Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Thursday, July 25, 2013 6:01 pm

Police Chief Ken Miller, the First Amendment would like to see you

About eight years ago, I met Greensboro blogger Billy Jones. Billy and I disagree on politics almost as often as Fred and I do, but as with Fred, he and I have a very good RL relationship and I consider him a friend.

Billy took to his blog on Tuesday to take issue with the fact that George Hartzman, a candidate for mayor, apparently (I say “apparently” because I have no first-hand knowledge of this) was removed from the city’s farmer’s market this past Saturday for campaigning on city property. Billy’s post includes a lot of the email back-and-forth, which includes not only the original parties but also the Guilford County Board of Elections (which took Hartzman’s side), blogger and formal mayoral candidate Roch Smith Jr., and others. Billy concludes with this segment from the majority ruling in the 1938 U.S. Supreme Court case Lovell v. City of Griffin, which would appear to be the last word on the subject:

“4. A city ordinance forbidding as a nuisance the distribution, by hand or otherwise, of literature of any kind without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager, violates the Fourteenth Amendment; strikes at the very foundation of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship. P. 450.

So held as applied to distribution of pamphlets and magazines in the nature of religious tracts.

5. The liberty of the press is not confined to newspapers and periodicals. It embraces pamphlets and leaflets. P. 452.

6. One who is prosecuted for disobeying a license ordinance which is void on its face may contest its validity without having sought a permit under it. P. 452. “

(Billy’s link is broken, but his pagination appears to match that of the source to which I’m linking.)

Billy himself then concluded:

I think we know what is going on here. As usual supporters of the status quo are stalling,  hoping Greensboro’s working class will give up the fight, roll over and die. Well here’s some news for you Mr S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan: Greensboro’s working class is educated, organized, pissed-off and ready to fight. We have access to the law and the media worldwide. And if you and your kind think you can continue to run Greensboro as Greensboro has been run for the last 100 years… Well click here and I think you will change your mind.

You can run but you cannot hide behind your lies.

Up to this point, some disagreement but nothing egregious. But then, yesterday morning, Greensboro Police Chief Ken Miller, acting in his official capacity, wrote Billy the following:

From: Miller, Ken <>
Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:05 AM
Subject: Encouragement
To: “Jones, Billy” <>

Hi Billy,

I see a post on your blog that I am requesting and hoping you will remove it right away:

“I think we know what is going on here. As usual supporters of the status quo are stalling,  hoping Greensboro’s working class will give up the fight, roll over and die. Well here’s some news for you Mr S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan: Greensboro’s working class is educated, organized, pissed-off and ready to fight. We have access to the law and the media worldwide. And if you and your kind think you can continue to run Greensboro as Greensboro has been run for the last 100 years… Well click here and I think you will change your mind.

You can run but you cannot hide behind your lies.”

The language appears threatening and, even if you can qualify it as protected speech, adding the link to a Google map of Mujeeb’s home after indicating that the working class is “ready to fight” and before “you can run but you cannot hide…” certainly can be construed to be threatening or encouraging others to act upon your information.

I am, of course, appealing to your sensibilities here in asking you to remove the paragraph from your site, and I hope you will honor the request.

Kind regards,

Ken Miller

I’m not sure what the chief is thinking here, but he certainly is not thinking about the Supreme Court’s standard for what comprises a threat without constitutional protection. Having gotten a copy of Chief Miller’s email, I wrote to set him straight:

From: Lex Alexander <>
Date: July 24, 2013
Subject: Billy Jones

I don’t normally involve myself in local politics beyond voting (which I haven’t missed doing since moving here 27 years ago), but violations of basic human and constitutional rights are a whole ‘nother subject.
I mean, you’ve got to be kidding me, right? Tell me you didn’t send that moronic email Billy Jones quotes you as having sent. There’s nothing in Billy’s blog post that comes anywhere CLOSE to the standard for threats defined by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio:

…the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

You owe him an apology, and you owe us, the citizens of Greensboro, better sense. If you can’t muster it, resign. If you’re actually this misinformed, you’re just a lawsuit waiting to happen, and frankly, my tax dollars have better things to do than clean up your mess.
Sincerely, etc.

