Mediaboss Marketing

Eric Rasmusen is a tenured business school professor at Indiana University Bloomington; for many years, he's posted a stream of "racist, sexist, and homophobic views" to his personal social media, including the idea that women do not belong in the workplace (he often refers to women by slurs like "slut" when discussing this and other subjects); that gay men should not be allowed in academia because of their insatiable sexual appetites and propensity for abusing students; that Black students are academically inferior to white students and do not belong at elite academic institutions.

Indiana U is a state college and bound by the First Amendment's prohibition on discrimination on the basis of speech and Rasmusen has confined his odious speech acts to his personal social media, apparently refraining from voicing these views on campus while acting in a professional capacity. As a result, it's the view of the university provost that he cannot be fired, despite her characterization of Rasmusen's views as "vile and stupid" and "stunningly ignorant." Provost Lauren Robel has also said that her own respect for the First Amendment is such that she would not fire Rasmusen for his personal views, even if she could.

However, Robel and the university acknowledge that Rasmusen's views call into question his impartiality and also expose students to a reasonable belief that they could not be fairly graded or assessed by Rasmusen. Accordingly the university has undertaken a pari of extraordinary measures to protect students without trampling the First Amendment.

1. All classes that Rasmusen teaches will also be offered by another instructor so that any student can chose to take the class without coming into contact with Rasmusen.

2. Rasmusen will be required to grade all assignments on a double-blind basis, and when that is not possible, he will be closely supervised by another business school prof who will ensure that he does not practice discrimination.

The provost goes on to say that this is not exhaustive, and the university is prepared to take further steps to protect students and faculty members from Rasmusen's bigotry.

Rasmusen's publications include articles like "Are Women Destroying Academia? Probably." He has posted a detailed rebuttal to the provost's article.

I think the most interesting thing about this is that Rasmusen was tenured: for decades after the rise of Reaganism, a lot of people assumed that right wingers who dabbled in eugenics, white supremacy, dominionism and other medieval/crypto-fascist ideas were just colorful provocateurs LARPing Archie Bunker. It turned out they were deadly fucking serious. They were a sleeper cell from Gilead, and now they're finished masturbating over the Turner Diaries and have broken cover and plan on enacting a full-blown Dominionist white theocracy.

The First Amendment is strong medicine, and works both ways. All of us are free to condemn views that we find reprehensible, and to do so as vehemently and publicly as Professor Rasmusen expresses his views. We are free to avoid his classes, and demand that the university ensure that he does not, or has not, acted on those views in ways that violate either the federal and state civil rights laws or IUs nondiscrimination policies. I condemn, in the strongest terms, Professor Rasmusens views on race, gender, and sexuality, and I think others should condemn them. But my strong disagreement with his viewsindeed, the fact that I find them loathsomeis not a reason for Indiana University to violate the Constitution of the United States.

On the First Amendment [Lauren Robel/Indiana University]

After Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans was shock doctrined through a massive, neoliberal transformation, the centerpiece of which was a replacement of the public school system with a system entirely made up of charter schools.

20 years ago, Illinois was rocked by a scandal after the widespread practice of locking schoolchildren, especially those with disabilities or special needs, in small, confining boxes was revealed. The teachers who imprisoned these children argued that they did so out of the interests of safety -- that of the imprisoned students, of the other []

Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy is a marvellous interdisciplinary research center, and it is advertising for "visitors" for one-year stints: postdocs, policy fellows and visiting IT professors.

It should be obvious to anyone who has ever opened up a web page that the route to a career in Silicon Valley does not necessarily travel through a traditional university. Even so, budding coders need guidance and the right expertise. Thats where the Treehouse Project comes in. Its built for self-starters and contains a []

What does it take to be an effective project manager? These days, its more than just amorphous people skills. Methodologies like Agile, Scrum and Six Sigma lay out a proven roadmap for completing big jobs not just in software but in any industry. If youve got the will to master them, the Premium 2020 Project []

Craft is a buzzword that gets thrown around a lot these days, but what does it actually mean? Sadly, its all too easy to fake craftsmanship when looks are all you have to go by. On the other hand, you know from the first cut whether youre handling a good chefs knife or not. And []

Original post:
Indiana University Provost: The First Amendment says we can't fire our notorious bigot professor, so here's what we're doing instead - Boing Boing

President Trumps use of Twitter to shape the narrative is notorious. True to form, he was tweeting fast and furious during the impeachment hearings. Negative testimony about the presidents interactions with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky repeatedly incited his aggressive retorts, prompting speculation about whether his outbursts may be viewed as witness intimidation. Citing the First Amendment, Trump claims he is free to say what he pleases, including name-calling and denigrating witnesses. But is it criminal witness intimidation?

