About a decade ago, lawprof Danielle Citron pushed for the notion of Cyber Civil Rights. Her argument was as simple as it was circular. When a woman expressed her opinion on the internet, she was too often met with a critical response from men.

Sometimes the response was threatening, most notably in words of sexualized violence. Sometimes it was just critical, but in tones that hurt women’s feelings or made them feel uncomfortable. The upshot was that this response caused women to self-censor, to silence themselves, rather than be “bullied” or “threatened” by disapproval.

This, Citron contended, violated the free speech of women, as they could not express themselves online without discomfort. The remedy was that women should be entitled to express their opinions, and men should respond with praise or nothing. The fix to provide women with their civil rights was to deny civil rights to men. Continue reading →

Texas Representative Sheila Jackson Lee introduced a bill in the House of Representatives to create a commission to study how to address the issue of reparations, which has garnered the attention of some Democratic candidates for president.

Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), the head of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), suggested that action on a reparations measure sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) is all but certain, with Democrats now in control of the lower chamber and the idea gaining prominence on the national stage.

2020 hopefuls including Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) are backing the legislation. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), another presidential candidate, is a co-sponsor.

And on Wednesday, former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas) endorsed the idea, a pivot from his earlier statement of opposition to reparations payments.

Continue reading →

As a tactical matter, one would think that a serious rebellion would use surprise. After all, if you know in advance of a rebellion, the powers that be would be positioned to thwart it, put it down. But not this rebellion. Instead, it issued a press release.

Media Advisory

For Immediate Release
April 11, 2019

Extinction Rebellion:

Rebel Actions in 30+ Cities

April 15 – 22

There’s something about a media advisory for “immediate release” that doesn’t strike me as particularly rebel-ish. So what are they rebelling against? Continue reading →

When the protest was directed at law professor, house dean and member of the Harvey Weinstein defense team, Ron Sullivan, the response from the Harvard administration was a climate survey.

But when the voice silenced was Harvard University President Lawrence S. Bacow, that went too far.

Perhaps the conclusion by progressive political science prof Jeffrey Sachs that the free speech crisis is over was premature? Continue reading →

In her Newsday column, Cathy Young offers a provocative take on the vexing question of what’s wrong with the progressive contention that identity politics is the proper lens through which to view what’s wrong with our world.

For progressive activists and commentators, criticism of identity politics is a coded way to tell racial, ethnic and religious minorities, women, gays and other people who are not white males to stop demanding equal treatment. They argue that the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the gay rights movement and other forms of activism that have made America a fairer and better country were focused on identity. And there’s a long history of other, more traditional identity-based alliances: Jewish Americans and Italian-Americans and other groups in this country have organized to combat prejudice against them.

Is there a Polish-American Hall in your town? What about a Sons of Italy club? Are these not “identities,” even if the word doesn’t appear in the title? Why was it right and normal when it was about your affinity group, but wrong when the identity at issue is black or gay or Muslim? Continue reading →

Dr. SJ was watching the news on CBS, then came in to tell me what just happened on the tube. A former prosecutor just said that it was Lori Loughlin’s fault. The first plea offer is always the best offer, so if you don’t take it, they’re going to add more charges. That’s the price you pay for turning down the deal. She gave me a smirk, as if to say, “See? Even Gayle knows that the truth is you better take the deal or you’re going down.”

And, indeed, that was the message. But it was an acceptable message this time, because everybody knows Aunt Becky was guilty. Loughlin was a pretty good choice of villain, as she was a privileged white celebrity whose crime was to seize opportunity from the deserving by using her wealth and privilege.

But the message? Capitulate to the government when charged with a crime, don’t fight and take the plea they offer, or else. For those who are inclined to believe that anyone charged with a crime is guilty, this message will be uncontroversial. Continue reading →

Was she pandering to a black audience? She wasn’t born and raised in the ghetto. She went to college. She’s demonstrated the capacity to be articulate, even if what comes out of her mouth may fall shy of knowledgeable. But when she got up to speak at Rev. Al’s National Action Network, suddenly Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez was talking like AOC from the hood.

Some took her to task for pandering to a black audience, using words, inflections that might be expected from some black people, but were called the equivalent of “blackface.” Continue reading →

I did not pay much attention to the trial of Mr. Manafort. When the jury came back for the government on eight of eighteen counts, I wasn’t particularly surprised.[i] After all, these were essentially tax and bank fraud cases (with one count of failure to register as a foreign agent). The government does not bring those document-heavy charges unless it thinks the basic case, while larded with weak counts, is a slam dunk.

From the reporting prior to the verdict, commentators hazed Judge Ellis for pushing the government hard to get the trial over and otherwise being a meanie to the prosecutors.[ii] But aside from this sniping, I yawned.

Then, the judge sentenced Manafort to “only” 47 months in prison for the 70-year-old defendant. The heavens rose up and hell vented noxious gas. Life plus cancer was the proper sentence, and don’t tell us otherwise, the Trump-haters yelled. I yawned once again. Continue reading →

The Center for the Administration of Criminal Law at New York University Law School held its 11th Annual conference, with a directed focus on a hot and controversial issue:

Plea Bargaining: Reforming An (Un)Necessary Evil?

They were kind enough to invite me to be on their first panel, at the time knowing that only Third Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas would be the moderator. As it later developed, it became apparent to me that participation would not be a good use of my time and attention, and so I subsequently begged off. Continue reading →

As Walter Olson argues, the scientific evidence that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup weed killer, does not cause cancer is strong, if not irrefutable. Not being qualified to render an opinion, I demur, but that hasn’t stopped judges from letting the cases proceed, or juries from finding for plaintiffs. The law has always had a troubling relationship with science.

But Monsanto, maker of the chemical, found a curious mechanism to fight back, inside the courtroom yet outside. Much as anyone who uses the internet is painfully aware the advertisements pushed at them are miserably misdirected (no, Google, I already bought the widget, so it’s less than enticing to include a widget ad on every pop-up ad). But an alternative is available, as Monsanto figured out. And it was not shy about using it.

Plaintiff attorney Steven Brady with the San Francisco-based Brady Law Group, said Monsanto has been sending in-app pop-up ads to people inside the Alameda County Administration Building, where the trial is being held. Continue reading →