Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Stormy Daniels’ Libel Lawsuit Against President Trump

From yesterday’s Clifford v. Trump, decided by Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, and Jacqueline Nguyen:

As alleged in the complaint, Ms. Clifford began an intimate relationship with Mr. Trump in 2006. Five years later, in 2011, Ms. Clifford agreed to cooperate with a magazine that intended to publish a story about the relationship. Ms. Clifford alleges that a few weeks after she agreed to assist with the magazine story, she was approached by an unknown man in a Las Vegas parking lot who told her “Leave Trump alone. Forget the story,” and threatened that harm would come to her if she continued to cooperate with the magazine. Ultimately, the story was not published.

In 2018, after Mr. Trump became President, Ms. Clifford went public with her account of this incident. With the assistance of a sketch artist, she prepared a composite sketch of the man from the parking lot, which was disseminated publicly.

Ms. Clifford’s defamation claim is based on a tweet Mr. Trump published about the composite sketch. Shortly after the sketch was released, a Twitter user unrelated to the parties here tweeted the sketch juxtaposed with a photograph of Ms. Clifford’s ex-husband, with a mocking message suggesting that the two men resembled one another. Mr. Trump retweeted this tweet, adding his own message: “A sketch years later about a nonexistent man. A total con job, playing the Fake News Media for Fools (but they know it)!”

The two tweets appeared together as depicted below:

Ms. Clifford responded by filing this suit, alleging that Mr. Trump’s tweet is defamatory….

“[S]tatements that are not verifiable as false are not defamatory. And even when a statement is verifiable, it cannot give rise to liability if the entire context in which it was made discloses that it was not intended to assert a fact.” … [S]tatements that fail either test—”verifiability or context”—[are treated] as “opinion[s].” The determination of whether a statement is “reasonably capable of a defamatory meaning” focuses on how the statement would be interpreted by an “objectively reasonable reader.”

Ms. Clifford advances two arguments for why the tweet at issue is defamatory. First, citing the Black’s Law Dictionary definition of “confidence man,” she argues that the use of the term “con job” implied that she had literally committed the crime of fraud. But it would be clear to a reasonable reader that the tweet was not accusing Clifford of actually committing criminal activity. Instead, as used in this context, the term “con job” could not be interpreted as anything more than a colorful expression of rhetorical hyperbole. Greenbelt Coop. Publ’g Ass’n v. Bresler (1970) (description of the plaintiff’s negotiating position as “blackmail” could not reasonably be interpreted as having accused him of committing the crime of blackmail)….

Next, Ms. Clifford argues that the tweet is defamatory because it accused her of lying about having been threatened because of her participation in a magazine story about her relationship with Mr. Trump. We agree that this is a reasonable interpretation of the tweet, but conclude that it is not actionable.

Under Texas law [which applies to this case, presumably because Daniels is a Texas resident], a statement that merely interprets disclosed facts is an opinion, and, as noted, statements of opinion cannot form the basis of a defamation claim.. Viewed through the eyes of an objectively reasonable reader, the tweet here reflects Mr. Trump’s opinion about the implications of the allegedly similar appearances of Ms. Clifford’s ex-husband and the man in the sketch. Mr. Trump’s reference to a “sketch years later of a nonexistent man” signals that the allegedly defamatory conclusion that followed—that Ms. Clifford was pulling a “con job” and “playing the Fake News Media for Fools”—plainly concerns the similarities between the sketch and the photograph of Ms. Clifford’s ex-husband.

Because the tweet juxtaposing the two images was displayed immediately below Mr. Trump’s tweet, the reader was provided with the information underlying the allegedly defamatory statement and was free to draw his or her own conclusions. Moreover, the tweet does not imply any undisclosed facts. Accordingly, the tweet, read in context, was a non-actionable statement of opinion. … “[T]here is no defamation liability for a statement of opinion when a report sets out the underlying facts in the publication itself, thereby allowing the listener to evaluate the facts and either accept or reject the opinion.” …

Resisting this conclusion, Ms. Clifford argues that the tweet is reasonably construed as disputing not only her account of having been threatened over her cooperation with the magazine but also her broader allegation that she had an intimate relationship with Mr. Trump. Construed this way, Ms. Clifford contends that the tweet is actionable because a reasonable reader would appreciate that Mr. Trump had personal knowledge about whether there had in fact been a relationship, such that the tweet would be understood as a statement, based on undisclosed facts, that Ms. Clifford had fabricated her account of the relationship. We find this argument unpersuasive.

