Based on this constitutional right, the court concluded that, to warrant the issuance of a domestic restraining order based on alleged child abuse, there must be (1) a finding that “the parent’s discipline is [not] reasonably related to the purpose of safeguarding or promoting the welfare of the minor,” (2) taking into account “factors such as [a] the nature of the misbehavior, [b] the child’s age and size, and [c] the nature and propriety of the force used.”

The court left it for a lower court to apply this standard to the facts of the case. Here, though, are the facts as alleged by the child (a 15-year-old girl), which led to the issuance of a restraining order against the father:

Minor alleged three incidents of abuse. The first allegedly occurred on August 12, 2005. The day before, August 11, 2005, Minor was scheduled to have visitation with Petitioner after school. Minor called Petitioner and told him that she did not need a ride from school because Mother was going to pick her up. This turned out to be a fabrication. Instead, Minor, another teenage girl, and two teenage boys drove to a store to pick up the “morning after pill” for the other girl. That evening, Petitioner called Mother in an attempt to locate Minor, but Mother had not heard from Minor. Petitioner eventually decided to drive to Mother’s house. When Petitioner reached Mother’s house at around 10:00 p.m., Minor had arrived and Petitioner took Minor back to his home.

The next day, August 12, 2005, Petitioner and Minor spoke. When Petitioner learned what Minor had done, he became very angry. Petitioner informed Minor that he felt she should have told the other girl’s parents that their daughter was sexually active and should have allowed them to deal with the situation. Minor testified that she felt she did not have to talk with Petitioner because she had already spoken to Mother about the situation. Minor related that both she and Petitioner were yelling. Petitioner claimed that Minor was “just ranting and raving,” and “screaming” at her younger sister. Minor testified that, at some point, Petitioner hit her. Minor claimed that Petitioner struck her “a couple of times” and that Petitioner was attempting to slap her on the face but that she blocked his blows. Petitioner claimed that he only tried to hit Minor on the shoulder because Minor had tried to leave and Petitioner wanted her to stay and talk to him.

Mother was told that Minor and Petitioner were having an argument and called the police. When the police arrived, Minor told them that she was fine and the police left. Minor had no bruises as a result of the incident.

The second incident of alleged abuse took place on August 25, 2005. Minor claimed that she and Petitioner “got into a power struggle.” Minor had gone to Petitioner’s house that day early in the evening. Petitioner wanted to speak to Minor, but she did not want to talk because she “had to call other friends to get [her] homework and [was] busy.” According to Minor, Petitioner wanted to discuss “how [her] day went.” [Footnote: This incident, thus, was apparently not related to the August 12 “birth control” incident.] Minor acknowledged that Petitioner waited several hours to speak with her. At around 11:00 p.m., Petitioner again attempted to speak with Minor. Minor did not want to converse and said, “Dad, I have school tomorrow. I’d really like to go to bed.” Petitioner allegedly said, “No, we talk now.” The two then began to argue. Minor claimed that Petitioner then hit her. She stated, “[A]s I was covering my head, like, he hit me on my arms.” Petitioner also allegedly told Minor, “Don’t make me do that again.” Minor then called her Mother and told her that she was uncomfortable staying with Petitioner.

The last incident of abuse allegedly took place on September 16, 2005. According to Minor, Petitioner visited her school unannounced. The principal went to Minor’s classroom and said that he needed to speak to her. Once outside the classroom, the principal told Minor, “Your father is downstairs. We need to handle this now.” Minor claimed that Petitioner had been threatening to take her out of private school to discipline her. According to Minor, Petitioner began to say “how everything had been [her] fault,” “how [Petitioner's] financial problems were [her] fault,” and how Minor’s younger sister was “better than” Minor in various ways. Minor testified that she felt Petitioner was “bringing [her] down.”

Petitioner claimed that he was simply attempting to discipline Minor. Petitioner stated that Minor was difficult at times, would lie to him, and refused to follow reasonable rules, such as not riding in a car with anyone under the age of twenty-one. He claimed, however, that he never attempted to hit [Minor's] face, that he only visited her at school twice to talk to her, and that he never blamed his financial problems on her.

In 1995, petitioner, a tenured teacher, began working for respondent New York City ]Department of Education (DOE). (Pet.). In February of 1997, she began working at Public School (P.S.) 203 in Brooklyn. (Petitioner’s Appendix [Pet. Appx.]).

On June 22, 2010, a New York City public school student fatally drowned during a field trip to the beach. On June 23, 2010, after the school day was over and petitioner was at home, she posted the following on her Facebook page: “After today, I am thinking the beach sounds like a wonderful idea for my 5th graders! I HATE THEIR GUTS! They are the devils (sic) spawn!” One of her Facebook friends then posted, “oh you would let little Kwame float away!” to which petitioner responded, “Yes, I wld (sic) not throw a life jacket in for a million!!”

After viewing petitioner’s postings, one of petitioner’s Facebook friends, a P.S. 203 colleague, contacted the school’s assistant principal and expressed concern about the propriety of the postings…. [The hearing officer found that petitioner had engaged in "misconduct, neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming her profession” based on the comments and on the teacher’s allegedly “directing her friend, Joanne Engel, to provide false information to investigators by claiming to have written the comments on [petitioner's] Facebook.com webpage … so that [petitioner] would not get in trouble.” –EV]…. In deeming termination the appropriate penalty for petitioner’s misconduct, the hearing officer emphasized the public nature of online postings and noted that petitioner had breached DOE’s trust by conspiring with her friend such that “it is impossible for her employment to be continued” and that teachers should instill in their students the importance of taking responsibility for their actions….

[The judge held that the finding of misconduct was not arbitrary and capricious -- the legal standard used for review of such decisions under New York law -- and found that he could not consider the First Amendment arguments as to that finding. But he then turned to the magnitude of the penalty:]

The standard for reviewing a penalty imposed after a hearing held pursuant to Education Law § 3020-a is whether the punishment imposed “is so disproportionate to the offense, in the light of all the circumstances, as to be shocking to one’s sense of fairness.” … Here, petitioner’s 15-year employment history with the DOE was unblemished before she posted the offensive comments, and she posted them outside the school building and after school hours. Moreover, there is no indication in the record, nor any finding, that her postings affected her ability to teach.

There is also no evidence that her postings injured her students or that she intended any injury. Although the hearing officer emphasized the public nature of her postings and her creation of an “electronic footprint,” she made no finding as to their effect on petitioner’s past and future students. And, the specter of racism emerging from the postings did not originate with petitioner, and there is no indication in the record apart from the posting that she is intolerant or that the feeling she expressed, made after a hard day at work, affects the manner in which she teaches and treats her students.

While [for procedural reasons] I do not address the hearing officer’s determination as to the alleged violation of petitioner’s first amendment right to freedom of speech, in these circumstances, termination of petitioner’s employment is inconsistent with the spirit of the first amendment. Facebook has rapidly evolved from a platform used solely by American college students to a world-wide social and professional network. It is commonly used to advertise businesses, organize parties, debate politics, and air one’s grievances, among myriad other uses. Indeed, with Facebook, as with social media in general, one may express oneself as freely and rapidly as when conversing on the telephone with a friend. Thus, even though petitioner should have known that her postings could become public more easily than if she had uttered them during a telephone call or over dinner, given the illusion that Facebook postings reach only Facebook friends and the fleeting nature of social media, her expectation that only her friends, all of whom are adults, would see the postings is not only apparent, but reasonable. While her reference to a child’s death is repulsive, there is no evidence that her postings are part of a pattern of conduct or anything other than an isolated incident of intemperance.

