Archive for 2013

On the Zimmerman acquittal: recommended reading

Seven columns/posts I recommend, without necessarily agreeing in full with their contents:

* Eric Zorn, “20 Things I Think About the George Zimmerman Case,” Chicago Tribune (pre-verdict)

* William Saletan, Slate (case “was about misjudgment and overreaction — exactly what we’re doing now to the verdict.”)

* John Steele, Legal Ethics Forum, on prosecution’s post-trial interviews.

* Jonathan Adler, New York Times “Room for Debate” (don’t use federal “hate crimes” statute to give prosecutors second bite at apple).

* Jeralyn Merritt, “The Legacy of the George Zimmerman Trial” (and Merritt’s writings on the case generally), TalkLeft.

* Ta-Nehisi Coates, The Atlantic (and archive).

* Dan Markel, PrawfsBlawg (“even though over-charging is routine,” it’s “an ethical problem hiding in plain sight.”)

From FIRE, more on that Office of Civil Rights “blueprint”

At the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, Greg Lukianoff offers “Four Key Points About Free Speech and the Feds’ ‘Blueprint’“. He notes that overbroad notions of harassment have been the key driver of university speech codes and disciplinary action against dissenting and unpopular speakers, that DoJ and ED lack credibility in their new claim that the rules are only meant to encourage reporting as distinct from discipline, and that the implications go far beyond sexually oriented speech or flirtation to include wide swaths of controversial speech having nothing to do with sex. More: “OCR Descends into Self-Parody in Front of Incredulous College Lawyers” [Robert Shibley, FIRE; Chronicle of Higher Education] and Sen. John McCain demands answers.

Separately, FIRE has kind words for my new Commentary article on this controversy:

In the July/August issue of Commentary, Cato Institute Senior Fellow Walter Olson puts the Departments of Education (ED) and Justice’s (DOJ’s) May 9 Title IX compliance “blueprint” in its historical context and emphasizes several of its alarming repercussions….

Olson continues, explaining that the purported distinction between reporting speech and punishing speech under OCR’s definition of harassment is negated by other troubling side effects of the blueprint:

This is a distinction without a difference. To begin with, the process itself amounts to punishment: Once people realize that a certain type of joke or gossip can get them summoned involuntarily into a grievance process of indefinite length and destination, many will get the message and shut up. Second, in defining such speech as harassment while claiming the intent is merely to record and document but not to suppress it, OCR is departing from the commonly shared meaning of the word harassment as something objectionable that should be stopped.

It’s also covered in Italian-language ThinkNews (“il magazine ‘Commentary’, uno dei più prestigiosi mensili di analisi della vita americana.”) Earlier here, etc.

Medical roundup

Banking and finance roundup

  • Employer mandate not the only impractical reg being postponed: “IRS Delays Implementation of FATCA” [Paul Caron; earlier]
  • Foreign banks whipsawed betwen U.S. terrorism-finance liability and privacy laws in home countries [Daniel Fisher]
  • “NY Fed Official: Let’s ‘Facilitate’ The Seizure Of Underwater Loans” [Kevin Funnell]
  • “If anything, the data suggest [home] ownership … inversely correlated with political stability and rule of law.” [Michael Greve]
  • Revisiting the Randy and Karen Sowers structuring case [Kathleen Hunker, Bell Towers; earlier]
  • “Can we improve payday lending?” [Andrew Sullivan]
  • When if ever should the SEC pay bounties to attorneys to snitch on their clients? [Prof. Bainbridge]

Does Silver tarnish if exposed to sunlight?

Last year New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s income from prominent personal injury firm Weitz & Luxenberg, where he is of counsel, was between $350,000 and $450,000, a disclosure eagerly awaited by some Gotham reporters since details about Silver’s financial arrangement with the firm have previously been kept under wraps. Silver also has a relationship with Counsel Financial, which lends money for the furtherance of lawsuits. “Critics have suggested that the two-year gap between the old and new reporting requirements gave Silver enough time to front-load his salary from Weitz & Luxenberg before the new rules went into effect, thus making it appear he has a smaller salary when he had to finally publicly disclose it. Those close to Silver have dismissed such speculation.” Silver’s Assembly salary is $122,500. [New York Daily News; Ira Stoll]