(The chief sent a one-sentence response thanking me for my perspective, which, depending on how you look at it, could be the civil response of a man swamped by job duties or an upraised middle finger.)

Feel free to disagree with Billy about city policy. Feel free to disagree with George Hartzman’s rights to speak on public property if you like; Lovell, after all, speaks to pamphleteering, not actual spoken words, and Hartzman’s efforts to speak may or may not have run afoul of time, place and manner restrictions recognized by the Supreme Court — I wasn’t there, so I don’t know.

But communicating threats is a crime in North Carolina, and it is incumbent upon law enforcement to understand, then, what constitutes a prosecutable threat. Billy’s blog post was a warning, not a threat, and it certainly does not appear on its face likely to “incite or produce” “imminent, lawless action.” We demonstrably have a police chief who does not understand the difference; thus, we have a chief unfit for his job.

My involvement in local politics is limited to voting, and that’s not changing here because when a high-ranking local official demonstrates constitutional ignorance in an area of his supposed expertise, that’s a problem for every resident of the city, not a political issue. If nothing else, it leaves every one of us city taxpayers legally exposed if someone sues the city for official actions stemming from that ignorance. And as I said in my email to Chief Miller, my tax dollars have better things to do. I’m pretty sure yours do, too.

Friday, April 13, 2012 7:32 pm

Marc Randazza: American hero

Filed under: Salute! — Lex @ 7:32 pm
Tags: ,

I had vaguely heard of the attorney Marc Randazza through his work against the copyright trolls at Righthaven, work that ended almost as satisfyingly as The Shawshank Redemption.

But Popehat points out that Marc Randazza, as a lawyer and as a person, is a Doc Holliday for the 21st century, a loyal friend and a dead shot, First Amendment litigation-wise. This is a litigator who dropped a brief containing a history of penises on the Patent and Trademark office in support of a client’s desire for a phallic-looking trademark, including this sentence, with which even the priggiest bluenose would find it hard to argue: “One may invoke the symbol of strength, the phallus, without it being a literal tallywhacker.”

Ken at Popehat recites other reasons to love Randazza and also links to other people who love him. He also blogs.

Unfortunately, I suspect we’re going to need more Marc Randazzas in coming years. Large corporations, never content to do with their own money what they can spend taxpayer money on, will, I predict, increasingly attempt to use government leverage to silence speech with which they disagree. I hope I’m wrong. But if I’m right, Randazza and those who do the kind and quality of work he does will be in more demand than is good for them or the country.

Ken modestly does not place himself in their number, but on the basis of this post, in which he willfully and intentionally violates a new Arizona law about online behavior and then dares that state’s legislature to have him arrested, I think his modesty might be misplaced:

You’ve been swept up in the moronic and thoughtless anti-bullying craze and consequently passed a bill that is ridiculous on its face, a bill that criminalizes annoying and offending people on the Internet. That’s like criminalizing driving on the road.

Why, yes. Yes, it is.

After annoying and offending the legislature in violation of its shiny new law and giving it some anatomically and geographically improbable suggestions, he concludes:

There. I’m a criminal in Arizona. Send some of your cops to collect me. I know it may be temporarily confusing for them, as I’m not brown, but perhaps they can manage.

Come get me.



To paraphrase James Goldman, when ridicule is all that’s left, the ridicule matters.

Tuesday, February 28, 2012 8:05 pm


I’m a little late to this, but apparently GOP presidential candidate and pre-Vatican II Iron Catholic Rick Santorum said this:

I don’t believe in an America where the separation between church and state is absolute. The idea that the church can have no influence or no involvement in the operation of the state is absolutely antithetical to the objectives and visions of our country.

Whereupon which Erik Kain observes:

This is either straight-up opportunism dressed in religious drag or it’s one of the dumbest things to have fled a politician’s mouth in, well, days.

