Political Randomness

[Z-Corn]

https://twitter.com/CollinWhite/status/ ... 7821851649

Who wants to be a two-jar slave?

[ImLawBoy]

Doesn't that contravene the First Amendment?

Without doing any research or reading the actual statute beyond what was posted here, I'd say yes.

[El Guapo]

Doesn't that contravene the First Amendment?

Without doing any research or reading the actual statute beyond what was posted here, I'd say yes.

You would say that, bitch.

[ImLawBoy]

Doesn't that contravene the First Amendment?

Without doing any research or reading the actual statute beyond what was posted here, I'd say yes.

You would say that, bitch.

/clutches pearls and calls the state's attorney.

[TheMix]

Doesn't that contravene the First Amendment?

Without doing any research or reading the actual statute beyond what was posted here, I'd say yes.

You would say that, bitch.

/clutches pearls and calls the state's attorney.

Excuse me, but shouldn't you be fainting before calling anyone?

[stessier]

What are you saying? That the statute isn't constitutional?

I'm sorry, was writing from a phone on the go. Yes, I don't see how it is constitutional. They didn't commit a crime - they merely expressed themselves. It would seem they should be protected under the first amendment.

[Unagi]

Like yelling FIRE! in a movie theater

[stessier]

Like yelling FIRE! in a movie theater

Heh, Popehat would like to have a word with you.

[Unagi]

https://legaltalknetwork.com/podcasts/m ... d-theater/

[Unagi]

I was aware. Was going to share.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's more than that. A hate crime needs an underlying crime right?

[stessier]

I was aware. Was going to share.

His stuff is great.

Here is his article that is really good (although not as good as the podcast).

[stessier]

It's more than that. A hate crime needs an underlying crime right?

Not by the CT statute - the speech is the crime.

[Unagi]

But still. I’m not even sure.

Are there or are there not limits to speech, in this sense

[ImLawBoy]

It's more than that. A hate crime needs an underlying crime right?

I think most hate crime statutes that survive judicial review typically have an underlying crime, and the "hate" is an aggravating factor. It's analogous to drug dealing near a school. It's a crime to illegally sell drugs anywhere, but selling within x feet of a school is often an aggravating factor that can add to the sentence.

[El Guapo]

But still. I’m not even sure.

Are there or are there not limits to speech, in this sense

I mean, there are of course limits to the First Amendment, as there are limits to everything. It's a matter of whether this violates the First Amendment or not. This would be the government punishing someone because of the content of their speech (the word(s) they choose). Although this wouldn't be the government taking issue with the message of the speech - obviously a law banning calling Donald Trump a bitch would be flagrantly unconstitutional. But still, this is punishment for what someone said.

So, incredibly stupid law, and a reasonable case that it's unconstitutional.

[stessier]

But still. I’m not even sure.

Are there or are there not limits to speech, in this sense

I'm just a guy who listens to a guy talk about the First Amendment on podcasts. What I have taken away is that the Court is loathe to create exceptions. In this case there was no direct threat or incitement to violence. It also doesn't appear to fall under the obscenity exception. Those are the ones most likely to apply, so beyond that, no, there are no limits for shouting stuff as you walk through open space.

[El Guapo]

But still. I’m not even sure.

Are there or are there not limits to speech, in this sense

I'm just a guy who listens to a guy talk about the First Amendment on podcasts. What I have taken away is that the Court is loathe to create exceptions. In this case there was no direct threat or incitement to violence. It also doesn't appear to fall under the obscenity exception. Those are the ones most likely to apply, so beyond that, no, there are no limits for shouting stuff as you walk through open space.

Well, that last part is taking it too far. Clearly the government can punish you for standing in the middle of a public park and yelling BITCH at the top of your lungs at everyone who walks by. The First Amendment only comes into play if the government is punishing you for the content of your speech (limiting it to the speech part of the amendment for the moment). The problematic part of this is the punishment for a specific word, which is a content-based restriction. A law just saying that you can't harass people, say, would be far different, even if it's applied to speech-based harassment.

