When we recently discussed a Brandeis University dean declaring “Yes, all White people are racists”, it was viewed as controversial but not “triggering” for students and faculty on the campus. What is triggering is apparently the word “trigger.” According to the Prevention, Advocacy and Resource Center at Brandeis University, the word is “oppressive” and should not be uttered. Continue reading “Brandeis Center Announces “Triggering” Is . . . Well . . . Triggering”
For years, we have been discussing the decline of journalism values with the rise of open bias in the media. Now, a newly released report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at Oxford has found something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago. The United States ranked dead last in media trust among 49 countries with just 29% saying that they trusted the media. The most tragic aspect is that it does not matter. The media has embraced the advocacy journalism and anyone questioning that trend risks instant cancellation. The result is a type of state media where journalists are bound to the government by ideology rather than law.
Continue reading “Report: United States Ranks Last In Media Trust”
Former police officer Derek Chauvin was just sentenced to 22 1/2 years in prison for his conviction in the murder of George Floyd. That sentence was hardly a surprise though some suggested that he would be sentenced near to 30 years. It is a fair sentence that adds ten years to the baseline offense due to the four aggravating factors found by the Court. What was surprising was the statement of Chauvin himself to the court and the family.
Dan Johnson is an associate professor at the School of Health and Applied Human Sciences at University of North Carolina Wilmington with apparently equal interest in politics and polytechnics. He posted a short but clear message on Facebook: “Blow Up Republicans.” The detonation of people seems to be in vogue with professors this year. As will come as little surprise to many on this blog, I do not believe Johnson should face discipline for his violent political ideations. [Update: A university Trustee has now asked for an investigation by the university].
We have previously discussed the tendency of the United Kingdom toward “nanny state” legislation. Now, starting in 2023, the government of Prime Minister Boris Johnson is moving to ban junk food advertising online and before 9pm on TV — a move that will not only limit speech rights but undermine broadcasters who rely on such revenue. It is a move reminiscent of the Big Gulp laws of former Mayor Michael Bloomberg in New York as the government moves to protect consumers from themselves. As will come as little surprise to many of this blog, I oppose such moves both as a limitation on speech rights and the freedom of choice. Continue reading “Out of Sight, Out of Mind? United Kingdom Moves to Ban Junk Food Advertising”
I recently discussed how the Inspector General and a federal court have dismissed the widely reported conspiracy theory that the Lafayette Park area was cleared last year to make way for President Donald Trump’s controversial photo op in front of St. John’s Church. I noted that University of Texas Professor Steve Vladeck (who is a CNN contributor) was one of those claiming this theory as an established fact. Vladeck has now responded with a defense that is striking in its sheer mendacity. It is, however, illustrative how false narratives are promulgated in the media and then, when shown to be unsupported, are dismissed or barely acknowledged. What makes this response different is the effort to shift the blame to a Hill reporter, who actually states the opposite of what Vladeck suggested. Indeed, Vladeck achieves a Trifecta of sorts in misrepresenting the Hill column, my column, and his own column.
While not one of the matinee cases often discussed in the press, the Supreme Court handed down a major ruling this week on takings under the Fifth Amendment. In a 6-3 decision that broke along ideological lines (a departure from a long line of unanimous or non-ideological rulings), the court ruled in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid that a California law was a takings under the Constitution. As I mentioned yesterday, I expect to be teaching this case in the fall and it represents a very significant new precedent in the area. Continue reading “The Right to Exclude: The Supreme Court Delivers Haymaker Reversal of the Ninth Circuit In Major Takings Ruling”
Below is my column in The Hill on the recent ruling on college athletes by the Supreme Court. The decision could prove to be the critical “crossing the Rubicon” moment for college sports and force schools to address long unsettled questions regarding big sports programs.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Student Athletes or Independent Contractors? The Supreme Court Moves the Goalposts on College Sports”
For those seeking to portray the Supreme Court as, to use President Joe Biden’s words, “out of whack,” the Court itself continued to disappoint critics this week with another major and nearly unanimous decision in the long-awaited decision in Mahonoy v. B.L. While many of us in the free speech community hoped for a bright-line decision protecting student speech, the decision sharply rebuts the sweeping claims of schools (from high schools to universities) of authority to monitor and punish off-campus speech. What is striking about the language is that the Court secures near unanimous decision by limiting the reach of the decision. Continue reading “Supreme Court Rules 8-1 for Cheerleader in Mahonoy Case In Major Victory for Free Speech”