A number of recent cases have examined the use of social media platforms to conduct witness intimidation. In 2018, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the witness tampering conviction of a woman who posted on Facebook the name of a potential witness in her brothers criminal trial who she warned not to get upon the stand, posting watch out little snitch. The Supreme Court too has had occasion to consider the criminality of Facebook posts suggesting that the defendants soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Even beyond our prolific president, the issue of improper use of digital media to harass or intimidate has seeped into the political realm. Earlier this year, House Representative Matt Gaetz (R-Fl) was censured for tweets made on the eve of congressional testimony from former Trump attorney, Michael Cohen, suggesting that unfavorable information about Cohen would be released if he testified.

Recent impeachment-related tweets from Trump are not the first public statements from the president to be called into question. Critics previously argued that the president was obstructing justice by dangling a pardon to his former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, during the Mueller investigation. Tweets expressing sympathy for Manafort and referring to him as a brave man in contrast to his personal attorney, Michael Cohen, who cooperated with authorities and was referred to by Trump as a coward were viewed as a subtle message to Manafort to stay strong and possibly reap the benefits ala a presidential pardon.

Trumps tweets about the Whistleblower who filed the complaint that has instigated the impeachment hearings also have been questioned. A September 26, 2019 tweet likened the Whistleblower to a spy and further stated You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart? Right? With spies and treason, right? We used to handle them a little differently than we do now. This tweet prompted the Whistleblowers attorneys to send a letter to the Acting Director of National Intelligence expressing concern for their clients anonymity and safety.

Most recently, a tweet from President Trump blasting Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine, as she testified has been called witness intimidation. After hearing Trumps statement that everywhere she went turned bad, Yovanovitch herself stated that it was intimidating. Democrats opined that the Presidents tactics would, and were intended to, scare off other potential witnesses.

The Law of Witness Intimidation

Knowingly using intimidation or threats to influence testimony in an official proceeding, such as a proceeding before Congress, is a crime under Section 1512 of the United States Code. Whether a presidential tweet storm might be considered a violation of this statute centers on a few questions: 1) when can a tweet or public statement implicate Section 1512; 2) when are tweets or statements considered a threat under federal law; and 3) what is the requisite criminal intent?

Section 1512 has been applied to social media posts. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the conviction under Section 1512 of Delexsia Harris, who took to Facebook two weeks before her brothers trial for murder. Harris posted threatening statements and depictions of guns and bombs pointing at police cars alongside broad references to individuals identified as potential witnesses in the case. (886 F3d 1120) Harris also named one witness directly. Stating that the question of whether a communication is a threat is a factual question to be resolved by a jury, the Court upheld the jurys determination that a reasonable recipient, familiar with the context of the communication, would interpret [Harriss posts] as a threat.

In Trumps case, Democrats argue that his tweet made during Ambassador Yovanovitchs testimony could have had an effect both on Yovanovitch, who was still in the process of providing information to Congress, as well as on other potential witnesses. The Second Circuit has held that the language of Section 1512 does not require the intimidating statement or threat be directly made to the threatened individual. (US v. Veliz, 800 F.3d 63 (2d Cir. 2015)). The statute states that a violation occurs when the defendant engages in wrongful conduct toward another person with the intent to influence any person in an official proceeding. Accordingly, a threat to X which causes Y to withhold information, qualifies as witness intimidation so long as the person making the threat had corrupt intent.

Section 1512 requires proof of specific corrupt intent to intimidate or persuade a witness either not to testify or to alter his or her testimony. Reasonable minds differ on Trumps motivation. The witness intimidation claims made against Representative Gaetz earlier this year suggest that even where the motivation to intimidate or persuade arguably is clearer, it may not rise to the level of criminality.

The night before Trumps former lawyer, Michael Cohen, was scheduled to testify before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, Gaetz, a staunch defender of Trump, tweeted Hey @MichaelCohen212- Do your wife & father-in-law know about your girlfriends? Maybe tonight would be a good time for that chat. I wonder if shell remain faithful to you when youre in prison. Shes about to learn a lot . Gaetz defended claims that he was threatening Cohen by stating that he was only challenging the veracity and character of a witness. No criminal charges were brought against Gaetz and an investigation into his behavior by the Florida Bar resulted only in a written censure. In this highly-charged political environment, evidence of criminal intent may be difficult to prove.

