Tag: posts

#TheyLied and the Fair Report Privilege

From Magistrate Judge Eric Long’s opinion in Sun v. Xu (C.D. Ill.), decided in May 2020 but just posed on Westlaw:

The three Plaintiffs are two former students and one professor at the University of Illinois. The three Plaintiffs are suing former University of Illinois Professor Gary Xu …. The first Plaintiff, Xingjian Sun …, a female student at the University, claims Xu raped her, forced her to get an abortion, beat her, and attempted to hit her with a car during their two-year relationship. The second Plaintiff, Xing Zhao …, a female student at the University of Illinois, claims Xu sexually harassed her and took credit for her work. The third Plaintiff, Ao Wang …, is a professor at the University of Illinois. Professor Wang claims Xu tried to ruin his career in retaliation for an online article Professor Wang wrote about Xu abusing female students….

Plaintiffs made public comments about their allegations against Xu. The first Plaintiff, Sun, was interviewed by CBS Morning News, and a video of the interview was aired on CBS’s television channel. Additionally, CBS published an article of Sun’s interview on CBS News’ website. In this interview, Sun stated Xu raped her, beat her, and tried to kill her by running her over with his car.

The second plaintiff, Zhao, is not quoted in the Sixth Tone report that details the allegations against Xu. {Sixth Tone is an online magazine that is owned by the Chinese Government. However, Sixth Tone’s target audience is readers in the western hemisphere.} In the Sixth Tone article, two females make anonymous allegations against Xu, alleging sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Xu alleges that Zhao was one of the anonymous sources for the Sixth Tone article. According to Xu, Zhao told Sixth Tone: (1) Xu harassed her; (2) Xu forced her into horrifying sexual behavior; (3) Xu threatened her; and (4) Xu attempted to kiss her but his attempt failed.

The third Plaintiff, Professor Wang, published a post on an online platform stating Xu sexually harassed students for 20 years. Additionally, Xu’s Answer states Professor Wang accused him of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and beating women via internet posts from March 11, 2018, until March 19, 2018. Moreover, Xu’s Answer alleges that Professor Wang posted written statements on a website called Weibo that stated Xu sexually assaulted and harassed women. Lastly, Xu alleged that Professor Wang stated in an online post that he was trained in Thai boxing and could “beat up” Xu….

Xu denies Plaintiffs’ allegations in his Answer, and Xu asserts four counterclaims against the three Plaintiffs [for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation]….

Sun argues Xu’s defamation counterclaim should be dismissed because her interview with CBS News is protected under the Fair Report Privilege [which covers, among other things, fair reports of judicial proceedings -EV]…. [But] the Illinois Supreme Court [has] endorsed Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611 [“Report of Official Proceeding or Public Meeting”] Comment c[, which states] …: “… A person cannot confer this privilege upon himself by making the original defamatory publication himself and then reporting to other people what he had stated.” Importantly, the word “publication” in this context is defined as: “Any act by which defamatory matter is communicated to someone other than the person defamed[.]”

Here, Sun made statements to a CBS News reporter asserting sexual assault allegations against Xu. After Sun gave the interview to CBS, CBS News made an oral and written report for the public. For this reason, under Comment (c), the reporter and CBS News are eligible to use the Fair Report Privilege [presumably because they are reporting on Sun’s complaint filed in court six days before -EV], but Sun’s statements are not privileged because Sun made the original allegedly defamatory statement, and Sun cannot confer the privilege upon herself….

Note that not all states follow the § 611 comment c rule; some California courts, for instance, conclude (applying California’s statutory fair report privilege) that a plaintiff indeed has an absolute privilege to publicly report the allegations in the complaint that she filed in court, just as third parties have an absolute privilege to report on those allegations.

The court also held that the alleged defamation could form the basis for the intentional infliction of emotional distress counterclaims as well as the defamation counterclaims:

Here, Xu has pled sufficient facts to establish the “extreme and outrageous” element for his three IIED counterclaims. Specifically, Xu alleged that Plaintiffs made false statements about him committing sexual assaults on students. At this stage of the litigation, the Court must accept these alleged facts as true. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss these claims because Xu sufficiently alleged conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of human decency.” … The Court holds that a reasonable person would know there is a high probability that false allegations of sexual assault would cause the accused individual severe emotional distress. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ argument is denied…. [And] Xu sufficiently plead that he suffered severe emotional distress from Plaintiffs’ conduct.

