We recently discussed the apology of the New York Times for publishing a column from a leading United States Senator on the possible use of troops to quell rioting after the death of George Floyd. That decision, and the sacking of the opinion page editor, represented one of the lowest moments in American journalism. It made echo journalism the official policy of one of the oldest news organizations in the United States. The lesson was not, it appears, lost on young college journalists at Syracuse University who sacked a columnist because she questioned claims of “institutional racism.” Adrianna San Marco notably did not write her opinion in The Daily Orange but she was canned for challenging this widely held view. My greatest concern is the lack of specificity from the editors on the objections to her column beyond “reinforcing stereotypes.” Such actions demand a clarity in the standard being applied to writers.
As a criminal defense attorney, I would consider Justin Arthur Allen Couch, 25, a bit of a challenge. He will have to be tried on a machete attack with a large machete tattoo prominently featured on his face.
I have often criticized the Trump Administration for its environmental policies from blocking climate control measures to rolling back on pollution regulations to developing pristine natural areas, including recent changes to hunting rules in Alaska. Now the Forest Service is being sued over its failure on how expanded grazing operations are impacting gray wolf populations. Given the ruling on DACA yesterday on the failure of the Administration to satisfy basic procedures requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, this litigation will hopefully succeed in forcing a reevaluation of the operations of these private businesses on federal lands.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court had blocked the Trump Administration from ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as an “arbitrary and capricious” change. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the four liberal judges, ruled that Trump’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act. It was another self-inflicted wound due to a poorly executed policy change in this area. The ruling is based on procedural failures, not the merits or the underlying authority.
Continue reading “Supreme Court Rules 5-4 Against Trump Administration Of DACA Rescission”
Last year, in columns and testimony, I chastised the Democrats for the shortest investigation on the narrowest grounds with the thinnest record of any presidential impeachment in history. The insistence of impeaching by Christmas doomed any chances of a compelling impeachment case. It appears now that one person agrees with that assessment: former National Security Adviser John Bolton. I referenced Bolton and his upcoming book as one of the reason why a little more time could vastly improve and expand the House case. Bolton said that he simply wanted a court to refer the privilege claim, which could have been accomplished easily in the time wasted by the House (including the long delay in sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate). In response, the Democratic leadership is lashing out at Bolton for refusing to come forward despite his offer to do so after a federal judge heard the privilege claim.
Continue reading “Democrats Hit Bolton After He Accuses The House Of “Impeachment Malpractice””
We have been writing about efforts to fire professors who have criticized the “Defund the Police” campaign or Black Lives Matter. Now, Charles Negy, an associate professor of psychology at the University of Central Florida, is under school investigation and has received police protection after he tweeted about what he views as “black privilege.” While countless professors have written about “white privilege,” Negy is looking at discipline or termination while police have been called to his house to protect his life. Negy is not the first professor to be put under police protection after voicing criticism of the protests or BLM. Once again, I am less interested in the merits of the underlying debate as the implications for free speech and academic freedom. As one of the large free speech blogs, we have long discussed efforts to pressure or fire academics for their exercise of free speech and academic freedom. Recently, however, these efforts have been joined by schools and fellow academics who seek to deter others from expressing opposing views.
Most of us were horrified by the video of a man randomly striking a 92-year-old womanin New York City who fell and hit a fire hydrant. The young man is seen casually looking back and just continuing. Police say that they have arrested Rashid Brimmage, 31, and he is no stranger to the criminal justice system.
Continue reading “Police Arrest New York Man Who Randomly Attacked 92-Year-Old Woman”
Google has moved against another set of conservative sites. While many have celebrated the action against ZeroHedge and The Federalist, I remain deeply concerned over the free speech implications of such actions. I have written for years about public and private censorship, including recent actions to regulate and control speech on the Internet. Democratic leaders have been calling for censorship on the Internet and in social media for years, a move that will destroy the greatest forum for free speech in the history of the world. Writers have joined in this movement and two such academics recently declared “China was right” all along about censorship.
As will come as no surprise to many on this blog, I view this latest action as another form of private censorship that targets conservative sites while ignoring similar rhetoric from the left. I am not very complex when it comes to such conflicts over free speech. I am not as much concerned with the merits of these fights as the implication of targeting some sites over others. I know very little about ZeroHedge while I am familiar with some of the writers on The Federalist. Google has said comparatively little about the reason for barring the sites and what NBC originally reported has been contradicted by the company. However, it is the explanation given for the action taken against the Federalist that I wanted to address. It seems to follow the pattern of politically biased, content-based discrimination against conservative sites by companies like Twitter, Facebook, and Google. Despite the clear bias shown in these actions, most academics are either applauding the crackdown or remaining conspicuously silent as companies silence those with opposing or unpopular views.
