There's lots of confusion about the Angry Cheerleader (A.C.) case argued yesterday. It echoes the 1A confusion you often see on this site.
Does the fact that A.C. doesn't have a "right" to be a cheerleader mean discipline for off-campus speech is appropriate? No. Here's why: /1
Even if a student doesn't have a right to play sports or to participate in any selective extracurricular activity, they still may not be denied access to the activity for unlawful reasons. Easy example, you can't say cheer is for "whites only." /2
Or to take an easier free speech example than A.C.'s profane outburst. Would you see the case the same way if A.C. filmed herself at a Trump rally or wearing Biden swag? The state can't say cheer is for red or blue only. /3
Thus, the right in question is not some fictional "right" to cheer but rather the very real right to be free of government punishment for protected speech. Schools have some leeway to restrict disruptive speech on campus. But how far does their reach extend? /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A short thread--if you've litigated/defended the First Amendment for any length of time, you know that there is always an issue ("emergency") of the day that puts creative minds to work trying to figure out ways to grant gov. more power over speech/expression. /1
The creative minds who sought to support/defend university speech codes tried hard to extend the definitions of "fighting words" or the scope of anti-harassment regulations to ban subjectively-defined "hate speech." They largely failed. /2
The drug war, which has exacted a huge cost in civil liberties, has also deeply impacted the First Amendment. Does Employment Division v. Smith come out the same way if it's not dealing with Peyote? Is Morse v. Frederick decided the same way without a reference to marijuana? /3
Last week @NancyAFrench and I published a comprehensive report detailing how a huge Christian camp enabled a superpredator named Pete Newman. This week, I describe how it tried to silence a victim who wanted to tell his story (thread): frenchpress.thedispatch.com/p/kanakuk-kamp…
The camp claims it has worked cooperatively with the "overwhelming majority" of victims. But that qualification is important. When one victim (and family) balked at signing a non-disparagement agreement. They received a legal threat (/2):
When the parties still failed to agree on the terms of a non-disparagement agreement, the camp twice sought a court order to force them to sign. It even sought to fine the family more than $26,000. The camp failed (/3):
How Sidney Powell's legal team just clowned a huge chunk of right-wing media, a thread. /1
If you're Powell's lawyers, you've got a huge challenge. You have a client who spent weeks stating provable falsehoods that were amplified and spread to millions of Americans through some of America's most popular outlets for news and commentary. Not great. /2
You can't admit to the lie. That would essentially admit "actual malice." So, what are you left with? Let's call it the "obviously crazy claim defense." In other words, her claims might LOOK like factual assertions, but they're so over-the-top they're really something else. /3
I truly appreciated Justin's piece. These are hard, complicated questions, and the more thoughtful voices engage, the better. I respect Justin a ton and always consider his arguments carefully. I've got a short response. /1
Justin asks, "What is the connection between the killer and toxic purity theology and culture?" I described toxic purity theology as having two characteristics: 1) It treats sexual sin as defining; and 2) places a burden on women to protect men from their own desires. /2
What about the killer? According to the available evidence, he 1) believed his sexual sin threatened his salvation; and 2) he needed to eliminate female temptation. In other words, the connection between the killer and the theology was his own reported words. /3
Sadly, @TuckerCarlson frequently misleads his audience. Tonight is no exception. He lied about me, and it's worth exposing how. He starts at the 5:24 mark in the clip below. Apart from the various personal insults, he accuses me of hypocrisy /1:
The basic case is that I'm a hypocrite for writing this article about Trump's Syria policy in 2018 while supporting Biden's strikes again Iranian-allied militias that had killed a Filipino contractor and wounded five Americans. Here's my 2018 piece: /2 nationalreview.com/2018/04/trump-…
Tucker of course counts on the fact that his audience trusts him. His audience trusts Tucker and his team to do their homework and tell the truth. Yet if they did their homework and told the truth, they'd say my position is clear and consistent, then and now: /3
War powers/law of armed conflict Twitter leaves a bit to be desired. So--in the aftermath of Biden's strikes--here's a quick legal explainer on the different kinds of military actions and the different constitutional/legal justifications, in case you're interested. /1
First, it's important to remember that presidents of both parties have largely ignored the Constitution and have stretched their Article II commander-in-chief powers up to and past the breaking point. So this thread is about what should be, not what is. /2
Presidents SHOULD seek congressional approval before initiating hostilities against foreign regimes/entities not engaged in active hostilities against the U.S. Examples--Obama attacking the Gaddafi regime, Trump attacking Assad regime. /3