Month: February 2022

Jamie Dimon Warns SWIFT Sanctions May Bring Unintended Consequences, Can Be Circumvented

Jamie Dimon Warns SWIFT Sanctions May Bring Unintended Consequences, Can Be Circumvented

Just hours after western leaders slapped Russia with unprecedented sanctions the likes of which the world has never seen, including a targeted SWIFT expulsion of key Russia banks as well as an asset and transaction freeze of the Russia central bank, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon explained not only why this harsh escalation may be futile but why it could backfire spectacularly in the years to come.

In an interview with Bloomberg TV, the CEO of the world’s largest bank said that “there are a lot of workarounds for SWIFT, so there are different tools we use for different reasons” adding that “the banks are talking with the government so everyone understands the issues, not because they’re for or against any particular thing.”

While SWIFT sanctions mean companies can’t use the messaging system to do business with the Russian entities affected, they can still do business with them, Dimon said. In fact it’s as simple as sending an email with payment instructions, because what SWIFT really is, is a messaging remnant from a bygone era, before emails, even before the fax machine.  

Dimon also said that disconnecting Russian banks from the SWIFT messaging system may bring “unintended consequences” that include third parties finding ways around the penalty.

“What countries do you hurt? What people are going to do workarounds?” Dimon said, referring to “bad players” and others finding workarounds, not his own firm, according to a company spokesperson. Dimon said sanctions, by contrast, are “very targeted, very specific, very clean.”

As Bloomberg reported on Friday, JPMorgan was among Wall Street firms that had counseled Washington against kicking Russia off SWIFT, arguing that it could have far-reaching fallout that could hurt the global economy and undermine the purpose of the penalties.

Dimon’s full interview is below…

… and unlike his brutally wrong bitcoin predictions, Dimon will be right about SWIFT.  In a rhetorical Q&A about the consequences of Russian SWIFT expulsions, Goldman asked whether there is concern this this would undermine the reserve currency status of the Dollar (and Euro) and responded:

The US is in a unique position of having the global reserve currency, which underpins a substantial portion of international trade and foreign exchange transactions, while also granting the Executive fairly broad discretion through IEEPA to restrict US capital flows by invoking security concerns. The widespread use of the Dollar in international markets, for instance, allows the United States to affect foreign policy goals through financial market channels (hard power) and may also confer certain reputational benefits (soft power). However, overuse of these powers could compel other actors to try to replace Dollar transactions, as Russia already did to some extent following earlier sanctions.

In this regard, the coordination across the G-7 is particularly important. Already, global reserve managers had relatively limited options for shifting reserves out of Dollars given limited supply of strong investment grade assets in the Euro area and limited capital market depth elsewhere. This is especially true for the large reserve managers, like China. But there are also implications for smaller central banks, many of which have used the BIS to facilitate new FX reserves in Chinese securities given the capital constraints, which supports our view that those investments are primarily aimed at diversifying and improving returns. Overall, while these actions could ultimately compel a change in reserve accumulation behavior, and support additional inflows to CNY, there is not really a viable alternative available at the moment for large reserve holders, especially when Europe is also participating in the sanctions.

An even more accurate take comes from the Bloomberg editors who wrote an article this morning explaining why “Wielding SWIFT Against Russian Banks Is a Big Risk” and in which they wrote:

Aside from the immediate collateral damage, excluding Russian banks from SWIFT risks longer-term consequences for international finance. As with any network (think Facebook), the value of SWIFT depends on the number of banks that use it. To that end, the cooperative seeks to encourage the broadest possible participation by maintaining neutrality. Only Iran, which was already isolated financially, has ever been cut off. The example of Russia could prompt others — such as China — to turn to alternatives, fragmenting the payments system and potentially even undermining the U.S. dollar’s dominance as the global reserve currency. One could even imagine a future in which rival nations turned similar financial weapons against the U.S.

* * *

Western leaders should be wary of going further and ejecting Russia from SWIFT completely. The effect would be utterly indiscriminate: Supplies of Russian oil, gas and other commodities could collapse, foreign creditors would suffer heavy losses, and even Russians who scorned Putin’s actions and sought to emigrate would have to resort to laundering techniques to get their money out of the country. Putin might well interpret such a cutoff as an act of war and respond accordingly.

