What to make of this video? As has become the norm, activists of greater passion than knowledge will try to spin it to fit into their paradigm, in this instance to show how all cops are inherently violent and abusive. Maybe they just don’t know what they’re talking about. Maybe they do, but realize that the unduly passionate are more than happy to condemn their enemies whether they deserve it or not.
But do the cops here deserve it? Continue reading
Sometimes, I “starred” posts on my RSS feed to look back later, whether to see how they held up or just to remember what the trend of the time was. And a confession, one of the blogs on my feed was that of marketing guru, Seth Godin. Was he insightful about people in a way that a lawyer wasn’t? As a marketer, was it not his job to understand people better than others? And as one of the top voices in marketeering, surely he knew something.
So this was a post of his I starred. Continue reading
It’s not as if monkeypox suddenly materialized out of nowhere, some heretofore unknown disease that emerged as a novel blight. Not only was it a known disease, but one for which a vaccine already exists. Great news, right? Yes and who knows.
Ever since monkeypox started to sicken thousands of people worldwide this spring, two big questions have loomed: Why is a virus that has never managed to spread beyond a few cases outside Africa suddenly causing such a big, global outbreak? And why are the overwhelming majority of those affected men who have sex with men (MSM)? Continue reading
Will Smith released a video of him “apologizing” to Chris Rock for bitch-smacking him at the Oscars. Was he sorry? Was it a “good” apology or some phony apology intended to salvage Will Smith’s reputation after his outrageous act?
For criminal defense lawyers, remorse has long been something of an art form, as defendants are given an opportunity to speak before sentence is imposed and, with certain exceptions, often advised that an expression of remorse will be more persuasive with the judge, the person imposing sentence, than other options.
Typically, a defendant will say the words that we’ve discussed, practiced, occasionally scripted because there is nothing scarier than a defendant speaking in court where he could at any moment go off script, say whatever words seem appropriate to him in the moment and undo every effort to save his skin. If the apology goes well, the prosecutor will often argue that the defendant isn’t sorry he did the crime, but sorry he got caught as reflected in his long career of putting his own self-interest above that of society. Everyone in the room is familiar with the dance steps. Sometimes, a defendant is sincerely sorry and the judge is moved. Sometimes, not. Still, we try, because why not?
If Will Smith was serious, why did he try to shift the burden onto Chris Rock to be ready to speak to him? Rock has nothing to do with Smith’s apology, which is entirely on Smith’s shoulders. What was he thinking, or was he thinking at all?
At Persuasion, former Penn prawf and current Third Circuit judge Stephanos Bibas writes of the “corruption of apology,” an act once meant as a means of reconciliation that has since been morphed into a coerced ritualistic requirement, or else.
But today’s public practice of scripted apologies looks very different. These days, universities and corporations compel robotic confessions from students and employees who give offense just to avoid a lawsuit or bad PR. They want to save their skins by stifling scandal. But Twitter mobs are not sated by performative groveling or even sincere apologies.
Apology y 2.0 looks little like the old-fashioned apology 1.0 that we have long strived for. It cares nothing about sincerity and carries no hope of forgiveness. The bastardized version threatens free thought, the possibility of redemption, and the integrity of the real thing.
The point of an apology was to express remorse so as to move past whatever error or misdeed occurred. Judge Bibas speaks of Apology 1.0 as an act of sincerity, although I can still remember teachers on the playground ordering one kid to apologize to the other kid for beaning him with a stick, after which they shook hands and ran away as if nothing happened. But Judge Bibas offers a tripartite test under Apology 2.0.
First, there is sometimes no agreed-upon wrong, but rather a contested norm.
Second, the wrong is usually not personal to the masses who demand an apology and seek to punish.
[T]hird, there is often no effort to converse with the wrongdoer, let alone speak face to face.
While each of these conditions may apply under certain circumstances, it’s unclear whether they’re overarching conditions or just situational. There are times one can never be sure whether an expression will result in a million gnats sending you lovey emojis or hatey emojis. If you say “women are strong,” that’s a good thing, right? Except you neglected to expressly assert that transwomen are women, so you’re transphobic. And what about non-binary birthing persons, you shitlord? Not only are the rules ever-shifting, but the hated thing uttered yesterday is the bravest thing ever uttered today, until it’s loathed tomorrow, because we “evolve.”
So Smith hit Rock. Isn’t this between the two of them? Well, maybe the fact that he did so on the Oscars with the cameras running and eyeballs watching changes the equation. But even if no one saw it, would there be no cry of either outrage or adoration? Remember, Smith was “defending” his wife who has alopecia, and could just as easily have been a huge hero as villain. It’s not that the masses can’t take whatever side their high priestesses tell them to take, but that they never had a horse in the race and are playing the game to enjoy a little side power. After all, silence is complicity makes great cover for joining a mob to destroy whoever you’re told is evil.