[LawBeefaroni]

It's more than that. A hate crime needs an underlying crime right?

I think most hate crime statutes that survive judicial review typically have an underlying crime, and the "hate" is an aggravating factor. It's analogous to drug dealing near a school. It's a crime to illegally sell drugs anywhere, but selling within x feet of a school is often an aggravating factor that can add to the sentence.

So this would be like imposing the add-on sentence (only) for someone who looked like a drug dealer within X of a school.

"Had you been a drug dealer, you definitely would have gotten an extra mandatory 8 months so you get 8 months."

It's more than that. A hate crime needs an underlying crime right?

Not by the CT statute - the speech is the crime.

Well I don't see this statute surviving then. Right?

[stessier]

But still. I’m not even sure.

Are there or are there not limits to speech, in this sense

I'm just a guy who listens to a guy talk about the First Amendment on podcasts. What I have taken away is that the Court is loathe to create exceptions. In this case there was no direct threat or incitement to violence. It also doesn't appear to fall under the obscenity exception. Those are the ones most likely to apply, so beyond that, no, there are no limits for shouting stuff as you walk through open space.

Well, that last part is taking it too far. Clearly the government can punish you for standing in the middle of a public park and yelling BITCH at the top of your lungs at everyone who walks by. The First Amendment only comes into play if the government is punishing you for the content of your speech (limiting it to the speech part of the amendment for the moment). The problematic part of this is the punishment for a specific word, which is a content-based restriction. A law just saying that you can't harass people, say, would be far different, even if it's applied to speech-based harassment.

Could they? I could see if you followed someone, but if you stood in one place and yelled at everyone who walked by? What if you just said it in a normal voice, so you weren't disturbing the peace, as it were? How is that different than handing out leaflets to everyone?

[Kraken]

But still. I’m not even sure.

Are there or are there not limits to speech, in this sense

I mean, there are of course limits to the First Amendment, as there are limits to everything. It's a matter of whether this violates the First Amendment or not. This would be the government punishing someone because of the content of their speech (the word(s) they choose). Although this wouldn't be the government taking issue with the message of the speech - obviously a law banning calling Donald Trump a bitch would be flagrantly unconstitutional. But still, this is punishment for what someone said.

So, incredibly stupid law, and a reasonable case that it's unconstitutional.

Yup. In the unlikely event that it passes, it would be struck down swiftly and surely.

[stessier]

It's more than that. A hate crime needs an underlying crime right?

Not by the CT statute - the speech is the crime.

Well I don't see this statute surviving then. Right?

Who is going to challenge the statute when the fine is $50? (Maybe if they end up on the 30 days in jail side of things...)

[ImLawBoy]

It's more than that. A hate crime needs an underlying crime right?

Not by the CT statute - the speech is the crime.

Well I don't see this statute surviving then. Right?

Who is going to challenge the statute when the fine is $50? (Maybe if they end up on the 30 days in jail side of things...)

The ACLU.

[stessier]

It's more than that. A hate crime needs an underlying crime right?

Not by the CT statute - the speech is the crime.

Well I don't see this statute surviving then. Right?

Who is going to challenge the statute when the fine is $50? (Maybe if they end up on the 30 days in jail side of things...)

The ACLU.

Is this big enough for them to notice? Should I send an email?

[El Guapo]

But still. I’m not even sure.

Are there or are there not limits to speech, in this sense

I'm just a guy who listens to a guy talk about the First Amendment on podcasts. What I have taken away is that the Court is loathe to create exceptions. In this case there was no direct threat or incitement to violence. It also doesn't appear to fall under the obscenity exception. Those are the ones most likely to apply, so beyond that, no, there are no limits for shouting stuff as you walk through open space.

Well, that last part is taking it too far. Clearly the government can punish you for standing in the middle of a public park and yelling BITCH at the top of your lungs at everyone who walks by. The First Amendment only comes into play if the government is punishing you for the content of your speech (limiting it to the speech part of the amendment for the moment). The problematic part of this is the punishment for a specific word, which is a content-based restriction. A law just saying that you can't harass people, say, would be far different, even if it's applied to speech-based harassment.