Interaction with the First Amendment

The First Amendment may add another layer of protection to unbridled tweeters. The Supreme Court had occasion to consider what distinguishes a true threat from speech protected by the First Amendment in Elonis v. United States in 2014. The Court reviewed Eloniss conviction for transmitting in interstate commerce a communication containing a threat to injure the person of another under 18 U.S.C. 875(c). Specifically, Elonis made a series of posts on Facebook suggesting that his soon-to-be ex-wife should be killed. Other posts contained threats against police, the FBI and a kindergarten class. On appeal, Eloniss lawyer argued the conviction should be overturned because Elonis lacked the requisite specific intent to injure, was just venting about his personal problems, and did not mean to threaten anyone.

The question as phrased by the Supreme Court was whether the statute required that the defendant be aware of the threatening nature of the communication and, if not, whether the First Amendment required such a showing. Unfortunately, the Courts opinion did not resolve the question directly, but took issue with the Third Circuits application of a reasonable person standard a civil tort concept to determine the defendants criminal intent, stating that wrongdoing must be conscious to be criminal. The conviction was reversed and the matter was remanded to the Third Circuit. Thereafter, the Third Circuit found the error to be harmless and affirmed the conviction because Elonis testified at trial that he knew his posts would be viewed as threats, thereby satisfying the knowledge element of the crime.

Conclusion

Courts and attorneys are going to have to contemplate how the use of Twitter and other social medium platforms increasingly used as a forum for political and commercial speech must be analyzed under criminal statutes. Like any other form of communication, courts correctly have determined that these types of public statements may be viewed as threats subject to criminal charges. Whether the conduct is criminal will depend upon first, whether a reasonable person familiar with the context within which the statement was made would view it as a threat, and second, whether the speaker intended to intimidate. Certainly, the words and the speakers power and ability to make good on the threat will play a part in that analysis.

To read more fromRobert J. Anello, please visitwww.maglaw.com.

Go here to read the rest:
Intimidation or Free Speech: Are Trump's Tweets Witness Tampering? - Forbes

Photo: Theo Wargo/WireImage,

Netflix and Ava DuVernay have formally responded to a lawsuit over DuVernays series When They See Us. The lawsuit, filed by firm John E. Reid and Associates, claimed that a scene in When They See Us defamed an interrogation technique developed by the firm. In a Chicago district court filing, Netflix said the lawsuit is both unconstitutional and dangerous. The dialogue at issue is fully protected speech under the First Amendment and is not actionable as a matter of law, reads the filing. Permitting this case to go forward would not only be contrary to law, it would have a profoundly chilling effect on core First Amendment speech.

The dialogue in question is one line in a When They See Us scene, which depicts an investigator confronting a detective over the potentially coercive interrogation of a suspect. The investigator suspects that the detective has used the Reid Technique, and goes on to say that the technique has been universally rejected. John E. Reid and Associates specifically takes issue with the characterization of the technique as universally rejected. In the filing, Netflix notes that the dialogue was both a protected opinion under the First Amendment, as well as literary hyperbole. When They See Us centers around the case of the Central Park Five. The full suit against Netflix and DuVernay can be read here.

Read more:
Netflix and Ava DuVernay Respond to When They See Us Lawsuit - Vulture

Life was hard in the American West of old. Water could be scarce, infrastructure was non-existant, the natives were sometimes deadly, and the law could be hours or even days away. But hard times breed hard people, and the people who settled the West tamed the West. What was once a wild frontier soon grew into America's economic engine of resource production and technological innovation.

Life can be hard in modern Florida, too. Think of the sweltering heat, streets built on top of sinkhole sands, Yankee immigrants who think they can wrestle alligators, and foreign tourists determined to cut in front of you in line at Hollywood Studios. And yet, Florida Man not only survives, but thrives. Could it be that Florida Man will stand at the forefront of the next great American Renaissance?

Let's dig into the headlines and find out, on another exciting...

We'll begin as we always do with...

380-pound Florida man arrested after hiding drugs in belly button.

More:

Investigators found a 28-gauge needle on Skelly, and he was arrested on charges of possession of methamphetamine, The Smoking Gun reported, citing an arrest affidavit.

Police searched Skelly before he was booked at Pinellas County Jail.

It's always in the last place you look, but I'm thinking I must be a horrible person for wondering if it was a two-man job to get to that guy's belly button.

The report says that Florida Man "was possibly dealing with mental health issues and/or appeared to be dealing with the effects of some substance." I say, embrace the healing power of "and." Florida Man "has not yet been identified and has not been charged with anything," which makes me think maybe there was something more wrong than just a bad batch of bath salts.

I hope Florida Man Gets the help he needs. As for Florida Woman, she's feeling friskier than usual, as you're about to see.

