There has been much press about the New York University study, “False Accusation: The Unfounded Claim that Social Media Companies Censor Conservatives.” It is being touted by the media as establishing that any allegations of bias against conservatives is “disinformation,” the term used by authors Paul M. Barrett and J. Grant Sims of the NYU Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. That term of course is now used as a basis for flagging or censoring material. The problem is that the study is largely conclusory and, though buried in the study, acknowledges that it is not based on any real hard data and is therefore “inconclusive.”
Category: Politics
We have seen in the last four years how rage has replaced reason for many experts. Legal experts who long defended criminal defense rights have suddenly become advocates of the most sweeping interpretations of criminal or constitutional provisions while discarding basic due process and fairness concerns. Academics who teach journalism have called for an abandonment of neutrality and objectivity. The Democratic Party itself has become the champion of censorship. Even in this company, CNN’s media expert Brian Stelter is a standout. Stelter has been regularly criticized for alleged bias but this week Stelter offered an argument for limiting both free speech and the free press that would have kept George Orwell up at night. Stelter told his viewers that they really do not have to talk about censorship and simply should refer to reductions of free speech as “a harm reduction model.” Continue reading ““A Harm Reduction Model”: CNN’s Brian Stelter Offers A Perfectly Orwellian Attack On Free Speech And Freedom Of The Press”
An Australian professor of “moral psychology” used Twitter to call for the death of Trump supporters. Neither Twitter nor his colleagues objected to Macquarie University Associate Professor Mark Alfano calling for “more of this please” after reading that a Trump supporter died in the recent Capitol Hill riot. He also called such deaths “comedy.” He is not the first academic to call for such violence or defend killings. We previously discussed Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis who writes for the site Lawyers, Guns, and Money and declared that he saw “nothing wrong” with the killing of a conservative protester. (A view defended by other academics). Other professors have simply called for all “Republicans to suffer.” What is striking is that such views are neither barred by Twitter nor, according to a conservative site that broke this story, denounced at his university. For my part, I have always maintained an Internet originalist position on free speech opposing censorship, so I would prefer that these academics not be banned. However, there is a stark contrast in how such views are treated by both social media companies and universities. Likewise, there is legitimate condemnation of the social media statements of figures like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and many QAnon figures, but virtually nothing on figures voicing extremist views on the left in the mainstream media or academia.
Continue reading ““More Of This Please”: Professor Calls For The Death of Trump Supporters”
Below is my column in the Hill on the new push to bar former President Donald Trump under the 14th Amendment in a censure resolution. Various commentators and groups have called for dozens of Republican politicians to be barred from office in the same way, including a “how to guide” for “disqualifying insurrectionists and rebels” under the 14th Amendment. Some have even added a call to put the entire Republican Party on a Domestic Terror list. Rage again has overwhelmed reason. The suggested use of the 14th Amendment raises serious constitutional concerns and could present a compelling basis for a court challenge if actually passed. Indeed, Trump could prevail in court shortly before the 2024 presidential race.
Here is the column: Continue reading “The Senate Is Playing A Dangerous Game With The 14th Amendment”
This weekend, we discussed the public threats by the Lincoln Project of a defamation action against Rudy Giuliani. The Project itself has faced questions of defaming the members of the Trump family. The Project has been accused of doxxing and trolling Republicans and waging a campaign of harassment targeting election lawyers after Biden was declared the winner of the 2020 election. In the Giuliani controversy, co-founder Steve Schmidt said that he was “thrilled” by Giuliani’s interview and appeared to relish the possibility of a defamation action. Within 48 hours, the Project was involved in yet another possible defamation controversy after it publicly declared that its own co-founder, John Weaver, is “a predator, a liar, and an abuser.” Continue reading ““A Predator, A Liar, And An Abuser”: The Lincoln Project Attacks Co-Founder in Latest Defamation Controversy”
As someone who has taught defamation torts for thirty years, the Trump Administration has been a bonanza of such cases and controversies. While many claims of defamation have been resulted in filings, we have had a number of high profile political controversies turn into actual tort litigation. I regularly criticized Donald Trump for his calls to change defamation laws. On the opposing side, figures like MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough raised equally poor understandings of defamation law in considering lawsuits against Trump. However, not surprisingly in our age of rage, there has been a slew of defamation claims raised from leading lawyers to universities to academics to police officers to the Dominion company to Sarah Palin to Jerry Falwell Jr. to Roy Moore to Joy Reid . . . well, you get the idea.
What is striking is that some of the most reckless figures or groups are often the first to raise such claims, including Trump himself. The Lincoln Project is the latest example. The group participated a disgraceful campaign of intimidation against lawyers and law firms that began soon after the election, including alleged efforts to dox or troll people with opposing views. This includes work that was previously discussed as potentially defamatory. It is now saying that it has a strong case against Rudy Giuliani who himself seems a perpetual defamation machine. The claim arose after Giuliani held a signature interview with unhinged and unsupported allegations, including that someone associated with The Lincoln Project helped orchestrate the recent riot on Capitol Hill. While the Project says that this is an open and shut case, there are serious impediments facing such a lawsuit and it is not, in my view, sure thing under controlling case law.
There is a free speech debate at Drake University over hateful and vulgar tweets from Associate English Professor Beth Younger, who called for Republicans “to suffer.” We have seen increasing vulgar attacks from academics, including such high-profile figures as Laurence Tribe in the last few years. Notably, Twitter did not suspend Younger’s account for calling for harm to all Republicans. I do not believe that she should be barred from social media or fired from Drake as a matter of free speech. Even with professors who have justified the murder of conservatives or killing police are protected in such hateful expressions. The solution to such hate speech is more (and better) speech. I would rather we denounce such speech than censor it. Continue reading ““Republicans Need To Suffer”: Drake Professor Triggers Free Speech Debate With Hateful Tweets Against Men and Conservatives”
We recently discussed how the Senate will have to decide whether to call witnesses in the second impeachment trial of former President Donald Trump. The use of a snap impeachment raises a basis for some senators to oppose such witnesses on institutional or prudential grounds. Democrats opposed any witnesses in the Clinton impeachment and there were no witnesses in the first Trump impeachment trial. Not surprisingly, the House is demanding witnesses. The initial vote in the trial shows that it is substantially short of the number of senators needed to convict and Trump could be acquitted on a virtual 50-50 vote. So here is my question: why has the House not used the last few weeks to call these witnesses and build the needed case to show intent to incite an insurrection? Weeks have gone by with key witnesses speaking to the press but not to the House. Why? Continue reading “Why Hasn’t The House Held Hearings To Establish “Incitement Of Insurrection”?”
Below is my (expanded) column in the Hill on the prudential (as opposed to the constitutional) concerns raised by the second Trump impeachment trial. Senators will have to resolve these questions before reaching the merits. The prudential concerns may also weigh heavily in the possible rejection of witnesses after the snap impeachment. The House blundered by leaving the record and witnesses entirely to the Senate to develop. The Senate could now chose to rule on the record — or lack thereof. Even a couple days of hearings could have created a record of documents and witness accounts — and an opportunity for a formal response from the President. It could also have allowed for suggested changes on the language of the article to allow for broader support. I have no objection to removing a president on his final day, but the House should create a minimally sufficient record to support a constitutional determination of a high crime and misdemeanor.
Here is the column:
Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe was on CNN last night reassuring viewers that the Constitution clearly and unequivocally allows for the trial of a former president. In what has become a signature of Tribe’s commentary, he declared any contrary view as “stupid” while engaging in gratuitous personal insults. I have previously written about Tribe’s past personal attacks on those who hold opposing political or legal views. While such attacks thrill many on social media, it should have no place among academics. What is more notable however is how Tribe’s views have changed since the Clinton impeachment when we testified at the impeachment hearing of constitutional experts. While he once questioned whether Bill Clinton could be impeached for a murder unrelated to his official conduct, Tribe has suggested that Trump could be impeached for a tweet alleging criminal misconduct by Barack Obama.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) was back on the airways this week touting her signature “wealth tax” in a sharp exchange with CNBC’s “Closing Bell” host Sarah Eisen. I have previously written about the constitutional concerns over a true wealth (as opposed to an income) tax, the exchange concerned the impact of a tax on the most wealthy. Warren ridiculed the notion of the wealthy leaving the country as a mere “bluff” meant to deter her and others from forcing the wealthy to pay their fair share.
Continue reading “Elizabeth Warren Calls Reporter’s Concerns Over A Wealth Tax As A “Bluff””
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been attacking Republicans members as traitors in a continuation of the reckless rhetoric from the last four years on both sides. Despite a desire for greater unity from voters, Pelosi has sought to capitalize on rather than close those divisions while other Democrats are calling for blacklists and retaliatory measures. The Speaker has now doubled down on these attacks by claiming that the need to increase security is due in no small degree to the “enemy within” in reference to the Republican ranks. As with her prior conduct as Speaker, Pelosi continues to refuse to recognize any obligation to the institution in seeking consensus and reconciliation. Continue reading “Pelosi Declares That The “Enemy Is Within The House of Representatives” In Call For More Security”
During the Trump Administration, Democratic Attorneys General used the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to delay Trump policies pending satisfaction of requirements for notice and comment periods. Even though President Barack Obama did not satisfy APA conditions in imposing original rules, the Supreme Court enforced such procedures to reverse prior orders. During that litigation over the Trump executive orders, I repeatedly noted that the Democratic challengers in court were making arguments that would likely used against the next Democratic president in seeking to quickly undo Trump’s orders. That has now come to past. When Biden took power, he immediately did what Trump did in taking unilateral acton without APA notice. District Court Judge Drew B. Tipton ordered this week that the directive from acting Homeland Security Secretary David Pekoske was not in apparent compliance with the same law.
There is an ongoing controversy triggered by an article in Salon suggesting that Sen. Tom Cotton had lied about being an Army Ranger in describing his military service. The Salon article by Roger Sullenberger claimed that Arkansas senator Tom Cotton “felt compelled to repeatedly falsify that honorable military record.” It is an accusation that borders on a claim of stolen valor and could not be more insulting, particularly for someone with a highly distinguished military service record. The article has been denounced as part of a smear campaign by conservative sites like National Review but also veterans as unfair and inaccurate.
Ironically, the regimental motto of the Rangers is the Latin phrase sua sponte, or “of their own accord.” There appears debate on whose accord is controlling on such questions.
With much fanfare (and catchy background music) Twitter has launched the Birdwatch program, a platform that seeks to enlist the “community” to identify and comment on misinformation contained in tweets. The company will initially select 1,000 such “Birdwatchers” in its monitoring of information exchanged on its once neutral platform. Not surprisingly, many of us are not thrilled by the program. While the programs does not allow direct removal of tweets, it is clearly designed to flag tweets that the majority views as misleading. That can then be used by Twitter to further support its expanding censorship of information on the Internet.
Continue reading “Twitter Summons “The Birdwatchers” In Expanding Campaign Against “Misinformation””