Moreover, there is no reason to believe that petitioner will again post inappropriate or offensive comments online, as she repeatedly apologized during the administrative hearing for the posts, and expressed tearful remorse at oral argument before me….

And, while students must learn to take responsibility for their actions, they should also know that sometimes there are second chances and that compassion is a quality rightly valued in our society. Ending petitioner’s long-term employment on the basis of a single isolated lapse of judgment teaches otherwise. While I do not condone petitioner’s conduct and acknowledge that teachers should act as role models for their students, termination in these circumstances does not correspond with the measure of compassion a teacher should show her students. Rather, it places far too great a strain on the right to express oneself freely among friends, notwithstanding the repulsiveness of that expression. (Cf Hurley v Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 US 557, 574 [1995] ["the point of all speech protection ... is to shield just those choices of content that in someone's eyes are misguided, or even hurtful."]; Texas v Johnson, 491 US 397, 414[1989] ["If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."]). …

The article’s abstract reports that, “For some time now adults — both heterosexual and homosexual — have been adopting their lovers and spouses all over the country for various reasons: to better guarantee the adoptee’s right to inherit directly from the adoptor; to keep collateral relatives from having standing to contest the adoptor’s estate plan; or to add a loved one to a class of trust beneficiaries (allowing the adoptee to inherit “through” the adoptor).” And the article reports that about half the states “are subject to statutory or common laws that include the adopted parent/adult child relationship within the definition of incest.”

(1) Some of the analysis seems limited to high-level “policymaking” employees, such as a university Associate Vice President.

(2) But some of the argument suggests that any time any government manager with hiring and firing authority — or even with substantial input into hiring and firing decisions — speaks out in opposition to civil rights laws protecting gays, the government may fire the manager on the grounds that the speech (a) “could disrupt the … [d]epartment by making homosexual employees uncomfortable or disgruntled,” (b) might lead “homosexual prospective employees [to] reconsider applications,” and (c) might “lead to challenges to her personnel decisions.”

(3) This in turn highlights the danger to government managerial employees who want to participate in, for instance, campaigns opposing same-sex marriage or proposed laws banning sexual orientation discrimination. If you’re such an employee, you’d be wise to keep your mouth shut on such matters, whether it comes to letters to the editor, to blog posts, to yard signs, to campaign donations, or to signatures on initiative or referendum petitions (in states that disclose such signatures). After all, any of these might be noticed by people who will publicize what you said or did, and who will directly or indirectly inform your supervisors about it.

Maybe that’s an acceptable price to pay for effective functioning of government workplaces — the Pickering test is generally not very speech-protective, on this subject or others — and maybe it’s not. But in any case that seems to be where things are headed, at least in many such workplaces.

As Associate Vice President for Human Resources, Plaintiff was an “appointing authority” at the University, which means she had the power to hire and fire employees…. The University had an Equal Opportunity Policy which prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. Further, the University has taken explicit steps to reach out to homosexuals and make them feel welcome.

On April 4, 2008, the Toledo Free Press ran an opinion by Michael Miller which Plaintiff felt compared the modern movement toward increased tolerance and rights for homosexuals to the historical struggles of the African–American civil rights movement and which noted that one University of Toledo campus offered domestic partner benefits and the other did not. Due to her religious conviction, Plaintiff, an African–American woman, felt the need to respond. The Toledo Free Press ran her response on April 18, 2008. In it she objected to the idea that homosexuals are “civil rights victims,” asserted that homosexuality is purely a choice, and noted that the inter-campus benefits disparities involved all employees, not just those interested in domestic partner benefits. Plaintiff identified herself as “an alumnus of the University of Toledo’s Graduate School, an employee and business owner” and signed only her name, though she used her University photograph. She did not mention her title or duties within the University…. Because of the response to her article, Plaintiff was immediately placed on administrative leave….

In a First Amendment Free Speech employment retaliation claim … a plaintiff must show that the speech involved “matters of public concern,” that the state employer’s interest “‘as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees’ … [does] not outweigh [plaintiff's] desire to ‘contribute to public debate’ like any other citizen,” and that the speech was not made “pursuant to” the duties of plaintiff’s employment…. Plaintiff was not attempting to fulfill any job duty in writing her article, but to present a personal opinion. Even if she attempted to give herself credence with the public by identifying herself, this does not satisfy the Garcetti test. Thus, Defendants’ theory that Plaintiff spoke pursuant to her job duties does not defeat her First Amendment claim.

Defendants present two arguments concerning the balancing factor [the so-called “Pickering balance” –EV]. First, they argue that Plaintiff’s specific authority automatically tips the balance in their favor. Second, they assert the specific weights and balances presented by this case demonstrate that the University’s interest outweighs Plaintiff’s.

The first argument relies on the Sixth Circuit’s statement that when certain employees “speak on job-related issues in a manner contrary to the position of [their] employer” they have been insubordinate and a presumption arises that the balance weighs in the favor of the employer. Rose v. Stephens, 291 F.3d 917, 923 (6th Cir. 2002). Thus, “when an employee is in a policymaking or confidential position and is terminated for speech related to his or her political or policy views, there is a presumption that the Pickering balance favors the government.” In determining whether this exception applies to a particular situation, the Sixth Circuit directs the use of the four categories describing permissible political patronage employment actions set forth in McCloud v. Testa, 97 F.3d 1536 (6th Cir. 1996). If a position falls within one of the categories, the presumption in favor of the employer automatically applies.

The first category includes “positions specifically named in relevant federal, state, county or municipal law to which discretionary authority with respect to the enforcement of that law or the carrying out of some other policy of political concern is granted.” Category two includes “positions to which a significant portion of the total discretionary authority available to category one position-holders has been delegated.” The third category consists of “confidential advisors who spend a significant portion of their time on the job advising category one or category two position-holders on how to exercise their statutory or delegated policymaking authority, [and] other confidential employees who control the lines of communications to category one positions, category two positions or confidential advisors.” The [fourth] category relates to politically balanced positions. Id. A position may still be sufficiently “confidential” or “policymaking” for the Rose presumption to apply without fitting into one of the four categories….

Defendants assert that Plaintiff’s position as Associate Vice President for Human Resources fits into either category two or three. Plaintiff responds with her Declaration which states that she was not delegated “significant” policy making authority and did not spend a “significant” amount of time advising Defendants. She concludes that she was a ministerial employee. While the contours of any delegation or time spent advising may be factual questions, whether any delegation or time spent are “significant” is a question of law for the Court.

Notably, Plaintiff’s Declaration does not mention appointing authority. The Board of Trustees is charged, by Ohio law, with governing the university. Thus, it falls within category one. At the time Plaintiff was fired, the Board had adopted a policy delegating appointing authority to four specific positions, in addition to the President; Plaintiff’s position was listed and Logie’s was not. Further, not only did Plaintiff testify that she was responsible for employment decisions such as hiring and firing, but Ohio law states that all appointing authorities have that power. Jacobs testified that he had been directly involved in only a handful of terminations. Any delegation of the ability to hire and fire is clearly significant, especially due to the possibility of employment related lawsuits. Plaintiff does not present anything to restrict the import of her appointing power and instead focused on Jacobs’ control of written policy. As such, the Court concludes that Plaintiff was vested with a significant portion of the statutory authority available, placing her within category two.

