FREE SPEECH | Should lies be protected as free speech? / Banning protests

[nycfan]

 

[nycfan]

“… That's actually totally separate from the Jimmy Kimmel issue because nothing happened to him“

 

[nycfan]

“… Rosenzweig was fired, according to multiple sources, because of the negative things he said about Trump on a social media blog before he became a federal prosecutor in Miami. When he was working for the prominent law firm Kobre & Kim in Washington during Trump’s first term, Rosenzweig posted criticisms of the president starting in 2017 — posts that were recently brought to the attention of the Justice Department.

…
Rosenzweig worked on dozens of complex cases as a prosecutor in the economic crimes section, which focuses on healthcare fraud, money laundering and other financial schemes. Of late, Rosenzweig was deeply involved in a Medicare fraud case that was scheduled for trial in early October in Miami federal court, so his dismissal by Bondi will likely cause disruption and delay. His termination shocked several colleagues, who took note of the terrible timing and pettiness of his firing, calling it another “frogmarch.” They also said his loss would be a significant blow to an office that has witnessed a “brain drain” of veteran talent over the past year….”


Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article312247303.html#storylink=cpy



“… Rosenzweig wrote an opinion piece for The Hill in 2016, which likewise identifies him as the author of the “Hosts of Error” blog. In the piece, Rosenzweig argued:“Donald Trump would be a disastrous President in a myriad of unprecedented ways. He has a hair trigger in a world with infinite provocations. He threatens to upend the post-war security regime that has thus far averted world war. And his explicitly racist policies on immigration, law enforcement, and combating foreign terrorism threaten domestic unrest and foreign upheaval. The only way to brush aside such profound threats to our national security and tranquility is to elevate the importance of something else.”

 

[BlueSteel]

In his eight months as Veep, JD Vance has proven to be nothing more than a human Fleshlight.

 

[Carolina Fever]

“… Rosenzweig was fired, according to multiple sources, because of the negative things he said about Trump on a social media blog before he became a federal prosecutor in Miami. When he was working for the prominent law firm Kobre & Kim in Washington during Trump’s first term, Rosenzweig posted criticisms of the president starting in 2017 — posts that were recently brought to the attention of the Justice Department.

…
Rosenzweig worked on dozens of complex cases as a prosecutor in the economic crimes section, which focuses on healthcare fraud, money laundering and other financial schemes. Of late, Rosenzweig was deeply involved in a Medicare fraud case that was scheduled for trial in early October in Miami federal court, so his dismissal by Bondi will likely cause disruption and delay. His termination shocked several colleagues, who took note of the terrible timing and pettiness of his firing, calling it another “frogmarch.” They also said his loss would be a significant blow to an office that has witnessed a “brain drain” of veteran talent over the past year….”


Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article312247303.html#storylink=cpy



“… Rosenzweig wrote an opinion piece for The Hill in 2016, which likewise identifies him as the author of the “Hosts of Error” blog. In the piece, Rosenzweig argued:“Donald Trump would be a disastrous President in a myriad of unprecedented ways. He has a hair trigger in a world with infinite provocations. He threatens to upend the post-war security regime that has thus far averted world war. And his explicitly racist policies on immigration, law enforcement, and combating foreign terrorism threaten domestic unrest and foreign upheaval. The only way to brush aside such profound threats to our national security and tranquility is to elevate the importance of something else.”

 

[nycfan]

WSJ Editorial Board is extremely conservative but at times they have (sometimes gingerly) criticized Trump and MAGA excesses when most of right wing media is a cheering section, as in this case (as always, any critique of the right is peppered with insults to the left):



—> https://www.wsj.com/opinion/charlie...c?st=8uXVvS&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

“The limits of free speech and cancel culture will be percolating through the federal courts, and a new case offers a censorship warning to the political right. A South Dakota court last week issued a temporary restraining order in a professor’s lawsuit challenging his firing for comments about Charlie Kirk’s assassination (Hook v. Rave).

On Sept. 10, shortly after Kirk’s murder, University of South Dakota art professor Phillip Hook posted his views on social media. “I don’t give a flying f*** about this Kirk person,” Mr, Hook wrote. “I wasn’t paying close enough attention to the idiotic right fringe to even know who he was.” He added: “I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better.”

… On Sept. 12, Speaker of the South Dakota House Jon Hansen shared a screenshot of the first post and called for Mr. Hook to be fired for the “disgusting rhetoric.”

South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden chimed in, posting that “The Board of Regents intends to FIRE this University of South Dakota professor, and I’m glad.”

… South Dakota is a public university which makes Mr. Hook’s termination a government punishment for speech. Mr. Hook wrote his screed from home, and the court said the school hadn’t “produced evidence to indicate the speech had an adverse impact on the efficiency of the [University’s] operations.”

The First Amendment was written to protect speech that would otherwise be silenced by political opponents. That includes hateful outbursts by jerks and scoundrels. In granting the temporary restraining order, the court noted the First Amendment “prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions for engaging in protected speech.”

… In recent years conservatives have been the main target of censors on campus. See Ilya Shapiro at Georgetown, Amy Wax at the University of Pennsylvania and Joshua Katz at Princeton. The legislatures of blue states would love nothing more than legal permission to fire professors for private remarks. [Projection?]

The few conservatives on campus faculties, take heed.

Mr. Hook is typical of all too many fools in the U.S. academy. But he wrote the comments from home on a political subject, which is his right as a citizen. If he can be fired for that, so can every free thinker on the right.

——
I will note that it seems they are implying an exception for what a prof may say on campus or in class.

 

[superrific]

I really dislike the scholarship of Ilya Shapiro and think he's a poster child for the intellectual shortcuts libertarians must take, but I don't want him fired. He's OK. He has principles, and they aren't directly hateful.

Josh Blackman? I don't know how that guy has a tenured position. He produces so little worthwhile scholarship. I also know him a little. I wasn't impressed. He's closer to a guy I want fired, but he's not there, even as insipid and MAGA-cheerleading as he is.

Amy Wax? That bitch has long deserved to be fired.

 

[akillesheel]

Amy Wax? That bitch has long deserved to be fired.

it is insane that the WSJ opinion frames Wax as somebody who would be a target for "private remarks" when just the list of things she has said to her students is more than sufficient cause to think that in a just world she'd be nowhere near the legal field, let alone still getting paid and set to teach again soon at one of its most prestigious institutions.

 

[superrific]

it is insane that the WSJ opinion frames Wax as somebody who would be a target for "private remarks" when just the list of things she has said to her students is more than sufficient cause to think that in a just world she'd be nowhere near the legal field, let alone still getting paid and set to teach again soon at one of its most prestigious institutions.

I just looked up her bio. She clerked for Mikva. Sigh. Mikva was a major progressive figure in his time. She has both an MD and JD from Harvard. An M. Phil from Oxford.

And then she started doing . . . that with her life.

 

[altmin]

In his eight months as Veep, JD Vance has proven to be nothing more than a human Fleshlight.

 

[nycfan]

—> https://wapo.st/3IvTzUR

 

[nycfan]

—> https://wapo.st/3IvTzUR

“… A federal trial that ended Tuesday revealed for the first time the story behind the images, showing how the government assigned a special team to target Ozturk and other pro-Palestinian activists, laying the groundwork for their highly unusual arrests.

Ozturk had committed no crime, yet her detention was a priority for the new Trump administration.

U.S. officials used the immigration system in unprecedented ways to covertly research and detain noncitizen students, relying on an investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security whose work traditionally has focused on crimes such as drug smuggling and human trafficking.

…
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston ruled that the push to target Ozturk and other students was blatantly unconstitutional. The White House vowed to appeal the decision.

