Category: reason

Dismissed Professor vs. Student Libel Lawsuit Leads to Sanctions Requests, Denied All Around

The backstory, from the Austin American-Statesman (Lara Korte):

A University of Texas professor who was the subject of widespread criticism for his teachings on adult male relationships with underage boys in antiquity is suing a student who he says spread false statements about him.

Thomas K. Hubbard, a longtime professor in UT’s classics department, filed a federal lawsuit in Austin this week alleging that UT sophomore Sarah Blakemore and 10 other unknown individuals, listed as John Does, committed libel against him by making and distributing a flyer calling for his removal.

The suit says Blakemore, in concert with the John Does, made multiple false statements about Hubbard and his writings that ultimately resulted in “significant damages to his reputation, mental anguish, and emotional distress.”

(For more, see this Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty) story.)

And from today’s Report and Recommendation in Hubbard v. Blakemore, by Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell (W.D. Tex.); such a recommendation can be appealed to the District Judge, but in my experience they usually end up sticking:

Defendant Sarah Allen Blakemore moves for sanctions against Plaintiff Thomas Hubbard, Ph.D., who dismissed his suit against her. {Blakemore identifies herself as “the daughter of a prominent Republican” in her pleadings.} She asserts that Hubbard sued her for the improper purpose of pressuring the University of Texas to settle his age discrimination claims. Blakemore asserts that Hubbard received a $700,000.00 settlement agreement with the University, and that the terms of that agreement required him to dismiss his claims against Blakemore, which he has done.

Blakemore maintains that Hubbard’s claims against her were frivolous and brought in bad faith, and requests that the undersigned award her sanctions pursuant to its “inherent power” and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Blakemore requests that she recover her attorneys’ fees as sanctions. Hubbard responds that Blakemore’s motion is frivolous, and in return requests sanctions for the costs of responding to it.

Hubbard’s underlying suit against Blakemore is a defamation suit. In his Complaint, he alleged that she published and circulated a flyer to multiple third parties in and around the University of Texas, as well as Twitter, asserting various statements which Hubbard maintains are false. The statements include that Hubbard:

  • has been “advocating for pederasty (pedophilia) for as long as he has taught at the University of Texas”;
  • “used his position to further a community of individuals hoping to prey on underaged boys”;
  • “in his academic writing” Hubbard “describes physical relationships between men and young boys as ‘proper learning experiences'”;
  • taught a course called the “Mythology of Rape” that was banned at the University of Texas after one semester; and
  • “is heavily associated with the North American Man/Boy Love Association (‘NAMBLA’),” which Blakemore described as “formerly the world’s largest pedophile activist group” and that Hubbard is on the list of associated individuals on the NAMBLA Wikipedia page.

The flyer in issue called for Hubbard’s removal and states that:

an individual who advocates for violent crime against teen boys has no business teaching the leaders of tomorrow. It is clear that the University of Texas does not have its students’ safety, health, and welfare in mind …. We refuse to stand by while this man uses his status to promote pedophilia.

Additionally. Hubbard asserted Blakemore slandered him in an interview she gave to the Austin American-Stateman. Hubbard argued that these statements qualify as defamatory, are false, and have damaged his reputation. He also alleged he suffered damages as a result of Blakemore’s statements when his home was vandalized and the words “CHILD RAPIST” spray-painted on it. He alleged this caused him fear and forced him to relocate to California. In her defense, Blakemore argued that the statements in the flyer, Twitter, and to the media were true or substantially true, and that they were also a matter of opinion….

The undersigned has reviewed the exhibits attached to Blakemore’s motion and finds them inadequate to impose sanctions against Hubbard or his attorneys pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers. Blakemore’s motion for sanctions is based largely on her apparent belief that Hubbard’s case against her and two other University of Texas students was brought merely to pressure the University of Texas to settle Hubbard’s age discrimination suit against it. As evidence, she relies on the fact that Hubbard requested a large payout to settle a previous suit with the University several years ago, which it declined, and that dismissal of Hubbard’s claim against her and two other students were included in his agreement to settle with the University.

