- U.K.: Whole Earth 3 Nut Butter recalled for not displaying a “contains nuts” warning on the jar [Katie Morley, Telegraph]
- “Community College Reportedly Bans Pro-Second-Amendment Banner with Picture of Rifles” [Eugene Volokh]
- More on the dubious “hate crimes have surged” narrative, from Will Reilly of Kentucky State, who has a new book out [Nolan Finley, Detroit News, earlier]
- In Lamps Plus v. Varela, Supreme Court rules courts should not read class arbitration mechanisms into arbitration agreements that do not explicitly provide for them [Morrison & Foerster; Joshua Dunlap, Pierce Atwood/JD Supra; Charlotte Garden, SCOTUSBlog] More: Federalist Society teleforum with Prof. Henry Allen Blair:
- “Judge tosses law firm’s suit seeking $9.75 million bonus fee in Chicago divorce case” [ABA Journal]
- Hot courtrooms and immigration judges: “A 10°F degree increase in case-day temperature reduces decisions favorable to the applicant by 6.55 percent. This is despite judgments being made indoors, ‘protected’ by climate control.” [Anthony Heyes and Soodeh Saberian via Tyler Cowen]
9 Comments
“U.K.: Whole Earth 3 Nut Butter recalled for not displaying a “contains nuts” warning on the jar”
Remember folks, every time you see a warning label that makes you think “nobody could be that stupid”, the label is only there because somebody WAS that stupid.
“contains nuts” –this goes for the courts sometimes too. By the way, peanuts are not a “nut” which can only be from trees.
On the banning of gun images–it is the leftist view that words are violence, as are images, so we will now ban all images of guns. They have objected to artwork that painted native americans in a realistic or even positive light (eg a warrior).so we will revise history to erase all mention of Indians. There is not end to it.
Re: hot courtrooms.
That one seems a candidate for Tyler Vigen’s “spurious correlations”:
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
The finding could have just as easily read
“A 10°F degree _decrease in case-day temperature reduces decisions favorable to the applicant by 6.55 percent.”
Regarding the picture ban—how much of a right to people have to resist the violation of their civil rights?
Also, why don’t these fascists fear 18 USC 242?
RE: Community College Reportedly Bans Pro-Second-Amendment Banner with Picture of Rifles
Later in February, the College said they made a mistake:
“Juan Gutierrez, head of public relations for OCC, said the decision to ask for the flag to be removed was a misunderstanding of board policy No. 3530. The policy pertains to weapons, and images that use their likeness.”
http://www.coastreportonline.com/campus_news/news/article_35185766-3944-11e9-8063-438d6cac2f7b.html
The banner has not been deemed to be against the policy. In fact tonight, (May 1) the YAF was hosting an event with Allen West and in honor of the topic of his talk being the Second Amendment, the YAF was selling t-shirts with the same crossed weapons logo” from the banner. The shirts were on sale at tables prior to the event and at the event.
That being said, I don’t think the “explanation” solves anything and was made to deflect attention from what happened. The rule that bans “any facsimile of a firearm, knife, or explosive, are prohibited on District property” still doesn’t address the issue that images cannot stab, shoot or blow things up.
As Eugene Volokh notes, the irony is that the college mascot is a pirate, and the logo shows the pirate with a knife inbetween his teeth.
“Gutierrez said the school needs to have a conversation about the spirit of the policy to see if it needs clarification in its writing or the administrator’s implementation of the policy.”
Oh yes, let’s have a conversation. By all means. The conversation should be “one-way”: as in, “You know nothing about the First Amendment–go learn some law.” What a self-parody.
I don’t think facsimile was originally intended to cover images. The person who wrote is was likely thinking of physical 3d fakes that while not the real thing could be used to intimidate someone who didn’t know they were fakes.
[…] around to the Supreme Court’s ruling last week (Lamps Plus v. Varela, earlier here and here) that courts should not read class arbitration mechanisms into arbitration agreements that are […]