Category: reason

The case is Doe v. Town of Lisbon (D.N.H.), which stemmed from police officer Doe’s being fired—wrongly so, he claims—and being placed on the “Exculpatory Evidence Schedule” (also known in New Hampshire as the “Laurie List”), in which his disciplinary record would be disclosed by prosecutors to defense lawyers whenever he testifies. Such placement naturally damages a person’s job prospects as a police officer in any department (at least in New Hampshire but I expect elsewhere as well).

Now I can’t speak to whether Doe was indeed wrongly fired, but I don’t think that this is a case where pseudonymity is legally authorized; generally speaking, people suing over allegedly wrongful firings have to sue in their own names, even though this might well further publicizing what they are claiming to be false allegations against them. (See generally Appendix 7 of my The Law of Pseudonymous Litigation draft.) That requirement of open litigation strikes me as especially apt when important government officials such as police officers. Yet the case was apparently sealed outright in state court; the court granted a motion that argued that,

The Plaintiff is concerned that publicly having his name as plaintiff will undercut any relief obtained in this matter, and will further jeopardize his ability to obtain future employment in the criminal justice and policing field—even if he is fully vindicated in this matter.

When determining whether to seal a case, “the burden of proof rests with the party seeking closure … to demonstrate with specificity that there is some overriding consideration or special circumstance, that is, a sufficiently compelling interest, which outweighs the public’s right of access to those records.” In re Keene Sentinel, 136 N.H. 121, 128 (1992) (citation omitted).

The plaintiffs’ interest in having this lawsuit be filed under seal, while his Constitutional rights are vindicated, is a compelling interest that outweighs the right of the public’s right of access to this litigation’s docket.

And while there has been no motion to seal the federal court case (the defendants had removed the case from state to federal court), the federal case is apparently being litigated pseudonymously. I may end up moving to intervene and oppose pseudonymity, as I did in the Ohio police officer plaintiff case; in any event, I thought I’d note that such attempts at pseudonymity seem to be happening in various places (see also here).

The post Another Pseudonymous / Sealed Police Officer Lawsuit appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/bq7ydtM
via IFTTT

Someone recently asked me when Congress would hold hearings to ensure the accountability of government officials who faltered during the pandemic. After all, there is lots to be learned from mistakes made at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Reserve, and in the Trump and Biden administrations.

For instance, who will be held accountable for government-orchestrated lockdown policies that were in retrospect poorly designed, ineffective, and incredibly costly? Who at the CDC will be held accountable for that agency’s failure to detect the virus sooner? Which CDC officials will speak to the utter confusion the agency created by constantly changing messaging and political guidance?

As for the FDA’s failures, there are too many to list. But I’m not hearing anyone in power talk about, for example, holding its officials accountable for the continuing failure to approve COVID-19 testing.

Don’t forget about the explosion of government spending that extended long past 2020 with no plan for post-crisis fiscal consolidation, or the Federal Reserve’s failure to foresee the largest inflation in decades.

Unfortunately, in all likelihood, no one will be held accountable.

You think I’m exaggerating? Let me remind you that no one was publicly fired when President Joe Biden’s Department of Defense led the disastrous exit from Afghanistan, nor when we learned that one of its drones killed a dozen innocent people by mistake. Nor did heads roll during George W. Bush’s administration when it was revealed that a gaggle of CIA consultants with no credentials made millions selling ineffective and illegal torture techniques. These agents were enabled by bureaucrats across multiple agencies, many of whom still have their jobs. And no one is getting fired for the ongoing fiasco at America’s southern border, where thousands of immigrant families seeking better lives suffer inhumanely.

More depressing yet is the fact that even if hearings were held and a consensus was reached over major mistakes, it would likely change nothing. After testifying in dozens of government oversight hearings on Capitol Hill, it seems to me that most are merely exercises designed to generate media coverage. Even when a particular program is unanimously flagged as wasteful or underperforming, it will almost certainly continue to be funded.

The best example of this comes from the Government Accountability Office, which publishes a report about improper payments every few years. The set of government programs making these payments always seems to involve the same offenders. But nothing happens, and the number of improper payments grows.

More recently, CDC Director Rochelle Walensky was questioned by members of the House’s Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations about the agency’s guidance on continued mask wearing in school. Members on both sides of the aisle seemed uneasy with school mask mandates, and some noted that the studies used by the agency to justify its continued requirements had been debunked. The guidance was at odds with available evidence and with what most other countries were doing without an apparent increase in health risks.

Did this line of questioning make a difference? No. Walensky acknowledged the “limitations” of the mask studies but refused to change a thing. And so, many kids as young as two will continue to be masked at school. It’s infuriating, especially since the guidance will likely change when enough Democrat-led states have lifted their own mandates. So much for following science.

It does raise the question of why people put up with it. In part, it’s because most people understandably have too little information about any single, complex policy issue. In addition, The New York Times recently reported that the CDC isn’t publishing large portions of available COVID-19 data out of fear that free-thinking readers would draw the wrong conclusions. But even if people demand change, they have little to no power over unelected bureaucrats.

Thousands of these unelected officials control our lives without being held accountable. That, unfortunately, will never change until we shrink government’s size and scope.

COPYRIGHT 2022 CREATORS.COM.

The post The Government's Coronavirus Response Was a Complete Failure. Who Will Be Held Accountable? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/j9IerhY
via IFTTT

An ambitious new bill called the Cannabis Freedom Act from Missouri state Rep. Ron Hicks (R–St. Charles County) aims to legalize recreational marijuana consumption, provide relief to nonviolent offenders who used the drug, and allow restaurants, bars, and other private venues to sell cannabis.