As an initial matter, in evaluating whether Ms. Clifford adequately pleaded a defamation claim, we are limited to the allegations in the complaint. The operative complaint specifically alleges that Mr. Trump’s tweet was defamatory because it “falsely attack[ed] the veracity of Ms. Clifford’s account of the threatening incident that took place in 2011.” …

More importantly, even if this theory had been properly presented, we do not believe the tweet could be reasonably read as addressing Ms. Clifford’s account of her relationship with Mr. Trump. The tweet did not reference the alleged relationship and instead focused on the sketch of the ostensibly “nonexistent man.” This was plainly a reference to Ms. Clifford’s account of having been threatened by a man in a Las Vegas parking lot. It follows that the statement in the following sentence that Ms. Clifford was pulling a “con job” and “playing the Fake News Media for Fools” was referring to her account of that same incident, not more broadly to other, unreferenced, statements by Ms. Clifford about the alleged relationship.

Because the complaint failed to plead an actionable false statement, the district court correctly granted the motion to dismiss.

Seems right to me.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3k1FWvg
via IFTTT

What Happens To Outdoor Dining In Fall And Winter?

What Happens To Outdoor Dining In Fall And Winter?

Tyler Durden

Sat, 08/01/2020 – 17:00

Authored by Heather Lalley of Restaurant Business

Natale Servino, whose family has run Servino Ristorante in Tiburon, Calif., for 42 years, is hoping for a pleasant fall that transitions into a very mild winter.

Servino’s recent intense interest in weather patterns is driven by the newfound vitalness of outdoor dining at his restaurant. He’s currently hard at work, making his operation’s outdoor area even more hospitable to diners, while trying to find ways to use the space even in inclement weather.

“We’re hoping to carry this as far into winter as we can go,” he said. “[Outdoor dining] was on our radar but we never made the full investment because outdoor seating was just a small segment of our dining.”

Now, though, Servino and other operators are counting on outdoor business to bring in almost all, if not all, of a restaurant’s sales during the pandemic. So, they’re coming up with creative ways to keep those outdoor spaces inviting even as the weather in many parts of the country turns less-than-picnic-perfect.

Servino Ristorante, which sits on the waterfront just north of the Golden Gate Bridge, has two patios decked out with built-in heating systems. Since then, though, the restaurant has added other enhancements to keep diners comfortable in cooler weather, Servino said:

  • Replacing metal outdoor furniture with tables and chairs made from materials that feel warmer to the touch
  • Adding greenery and shrubbery to not only help provide physical distance between tables but to also serve as a shield from wind whipping in off the water
  • Offering blankets that are laundered between each use

Even the menu is getting a remodel, to better accommodate outdoor diners, he said.

The restaurant will introduce its fall-focused offerings a bit earlier than normal, in case guests want to warm up with slow-cooked meats and braises or even warm cocktails.

“It might be something we do a little bit earlier as people sit outside,” he said. “We want to make sure the dish shows well and is appropriate for the environment.”

Servino is also working on ways to communicate with guests about whether they’d prefer a leisurely dining experience or would rather get in-and-out—especially as the weather turns.

In Washington, D.C., Southern Mexican restaurant Espirta worked with its designer to add an awning as well as two glass panels to its patio seating. Before the pandemic, the restaurant could use drop-down plastic walls to fully enclose the area, effectively doubling the size of its operation.

The restaurant has seven electric heaters installed about tables as well as four portable gas heaters.

Co-owner Kelly Phillips estimates the restaurant has spent about $30,000 over the last four years working on the patio so it can be usable in more types of weather.

“Every year we would add on another phase,” Phillips said. “We were just lucky to have done that.”

Outdoor dining guidelines vary by state and even city, so operators should check on their local rules before adding any kinds of temporary walls to outside seating.