Blakemore’s suspicions do not rise to the level of evidence required for the undersigned to find that Hubbard’s litigation against her was vexatious, brought in bad faith, or oppressive. Hubbard has presented evidence that part of his EEOC Charge included a sexual orientation discrimination claim and that he asserted that the University helped foster a hostile work environment against Hubbard, including the dissemination of the flyer by Blakemore and others. Additionally, Hubbard has submitted evidence that Blakemore testified that she met with the University’s Vice President of Legal Affairs Jim Davis the morning after distributing the flyer and gave him a copy, and also discussed the flyer with President Greg Fenves who told Blakemore “not to worry” about Hubbard’s suit.

Hubbard has submitted evidence to the Court explaining why the University included settlement of Hubbard’s claims against Blakemore in its settlement agreement, and those reasons are unrelated to his previous age discrimination suit, but show the University’s desire to minimize its own exposure, unknown to Hubbard at the time he filed the suit, if the suit against Blakemore continued. Blakemore’s citation of the settlement agreement as “evidence” of Hubbard’s bad faith in making claims against her and using her as a “bargaining chip” in his settlement is simply conjecture on her part, and unsupported by any evidence.

Blakemore asserts that Hubbard’s claims against her are improper because the flyer and statements he complains of qualify as an expression of Blakemore’s opinions and/or contain truthful statements. In essence she asks the undersigned to assess the evidence and determine if Hubbard’s claims against her and her defenses have merit. The undersigned finds that Hubbard’s claims, on their face, are not frivolous and that determination of their potential merit would be the province of a jury after a trial, and not appropriate based on the limited evidence before the undersigned. Regardless, Hubbard’s pleadings and claims do not rise to the level of bad faith.

Additionally, Blakemore makes much of Hubbard’s claims against various John Does. Hubbard’s Complaint states that after publication of the alleged defamatory statements, his house was attacked, and he cites this attack as the basis of his mental anguish and emotional distress. Blakemore asserts that Hubbard admitted that he never believed that she was working in concert with the individuals that vandalized his house, and that this “admission” shows his John Doe claims are vexatious.

However, despite Blakemore’s contentions, Hubbard did not plead that Blakemore personally acted to cause the vandalism of his home, but that her statements motivated their violence. Additionally, Hubbard has submitted evidence that Blakemore knew who attacked Hubbard’s home immediately afterward, and had contacts with that group. Additionally, the flyer in issue was purportedly published by a group called “Students for Safety” while Blakemore was the only individual named on the flyer. Hubbard and his counsel had logical reasons for naming John Does in his suit in conjunction with his defamation claims. Blakemore has not submitted evidence supporting her claim that Hubbard’s John Doe claims were brought for an improper purpose or in bad faith.

With regard to Blakemore’s claims pursuant to § 1927, Blakemore complains that the defamation suits filed against two other individuals for other statements made at other times students show Hubbard’s desire to needlessly multiply the proceedings and increase expenses to the defendants when he could have brought a single suit. The undersigned finds that no rule requires Hubbard to bring his claims against three different individuals in one suit in this instance. Moreover, the Defendants in the three suits could have moved to consolidate the suits and did not. And, Blakemore has failed to explain how Hubbard’s choice to sue three individuals separately in any way increased her litigation costs. Hubbard’s counsel did not act in bad faith in filing separate suits. This argument is without merit.

{Hubbard requests that the Court sua sponte impose sanctions on Blakemore for her sanctions motion. The undersigned finds that the parties’ best interests are served by getting off the sanctions merry-go-round, and declines to award sanctions to Hubbard.}

The post Dismissed Professor vs. Student Libel Lawsuit Leads to Sanctions Requests, Denied All Around appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3qaYcWZ
via IFTTT

Dismissed Professor vs. Student Libel Lawsuit Leads to Sanctions Requests, Denied All Around

The backstory, from the Austin American-Statesman (Lara Korte):

A University of Texas professor who was the subject of widespread criticism for his teachings on adult male relationships with underage boys in antiquity is suing a student who he says spread false statements about him.

