Glenn Greenwald calls it “special pleading,” the sudden recognition and concern for a wrong when it touches you or yours.

The objections voiced by Roiphe to this list are ones that have been expressed by many genuine supporters of the #MeToo movement: namely, the accusations it contains are unvetted and unverified; anyone can add accusations on the list while remaining completely anonymous; and because the list purportedly was intended never to be published (a claim Roiphe questions), those accused of misconduct may never know that they’ve been accused and, in all events, have no ability to challenge or dispute the accusations made against them, ones which could nonetheless severely harm their reputations or even destroy their careers. Roiphe’s objection to the list is, in essence, one of due process: It enables people to be punished with no evidence of guilt, no guarantor of reliability, nor any meaningful opportunity to contest the accusations.

But, as Greenwald notes, with some amazement, Katie Roiphe’s attempt at analogy to a make-believe list of Muslims reveals her special pleading. The list is real, called the “no fly list,” and she doesn’t even know it exists. How sincere could she be about due process?  Continue reading →

It’s hard to admit you’re wrong. So David Leonhardt doesn’t. The title given his op-ed is It’s Time to End the Scam of Flying Pets, is curious, given that it’s mostly an apologia for scammers.

One day, we may all owe a debt of gratitude to Dexter the peacock.

At Newark Airport last weekend, a woman tried to board a United Airlines flight with Dexter. She described him as her emotional-support animal. But given that peacocks are large birds and there is not much evidence of their therapeutic benefits, United said no, Dexter could not board.

Since when did the size of a bird define the comfort it brings to someone? Sure, a peacock seems ridiculous, because, well, that’s how it seems. But is it any less ridiculous than other animals? Continue reading →

The #MeToo movement is accomplishing what sexual harassment law to date has not.

Catharine MacKinnon is being far too modest. Much as the movement may be the culmination of social factors that caused, and gave us, the current administration, she’s dedicated her life to making those factors happen, creating the narrative that allowed that confluence of events, beliefs and feelings that would result in a time when extrajudicial unproven allegations by women would, without more, destroy men.

Her first goal was the campus. but her baby has now grown to take its place in the real world. She must be very proud.

Sexual harassment law — the first law to conceive sexual violation in inequality terms — created the preconditions for this moment. Yet denial by abusers and devaluing of accusers could still be reasonably counted on by perpetrators to shield their actions.

Continue reading →

At the New York Times, Jose Del Real did a story about the other side of Stanford lawprof Michele Dauber’s personal jihad, the Persky Recall movement. Kind of. Not really, actually, and that’s the reason for this post.

The headline makes a promise:

Activists Try to Recall Judge in Stanford Sex Attack Case. Some Say They’ve Gone Too Far.

Perhaps the problem is that nobody told Del Real that the attacks on Judge Aaron Persky have been going on since Day 2, as he writes as if there is something new happening here. It’s unclear whether, “nearly two years later,” the new issue is the recall or the opposition to the recall. I suspect the latter. Continue reading →

The woman who revealed Harvey Weinstein’s debauchery and abuse of power as star-maker saw an extraordinary fall from grace after being confronted by a transgender woman at a Barnes & Noble talk.

Sides aligned. Some call the transgender woman, Andi Dier, a heckler who attacked her. Some say she challenged McGowan, who lost it. Allegations were made that Dier was a paid provocateur, and that McGowan feared that Weinstein was trying to assassinate her. Continue reading →

One of the most common retorts to arguments against retribution in the legal system is that “we,” meaning criminal defense lawyers and often judges, “would feel differently if it was our child.” And, indeed, we would. Who wouldn’t understand why Randall Margraves went for Larry Nassar?

Had I been in his position, it’s hard to say that I would have shown his restraint. Touch my child? Like most fathers, or mothers, I would take a bullet for my kids. And I would give one as well. Continue reading →

What if there were a bunch of people sitting in a cell unaware of a court ruling that the law under which they were convicted had been held unconstitutional? What if they were sitting at home, having served their sentence, believing themselves to be branded as convicted criminals in perpetuity for a crime that was no longer a crime?

The system isn’t really built to address its own failings. That’s left to the players.

When the Texas Tornado, Mark Bennett, prevailed in Ex Parte Lo, holding part of Texas’ online solicitation of a minor statute, Texas Penal Code Section 33.021(b), unconstitutional, his client  was obviously thrilled. Yet, Lo wasn’t the only person involved. What of others convicted for the same offense, now not an offense? Continue reading →

At Prawfsblawg, Megan La Belle raises an interesting question with regard to Burger King’s net neutrality commercial.

In short, BK used a Whopper analogy to try to explain the debate surrounding the FCC’s recent repeal of the net neutrality rules.  This is interesting, first, because it adds a new and unexpected voice to the net neutrality discussion.  Tech companies, of course, are going to weigh in on the net neutrality debate, although the major players will apparently be less affected by the change than some might expect.  But the fast food industry’s interest in net neutrality is not as clear.

That brings me to the second reason why BK’s video caught my attention.  When I first watched it I wondered, is this commercial speech?

Continue reading →

The murder of 17-year-old Jorge Collazo was a big deal at the time, and cops wanted to close it. And they did, convicting Richard Rosario. The only problem was that Rosario wasn’t the killer. After 20 years, he was freed due to the efforts of the Innocence Project, after the TV show Dateline made Rosario a 12-episode cause. After the system failed him on every level.

Now he’s suing* the city and its cops. But there was a conspicuous hole in the narrative of how the conviction of an innocent man went so very wrong.

Police officers were “under pressure to close the case quickly,” the complaint continues, and “deliberately manipulated witnesses and prosecuted Rosario for the murder despite lacking any reliable evidence of his guilt.” Continue reading →

If I applaud all the good things and condemn all the bad things, you know what that says about me?

To my astonishment and delight, the phrase ‘virtue signalling’ has become part of the English language. I coined the phrase in an article here in The Spectator (18 April) in which I described the way in which many people say or write things to indicate that they are virtuous.

Sometimes it is quite subtle. By saying that they hate the Daily Mail or Ukip, they are really telling you that they are admirably non-racist, left-wing or open-minded. One of the crucial aspects of virtue signalling is that it does not require actually doing anything virtuous. It does not involve delivering lunches to elderly neighbours or staying together with a spouse for the sake of the children. It takes no effort or sacrifice at all.

Continue reading →