 

The post #TheyLied and the Fair Report Privilege appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Nebraska Town Sues Resident to Stop Sending Officials Letters, Ends Up Paying Him $16,000

From Lori Pilger (Lincoln Journal-Star) Saturday:

An Ord man has agreed to a $16,000 settlement with the central Nebraska town that filed a lawsuit against him last year in an attempt to get him to stop writing letters and emails to city officials and the police department that they called “burdensome.”

And from Judge John Gerrard in Brock v. City of Ord (D. Neb. Sept. 17, 2021), in the opinion denying the city’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim (and denying qualified immunity):

[J]ust because this case will be permitted to proceed doesn’t mean it ought to. All of the people involved with this lawsuit should regret being here. To begin with, nearly every public official draws the attention of critics and cranks who have opinions they insist on sharing. This Court has no shortage of its own pen pals. But rather than accept that as one of the privileges of public service, the defendants decided to pursue a lawsuit that asked a state court to impose a prior restraint on the plaintiff’s speech. The plaintiff, for his part, prevailed in that case, and for his part could have been content with having his First Amendment rights vindicated by that victory—but instead, he’s filed another lawsuit in response, despite facing no current peril.

This Court’s docket is full of cases genuinely implicating lives, livelihoods, and liberty—but instead of addressing those claims, the Court finds its attention diverted by having to referee this squabble. It is tempting to turn this car around and go straight home. But of course, as long as the parties intend to keep it up, the Court is duty-bound to preside, so instead, the Court proceeds to the merits….

Brock’s complaint alleges the following[:] …

  • [Plaintiff Guy] Brock regularly wrote letters to elected officials of the City [of Ord], including [Mayor Dan] Petska, related to activities of city government.
  • Petska, [City Attorney Heather] Sikyta, and other City representatives met in the winter of 2019–2020 to discuss Brock’s letter-writing, and ways to prevent Brock from further petitioning his representatives.
  • At this meeting, Petska and Sikyta decided to take legal action against Brock in response to his practice of letter- writing.
  • On March 4, 2020, the City sued Brock in the District Court for Valley County, Nebraska requesting a permanent injunction enjoining Brock from sending “any kind” of communication to the City or the Ord Police Department “unless directly related to a city service or other city function related specifically to Defendant and his property.”
  • In its lawsuit, the City also requested damages in an undisclosed sum, attorney fees, and the costs of the lawsuit.
  • Brock retained counsel to defend the lawsuit, and the District Court of Valley County ultimately dismissed the action on June 12, 2020 for failure to state a claim.

Brock alleges that the above actions by the defendants violated his First Amendment rights ….

“[T]o establish a First Amendment retaliation claim in a particular case, a plaintiff must show (1) that he engaged in a protected activity, (2) that the defendant’s actions caused an injury to the plaintiffs that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the activity, and (3) that a causal connection exists between the retaliatory animus and the injury.”

Brock has pleaded sufficient facts to show that he engaged in a protected activity. Petitioning the government for redress is “among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.” Writing letters to elected representatives about government activities is “unquestionably” a protected activity.

Brock has also pleaded facts sufficient to reasonably infer the defendants’ conduct caused him an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to petition city officials…. Here, Brock has alleged that in response to his letter-writing, the defendants brought legal action against him. In the resulting lawsuit, the City sought to permanently limit Brock’s speech and also requested monetary damages, attorney fees, and costs.  Brock further alleges that he was “forced to retain counsel at his own expense in order to defend his rights to speak freely and petition his government.” … It can … be plausibly inferred that a person of ordinary firmness would be chilled from further petitioning city officials once facing civil liability and the threat of monetary damages. (Nor would it be unreasonable to conclude that a lawsuit expressly meant to prevent Brock from petitioning was, in fact, meant to deter him from petitioning.) …

Brock has alleged sufficient facts to establish a violation of a constitutional right—specifically, a violation of his right to be free from retaliatory action by the government for petitioning his elected officials…. [And a]t the time the lawsuit was filed, it was clearly established beyond debate that citizens have a right to be free from intentional, retaliatory conduct by the government in response to protected petitioning. Additionally, this Circuit had held only two classes of petitioning speech to be unprotected: (1) “sham” speech directed only toward harming others and not toward influencing government action; and (2) certain genuine attempts to influence governmental policy that are violent, illegal, or defamatory.