Even though Plaintiff fell within the second McCloud category, the presumption of insubordination will only apply if her statement related her policy view on a matter related to her employment. Plaintiff stated that she did not think homosexuals were civil rights victims. Not only does this statement directly contradict the University’s policies granting homosexuals civil rights protections (such as the Equal Opportunity Policy), but as an appointing authority, Plaintiff was charged with ensuring that the University maintained those protections in employment actions. Thus, the Rose insubordination presumption applies. Plaintiff has offered nothing more than her claim that she “was never insubordinate to anyone” without any justification for why that would overcome (or even address) the presumption. Because the presumption holds, the balance of employee and employer concerns automatically tips in the employer’s favor.

Defendants further argue that even if the Rose presumption does not apply, the actual weighing of employee versus employer interests in this case would clearly favor them. Plaintiff counters by asserting that her speech should be afforded the greatest protection.

In demonstrating the employer’s interests in this case, Defendants again emphasize Plaintiff’s position. As such, they emphasize her authority over employment actions and further note that even she has testified that she was serving as “an ambassador” for the University. Given her position, her statements against the rights of homosexuals could have done very serious damage to the University in three ways (all of which Defendants cited and stated multiple times, including in the termination letter). Though all three may be speculative and concern only what might happen, as noted above, the law does not require Defendants to wait for damage to occur.

First, her statements could disrupt the Human Resources Department by making homosexual employees uncomfortable or disgruntled. Though it did not enter into the actual consideration, Erich Stolz’s letter to Defendants clearly demonstrated that effect: he stated that her letter not only made him individually uncomfortable, but it also reduced his respect for her professionalism. Plaintiff responds that mere offense is insufficient to justify her termination. That might be an appropriate response to Defendants’ offense, but it does not address loss of cohesion in the Human Resources Department as a legitimate interest of her employer. Further, this addresses only the least of the three feared effects.

Second, Plaintiff’s public statements could have interfered with the University’s interest in diversity. Because of her statements, homosexual prospective employees might reconsider applications they knew she would review or withdraw them altogether. This concern removes a significant portion of Plaintiff’s rebuttal that she has only acted fairly because she has not demonstrated how any applicants would know. Plaintiff also complains about consideration of the value of diversity as opposed to focus on teaching capacity alone. However, not only is that an overly simple description of the University’s interest, any decrease in the capability of the University workforce could have an impact on instruction. If fewer qualified people apply, because some are homosexuals who know that the head of Human Resources (Plaintiff) does not think they deserve civil rights, then it could be that the quality of the eventual workforce will decline. Further, Plaintiff has not rebutted the concept that diversity itself (even with regard to non-faculty positions) improves the teaching function.

Third, as the termination letter stated, Plaintiff’s public position could lead to challenges to her personnel decisions. In other words, Defendants feared lawsuits from homosexuals alleging sexual orientation or sexual harassment discrimination. This fear is clearly appropriate as her statement could be offered in a suit for either direct evidence of discrimination or for evidence of pretext (in rebuttal to a non-discriminatory reason). Further, Plaintiff’s article could also lead to additional suits and grievances as people realize they may have a claim or the statement could be just enough to cause someone to decide to sue who otherwise might not have undertaken the expense and effort. Thus, Plaintiff’s statements could subject the University to significant expense through more litigation or more difficult litigation (or other employment action challenges)….

2. The Ninth Circuit did not decide that all opposite-sex-only marriage recognition rules are unconstitutional. Rather, it concluded that when a state has already recognized same-sex civil unions that are functionally equivalent or nearly equivalent to marriage, denying the symbolic recognition provided by the label “marriage” is no longer rationally related to a legitimate government interest. The court did not decide whether the general constitutional right to marry that applies to same-sex couples, or whether opposite-sex-only recognition rules are generally unconstitutional on the grounds that discrimination based on sexual orientation requires “strict scrutiny” or “intermediate scrutiny” and fails that scrutiny. It only applied the rational basis test, and held that the regime of civil unions but not same-sex marriage lacks a rational basis.

Note that, if the decision is upheld, this means that the arguments that civil unions are a “slippery slope” to same-sex marriage were absolutely right: The recognition of civil unions changed the legal landscape in a way that made it more likely for courts to also conclude that same-sex marriage must be recognized, too.

3. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion also stresses that same-sex marriage was once recognized (by court decision) and then derecognized (by the voters). If the opinion is limited to such situations, this would mean that its logic would only be applicable to California, and possibly Hawaii.

But I don’t think that the opinion’s logic can be so limited. The court reasoned that same-sex couples can’t be denied the same right that opposite-sex couples have — the right to have their relations recognized as “marriage,” at least once they have the same tangible rights under state civil union law. But that denial would be present regardless of whether (1) the label “marriage” was once given and then taken away or (2) was never given in the first place. In either case, a benefit (the label “marriage”) is given to some but denied to others. Either way, opposite-sex couples would have a right (to the label “marriage”) that same-sex couples would not. Such a discrimination would have to be rationally related to a legitimate government interest. And under the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, such a rational relationship is absent here, which would doom all state regimes that recognize civil unions but not same-sex relationships.

Moreover, if California had no obligation to provide equal treatment for same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages (at least when civil unions were recognized), then the sovereign rulers of California — the people, acting through the constitutional amendment process — are entitled to correct their employees’ (the California Supreme Court Justices’) conclusion to the contrary. The Ninth Circuit’s holding that the California voters are not entitled to correct their employees this way, because such correction is not “rational,” means that California and other states weren’t entitled to have this particular discrimination in the first place.

4. Now on to the question whether denying the label “marriage” to same-sex unions, once civil unions that provide all the tangible benefits of marriage are recognized, is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Here, I think the Ninth Circuit majority erred.

a. First, note that this debate is just about the label “marriage,” and thus about the message that the label sends. The court concluded that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional because this symbolism mattered, and mattered a lot — the message is injurious to same-sex couples’ (and individuals’) dignity, and may lead to more societal discrimination against gays and lesbians. But if this symbolism of “disapproval of … [same-sex] relationships” (Op. 77) is so significant, then it may be plausibly believed to subtly push some people away from same-sex relationships to opposite-sex relationships. To so conclude, you don’t need to believe that gays and lesbians, in the sense of people who are solely attracted to people of the same sex, can be “cured” in the sense of being turned straight. You only need to focus on the substantial number of bisexuals, and assume that their behavior can be affected, in some instances and for some people, by the message of “disapproval of …. [same-sex] relationships.”

This is relevant because it bears on how the Ninth Circuit responded to the arguments that the desire to have a greater fraction of children be raised by opposite-sex biological parent couples forms a rational basis for the law:

We need not decide whether there is any merit to the sociological premise of [the Prop. 8 backers’] first argument — that families headed by two biological parents are the best environments in which to raise children — because even if [the backers] are correct, Proposition 8 had absolutely no effect on the ability of same-sex couples to become parents or the manner in which children are raised in California” (pp. 56-57) is beside the point, when it comes to the rational basis test.

But family formation is not just driven on who has the legal “ability” to become parents. It is also driven by social attitudes. It is not irrational to conclude that, if the refusal to recognize same-sex marriage has powerful symbolic effect — which is what the Ninth Circuit argued in striking down this refusal — it may likewise have a powerful symbolic effect when it comes to people’s choices about whom to parent with. As it happens, I’m quite skeptical that this effect will be substantial enough to make a difference, and I on balance think that recognizing full same-sex marriage is good policy. But under the rational basis test that the Ninth Circuit is purporting to apply, a court must uphold a law so long as it rests on a plausible view of the facts, regardless of whether the judges agree with the lawmakers on those facts.