Thomas K. Hubbard, a longtime professor in UT’s classics department, filed a federal lawsuit in Austin this week alleging that UT sophomore Sarah Blakemore and 10 other unknown individuals, listed as John Does, committed libel against him by making and distributing a flyer calling for his removal.

The suit says Blakemore, in concert with the John Does, made multiple false statements about Hubbard and his writings that ultimately resulted in “significant damages to his reputation, mental anguish, and emotional distress.”

(For more, see this Inside Higher Ed (Colleen Flaherty) story.)

And from today’s Report and Recommendation in Hubbard v. Blakemore, by Magistrate Judge Dustin Howell (W.D. Tex.); such a recommendation can be appealed to the District Judge, but in my experience they usually end up sticking:

Defendant Sarah Allen Blakemore moves for sanctions against Plaintiff Thomas Hubbard, Ph.D., who dismissed his suit against her. {Blakemore identifies herself as “the daughter of a prominent Republican” in her pleadings.} She asserts that Hubbard sued her for the improper purpose of pressuring the University of Texas to settle his age discrimination claims. Blakemore asserts that Hubbard received a $700,000.00 settlement agreement with the University, and that the terms of that agreement required him to dismiss his claims against Blakemore, which he has done.

Blakemore maintains that Hubbard’s claims against her were frivolous and brought in bad faith, and requests that the undersigned award her sanctions pursuant to its “inherent power” and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927. Blakemore requests that she recover her attorneys’ fees as sanctions. Hubbard responds that Blakemore’s motion is frivolous, and in return requests sanctions for the costs of responding to it.

Hubbard’s underlying suit against Blakemore is a defamation suit. In his Complaint, he alleged that she published and circulated a flyer to multiple third parties in and around the University of Texas, as well as Twitter, asserting various statements which Hubbard maintains are false. The statements include that Hubbard:

  • has been “advocating for pederasty (pedophilia) for as long as he has taught at the University of Texas”;
  • “used his position to further a community of individuals hoping to prey on underaged boys”;
  • “in his academic writing” Hubbard “describes physical relationships between men and young boys as ‘proper learning experiences'”;
  • taught a course called the “Mythology of Rape” that was banned at the University of Texas after one semester; and
  • “is heavily associated with the North American Man/Boy Love Association (‘NAMBLA’),” which Blakemore described as “formerly the world’s largest pedophile activist group” and that Hubbard is on the list of associated individuals on the NAMBLA Wikipedia page.

The flyer in issue called for Hubbard’s removal and states that:

an individual who advocates for violent crime against teen boys has no business teaching the leaders of tomorrow. It is clear that the University of Texas does not have its students’ safety, health, and welfare in mind …. We refuse to stand by while this man uses his status to promote pedophilia.

Additionally. Hubbard asserted Blakemore slandered him in an interview she gave to the Austin American-Stateman. Hubbard argued that these statements qualify as defamatory, are false, and have damaged his reputation. He also alleged he suffered damages as a result of Blakemore’s statements when his home was vandalized and the words “CHILD RAPIST” spray-painted on it. He alleged this caused him fear and forced him to relocate to California. In her defense, Blakemore argued that the statements in the flyer, Twitter, and to the media were true or substantially true, and that they were also a matter of opinion….

The undersigned has reviewed the exhibits attached to Blakemore’s motion and finds them inadequate to impose sanctions against Hubbard or his attorneys pursuant to the Court’s inherent powers. Blakemore’s motion for sanctions is based largely on her apparent belief that Hubbard’s case against her and two other University of Texas students was brought merely to pressure the University of Texas to settle Hubbard’s age discrimination suit against it. As evidence, she relies on the fact that Hubbard requested a large payout to settle a previous suit with the University several years ago, which it declined, and that dismissal of Hubbard’s claim against her and two other students were included in his agreement to settle with the University.

