Category: Regulating Protest

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly general freedom local leaders moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Popular privacy Regulating Protest too much government

The Last Straw

plastic straws, nanny state, fine, crime, California, freedom

How much should we fine waiters who destroy our planet?

For how long should they go to jail?

I don’t know where you would hold such an evildoer after the earth has been destroyed. Or where he’d go when released. But we’re speaking hypothetically. Assume that planet-​destroyers can be imprisoned on the moon, which let’s just say still orbits the earth’s decimated remains. Or assume that after being destroyed, the planet can be reconstructed. After serving his sentence, then, the waiter would be released to a reconstructed earth.

In that case, a maximum $1,000 fine as suggested by Ian Calderon, Democratic majority leader of the California State Assembly, seems only fair. However, a maximum of six months in jail is excessive. In my opinion, planet-​destroying waiters should suffer no more than 100 days in jail.

Calderon has proposed a bill, AB-​1884, to fine and/​or imprison waiters who offer unsolicited plastic straws to restaurant patrons. In response to criticism of his silly and vicious bill, Calderon says hey, it’s “NOT a ban” on straws! Oh, okay. Anyway, “Penalties are based on the code section the bill is currently in, which it will be amended out of,” which sounds like Calderon was prior to the uproar … what, joking?

As long as we’re amending, let me amend my own implication that people who offer, use, make or sell plastic straws* are in fact helping destroy earth. Just kidding!

The earth will survive plastic straws. Will it survive the Calderons of the world? 

Open question.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

* Not that I’m confirming or denying ever using one myself. 

PDF for printing

 

Categories
crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Regulating Protest too much government

Twitter’s Merkel Tactics or Merkel’s Twitter Tactics?

Twitter, censorship, Germany, Merkel, speech, double standard

Is Twitter cooperating with Germany’s new crackdown on social-​media speech because otherwise it risks steep penalties? Or is Twitter just doing what it would do anyway?

When Germany’s new law against unwelcome speech went into effect this year, many Germans protested. “Please spare us the thought police!” was the headline in one top-​selling paper, Bild.

The law requires social-​media sites to block unapproved content — which includes “hate speech” and “fake news” — within 24 hours or face exorbitant fines. (Of course, every piece of news, no matter how well or shabbily reported, gets decried as hateful “fake news” by somebody.) Under the new law, Twitter suspended the accounts of two officials of the political party Alternative for Germany who tweeted that Muslim men have violent proclivities. Hateful, fake, inexact, whatever, such tweets by themselves threaten nobody and violate nobody’s rights. 

Did Twitter act only under duress here? 

Well, in the U.S., the company is not ordered by our government to muzzle anybody except perhaps terrorists or persons directly instigating a crime. Yet Twitter regularly suspends or bans users whose speech it considers objectionable. Moreover, it has become notorious for especially targeting speech that can be regarded as on the right end of the political spectrum — while leaving intact the tweet-​speech of left-​wing micro-​bloggers no matter how threatening or abusive.

I don’t say America’s government should become involved. It should certainly not compel Twitter to drop its double standard. 

Instead, it is Twitter itself that should become involved … and drop its double standard. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom government transparency ideological culture moral hazard national politics & policies Regulating Protest tax policy too much government

Still at Large

IRS, drain the swamp, Trump, Lois Lerner, tax, tax man

Blogger Paul Caron, dean of Pepperdine Law School, still counts the days since we learned that the IRS was blocking applications for nonprofit status from right-​leaning groups at the behest of former IRS honcho Lois Lerner.

Now years later, the agency can still arbitrarily victimize any one of us. Nor have Lerner and other bad guys been brought to justice. Lerner collects a six-​figure pension, instead.

And so, on Day 1699, Caron highlighted Kimberly Strassel’s proposal that President Trump make 2018 “the year of civil-​service reform — a root-​and-​branch overhaul of the government itself. Call it Operation Drain the Swamp.” Exhibit A? The IRS and civil “servants” like “Lois Lerner, the IRS official who used her powers to silence conservative nonprofits.” 

And on Day 1709, Caron called our attention to Lerner’s attempt to suppress a deposition she gave in June “for a civil suit that victims [of IRS targeting] brought in 2013.” Lerner thinks we have no right to know why she felt justified in discriminating against applicants for tax-​exempt status based on their political viewpoint.

Unfortunately, not everyone cares about justice as much as Caron. 

Consider an obtuse Washington Post editorial pretending that the IRS didn’t really target conservative groups. Instead, “conservative groups, their allies in Congress and the IRS itself all bear responsibility” for the appearance otherwise.

And the aftermath.

Uh huh. If only victims of the abuse of power would stop being so indelicate as to object! 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment First Amendment rights general freedom government transparency local leaders moral hazard Regulating Protest too much government U.S. Constitution

Lock Her Up

Deyshia Hargrav, superintendent, schoolboard, Vermilion Parish school board, free speech, government, local government, Lozman v. Riviera Beach, Florida, Supreme Court

“Who Are We?” I asked Sunday at Townhall​.com.

Today’s question: What have we come to?