Could they? I could see if you followed someone, but if you stood in one place and yelled at everyone who walked by? What if you just said it in a normal voice, so you weren't disturbing the peace, as it were? How is that different than handing out leaflets to everyone?

You would be getting punished for violating some statute prohibiting harassment or disorderly conduct or the like. Whether you violated that statute would depend upon the nature of the conduct - walking up to someone, shaking their hands, and saying politely "good day, bitch" would probably not violate a disorderly conduct law (but would violate this CT law). The point is just that the law has to have some sort of speech-related restriction, as opposed to being a violation of some law that just happened to involve speech. It's the same reason that if you talk with someone and agree to pay them to murder a third party, you can't defend yourself by saying that the government is punishing your speech.

[El Guapo]

It's more than that. A hate crime needs an underlying crime right?

Not by the CT statute - the speech is the crime.

Well I don't see this statute surviving then. Right?

Who is going to challenge the statute when the fine is $50? (Maybe if they end up on the 30 days in jail side of things...)

The ACLU.

Is this big enough for them to notice? Should I send an email?

You can, but if we are aware of this law, I am reasonably confident that the ACLU is as well.

[stessier]

But still. I’m not even sure.

Are there or are there not limits to speech, in this sense

I'm just a guy who listens to a guy talk about the First Amendment on podcasts. What I have taken away is that the Court is loathe to create exceptions. In this case there was no direct threat or incitement to violence. It also doesn't appear to fall under the obscenity exception. Those are the ones most likely to apply, so beyond that, no, there are no limits for shouting stuff as you walk through open space.

Well, that last part is taking it too far. Clearly the government can punish you for standing in the middle of a public park and yelling BITCH at the top of your lungs at everyone who walks by. The First Amendment only comes into play if the government is punishing you for the content of your speech (limiting it to the speech part of the amendment for the moment). The problematic part of this is the punishment for a specific word, which is a content-based restriction. A law just saying that you can't harass people, say, would be far different, even if it's applied to speech-based harassment.

Could they? I could see if you followed someone, but if you stood in one place and yelled at everyone who walked by? What if you just said it in a normal voice, so you weren't disturbing the peace, as it were? How is that different than handing out leaflets to everyone?

You would be getting punished for violating some statute prohibiting harassment or disorderly conduct or the like. Whether you violated that statute would depend upon the nature of the conduct - walking up to someone, shaking their hands, and saying politely "good day, bitch" would probably not violate a disorderly conduct law (but would violate this CT law). The point is just that the law has to have some sort of speech-related restriction, as opposed to being a violation of some law that just happened to involve speech. It's the same reason that if you talk with someone and agree to pay them to murder a third party, you can't defend yourself by saying that the government is punishing your speech.

This is why I'm only an intern. I'm trying to see the distinction, but don't. It seems like the speech is integral to determining if the conduct is disorderly. Calling everyone "NERD" likely wouldn't get you in trouble. If that's the case, then the speech is the conduct and should be protected. Is there somewhere I can go to read more?

[stessier]

You can, but if we are aware of this law, I am reasonably confident that the ACLU is as well.

I suspect as a group, we have far more free time on our hands for finding this kind of stuff.

[Unagi]

I could see if you followed someone, but if you stood in one place and yelled at everyone who walked by? What if you just said it in a normal voice, so you weren't disturbing the peace, as it were? How is that different than handing out leaflets to everyone?

What about if someone stood outside your bedroom window and tried to torment you or your kids?

[Smoove_B]

There are always limits. Unless we're talking about guns.

[Isgrimnur]

I could see if you followed someone, but if you stood in one place and yelled at everyone who walked by? What if you just said it in a normal voice, so you weren't disturbing the peace, as it were? How is that different than handing out leaflets to everyone?

What about if someone stood outside your bedroom window and tried to torment you or your kids?

Then they're trespassing.

[ImLawBoy]

You can, but if we are aware of this law, I am reasonably confident that the ACLU is as well.

I suspect as a group, we have far more free time on our hands for finding this kind of stuff.