Further, the precedent of this Circuit clearly established that citizens have a right to be free from government officials engaging the machinery of the government to lodge baseless proceedings against them for exercising their right to petition…. Taking Brock’s allegations as true—that he was writing letters to his elected officials about city activities, and that Petska and Sikyta decided to assert the lawsuit because of that speech—every reasonable official would have known that Brock’s speech was protected from intrusion by the First Amendment.

In light of [Circuit precedent], reasonable city officials would have also known that their lawsuit was without merit if, as Brock alleges, he was only engaging in protected petitioning activities not subject to restraint by the government. Finally, although Williams and Harrison dealt with slightly different government conduct, they clearly established that frivolous legal and regulatory actions taken by local government against citizens in retaliation for petitioning violate the First Amendment…. Putting it all together, every reasonable official would have understood that baseless, retaliatory legal proceedings against a citizen for petitioning the government violate the First Amendment…..

The post Nebraska Town Sues Resident to Stop Sending Officials Letters, Ends Up Paying Him $16,000 appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sSFTc5
via IFTTT

#TheyLied and the Fair Report Privilege

From Magistrate Judge Eric Long’s opinion in Sun v. Xu (C.D. Ill.), decided in May 2020 but just posed on Westlaw:

The three Plaintiffs are two former students and one professor at the University of Illinois. The three Plaintiffs are suing former University of Illinois Professor Gary Xu …. The first Plaintiff, Xingjian Sun …, a female student at the University, claims Xu raped her, forced her to get an abortion, beat her, and attempted to hit her with a car during their two-year relationship. The second Plaintiff, Xing Zhao …, a female student at the University of Illinois, claims Xu sexually harassed her and took credit for her work. The third Plaintiff, Ao Wang …, is a professor at the University of Illinois. Professor Wang claims Xu tried to ruin his career in retaliation for an online article Professor Wang wrote about Xu abusing female students….

Plaintiffs made public comments about their allegations against Xu. The first Plaintiff, Sun, was interviewed by CBS Morning News, and a video of the interview was aired on CBS’s television channel. Additionally, CBS published an article of Sun’s interview on CBS News’ website. In this interview, Sun stated Xu raped her, beat her, and tried to kill her by running her over with his car.

The second plaintiff, Zhao, is not quoted in the Sixth Tone report that details the allegations against Xu. {Sixth Tone is an online magazine that is owned by the Chinese Government. However, Sixth Tone’s target audience is readers in the western hemisphere.} In the Sixth Tone article, two females make anonymous allegations against Xu, alleging sexual abuse and sexual harassment. Xu alleges that Zhao was one of the anonymous sources for the Sixth Tone article. According to Xu, Zhao told Sixth Tone: (1) Xu harassed her; (2) Xu forced her into horrifying sexual behavior; (3) Xu threatened her; and (4) Xu attempted to kiss her but his attempt failed.

The third Plaintiff, Professor Wang, published a post on an online platform stating Xu sexually harassed students for 20 years. Additionally, Xu’s Answer states Professor Wang accused him of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and beating women via internet posts from March 11, 2018, until March 19, 2018. Moreover, Xu’s Answer alleges that Professor Wang posted written statements on a website called Weibo that stated Xu sexually assaulted and harassed women. Lastly, Xu alleged that Professor Wang stated in an online post that he was trained in Thai boxing and could “beat up” Xu….

Xu denies Plaintiffs’ allegations in his Answer, and Xu asserts four counterclaims against the three Plaintiffs [for intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation]….

Sun argues Xu’s defamation counterclaim should be dismissed because her interview with CBS News is protected under the Fair Report Privilege [which covers, among other things, fair reports of judicial proceedings -EV]…. [But] the Illinois Supreme Court [has] endorsed Restatement (Second) of Torts § 611 [“Report of Official Proceeding or Public Meeting”] Comment c[, which states] …: “… A person cannot confer this privilege upon himself by making the original defamatory publication himself and then reporting to other people what he had stated.” Importantly, the word “publication” in this context is defined as: “Any act by which defamatory matter is communicated to someone other than the person defamed[.]”