We recently discussed the Inspector General report on the Lafayette Park protests and the debunking of claims that the federal government and specifically Attorney General Bill Barr cleared the area for the controversial photo op of President Donald Trump in front of St. John’s Church. For a year, legal and media experts have stated as fact that area was cleared for that purpose and that Barr was lying about the federal agencies using tear gas as opposed to pepper balls (even though the legal and practical difference is largely immaterial). Some tried to keep the myth alive by criticism the IG report and its scope. Now, federal judge Dabney L. Friedrich has dismissed the lawsuit by the ACLU and Black Lives Matter as based on unsupported and unsubstantiated claims against the federal agencies. Ironically, the court allowed the lawsuit against the MPD under Mayor Muriel Bowser to continue. The Bowser Administration admitted recently that it used tear gas near the park on that night and that such use was perfectly reasonable. Both the Bowser and Biden Administrations sought to dismiss the BLM lawsuit as unfounded and unsupportable — a striking departure from what Bowser has stated publicly. Continue reading “Court Dismisses BLM Lawsuit Against Federal Agencies Over Lafayette Park Protests”
There are just some legal controversies that hit all of my buttons. As a diehard Cubs fans (and the fan personally responsible for breaking the Billy Goat curse before the World Series in 2016), the lawsuit from former Cub and World Series MVP Ben Zobrist brings together the Cubs and torts. It also happens to be really quite interesting in seeking tortious liability. Continue reading “Former Cub Ben Zobrist Sues Former Pastor For Sleeping With His Wife and Stealing Money”
There is a controversy in Seattle over plans for a pride event to charge people more based on their race. The Seattle Human Rights Commission is under fire this week after sending a letter dismissing a complaint over the announcement that the Taking B(l)ack Pride on June 26th would charge White entrants a “reparations” fee. The Commission told Charlette LeFevre and Philip Lipson of Capitol Hill Pride that they needed to “educate” themselves and consider the harm that they would cause by being participants in the event. Update: While the response of the Commission caused outrage from many, Lipson and LeFevre quickly apologized for even raising the issue.
It is often said that “He who represents himself has a fool for a client.” That adage was most evident this week in Florida as Ronnie Oneal III represented himself into a rapid double murder conviction. Judge Michelle Sisco reportedly told Oneal “I have to tell you, I think in another lifetime, you would have been an outstanding lawyer.” However, it was hard to discern that natural talent after Oneal yelled at jurors in his opening statement and went on to confess in open court to murder. In fairness to Sisco, she was trying again to convince Oneal to accept counsel, particularly as he moves into the sentencing phrase where he could be sentenced to death.
Below is my column in the Hill on the growing number of losses by the Biden Administration in courts around the country, including a particularly embarrassing loss before the United States Supreme Court. What is notable is that such losses in the early days of the Trump Administration led to coverage declaring a war on the “rule of law” and even indications of authoritarianism. The Biden losses have received little coverage despite what could be a worst record in the early days of his Administration. The fact is that such adverse decisions are not uncommon as Administrations try to fast track changes. However, the Biden Administration has actually had some very serious losses, including some which are being appealed. Yet, many previously outspoken legal experts have either blamed conservative judges or simply ignored the losses all together. It is a continuation of an interesting pattern where Democrats are adopting the very rationales that they once denounced.
Here is the column: Continue reading “Biden’s Bad Run: Is The Biden Administration Doing Worse Than The Trump Administration In The Courts?”
There is an interesting conflict playing out on the pages of the Chicago Tribune over the coverage of killing of Adam Toledo. We previously discussed the shooting of Toledo after police responded to a shooting and the suspension of a prosecutor who noted that Toledo was armed. In a June 18 column, Tribune columnist Eric Zorn defended his coverage in April that it “was still too soon to draw conclusions.” He specifically responded to Steven Thrasher, the Daniel H. Renberg Chair of social justice in reporting at Northwestern, who trashed him for his circumspection and insisted he was excusing the murder of a child and it’s ‘never too early’ to think they are worthy of murder.” Thrasher’s view of ethical journalism was on display in Fort Lauderdale this week when its mayor declared that a tragic accident involving an elderly driver was an act of murder and terrorism by anti-LGBT forces. He also believed that it is never too soon to declare murder.