Blakemore’s suspicions do not rise to the level of evidence required for the undersigned to find that Hubbard’s litigation against her was vexatious, brought in bad faith, or oppressive. Hubbard has presented evidence that part of his EEOC Charge included a sexual orientation discrimination claim and that he asserted that the University helped foster a hostile work environment against Hubbard, including the dissemination of the flyer by Blakemore and others. Additionally, Hubbard has submitted evidence that Blakemore testified that she met with the University’s Vice President of Legal Affairs Jim Davis the morning after distributing the flyer and gave him a copy, and also discussed the flyer with President Greg Fenves who told Blakemore “not to worry” about Hubbard’s suit.

Hubbard has submitted evidence to the Court explaining why the University included settlement of Hubbard’s claims against Blakemore in its settlement agreement, and those reasons are unrelated to his previous age discrimination suit, but show the University’s desire to minimize its own exposure, unknown to Hubbard at the time he filed the suit, if the suit against Blakemore continued. Blakemore’s citation of the settlement agreement as “evidence” of Hubbard’s bad faith in making claims against her and using her as a “bargaining chip” in his settlement is simply conjecture on her part, and unsupported by any evidence.

Blakemore asserts that Hubbard’s claims against her are improper because the flyer and statements he complains of qualify as an expression of Blakemore’s opinions and/or contain truthful statements. In essence she asks the undersigned to assess the evidence and determine if Hubbard’s claims against her and her defenses have merit. The undersigned finds that Hubbard’s claims, on their face, are not frivolous and that determination of their potential merit would be the province of a jury after a trial, and not appropriate based on the limited evidence before the undersigned. Regardless, Hubbard’s pleadings and claims do not rise to the level of bad faith.

Additionally, Blakemore makes much of Hubbard’s claims against various John Does. Hubbard’s Complaint states that after publication of the alleged defamatory statements, his house was attacked, and he cites this attack as the basis of his mental anguish and emotional distress. Blakemore asserts that Hubbard admitted that he never believed that she was working in concert with the individuals that vandalized his house, and that this “admission” shows his John Doe claims are vexatious.

However, despite Blakemore’s contentions, Hubbard did not plead that Blakemore personally acted to cause the vandalism of his home, but that her statements motivated their violence. Additionally, Hubbard has submitted evidence that Blakemore knew who attacked Hubbard’s home immediately afterward, and had contacts with that group. Additionally, the flyer in issue was purportedly published by a group called “Students for Safety” while Blakemore was the only individual named on the flyer. Hubbard and his counsel had logical reasons for naming John Does in his suit in conjunction with his defamation claims. Blakemore has not submitted evidence supporting her claim that Hubbard’s John Doe claims were brought for an improper purpose or in bad faith.

With regard to Blakemore’s claims pursuant to § 1927, Blakemore complains that the defamation suits filed against two other individuals for other statements made at other times students show Hubbard’s desire to needlessly multiply the proceedings and increase expenses to the defendants when he could have brought a single suit. The undersigned finds that no rule requires Hubbard to bring his claims against three different individuals in one suit in this instance. Moreover, the Defendants in the three suits could have moved to consolidate the suits and did not. And, Blakemore has failed to explain how Hubbard’s choice to sue three individuals separately in any way increased her litigation costs. Hubbard’s counsel did not act in bad faith in filing separate suits. This argument is without merit.

{Hubbard requests that the Court sua sponte impose sanctions on Blakemore for her sanctions motion. The undersigned finds that the parties’ best interests are served by getting off the sanctions merry-go-round, and declines to award sanctions to Hubbard.}

The post Dismissed Professor vs. Student Libel Lawsuit Leads to Sanctions Requests, Denied All Around appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3qaYcWZ
via IFTTT

Why Sister States / Circuits / Cities and Not Brothers?