Aw, Erik, why such a pinched, crabbed, constricted outlook? Couldn’t it be both?

Monday, December 12, 2011 11:05 pm

Quote of the day, “All-American Muslim” edition

Commenter “justcorbly” at Ed’s place:

What religion you practice, if any, has nothing to do with being an American. It takes courage and thought to put away our natural wariness and fear of people who seem different than us. But, defining Americans by faith or genetics or anything other than adherence to the Constitution is a very dangerous game. People who can’t agree to that might want to re-examine their commitment to democracy.*

Sometime after I left the newspaper but before I landed where I am now, I applied for an online PR job at Lowes HQ in Mooresville. It would have been interesting to be involved in the discussion that led to this decision, because anyone with half a brain could have seen this disaster coming a mile away. I’d like to think I could have prevented a bad decision. I’d also like to think that if I couldn’t head it off, I would have resigned, but the truth is that I don’t know whether I would have or not. At any rate, here’s a lesson for PR n00bs: Anytime you get petitions from a group with “Family Association” in its name asking you to do something, it’s almost invariably a good idea to do exactly the opposite.

*Cue the trolls saying, “But America isn’t a democracy, it’s a republic.” And it is. A democratic republic. Morons.

Thursday, June 30, 2011 8:10 pm

Because if you don’t stop it, the next time it will be even worse

During the Bush era, I raised hell here about violations of law and the Constitution by the administration, for which I had my intelligence, sanity, patriotism and sexual proclivities questioned. On the good days.

And I did it for a reason: History suggests that if violations of the law by government are not punished severely, those violations will not only continue but worsen. And American history suggests that party affiliation is no guarantor of government legality.

We’ve watched that pattern play out again during the Obama administration. Although Obama campaigned (to some extent) against the criminal violations of the Bush national-security state, he’s continuing some of those same practices now that he is the one with the power. I warned of this behavior early in his tenure, and I’ve long since reached my breaking point. But the pattern is worsening, as Fecund Stench notes in this brief but telling roundup:

From Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic:

In Barack Obama’s rise to national prominence, when he criticized the Bush Administration for its false claims about WMDs in Iraq, its torture of detainees, and its illegal program of spying on American citizens without warrants, he owed a particular debt of gratitude to a New York Times national security reporter. In a series of scoops as impressive as any amassed during the War on Terrorism, James Risen reported in 2004 that the CIA failed to tell President Bush about relatives of Iraqi scientists who swore that the country had abandoned its weapons program; the same year, he was first to reveal that the CIA was waterboarding detainees in Iraq; and in 2005, he broke the Pulitzer Prize winning story about the secret NSA spying program.

These scoops so embarrassed and angered the Bush Administration that some of its senior members wanted Risen to end up in jail. They never managed to make that happen. But President Obama might. He once found obvious value in Risen’s investigative journalism. Its work that would’ve been impossible to produce without confidential sources and an ability to credibly promise that he’d never reveal their identities. But no matter. The Obama Administration is now demanding that Risen reveal his source for a 2006 scoop about CIA missteps in Iran. If he refuses to cooperate, which is his plan, he faces the possibility of jail time.

From Glenn Greenwald at Salon, last week:

The subpoena to Risen was originally issued but then abandoned by the Bush administration, and then revitalized by Obama lawyers. It is part of the prosecution of Jeffrey Sterling, a former CIA agent whom the DOJ accuses of leaking to Risen the story of a severely botched agency plot — from 11 years ago — to infiltrate Iran’s nuclear program, a story Risen wrote about six years after the fact in his 2006 best-selling book, State of War. The DOJ wants to force Risen to testify under oath about whether Sterling was his source…

What’s particularly striking about this prosecution is that it involves digging deep into the ancient past (the Iran operation in question was begun under the Clinton administration): this from a President who insisted that Bush officials not be investigated for their crimes on the ground that we must “Look Forward, Not Backward.” But it’s not hard to see why Obama officials are so intent on doing so: few things are more effective in creating a Climate of Fear — one that deters investigation and disclosure and stifles the exercise of basic rights — than prosecuting prominent people for having challenged and undermined the government’s agenda. As Risen documents, that — plainly — is what this prosecution and the Obama administration’s broader anti-whistleblower war is about: chilling the exercise of basic rights and the ability to challenge government actions.

From David K. Shipler at the NYT, last week:

THIS spring was a rough season for the Fourth Amendment. The Obama administration petitioned the Supreme Court to allow GPS tracking of vehicles without judicial permission. The Supreme Court ruled that the police could break into a house without a search warrant if, after knocking and announcing themselves, they heard what sounded like evidence being destroyed. Then it refused to see a Fourth Amendment violation where a citizen was jailed for 16 days on the false pretext that he was being held as a material witness to a crime.

I’ll be honest: I’m scared. Once these freedoms go, they’ll be difficult, if not impossible, to get back. Once the precedents have been established that criminal violations of the law and violations of the Constitution by our government will go not just unpunished but, if possible, unrecorded, we have entered a long, dark tunnel at the end of which no light is visible.

If you’re content to live in Guatemala with a bigger economy, fine. I’ve always hoped for better.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 9:56 pm

Pop quiz

UPDATE 10/21: Oh, we’re havin’ some fun now. (My idea; DivaGeek’s execution.)

* * *

One question:

Which of the two subjects above knows more about the Constitution?

A) The subject on the left.

B) The subject on the right.

C) Neither knows a damn thing about it.

D) Neither knows a damn thing about it and there’s a better-than-even chance that both of them pee on it.

As I reTweeted earlier, the problem here isn’t that Christine O’Donnell doesn’t know a damn thing about the First Amendment, although that is, indeed, a problem, at least in Delaware and at least for the moment.

No, the problem is that the entire freaking right wing, including more of the Tea Party than its backers want to admit, believes the same damn thing. O’Donnell is just a random example drawn from a pool tens of millions of Americans deep. These people hate America. They want this country to be a Christianist theocracy. And some of them are in positions of real power, influence and responsibility. I like to find humor in things, but I don’t find that especially funny.

(Photo[shop] credit: DivaGeek)

