Tag: hit&run

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam has issued an emergency executive order barring the bearing of arms in the area where a gun rights rally is scheduled for Monday. The state’s Democratic-controlled legislature is pushing a series of bills restricting gun owners’ rights; among other things, the proposed laws would expand background checks for private gun sales, give localities the power to bar guns from public events, and restrict gun purchases to one a month. The rally—part of a larger “Lobby Day” in which interest groups gather to communicate with the state government—is intended to protest the proposals.

The Virginia Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of America, and various citizen plaintiffs sued yesterday to prevent the enforcement of this order.

The suit, which notes that open carry has occurred without incident at past Lobby Day events, argues that the order violates marchers’ right to bear arms and right to peaceably assemble. Since carrying weapons has a specific expressive political purpose when one is lobbying against gun laws, the suit also argues that the order violates the First Amendment. And it points to a 2012 Virginia law meant “specifically to prevent and prohibit the governor from in any way limiting or prohibiting the possession of carrying of firearms pursuant to a declaration of a state of emergency.”

That last law includes an exception for orders necessary “to ensure public safety in any place or facility designated or used by the Governor,” and you might expect Judge Joi Taylor of Richmond Circuit Court to have cited that when she rejected the request for an injunction against the ban. Instead, she simply ignored the fact that Virginia has a law specifically designed to prevent an emergency order from doing what this emergency order does. She merely asserts, without arguing specifically why, that in her judgment that 2012 law grants the governor “sufficient deference” to ignore its language about prohibiting firearm possession in a state of emergency.

As the Baltimore Sun reports, Taylor also “cited rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts that found the Second Amendment right to bear arms is not unlimited. Because of that, she wrote, the gun-rights groups would not ‘suffer an irreparable harm’ sufficient to justify the injunction.”

Northam is using the arrest of three people who were allegedly planning violence at the rally as evidence that his order will prevent violence. For its part, the Virginia Citizens Defense League is claiming that Democrats “want to portray this peaceful assembly of law-abiding gun owners in the worst possible way. They would love for it to degenerate to ‘violence, rioting, and insurrection’ in order to smear gun owners. Has the Democrat leadership actually invited violent groups to attend for the purpose of disrupting our peaceful assembly?”

The plaintiffs have appealed their case to the state’s Supreme Court.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30uXGG8
via IFTTT

The Justice Department is now reportedly investigating Mississippi prisons, in the wake of violence that left five inmates dead as well as news investigations that revealed wretched living conditions.

“This is what we wanted. This is what families with loved ones inside wanted,” Kevin Ring, president of FAMM, a criminal justice advocacy group that called for an investigation, told the Mississippi Center for Investigative Reporting (CIR), which first reported the investigation today. “A federal investigation is our only hope for finding out the full extent of the problem.”

In the first week of this year, three inmates were killed at Mississippi State Penitentiary, more infamously known as Parchman Farm. Two more were killed in South Mississippi Correctional Institution and Chickasaw County Regional Correctional Facility. Another two inmates escaped during the chaos but were later captured.

The deaths followed years of deteriorating conditions inside the state’s prisons. In August of last year, the Mississippi CIR ran a story on South Mississippi Correctional Institution headlined “Inside The Prison Where Inmates Set Each Other On Fire and Gangs Have More Power Than Guards.”

That same month, a state audit of conditions at Parchman found black mold, raw sewage, broken toilets and sinks, exposed wiring, and vermin. Mississippi CIR reported today that Parchman has been cited for violating the Safe Drinking Water Act nearly 100 times since 2012. About half of the correctional officer positions in Mississippi prisons are now vacant.

Following the deaths, inmates used contraband cell phones to send out photos and videos of the gruesome violence and filthy living conditions they are exposed to daily.

Mississippi is now scrambling to move prisoners out of the worst units. Last week, several hundred inmates were relocated to a private prison run by CoreCivic, at a cost of $2 million to the state.

Rapper Jay-Z filed a federal civil rights lawsuit this week on behalf of 29 Mississippi inmates. “These deaths are a direct result of Mississippi’s utter disregard for the people it has incarcerated and their constitutional rights,” the lawsuit says.

The Justice Department did not respond to Reason‘s request for comment. 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/30w9yYj
via IFTTT

Clarkesworld, a well-regarded science fiction and fantasy web magazine, recently published first-time author Isabel Fall. The title of her story, “I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter,” alludes to a meme typically used to delegitimize transgender people. But the tale is anything but anti-trans: It’s a surreal, mind-bending war story that turns the meme on its head. It was read and approved by sensitivity reviewers—some of them trans. Its author, Fall, is herself trans.

As far as I can tell, most of the social-media reaction to the story was positive. But a small number of militantly unhappy people attacked the story for offending them. Their harassment of Fall was so unpleasant that she asked Clarkesworld to un-publish the story, and the editor complied. “I Sexually Identify as an Attack Helicopter” is canceled.

Clarkesworld editor Neil Clarke published a lengthy note about the removal that politely objected to the critics’ most unreasonable claims. Some had apparently claimed that Fall’s stated birth year—1988—was an alt-right dog whistle, since the double eights could be seen as referencing H.H. (H being the eighth letter of the alphabet), or “heil Hitler.” This, of course, is conspiratorial nonsense (though I was also born in 1988, so some people will probably think the conspiracy just runs a little deeper).