5. The court also rejects the argument that Prop. 8 is rationally related to a legitimate government interest in “‘proceed[ing] with caution’ when consider changes to the definition of marriage” (p. 64). The court suggests that some laws might have such a rational basis; and recall that the court is ostensibly applying the test that’s applicable to a vast range of economic regulation, which is often defended on bases no more scientifically provable than that. But the court said that the law isn’t rationally related to this interest:

Had Proposition 8 imposed not a total ban but a time-specific moratorium on same-sex marriage, during which the Legislature would have been authorized to consider the question in detail or at the end of which the People would have had to vote again to renew the ban, the amendment might plausibly have been designed to “proceed with caution.” In that case, we would have had to consider whether the objective of “proceed[ing] with caution” was a legitimate one. But that is not what Proposition 8 did. The amendment superseded the [California Supreme Court cases recognizing a right to same-sex marriage under the state constitution] and then went further, by prohibiting the Legislature or even the People (except by constitutional amendment) from choosing to make the designation of ‘marriage’ available to same-sex couples in the future. Such a permanent ban cannot be rationally related to an interest in proceeding with caution.

I don’t see how this so. The ban is of course not “permanent” — it can be repealed the same way that it was enacted, by a simple majority of California voters (coupled with either enough voter signatures or enough legislative votes to put it on the ballot). Indeed, changes in attitudes on same-sex marriage, especially among younger voters, suggest that soon, perhaps even in a few years, this amendment would indeed have been overturned. Those who want to “proceed with caution” in this field, especially by making sure that a major change to such an important societal institution is only made with the buy-in of the voting public and not just of judges or legislators, might find it perfectly rational to withdraw from California courts and legislatures (or even from the reach of the statutory ballot measure, as opposed to a constitutional ballot measure) the power to recognize same-sex marriages and to leave it to the California voters in their sovereign power to amend the constitution.

6. Of course, none of this deals with the arguments that same-sex marriage under a more demanding test than the rational basis test — for instance, “strict scrutiny,” which requires that classifications or restrictions be “narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest,” or “intermediate scrutiny,” which requires that they be “substantially related to an important government interest.” Among other things, both of these tests would require courts to look closely at the factual evidence for the claims of narrow tailoring and substantial relationship, rather than to defer to any plausible view of the facts, which is what the “rational basis” test requires. Such tests might be called for if a court concludes that the traditionally recognized constitutional right to marry should be understood as also covering same-sex couples, or that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be treated like sex or race discrimination, or that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of sex discrimination. I speak here only of the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion, which is that the California rule of recognizing same-sex civil unions but not same-sex marriages lacks any rational basis.

I’m not an expert on this area of the law, but the Georgia judge’s reasoning, which echoes the reasoning of a 2009 Indiana Court of Appeals decision strikes me as quite persuasive, as does the much more detailed reasoning in a Nov. 2011 Congressional Research Service report, which reaches the same result.

UPDATE: I originally accidentally omitted the link to the Georgia administrative judge’s ruling — I’ve now added it above.

In a recent interview with Egyptian television, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg insulted the U.S. Constitution and advised Egypt to look somewhere else when drafting its own constitution. Justice Ginsburg was asked to give insight on this crucial topic for the post-Mubarak government but focused more on liberal human rights, rather than traditional American freedom.

When describing the nature of a constitution, Justice Ginsburg did appropriately recognize the importance of a constitution and the duty of the citizens to defend it. Justice Ginsburg did not, unfortunately, take her own advice. She undermined insight of its crafters and stated, “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights. She stated, “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution.” This directly refutes the U.S. Constitution’s relevance today.

For a United States Supreme Court Justice, entrusted with the duty to interpret the Constitution, this type of statement is unacceptable. Justice Ginsburg failed to respect the authority of the document that it is her duty to protect. When given the opportunity to promote American liberty abroad, Justice Ginsburg did just the opposite and pointed Egypt in the direction of progressivism and the liberal agenda.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said, “For a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice to speak derisively about the Constitution she is sworn to uphold is distressing, to say the least. Justice Ginsburg’s comments about our Constitution undermine the Supreme Court as an institution dedicated to the rule of law, as well as our founding document.”

This criticism strikes me as quite misplaced. Justice Ginsburg swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, and I suspect she thinks that the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court and U.S. political practice, works pretty well in the U.S. But why should she (or we) think that the 1787 constitutional text, coupled with the 27 amendments that have come in fits and spurts since then, would necessarily work well for a completely different country today?

To be sure, our Constitution has the merit of having endured with only one really huge constitutional crisis — the Civil War — for a long time, and of having produced a very rich and free country; that’s good. But much of that, I suspect, comes not from the constitutional text, but from the constitutional traditions that have emerged since then, both in the courts and elsewhere; adopting the U.S. Constitution would not adopt those traditions.

And it might well be that Egypt might be well-served by a very different approach than the U.S. Constitutions — for instance, with regard to relations between the federal government and more local governments, with regard to whether to have a Presidential system or a parliamentary system, with regard to how hard the constitution would be to amend, with regard to how judges are selected and how long they serve, with regard to how the President is selected, with regard to the relationship between the two chambers of the legislature, with regard to whether all executive officials work for the President or whether some are independently elected or selected, with regard to just how to craft the criminal justice system, and so on. (And here I just speak of the big picture questions, and not more specific details.) Remember that even our own states’ constitutions differ in many respects, especially with regard to separation of powers and the selection and tenure of judges, from the U.S. Constitution. Again, that the constitutional text, coupled with a wide range of extratextual political and legal practices, has worked well for us over 200+ years doesn’t tell us that it would work well for Egypt for the coming years.

Nor do I think that there’s something disloyal or bad for American policy for an American Justice to make such statements to a foreign country. Rather, I think it’s just sensible and sensibly (not excessively or falsely) modest.

And, returning to my first point, none of this tells us whether Justice Ginsburg is committed to following the U.S. Constitution in the U.S. Maybe you think she is so committed and maybe you think she isn’t, but you’d have to figure that out from other sources than from the advice she gives to a different country about whether to adopt the constitutional text in a completely different political and legal requirement.

On November 30, 2011, the Government notified Defendants that it intended to call an “Academic Expert,” Professor Michael Barkun, to testify concerning his research into conspiracy belief and theories. In response to Defendants’ motion to preclude Dr. Barkun’s testimony, the Government admitted that a hearing pursuant to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993) ( “Daubert hearing”) was necessary to test the admissibility of Professor Barkun’s testimony.

Before the hearing, the Government provided Defendants with a longer, more concrete Rule 16(a)(1)(G) summary of Dr. Barkun’s proposed testimony, containing notice that Dr. Barkun will testify about conspiracy subcultures, beliefs and theories; and theories such as “stigmatized knowledge,” “New World Order” and the “Illuminati.” The Government also intends to ask Dr. Barkun questions to elicit conspiracy theorists’ beliefs about the history behind Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) detention centers and the role of the internet in spreading conspiracy belief literature and thought. Dr. Barkun also plans to testify about significant events in conspiracy belief and how conspiracy theorists view these events. The events listed in the Rule 16 summary include: Ruby Ridge, Waco, the Oklahoma City bombing and the 9/11 attacks.