Here, Sun made statements to a CBS News reporter asserting sexual assault allegations against Xu. After Sun gave the interview to CBS, CBS News made an oral and written report for the public. For this reason, under Comment (c), the reporter and CBS News are eligible to use the Fair Report Privilege [presumably because they are reporting on Sun’s complaint filed in court six days before -EV], but Sun’s statements are not privileged because Sun made the original allegedly defamatory statement, and Sun cannot confer the privilege upon herself….

Note that not all states follow the § 611 comment c rule; some California courts, for instance, conclude (applying California’s statutory fair report privilege) that a plaintiff indeed has an absolute privilege to publicly report the allegations in the complaint that she filed in court, just as third parties have an absolute privilege to report on those allegations.

The court also held that the alleged defamation could form the basis for the intentional infliction of emotional distress counterclaims as well as the defamation counterclaims:

Here, Xu has pled sufficient facts to establish the “extreme and outrageous” element for his three IIED counterclaims. Specifically, Xu alleged that Plaintiffs made false statements about him committing sexual assaults on students. At this stage of the litigation, the Court must accept these alleged facts as true. The Court denies Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss these claims because Xu sufficiently alleged conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of human decency.” … The Court holds that a reasonable person would know there is a high probability that false allegations of sexual assault would cause the accused individual severe emotional distress. For this reason, Plaintiffs’ argument is denied…. [And] Xu sufficiently plead that he suffered severe emotional distress from Plaintiffs’ conduct.

 

The post #TheyLied and the Fair Report Privilege appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Nebraska Town Sues Resident to Stop Sending Officials Letters, Ends Up Paying Him $16,000

From Lori Pilger (Lincoln Journal-Star) Saturday:

An Ord man has agreed to a $16,000 settlement with the central Nebraska town that filed a lawsuit against him last year in an attempt to get him to stop writing letters and emails to city officials and the police department that they called “burdensome.”

And from Judge John Gerrard in Brock v. City of Ord (D. Neb. Sept. 17, 2021), in the opinion denying the city’s motion to dismiss the First Amendment retaliation claim (and denying qualified immunity):

[J]ust because this case will be permitted to proceed doesn’t mean it ought to. All of the people involved with this lawsuit should regret being here. To begin with, nearly every public official draws the attention of critics and cranks who have opinions they insist on sharing. This Court has no shortage of its own pen pals. But rather than accept that as one of the privileges of public service, the defendants decided to pursue a lawsuit that asked a state court to impose a prior restraint on the plaintiff’s speech. The plaintiff, for his part, prevailed in that case, and for his part could have been content with having his First Amendment rights vindicated by that victory—but instead, he’s filed another lawsuit in response, despite facing no current peril.

This Court’s docket is full of cases genuinely implicating lives, livelihoods, and liberty—but instead of addressing those claims, the Court finds its attention diverted by having to referee this squabble. It is tempting to turn this car around and go straight home. But of course, as long as the parties intend to keep it up, the Court is duty-bound to preside, so instead, the Court proceeds to the merits….

Brock’s complaint alleges the following[:] …

  • [Plaintiff Guy] Brock regularly wrote letters to elected officials of the City [of Ord], including [Mayor Dan] Petska, related to activities of city government.
  • Petska, [City Attorney Heather] Sikyta, and other City representatives met in the winter of 2019–2020 to discuss Brock’s letter-writing, and ways to prevent Brock from further petitioning his representatives.
  • At this meeting, Petska and Sikyta decided to take legal action against Brock in response to his practice of letter- writing.
  • On March 4, 2020, the City sued Brock in the District Court for Valley County, Nebraska requesting a permanent injunction enjoining Brock from sending “any kind” of communication to the City or the Ord Police Department “unless directly related to a city service or other city function related specifically to Defendant and his property.”
  • In its lawsuit, the City also requested damages in an undisclosed sum, attorney fees, and the costs of the lawsuit.
  • Brock retained counsel to defend the lawsuit, and the District Court of Valley County ultimately dismissed the action on June 12, 2020 for failure to state a claim.

Brock alleges that the above actions by the defendants violated his First Amendment rights ….

“[T]o establish a First Amendment retaliation claim in a particular case, a plaintiff must show (1) that he engaged in a protected activity, (2) that the defendant’s actions caused an injury to the plaintiffs that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in the activity, and (3) that a causal connection exists between the retaliatory animus and the injury.”

Brock has pleaded sufficient facts to show that he engaged in a protected activity. Petitioning the government for redress is “among the most precious of the liberties safeguarded by the Bill of Rights.” Writing letters to elected representatives about government activities is “unquestionably” a protected activity.

Brock has also pleaded facts sufficient to reasonably infer the defendants’ conduct caused him an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to petition city officials…. Here, Brock has alleged that in response to his letter-writing, the defendants brought legal action against him. In the resulting lawsuit, the City sought to permanently limit Brock’s speech and also requested monetary damages, attorney fees, and costs.  Brock further alleges that he was “forced to retain counsel at his own expense in order to defend his rights to speak freely and petition his government.” … It can … be plausibly inferred that a person of ordinary firmness would be chilled from further petitioning city officials once facing civil liability and the threat of monetary damages. (Nor would it be unreasonable to conclude that a lawsuit expressly meant to prevent Brock from petitioning was, in fact, meant to deter him from petitioning.) …

Brock has alleged sufficient facts to establish a violation of a constitutional right—specifically, a violation of his right to be free from retaliatory action by the government for petitioning his elected officials…. [And a]t the time the lawsuit was filed, it was clearly established beyond debate that citizens have a right to be free from intentional, retaliatory conduct by the government in response to protected petitioning. Additionally, this Circuit had held only two classes of petitioning speech to be unprotected: (1) “sham” speech directed only toward harming others and not toward influencing government action; and (2) certain genuine attempts to influence governmental policy that are violent, illegal, or defamatory.

Further, the precedent of this Circuit clearly established that citizens have a right to be free from government officials engaging the machinery of the government to lodge baseless proceedings against them for exercising their right to petition…. Taking Brock’s allegations as true—that he was writing letters to his elected officials about city activities, and that Petska and Sikyta decided to assert the lawsuit because of that speech—every reasonable official would have known that Brock’s speech was protected from intrusion by the First Amendment.

In light of [Circuit precedent], reasonable city officials would have also known that their lawsuit was without merit if, as Brock alleges, he was only engaging in protected petitioning activities not subject to restraint by the government. Finally, although Williams and Harrison dealt with slightly different government conduct, they clearly established that frivolous legal and regulatory actions taken by local government against citizens in retaliation for petitioning violate the First Amendment…. Putting it all together, every reasonable official would have understood that baseless, retaliatory legal proceedings against a citizen for petitioning the government violate the First Amendment…..

The post Nebraska Town Sues Resident to Stop Sending Officials Letters, Ends Up Paying Him $16,000 appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sSFTc5
via IFTTT

Texas’ 6-Week Abortion Ban Threatens Every Constitutional Right


topicslaw

S.B. 8, a Texas law that took effect on September 1, 2021, bans pre-viability abortions, which is clearly unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents. To dodge legal accountability for that in federal court, Texas outsourced S.B. 8’s enforcement to private actors.

The law authorizes “any person” to sue “any person” who performs or facilitates an abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens around six weeks into a pregnancy. It promises successful plaintiffs a bounty of at least $10,000, plus reimbursement of their legal fees. Because state officials are not implementing the law, Texas maintains, they cannot be sued in federal court to block its enforcement.

In November, when the Supreme Court considered the viability of that dodge, Justice Brett Kavanaugh cut to the heart of the matter, asking Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone about “the implications of your position for other constitutional rights.” What if a state passed a law that says “everyone who sells an AR-15 is liable for a million dollars to any citizen,” Kavanaugh asked. “Would that kind of law be exempt from pre-enforcement review in federal court?”

Stone conceded that his argument meant it would. His answer, he said, “does not turn on the nature of the right.”

In other words, Kavanaugh said, “Second Amendment rights, free exercise of religion rights, free speech rights” could all “be targeted by other states” using the Texas abortion law as a model. “You also said that the amount of the penalty doesn’t matter,” Kavanaugh added. “A state passes a law [that says] anyone who declines to provide a good or service for use in a same-sex marriage [is liable for] a million dollars if sued by anyone in the state—that’s exempt from pre-enforcement review?”

Stone was clear: “Yes, Your Honor.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor later picked up on the same line of questioning. Suppose, she said, “a state dissatisfied with [District of Columbia v.] Heller,” the landmark decision upholding the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, “says anyone who possesses a firearm anywhere is subject to litigation by any private citizen anywhere in the country,” who “gets a million-dollar bounty.” The issue “is not limited to abortion,” she noted. It implicates any right “a state is dissatisfied with.”

Kavanaugh and Sotomayor are correct to worry. If it is upheld, state legislators easily could use the strategy embodied in S.B. 8 to attack other rights the Supreme Court has recognized. That prospect should trouble Americans of every political stripe.

The post Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Threatens Every Constitutional Right appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sQ90g6
via IFTTT

Texas’ 6-Week Abortion Ban Threatens Every Constitutional Right


topicslaw

S.B. 8, a Texas law that took effect on September 1, 2021, bans pre-viability abortions, which is clearly unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s precedents. To dodge legal accountability for that in federal court, Texas outsourced S.B. 8’s enforcement to private actors.

The law authorizes “any person” to sue “any person” who performs or facilitates an abortion after fetal cardiac activity can be detected, which typically happens around six weeks into a pregnancy. It promises successful plaintiffs a bounty of at least $10,000, plus reimbursement of their legal fees. Because state officials are not implementing the law, Texas maintains, they cannot be sued in federal court to block its enforcement.

In November, when the Supreme Court considered the viability of that dodge, Justice Brett Kavanaugh cut to the heart of the matter, asking Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone about “the implications of your position for other constitutional rights.” What if a state passed a law that says “everyone who sells an AR-15 is liable for a million dollars to any citizen,” Kavanaugh asked. “Would that kind of law be exempt from pre-enforcement review in federal court?”

Stone conceded that his argument meant it would. His answer, he said, “does not turn on the nature of the right.”

In other words, Kavanaugh said, “Second Amendment rights, free exercise of religion rights, free speech rights” could all “be targeted by other states” using the Texas abortion law as a model. “You also said that the amount of the penalty doesn’t matter,” Kavanaugh added. “A state passes a law [that says] anyone who declines to provide a good or service for use in a same-sex marriage [is liable for] a million dollars if sued by anyone in the state—that’s exempt from pre-enforcement review?”

Stone was clear: “Yes, Your Honor.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor later picked up on the same line of questioning. Suppose, she said, “a state dissatisfied with [District of Columbia v.] Heller,” the landmark decision upholding the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, “says anyone who possesses a firearm anywhere is subject to litigation by any private citizen anywhere in the country,” who “gets a million-dollar bounty.” The issue “is not limited to abortion,” she noted. It implicates any right “a state is dissatisfied with.”

Kavanaugh and Sotomayor are correct to worry. If it is upheld, state legislators easily could use the strategy embodied in S.B. 8 to attack other rights the Supreme Court has recognized. That prospect should trouble Americans of every political stripe.

The post Texas' 6-Week Abortion Ban Threatens Every Constitutional Right appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3sQ90g6
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Bad Medicine


prisoner_1161x653

As Jerod Draper was dying of a meth overdose, video shows that staff at the Harrison County, Indiana, jail did not immediately seek medical attention for him. Instead, they placed him in a restraint chair and placed a hood over his head, used their Tasers on him repeatedly, stomped his feet, and used pain compliance holds on him. Harrison County officials agreed to pay $1 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Draper’s family. But no one at the jail has been criminally charged in the incident.

The post Brickbat: Bad Medicine appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3Hwnx4Y
via IFTTT

Brickbat: Bad Medicine


prisoner_1161x653

As Jerod Draper was dying of a meth overdose, video shows that staff at the Harrison County, Indiana, jail did not immediately seek medical attention for him. Instead, they placed him in a restraint chair and placed a hood over his head, used their Tasers on him repeatedly, stomped his feet, and used pain compliance holds on him. Harrison County officials agreed to pay $1 million to settle a lawsuit brought by Draper’s family. But no one at the jail has been criminally charged in the incident.

The post Brickbat: Bad Medicine appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3Hwnx4Y
via IFTTT