Continue reading “Google Targets Conservative Sites In Latest Crackdown”
Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe is under fire this week after referring to the selection of an African American for vice president over Sen. Elizabeth Warren as mere “cosmetics.” The comment set off a firestorm with critics calling the comment racist. I have strongly disagreed with Tribe’s legal positions and his rhetoric. However, I testified with Tribe during the Clinton impeachment and I have interacted with him for years. He is neither a racist nor dismissive of racial concerns. Tribe has spent his life fighting for his vision of a more perfect and equal union. People need to afford others a modicum of decency and consideration in such ill-considered commentary. Anyone who believes that Laurence Tribe is a racist is discarding decades of public interest work over a wayward comment.
We have yet another teacher suspended or put on leave for merely expressing her opinion of Black Lives Matter on her personal Facebook page. After Tiffany Riley wrote that she does not agree with the BLM, the Mount Ascutney School Board held an emergency meeting to declare that it is “uniformly appalled” by the exercise of free speech and Superintendent David Baker assured the public that they would be working on “mutually agreed upon severance package.” The case magnifies concerns over the free speech rights of teachers on social media or in their private lives. As a public employee, Riley could seek judicial relief rather than a severance package under the First Amendment.
Continue reading “Vermont Principal Put On Leave For Not Agreeing With Black Lives Matters”
Berkeley is up in arms this week because of a letter sent by someone claiming to be an anonymous professor of history at U.C. Berkeley. The writer, who identifies as a person of color, objects to a loss of free speech and academic freedom in the school adopting an institutional position on Black Lives Matter. The writer objects to the silencing of academics who do not support BLM for reasons entirely separate from the protection of black lives. I was sent this letter when it started to be circulated and I did not discuss it because I have no idea if this is an actual member of the Berkeley faculty though Kentucky State University Assistant Professor of Political Science Wilfred Reilley has recently vouched for the identity. However, it is the response of the Berkeley faculty that I believe is notable and concerning. The faculty denounced the letter and said that there is “no evidence” that such a person teaches on the faculty. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly impossible for any academic to criticize BLM or aspects of the protests. However, what concerns me is that Berkeley’s response notably does not even bother to state the pretense of tolerance for opposing views. The condemnation would seem to reaffirm rather than redress the concerns over academic freedom and free speech for dissenting faculty members.
Former National Security Adviser John Bolton has pledged to release his new tell-all book, “The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir,” regardless of the lack of pre-publication approval from the Administration. This includes an ABC special this weekend to kick off his release. The move is extremely risky and the law is not on the side of Bolton who could conceivably not only lose his profits but his freedom over such a dispute.
Continue reading “Bolton’s Bold Move Could Result in Loss Of His Profits Or His Freedom”
Much of the discussion yesterday focused on the historic ruling in favor of workplace protections for LGBT workers. Lost in the coverage was another case where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of another horrendous policy of the Trump Administration on the environment. I have been a long and vocal critic of President Donald Trump’s record on the environment and the Atlantic Coast natural gas pipeline us the latest rollback on Obama era protections. The Court voted 7-2 decision in favor of the $5.1 billion pipeline project across one of our most cherished and most used natural areas: the Appalachian Trail.
Below is my column in the Hill on the controversy over the creation of the Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone, better known as Chaz. Well, it was Chaz. “The autonomous zone formerly known as CHAZ” is now the Capitol Hill Occupied Protest (CHOP). As W.C. Fields said “It ain’t what they call you, it’s what you answer to.” The problem is that Chief Best said no one is answering their calls. Chief Carmen Best stated today that the name had apparently changed but that they have yet to identify people who will speak for CHAZ or CHOP. She also noted that there appears to be widely different demands. That presents a serious barrier to a resolution.
RIP CHAZ. All Hail CHOP, but the question of leadership remains. Here is the column:
Continue reading “Chopped: How Seattle Is Defining Leadership In Seattle And Washington”
We have been discussing the destruction of public art and history monuments by mobs who are often allowed to carry out such acts without police intervention, a problem that pre-existed the current protests (here and here and here). It was particularly alarming to see statues defaced or destroyed in London, including (bizarrely) a statue of Abraham Lincoln. The response in London and Paris is strikingly different but, in this tale of two cities, it is London that seems to be surrendering to the hysteria of the moment.
Continue reading “Tale of Two Cities: London and Paris Divide On The Preservation Of History”