The Government states:

As he testifies about each of the concepts above, Professor Barkun will also be asked whether he has reviewed some of the materials seized during the search warrants executed at the defendants’ residences and some of the recorded conversations and whether this material is consistent with the conspiracy beliefs about which he is testifying. The government found a great deal of material in numerous locations which espouse these beliefs, shedding light upon the defendants’ intent and motive, as well as linking the co-conspirators to the goal of the charged conspiracy in Count One.

… Dr. Barkun’s testimony will not assist the jury, as required by Rule 702…. At the Daubert hearing, the Government insisted it would use Dr. Barkun’s testimony as evidence of Defendants’ “intent and motive” to forcibly and violently oppose the Government under the Seditious Conspiracy count. However, the Government failed to connect the proposed expert testimony to the issues in dispute under that count.

For instance, Defendants asked the professor whether there is any literature on what people who read the conspiracy belief books, charts and other items seized from some of the Defendants’ homes, do with the information contained there, i.e, whether studies demonstrate whether these individuals lead normal lives or act out violently pursuant to their beliefs. Dr. Barkun replied that he is not aware of such studies. Similarly, when asked whether it was possible to predict what a conspiracy theorist will ultimately do with his or her beliefs, Dr. Barkin admitted it was impossible to predict.

Dr. Barkun could not opine on the number of conspiracy belief-related books a person must have, to become a conspiracy theorist, except to say it would have to be a lot. Defendants made the point that Dan Brown, the popular author of The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons, writes in his books about the same concepts and beliefs in the literature on which the professor’s testimony is based. Yet, it would be inaccurate to suggest that everyone who reads Dan Brown is a conspiracy theorist. More importantly, even if they are, the Court cannot make the additional required leap that conspiracy theorists will commit acts of violence simply because of their beliefs, or something they read in a Dan Brown novel.

Simply put, the nexus between the testimony the Government proffers through Dr. Barkun and the crimes charged is speculative at best. Dr. Barkun’s explanation of conspiracy theories and his opinion on whether or not items seized from Defendants’ homes are consistent with these theories will not aid the jury in determining whether Defendants agreed and intended to forcibly oppose the United States Government. As Defendants argued at the hearing, the crime charged is one of action, not advocacy. It is neither necessary nor sufficient that Defendants believe in conspiracy theories to be found guilty of Seditious Conspiracy.

This is not a case about the New World Order, the Illuminati, stigmatized knowledge or any other conspiracy theory or concept. This is so even though some of these concepts might be tangentially related to the crime charged, as stated in the indictment. (See, e.g., Doc. # 293, Second Superseding Indictment at ¶ 8 (alleging that the Hutaree views its enemies as participants in the “New World Order,” which the Hutaree intends to oppose by force)). It is a case about an alleged agreement to violently overthrow the Government. There is no place for Dr. Barkun’s proposed testimony, which the Court must treat with more caution than that of a lay witness because, as an expert, he need not have personal knowledge about the case to testify.

The absence of fit between Dr. Barkun’s proposed testimony and the issues is exemplified by some of the topics covered in the Government’s Rule 16(a)(1)(G) summary and during the hearing. These include: the history of FEMA detention centers; the standoff at Ruby Ridge; the standoff at Waco, Texas; the Oklahoma City bombing; and the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. (“9/11 attacks”). The Government does not allege that Defendants were involved in these occurrences; they are not relevant to the facts alleged in the indictment.

The Court is unpersuaded that these topics are relevant even though the Government proposes only to show that conspiracy theorists believe the United States Government was behind these events. Dr. Barkun admitted that there are multiple and distinctive descriptions of the terms and concepts addressed at the hearing and that the Government’s summary of his testimony does not include them all. He admitted that not all conspiracy theorists hold the same views and that some may hold some of the views described in the summary, but not others. As explained more fully below, exploration into these topics would not only lead the trial way off-track, but would likely confuse and mislead the jury….

The opinion is by Chief Judge Kozinski, joined by Judge Reinhardt. Judge Ikuta concurs as to federal law, but concludes that state law does apply to roommates; she would therefore remand for further briefing in district court on the constitutional question. Thanks to How Appealing for the pointer.

UPDATE: Link fixed, sorry about that.

Former Naples Police Chief Steven C. Guibord is charged with criminal defamation, a class B misdemeanor, in Uintah County. Prosecutors allege that he used the name of the city’s current police chief [Mark Watkins] to post derogatory comments on the online memorial pages for the two fallen Border Patrol agents….

Guibord — posing as Watkins — posted comments on memorial pages for two Border Patrol agents that are offensive to law enforcement officers, according to state investigators….

Clark’s page on the Officer Down Memorial Page website included a comment attributed to Watkins that said, “I realize that the Border Patrol is just a security organization, but we, in the police services recognize your sacrifice.”

Rojas’ page contained a similar comment, also attributed to Watkins, that referred to the Border Patrol as a “security business.”

For those in the law enforcement community, being identified as a security guard is considered a serious insult….

The theory is that Guibord’s use of Watkins’ name — which essentially states to readers that Watkins posted the comments — is a knowing falsehood that injures Watkins’ reputation. One could argue that the falsehood isn’t defamatory, because a reasonable reader wouldn’t perceive the statements as that derogatory, and therefore wouldn’t have a dimmer view of Watkins. But given the audience, and the fact that Watkins is a police chief, I suspect that the attribution of the statements to Watkins would indeed injure Watkins’ reputation.

And if this is so, then the criminal libel prosecution would likely be permissible: Though Garrison v. Louisiana (1964) held that criminal libel laws must require a showing that the speech is a knowing or reckless falsehood, Utah Code § 76-9-404 — which says, “[a] person is guilty of criminal defamation if he knowingly communicates to any person orally or in writing any information which he knows to be false and knows will tend to expose any other living person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule” — embodies such a requirement. (For more on this, see I.M.L. v. State (Utah. App. 2002), which struck down a different Utah criminal libel statute.) Though most states have repealed their criminal libel statutes, the remaining statutes, if sufficiently narrow (as Utah’s seems to be), are likely constitutional.

Thanks to Dan Laidman for the pointer.

The requirement in ORS 475.323(2) to return marijuana likely is preempted by provisions of the federal Controlled Substances Act that prohibit the distribution and possession of marijuana….

Based on the reasoning in Emerald Steel [a recent Oregon Supreme Court decision], the officer would violate federal law by returning the marijuana and may be subject to federal criminal prosecution…

Question …: Assume an individual is arrested and has a lawful amount of medical marijuana under Oregon law in his or her possession; the individual is lodged at the county jail; and the jail staff inventories and stores the individual’s marijuana along with the individual’s other personal possessions for safekeeping. If a jail staff member returns the marijuana to the individual upon the individual’s release from custody, does the jail staff member or the individual, or both, violate federal law?

Short Answer: Based on the reasoning in Emerald Steel, the officer would violate federal law by returning the marijuana and may be subject to federal criminal prosecution. The recipient of the marijuana would violate federal law by possessing marijuana and also may be subject to federal criminal prosecution.

Sounds right to me, given the continuing federal ban on marijuana possession and distribution, with no medical marijuana exception. A state may, by excluding possession for medical purposes from state marijuana laws, choose to ignore medical marijuana possession (and distribution, to the extent that is legal under state law). But it can’t affirmatively give medical marijuana to someone, even in the process of returning the property to its owner.

Note: If you want to condemn — or praise — the AG’s analysis, please read the opinion first. The AG’s job, after all, is to describe what the law is, given the existing precedents, not to revert to first principles about what the law ought to be.

Union believes …
3. Anti-Semitism includes but is not limited to:
* Denying, trivializing and misconstruing the Nazi Holocaust. This includes denying the fact, scope, method, or motivation for the genocide of 6 million Jews at the hands of the National Socialist regime. It also includes the accusation that Jews or the state of Israel have fabricated, cause or over-exaggerated the Holocaust.
* Calling for, aiding or justifying the killing or harming of Jews for the sake of their Jewish religion, ethnicity or identity.
* Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such. This includes accusations of Jewish control of the world, government, media, as well as blaming Jews for imagined and real atrocities.
* Questioning the loyalty of Jews to their nation of citizenship simply on the basis of their Jewish identity. This includes claims that Jews as a collective or a community subvert or mislead the general population, as well as the claim that Jews are more loyal to the state of Israel than their country of citizenship.
* Claiming that Jews do not have the same rights as any other ethnic group. This includes the right to free speech, free practice of religion, free use of native languages (i.e. Hebrew, Yiddish, Ladino, etc.) and self-determination.
* Equating Jews or maliciously equating Jewish Foundations of the state of Israel with the Nazi Regime. This includes, but is not limited to equating Zionism with Nazism and claiming that ‘History is repeating itself’ with regards to the Nazi Holocaust and the state of Israel. This also includes using Jewish symbols and religious imagery alongside Nazi symbols and imagery. This does not necessarily include analogies between historical events.
* Using Jewish symbols to antagonize, harass, and intimidate Jewish students.
4. Legitimate criticism of the Israeli government and its actions are not inherently anti-Semitic.

Union resolves …
2. To ensure all anti-Semitic incidents aimed at or perpetrated by LSE students either verbal, physical or online are dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the school and, if appropriate or requested by the victim, the Metropolitan Police.

Now apparently LSE students are supposed to be “dealt with swiftly and effectively” for analogizing Israeli conduct to the Holocaust, or claiming that Israel shouldn’t exist (since I take it that this would be seen as denying Jews’ “self-determination”), “blaming Jews for imagined and real atrocities,” “using Jewish symbols to antagonize … Jewish students,” or claiming that Jews are generally more loyal to Israel than to their country of citizenship. As it happens, I think that such speech is generally bunk. But the point of Western universities, it seems to me, is to be places where bunk can be debunked — not “dealt with swiftly and effectively” through administrative sanctions (or, “if appropriate or requested by the victim,” by the police), including when it isn’t even said in university programs but “online” “by LSE students.”

I should note that I’m skeptical of the claim that either a man or woman is likely to be “doing [one's] morning exercises” when wearing shoes with a 2.5 inch heel, though that surely doesn’t mean that the plaintiff was indeed guilty of disorderly conduct.

Union believes
1. In the right to criticise religion,
2. In freedom of speech and thought,
3. It has a responsibility to protect its members from hate crime and hate speech,
4. Debate on religious matters should not be limited by what may be offensive to any particular religion, but the deliberate and persistent targeting of one religious group about any issue with the intent or effect of being Islamophobic (‘Islamophobia’ as defined below) will not be tolerated.
5. That Islamophobia is a form of anti-Islamic racism.

Union resolves
1. To define Islamophobia as “a form of racism expressed through the hatred or fear of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic culture, and the stereotyping, demonisation or harassment of Muslims, including but not limited to portraying Muslims as barbarians or terrorists, or attacking the Qur’an as a manual of hatred”, …
4. To ensure that all Islamophobic incidents aimed at or perpetrated by LSE students either verbal, physical or online are dealt with swiftly and effectively in conjunction with the School ….

Here’s the problem: What does it mean to “believe[]” “in freedom of speech,” if you can’t express your view that the Koran is a manual of hatred, or that Islam — or Catholicism or Scientology or atheism or any other belief system — should be hated or feared? How you can have a sensible “[d]ebate on religious matters” about the worth or dangerousness of these belief systems if the view that some of the systems are evil is “dealt with swiftly and effectively” by the School and its student government?

Two British tourists were barred from entering America after joking on Twitter that they were going to ‘destroy America’ and ‘dig up Marilyn Monroe’.

Leigh Van Bryan, 26, was handcuffed and kept under armed guard in a cell with Mexican drug dealers for 12 hours after landing in Los Angeles with pal Emily Bunting.

The Department of Homeland Security flagged him as a potential threat when he posted an excited tweet to his pals about his forthcoming trip to Hollywood which read: ‘Free this week, for quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America?’ …

Leigh was also quizzed about another tweet which quoted hit US comedy Family Guy which read: ’3 weeks today, we’re totally in LA p****** people off on Hollywood Blvd and diggin’ Marilyn Monroe up![']

A New York Times blog post suggests the story is indeed correct, and quotes a Customs and Border Protection response that seems to acknowledge at least some details.

If the facts described in these stories are correct, this strikes me as a pretty unsound decision on the government’s part. To be sure, the government has broad authority to exclude people from the country, even based on their speech — see Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972) — and the authority would be properly exercised for people who really do seem to be threats. But I don’t see the reported Twitter messages as being an adequate basis (again, if they were the extent of the basis) to justify the government’s decisions here. Likewise, while I realize that when someone is excluded from the country they have to be held somewhere until they can leave, locking them up with people who likely genuinely are serious criminals strikes me as improper treatment.

UPDATE: I erroneously faulted TSA for the actions here — the agency involved was Customs and Border Protection, which is also part of the Department of Homeland Security. My apologies for the error, and thanks to commenter Decius for the correction.

[M]any in Tunisia, both pious and less so, were taken aback by the brief scene in which God was personified — speaking in Tunisian slang no less. A week later, a crowd of Salafis — the term used for the most conservative Islamists — attacked the house of Nabil Karoui, the station’s director, and he was soon charged with libeling religion and broadcasting information that could “harm public order or good morals.”

The trial, which Human Rights Watch called “a disturbing turn for the nascent Tunisian democracy,” was originally scheduled for Nov. 16, then postponed until January [and has since been postponed again, until April].

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer.

As the Supreme Court has observed time and again, false statements of fact do not enjoy constitutional protection, except to the extent necessary to protect more valuable speech. Under this principle, the Stolen Valor Act does not impinge on or chill protected speech, and therefore does not offend the First Amendment.

One judge dissents from the panel decision, reasoning:

The majority holds that such statements — at least when made knowingly and with an intent to deceive — are categorically beyond the protective universe of the First Amendment. In contrast, I believe that the First Amendment generally accords protection to such false statements of fact. Consequently, because it is a content-based restriction on speech, the Stolen Valor Act must satisfy strict scrutiny. This it cannot do.

The Supreme Court will have the last word on this, when it decides the same question this Term in United States v. Alvarez; but I suspect that the Tenth Circuit judges’ opinions in Strandlof, which are long and detailed, will be considered carefully by the Court.

A person who is a minister, preacher, priest, or other church officer or who is an officer of any corporation or organization, religious or otherwise, may not, other than by public speech or print, urge, persuade, or command any voter to vote or refrain from voting for or against any candidate, political party ticket, or ballot issue submitted to the people because of the person’s religious duty or the interest of any corporation, church, or other organization.

Today, this would be pretty clearly seen as an unconstitutional speech restriction, but apparently in 1913 it was seen as a good government measure. Similar laws were enacted in Nevada and Oregon around the same time.

Already, we have but too much reason to deplore the violence and animosity of party spirit. It has gone far to destroy social intercourse, and all the endearing charities of life, between ancient friends and neighbours, and to substitute political opinions for virtue, intelligence, and patriotism. Already the wise and good of all parties, entertain apprehensions, lest the interests of the people and the duties of government, might be forgotten in the solicitude for party power, and the hatred of political opponents.

It goes almost without saying that religious freedom was not at issue in this case because the First Amendment would not be incorporated against the states until Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), a quarter of a century later.

Actually, that’s not so (even besides the detail of exactly when the Free Exercise Clause was incorporated against the states). Throughout American history, each state has had its own Constitution and, almost always, its own Bill of Rights; before incorporation, the chief protection against state government action was precisely those Bills of Rights. The 1776 North Carolina Constitution, for instance, provided that “all men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience” and that “all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonable or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment.”

As a result, courts before incorporation could and did consider whether state government action violated its state religious freedom provisions, state free speech provisions, and so on. So if the litigants could well have raised a religious freedom argument in this case; if they had, and if the court had concluded that statute did indeed purport to limit church expulsion decisions, the court would have had to consider the constitutional objection.

Whether the challengers of the statute would have succeeded under this counterfactual is a different question. But while nearly all free speech, free press, and religious freedom challenges were generally rejected by early courts, I suspect that this was largely because the restraints were usually well-established and endorsed by tradition, which counted a lot to early courts (and still counts a lot to courts today). A restraint on churches’ ability to break off relations with their members would have been so unusual that I think it might well have been held unconstitutional under the North Carolina Constitution. But of course the court avoid this by concluding that there was indeed no such highly unusual restraint.

The United States Constitution’s provisions for selecting, replacing, and punishing presidents contain serious weaknesses that could lead to constitutional controversies. In this compelling and fascinating book, Brian Kalt envisions six such controversies, such as the criminal prosecution of a sitting president, a two-term president’s attempt to stay in power, the ousting of an allegedly disabled president, and more. None of these things has ever occurred, but in recent years many of them almost have.

Besides being individually dramatic, these controversies provide an opportunity to think about how constitutional procedures can best be designed, interpreted, and repaired. Also, because the events Kalt describes would all carry enormous political consequences, they shed light on the delicate and complicated balance between law and politics in American government.

I much look forward to Prof. Kalt’s visit.

The defendants were indicted under section 2715 of the Code …: “Any person who shall discharge from employment, withdraw patronage from, or otherwise injure, threaten, oppress or attempt to intimidate any qualified voter of the state, because of the vote such voter may or may not have cast in any election, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.”

The indictment charges the defendants with having injured, threatened, oppressed, and attempted to intimidate the prosecutor, a duly-qualified voter, by expelling him from the church of which he and they were members, on account of his having voted the Democratic ticket at the election held in August, 1900. The statute, being penal, must be construed strictly, not by implication, or otherwise than by its strict words and plain signification.

The object of the statute is to secure to the voter the exercise of the elective franchise free from pecuniary loss, personal injury, or physical restraint, neither element of which is embraced in his expulsion from the church. The injury or oppression, if any, done to the voter, was not of a physical nature. While he may have felt mortified or humiliated in being excluded from the fellowship of his associates in the exercise of the rites of that body of Christian believers holding the same creed and acknowledging the same ecclesiastical authority, and to that extent injured and oppressed, yet he suffered no loss of property or gain, nor was he in any way restrained of his liberty or otherwise controlled in the exercise of his personal conduct…. [Quashing of the indictment a]ffirmed.

UPDATE: By the way, it turns out that North Carolina was closely split in 1900, with 54% of voters voting for the Democrats. The expulsion was thus likely based on the particular views of this church, and not on some broad social anti-Democrat sentiment.

FURTHER UPDATE: I just ran across a 1891 Arkansas statute that did ban threat of expulsion from a church based on one’s vote: “No person shall coerce, intimidate or unduly influence, any elector to vote for or against the nominee of any political party, or for or against any particular question or candidate, by any threat or warning of personal violence or injury, or by any threat or warning of ejectment from rented or leased premises, or by the foreclosure of any mortgage or deed of trust, or of any action at law or equity, or of discharge from employment, or of expulsion from membership in any church, lodge, secret order or benevolent society, or by any oath, or affirmation or secret written pledge.” I could find no cases, though, applying this statute.

Aattorney
electricalexamanswers@gmail.com
27.0.111.218
Submitted on 2012/01/14 at 2:41pm
Hi Todd Zywicki,
Mr __ __ like like as attorney cleveland tn.
He is also a law blogger.After he visited your site.He explained some great news from your site.
thanks….

Aattorney
__.__123@gmail.com
27.0.111.218
Submitted on 2012/01/12 at 8:31am
Thank you for your great article.
attorney cleveland tn
cleveland tn attorneys
attorneys in cleveland tn
us attorney cleveland
lawyers in cleveland tn

The first comment included one link to a page on the lawyer’s blog; the second included five such links. When this sort of thing happened (on two occasions, involving two different lawyers), I got in touch with the lawyers, who reported that (1) they had hired some company to get their sites better placed in search engine results, and (2) now that they had learned what the company had done, they were telling the companies to stop doing it (or stopped working with the companies altogether) — understandable, since this sort of thing is a good way to get unfavorable attention online rather than favorable attention.

In any case, I think this might be a helpful alert to lawyers who are hiring someone to try to promote their sites: It’s possible that the promotion might consist of behavior that is par for the course for purported penis enlargement products, but not really in keeping with the sort of reputation that lawyers generally seek to cultivate.

The radical Islamist terror group Boko Haram, believed to have carried out over 500 terror attacks last year, has already claimed responsibility for the violence in Kano. The group, whose name can be translated as “Western education is a sin,” said that the onslaught was a protest against the government’s refusal to release its members from prison.

[Michael Kinsley, Wash. Post, Dec. 18, 1986:] Five men have now taken the Fifth Amendment rather than tell a congressional committee about their role in the Iran arms deal. Moist-eyed Lt. Col. Oliver North says there’s nothing he’d like better than to reveal all, then declines, with a tragic sigh, to say anything. Strong congressmen swoon. Oliver North has a perfect right to take the Fifth. What he has no right to do is to strike a pose of heroic innocence, prattle on about upholding the Constitution and expect anyone to believe him.

[Steve Gerstel, UPI, Dec. 16, 1986:] Although Byrd and Dole both said that Vice Adm. John Poindexter and Lt. Col. Oliver North, two key figures in the scandal, had the right to invoke the 5th Amendment against self-incrimination in their appearances before congressional committees, they made it clear they felt uniformed military men had a higher obligation.

[Dorothy Collin, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 13, 1986:] The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee on Friday angrily accused three military officers who also have served as President Reagan’s national security aides of “deserting their country” by refusing to testify about the secret sale of arms to Iran and the diversion of money to the Nicaraguan contra rebels. “These guys are being praised as national heroes,” Sen. David Durenberger (R., Minn.) told reporters. “If they are such heroes, why are they deserting their country when they are finally being put to the true test?”

[Dimitri Simes, San Diego Union Tribune, Dec. 12, 1986:] I have to confess, despite the obvious pain in Lt. Col. Oliver North’s voice when he was taking the Fifth Amendment before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, that my sympathy for his predicament was limited. Refusing to testify on the grounds of possible self-incrimination is an important constitutional right. Yet nobody is obliged to use it. Certainly not a man who began his statement by emphasizing his devotion to the public service. And certainly not an active-duty officer who had the bad taste to take the Fifth while wearing his uniform with an impressive collection of decorations on his chest. In the moment of trial, both North and his former boss, Vice Adm. John Poindexter, appeared to put their personal well-being above the interests of President Reagan and indeed the interests of the Republic.

I express no opinion on whether such views are right or wrong, either with regard to North and Poindexter or with regard to Patrick J. Cunningham, the federal prosecutor who is taking the Fifth in the Fast and Furious investigation.

Say that a private employer in North Carolina fires an employee for expressing support for a candidate or a proposed constitutional amendment that the employer views as highly reprehensible. Say, for instance, the employee says “Newt Gingrich is the best presidential candidate out there,” though without an express statement that “I’m going to vote for him,” or “I’m glad that a constitutional proposal to expressly forbid same-sex marriage is finally on the ballot.” And say that the employer then fires the employee based on that statement.

Should that be viewed as discharging the employee “on account of any vote such voter may … consider or intend to cast,” and therefore actionable? Or would it likely be viewed as discharge based on the employee’s pro-candidate speech rather than the employee’s perceived intended future vote, and therefore not actionable? (North Carolina is not one of the 16 states that generally bars private employer discrimination based on an employee’s speech or partisan political activity.) I ask this because I’m finishing up an article that would list the state and local laws that ban private employer discrimination based on speech or certain kinds of political activity, and I’m trying to decide whether to categorize this statute as a possible protection for speech supporting or opposing a candidate or constitutional amendment.

An Indonesian civil servant who posted a Facebook message asserting that God did not exist was taken into protective custody after being badly beaten by a mob, some of them his colleagues.

The atheist identified as Alexander, who goes by just one name, now faces five years imprisonment for blasphemy after police officially arrested and charged him on Friday.

The Indonesian Council of Ulema, the Islamic religious authority, reported him over his remarks on a Facebook page he moderated which said: “God does not exist[.]” Mr Alexander, 31, turned up at his government planning offices in Dharmasraya, western Sumatra, on Wednesday to be confronted by a group of men who beat him and then took him to the police.

Thanks to Opher Banarie for the pointer.

The answer is that fear of foreign prosecution does not suffice to allow the assertion of a privilege against self-incrimnination, see United State v. Balsys (1998) (7-2) (Ginsburg & Breyer, JJ., dissenting), at least absent some deliberate attempt by the U.S. and Mexico to use this as a plan for gathering information for a Mexican prosecution. “Concern with foreign prosecution is beyond the scope of the Self-Incrimination Clause,” unless (for instance) “the United States and its allies had enacted substantially similar criminal codes aimed at prosecuting offenses of international character, and … the United States was granting immunity from domestic prosecution for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be delivered to other nations as prosecutors of a crime common to both countries” (in which case “that prosecution was not fairly characterized as distinctly ‘foreign’”).

A bigot named their WiFi signal “F— All Jews and N—-” — and now cops are investigating.

The hateful signal I.D. popped up on the iPhone of a 28-year-old mom inside a Teaneck, N.J. recreation center, where her 3-year-old daughter was attending dance class….

The Teaneck Police Department Juvenile Bureau and the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Computer Crime Unit are investigating it as a “possible bias crime,” Wilson said.

It should go without saying that the WiFi guy is scum, but scum have First Amendment rights, too. He has the First Amendment right to put up a sign in his window saying “Fuck All Jews and Niggers” — or burn a flag on his front lawn, or display blasphemous images where others might see them — though such speech would be understandably offensive to neighbors and passersby. Likewise, he has the right to attach such a name to his WiFi network, even though the name would be visible to neighboring WiFi users.

UPDATE: A commenter suggested that “fuck” could be banned as an “obscenity.” Not so, said the Court in Cohen v. California (1971) (holding that the wearing of a “Fuck the Draft” jacket may not be banned on such grounds). Another suggested that the words are punishable “fighting words.” But as cases such as Cohen and Gooding v. Wilson (1972) have made clear, speech can be punished as fighting words only if it is reasonably likely to lead to an immediate attack by a personally offended listener against the speaker; no such attack is likely when the speaker is not physically present, and can’t be readily identified even by those who want to immediately go and seek him out.

Another commenter suggested that the FCC has extra authority to regulate such speech, under FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978). I don’t think so. First, though the Pacifica decision is quite vague, it focused on traditional radio broadcasting and I doubt that it would be applicable to wireless network names (even if it is survives the Court’s reconsideration of the issue in the pending FCC v. Fox Television Stations case). Second, if the objection is to the racism and anti-Semitism and not just the word “fuck,” that would run afoul of the Pacifica plurality’s acknowledgment that “if it is the speaker’s opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection”; viewpoint-neutral restrictions on vulgarity on radio broadcasting are constitutionally permissible, the Court held, but viewpoint-based bans on bigoted speech would not be. And, third and most important, Pacifica rested heavily on the FCC’s special authority in the area — and, to my knowledge, there is no FCC regulation restricting vulgar WiFi network names, and in any event that does not seem to be the legal avenue that the local police department seems to be pursuing.

Now I’ve long thought that Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (1988) was correct, and that public K-12 schools should be free to control what is published in the school newspaper. If a school wants the newspaper to be its voice, it should be entitled to dictate which subjects and which viewpoints it chooses to carry, even when it speaks through the speech of students.

But what troubles me here is the superintendent’s willingness to label such speech as a form of “bullying,” which is speech that schools often ban even outside the school’s own newspaper, that schools often try to restrict even when it is said outside school, and that legislatures sometimes even try to criminalize. Indeed, the Shawano School District’s bullying policy provides that “bullying” may lead to “warning, suspension, exclusion, pre-expulsion, expulsion, transfer, remediation, termination, or discharge. Disciplinary consequences will be sufficiently severe to try to deter violations and to appropriately discipline prohibited behavior.”

I’ve long been troubled by anti-bullying policies and criminal laws, partly because “bullying” is a vague and potentially very broad term, which could easily be used to refer to political advocacy and expression of religious views. This incident, it seems to me, helps illustrate that some school officials indeed view the term “bullying” this broadly.

Today, Google’s U.S. query page features an anti-Stop-Online-Piracy-Act statement from Google. Say that Congress concludes that it’s unfair for Google to be able to speak so broadly, in a way that ordinary Americans (including ordinary Congressmen) generally can’t. Congress therefore enacts a statute banning all corporations from spending their money — and therefore banning them from speaking — in support of or opposition to any statute. What would you say about such a statute? Again, I limit the question to those who think corporations generally lack First Amendment rights.

(1) Perfectly constitutional, because corporations aren’t people, and thus have no First Amendment rights.

(2) Unconstitutional as applied to Google, because media corporations do have First Amendment rights, though other corporations don’t, and Google should be seen as a media corporation, even as to its query page rather than as to news.google.com and the like.

(3) Unconstitutional, because though corporations aren’t people and thus have no First Amendment rights for purposes of advertising in support of or opposition to candidates, they are people and thus do have First Amendment rights for purposes of other speech.

(4) Unconstitutional, for some other reason.