And finally, to whom is the target of the mob’s hatred apologizing? For what? If Smith wanted to apologize to Rock, he didn’t need to film it and put it on insta for all to see. Just call Rock. Send him an email. Text him. But this was a performance for the benefit of others and had nothing to do with Rock, who was merely a prop in Smith’s comeback video.
Bibas proffers the syrupy advice to apologize if you believe you’ve done wrong “because it’s the right thing to do.” But if you don’t believe you’ve done anything wrong, then the judge goes all Tom Petty.
Coerced apology will bring neither you nor your community redemption. Instead, it will encourage the bullies. And if we speak what is in our hearts, without regard to what is on our Twitter feeds, we will be able to look ourselves in the mirror. When someone tries to force you to apologize, without first convincing you that you made a mistake and wronged someone, just say no.
This is part of the talk defense lawyers have had with defendants forever. They explain to us what happened, how it happened, and there is often a pretty reasonable justification for their committing a crime. In their world, it was neither evil nor heinous, but a matter of survival. If they didn’t shoot first, they would be the dead body in the gutter. Is the judge suggesting it’s better they die than draw first?
We talk them off the ledge, telling them that they’re not wrong, but it’s still not going to help them with the judge, who will invariably be certain that he knows better and is the god-like arbiter of good and evil. Say the magic words as best he can and maybe the judge won’t add another 121 months to the sentence for your having the integrity to not back down. As for Will Smith’s apology, he should have asked a criminal defense lawyer to help him with the script.
Between the hosts and their law prof commentators on MSNBC, the only remaining question is which prison will house Trump after his conviction. Mind you, that Trump has yet to be indicted is hardly an issue. Larry Tribe argues it’s a fait accompli, and who would doubt a Harvard law prof, right Dersh? And yet, the steamroller of justice they passionately believe is about to run all over Trump has yet to budge.
Should it? Damon Linker argues that, guilty as Trump may be, his prosecution would be inescapably viewed as political and put the law, rather than Trump, on trial. And he’s got serious doubts whether the law would be acquitted. Continue reading
There is little question that a public school teacher can’t decide to reject the school’s curriculum and teach students that the world is flat. Maybe that’s what the teacher belives. Maybe that’s what the teacher’s religion mandates. So what? The teacher isn’t in the classroom to push his own agenda or religion, but to do a job for which he is hired, retained and paid. And that’s to teach what the district tells him to teach, right?
But that’s about the substance of what’s taught, not the language. Is it the same? The ACLU argues that it is in its amicus brief in Vlaming v. West Point School Board. The case involves a teacher who, despite a district non-discrimination policy, refused to use the pronouns of a transgender male student. Continue reading
In an odd case out of Minnesota, in which the plaintiff in a libel action following a #MeToo accusation of rape from a former girlfriend of a couple years was held by the trial judge, as a matter of law, to not have raised a triable issue of fact when he denied that sexual contact was non-consensual. Unsurprisingly, the male was black and the female was white.
Johnson is a dance instructor and event promoter. Freborg was the director of a bachelor’s program in nursing and assistant professor at Augsburg college, until she relocated to California. She worked as a staff nurse for 17 years before receiving a doctorate in nursing from Augsburg in 2011, after which she spent ten years as a professor.
I left my parents’ home at 17 and the idea of ever, but ever, going back to live with them was never considered. Wasn’t that the point of growing up, to strike out on your own and to establish yourself as an independent adult, for better or worse? Perhaps it was, but not anymore.
This year’s rapid inflation rates have meant higher prices for virtually everything, including rent, food and even partying. So what comes next may not be much of a surprise: Nearly a third of Americans between the ages of 18 and 25 — part of what is collectively known as Gen Z — live at home with their parents or other relatives, according to a new study, and they considered it a long-term housing solution.
In fashioning the plethora of laws triggered by a post-Roe legal regime, most states have sought to carve out some sort of safe haven for the outlier medical conditions, whether ectopic pregnancy, fetal death or any other tragic circumstance arising during pregnancy. Some, mind you, are so dogmatic that they leave no room to move, and there’s little to say about such puny minds.
Some take comfort in what they argue are their exceptions, their safety valves, as if to prove they aren’t the heartless religious zealots they’re accused of being. “Look at what our law says. See?” Except that wasn’t how law worked before and it isn’t how law works now, when it’s applied to an invariably shifting set of facts that requires a high level of education, experience, specialized knowledge and discretion. Continue reading
Concern for the environment has long been important around Casa de SJ. We’ve recycled from the beginning, cleaned litter from roadsides and do most of our driving in a Prius, as we have for most of the 21st Century. It’s not because it’s a good-looking pod car. We have a deep abiding respect for the natural beauty that was once this country. And while we’re not climate scientists, we are fully prepared to rely on and believe those who are that global warming is real and a critical danger to humanity.
So why, then, do climate activists make me want to do unspeakable things to their arms? Continue reading