Under a seemingly click-​bait headline in The Atlantic, “Can Government Officials Have You Arrested for Speaking to Them?” Garrett Epps examines last week’s outrageous handcuffing and arrest of a Louisiana teacher, Deyshia Hargrave, for speech displeasing to the Vermilion Parish school board at a public meeting.

The elementary school teacher complained about a $30,000 raise the board was giving the superintendent, noting that teachers had not seen an increase in nearly a decade. After asserting that the raise would be “basically taken out of the pockets of teachers,” she was ruled out of order by the school board president and then asked to leave the premises. She calmly left the meeting room … only to be forced to the floor, handcuffed and arrested once in the hallway. 

Police claimed the arrest was for “remaining after having been forbidden” and “resisting an officer.”

The school district announced it won’t press charges. Very funny. Anyone can see from the video that her treatment was excessive. 

Next month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Lozman v. Riviera Beach, Florida, where an arrest was clearly retaliatory, but the city is newly claiming another violation it could have used to arrest Mr. Lozman. 

Does this after-​the-​fact adding on of charges provide governments with an escape clause? As Epps argues, a Lozman decision “could either rein in, or embolden, the tiny-​handed tyrants who rule county buildings and city halls around the country.”

If respectfully challenging our so-​called public servants in meetings designed for that can lead to being arrested, handcuffed and dragged off, we no longer live in ‘the land of the free.’

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment folly general freedom government transparency ideological culture moral hazard Regulating Protest tax policy

Been Burned

IRS, I.R.S., corruption, taxes, budget, tears

“They’ve been burned. They’ve been hammered. They’ve been bludgeoned,” George Washington University law professor Miriam Galston explained to the Washington Post. “They’re trying to survive.”

In this heartbreaking discussion at this special time of year, the “they” are the poor, long-​suffering folks … at the Internal Revenue Service.

According to the Post analysis, “conservatives” have schemed to “scale back the IRS and shrink the federal government.” (I guess this is supposed to tear at every American’s heartstrings.) Notably, they “capitalized on revelations in 2013 that IRS officials focused inappropriately on tea party and other conservative groups based … Among conservatives, the episode has come to be known as the ‘IRS targeting scandal.’”

Note that term of art: episode.

The Post saw no scandal, however — despite the IRS having admitted to harassing, blocking and delaying Tea Party and conservative groups from exercising their most fundamental First Amendment rights to freedom of association and freedom of speech, in some cases for four years. 

Instead, the Post decries the response to this gross violation of citizens, a congressional check on the power — and budget — of the agency responsible: reducing the budget for the Exempt Organizations division of the IRS from $102 million in 2011 to $82 million in 2016.

Heavens, Washington is never supposed to work like that! It actually approaches … accountability. 

The budget cuts, along with hefty settlements the IRS is now paying to victimized groups that sued, make it less likely the IRS will repeat this scandalous … episode. 

“To many, the IRS targeting of Tea Party and conservative and even some progressive groups is not a scandal,” my Sunday Townhall​.com column concluded. “To me, that’s the biggest scandal of all.”

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 

N.B. The title reference is to Neil Young’s song, Burned, which begins, “Been burned, and with both feet on the ground …”

PDF for printing

IRS, I.R.S., corruption, taxes, budget, tears

 

Categories
Accountability folly general freedom ideological culture media and media people moral hazard nannyism national politics & policies Regulating Protest

Trouble in Transmission

Deplorable radio, censorship, hate speech, tranny, University of Minnesota-Morris

Weeks ago, students Brandon Albrecht and Tayler Lehmann hosted a weekly program on their university-​funded, 225-​watt FM station. 

But not anymore.

“We have a group here called the Queer Devil Worshippers for a Better Future,” Albrecht told his University of Minnesota-​Morris audience. “It’s kind of like our version of Antifa here at Morris.”

“Except they’re nicer,” co-​host Tayler Lehmann chimed in. “And less violent.”

“The only reason they’re non-​violent is because there are not enough of them. And everybody knows everybody here at Morris,” Albrecht continued. “You see one tranny that’s trying to punch someone … I’m not going to dox anybody and name them on air. But you two know if I say ‘the tranny who looks like he’s going to punch someone.’”

A short time later, station manager Carter Young, with a UMM policeman in tow, entered the studio and demanded they leave.

“What happened?” inquired Lehmann.

“You said a couple words that break FCC violations [sic],” she replied.

“What word?” Albrecht asked.

“Specifically, ‘tranny.’ That is a hate slur. Not allowed on the radio. I need you to leave.”

“Did you have to call the police?” inquired a third unidentified student. 

“Yes, because this is an FCC violation; you are breaking the law.”

The students’ “Deplorable Radio” program has been permanently suspended.

But KUMM 89.7 now admits that the word “tranny” is not “in violation of FCC community standards.” The station then accused the duo of hosting an earlier show while intoxicated, which they flatly deny. Now a spokesperson claims the issue is “compliance with DJ expectations and station standards.”

Meaning? The publicly-​owned station does not like their politics. 

You might want to call or email the station … while such speech is still permitted.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing