GoFundMe’s suspension of millions to support protesting truckers in Canada shocked many, particularly when the company initially announced its intention to distribute the money to other charities. It was less of a surprise for those of us who have criticized the company for years over its use of the platform to target and block funds for conservative and libertarian causes. Indeed, the company has revised an old practice known as the “Nag’s Head light” in luring the unsuspecting into what has become a liberal lockbox on funds. Continue reading “GoFundMe and the Nag’s Head Light: How Crowdfunding Has Become The Latest Battleground Over Free Speech”
We have previously discussed the lawsuit of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) against the New York Times, a lawsuit that could have far reaching implications for defamation law in the United States. The trial began with the introduction of evidence that the New York Times editorial board ignored internal objections to publishing the 2017 column linking Palin to the 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona in which then-U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz was seriously injured. Continue reading “Palin v. NYT: New Evidence Suggests the New York Times Ignored Internal Objections to Palin Editorial”
It may be time for Joe Biden and the media to go out for another ice cream scoop. Hunter Biden is back in the news in a big way.
A newly released email from the State Department shows that former U.S. embassy official George Kent raised concerns about how Hunter Biden’s influence peddling would “undercut” anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine. The email contradicts President Joe Biden’s repeated assurances that no one has accused his family of doing anything wrong as well as his claims as a key figure in anti-corruption efforts in the Ukraine. Continue reading “Report: Diplomat Complained that Hunter Biden was Undercutting Anti-Corruption Efforts in Ukraine”
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the former Director for European Affairs for the National Security Council, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of his civil rights by Donald Trump, Jr.; attorney and Trump advisor Rudy Giuliani; former Deputy White House Communications Director Julia Hahn; and former White House Director of Social Media and Deputy Chief of Staff for Communications Daniel Scavino, Jr. He alleges a “conspiracy” to intimidate him and to retaliate against him as a witness against Donald Trump during his first impeachment proceedings. It claims that this conspiracy has left “a stain on our democracy.” The lawsuit is novel and would create new law, if successful. However, after reading the filing, I remain skeptical of the legal basis for the action. Continue reading ““A Stain on Our Democracy”: Vindman Sues Donald Trump Jr., Rudy Giuliani and Others for Witness Intimidation”
Below is my column on the campaign to cancel Joe Rogan and his podcast. Various celebrities and artists have joined the movement for censoring Joe Rogan, including Mary Trump. The White House has called for even greater action from Spotify to limit or remove content. We have also heard the same false narrative that, since the First Amendment only covers government action, this is not by definition a free speech issue. The argument is entirely divorced from any understanding of free speech. As we have previously discussed, the First Amendment is not the full or exclusive embodiment of free speech. It addresses just one of the dangers to free speech posed by government regulation. Many of us view free speech as a human right. Corporate censorship of social media clearly impacts free speech, and replacing Big Brother with a cadre of Little Brothers actually allows for far greater control of free expression. When it comes to media, information or social media platforms, corporate censorship can have a devastating impact on free speech.
Here is the column:
A new study from Johns Hopkins University found that the lockdowns in 2020 did little to combat Covid-19 mortality. Given the huge economic and personal costs of these lockdowns, the study obviously raises questions about the basis for these extreme measures. However, as will come as no surprise to anyone on this blog, I view the study as much a statement against the censorship of commentators and researchers who were banned or attacked for questioning the lockdowns. Once again, it would have been better for public health to have this debate than to shut down any opposing views in the name of science.
Continue reading “Study: Lockdowns Did Little to Combat Covid Mortality”
We have repeatedly discussed the virtual news blackout on the influence peddling by the Biden family, particularly Hunter Biden. Despite overwhelming evidence of millions given by foreign companies and officials, the media has preferred to cover literal scoops over a story of breathtaking levels of self-dealing and corruption by the Bidens. Now, however, the New York Times has sued to force the Biden Administration to turn over information on Hunter Biden’s Romanian dealings. The lawsuit comes after another report that, in 2019, the FBI subpoenaed JP Morgan for records on Hunter Biden’s Chinese dealings.
Continue reading “New York Times Sues To Get Hunter Biden Information”
We have previously discussed how the Biden Administration appears to be withholding the conclusions of investigations into Border Patrol agents that President Joe Biden accused of whipping migrants from horseback. Now, members of Congress are raising concern over an account from an anonymous DHS official that they now do not believe that they will release the report.
Georgetown Law Dean William Treanor is reportedly close to making a decision on whether to fire Ilya Shapiro as Executive Director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution. Shapiro is under fire for his opposition to the pledge by President Joe Biden to limit consideration for the next Supreme Court nominee to a black female. Shapiro sent out a horrendously badly worded tweet that supported a liberal Indian-American jurist as opposed to a “lesser black woman.” He later removed the tweet and repeatedly apologized. However, Georgetown University’s Black Law Students Association and others are demanding his termination. I entirely understand the outrage over the language used in the tweet, but it does not warrant termination in my view. The controversy raises a stark choice for Georgetown in supporting or discarding principles of free speech and academic freedom.
Continue reading “Free Speech Showdown at Georgetown Law School”
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) this week opposed a model law being introduced in over a dozen states. That is not itself uncommon. The ACLU historically opposed laws that denied free speech and other rights under the Constitution, a legacy that I have long cherished and supported. However, this is a transparency law that simply requires teachers and schools to post the educational materials used in classes online. It is meant to assist parents in tracking the education of their students and the priorities of their school systems. Yet, the ACLU has declared the law to be so threatening and chilling that it has officially opposed its enactment in any state.
Below is my column the the Hill on the early controversies over President Joe Biden’s first nomination for the Supreme Court. Call it confirmation bias but the fighting has already begun before any nominee is even named. President Biden triggered a debate over the use of racial and gender criteria to limit consideration to black female candidates. Notably, a new ABC poll shows 76 percent of Americans oppose such an exclusionary process. While supported by Democratic senators, Sen. Susan Collins (R., Maine) has objected to the rule as has others in Congress. In addition, Sen. Mazie Hirono (D., Hawaii) has made controversial comments over her desire to have the next nominee rely not just on the law but the nominee’s life experiences to reach the right result in court cases.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Confirmation Bias: The Fighting Has Already Begun and Biden Hasn’t Even Named a Nominee”
We have been discussing the controversial pledge of President Joe Biden two years ago that he would only consider black women for the first vacancy to the Supreme Court. While past presidents have said that they wanted to appoint nominees who were female or black, they all considered a diverse set of candidates and had “short lists” that included different races and genders. Biden has promised that he will not consider males or non-black candidates. Now, an ABC News/Ipsos poll shows that 76 percent of Americans reject such a threshold exclusionary rule based on race or gender. Continue reading “ABC/Ipsos Poll: 76 Percent of Americans Oppose Biden’s Pledge Only To Consider Black Women for Court Vacancy”
Below is my column in the Wall Street Journal on President Joe Biden’s promise almost two years ago that he would only consider a black female for the first vacancy on the Supreme Court. The column produced a significant response from commentators. However, in all of the commentary that followed the column, no one is contesting the primary point: that this type of exclusionary rule has been found unconstitutional or unlawful in schools or businesses. While there may be legitimate points of distinction with a Court appointment, there is little discussion of why we should use a threshold exclusionary rule for admission to the highest court that the Court would not allow in any admission to a school or business. It is worth discussing even if one believes that the Court membership is a type of bona fide occupational qualification or if one simply rejects the very premise of the Court’s barring such criteria in past cases. The benefit of having a diverse Court is obvious but, if we want to use an express exclusionary rule, we should be able to discuss why it is appropriate for the Court and those institutions or businesses barred in past case.
Instead, commentators suggested that I ignored that prior presidents made such preferential picks. That is not true. My point was that Biden’s pledge was entirely unnecessary since he could have stated that he wanted to appoint a black female without barring consideration of other candidates on the basis of their race or gender. It is the difference between a preferential and exclusionary process. Commentators insisted that Ronald Reagan, Donald Trump, and George H.W. Bush made the same pledge. That is also false. While seeking to appoint women and African Americans, none of the three excluded other races or genders from consideration and had diverse short lists. Yet, even if they did, the question remains: should admission to the Court be based on an exclusionary threshold qualification that the Court has rejected as unconstitutional or unlawful for schools and businesses?
Here is the column: Continue reading ““This the Constitution Forbids”: Biden’s Race and Gender Criteria for the Court Were Rejected By The Court in Past Cases”