My friend Josh Bornstein asked me a question related this, and I realized I knew the custom but not the reason. At least in court decisions, states are always “sister states” and never “brother states,” and likewise with circuit courts—except, as it happens, in Louisiana, where “brother circuits” and “brethren circuits” does appear (though still much less often than “sister circuits”). Likewise, in popular usage we have “sister cities” but almost never “brother cities.”

But why? I assume it flows from broader customs, perhaps the historical references to nations as “she.” But where did that come from? I crave enlightenment.

The post Why Sister States / Circuits / Cities and Not Brothers? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32ie162
via IFTTT

Why Sister States / Circuits / Cities and Not Brothers?

My friend Josh Bornstein asked me a question related this, and I realized I knew the custom but not the reason. At least in court decisions, states are always “sister states” and never “brother states,” and likewise with circuit courts—except, as it happens, in Louisiana, where “brother circuits” and “brethren circuits” does appear (though still much less often than “sister circuits”). Likewise, in popular usage we have “sister cities” but almost never “brother cities.”

But why? I assume it flows from broader customs, perhaps the historical references to nations as “she.” But where did that come from? I crave enlightenment.

The post Why Sister States / Circuits / Cities and Not Brothers? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/32ie162
via IFTTT

“Quinn Emanuel Tells U.S. Lawyers They Can Work from Anywhere, Forever”

So reports Reuters (David Thomas):

The 875-lawyer litigation firm will recruit lawyers in places where it doesn’t have an office, giving it an advantage in the U.S. legal industry’s talent wars, said firm chair and founder John Quinn….

Quinn Emanuel’s move is unprecedented for a large firm, said Kristin Stark, a principal with law firm consultancy Fairfax Associates….

In addition to aiding with recruiting, the policy could translate into lower expenses in the long term. Quinn said “it is inevitable” that the firm will remodel and down size its current office space….

Still, it isn’t adopting a virtual model. Quinn said the firm wants to make it attractive for employees to come into its offices, emphasizing common areas and open spaces.

Quinn Emanuel will also have to make “an extra effort” and offer more mentorship and training opportunities to remote attorneys, he said.

The post "Quinn Emanuel Tells U.S. Lawyers They Can Work from Anywhere, Forever" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3miE7gw
via IFTTT

“Quinn Emanuel Tells U.S. Lawyers They Can Work from Anywhere, Forever”

So reports Reuters (David Thomas):

The 875-lawyer litigation firm will recruit lawyers in places where it doesn’t have an office, giving it an advantage in the U.S. legal industry’s talent wars, said firm chair and founder John Quinn….

Quinn Emanuel’s move is unprecedented for a large firm, said Kristin Stark, a principal with law firm consultancy Fairfax Associates….

In addition to aiding with recruiting, the policy could translate into lower expenses in the long term. Quinn said “it is inevitable” that the firm will remodel and down size its current office space….

Still, it isn’t adopting a virtual model. Quinn said the firm wants to make it attractive for employees to come into its offices, emphasizing common areas and open spaces.

Quinn Emanuel will also have to make “an extra effort” and offer more mentorship and training opportunities to remote attorneys, he said.

The post "Quinn Emanuel Tells U.S. Lawyers They Can Work from Anywhere, Forever" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3miE7gw
via IFTTT

A Reality Check on Coronavirus, Congress, and Elon Musk’s Taxes


op-1-a-psd

It’s a Reason Roundtable remix this Monday! With Matt Welch out, Peter Suderman fills in and leads Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Associate Editor Billy Binion through the latest news on the coronavirus, congressional drama, billionaires, pop culture, and more. You don’t want to miss this.

1:45: Editor holiday plans in the face of the latest COVID panic.

19:31: Congressional update: Biden’s Build Back Better stalling and Manchin’s objections.