Multiple times? I'm thinking after the second or third bite, I'd be asking the waiter to bring the check around, and maybe a tetanus shot.

Police: Man identified himself as Brad Pitt during arrest.

Heh:

When police approached and detained the suspect, the owner of the vehicle said he didnt know the man and that he didnt give him permission to be inside it.

Police said the man didnt want to tell the officers his real name and proceeded to give them fake names, such as Brad Pitt, Nancy Pelosi, Marco Rubio and even Donald Trump.

When police questioned him, the man said he was under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

"Or?" As in, he couldn't remember which?

By the way, police eventually were able to establish his true identity: Florida Man.

The scene in my head is right out of one of Elmore Leonard's more absurd novels.

Florida Men break into new Fernandina Beach hotel, do $500,000 damage.

Based on the mugshot, this is definitely a "it seemed like a good idea at the time" kind of guy.

Longtime readers know I'm a sucker for a good animal story, even in Florida, where the animals can be palmetto bugs the size of miniature poodles, or meth-addled alligators.

So isn't this just lovely?

Florida Man demands bank teller give him less money during alleged robbery.

Florida Woman arrested trying to spend night, cook food in Daytona Walgreens.

Florida Man Accused Of Stabbing Woman Over Underdone Potato.

How a Florida Woman Who Won $13 Million Lottery Jackpot Ended Up in Prison.

Florida man driving with open beer blames the wind for blowing cocaine into his car.

And now, back to our regular Florida Man news...

It is possible to completely understand this occurrence without endorsing it.

Likely, even.

How a sance and a football game led to a Florida man getting kicked in the groin.

What could one possibly add to that?

How good does that sound? Sort of a Florida variation on a Manhattan. Will make a couple this weekend and try to remember to report back to you.

Thanks, Florida Man!

Florida man jailed for cursing out judge in letter sparking First Amendment fight.

This was a letter. Florida Man didn't disrupt a legal proceeding or get in the judge's face or anything like that. He just wrote a letter to a public servant in search of redress of grievances. The law is on Florida Man's side this time, or at least it ought to be.

Elsewhere...

WELL, UBER DOESN'T TAKE CASH: Florida man accused of taking taxi to and from bank robbery.

Raging fire consumes mans house then he steals a cop car, Arkansas police say.

A headline like that can mean only one thing: Florida Man has exactly one week to reclaim his crown of glory in time for the next exciting...

The rest is here:
Florida Man Friday Saves the First Amendment | VodkaPundit - PJ Media

The Constitution of India was first amended in 1951 for the welfare of scheduled castes, tribes and backward classes and its latest amendment was for providing 10 per cent quota for economically weaker sections in educational institutions and in appointments.

These details were provided by a Rajya Sabha publication titled 'Rajya Sabha : The Journey since 1952' which has chronicled all the amendments. Their details were shared by the Rajya Sabha Secretariat in a statement.

The government is celebrating 'Constitution Day' or 'Samvidhan Diwas' on Tuesday in the Central Hall of Parliament to mark the 70th anniversary of the adoption of the Constitution by the Constituent Assembly.

President Ram Nath Kovind, Vice President M Venkaiah Naidu, Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will address the MPs on the occasion.

The first amendment of the Constitution in 1951 was to empower the state to undertake affirmative action for the advancement of any socially and economically backward classes or categories of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes by restricting the application of fundamental rights.

The latest 103rd amendment passed in 2019 enabled 10 per cent reservation for the economically weaker sections in educational institutions and in appointments.

Since the first Constitution amendment made by provisional parliament in 1951, when Rajya Sabha was not in existence, the Constitution has been amended 103 times so far, the Upper House Secretariat said.

Of these 103 amendments to the Constitution, the 99th amendment for setting up of a National Judicial Commission was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, it noted.

A maximum of 32 amendments were related to the matters of states including reorganisation, transfer of territories, inclusion of some languages in the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution, etc.

Twelve amendments were aimed at extending reservation for SCs, STs and Anglo-Indians in Parliament and state legislatures, eight each related to reservations in educational institutions and employment, including in promotions. Another six amendments related to taxation including introduction of the Goods and Services Tax (GST).

Since coming into being in 1952, Rajya Sabha has passed 107 constitution amendment bills out of which one was negatived by Lok Sabha while four have lapsed on its dissolution, the Upper House Secretariat said.

Accordingly, Rajya Sabha has been a party to 102 Constitution amendments. And the only Bill passed by the upper house in 1990 for proclamation of President's Rule in Punjab, was negatived by the lower house.

Lok Sabha has passed 106 constitution amendment bills.

Read more from the original source:
Indian Constitution: First amendment, and the last - Deccan Herald