This isn't something they do in their free time - it's something they do in their paid time. This is right in their wheelhouse.

[Unagi]

I could see if you followed someone, but if you stood in one place and yelled at everyone who walked by? What if you just said it in a normal voice, so you weren't disturbing the peace, as it were? How is that different than handing out leaflets to everyone?

What about if someone stood outside your bedroom window and tried to torment you or your kids?

Then they're trespassing.

Not necessarily.
Not in this story, for instance

"The three people walking through a dimly lit parking lot near a University of Connecticut student apartment complex probably didn’t know they were being watched. But as the trio crossed in front of an open window repeatedly saying the n-word louder and louder, a person inside wasn’t just observing — they were recording."

[Isgrimnur]

WaPo

Spain began exhuming the remains of Spanish dictator Gen. Francisco Franco from his imposing mausoleum at the Valley of the Fallen outside Madrid on Thursday, ending years of bitter controversy over how to commemorate a dark and complicated past.

Opponents of the dictator have long objected to his current resting place because of its dramatic prominence and uncritical presentation of the man who ruled Spain with an iron hand for decades. They want the site of the mausoleum to be associated with the victims of that turbulent period.

Franco’s remains will relocated to his family crypt 44 years after they were first entombed. The exhumation began Thursday morning in the presence of 22 Franco family members, including his seven grandchildren. Members of Spain’s Socialist government, which ordered the exhumation after years of legislative and judicial hurdles, were also present.
...
Originally presented by Franco as a monument to both sides of the civil war, the Valley of the Fallen — whose giant cross is visible for miles — has become a symbol of Franco’s rule. But it is also the focal point of Spain’s 2007 Historical Memory Law, which formally condemned Franco’s regime, recognized victims on both sides of the civil war and called for the repurposing of the monument to represent all Spaniards.

[Holman]

WaPo

Spain began exhuming the remains of Spanish dictator Gen. Francisco Franco from his imposing mausoleum at the Valley of the Fallen outside Madrid on Thursday, ending years of bitter controversy over how to commemorate a dark and complicated past.

Opponents of the dictator have long objected to his current resting place because of its dramatic prominence and uncritical presentation of the man who ruled Spain with an iron hand for decades. They want the site of the mausoleum to be associated with the victims of that turbulent period.

Franco’s remains will relocated to his family crypt 44 years after they were first entombed. The exhumation began Thursday morning in the presence of 22 Franco family members, including his seven grandchildren. Members of Spain’s Socialist government, which ordered the exhumation after years of legislative and judicial hurdles, were also present.
...
Originally presented by Franco as a monument to both sides of the civil war, the Valley of the Fallen — whose giant cross is visible for miles — has become a symbol of Franco’s rule. But it is also the focal point of Spain’s 2007 Historical Memory Law, which formally condemned Franco’s regime, recognized victims on both sides of the civil war and called for the repurposing of the monument to represent all Spaniards.

Where is Chevy Chase when we need him?

[Kraken]

Oddly, we don't seem to have a thread that covers Trump's war on the US government, so I guess this goes here: Trump move could spark another exodus of US jobs researchers.

Donald Trump has called its work “phony.” His Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney warned that President Obama was “manipulating” its numbers. Economic adviser Larry Kudlow termed one of its reports “very fluky.”

Is it a House oversight committee? A Democratic think tank? No, it’s the gold standard of research and impartiality on US inflation, employment, and productivity: The US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Now 70 percent of the bureau’s staff of 1,800 is likely to leave by 2022, according to a survey by the union that represents most of its workers. The reason: The administration plans to move the bureau’s current headquarters from Washington, near the Union Station transit hub, to an office complex in Suitland, Md.

Current and former government employees said they’re concerned the administration is seeking to drive out civil servants whose work could undermine the president’s agenda. These researchers are in a position to document, for example, a slowdown in manufacturing employment in part because of Trump’s tariffs.
...
“So far, the BLS has avoided politicization from the Trump Administration,” said Michael Havlin, an economist at the agency and union member. “But the economic data has been pretty positive the last three or four years — that might not be the case in a year or so.”

Shoot the messenger just in case you might not like the message?

[Holman]

I once taught a student who went on to be Senator Clinton's intern and then began a career abroad in the Obama-era State Department.

Per Facebook, she's still working at State (though now in DC rather than Vietnam, as before). To me it's a good sign that she hasn't become disillusioned enough to quit government. On the other hand, she's Dwight Eisenhower's grand-niece or something, and the family commitment to public service probably runs pretty strong.

Incidentally, apparently all of the Eisenhowers are Democrats now.

[Kraken]

Incidentally, apparently all of the Eisenhowers are Democrats now.

Ironic, since Ike was the last good Republican president.

[El Guapo]

Oddly, we don't seem to have a thread that covers Trump's war on the US government, so I guess this goes here: Trump move could spark another exodus of US jobs researchers.

Donald Trump has called its work “phony.” His Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney warned that President Obama was “manipulating” its numbers. Economic adviser Larry Kudlow termed one of its reports “very fluky.”

Is it a House oversight committee? A Democratic think tank? No, it’s the gold standard of research and impartiality on US inflation, employment, and productivity: The US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Now 70 percent of the bureau’s staff of 1,800 is likely to leave by 2022, according to a survey by the union that represents most of its workers. The reason: The administration plans to move the bureau’s current headquarters from Washington, near the Union Station transit hub, to an office complex in Suitland, Md.

Current and former government employees said they’re concerned the administration is seeking to drive out civil servants whose work could undermine the president’s agenda. These researchers are in a position to document, for example, a slowdown in manufacturing employment in part because of Trump’s tariffs.
...
“So far, the BLS has avoided politicization from the Trump Administration,” said Michael Havlin, an economist at the agency and union member. “But the economic data has been pretty positive the last three or four years — that might not be the case in a year or so.”

Shoot the messenger just in case you might not like the message?

That's definitely increasingly a thing. Strong suspicions that the administration has discovered that that's the quickest way to get control of an agency, by creating a lot of vacancies with something that's facially justifiable.

Though in this case, seems unlikely that 70% of the staff would leave over them moving from downtown DC to suburban DC.

[Kraken]

Oddly, we don't seem to have a thread that covers Trump's war on the US government, so I guess this goes here: Trump move could spark another exodus of US jobs researchers.

Donald Trump has called its work “phony.” His Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney warned that President Obama was “manipulating” its numbers. Economic adviser Larry Kudlow termed one of its reports “very fluky.”

Is it a House oversight committee? A Democratic think tank? No, it’s the gold standard of research and impartiality on US inflation, employment, and productivity: The US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Now 70 percent of the bureau’s staff of 1,800 is likely to leave by 2022, according to a survey by the union that represents most of its workers. The reason: The administration plans to move the bureau’s current headquarters from Washington, near the Union Station transit hub, to an office complex in Suitland, Md.

Current and former government employees said they’re concerned the administration is seeking to drive out civil servants whose work could undermine the president’s agenda. These researchers are in a position to document, for example, a slowdown in manufacturing employment in part because of Trump’s tariffs.
...
“So far, the BLS has avoided politicization from the Trump Administration,” said Michael Havlin, an economist at the agency and union member. “But the economic data has been pretty positive the last three or four years — that might not be the case in a year or so.”

Shoot the messenger just in case you might not like the message?

That's definitely increasingly a thing. Strong suspicions that the administration has discovered that that's the quickest way to get control of an agency, by creating a lot of vacancies with something that's facially justifiable.

Though in this case, seems unlikely that 70% of the staff would leave over them moving from downtown DC to suburban DC.

The story explains that because of the way transit works, most will see their commutes increase by 1-2 hours even though the new location isn't far away. It also lists three or four other agencies that are suffering attrition due to thinly-justified moves.

In the case of the BLS, though, the move is likely to coincide with the recession's onset. If it does, a lot of those at-risk people will suck up the commute and hold onto their jobs. Which is ironic, come to think of it, since Trump wants to bag the agency to prevent it from documenting the recession.