- Tributes to Milton Friedman at 100 [Bryan Caplan, Andrew Coulson/Cato]
- Funny “Chicken Offsets” idea is now live courtesy Ted Frank, more economically sound than most boycotts [earlier on Chick-Fil-A furor here, here, etc.]
- Cass Sunstein, now departing from OIRA, a laissez-faire extremist? Maybe to the oft-quoted Prof. Steinzor [Steve Hayward; earlier here, etc.] “Did he quit, or was he nudged?” [David M. Wagner, cf. also Jonah Goldberg]
- “Truck owner wants DEA to pay up after botched sting” [Houston Chronicle via Radley Balko]
- Vaccine critic’s Texas action: “Andrew Wakefield’s libel suit against Brian Deer: Dismissed!” [Orac/Respectful Insolence, earlier]
- “Nanny state at the playground” [Andrew Sullivan, Cabinet magazine]
- Because criminalizing questions of origin has worked so well for exotic woods: Reps. Ed Markey, Barney Frank seek federal criminal penalties for misstatements on seafood origin [Boston Globe]
Archive for August, 2012
“Federal asset forfeiture continues to skyrocket under Obama”
No mercy to errant vehicles, bank accounts, pharmacy shelves or medical marijuana dispensaries: “The Justice Department’s asset forfeiture fund under President Obama is the largest it’s ever been, having grown from $500 million in 2003, to $1.8 billion in 2011, according to a new report from the GAO.” [Mike Riggs, Reason]
P.S.: Scott Greenfield on rational forfeiture in Chicago.
“French Demand Compensation for Plantagenet Murder”
The French town of Angers might be 500 or so years too late, though. It asks a bit hopefully for the British crown jewels as compensation. [Lowering the Bar]
U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
President Obama, along with a number of Senators and longtime ADA advocates, have urged rapid Senate ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, hailed in some quarters as an “international ADA”. Sen. Jim DeMint and other senators have objected to the super-fast-track proposed ratification schedule, arguing that the measure might affect the rights of homeschooling families caring for disabled children and that, in general, opponents deserve a right to be heard. If Senators take a closer look at the ambitious views of the treaty held by various disabled-rights and international-law advocates — one advocate says it could revolutionize the legal rights of the mentally ill, for example — they might find further reasons for caution. [hearing]
Free speech roundup
- Libel law might paradoxically increase job security of ABC’s much-criticized Brian Ross [Mickey Kaus]
- “If you want to publicly criticize Argentina’s government, make sure all your tax filings are in order.” [NYT via Caron]
- Pentagon Papers case, Meyer v. Nebraska included: “Top ten libertarian Supreme Court decisions” [Damon Root, Reason]
- Criticizing Thai royalty? “Lèse Majesté: 16th Century Censorship Meets 21st Century Law” [Marie-Andree Weiss, Citizen Media Law]
- “Government can’t censor book promotion”: Cato files amicus brief in Trudeau diet-book case [Ilya Shapiro and Kathleen Hunker, Cato; related]
- “I was sued for libel under an unjust law” [Nature reporter Quirin Schiermeier, UK, via BoingBoing]
- Florida seen as worst of many states (even worse than Pennsylvania?) at discouraging SLAPP suits [Marc Randazza, Citizen Media Law]
“Court Revives Discrimination Lawsuit against … the EEOC”
Some commentators would have it that employers can stay out of legal trouble if they just resolve not to discriminate. But the federal agency in charge of these matters, which must count as about as much of an expert as anyone, itself can’t seem to avoid getting sued. The complaint charges disability discrimination and retaliation. [WSJ Law Blog]
Claim: recitation of prayer at public meetings caused Ontario man $5,000 damages
Peter Ferguson says the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer at Grey County meetings not only violated the national Charter, but caused him “anguish, discrimination, exclusion, rejection and loss of enjoyment of life” to the tune of C$5,000. [National Post]
Chicken scraps
- I joined hosts Mark Newgent and Andrew Langer of RedMaryland on their BlogTalkRadio show Monday evening to talk about the Chick-Fil-A furor, the efforts of politicians in Boston and Chicago to use regulatory permissions to push the company around, and the resulting lessons for political and economic freedom; I went on to discuss my efforts to rally opinion in favor of Maryland’s new same-sex marriage law. You can listen here or here (UStream).
- Relatedly, here is Ted Frank’s comment: “Every chicken sandwich you don’t buy deprives anti-gay organizations of approximately $0.0001. Probably less than that. Or, you can do what I did and donate some real money that might actually make a difference to [Marylanders for Marriage Equality] to campaign about the gay marriage initiative on the ballot in that state.”
- “Unwise…won’t work.” The New York Times, oft indignant on other topics, seems rather tepid in criticizing the various city halls’ attacks on speech;
- No united flock: the restaurants in question, many run by strong-minded independent franchisees, seem to be politically a various bunch themselves.
- Speaking of non-united flocks, I think the ACLU’s Illinois affiliate may have a thing or two to teach its Massachusetts affiliate. Following the Chicago alderman’s threats to block the restaurant, ACLU of Illinois attorney Adam Schwartz was both forceful and correct: “what the government cannot do is to punish someone for their words. … We believe this is clear cut.” On the other hand, Carol Rose of the ACLU of Massachusetts strangely dismissed the Boston controversy as “little more than a war of words – which is protected by the First Amendment as core speech,” as if the Mayor had merely subjected the sandwich chain to a volley of verbal abuse, without more. Perhaps Ms. Rose wrote the piece while glancing only at Mayor Menino’s official letter to Dan Cathy, which stays generally within “war of words” territory, and was unaware of the July 20 coverage in the Boston Herald, which quoted Menino thus: “If they need licenses in the city, it will be very difficult — unless they open up their policies.” That’s no more a mere “war of words” than “If you run that editorial, I’ll have you arrested.”
- More coverage: Tom Palmer Cato podcast; Hans Bader of CEI First Amendment analysis; David Boaz, Roger Pilon and Brad Smith at Politico; must-read Glenn Greenwald column; earlier here, etc.
- And: “By handing Chick-fil-A a valid grievance, Menino and his ilk rallied popular support for the company” [Josh Barro, Boston Globe]
- Yet more: Pressure group friendly to Chicago alderman filed antidiscrimination complaint based on chain execs’ speech [Volokh; HuffPo (“negotiation”)] Some further thoughts on where the First Amendment’s relevant in the whole affair, and where it isn’t [Jim Huffman, Daily Caller]
NRA versus property and contract rights
As a strong defender of the Second Amendment, my views more often than not align with those of the National Rifle Association, so I’m especially disappointed to see the NRA stepping up its campaign against other important elements of liberty, specifically the property- and contract-based liberty of employers to insist (if they so wish) that employees not bring guns to company premises, including parking lots. My Cato colleague Roger Pilon lays out the issue and rightly upbraids chief NRA lobbyist Chris W. Cox (not the former California Congressman) for misunderstanding the constitutional issues. Earlier on the NRA’s blind spot here, here, and here (with reader disagreement). [Corrected to fix misidentification of Cox]
Police didn’t furnish adequate care to gunfight adversary
“The mother of a Washington state parolee who accidentally shot himself to death during a gunfight with San Francisco police last year has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against the city.” [Henry K. Lee, San Francisco Chronicle]