Sunday, August 22, 2010 11:35 pm

Catchin’ up on stuff; or, Odds and ends for Aug. 22

  • Questions more people need to be asking about the deficit, answered.
  • Why, if I lived near DC, I might be tempted to burn a Confederate flag at Glenn Beck’s upcoming rally.
  • I think the F-bomb has become a highly convenient excuse to keep adolescents from seeing a movie that shows how the American government screwed over an American hero and lied to his family.
  • Apparently it’s OK for American journalists to write highly inaccurate articles as long as they do so in the right (pun intended) way. Relatedly, these days, a DC journalist, given the choice between giving a deserved screwing to a colleague and giving an undeserved screwing to the American people in general, will screw the American people every time.
  • Governmental foot-dragging has its intended effect: Tom DeLay walks free. There are no consequences. There is no accountability. Rule of law? Ha.
  • The Internet will be the death of the music bidness as we’ve known it. Of course, no one who has known it will shed a tear, but that doesn’t mean the bidness is going down without a fight. Now they’re partnering with the National Association of Broadcasters, another powerful lobby, to try to get the government to mandate the inclusion of FM radio in future cell phones. Good luck with that. Oh, and die already.
  • The question isn’t why “Dr.” Laura Schlessinger “quit” her radio show after dropping about 11 N-bombs. The question is why any responsible broadcaster ever allowed someone with such obvious mental problems on the air dispensing advice in the first place.
  • Despite rising wheat prices caused by Russia’s drought-driven ban on exports, U.S. wheat farmers aren’t sure they should plant more wheat. Why? They’re pretty sure the wheat market is rigged, just as it was a few years ago. Now someone explain to me again what social utility investment bankers serve. Relatedly, Harper’s makes the case that they’re just playing games with the world’s food supply.
  • August: Stupid American Month.
  • If The New York Times or CNN had contributed $1 million to the Democratic Governors Association, do you think the country would have responded with such a yawn? Me, neither.
  • So will all the Wikileaks critics shut up now that the Pentagon’s own evidence shows Wikileaks tried to work with the Pentagon to redact sensitive information but was rebuffed? Yeah. I thought not.
  • The oil from BP’s Deepwater Horizon disaster? Government reports to the contrary, it’s mostly still out there.
  • When it comes to protecting our rights and our privacy, those commies in Europe are eating The Land of the Free’s lunch.
  • You know how the government has always claimed Guantanamo detainees are “the worst of the worst”? In fact, the government lacks enough evidence to charge 3/4 of them with any crime at all.
  • The $75 billion Home Affordable Mortgage Protection Act is a bust … because Congress, after approving the money, did nothing to ensure that bankruptcy judges would use so-called “cramdown” provisions to make sure the money would do what it was supposed to do. What has happened instead has left a lot of homeowners even worse off than if the government had done nothing and has hampered the recovery of the housing market. And the administration hasn’t bothered to try to get Congress to do the right thing. Heckuva job all the way around.
  • Memo to Army Maj. Gen. Charles E. Chambers: Your punishing soldiers who opted not to attend a concert by an evangelical Christian rock band should carry punishment of its own: loss of your stars and your pension. You violated your oath to protect the Constitution, General, plain and simple.
  • Robert Frank has an interesting proposal that could help both government and consumers: The government should buy up consumer debt, on which consumers are paying 20% and up, and charge consumers 8%. This would put more disposable income in consumers’ hands and give the government a substantially better return on its investment than the 2.8% or so that 10-year bills currently are paying. It makes so much sense that there’s zero chance Congress will pass it because it would hurt deny banks their current flow of blood money.
  • Shorter Paul Volcker: Lending deregulation was bad because allowing higher interest payments on risky sub-prime loans encouraged banks to make more risky loans.
  • Barry Ritholtz: We’re good at saying “What if we had done nothing?” about the bailout, but an even better question is, “What if we had done the right thing?”
  • COOL (as it were): Scientists are working on a way to use carbon dixoide and certain kinds of bacteria to convert crude oil into cleaner-burning methane — while the oil is still in the ground. A separate effort is working on using solar power to convert CO2 to carbon, or carbon monoxide to, in turn, synthesize hydrocarbon fuels.
  • I have found my Official Anthem for the Summer of 2010. Unfortunately, it’s a bit too R-rated to link to, but I’ll give you a hint: It’s by Cee-Lo, from his forthcoming album.
  • Colombian Supreme Court to U.S. military: Don’t let the sun set on you in Bogota. Oops.
  • Thomas Frank, author of What’s the Matter with Kansas?, leaves the Wall Street Journal and tears U.S. news media several new orifices on the way out the door (whether he also grabbed a beer is not clear).
  • The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has apologized for a blog post suggesting that the male-female wage gap and the glass ceiling aren’t real problems, which might actually mean something if it would apologize for everything else it has said and done in that same vein for the past several decades. But it won’t, so it doesn’t.
  • The American Family Association apparently believes our soldiers in Iraq died for nothing. Actually, so do I, inasmuch as that war was illegal from the git. But you know why the AFA believes it? Because Iraq is not a Christian nation.
  • Would someone who considers him/herself a deficit hawk and supports extending George Bush’s tax cuts for millionaires please explain to me how we can afford to do that but cannot afford to put people to work?
  • And, finally, this week’s tasteless joke, from D. Aristophanes at Sadly, No!:

A priest, a rabbi and an imam walk into an Islamic center two blocks from Ground Zero. The bartender says, ‘What’re you drinking?’ and the imam orders him beheaded because sharia law dhimmitude Allahu Akbar alalalalalalalalala flabberty jabberty jabber etc. etc.*

You’ve been a great crowd! We’re here all week!