The bill would allow adults aged 21 or older to purchase and possess cannabis from licensed sellers. The bill intends to get rid of the existing statutes that criminalize marijuana activity and does not specify a possession limit for the drug. The bill would also make home growing legal with a limit of up to 12 plants, and home growers could contract out their own product to licensed sellers.

State Rep. Richard Brown (D–Kansas City), the bill’s co-sponsor, says he supports legalization because “it’s just time” to stop punishing those who use marijuana. He also said that the bill’s bipartisan support (which currently includes eight Republican sponsors and six Democrats) means it could make it to the House floor for debate. Brown says that during his six-year tenure in office, a House debate on marijuana legalization has never occurred.

“It’s important to debate it because folks and the media will talk about this,” says Brown. He hopes that if more people start discussing recreational marijuana use, then more will favor legalization.

The Cannabis Freedom Act also includes stipulations for nonviolent marijuana offenders. Those convicted for nonviolent marijuana crimes could petition courts to expunge the conviction from their criminal record. The proposed bill would also make those currently incarcerated for marijuana-related crimes eligible for resentencing, and those on parole would not get punished for using the drug.

The legislation would prohibit law enforcement from using marijuana odor as probable cause to conduct warrantless searches. The bill would also prohibit sharing medical marijuana users’ information with federal authorities.

The bill proposes “hospitality business licenses,” which would allow private venues like restaurants, bars, and other food or drink stores to sell cannabis products. All tax dollars that the state would generate from the recreational cannabis market would be placed in a “cannabis freedom fund.” The fund would first cover the administrative costs of implementing the marijuana program. Then the fund’s money would get dispersed among other government-related programs like pensions and teacher salaries.

Brown remains cautious about the bill’s chances of success. “I am not certain it will get through. It has a chance,” he says. 

Brown says that his skepticism on the bill passing stems from the legislature’s previous hostility to marijuana legalization bills. Last year, two Missouri state representatives, Peter Merideth (D–St. Louis) and Wiley Price IV (D–St. Louis) tried to pass bills legalizing recreational marijuana use but the bills failed to make it through the House.

State Rep. Ashley Bland Manlove (D–Jackson County), another co-sponsor, took a dimmer view on the bill’s outlook. “I do not think this bill will be successful,” says Bland Manlove. 

Bland Manlove says the Republican-dominated legislature will doom the bill. Republicans currently outnumber Democrats in the House 108–49 and hold a two-thirds majority in the General Laws Committee. Most previous marijuana bills have not made it through this committee for a full vote. In 2018, only one marijuana bill received a public hearing after getting through the committee, but it didn’t advance.

Bland Manlove says she supports the bill in its current state. She says the legislation’s goal of equity, expungement for nonviolent offenders, and the revenue it can bring to the state make it good legislation, but if the legislature removes or negatively alters the aforementioned stipulations then she will no longer support it.

The Missouri House of Representatives read the Cannabis Freedom Act for the second time last week, but the bill has not yet made it to the committee process.

The post Missouri Marijuana Legalization Bill Aims High but Expectations Remain Low appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/rWqtIkQ
via IFTTT

Are platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram harming Americans in ways that government regulation could help correct?

On Thursday, February 17, Jonathan Haidt and Robby Soave had an Oxford-style debate on the role of government regarding social media before a capacity crowd at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan. It was hosted by the Soho Forum, a monthly debate series sponsored by Reason. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein served as moderator.

Haidt, professor of ethical leadership at New York University and co-founder of Heterodox Academy, defended the debate resolution, “The federal government should increase its efforts to reduce the harms caused by social media.”

Soave, who took the negative, is a senior editor at Reason and author of the recently published Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future. He argued that widespread criticisms of social media stem from our innate—and misguided—distrust of new technology. Soave also contended that, for all its flaws, social media confers huge net benefits, and that the application of “government force” is likely to do far more harm than good.

Haidt, author of a recent article in The Atlantic on social media’s harm to mental health, pointed out that while the platforms were not initially designed for people under 18, those individuals have arguably been its victims. Haidt likened the platforms to sugar—best taken in moderation.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt.

The post Regulate Social Media? Jonathan Haidt Debates Robby Soave appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/BguWASe
via IFTTT

Are platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram harming Americans in ways that government regulation could help correct?

On Thursday, February 17, Jonathan Haidt and Robby Soave had an Oxford-style debate on the role of government regarding social media before a capacity crowd at the Sheen Center in downtown Manhattan. It was hosted by the Soho Forum, a monthly debate series sponsored by Reason. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein served as moderator.

Haidt, professor of ethical leadership at New York University and co-founder of Heterodox Academy, defended the debate resolution, “The federal government should increase its efforts to reduce the harms caused by social media.”

Soave, who took the negative, is a senior editor at Reason and author of the recently published Tech Panic: Why We Shouldn’t Fear Facebook and the Future. He argued that widespread criticisms of social media stem from our innate—and misguided—distrust of new technology. Soave also contended that, for all its flaws, social media confers huge net benefits, and that the application of “government force” is likely to do far more harm than good.

Haidt, author of a recent article in The Atlantic on social media’s harm to mental health, pointed out that while the platforms were not initially designed for people under 18, those individuals have arguably been its victims. Haidt likened the platforms to sugar—best taken in moderation.

Narrated by Nick Gillespie. Edited by John Osterhoudt. Additional graphics by Lex Villena. Event photography by Brett Raney.

The post Does the Government Need To Fix Social Media? A Soho Forum Debate appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/4xi5m7h
via IFTTT