In the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, known for especially brutal winters, multi-concept operator Brent Frederick of Jester Concepts is instead trying to make his indoor dining room as safe as possible since patios sound like an unsustainable revenue stream as the temperature drops.

Frederick has spent close to $10,000 on ionization systems for his restaurant’s HVAC systems, which he says is designed to clear most viruses from the air. His team is currently working  on the best way to communicate the existence of the air-cleaning system to customers (and potential customers), he said.

“It’s not a fix-all situation,” he said. “But we felt like it was worth the investment. Anything that gives the consumer confidence to come into our store.”

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2XiubH3 Tyler Durden

Shares Of China-Based Tesla Competitor Li Auto Surge In Nasdaq Trading Debut

Shares Of China-Based Tesla Competitor Li Auto Surge In Nasdaq Trading Debut

Tyler Durden

Sat, 08/01/2020 – 16:35

Make no mistake about it, there has been non-stop hype in EV stocks for the better part of the last several years. But over the last few months, that momentum has picked up. We just noted days ago that many EV-makers in China were going public just to stave off bankruptcy, showcasing the market’s appetite for such names. 

Stocks in the U.S. like Kandi Technologies, Nio and Workhorse have all had recent runs on the back of continued EV hype.

And new Chinese startup Li Auto just saw major success upon listing its shares on the NASDAQ, proving that: a) the EV hype is still alive and b) U.S. investors have learned precisely nothing from watching one China-based fraud implode after another. Li Auto is backed by TikTok owner Bytedance and ecommerce company Meituan Dianping. 

Li Auto’s SUV

The company’s shares popped 43% on its first day of trading on the Nasdaq last Thursday, before pulling back 3% on Friday. The company’s IPO raised about $1.5 billion. Li Auto has a market cap of about $14 billion, compared to Tesla’s $270 billion. Li Auto has only sold “a few thousands” automobiles. 

Tu Le, founder of Sino Auto Insights, told FT: “The US market clearly still has a large appetite for electric vehicles, but it’s frothy and there is probably a bubble.” 

“Fundamentally Li Auto only has a record of a few months selling cars. You have to ask; are we even comparing apples to apples when we compare Tesla to these other Chinese automakers?” he added.

The company was founded in 2015 and sold 10,400 of its six seater SUV hybrid vehicle that use both a battery and a combustion engine by June of this year. The company – as we noted in our above linked article – faces significant competition from a growing field of EV names coming out of China.

Peer Nio has “racked up huge debts” since listing in the U.S. and nearly needed to be bailed out with a $1 billion cash injection recently. The company’s stock has still rallied, however, showing the appetite for EV stocks in the U.S. market. Despite this, China’s EV market continues to both slow and thin out, weeding out smaller players. 

Sales of EVs are down 35% year over year in June. Mingming Huang, founder of Future Capital literally has said this time it’s different: “I know it’s easy for people to compare Li Auto to Nio, but we are very different.”

As many wonder why frauds like Luckin Coffee are able to continue on U.S. markets, they need to look no further than the appetite for the Li Auto deal. As long as those in the pecking order (exchanges, auditors, institutions) are making money on the listing, the only “safeguard” left becomes individual investors and the SEC – both of which are useless.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3k4PBRK Tyler Durden

Faculty and Student Pledges

My general policy, which I flagged on Friday, is to not sign any statement I do not write. I share many of Keith’s concerns about the risks of joining open letters. Fortunately, most professors have the discretion to sign, or not sign public statements. But this year, I suspect that many faculty, as well as most students, will be asked to sign pledges. I italicize asked, because the request is not really optional.

Consider the pledge at the Ohio State University. The bulk of the pledge asks members of the community to take certain precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Whatever. This document will not serve as a valid liability waiver. And if undergraduates are as careful as Major League Baseball players, classes will be online by Labor Day.

But the pledge also requires signatories to “acknowledge the Buckeye values.” What are those values? Here are two of them.

it is important to embrace diversity in people and ideas; foster the inclusion of all Buckeyes.

In the abstract, this language is nebulous enough. What does it mean to “embrace diversity”? What does it mean to “foster inclusion.” Who knows? But the ambiguity presents a precise risk. Signing onto this language will bind faculty and students to a pledge with an unknown direction. And the direction is not hard to figure out.

May I provide an insight where these measures are headed? Consider the “Race and Social Justice” curriculum that Seattle city employees will have to take. The classes separate employees by race, including a “whites-only training.” White employees will have to process their “white feelings” and consider “what we do in white people space.” Then the employees must examine their “relationships with white supremacy, racism, and whiteness.” The white employees must explain how their “[families] benefit economically from the system of white supremacy even as it directly and violently harms Black people.” And so on.

Some people may wish to take these classes. Others may not. But no mistake: there is no possible disagreement with these lectures. There is only one right answer. Any dissent will be deemed dispositive proof of bigotry, racism, and fragility. There is only one, orthodox truth.

In my mind, Justice Robert Jackson addressed this issues six decades ago:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us

Faculty and students should understand what they are signing up for when they agree to such pledges. These pledges are not meaningless statements.

Tenured faculty will have more autonomy to decline these pledges, but will still face pressure to join. Untenured faculty will reasonably fear retaliation for refusing to sign pledges. As it stands now, faculty candidates are required to submit “diversity statements.” Students who decline to sign the pledges may be subjected to forced re-education.

This sort of regime is not limited to higher education. New York City public schools separated teachers by race for “affinity groups.” Recently, a public high school teacher in Texas contacted me in a panic. He said his principal wanted to separate students by race, along the lines of the Seattle program. Black students could go to the white session. But white students could not go to the black session. This teacher had tenure protection, so he was prepared to object. But others may not be willing to do so.

This year will be very different from previous years. Faculty and staff should begin the semesters with their eyes wide open.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XiKlAo
via IFTTT

Faculty and Student Pledges

My general policy, which I flagged on Friday, is to not sign any statement I do not write. I share many of Keith’s concerns about the risks of joining open letters. Fortunately, most professors have the discretion to sign, or not sign public statements. But this year, I suspect that many faculty, as well as most students, will be asked to sign pledges. I italicize asked, because the request is not really optional.

Consider the pledge at the Ohio State University. The bulk of the pledge asks members of the community to take certain precautions to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Whatever. This document will not serve as a valid liability waiver. And if undergraduates are as careful as Major League Baseball players, classes will be online by Labor Day.

But the pledge also requires signatories to “acknowledge the Buckeye values.” What are those values? Here are two of them.

it is important to embrace diversity in people and ideas; foster the inclusion of all Buckeyes.

In the abstract, this language is nebulous enough. What does it mean to “embrace diversity”? What does it mean to “foster inclusion.” Who knows? But the ambiguity presents a precise risk. Signing onto this language will bind faculty and students to a pledge with an unknown direction. And the direction is not hard to figure out.

May I provide an insight where these measures are headed? Consider the “Race and Social Justice” curriculum that Seattle city employees will have to take. The classes separate employees by race, including a “whites-only training.” White employees will have to process their “white feelings” and consider “what we do in white people space.” Then the employees must examine their “relationships with white supremacy, racism, and whiteness.” The white employees must explain how their “[families] benefit economically from the system of white supremacy even as it directly and violently harms Black people.” And so on.

Some people may wish to take these classes. Others may not. But no mistake: there is no possible disagreement with these lectures. There is only one right answer. Any dissent will be deemed dispositive proof of bigotry, racism, and fragility. There is only one, orthodox truth.

In my mind, Justice Robert Jackson addressed this issues six decades ago:

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us

Faculty and students should understand what they are signing up for when they agree to such pledges. These pledges are not meaningless statements.

Tenured faculty will have more autonomy to decline these pledges, but will still face pressure to join. Untenured faculty will reasonably fear retaliation for refusing to sign pledges. As it stands now, faculty candidates are required to submit “diversity statements.” Students who decline to sign the pledges may be subjected to forced re-education.

This sort of regime is not limited to higher education. New York City public schools separated teachers by race for “affinity groups.” Recently, a public high school teacher in Texas contacted me in a panic. He said his principal wanted to separate students by race, along the lines of the Seattle program. Black students could go to the white session. But white students could not go to the black session. This teacher had tenure protection, so he was prepared to object. But others may not be willing to do so.

This year will be very different from previous years. Faculty and staff should begin the semesters with their eyes wide open.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2XiKlAo
via IFTTT

Amazon, Jeff Bezos, And The Influential Washington Post

Amazon, Jeff Bezos, And The Influential Washington Post

Tyler Durden

Sat, 08/01/2020 – 16:10

Authored by Bruce Wilds via Advancing Time blog,

After Jeff Bezos and several other CEOs testified before the House Judiciary antitrust subcommittee over anti-competitive conduct the following article has taken a huge leap in importance. The Washington Post is an influencer with great power. What is the definition of an influencer? The definition of an influencer is a person or entity that exerts influence. An influencer inspires or guides the actions of others The old theme of laziness and mellowness runs counter to today’s influencers, who are business-people and upscale inspirational promoters. During recent years several of the tech giants have come under fire for skewing and manipulating public opinion but sliding below the radar is the Washington Post. This means few people question the newspaper’s findings, stories, articles, or opinions.

Influence and Power Wrongly Placed!

The Washington Post is by far the most influential newspaper in America. Its subtle ability to influence, shape, and mold the opinion of Americans cannot be overestimated. Day after day those working for the Washington Post are quoted time and time again as experts and authorities as they appear on talk-shows and news-feeds spreading their message. Much in the way a stone hitting the water sends out ripples, this amplifies their spin and in many ways determines the focus and direction in how we view issues. The Washington Post’s power goes far beyond just reporting the news but it has the ability to plant an idea like you would a seed. It then shapes public opinion utilizing various tools and even coordinating the timing to maximize their impact.

Power Corrupts

Almost as frightening as the concentrated power held by companies such as Facebook and Google is the fact Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and the world’s richest man, is the person who owns and controls the Washington Post. It is silly to think Jeff Bezos purchased the Washington Post in 2013 because he expected newspapers to make a lucrative resurgence. It is more likely he purchased the long-trusted U.S. newspaper for the power it would ensure him in Washington when wielded as a propaganda mouthpiece to extend his ability to both shape and control public opinion.

To be blunt, the Washington Post controls much of the narrative put before the American people. Jeff Bezos, the epitome of a person who rises to the top in unregulated capitalist systems where money rewards people who are comfortable with exploiting and harming others should not be wielding such power. The fact is, when you couple the voice of the Washington Post with Amazon, a company so deeply involved with discovering and archiving detailed files and information about individuals and politicians across America you command far too much muscle and clout.

It is not a coincidence that the Washington Post has broken many big stories that move the needle of public opinion in huge ways. This is done over the years with a cumulative effect, meaning that while many of these stories don’t immediately wow us they seem to rapidly spread throughout the mainstream media taking on a life of their own and eventually have huge ramifications that can be so subtle they go unnoticed by the average American. The propaganda they dish out can be very seductive, they simply add in a few gentle jabs to embarrass their enemies and then stir the power of suggestion.

Many people do not realize it but the Washington Post cloaking itself as a pro-establishment mainstream publication can defend establishment narratives but actively attack anyone who challenges them. By this I mean it serves the wealthy and the powerful which can only exist with nonstop advertising to convince the American public that the “overall status quo” is in their best interest. The Washington Post is used to manufacture consent for that system; for the economic system, for the wars which prop it up, for the politicians which the plutocrats own and operate, for the political system which wealthy insiders have infiltrated every level.

An example of this is how a story about Roy Moore published in the Washington Post on November 9, 2017, resulted in him losing the election. WaPo reported that Moore had initiated a sexual encounter with a young girl in 1979 when she was 14 and he was 32 years old. The allegations of sexual misconduct dumped out a month before the election while never proven spread like wildfire as the term “pedophile” went viral causing Moore to lose to Democratic candidate Doug Jones.

This brings us to the question of whether The Washington Post is “that good” at uncovering and reporting the truth or simply maximizing its influence to alter and control public opinion? Even when not breaking a big story WaPo is not averse to stirring the pot and increasing outrage that can later be directed towards their target. Whether we are talking about the “Me Too” movement or just recently, the idea that record gun sales for protection because people are afraid of growing crime, will result in countless deaths.

In recent months, according to the firearm industry’s trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), Americans have purchased millions of guns. These gun sales have occurred during the government-mandated lockdowns and riots erupted after the killing of George Floyd. An article authored by Ryan McMaken of The Mises Institute looks into how the Washington Post is trying to turn the soaring gun sales narrative around. A recent WaPo article claims people aren’t buying guns as a reaction to violence and social disarray but insists those new gun purchases are the cause of the violence in the first place. The piece even goes as far as attempting to tie the purchases to “state-level racism” using a study about data on Google searches for the n-word, an approach used by social scientists in the past.

Circling back to the crux of this article, being manipulated by biased reporting claiming to be fair and balanced is real and dangerous. This needs to be exposed and curtailed or society will be lead down a path designed to enhance the power of those in control. We must never forget that Amazon is a job-killing exploiter and the company is no stranger to sweetheart deals and has lined the pockets of its CEO, Jeff Bezos, at taxpayer expense. Many of the options Bezos employs to expand Amazon are available to him only because of the many areas his various companies engage in, this is the crux of growing antitrust talk surrounding Amazon which has become a threat to our democracy and capitalism.

Subtle but constant jabs take their toll over time and add fuel to an atmosphere that constantly warps our perception of reality. Adding to its importance is this is an election year and because our nation is so polarized the direction we take going forward matters a great deal. While Trump may not be God’s gift to mankind he does represent an effort to turn back economic forces and a deep state that has become too strong. Influencers such as WaPo by effectively undermining President Trump are much more dangerous at altering the results of the election than countries like Russia or China. Little things such as reminding the electorate and women especially that Trump “does not respect women” resulted in flipping a very valuable vote in an evenly split Senate, this matters.

When WaPo helped to fuel the “MeToo” movement that was raging due to high profile revelations relating to Harvey Weinstein and other powerful men acting like pigs they shifted votes. In an article titled, “The Marginalized Voices Of The #MeToo Movement” the Post took a victory lap of sorts on December 7, 2017, by pointing out that when Time magazine recognized the #MeToo movement as its Person of the Year, it solidified just how much of a cultural moment we are in when dealing with sexual harassment and assault allegations against powerful men. Unstated was how the growth of the movement has further polarized our divided nation. Even the mention of this movement in a negative light has resulted in people being cast off a show or dis-invited to an event.

All this adds fuel to an atmosphere that constantly warps our perception of the Trump administration. This is then coupled with a constant barrage of headlines such as “Trump Decides To remove National Security Advisor And Others May Follow” or, “Trump To Fire McMaster As National Security Advisor, WaPo Reports But White House Denies.” These often well-laundered stories tend to repeat vague rumors and innuendos which feed into the narrative of a White House in chaos. Most of these articles tend to loop back on themselves, while described as news they are designed to continually jolt the emotions of both those on the left and the right reinforcing the polarization that grips our nation but leaving nobody to blame.

This type of reporting does not stop at attacking Trump but extends into our feelings about the world including our view of Russia, North Korea, Iran, and even issues like trade. It all seems a bit ironic that it was the Washington Post which was the first to print these stories that you would normally expect to flow from a source closer to home such as a newspaper in the city or state where the event took place or the accuser lived. While this is inconclusive in proving that they were prefabricated of wrongdoing. it can be taken as proof of the power the Post wields.

One of the best descriptions I have ever read of Jeff Bezos calls him the most crafty plutocrat alive and stated he purchased the Washington Post so he could shape America’s agenda. The neo-liberal Orwellian establishment that Bezos is building his empire upon has been greatly enhanced by using the long-trusted US newspaper as a propaganda mouthpiece to propel his agenda forward. Very troubling is the fact Jeff Bezos is also a contractor with the CIA and sits on a Pentagon advisory board all part of doing everything he can to cozy up and ingratiate himself to the establishment on which his empire is built. This includes kicking WikiLeaks off Amazon servers in 2010 and dovetails in a creepy way with Amazon’s involvement in surveillance systems and digital “assistance” devices like Alexa.