*Also the priest molests the bartender’s kids and the rabbi drinks their blood.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010 8:12 pm

The Supreme Court ruling that the Supreme Court TOTALLY needs to write

Filed under: Fun,I want my country back. — Lex @ 8:12 pm
Tags: ,

Courtesy of The Onion, sadly, and OH, so NSFW.

I would personally carve onto Mount Rushmore the face of any Supreme Court justice who wrote an opinion as stunningly cool as this one.

Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:57 pm

Why does the American Family Association hate America?

It must, because its director of issues analysis (and I’ll refrain from making any “issues” jokes here), Bryan Fischer, said we should deport all Muslim-American citizens.

Naturally, someone had the temerity to point out the apparent contradiction between Fischer’s position and that of the Constitution, whereupon Fischer sought to “clarify” what he said, by saying, in effect, “I didn’t mean it! Only about 98% of it!”:

If we separate ourselves for a moment from the rampant and mindless political correctness and multiculturalism which controls the thinking of the elites, and the ordinary Americans who allow the elite to do their thinking for them, it is obviously and plainly nuts to throw out the welcome mat to those who have a religious obligation to obliterate us. It is beyond comprehension that we have become so brain-addled that we regard it a positive virtue to blindly embrace our own destroyers.

Muslims who have become naturalized citizens, of course, would need to commit an act of treason to forfeit their citizenship and become eligible for repatriation. Based on the Constitution’s definition of treason in Article III Section 3 [“adhering to (the) Enemies (of the United States), (or) giving them Aid and Comfort”] treasonous acts are likely committed on virtually a weekly basis here in the U.S. in many mosques and Islamic organizations.

Muslims continue to have as their objective the Islamization of the entire world, including the U.S., and are taught by their god to use force where necessary to accomplish the goal. The current objective of Muslim activists is to create a brand new Islamic state – meaning a state like New Jersey or Montana – out of existing jurisdictions and establish a virtual Islamic homeland in our midst.


But it’s perfectly OK to turn South Carolina into an Old Testament theocracy? Screw you; I’ve got family in Charleston.

Many Muslims are on our shores on student visas and such and have not yet become citizens. We must politely decline their request for naturalization (becoming an American citizen is a privilege, not a right) and use the money we would otherwise spend on their welfare, their education, their medical care and their incarceration to graciously assist them in returning to their countries of origin.

Those who are willing to convert to Christianity and renounce Islam, Allah, Mohammed and the Koran may be welcomed, for they can become not just good Christians but true Americans.

No, really, why do Bryan Fischer and the American Family Association hate America? Do they hate us for our freedoms?

Tuesday, February 16, 2010 9:29 pm


Perhaps the least surprising aspect of this story is that the N&O had to shut down comments on it because they became so abusive:

A Wake County middle-school teacher may be fired after she and her friends made caustic remarks on a Facebook page about her students, the South and Christianity.

Melissa Hussain, an eighth-grade science teacher at West Lake Middle School in southern Wake County, was suspended with pay Friday while investigators review her case, according to Greg Thomas, a Wake schools spokesman. The suspension came after some of Hussain’s students and their parents objected to comments on her Facebook page, many revolving around her interaction with Christian students.

Hussain wrote on the social-networking site that it was a “hate crime” that students anonymously left a Bible on her desk, and she told how she “was able to shame her kids” over the incident. Her Facebook page included comments from friends about “ignorant southern rednecks,” and one commenter suggested Hussain retaliate by bringing a Dale Earnhardt Jr. poster to class with a swastika drawn on the NASCAR driver’s forehead.

“I don’t defend what the kids were doing,” said Murray Inman, a parent of one of Hussain’s students. “I just couldn’t imagine an educator, or a group of educators, engaging in this kind of dialogue about kids.”

Hussain did not return calls and e-mail messages Monday.

The Wake district doesn’t have a policy on the use of social networking sites, Thomas said. But the district, North Carolina’s largest, does have a code of ethics for employees that the school spokesman says applies to social networking. The code says employees’ conduct “should be such as to protect both the person’s integrity and/or reputation and that of the school system.”

Teachers across the nation have been suspended or fired because of questionable material posted on their Facebook pages and other online social networking sites.

Other thoughts:

  • The first rule of blogging about the day job is don’t blog about the day job. What the teacher did was stupid.
  • The second rule of blogging about the day job is don’t blog about the day job (unless blogging about the day job is part of your day job).
  • Commenters on one’s Web site/Facebook page can and will say all manner of stupid, objectionable stuff. While I would argue that one may have a moral obligation in some cases to take down such comments, I wouldn’t argue that one has any legal (or regulatory) obligation to, and I sure wouldn’t fire someone for comments someone else posted. In other words, whatever was posted in response to the teacher’s postings ought to be irrelevant for purposes of this discussion.
  • One irony about this case is that under current First Amendment law, government employees and non-government employees have roughly equivalent levels of freedom and risk with regard to speech about their respective employers, but the practical result is that government employees have less protection under the First Amendment itself, which protects citizens from government interference in their speech, than do private-sector employees.
  • The district’s employee code of conduct says employee conduct “should be such as to protect both the person’s integrity and/or reputation and that of the school system.” To the extent that this phrase even has any meaning, that meaning is BS. The school system cares only about its own reputation, and it cares about the employee’s reputation only to the extent that it is perceived to reflect upon the school system’s reputation. Moreover, who decides what actions do or do not damage one’s integrity or reputation? If, say, a war criminal like Dick Cheney claimed that I had a lousy reputation and no integrity for criticizing him, I would interpret that as proof that I had an outstanding reputation and a great deal of integrity, and so would many other people. I am not defending the teacher’s postings in this particular case; I’m saying that the code of conduct appears to be meaningless and therefore useless and irrelevant to this case.
  • If Murray Inman can’t imagine teachers “engaging in this kind of dialogue about kids,” then Murray Inman isn’t very imaginative. Everybody in every line of work imaginable says disparaging things about his/her customers from time to time, and teachers are not immune. If Inman meant he couldn’t imagine anyone would do so publicly, well, all I can say is that no level of human stupidity should be unimaginable; as a species, our capacity for Teh Stoopid approaches infinity. Some stupidity is fatal, and evolution is our friend in this regard, but it’s a long, slow process.
  • What the teacher did was stupid. It bears repeating.
  • What the children did was both stupid and cruel, which is worse than stupid alone even allowing for the fact that we’re talking about kids. These are middle-schoolers, not kindergartners.
  • What the parents who are defending their kids’ behavior and arguing for punishment for the teacher are doing is less teaching the teacher that actions have consequences, although it is that, than teaching their children that stupid, cruel behavior can and should be rewarded.

Friday, November 20, 2009 11:09 pm

Freedom of assembly? Pshaw! That’s so 1787!

Filed under: We're so screwed — Lex @ 11:09 pm
Tags: ,

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit effectively overturns the assembly clause of the First Amendment as well as the Fourth Amendment freedom from arrest without probable cause.

It would be nice to think the Supremes will overrule, but I suspect Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia will vote to uphold. I suspect Stevens, Breyer,  Ginsburg and Sotomayor will vote to overturn.

Anthony Kennedy, what say you?

Thursday, December 11, 2008 9:48 pm

Wanted: early immediate retirement

A judge in California has unconstitutionally blocked the Ventura County Star from publishing information the newspaper obtained legally from a search warrant in a murder investigation. Says publication would hurt the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

Yeah, right.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve worked with lawyers enough times on First Amendment issues in the past 25 years to know that there is no basis whatever for this judge’s ruling. None. There is literally zero chance this ruling will be upheld on appeal. This ruling is so bad that it ought to be prima facie grounds for the immediate and permanent end of the judge’s career.

(h/t: Romenesko)

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: