Just when you think that the federal government could not be more moronic in the spending of money, you read a story like this. The Social Security Administration (SSA) has been approving disability benefits for hundreds of Puerto Ricans because they do not speak English. However, these “disabled” individuals are living in a predominantly Spanish-speaking territory. Having worked for the Puerto Rico House of Representatives years ago, the story seemed to me a belated April Fool’s joke but it appears to be true.
There is an remarkable sanction imposed recently by the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board which suspended lawyer Wayne Hartke of Reston for intoxication and disruptive behavior. What makes it notable is that the conduct did not occur with clients or in court or even in a firm. It occurred as a continuing legal education seminar. Hartke will be suspended for six months and have to enroll in a two-year treatment program.
The U.S. Postal Service not only has issues with a new limited edition “Forever” stamp honoring Maya Angelou with a quote written by another author but it doesn’t appear particularly disturbed about it. The stamp above features the quote “A bird doesn’t sing because it has an answer, it sings because it has a song.” However, that is a quote from child book author Joan Walsh Anglund.
There is an interesting ruling out of Manhattan where Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper has allowed nurse Ellanora Baidoo to serve her elusive husband, Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku (left), with divorce papers via a Facebook message due to her husband’s lack of a current address. Cooper noted in his opinion: “The past decade has also seen the advent and ascendency of social media, with websites such as Facebook and Twitter occupying a central place in the lives of so many
people. Thus, it would appear that the next frontier in the developing law of the service of process over the internet is the use of social media sites as forums through which a summons can be delivered.”
There is an interesting study out in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry that has concluded that the majority of people taking antidepressants may not actually have depression. The study found that more than two-thirds (69 per cent) of people taking antidepressants did not meet the criteria for major depressive disorder, or clinical depression.
Russia’s culture minister Vladimir Medinsky on Sunday fired the director of a Siberian theater. Boris Mezdrich as director of the Novosibirsk State Opera and Ballet Theater had committed the sin of staging Wagner’s opera “Tannhauser” which offended the powerful Russian Orthodox Church. It is the latest example of the rollback on free speech under the Putin regime.
The Rolling Stone magazine has retracted the University of Virginia rape story that we have previously discussed. While agreeing with a Columbia Journalism School review of major flaws in reporting and editing, the publication has refused to fire anyone. The writer, Sabrina Rubin Erdely, will continue to write for the publication despite quotations from an editor that she was repeatedly asked to confirm the story with key witnesses who were never interviewed. The review concluded that the failure “may have spread the idea that many women invent rape allegations.”
Continue reading “Rolling Stone Retracts Rape Story But Refuses To Fire Anyone For The Story”
We have yet another disgusting video of Islamic fighters systematically destroying their own history and culture in the name of Islam. The latest images are from Hatra, a UNESCO World Heritage site, which is in an area controlled by the Islamic State. We have previously discussed videos of these fanatics destroying museums and ancient cities as offensive to their Islamic values.
Continue reading “Video Shows Islamic Fighters Destroying The Ancient Hatra Site”
Below is my Sunday column in the Washington Post on Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
The column below raises the question of line drawing and states that I would prefer an absolute rule requiring all services. However, I could not support such a rule if we are going to strip protection from “wrong” views while allowing others to refuse on the ground that other symbols or language are clearly offensive. One variation on the “No Cake For You” approach below was suggested by a colleague who said that we could allow bakers and others to refuse any offensive language — religious or non-religious — unless the government could show that the baker would have sold the cake but for the status of the prospective buyer (e.g., gay or straight, Jewish or not, etc.). Thus, as long as the basis of the refusal was the actual language or symbols, it would be protected as an expressive act.
As I say in the column, I continue to struggle with drawing this line. None of the options are particularly satisfying. However, I do think that we have to have a real dialogue on this issue free of low-grade efforts to those on the other side as bigoted for wanting to discuss the range of free speech conflicts. The point is that, when dealing with the question of the right to refuse to create offensive symbols or language, one must address the fact that there are a wide array of such conflicts that can arise among different religious, cultural, or political groups. One does not have to agree with their speech to raise the question of their right to engage in such speech. Indeed, the first amendment is designed to protect unpopular speech. We do not need it to protect popular speech. Some may ultimately decided that no business can refuse any message under the “Let Them Eat Cake” approach despite rulings like Hobby Lobby and Citizens United. However, the first step is to have the debate, preferably free of personal attacks or attempts to silence those who would raise the speech of other unpopular or offensive groups.
Here is the column:
By Mike Appleton, Weekend Contributor
“Property does become clothed with a public interest when used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affect the community at large. When, therefore, one devotes his property to a use in which the public has an interest, he, in effect, grants to the public an interest in that use, and must submit to be controlled by the public for the common good, to the extent of the interest he has thus created. He may withdraw his grant by discontinuing the use, but, so long as he maintains the use, he must submit to the control.”
-Munn v. Illinois, 94 U.S. 113, 126 (1876)
The events in Indiana and Arkansas during the past week contain at least two lessons. The first is that hypocrisy is like teeth; most of us have some and exposure usually produces a nasty bite. Second, interminable debates on the topic of comparative victimology are, well, interminable. Neither lesson is useful. So perhaps it is time to take a deep breath and engage in a bit of dispassionate reflection on the scope and application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Let us begin with the oft repeated claim that a person operating a business ought to have the right to refuse service to anyone at any time for any reason (or no reason at all). Whatever merits this claim may have as a philosophical position, it has never found approval as a principle of law. The reason is that historically the common law has recognized that there are categories of commercial enterprise of sufficient importance to the general welfare to mandate their availability to all members of the public on equal terms. Continue reading “What RFRA Hath Wrought”
By Cara L. Gallagher, weekend contributor
On Monday, the Supreme Court nixed a request from three teenagers to hear their case against Morgan Hill School District. The court’s denial to hear Dariano v. Morgan Hill ended an effort to overturn a lower court decision that supported the school’s right to prohibit the boys’ from wearing t-shirts displaying the American flag on Cinco de Mayo. This case reflects a consistency in the Court’s history of showing great deference to school administrators and districts since the landmark student speech case Tinker v. Des Moines (1969). Mary Beth Tinker and her brother won the right to wear anti-Vietnam armbands in school in that case. Tinker would be the high point for young people, the last celebrated Supreme Court victory for youth free speech advocacy. Since then, federal court decisions, or the lack of intervention by refusing to hear cases like Dariano, have resulted in significant restrictions on student speech in public schools. Forty-six years later, expressions of speech are more nuanced, savvier, and the topics just as controversial. If there was ever an audience of people hungry to see a contemporary free speech case at the Supreme Court, it’s high school students.
One came close to a Supreme Court appearance last year.
Continue reading “Free speech in public schools misses another shot at the SCOTUS”
Happy Easter to all of our bloggers and readers that are celebrating today. The bunny came to the Turley house and left baskets overflowing with chocolates and candies. He even left a basket for Luna overflowing with dog treats.
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
In the wake of the State of Indiana passing into law the Religious Freedom Restoration Act—a law crafted to allow businesses to curtail services to customers based upon religious objections—Seattle Mayor Ed Murray and later Governor Jay Inslee issued executive orders prohibiting government funded travel of employees to Indiana in protest.
The proffered reasons of these executives is to voice protest in that Indiana’s statute is incompatible with either state anti-discrimination laws or is in alignment with the political values of these local governments.
Orders of this type are actually counter to the idea of sovereignty of each state and interfere with the judicial, executive, and legislative processes that are inherently reserved to the voters and citizens of, in this case, the state of Indiana.
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
A legal analysis in Canada of their anti-discrimination laws indicates that discrimination might occur if women are to wear revealing clothing and men are not similarly attired.
The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal held that a dress code requiring a waitress to wear a bikini top during a nightclub’s Hawai’ian themed event was discriminatory because men were not required to wear a male specific analog of her clothing.
We have yet another attack on free speech and the free press from one of our allies. Malaysian cartoonist Zulkiflee Anwar Alhaque, better known as Zunar, has been hit with nine counts of sedition for tweets critical of the country’s judiciary. It is an outrageous prosecution brought under a law that defines sedition as any comment that promotes hatred toward the government. Zunar previously defended his art against claims that it is defamatory. Zunar faces up to 43 years in jail if found guilty on all nine charges.
Continue reading “Malaysia Charges Cartoonist With Sedition For Criticizing Its Courts”