ethics law professors. For full disclosure, Conway is one of my former students at George Washington University Law School (she graduated in 1995). I criticized the complaint as highly political with little foundation. The only aspect of the complaint that was not frivolous was the allegation that Conway violated the federal rule against endorsing commercial products in light of her comments about Ivanka’s line of clothing and jewelry. As I stated, Conway did violate the rule and I believe that she should have been punished with an official reprimand or some other equivalent measure. However, I viewed the violation as part of a tongue-in-cheek retort to the controversy. The White House reached the same conclusion that there was no “nefarious” intent but it also declined to impose any formal punishment. That decision has led to a relatively rare rebuke fromOffice of Governmental Ethics Director Walter Shaub. Referring to Conway’s “free commercial,” Shaub expressed dismay over the failure to impose any punishment and further chastised deputy White House counsel Stefan Passantino for his explanation for the lack of any discipline.
Just a day after Sen. Al Franken publicly accused Attorney General Jeff Sessions of perjury, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) went public on CBS with a theory that appears to have been bothering him: “You can imagine a set of circumstances in which the Trump campaign gave him talking points [and] he was a message boy for them.” The purpose, Whitehouse suggested, was for Sessions to convey “Mission accomplished” after meeting with his Russian handlers. It is a curious notion that Sessions was a Manchurian senator but the Russian ambassador still met with him in the presence of staffers on the Hill or in public at the Republican National Convention. If this is a sequel to the Manchurian Candidate, I may have to pass.
While most Democratic senators have been somewhat circumspect in characterizing the testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions as “inaccurate” or “misleading,” Minnesota Sen. Al Franken yesterday publicly accused Franken of perjury. It is a weighty charge that I have previously said would be highly difficult to actually prosecute.
Continue reading “Sen. Al Franken Accuses Sessions Of Perjury”