It amazes me that average Americans still have a difficult time internalizing the fact businesses are dying and workers are getting poorer as Bezo’s empire continues to grow. Bezos is happily collaborating with depraved intelligence agencies, manipulating and propagandizing Americans, and expanding the gulf between the rich and the poor all in his effort to garner more wealth. In our system where money rewards sociopaths and money equals power the plutocrats that form alliances with each other and with defense and intelligence agencies to ensure the continuation and expansion of their empires have little concern for the average American.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2ExsdMv Tyler Durden

Portland’s ‘Peaceful’ Protesters Burn Bibles, American Flags And Pig’s Head After Feds Withdraw

Portland’s ‘Peaceful’ Protesters Burn Bibles, American Flags And Pig’s Head After Feds Withdraw

Tyler Durden

Sat, 08/01/2020 – 15:45

After federal agents withdrew from Portland late last week, neo-Marxist ‘youts‘ broke out the lighter fluid and began torching Bibles, American flags, and a severed pig’s head donning a police hat.

Meanwhile, over 150 rounds were fired at a shooting downtown, striking a woman in the arm who was transported to the hospital with non-life threatening injuries.

Of course, the Washington Post is out with fresh propaganda with the headline “Calm returns to Portland as federal agents withdraw.”

Right…

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3fsovRn Tyler Durden

“No-Protest Condition Will Be Dropped for People Facing Federal Charges in Portland Demonstrations”

So reports The Oregonian (Maxine Bernstein); this is the condition I discussed a few days ago: “defendant may not attend any other protests … or public gatherings in … Oregon.” As I mentioned then, the condition might well be unconstitutionally overbroad, though the complexity of the law of pretrial conditions makes that not entirely clear.

But the article also mentions,

Since early July, federal prosecutors have routinely asked judges to adopt other conditions before the defendants can be released pending trial: a curfew from either 8 or 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. and geographical limits that require them not to come within a five-block radius of the federal courthouse unless for official court business.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta added the no-protest provision when a defendant balked at the proposed curfew, prohibiting the person from attending any protests, rallies or public assemblies while on release.

Are the curfew condition and the five-block exclusion condition constitutional? They are facially speech-neutral, but they would still have the effect of restricting speech—and indeed their purpose would presumably be to prevent attendance at protests, at least some part of the time. (What’s the point of a curfew for the defendants otherwise? Is the court worried that they’ll be out too late partying?) I’ve seen some such conditions upheld by some courts, even with pretty weak justifications; but I would think that they should be challengeable on First Amendment grounds here, though I stress again that the law in this area is complicated.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30kgdXm
via IFTTT

“No-Protest Condition Will Be Dropped for People Facing Federal Charges in Portland Demonstrations”

So reports The Oregonian (Maxine Bernstein); this is the condition I discussed a few days ago: “defendant may not attend any other protests … or public gatherings in … Oregon.” As I mentioned then, the condition might well be unconstitutionally overbroad, though the complexity of the law of pretrial conditions makes that not entirely clear.

But the article also mentions,

Since early July, federal prosecutors have routinely asked judges to adopt other conditions before the defendants can be released pending trial: a curfew from either 8 or 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. and geographical limits that require them not to come within a five-block radius of the federal courthouse unless for official court business.

But U.S. Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta added the no-protest provision when a defendant balked at the proposed curfew, prohibiting the person from attending any protests, rallies or public assemblies while on release.

Are the curfew condition and the five-block exclusion condition constitutional? They are facially speech-neutral, but they would still have the effect of restricting speech—and indeed their purpose would presumably be to prevent attendance at protests, at least some part of the time. (What’s the point of a curfew for the defendants otherwise? Is the court worried that they’ll be out too late partying?) I’ve seen some such conditions upheld by some courts, even with pretty weak justifications; but I would think that they should be challengeable on First Amendment grounds here, though I stress again that the law in this area is complicated.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30kgdXm
via IFTTT

American College Students Are More Reasonable Than We Think

American College Students Are More Reasonable Than We Think

Tyler Durden

Sat, 08/01/2020 – 15:20

Authored by Samuel Abrams via RealClearPolicy.com,

With colleges and universities opening to some degree in just a few short weeks, I was recently asked if I thought that the campus culture wars would continue despite the rise of distance education.

My answer remains the same as before COVID-19 engulfed higher education: the so-called culture wars – ranging from cancelling speakers for their viewpoints to attempts to co-opt the curriculum in the name of social justice – are overblown and not student driven.

In reality, the media, a core group of activist students, and social-justice-minded administrators are leading this fight. In general, our nation’s Gen Z students are overwhelmingly centrist, open, tolerant of a wide diversity of views, and are not interested in the protests constantly flaring up on Twitter and social media.

Now, there is compelling new evidence which supports my argument. The Higher Education Research Institute (HERI) just released its 2019 survey report on incoming college first-years and the data is remarkably encouraging. It shows that that students are interested in viewpoint diversity and ideas and not universally hoping to silence dissent. In fact, the data demonstrates that 51% of college students believe that colleges have the right to ban extreme speakers from campus, proving that a large number of students simply reject this notion. It seems students on campuses nationwide are not uniformly interested in shutting down ideas that they find unpleasant.

More specifically, the HERI survey presents a battery of attributes to the students asking if these attitudes are strengths. The responses show an increasing amount of openness to the marketplace of ideas. For instance, when queried about their “openness to having one’s own views challenged,” 67% of the students responded that being open to having their views challenged was an asset of theirs. This is up from 63% in 2013 when this question was first asked and while not a huge increase, the 2019 data shows that two-thirds of first-year students are open to being probed about their ideas and beliefs. 78% of first-years also note that it is a strength of theirs to see the world from someone else’s perspective and this is slightly up from 77% in 2013. This again shows that students have long been interested in and are able to hold and appreciate numerous points of view.

Similarly, when asked about being tolerant of others with different beliefs, 81% saw this as a virtue and these values have not shifted over time. As such, is should be no surprise that 87% maintain that they have the ability to cooperate and work well with a diverse group of people. This has grown from 85% in 2013. Finally, 69% assert that they have the ability to discuss and negotiate controversial issues on campuses and this is almost identical to the 2013 figure. In each case, large majorities of students are open to viewpoint diversity which suggests that despite the polarization of the political system and so much about educational life on campus today, our nation’s students are not nearly as extreme as widely believed.

As for tangible forms of political behavior and action, the HERI survey asks the incoming students about what they intend to do on campus and the data is very clear again: protesting is not dominant whatsoever. Two-thirds of first-year students at the time they were asked in the fall estimate that there is a “very good chance” that they will vote in upcoming elections and a little over a third state that they intended to volunteer or become involved with community service, but just 11% anticipate participating in some form of protest and demonstration. Although the 2019 protest figure is twice the number from the early 1980s and even the early 2010s and the number began to increase by 2015, this percentage of students is a small minority in a very uncertain time with extreme dissatisfaction in the socio-political system.

Finally, the data once again reveal a point that is often lost in the constant criticisms of higher education: Students in our nation’s colleges and universities are not overwhelmingly liberal and there is no leftist student monoculture our campuses. The HERI survey data shows that 37% of these Gen Z students are left of center and this compares to 20% who are right of center. While there are more liberals compared to conservatives, this ratio is nowhere close to the ideological imbalance found among college faculty or administrators. Moreover, the majority of these students identify as middle of the road at 44% and just 7% of all first-year students identify as extremists on the far left or right. Despite, again, deep frustrations with the status quo among the younger voters toward the White House and the leadership in the Senate, these ideological breakdowns have barely moved in the past few years. Even in 2010, during a popular Obama era for younger Americans, 46% of first-year students were middle of the road compared to 30% on the left and 24% on the right; there is no liberal student dominance among incoming college campuses at all.

These new data from HERI report on incoming first years who began the collegiate experiences in the fall of 2019 and lived through quite a bit of political chaos while in high school and completed their first year away from campus, virtually. I had the pleasure of teaching these students on my campus and meeting many around the country. What was immediately clear in my classes and lectures has been confirmed by the HERI data: These students are simply not extremists or ideological purists.

Our nation’s rising sophomores – like most upper-class students – are open-minded, tolerant, practical with their hearts and minds curious and compassionate. While we may see petitions and various extremist videos on Tik-Tok and Twitter, virtual classes may be hacked, and statements will be taken out of context, this does not represent the political and intellectual realities for students who crave viewpoint diversity and thrive in environments with varied understandings of the world.

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2PjA5Dm Tyler Durden