- Romney’s view of government benefits as politically hypnotic mirrors a “gratitude” fallacy advanced by many progressives [Julian Sanchez, Cato]
- Ascendancy of “constituent services” on Hill is a bad sign on many levels [Fred Bernstein, NYT]
- Dems vs. ACLU: platform vows to obliterate Citizens United [Damon Root]
- Union-backed “Protect our Jobs Amendment” (POJA) ballot proposal, constitutionalizing “collective bargaining” concept, would take Michigan down path of Italian labor law [Emilio Rocca, CEI “Open Market”]
- Isn’t it sad there’s a major political party contemptuous of science? Actually there are two [Alex Berezow/Hank Campbell, RCP]
- Yale unions defeat uniformed-worker unions in battle to take over New Haven government [NH Independent] SEIU almost had Connecticut-5 House seat in pocket, till FBI arrested candidate’s finance manager [PSI]
- Checking up on the outcome of a 1995 class action co-repped by attorney Barack Obama [Hans Bader]
Prop 37 and GMOs, cont’d
The California proposition [earlier here, here, and here] is now running into a wave of disapproving editorials in California newspapers, including the Sacramento Bee. Tyler Cowen administers a well deserved rebuke to tendentious NYT food-policy columnist Mark Bittman [Marginal Revolution and followup] Also check out the analysis by Jonathan Adler [“How Not to Label Biotech Foods,” New Atlantis] and Baylen Linnekin [“California’s GMO Labeling Law Isn’t the Answer,” Reason] And in California Political Review, John Hrabe notes my Daily Caller piece in the course of observations about the ambition of some Californians to play regulator to the world. (& Matt Bogard)
Somewhat relatedly, it is now clear that Vitamin-A-laden golden rice could fight child blindness arising from nutritional deficiency in the underdeveloped world; alas, it’s being held back by Greenpeace anti-GMO efforts [Margaret Wente/Toronto Globe and Mail; Art Caplan, NBC]
No, Indian tribes aren’t the rightful owners of North America
Drawing on Chapter 10 of Schools for Misrule, I explain at Cato at Liberty — in response to an exchange between Bryan Caplan and Richard Reinsch — why it isn’t necessary to resort to the a priori rights analysis of the late Murray Rothbard to demonstrate that (& Jeremy Blevins).
Free speech roundup
- Already firebombed once: “Satirical French Magazine Publishes Caricatures Of Mohammed, White House Rebukes.” [Mediaite] More calls for punishing makers of anti-Muslim YouTube video for supposed incitement [Ann Althouse on Sarah Chayes, earlier here and here; also, the late Christopher Hitchens on “fire in a crowded theater” arguments] “The people who instigate these protests seek a very particular goal: an extension of Egyptian and Pakistani style blasphemy laws into the West.” [David Frum]
- “$60,000 Verdict for Blogging the Truth About A Person Intending to Get Him Fired – Reversed” [Volokh]
- Judge closes probe of opinion-maker influence in Google-Oracle battle [The Recorder, earlier]
- Weight-loss device promoter files, then drops suit against Public Citizen, consumerist website Fair Warning [Paul Alan Levy, Fair Warning]
- “How Ag Gag Laws Suppress Free Speech and the Marketplace of Ideas” [Baylen Linnekin, earlier here, etc.]
- Big government Republicans in charge: “GOP Platform Changed To Now Target All Forms Of Pornography” [Andrew Kirell, Mediaite; Volokh]
- Missouri activist starts website criticizing local cops and soon the department’s halls display what looks very much like a “Wanted” poster of him [Eapen Thampy, Agitator]
Randy Barnett on Obamacare decision
From one of the star speakers at Cato’s Constitution Day yesterday.
The magic of expungement
“Is It Libel to Say Someone Was Arrested When the Arrest Record Has Been Erased?” Last year the New Jersey Supreme Court said no in a case raising the same issue as to convictions, saying the law’s expungement provision
is not intended to create an Orwellian scheme whereby previously public information — long maintained in official records — now becomes beyond the reach of public discourse on penalty of a defamation action. Although our expungement statute generally permits a person whose record has been expunged to misrepresent his past, it does not alter the metaphysical truth of his past, nor does it impose a regime of silence on those who know the truth.
Now, however, a lawsuit filed in Connecticut seeks to assert similar liability as to mention of an erased arrest record. The state erasure statute provides that the person whose record is erased “shall be deemed to have never been arrested within the meaning of the general statutes with respect to the proceedings so erased and may so swear under oath.” Eugene Volokh finds the theory of liability constitutionally defective:
the First Amendment protects other people’s rights to talk about arrests that had — as a matter of historical fact — actually happened. A statute can’t rewrite history, and force others to pretend that something didn’t happen when in fact it did happen.
(& Above the Law)
“Cranston, RI Schools End Father-Daughter Dances After ACLU Complaint”
“Cranston Mayor Allan Fung says he’s ‘utterly disappointed’ the school district ended the gender-based events after the state affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter of complaint last spring.” [CBS Boston]
P.S. Or, to sum up in a different way: “It became necessary to destroy the village in order to make it more inclusive.” (& Alkon)
September 19 roundup
- “Ohio Man Cites Obesity as Reason to Delay Execution” [WSJ Law Blog]
- West Hollywood bans sale of fur, no bonfires on the beach, and a thousand other California bans [New York Times]
- “Volunteers sued for ‘civil conspiracy’ for planning an open rival to WikiTravel” [Gyrovague]
- Practice of check-rounding at some Chipotles allows class action lawyers to put in their two cents [Ted at PoL]
- Daniel Fisher on business cases in the upcoming Supreme Court term [Forbes]
- In Bond v. U.S., coming back like a boomerang from an earlier ruling, Supreme Court may at last have to resolve whether the federal government can expand its constitutional powers just by signing on to treaties [Ilya Shapiro and Trevor Burrus, Cato]
- Law nerd’s heavy-breather: “50 Shades of Administrative Law” [LawProfBlawg]
“Does Cabbie’s Fear of Dogs Trump Requirement to Allow Service Dogs?”
In Connecticut, disability vs. disability: “A cab driver who claims he suffers from cynophobia (a fear of dogs) and who refused to pick up a blind customer with a service dog has filed a federal lawsuit against his employer for discrimination on account of his disability after he was fired.” [Daniel Schwartz]
Prosecutors lend letterhead to debt collectors
The letters to persons who have written bad checks, which threaten jail, “bear the seal and signature of the local district attorney’s office. But there is a catch: the letters are from debt-collection companies, which the prosecutors allow to use their letterhead. In return, the companies try to collect not only the unpaid check, but also high fees from debtors for a class on budgeting and financial responsibility, some of which goes back to the district attorneys’ offices.” Moreover, “the ultimatum comes with the imprimatur of law enforcement itself — though it is made before any prosecutor has determined a crime has been committed.” [New York Times; commentary, Scott Greenfield, BoingBoing]