41:05: Weekly Listener Question: I have a theory (some might call it a conspiracy theory) that Elon Musk is gearing up to run for President in the 2024 election cycle. Would anyone on the Roundtable consider voting for Elon if he were to run for President, as a Republican, in 2024? Could his running for office potentially strangle Justin Amash’s chances of being successful as the prospective Libertarian Party nominee?

54:55: Media recommendations for the week. (And click here for all of the Roundtable‘s media recommendations, ever.)

This week’s links:

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today’s sponsors:

  • Imagine an app where you can get unlocked access to reliable news sites. An app that filters out fake news and clickbait but still shows you every story from multiple perspectives to counter bias. Where good news, as in positive stories, is highlighted—so you don’t become despondent. And where journalists dig through news from around the world to find stories you wouldn’t normally see. That’s what an innovative Australian startup called Inkl has come up with. The service unlocks more than $12,000 of premium news for $100 a year. If you go now to inkl.com/podcast, they’ll give you an additional 25 percent discount, so you can get a whole year’s worth of headache-free news for just $75.
  • We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don’t realize is that health insurance won’t always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That’s why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won’t see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. Now, as a listener of our show, you’ll get up to a $50 Visa or Amazon gift card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.

Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Regan Taylor
Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

The post A Reality Check on Coronavirus, Congress, and Elon Musk's Taxes appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3snEI43
via IFTTT

A Reality Check on Coronavirus, Congress, and Elon Musk’s Taxes


op-1-a-psd

It’s a Reason Roundtable remix this Monday! With Matt Welch out, Peter Suderman fills in and leads Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Associate Editor Billy Binion through the latest news on the coronavirus, congressional drama, billionaires, pop culture, and more. You don’t want to miss this.

1:45: Editor holiday plans in the face of the latest COVID panic.

19:31: Congressional update: Biden’s Build Back Better stalling and Manchin’s objections.

41:05: Weekly Listener Question: I have a theory (some might call it a conspiracy theory) that Elon Musk is gearing up to run for President in the 2024 election cycle. Would anyone on the Roundtable consider voting for Elon if he were to run for President, as a Republican, in 2024? Could his running for office potentially strangle Justin Amash’s chances of being successful as the prospective Libertarian Party nominee?

54:55: Media recommendations for the week. (And click here for all of the Roundtable‘s media recommendations, ever.)

This week’s links:

Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today’s sponsors:

  • Imagine an app where you can get unlocked access to reliable news sites. An app that filters out fake news and clickbait but still shows you every story from multiple perspectives to counter bias. Where good news, as in positive stories, is highlighted—so you don’t become despondent. And where journalists dig through news from around the world to find stories you wouldn’t normally see. That’s what an innovative Australian startup called Inkl has come up with. The service unlocks more than $12,000 of premium news for $100 a year. If you go now to inkl.com/podcast, they’ll give you an additional 25 percent discount, so you can get a whole year’s worth of headache-free news for just $75.
  • We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don’t realize is that health insurance won’t always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That’s why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won’t see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. Now, as a listener of our show, you’ll get up to a $50 Visa or Amazon gift card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.

Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Regan Taylor
Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

The post A Reality Check on Coronavirus, Congress, and Elon Musk's Taxes appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3snEI43
via IFTTT

Against Faucism


covphotos194213

Last week, the CEOs of American Airlines and Southwest Airlines told Congress that they do not think mask requirements make much sense on airplanes, where the air filtration systems are superior to what is typically found in an intensive care unit.

“I think the case is very strong that masks don’t add much, if anything, in the air cabin environment,” said Gary Kelly, CEO of Southwest. “It is very safe and very high quality compared to any other indoor setting.”

Unwilling to let anyone undermine the case for keeping a government mandate in place, White House coronavirus advisor Anthony Fauci threw cold water on the idea.

“You have to be wearing a mask on a plane,” he said bluntly on television Sunday.

When ABC News’ Jon Karl asked Fauci specifically if he thought we would ever reach the point where we did not need to wear masks on planes, he responded: “I don’t think so. I think when you’re dealing with a closed space, even though the filtration is good, that you want to go that extra step when you have people—you know, you get a flight from Washington to San Francisco, it’s well over a five-hour flight. Even though you have a good filtration system, I still believe that masks are a prudent thing to do, and we should be doing it.”

This is Faucism distilled down to its very essence. For the government health bureaucrats who have given themselves sole authority over vast sectors of American life—from travel to education to entertainment to housing—it doesn’t matter what the CEOs of these companies think. It doesn’t matter what their customers want. It doesn’t matter if maskless air travel is, for the most part, quite safe (especially for the vaccinated). It doesn’t matter if the mask mandate makes air travel impossible for families with young children. All that matters is the calculus of the most risk-averse people: unelected public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Like Fauci, NIH Director Frances Collins said this past weekend that air passengers should be masked—and should think twice about large gatherings, and even about going anywhere at all.

“I’m not going to say you shouldn’t travel, but you should do so very carefully,” he said, before adding that the unvaccinated should definitely remain at home.

These pronouncements come during another pivotal moment in the pandemic: the rise of omicron variant, which appears to be at least as infectious as delta, capable of evading some amount of prior protection, but perhaps less lethal. Taking their cues from the public health establishment, political leaders are rushing to reimpose punitive mitigation efforts. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser ended the city’s “brief experiment with letting people make their own choices about masks,” even though the mayor herself has flouted the mandate at various social gatherings throughout the summer. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul initially said that the state would not enforce the new mask mandate, but as cases continue to rise she abruptly reversed course and promised to send out inspectors.

These efforts reflect government officials’ need to appear like they are doing something to battle COVID-19, even though it is no longer clear that mandates, lockdowns, and closures are doing much to prevent death. After D.C. reimposed the mask mandate over the summer in response to the delta wave, cases continued to rise due to the variant’s increased infectiousness, but the death rate remained exactly the same—probably because vaccination rates are quite high.

Indeed, the vaccine is the only public health innovation doing much to save people’s lives from COVID-19, but it’s obviously not the case that we are just one more round of booster shots away from triumphing over the disease. The reality is that COVID-19 will be with us for years to come, no matter how faithfully people wear masks, practice social distancing, and get boosted.

Yet the Faucists talk about COVID-19 as if the pandemic is still some kind of we’re-all-in-this-together civilizational struggle that justifies and necessitates the suspension of civil liberties, whole industries, and school time. In his ABC interview, Fauci told Karl that he’s never walking away from his position of authority until COVID-19 is defeated.

“You know, we’re in a war, Jon,” he said. “It’s kind of like we’re halfway through World War II, and you decide, well, I think I’ve had enough of this. I’m walking away. You can’t do that. You’ve got to finish it—and we’re going to finish this and get back to normal.”

But the U.S. government is unlikely to ever defeat COVID-19 in the same sense that it defeated Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. In the meantime, the government is claiming more and more power for itself; this power is being wielded by the agencies least accountable to the democratic process, and it is being used to enact harmful restrictions on people’s lives that will apparently last for years, for decades, or forever. Americans still remove their shoes and belts in order to board air planes, even though the event that inspired this policy happened more than 20 years ago—and even though the evidence against this policy is overwhelming.

The Faucists clearly want to make masks just as permanent as the TSA: Indeed, they have said so explicitly, as Fauci just did. At every stage of the pandemic, public health bureaucrats have uttered some version of the sentence Now is not the time to ease up. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Not as long as they are in charge.

The post Against Faucism appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3e8XwMn
via IFTTT

Against Faucism


covphotos194213

Last week, the CEOs of American Airlines and Southwest Airlines told Congress that they do not think mask requirements make much sense on airplanes, where the air filtration systems are superior to what is typically found in an intensive care unit.

“I think the case is very strong that masks don’t add much, if anything, in the air cabin environment,” said Gary Kelly, CEO of Southwest. “It is very safe and very high quality compared to any other indoor setting.”

