University of Oregon President Michael Schill probably thought that he would be the least likely university president to find himself silenced by the raising anti-speech protests by students. After all, Schill himself has been denounced as part of the anti-free speech trend after he supported the university’s punishment of a law professor for wearing an allegedly offensive Halloween costume at her own party off campus. However, Schill was unable to give his annual state of the university speech after students took over the event and denounced him a “CEO” of a “business firm.”
Category: Politics
A viral video from a Seattle coffee shop illustrates the growing tension between free speech and religious exercise values. In the Facebook video, Ben Borgman — the owner of Bedlam Coffee shop — threw a Christian group out of his shop while spewing vulgar and obscene comments about their views. There are a growing number of such conflicts as store owners assert their right to refuse to serve those with opposing religious or social values. On December 5, the Supreme Court will hear the argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Rights Commission. That case will determine if a cake shop owner could refuse to prepare a cake for a same-sex couple on the basis of his opposing religious values.
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”
The massacre in Las Vegas has brought out the best of our country in response to the savage and senseless attack by Stephen Paddock as strangers rush into danger to save the wounded. It has also unleashed pent up political passions from Hillary Clinton immediately blaming the NRA (for opposing silencers) to a professor blaming the attack on Trumpism to “white privilege.” Others sounded like the relished the deaths or at least refused to be sympathetic for the victims. Now, a vegan food truck owner, Delinda Jensen, 60, in Wilkes-Barre, Pa, is under fire for a Facebook post saying that she doesn’t care how many people died because they are all “meat eaters” and “carnists.” She later deleted the posting and apologized. Jensen runs the Mother Nature Vegan Cuisine Food Truck with her son.
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the proposals for new gun control measures in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre. As I discuss below, there are some obvious possible measures that could pass constitutional muster like banning bump stocks (which allow semi-automatic weapons to perform more like automatic weapons) and conversion kits. However, these proposals would not have prevented the massacre. There are many “work arounds” for semi-automatic weapons and Paddock would have likely passed any enhanced background checks. Nevertheless, GOP members have expressed interest in some additional gun control measures.
Here is the column:
I have received a fair amount of criticism for writing that President Donald Trump was within his authority to pardon former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio as well as my skepticism of the challenge to the pardon by Berkeley law dean Erwin Chemerinsky and others. While I opposed the pardon and said that I viewed Arpaio was in open contempt of the court, I viewed the challenge to the pardon to be without merit. Now U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has rejected the challenge by Chemerinsky and dismissed the guilty verdict in the contempt case.
Continue reading “Federal Court Rejects Challenge To Arpaio Pardon”
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”
Scott Fitzgerald once said “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” If so, Republican Rep. Tim Murphy of Pennsylvania is a certifiable genius. However, in this case, Murphy’s two opposing views have cost him his seat in Congress. Murphy, who has run on a pro-life platform in securing eight terms in Congress, has struggled to explain emails where he asked his mistress to get an abortion. He has now announced his retirement from Congress to “take personal time.” The story is credited to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
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.
As is often the case, politicians and commentators were fast to draw political meaning from the latest massacre. Of course, the most obvious explanation is that this was an attack by a demented and hateful individual. At the base of this massacre seems utter madness — untractable and unfanthomable madness. However, after saying that this was no time for politics, Hillary Clinton immediately denounced the National Rifle Association. At the same time, televangelist Pat Robertson cited the disrespect for Trump and our flag.
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the continuing controversy over President Donald Trump’s remarks over the NFL anthem protest. including the suggestion that his remarks could constitute a case for impeachment. I wrote earlier that the coverage over the anthem protests have been criticized with cameras notably redirected when boos were heard from the crowed. Indeed, yesterday morning, I watched CNN cover the controversy and say that at a particular game there was “both cheers and boos.” However, when they cut to the clip there was overwhelming boos and the reporter admitted that the fans have clearly “not gotten the message” of the players. It does concern me that, again, the coverage seems weighted in downplaying the polls showing that most people (including myself) do not approve of the protesting of the anthem and raising of the flag. As I have previously written, this does not mean that we have fulfilled those values, but rather that we remain joined by a common article of faith in freedom and equality.
Most citizens seems to have a balanced view that they do not approve of the failure to stand for the anthem, but recognize that the players have the right to protest (unless owners decided to enforce the earlier policy of showing respect for the anthem). In the meantime, the owners have shown that they are only concerned with profits and, with Roger Goodell, are desperately looking for a way to threat a needle without an eye-hole. They are trying every variation, including the Packers standing arm in arm or the Steelers just not coming out of the anthem. It is clear that neither side is buying it and the only agreement of many people on both sides is a common contempt for Goodell and the owners.
Here is the column:
It has long been the U.S. policy to ignore human rights violations of some of our closest allies as part of a realpolitik. However, that means that our citizens give billions to countries who deny their very humanity and criminalize their very being. A case in point is Egypt. Egyptian authorities previously arrested seven people for simply flying a rainbow flag. Now, according to Amnesty International, six men will be subjected to anal examination in the country’s abusive legal system. They are charged with “promoting sexual deviancy” and “debauchery.” What is alarming is that both lawyers and journalists in Egypt have supported such crackdowns. Various reporters expressed outrage at the notion that anyone raised the rainbow flag in public and called for their persecution.
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.