The bench trial — decided by a judge rather than a jury — generated thousands of pages of depositions, court transcripts and filings that provided a detailed picture of the machinery that led to the arrests.

Among the findings: White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a top ally of President Donald Trump and architect of his mass deportation campaign, spoke with senior officials at the State Department and DHS more than a dozen times in March to discuss student visa revocations.

… HSI arrested Ozturk because she co-wrote an op-edwith three other people in the Tufts University student newspaper more than a year earlier. The piece criticized the university’s unwillingness to divest from companies with ties to Israel.

While the Trump administration publicly accused Ozturk of engaging in activities “in support of Hamas,” an internal State Department memo noted that there was no evidence that Ozturk had engaged in any antisemitic activity or indicated any support for terrorism.…”

 

[nycfan]

“… A federal trial that ended Tuesday revealed for the first time the story behind the images, showing how the government assigned a special team to target Ozturk and other pro-Palestinian activists, laying the groundwork for their highly unusual arrests.

Ozturk had committed no crime, yet her detention was a priority for the new Trump administration.

U.S. officials used the immigration system in unprecedented ways to covertly research and detain noncitizen students, relying on an investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security whose work traditionally has focused on crimes such as drug smuggling and human trafficking.

…
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston ruled that the push to target Ozturk and other students was blatantly unconstitutional. The White House vowed to appeal the decision.

The bench trial — decided by a judge rather than a jury — generated thousands of pages of depositions, court transcripts and filings that provided a detailed picture of the machinery that led to the arrests.

Among the findings: White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, a top ally of President Donald Trump and architect of his mass deportation campaign, spoke with senior officials at the State Department and DHS more than a dozen times in March to discuss student visa revocations.

… HSI arrested Ozturk because she co-wrote an op-edwith three other people in the Tufts University student newspaper more than a year earlier. The piece criticized the university’s unwillingness to divest from companies with ties to Israel.

While the Trump administration publicly accused Ozturk of engaging in activities “in support of Hamas,” an internal State Department memo noted that there was no evidence that Ozturk had engaged in any antisemitic activity or indicated any support for terrorism.…”

“… Earlier this year, Peter Hatch’s bosses came to him with an urgent new assignment. Hatch heads the intelligence unit at Homeland Security Investigations, overseeing hundreds of analysts who support DHS investigations into crimes such as drug smuggling, money laundering and terrorism.

Hatch testified in the federal trial that senior leadership at HSI directed him to develop reports on student protesters, looking for potential criminal activity and violations of immigration law and paying special attention to anything that could be considered “pro-Hamas.”

About 10 HSI analysts were diverted to a so-called “tiger team” devoted to the effort, including from units that normally focus on counterterrorism, counterintelligence and cybersecurity, Hatch said …

Before this year, Hatch had never been asked to prepare reports on protesters, he testified.

For this unusual assignment, one source above all was key: The team relied heavily on the website of Canary Mission, an opaque, anonymous pro-Israel group that says it documents individuals who “promote hatred of the USA, Israel and Jews,” focusing primarily on college campuses.

… Armstrong, the senior consular official at the State Department, testified at trial in July that he revoked Ozturk’s visa because she was “against Tufts’ relationship with Israel” and “associated” with Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine.

Alexandra Conlon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, drew Armstrong’s attention to the sentence in the memo saying there was no evidence Ozturk was involved in any of the activities of the suspended group. “I really don’t think she deserves to be besmirched further,” Conlon said….”

 

[nycfan]

 

[superrific]

But but but, I thought government pressuring social media companies was blatant censorship that the GOP would never stand for.

Again: NOTHING that these assclowns say is in good faith. NOTHING. They have no principles except their own self-aggrandizement and lust for power.

 

[lawtig02]

The bigger issue to me is why are the identities of ICE agents confidential? We're paying their salaries. It's not like they're doing undercover work. They shouldn't be assaulted or abused because of their jobs (as repugnant as those jobs might be), but I can't think of a good reason they should be anonymous.