Unwilling to let anyone undermine the case for keeping a government mandate in place, White House coronavirus advisor Anthony Fauci threw cold water on the idea.

“You have to be wearing a mask on a plane,” he said bluntly on television Sunday.

When ABC News’ Jon Karl asked Fauci specifically if he thought we would ever reach the point where we did not need to wear masks on planes, he responded: “I don’t think so. I think when you’re dealing with a closed space, even though the filtration is good, that you want to go that extra step when you have people—you know, you get a flight from Washington to San Francisco, it’s well over a five-hour flight. Even though you have a good filtration system, I still believe that masks are a prudent thing to do, and we should be doing it.”

This is Faucism distilled down to its very essence. For the government health bureaucrats who have given themselves sole authority over vast sectors of American life—from travel to education to entertainment to housing—it doesn’t matter what the CEOs of these companies think. It doesn’t matter what their customers want. It doesn’t matter if maskless air travel is, for the most part, quite safe (especially for the vaccinated). It doesn’t matter if the mask mandate makes air travel impossible for families with young children. All that matters is the calculus of the most risk-averse people: unelected public health experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Like Fauci, NIH Director Frances Collins said this past weekend that air passengers should be masked—and should think twice about large gatherings, and even about going anywhere at all.

“I’m not going to say you shouldn’t travel, but you should do so very carefully,” he said, before adding that the unvaccinated should definitely remain at home.

These pronouncements come during another pivotal moment in the pandemic: the rise of omicron variant, which appears to be at least as infectious as delta, capable of evading some amount of prior protection, but perhaps less lethal. Taking their cues from the public health establishment, political leaders are rushing to reimpose punitive mitigation efforts. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser ended the city’s “brief experiment with letting people make their own choices about masks,” even though the mayor herself has flouted the mandate at various social gatherings throughout the summer. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul initially said that the state would not enforce the new mask mandate, but as cases continue to rise she abruptly reversed course and promised to send out inspectors.

These efforts reflect government officials’ need to appear like they are doing something to battle COVID-19, even though it is no longer clear that mandates, lockdowns, and closures are doing much to prevent death. After D.C. reimposed the mask mandate over the summer in response to the delta wave, cases continued to rise due to the variant’s increased infectiousness, but the death rate remained exactly the same—probably because vaccination rates are quite high.

Indeed, the vaccine is the only public health innovation doing much to save people’s lives from COVID-19, but it’s obviously not the case that we are just one more round of booster shots away from triumphing over the disease. The reality is that COVID-19 will be with us for years to come, no matter how faithfully people wear masks, practice social distancing, and get boosted.

Yet the Faucists talk about COVID-19 as if the pandemic is still some kind of we’re-all-in-this-together civilizational struggle that justifies and necessitates the suspension of civil liberties, whole industries, and school time. In his ABC interview, Fauci told Karl that he’s never walking away from his position of authority until COVID-19 is defeated.

“You know, we’re in a war, Jon,” he said. “It’s kind of like we’re halfway through World War II, and you decide, well, I think I’ve had enough of this. I’m walking away. You can’t do that. You’ve got to finish it—and we’re going to finish this and get back to normal.”

But the U.S. government is unlikely to ever defeat COVID-19 in the same sense that it defeated Nazi Germany and imperial Japan. In the meantime, the government is claiming more and more power for itself; this power is being wielded by the agencies least accountable to the democratic process, and it is being used to enact harmful restrictions on people’s lives that will apparently last for years, for decades, or forever. Americans still remove their shoes and belts in order to board air planes, even though the event that inspired this policy happened more than 20 years ago—and even though the evidence against this policy is overwhelming.

The Faucists clearly want to make masks just as permanent as the TSA: Indeed, they have said so explicitly, as Fauci just did. At every stage of the pandemic, public health bureaucrats have uttered some version of the sentence Now is not the time to ease up. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever. Not as long as they are in charge.

The post Against Faucism appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3e8XwMn
via IFTTT