But for the most part, Clarke accepted the criticism and apologized for publishing a piece that had offended a group of pathologically unreasonable people:

Even with ownvoices authorship [authors writing about their own race, class, sex, etc.] and ownvoices sensitivity reading, it is still possible to miss something. In this case we can see two groups of trans readers with directly opposing views that are deeply rooted in their own experience and perspectives. In some cases, what made the story speak to some is also what alienated others. Neither perspective is wrong, but they appear to be incompatible with one another on some level. Knowing that this was a potentially controversial story, we should have employed a broader range of sensitivity readers. This is not to say those we worked with failed, but rather that they only represented a slice of the community and additional perspectives could have helped inform us of a potential conflict. It may not have “fixed” things but it would have provided opportunities to better prepare ourselves and our readers for what lay ahead. This was an oversight….

That we didn’t understand enough about trans politics to properly advise a new author who was wading into the deep end. I’m not suggesting that we tell an author what they can and can’t say, but had the previous two items be done correctly, we would have been in a better place to prepare her. Because of those failures, our knowledge gap contributed to the problem….

In the meantime I offer my sincere apologies to those who were hurt by the story or the ensuing storms.

Clarke began his note with this statement: “This is not censorship. She needed this to be done for her own personal safety and health.” An author self-canceling due to venomous harassment from a tiny cabal of ideological activists may not meet the strict definition of censorship, but it’s certainly a blow to the spirit of artistic freedom. A stronger defense of Fall and her work was merited. This is capitulation.

Writing in his newsletter, Jesse Singal astutely summarizes the problem with Clarke’s statement:

Clarke could have easily published a short statement with the general shape of, “Unfortunately, the author of this story, Isabel Fall, received a wave of harassment after it was published. She requested it be unpublished and I have regretfully agreed.” Instead, he chose to stoke the idea that because people were offended by this story, there is something wrong with it. How else can one interpret his claim that someting was ‘missed’ and could have been ‘fixed’? This is what I mean when I say he’s pretending to support Fall but throwing her under the bus: He’s absolutely accepting the framing of the hysterical online critics when he didn’t have to at all.

But nowhere in this almost 1,400-word-long statement will you find a clear explanation of exactly what is wrong with the story. That’s because the only accurate answer to that question is something like “Some people have very superficial but dearly held ideas about what gender is, and because this story took a more complicated and fraught and creative approach to its theories of gender—one which challenged those ideas—those people became deeply offended.” That’s why a story in a major sci-fi outlet had to be unpublished.

This episode demonstrates one of the most salient and oft-overlooked facts of cancel culture: The people most vulnerable to canceling belong to the very marginalized communities that the cancel-culture enforcers are purportedly protecting. These attacks on wrongthink do not help the oppressed. Indeed, it’s often weaponized against them, attack-helicopter style.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/38sqTo7
via IFTTT

Today a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs in Juliana v. United States—the so-called “Kids Climate Case”—lack Article III standing to pursue their ambitious claim that the federal government is violating their constitutional rights by facilitating the use of fossil fuels and failing to take action to forestall the threat of climate change. This outcome was almost certainly foreordained, for reasons I noted here, as the Supreme Court had made clear it did not think much of the theory behind this suit. At the same time, the panel majority reached the result compelled by a proper understanding of existing precedent.

Judge Andrew Hurwitz wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Mary Murguia. District court judge Josephine Staton (sitting by desination) dissented. Although all three judges accepted the severity of the threat posed by climate change, they disagreed quite strongly on whether this case, as put forward by the plaintiffs, presented a justiciable case or controversy.

Here’s how the majority summarizes the case and its conclusion:

In the mid-1960s, a popular song warned that we were “on the eve of destruction.” The plaintiffs in this case have presented compelling evidence that climate change has brought that eve nearer. A substantial evidentiary record documents that the federal government has long promoted fossil fuel use despite knowing that it can cause catastrophic climate change, and that failure to change existing policy may hasten an environmental apocalypse.

The plaintiffs claim that the government has violated their constitutional rights, including a claimed right under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life.” The central issue before us is whether, even assuming such a broad constitutional right exists, an Article III court can provide the plaintiffs the redress they seek—an order requiring the government to develop a plan to “phase out fossil fuel emissions and draw down excess atmospheric CO2.” Reluctantly, we conclude that such relief is beyond our constitutional power. Rather, the plaintiffs’ impressive case for redress must be presented to the political branches of government.

The majority accepts the “copious expert evidence” in the plaintiffs case showing that the “unprecedented rise” in atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases “stems from fossil fuel combustion and will wreak havoc on the Earth’s climate if unchecked,” and admits that the federal government “affirmatively promotes fossil fuel use in a host of ways.” Nonetheless, it recognizes that not every grievous wrong is fit for judicial resolution. While rejecting the government’s argument that the plaintiffs should have styled their claims as Administrative Procedure Act challenges to discrete agency actions, it also rejected the plaintiffs’ claims that a heretofore unrecognized constitutional right to a life-sustaining climate system (or, as the dissent would have it, a perpetual nation) meets Article III’s requirements.

On thee question of standing, accepting the allegations made by the plaintiffs, the majority concluded that at least one plaintiff was suffering a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact that was sufficiently traceable to the government’s facilitation of fossil fuel use and development. “There is at least a genuine factual dispute as to whether” the various government policies complained of “were a ‘substantial factor’ in causing the plaintiffs’ injuries,” which was sufficient given the procedural posture of the case.

Then the majority reached the question of redressability:

The more difficult question is whether the plaintiffs’ claimed injuries are redressable by an Article III court. In analyzing that question, we start by stressing what the plaintiffs do and do not assert. They do not claim that the government has violated a statute or a regulation. They do not assert the denial of a procedural right. Nor do they seek damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq. Rather, their sole claim is that the government has deprived them of a substantive constitutional right to a “climate system capable of sustaining human life,” and they seek remedial declaratory and injunctive relief.

Here, the majority concluded, the plaintiffs had a hard time showing that the relief sought was both within the power of the district court to afford and substantially likely to redress their injuries.

The crux of the plaintiffs’ requested remedy is an injunction requiring the government not only to cease permitting, authorizing, and subsidizing fossil fuel use, but also to prepare a plan subject to judicial approval to draw down harmful emissions. The plaintiffs thus seek not only to enjoin the Executive from exercising discretionary authority expressly granted by Congress, . . . but also to enjoin Congress from exercising power expressly granted by the Constitution over public lands.

Indeed. Even accepting the plaintiffs’ inventive claim of constitutional right and that the sorts of remedies sought would redress the harms, the majority was unwilling to accept that a district court could take over climate policy for the nation.

There is much to recommend the adoption of a comprehensive scheme to decrease fossil fuel emissions and combat climate change, both as a policy matter in general and a matter of national survival in particular. But it is beyond the power of an Article III court to order, design, supervise, or implement the plaintiffs’ requested remedial plan. As the opinions of their experts make plain, any effective plan would necessarily require a host of complex policy decisions entrusted, for better or worse, to the wisdom and discretion of the executive and legislative branches. . . . These decisions range, for example, from determining how much to invest in public transit to how quickly to transition to renewable energy, and plainly require consideration of “competing social, political, and economic forces,” which must be made by the People’s “elected representatives, rather than by federal judges interpreting the basic charter of Government for the entire country.” Collins v. City of Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115,
128–29 (1992). . . .

That climate chnage poses a serious threat does not change the underlying analysis. Citing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, Judge Hurwitz explained that “Because ‘it is axiomatic that ‘the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change,’ . . . , some questions—even those existential in nature—are the province of the political branches.” He further added:

Not every problem posing a threat—even a clear and present danger—to the American Experiment can be solved by federal judges. As Judge Cardozo once aptly warned, a judicial commission does not confer the power of “a knight-errant, roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal of beauty or of goodness;” rather, we are bound “to exercise a discretion informed by tradition, methodized by analogy, disciplined by system.'” Benjamin N. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 141 (1921).

Judge Staton, in dissent, took quite a different view. To call her dissent ambitious and aggressive is an understatement. As a rhetorical exercise, many will find it energizing and inspirational. As a legal opinion, however, I find it unmoored and lacking.

The dissent begins with a flourish:

In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response—yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.

My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary. On a fundamental point, we agree: No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists. But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief,
and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.

Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction. So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard. And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress. Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewide prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province. For these
reasons, I respectfully dissent

Judge Staton’s opinion is no doubt earnest, but suffers from multiple fatal flaws. Not only does it enthusiastically embrace a heretofore unrecognized, unackowledged and unarticulated constitutional right to “the perpetuity of the Republic,” she also embraces the notion that if the political branches fail to act in defense of the nation, a district court judge can and should fill the breach. To state the argument plainly, shorn of adorning rhetoric, is to demonstrate its flaws.

Under Judge Staton’s theory that there is a judicially enforceable right barring the “willful dissolution of the Republic,” a federal judge is empowered to overrule the most monumental and consequential decisions of the political branches. Consider the implications: should Congress declare war against a formidable adversary—and should the President seek to prosecute that war even at the risk to the nation’s security—a federal judge could hear a case that such exercises of federal power are unconstitutional and subject to judicial oversight. Like it or not, the political branches do have “the absolute and unreviewable power to destory the Nation,” such as through the imprudent or reckless use of the war powers, as that is the nature of our constitutional structure.

Judge Staton’s opinion is no less problematic at the doctrinal level, as she misstates and misapplies Massachusetts v. EPA in her effort to show that the plaintiffs have satisfied the more mundane requirements of Article III standing and satisfy what she declares is “an ambient presumption of judicial review.” It is as if she knows where she wants the opinion to go, and is willing to roll over those aspects of doctrine that get in the way. (In this regard, Judge Staton’s approach to standing has much in common with that of Judge O’Connor in Texas v. U.S.)

While the Supreme Court found standing in Massachusetts, it was careful to stress both that state plaintiffs, as states, were entitled to a “special solicitude” in the standing analysis and that the existence of a procedural right to challenge the EPA’s failure to act lessened the normal requirements of immediacy and redressability. None of this seems to matter to Judge Staton, however, as she blithely asserts that the lack of a procedural right is of little relevance and then (in footnote 7) makes the completely erroneous claim that the existence of procedural right matters more for “the first and second elements of standing” than for redressability, the express language of Massachusetts v. EPA (and the Kennedy concurrence from Lujan which it was quoting) notwithstanding.

The question now is whether the Ninth CIrcuit’s Juliana decision will put an end to this case. I suspect the plaintiffs will petition for en banc review or certiorari, but I am not sure this is their wisest course. It seems to me that the Juliana majority sought to dismiss this case in the gentlest and narrowest way possible, so as not to preclude future litigation based on more viable legal theories. In many respects, that was the best the plaintiffs could have hoped for (especially after the Supreme Court had made its views on the subject known). In seeking Supreme Court review the plaintiffs would risk a more decisive loss and a more sweeping, nationally preclusive ruling that could forestall climate litigation across the board. They rightly fear the risks posed by climate change. The question now is whether they appreciate the risks of unduly aggressive climate litigation.

 

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2G2g13O
via IFTTT

Robotics will soon lead to widespread joblessness and the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few.

That was the resolution of a public debate hosted by the Soho Forum in New York City on January 6, 2020. It featured New York Times bestselling author Martin Ford, arguing the affirmative, versus Antony Sammeroff, spokesperson on economics and environment for the Scottish Libertarian Party. Soho Forum Director Gene Epstein moderated.

It was an Oxford-style debate, in which the audience votes on the resolution at the beginning and end of the event, with many “undecided.” The side that gains the most ground is victorious. Sammeroff prevailed in the debate by convincing 19.64 percent of audience members to come over to his side. Ford picked up 2.68 percent. 

Ford is the author of Rise of the Robots: Technology and the Threat of a Jobless Future, Architects of Intelligence: the Truth about AI from the People Building It, and The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology, and the Economy of the Future.

Sammeroff, who argued for the negative, is the author of Universal Basic Income: For and Against and co-host of the Scottish Liberty Podcast.

The Soho Forum, which is sponsored by the Reason Foundation, is a monthly debate series at the SubCulture Theater in Manhattan’s East Village.

Produced by John Osterhoudt.

Photo: Right robot, Photo 144080417 © Boris Medvedev—Dreamstime.com

Photo: Left robot, Photo 141519784 © Kittipong Jirasukhanont—Dreamstime.com

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/376iHtb
via IFTTT

Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit, a weekly feature from the Institute for Justice.

New IJ cert petition: Is an officer who has consent to “get inside” a house but instead destroys it from the outside entitled to qualified immunity in the absence of precisely factually on-point case law? The Ninth Circuit said yes. We’re asking the Supreme Court to reconsider. Click here to learn more.

New podcast: The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in an IJ school choice case, Espinoza v. Montana Dep’t of Revenue, this coming Wednesday. So just for fun we put together a little episode on the history of school choice that explores, among other things, how the remnants of 19th-century anti-Catholicism still play an outsized role in educational policy today. (Click here for Apple Podcasts.)

• Electronic service provider ABC Corp. (a pseudonym) received a grand jury subpoena for subscriber information, along with a court-ordered nondisclosure order prohibiting it from telling anyone about the subpoena for one year. An unconstitutional prior restraint on speech? The Supreme Court may have roundly rejected prior restraint, says the Third Circuit, but this is one of the rare cases where one will be upheld.
• The Air Force’s effective ban on deploying HIV-positive airmen is out of step with modern science, says the Fourth Circuit. So no discharging two airmen (who are asymptomatic and whose doctors and commanding officers support their retention) while this lawsuit proceeds.
• Firefighter refuses Leander, Tex. city requirement that all personnel receive a Tdap vaccine, citing his Baptist faith. The dep’t offers him two options: Take a code enforcement job with the same pay and benefits or wear a respirator while on duty. When the firefighter declines both options, he’s fired for insubordination. Illegal religious discrimination? A free exercise violation? Neither, says the Fifth Circuit. The city offered reasonable accommodations that do not burden the firefighter’s religious practice. Judge Ho (concurring/dissenting): I think we need more facts. Also, allow me to tell you at considerable length why both Employment Division v. Smith and qualified immunity are bad.
• Federal inmate writes a letter to the district court explaining that, following a gender transition, they would like the court to change the name on the 6-year-old judgment to reflect their new legal name. District court: A subsequent name change is not a clerical error that a court can fix. Fifth Circuit: As no rule authorized this kind of motion, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it. And we won’t use the inmate’s preferred pronouns because Congress hasn’t told us we must. Dissent: We should not issue drive-by jurisdictional rulings or use non-preferred pronouns.
• As undercover FBI agent reaches police barricade at Garland, Tex. event featuring drawings of the prophet Muhammed, two men with whom the undercover agent had been communicating jump out of the car behind him wearing body armor, carrying hundreds of rounds of ammunition and a photocopied ISIS flag. They shoot a security guard in the leg before being promptly killed themselves. Can the security guard sue the feds? The Fifth Circuit says no.
• Sixth Circuit: I’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is that the Ninth Circuit has changed the way it calculates drug sentences, so if you were sentenced today, you would only get 10 years instead of the 20 you’re serving. Habeas petitioner: That’s great! What’s the bad news? Sixth Circuit (over a dissent): You were not sentenced today.
• Allegation: After Huron County, Mich. officer arrests extremely drunken woman for DUI, he takes her to jail and has her walk up stairs with her hands cuffed behind her back while he waits at the top of the stairs. Gravity + ethanol = head trauma. District court: This is just like another case, where a court held that police can’t leave a drunk person cuffed in a holding cell where they might injure themselves. Sixth Circuit: That (out-of-circuit) case was about holding cells. This case is about stairs. Qualified immunity.
• Bungled prosecution, O. Henry, and Mark 12:17—not to mention the modified categorical approach—are all on display in a bizarre story out of the Sixth Circuit. The upshot? Mosques aren’t used in interstate commerce, even when former congressional candidates plot to blow them up.
• 312-pound teenager with a heart condition runs from a store security guard after being caught shoplifting. Apprehended by Indianapolis police upon collapsing from the exertion, he complains of difficulty breathing after being handcuffed behind his back. Police call paramedics, who examine him, find him breathing normally, and say he’s fine. While waiting for the jail wagon to arrive, he ceases to be fine—he’s unresponsive and his pulse is weak. Police call another ambulance, but paramedics are unable to revive him. The medical examiner determines he had a heart attack exacerbated by (among other things) the handcuffs. Seventh Circuit: This is tragic, but the police didn’t know the handcuffs were causing breathing trouble, and the suspect didn’t complain about the tightness of the cuffs. Qualified immunity.
• Man convicted of 1989 murder learns, years later, that his appointed counsel believed that his black clients were idiots who deserved to be convicted. New trial? Ninth Circuit (2018): No. You didn’t show his racism adversely affected his performance. All three judges, concurring in their own judgment: Unfortunately, we’re bound by Ninth Circuit precedent to reach this result. Ninth Circuit (2020, en banc): The state now concedes a new trial is warranted, so, without reconsidering our precedent, conviction vacated.
• The feds fund teen pregnancy prevention through grant programs with two funding tiers. The first tier is for replicating programs that have been proven effective, and the second tier enables grantees to test new programs. According to Planned Parenthood, the grant programs illegally favored or required abstinence-only programs in 2018. Ninth Circuit: That is indeed the case for the first tier, which demands grantees use two never-before-implemented tools. Something that has never been implemented cannot have been proven effective. As for the second tier, the district court shall address it first.
• Allegation: Healthy 27-year-old arrives at Hutchinson, Kan. prison, begins suffering a variety of increasingly alarming symptoms: numbness, decreased vision, his arms shake uncontrollably, his fingers bend in abnormal directions. He tells medical staff “it feels like something is eating my brain.” The staff either fabricate or mistakenly document an MRI scan of his brain that turns up normal. Soon after, he begins talking incoherently, drinks his own urine, defecates on himself and doesn’t clean up. A real MRI is taken, revealing a widespread infection in his brain. Instead of being taken to a hospital, he’s put back in isolation. The next day his heart stops and he is rushed to the hospital where he dies. Tenth Circuit: The allegations against a particular doc aren’t sufficiently specific, so qualified immunity. (The case is proceeding below against other medical staff, however.)
• While in jail on misdemeanor charges, inmate asks guard if he can charge his cell phone, which was not taken from him during booking. Uh oh! He’s charged with possessing contraband! Trial court: “[C]onsider yourself fortunate” that I’m only sentencing you to 12 years in jail, with parole eligibility after three, instead of a full 15-year sentence. Mississippi Supreme Court: “While obviously harsh, [a] twelve-year sentence for possessing a cell phone in a correctional facility is not grossly disproportionate.” Concurrence: Our case law does, indeed, demand we uphold a 12-year sentence against this father of three for a victimless crime likely caused by a failure in booking procedure, but the prosecutor and trial judge deserve a mild finger-wagging for being so punitive. (H/t @jduffyrice)
• And in cert grant news, the U.S. Supreme Court will review Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants, which we previously summarized thusly: American Association of Political Consultants: Federal law prohibits us from making robocalls to cell phones, but allows robocalls from people trying to collect federal loans. That violates the First Amendment! Fourth Circuit: We’ve got good news and bad news. The good news is that we agree with you. The bad news is that we’re going to fix the problem by prohibiting the loan collectors from making robocalls, too.
• And in en banc news, the Third Circuit will not reconsider its decision that an inmate cuffed to a bed in an uncomfortable position and forced to lie in his own filth for nine days can sue over the length of the confinement but not the conditions.

Last August, a DEA agent seized over $80k in cash from Rebecca Brown at the Pittsburgh International Airport. But even though it’s perfectly legal to fly with that much cash and Rebecca hasn’t been charged with a crime, the feds won’t return the money. In fact, the cash belongs to Rebecca’s dad, Terry, a retired railroad engineer. Terry spent years saving it up and hiding it in his home (following a practice he’d learned from his parents). After he downsized to a new apartment, Terry decided he was uncomfortable with that much cash in his apartment and asked Rebecca to deposit it in a joint bank account. This week, IJ launched a class action against the TSA and the DEA (and its agent), seeking the return of the money and permanent nationwide injunctions against the agencies’ unconstitutional and unlawful cash seizure practices. Click here for more from The Washington Post.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/369iaWl
via IFTTT

• Avenue 5. HBO. Sunday, January 19, 10 p.m.
• Outmatched. Fox. Thursday, January 23, 8:30 p.m.

The best TV review I ever read appeared in TV Guide sometime back in the mid-’60s. Unfortunately, I can’t find it anywhere on the internet. (Why don’t some of you loafers reading this try to find and link it? It’s not like you otherwise have lives.) (Wait, did I write that out loud?) (Sorry.) Written by Isaac Asimov, it was a rather stern denunciation of the original CBS version of  Lost in Space, in which a spacecraft is knocked off course and into another galaxy because of the unanticipated extra body weight of a stowaway. Asimov wrote, if I recall correctly, that this was, conceptually, roughly like a 4-year-old in Topeka, Kansas, missing a stop sign on his trike and skidding off the North American continent into the Pacific Ocean.

I thought of Asimov’s review a few days ago while watching Avenue 5, HBO’s new dingbat outer-space comedy. A futuristic tale about a space luxury liner that’s gone catastrophically off its route after an unforeseen encounter with an asteroid, it’s like the miscegenated offspring of a quickie three-way  between Lost in Space,  Love Boat and Veep: sometimes funny, often inane, and usually obsessed with conjugation of fornicational verbs.

The Veep elements—unmistakable from the opening moments, when a soon-to-be-ex-wife screams at her husband across a dining room that he can find a chair “at the bottom of the swimming pool on Deck Fuck You!”—doubtlessly come from that show’s creator, Armando Ianucci, who’s also the executive producer of Avenue 5. Like Veep and Ianucci’s other trademark production, The Death of Stalin, Avenue 5 has a big cast, an even bigger collection of subplots,  and a penchant for loopy humor that doesn’t always land well.

The cast is led by Hugh Laurie as Ryan Clark, the glossily suave captain of the ship Avenue 5, who preens through its largely automated dining halls plying the passengers with breezy slogans like “Set phasers to stun!” But the real boss is owner Herman Judd (Josh Gad, The Comedians), whose billions are outnumbered only by his stupid ideas. (Which include an advertisement for the ship’s dinner buffet: “If you’re not completely satisfied, you’re wrong!”) He’s kept in check, barely, by his stern personal assistant Iris (Suzy Nakamura, Dr. Ken). The most important member of the crew is Billie (Lenora Crichlow, who played the melancholy ghost on the original BBC version of Being Human), the assistant engineer—who has to take over when her chief is killed during the brush with the asteroid.

That cock-up—”The worst disaster since Google folded!” shouts one company exec—screws up the ship’s course that what was planned as an eight-week cruise is now going to take three years before the ship can get back to Earth, and the crew is spectacularly inept in either coping with damaged equipment or placating the furious passengers.  As on Veep, much of the humor in Avenue 5 comes in the form of creatively vehement insults; and as on Veep, they fail to develop either the plot or the characterizations very much and soon wear out their effectiveness. Avenue 5 is slow to develop a real story line, and maddeningly prone to beating jokes to death. There are painfully long stretches without a laugh or even a chuckle.

Yet there are some laughs, good one, particularly when Laurie is bouncing jokes off his straight-person Crichlow.  Avenue 5 might yet hit its stride. One way to improve it is to watch it after a viewing of Fox’s alleged sitcom Outmatched, which features Jason Biggs (the American Pie franchise) and Maggie Lawson (Angel from Hell) as the horrified parents of three gifted children. Aghast that their kids are smarter than they are and prefer writing operas or cloning the household pets to eating funnel cake on the Atlantic  City boardwalk, they lock themselves in the basement to smoke dope and plot ways to curdle the children’s intelligence until they resemble Lena, the couple’s dumb kid. (Does “dumb” sound mean? Her ambition is to become a waffle.)

Outmatched is abominable, repulsive claptrap, not just anti-intellectual but actually anti-intellect, a rousing call for the stupification of America. The only time I laughed was a scene in which the parents enter the living room to discover that the kids are mindlessly destroying it. “I’m teaching Lena the concept of anarchy,” one explains. So that’s what Lysander Spooner was talking about.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2Rt07F1
via IFTTT

In an interview with the New York Times‘ editorial board, former Vice President Joe Biden made his most stringent call yet for cracking down on free speech on the internet.

After being asked by the Times about previous comments Biden has made regarding Facebook’s refusal to remove negative ads targeting his campaign, the Democratic front-runner attacked both the social media platform and its CEO, Mark Zuckerberg.

“I’ve never been a fan of Facebook,” Biden says. “I’ve never been a big Zuckerberg fan, I think he’s a real problem.”

Biden and Facebook have been feuding for months, as Reason has previously covered. In an October letter to Facebook, Biden’s campaign called on the social media site to reject political ads containing “previously debunked content”—like a Trump campaign ad linking Biden and his son, Hunter, to corruption in Ukraine. Shortly afterwards, Zuckerberg said the company’s policies were “grounded in Facebook’s fundamental belief in free expression, respect for the democratic process, and the belief that, in mature democracies with a free press, political speech is already arguably the most scrutinized speech there is.”

That hasn’t sat well with Biden. In a CNN town hall event in November, Biden said he would be willing to rewrite the rules for all online platforms in order to force social media companies to “be more socially conscious.”

In this week’s interview with the Times, Biden has gone a step further. Now he’s calling for revoking Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996—a snippet of federal law that’s generally regarded as the internet’s First Amendment, since it protects online platforms from being legally liable for content produced and posted by third parties.

“Section 230 should be revoked, immediately should be revoked, number one. For Zuckerberg and other platforms,” says Biden.

When the Times’ Charlie Warzel points out that Section 230 is “pretty foundational” to the modern internet, Biden takes his personal disagreement with Zuckerberg and blows it up into a policy that would destroy free speech for all internet users.

“That’s right. Exactly right. And it should be revoked. It should be revoked because it is not merely an internet company. It is propagating falsehoods they know to be false, and we should be setting standards not unlike the Europeans are doing relative to privacy,” Biden says. “You guys still have editors. I’m sitting with them. Not a joke. There is no editorial impact at all on Facebook. None. None whatsoever. It’s irresponsible. It’s totally irresponsible.”

Biden goes on to say that both Zuckerberg and Facebook should be held civilly liable for false information posted on the platform, and even leaves open the possibility that Zuckerberg could somehow be held criminally liable. All of this, Biden says, is because Facebook ran “Russian ads” during the last presidential campaign.

Those ads were comically bad and had a negligible impact on the outcome of the 2016 election. What would significantly impact the future of American democracy and society would be the elimination of Section 230 protections for the entire internet.

But if you look back at Biden’s long political career, it’s not too surprising that Biden is willing to take overly broad federal action that will surely have unintended consequences.

It’s not that Biden has been an opponent of free speech in meatspace or online. (He even voted for the Communications Decency Act when it passed the Senate back in 1996.) But Biden has a long history of jumping aboard the political bandwagons created by moral panics, pushing policy to expand the government’s power to deal with perceived threats.

As I detailed in a Reason feature last month, Biden was instrumental in passing a 1984 anti-drug law that effectively created the modern civil asset forfeiture system which has been regularly abused by law enforcement to seize cash, cars, homes, and other valuables from individuals who are often never charged with a crime. In 1986, Biden co-sponsored the Anti-Drug Abuse Act, spurred by a moral panic over several high-profile deaths caused by cocaine. The bill added more mandatory minimum sentences for federal drug crimes, including the provision requiring a five-year prison term for anyone convicted of possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine or 500 grams of powdered cocaine. That massive discrepancy “unjustly and disproportionately” penalized African Americans and poor communities, the American Civil Liberties Union said in a 2006 report on the law.

Later, he co-sponsored a 1988 law that bolstered prison sentences for drug possession crimes and established the Office of National Drug Control Policy, effectively creating an internal lobbying organization to defend the drug war against critics.

Most famously, Biden championed the 1994 crime bill and its harsh “three-strikes” rule, which imposed life sentences for anyone convicted of a violent felony if they had two prior offenses on their record—including drug crimes.

You see echoes of that same playbook in his attacks on social media companies. To Biden, sweeping penalties are the only way to stop what he sees as a crisis—consequences be damned.

To pass those crime bills, Biden worked closely with Republicans. Even in today’s era of heightened partisanship, Biden touts his ability and history of working across the aisle as a chief virtue. So there is good reason to worry about a President Biden finding common cause with Republicans like Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) to repeal Section 232.

Decades later, it’s now obvious that the anti-drug policies of the 1980s and 1990s have had disastrous consequences for many Americans—especially minorities, who have been particularly victimized by the arbitrary crack/powder distinction Biden once pushed—and have filled prisons with nonviolent offenders.

Revoking or rewriting Section 230 would be similarly bad. Free speech online has given voice to everyone and cracking down on that right, as with all forms of censorship, would most hurt those who have less political or social power.

Repealing Section 230 would — in practical reality — result in the single-greatest wave of censorship in the modern history of the United States. Politicians on both sides of the aisle have re-interpreted its protection of individual liberty as a "giveaway" to Big Tech. Wrong. https://t.co/JiR1D0fKCu

— David French (@DavidAFrench) January 17, 2020

But you can expect Biden to frame this as a commonsense solution that reasonable people on both sides of the aisle support. That’s what he does, and that’s why he’s dangerous.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2G23qhi
via IFTTT

A Colorado judge yesterday rejected a woman’s petition for a court order that would disarm the police officer who killed her son in 2017—a shooting that was deemed justified as an act of self-defense. Does this case illustrate the potential for abuse of Colorado’s new “red flag” law, or does it show the law’s safeguards are effective? Arguably both, but the case’s sheer weirdness makes its broader relevance debatable.

On July 1, 2017, Cpl. Philip Morris, who works for the Colorado State University Police Department, fatally shot 19-year-old Jeremy Holmes, who was carrying an 11-inch bayonet knife and literally asking to be killed, on a street near the school’s Fort Collins campus. Body camera footage of the encounter shows Morris ordering and begging Holmes to drop the knife dozens of times while backing away as Holmes continues to approach him. “I don’t want to hurt you,” Morris says. “Please drop the knife.” As Holmes closes the distance between them, Morris says, “I’m going to try a taser.” At this point Holmes runs toward him, prompting Morris to open fire.

Both the police department and the Larimer County District Attorney’s Office cleared Morris of wrongdoing, but Holmes’ mother has been publicly contesting that conclusion for years. Susan Holmes’ latest act of protest is a January 9 petition seeking an extreme risk protection order (ERPO) against Holmes, who she says “used his firearm to recklessly & violently threaten and kill 19 yr old Jeremy Holmes.” Holmes, she argues, should not be allowed to possess guns because he “poses a significant risk of causing personal injury to self or others.”

To obtain an ERPO, which lasts for 364 days, the petitioner has to demonstrate a “significant risk” by “clear and convincing evidence.” Holmes also could have sought a temporary, ex parte ERPO, which lasts up to two weeks and requires the petitioner to prove by “a preponderance of the evidence” that the respondent poses a significant risk “in the near future.” If she had gone that route, Morris would not have been given an opportunity to rebut her allegations.

In this case, that probably would not have mattered, since ERPO petitions can be filed only by law enforcement officers, law enforcement agencies, or “family or household members.” That last category is quite broad, but not broad enough to cover Holmes. She claimed on the petition that she has “a child in common” with Morris—meaning her son, who is not biologically related to the officer but was killed by him. At yesterday’s hearing, Eighth Judicial District Chief Judge Stephen Howard rejected that reading of the law. “He said there was no evidence I had any standing,” Holmes told Westword.

Holmes in any case refused to testify, saying Howard had demonstrated his bias against her by his handling of a lawsuit related to her son’s death. After Howard rejected Holmes’ request that he recuse himself, she declined to submit any evidence. It is hardly surprising that Howard rejected her ERPO petition.

Before Howard’s ruling, Colorado House Minority Leader Patrick Neville (R–Castle Rock) cited Holmes’ petition as an illustration of the dangers posed by the red flag law. “We predicted this and said a falsely accused person has no recourse other than hoping a DA files charges,” he tweeted on Tuesday. “No recourse to recoup lost wages or reputation. One example of many about how this bill was so horribly written.”

The law does say that “a person who files a malicious or false petition…may be subject to criminal prosecution for those acts.” Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith, who called Holmes’ petition “a fraud,” said on Facebook, “We are actively investigating this abuse of the system and we will determine what charges may be substantiated against the petitioner, Ms. Holmes.” But it’s not clear what charges against Holmes could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, given her apparent sincerity in portraying Morris as a menace. And as Neville pointed out, the law does not give the victim of a “malicious or false petition” a right to sue the petitioner, although an earlier version of the bill included such a provision.

In Smith’s view, this case “demonstrates the tremendous procedural deficiencies in the ERPO law—deficiencies I’ve spoken out about many times over the previous year.” Not surprisingly, Attorney General Phil Weiser, a leading supporter of the law, has a different take. “This was a positive development,” he told KMGH after the hearing. “It showed this law can’t be abused for purposes of harassing an officer. The precedent has been set that this sort of petition is out of bounds, and [it] was summarily dismissed….This law is to protect people and to save lives, and if people try to come forward and use this law for other purposes, it’s not going to be tolerated.”

That is surely reading too much into the failure of Holmes’ petition, which foundered for lack of standing and in any case would have been doomed by her refusal to testify. Even leaving those two issues aside, there was little risk that Morris would lose his Second Amendment rights based on a shooting that his department and the local D.A. had deemed justified. Ordinary citizens facing dubious allegations by estranged spouses, ex-girlfriends, in-laws, or housemates may not be so fortunate.

In such cases, judges have a strong incentive to err on the side of issuing orders, since the prospect of a preventable suicide or homicide looms large compared to the risk that someone will unfairly but temporarily be barred from possessing guns. The long list of potential petitioners, the ready availability of ex parte orders, the vagueness of “significant risk,” and the admissibility of any evidence a judge considers relevant all serve to increase the likelihood that people will be deprived of their constitutional rights for no good reason.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2R4ygvU
via IFTTT

Rhode Island Gov. Gina Raimondo released her proposed budget for 2021 yesterday. Apparently, she’s counting on the state to legalize recreational marijuana—and run all the pot shops—to make the numbers work.

Rhode Island has legalized medical marijuana use but not recreational sales or consumption. The Democratic governor is pushing for full legalization, with an eye on the sweet, sweet cash she thinks it’ll bring. To that end, Raimondo wants the state to run all the stores and get most of the revenue.

Here’s what’s in the summary of her budget plan:

The FY 2021 budget includes the legalization of adult use marijuana. This legalization takes the form of a state-control model, similar to how liquor sales are regulated in New Hampshire and over a dozen states. The state would hire a contractor to acquire adult use marijuana and operate retail stores on the state’s behalf. This regulatory approach will allow the state to control distribution, prevent youth consumption, and protect public health. Similar to the state lottery and gaming, the state will receive a share of retail sales revenue net of the wholesale cost of marijuana products. The state share is 61 percent, while the contractor would receive 29 percent, and municipalities would receive 10 percent. Regulatory and public health expenditures would be appropriated out of the state share of revenue. Net of those expenditures, the general revenue transfer from adult use marijuana is expected to be $21.8 million in FY 2020.

Fully ending Rhode Island’s war on weed would be good news, but Raimondo needs to pay attention to the problems that will arise when you depend on marijuana revenue to balance your budget—and the bad consequences that have come from state-run shops.

Seven states directly own all the liquor shops within their boundaries: Utah, Virginia, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Idaho, and Alabama. This monopoly arrangement leads to higher prices and poorer choices, not to mention no small amount of consumer hassle. And with marijuana, the problems will be worse.

Giving the state a monopoly is a way to make sure it gets a share of the revenue. But marijuana is not like hard liquor: It’s much easier to manufacture and to sell on the black market in large quantities. Rather than looking at New Hampshire, Raimondo really needs to be looking to places like Canada and California.

In Canada, the government doesn’t run all the shops, but it does serve as the monopoly wholesale vendor to retailers and the sole online vendor. The rollout of this system was a mess, causing the province of Ontario to actually lose $42 million last year. The government was not prepared to meet the demand for marijuana; there were shortages and any number of bureaucratic problems. And after I wrote about Canada’s problems last year, a few marijuana smokers contacted me to tell me that the quality of pot the state-run wholesalers were distributing was not terribly good.

California should serve as a warning for any governor who casually assumed she can balance a budget with new revenue from marijuana sales. The government there burdened the fledgling pot industry with taxes and regulations, in part to get the money flowing to city and state coffers. The state expected it would get $1 billion in revenue from legal sales from fiscal year 2018–19. Instead it brought in just $288 million. Because of the high taxes and the oppressive bureaucratic environment, three-quarters of all California marijuana sales still take place in the black market or from retailers who aren’t properly licensed.

Marijuana Moment notes that Raimondo’s plan would permit adults to purchase only one ounce of marijuana per visit and would forbid home cultivation. This is not a recipe for ending the drug war. This is a recipe to profit from regulating purchases of a drug that will otherwise still be forbidden.

Rhode Island should legalize marijuana sales, but it shouldn’t attempt to run its own stores. That’s not a path for eliminating the black market for weed or for reducing the bad effects of the drug war. And it’s most certainly not going to fix a state’s revenue or debt problems.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2G3OK0Q
via IFTTT