As the conflict continues, the international community should work together to coordinate more traditional sanctions aimed at an increasing number of Russian banks, which would impose similarly harsh punishment without such dire unintended consequences — and on measures (such as those already announced) aimed at limiting the Russian central bank’s ability to support targeted institutions. Western nations’ desire to do something big and bold is correct, but they — and the U.S. especially — should be wary of taking actions that they’ll regret.

Whether Putin will interpret the Western expulsion from SWIFT as an acto of war remains to be seen, but one thing is clear: on Monday morning, stocks linked to China’s version of SWIFT – the Cross-Border Inter-Bank Payments System (CIPS) – exploded limit up.

The reason: at least some in the market are betting that the glory days of SWIFT are coming to an end thanks to the West’s own actions, and its replacement is an acronym that very few have heard… for now.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 02/28/2022 – 17:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/eNP4Fpg Tyler Durden

No, We Shouldn’t Attack Russia and Start World War III Over Ukraine


sipaphotosthirteen066927

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine has provoked appropriate scorn from much of the West, with U.S. and European powers levying punitive sanctions against the Russian invaders. Many Americans are inspired by the bravery of the Ukrainian people defending their homeland—and the unusual honor of President Volodymyr Zelensky—and wish that we could do even more.

Indeed, NBC News correspondent Richard Engel, observing Russian forces marching on Kyiv, contemplated whether the U.S. should directly attack the Russian convoy.

It should go without saying, but this is an extremely bad idea. The risk is far too great.

First off, the U.S. cannot attack Russia because Congress has yet to declare war on the country. And make no mistake, a direct attack on Russian forces by either the U.S. or NATO would be an act of war. This would bring two of the world’s superpowers into direct conflict for the first time since World War II. The risk of a nuclear attack, on either side, would increase dramatically. Indeed, favorable conditions for an all-out nuclear war would, for the first time in world history, finally be achieved.

The plight of the Ukrainians is tragic, but as much as we might like to aid them militarily, the U.S. cannot undertake a course of action with a significant likelihood of causing nuclear annihilation. While it would be gratifying to punish Putin for trying to reclaim the Soviet empire, a bad actor’s malicious behavior is no excuse for recklessness on the part of the U.S. Despite Engel’s suggestion that the situation presents a “moral dilemma,” there is no dilemma here to speak of: War between nuclear powers is not an option.

The same goes for calls to establish a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. A no-fly zone is not a magic protective barrier—the U.S. would have to enforce it by shooting down Russian airplanes. Russia’s air force is quite powerful, so this would be no easy feat. But in any case, it would still amount to war with Russia. The U.S. must therefore reject Zelensky’s heartfelt request for a no-fly zone. The Biden administration has thus far wisely indicated that such a move is off the table.

The post No, We Shouldn't Attack Russia and Start World War III Over Ukraine appeared first on Reason.com.

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

The ‘Adults In Charge’ Have Bumbled Us Into A New Cold War

The ‘Adults In Charge’ Have Bumbled Us Into A New Cold War

Authored by Jim Daws via American Thinker (emphasis ours),

During Thursday’s speech announcing ever greater sanctions on Russia, Joe Biden claimed, “The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine, without provocation, without justification, without necessity.”  This was a Western chauvinist point of view that does not take into account Russia’s security concerns and historic grievances since the Soviet Union’s defeat in the Cold War.

There is another reading of history — one from a Russian chauvinist point of view — that Western governments and media turn a blind eye to, and that has inevitably led to the current conflict and the specter of a much wider one. 

Putin recounted an event during his extensive pre-invasion speech on February 21.  In 2000, when he first became president of Russia, he had proposed to then–U.S. president Bill Clinton that Russia join NATO and be integrated into Europe.  Russia was an economic basket case after decades of ruinous communist rule and its military a shell of its former greatness.  It was an opportunity for America to seize on its Cold War victory, similar to how we had capitalized on our victories over Germany and Japan after World War II.  

We can speculate as to why this opportunity was squandered, but I suspect that Europe’s leaders feared competing economically with a newly liberated Russia and that America’s defense industry was reluctant to lose a geostrategic foe that had justified decades of huge military budgets.

What is not in question is that the U.S., Great Britain, Germany, and France had, in 1991, promised Russia that NATO would not encroach on Russia if Russia withdrew its troops from Eastern Europe.  That promise was broken just eight years later, when Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic were granted NATO membership.  Five years after that, seven more countries in Eastern Europe were allowed to join and four more since then, including that military powerhouse, North Macedonia. 

In 1999, NATO engaged in an air war against Serbia, a Slavic nation, like Russia, that had been part of the USSR under Yugoslavia.  This was widely seen as a grand gesture by then-president Bill Clinton and secretary of state Madeleine Albright to show how NATO was even willing to bomb Christians in order to protect Muslims.  Today, many of the same Democrats and neocons you see decrying the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity were vocal cheerleaders for the partition of Kosovo, over bitter Serbian and Russian objections. 

The ethnically Albanian Kosovo Liberation Army then proceeded to ethnically cleanse Serbian Christians from their ancestral homeland, while NATO stood idly by.

The roots of this current conflict go back, most recently, to 2014, when Barack Obama’s State Department sponsored a coup that toppled a duly elected Russia-friendly government in Kyiv and installed one that opposed Russia.  Obama funded that so-called color revolution to the tune of $6 billion, and the notoriously corrupt nation became a feeding frenzy for the families and cronies of U.S. politicians, including the Biden family.  Joe Biden was in charge of Ukraine policy at the time, and his crack-addled son was dispatched as the Biden family bag man.

Later that same year, assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland, who had managed the coup in Ukraine, testified before a congressional committee that Obama and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, had also spent $20 billion on a similar effort at regime change inside Russia itself. 

So Vladimir Putin might be forgiven for believing that the Western powers, in their refusal to forswear NATO expansion into Ukraine — the historic approach for invasions — don’t have Russia’s best interest at heart.

The bitter harvest of this history is the current invasion of Ukraine and an emerging second Cold War in which the U.S. and Europe may hold far fewer advantages than the first one.

On the eve of this winter’s “Genocide” Olympics in Beijing, Putin and China’s Xi Jinping signed an alliance pledging to cooperate economically and militarily, stating that in this new global era, “Friendship between their states has no limits.” 

In China, Russia now has an ally with an unlimited appetite for its fossil fuel and agricultural products.  In Russia, China now has a growing market for its cheap labor manufacturing output.  Alone, each nation has more degreed engineers than the U.S. and will be positioned to share advanced military, space, and industrial technology — much of it stolen from the U.S.  This relationship will be largely beyond the reach of the Western sanctions Biden announced.

As in the previous Cold War, we can expect satellite client states to be deployed to destabilize, threaten, and terrorize the Western nations and our allies.  Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and others will bleed our military, resources, and attention.

By pushing Russia into the arms of an ascendant communist China, the West, and the so-called “adults” who are back in charge, have made a geostrategic blunder of historic proportions. 

The truly tragic part is, it did not have to be this way. 

*  *  *

Jim Daws is a recovering talk radio host at jim@jimdaws.com.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 02/28/2022 – 17:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/FskMoW6 Tyler Durden

No, We Shouldn’t Attack Russia and Start World War III Over Ukraine


sipaphotosthirteen066927

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unjustified war of aggression against Ukraine has provoked appropriate scorn from much of the West, with U.S. and European powers levying punitive sanctions against the Russian invaders. Many Americans are inspired by the bravery of the Ukrainian people defending their homeland—and the unusual honor of President Volodymyr Zelensky—and wish that we could do even more.

Indeed, NBC News correspondent Richard Engel, observing Russian forces marching on Kyiv, contemplated whether the U.S. should directly attack the Russian convoy.

It should go without saying, but this is an extremely bad idea. The risk is far too great.

First off, the U.S. cannot attack Russia because Congress has yet to declare war on the country. And make no mistake, a direct attack on Russian forces by either the U.S. or NATO would be an act of war. This would bring two of the world’s superpowers into direct conflict for the first time since World War II. The risk of a nuclear attack, on either side, would increase dramatically. Indeed, favorable conditions for an all-out nuclear war would, for the first time in world history, finally be achieved.

The plight of the Ukrainians is tragic, but as much as we might like to aid them militarily, the U.S. cannot undertake a course of action with a significant likelihood of causing nuclear annihilation. While it would be gratifying to punish Putin for trying to reclaim the Soviet empire, a bad actor’s malicious behavior is no excuse for recklessness on the part of the U.S. Despite Engel’s suggestion that the situation presents a “moral dilemma,” there is no dilemma here to speak of: War between nuclear powers is not an option.

The same goes for calls to establish a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine. A no-fly zone is not a magic protective barrier—the U.S. would have to enforce it by shooting down Russian airplanes. Russia’s air force is quite powerful, so this would be no easy feat. But in any case, it would still amount to war with Russia. The U.S. must therefore reject Zelensky’s heartfelt request for a no-fly zone. The Biden administration has thus far wisely indicated that such a move is off the table.

The post No, We Shouldn't Attack Russia and Start World War III Over Ukraine appeared first on Reason.com.

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

Zelensky Goes Viral, Russia Goes Nuclear


51904511850_a590e3586a_b-2

Reason editors Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Peter Suderman discuss the world’s reaction to the ongoing Russian invasion as well as what they’d like to hear in President Joe Biden’s SOTU speech.

Discussed in this show:

3:23: The world reacts to Russia’s invasion.

44:15: Weekly listener question: I’ve been an avid Reason fan for over a decade, and as a result, I now implicitly trust Reason. While I know that Reason speaks to issues from a certain point of view, I feel like I “know” the four of you and the magazine generally well enough to trust that there is no nefarious or otherwise deceptive intent behind what you provide. Which individual journalists or outlets do you all implicitly trust in this way? Obligatory mention of Peter and cocktails. Thanks.

59:41: President Biden’s State of the Union

This week’s links:

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

Today’s sponsors:

  • Tired of feeling like someone’s always watching you on the internet? Maybe advertisers know a bit too much about you, or you’re concerned about the privacy of your identity? Using incognito mode won’t solve the problem either.  IPVanish VPN is here to protect your right to privacy and help you stay anonymous online. IPVanish helps you safely browse the internet without exposing your private details to third parties, such as hackers, your ISP, or advertisers. You can use IPVanish on your computers, tablets, phones… even devices like your Firestick when you’re streaming media. When you use IPVanish, all of your data is encrypted. This means that your private details, passwords, communications, browsing history, and more will be completely shielded from falling into the wrong hands. Even your physical location will be hidden. IPVanish makes you virtually invisible online. It’s that simple. So go to IPVANISH.com/roundtable and use promotional code ROUNDTABLE to claim your 70% savings.
  • We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don’t realize is that health insurance won’t always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That’s why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won’t see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. Now, as a listener of our show, you’ll get up to a $50 Visa or Amazon Gift Card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.

Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Adam Czarnecki
Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

 

The post Zelensky Goes Viral, Russia Goes Nuclear appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/KQG04C5
via IFTTT

California Drops School Mask Mandate, Will Allow Unvaccinated To Unmask Indoors

California Drops School Mask Mandate, Will Allow Unvaccinated To Unmask Indoors

After allowing virtually everyone except the least at-risk demographic to participate in society without masks, California will no longer require masks in schools starting March 12, according to the Sacramento Bee.

The move comes as Covid-19 cases and deaths have plummeted precipitously to pre-Omicron levels, as the far-less deadly strain continues to make up virtually all current cases.

Earlier this month, the Golden State showered its residents with news that masks would no longer be required indoors for the unvaccinated – repealing a mandate that had been in place since December’s Omicron spike. Starting March 1, however, masks will only be recommended and not required for unvaccinated individuals indoors.

We’re guessing that keeping kids masked while letting adults galavant around the state bare-faced was just too much absurdity for even California. Yet…

That said, masks will still be required for people in ‘high transmission’ settings such as public transit, emergency shelters, jails and prisons, healthcare facilities, homeless shelters and long-term care facilities, according to the Bee.

“California continues to adjust our policies based on the latest data and science, applying what we’ve learned over the past two years to guide our response to the pandemic,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom in a statement. “Masks are an effective tool to minimize spread of the virus and future variants, especially when transmission rates are high. We cannot predict the future of the virus, but we are better prepared for it and will continue to take measures rooted in science to keep California moving forward.”

The Golden State is updating its masking policies at the same time as Oregon and Washington state, though the changes are not identical.

Oregon will stop requiring masks in indoor public spaces in schools on March 12 as well. Washington will also lift its indoor mask mandate at that time, but will stick with its original plan to lift the school mask mandate on March 21.

“As has been made clear time and again over the last two years, COVID-19 does not stop at state borders or county lines,” said Oregon Gov. Kate Brown in a statement “On the West Coast, our communities and economies are linked. Together, as we continue to recover from the Omicron surge, we will build resiliency and prepare for the next variant and the next pandemic.”

California, Oregon and Washington are among only 13 states that still have mask mandates in place for classrooms, drawing ire from conservatives and some parent groups. Frustrated with state leaders, some California school districts have opted to forego the state law and allow students to choose if they want to wear masks. -Sac Bee

On Friday, Newsom announced plans to lift several other statewide orders issued during the pandemic.

Tyler Durden
Mon, 02/28/2022 – 16:40

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/eAdxqSy Tyler Durden

Zelensky Goes Viral, Russia Goes Nuclear


51904511850_a590e3586a_b-2

Reason editors Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Peter Suderman discuss the world’s reaction to the ongoing Russian invasion as well as what they’d like to hear in President Joe Biden’s SOTU speech.

Discussed in this show:

3:23: The world reacts to Russia’s invasion.

44:15: Weekly listener question: I’ve been an avid Reason fan for over a decade, and as a result, I now implicitly trust Reason. While I know that Reason speaks to issues from a certain point of view, I feel like I “know” the four of you and the magazine generally well enough to trust that there is no nefarious or otherwise deceptive intent behind what you provide. Which individual journalists or outlets do you all implicitly trust in this way? Obligatory mention of Peter and cocktails. Thanks.

59:41: President Biden’s State of the Union

This week’s links:

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

Today’s sponsors:

  • Tired of feeling like someone’s always watching you on the internet? Maybe advertisers know a bit too much about you, or you’re concerned about the privacy of your identity? Using incognito mode won’t solve the problem either.  IPVanish VPN is here to protect your right to privacy and help you stay anonymous online. IPVanish helps you safely browse the internet without exposing your private details to third parties, such as hackers, your ISP, or advertisers. You can use IPVanish on your computers, tablets, phones… even devices like your Firestick when you’re streaming media. When you use IPVanish, all of your data is encrypted. This means that your private details, passwords, communications, browsing history, and more will be completely shielded from falling into the wrong hands. Even your physical location will be hidden. IPVanish makes you virtually invisible online. It’s that simple. So go to IPVANISH.com/roundtable and use promotional code ROUNDTABLE to claim your 70% savings.
  • We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don’t realize is that health insurance won’t always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That’s why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won’t see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. Now, as a listener of our show, you’ll get up to a $50 Visa or Amazon Gift Card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.

Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Adam Czarnecki
Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

 

The post Zelensky Goes Viral, Russia Goes Nuclear appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/KQG04C5
via IFTTT

Zelensky Goes Viral, Russia Goes Nuclear


51904511850_a590e3586a_b-2

Reason editors Matt Welch, Nick Gillespie, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Peter Suderman discuss the world’s reaction to the ongoing Russian invasion as well as what they’d like to hear in President Joe Biden’s SOTU speech.

Discussed in this show:

3:23: The world reacts to Russia’s invasion.

44:15: Weekly listener question: I’ve been an avid Reason fan for over a decade, and as a result, I now implicitly trust Reason. While I know that Reason speaks to issues from a certain point of view, I feel like I “know” the four of you and the magazine generally well enough to trust that there is no nefarious or otherwise deceptive intent behind what you provide. Which individual journalists or outlets do you all implicitly trust in this way? Obligatory mention of Peter and cocktails. Thanks.

59:41: President Biden’s State of the Union

This week’s links:

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

Today’s sponsors:

  • Tired of feeling like someone’s always watching you on the internet? Maybe advertisers know a bit too much about you, or you’re concerned about the privacy of your identity? Using incognito mode won’t solve the problem either.  IPVanish VPN is here to protect your right to privacy and help you stay anonymous online. IPVanish helps you safely browse the internet without exposing your private details to third parties, such as hackers, your ISP, or advertisers. You can use IPVanish on your computers, tablets, phones… even devices like your Firestick when you’re streaming media. When you use IPVanish, all of your data is encrypted. This means that your private details, passwords, communications, browsing history, and more will be completely shielded from falling into the wrong hands. Even your physical location will be hidden. IPVanish makes you virtually invisible online. It’s that simple. So go to IPVANISH.com/roundtable and use promotional code ROUNDTABLE to claim your 70% savings.
  • We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don’t realize is that health insurance won’t always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That’s why an AirMedCare Network membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won’t see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. Now, as a listener of our show, you’ll get up to a $50 Visa or Amazon Gift Card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.

Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Adam Czarnecki
Music: “Angeline,” by The Brothers Steve

 

The post Zelensky Goes Viral, Russia Goes Nuclear appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/KQG04C5
via IFTTT

Protests Outside People’s Homes (Residential Picketing) and the First Amendment

This matter is in the news again, because of a proposal in Boston to limit residential picketing so that it can only happen from 9 am to 9 pm. (This appears to have been prompted by residential picketing outside Mayor Michelle Wu’s home.) I therefore thought I’d repost an item of mine that answers the question: Is this sort of targeted residential picketing protected by the First Amendment?

The short answer: No, but any restrictions on such picketing have to be imposed through content-neutral statutes or ordinances (or, in some situations, injunctions); and they have to leave people free to demonstrate in the same neighborhood:

  1. In Carey v. Brown (1980), the Court struck down a ban on residential picketing that had an exemption for labor picketing.
  2. In Frisby v. Schultz (1988), the Court upheld a ban (not just a time limitation but a total ban) that had no exemption, on the grounds that it was (a) content-neutral, (b) narrowly tailored to serving an important interest in protecting residential privacy, and (c) left people free to engage in “[g]eneral marching through residential neighborhoods, or even walking a route in front of an entire block of houses.”.
  3. In Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc. (1994), the Court struck down an injunction that barred residential picketing within 300 feet of clinic employees’ homes, because it was too broad.

Carey involved a pro-busing group picketing the home of a mayor, while Frisby and Madsen involved anti-abortion groups picketing the homes of clinic employees. Indeed, most of the residential picketing cases I’ve seen have involved anti-abortion protesters; at least in the 1980s and 1990s, such residential picketing seemed to be a favored tactic of at least some parts of that movement.

But the Court of course didn’t draw distinctions based on the content of the speech or based on whether the picketing was aimed at a public official. For instance, Justice Scalia, who had often faulted the Court in free speech cases where he thought anti-abortion speech was being treated unfairly, was in the majority in Frisby; Justices Brennan and Marshall, strong supporters of abortion rights, dissented; none of them seemed swayed by the speakers’ ideology. Rather, as I note above, the Court expressly forbade such distinctions.

So a city or a state could ban picketing or allow it. But the rules would apply equally to anti-racism protesters, antifa protesters, anti-abortion protesters, alt.right protesters, and any other protesters.

To my knowledge, residential picketing is banned on a statewide basis only in Arizona, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota, though the statutes operate somewhat differently. (The Arizona ban is limited to picketing conducted “with intent to harass, annoy or alarm”; the Minnesota law allows injunctions to be issued based on targeted residential picketing that happens “on more than one occasion,” rather than banning such picketing outright.) But various cities ban it as well.

Finally, even when there is no ordinance banning residential picketing, particular kinds of behavior while picketing—especially loud noise at night (cf. the August 2020 Washington protest outside the Postmaster General’s home)—may be banned by content-neutral restrictions. See Kovacs v. Cooper (1949). Of course, those restrictions must be enforced in a content-neutral manner as well: A city can’t deliberately ignore loud protests that express certain views but then punish loud protests that ignore others.

The post Protests Outside People's Homes (Residential Picketing) and the First Amendment appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/j4ycsm3
via IFTTT

Utah Governor To Veto School Choice Bill Unless His Demands Are Met


Screen Shot 2022-02-28 at 3.41.21 PM

In a time of turmoil over public schools and how they are run, it is perhaps unsurprising that a state would consider a school choice bill and that a governor would threaten a veto. But the reasoning that Utah’s governor gave for his veto might be the strangest one yet.

Spencer Cox, a Republican, has served as Utah’s governor for just over a year. Despite threatening to veto a school choice bill recently passed by his state’s legislature, he says he supports the concept. “I am an advocate for choice,” Cox said in a press conference earlier this month. “I think parents should be able to use taxpayer money in other ways.”

But his complaints have nothing to do with the bill in question, H.B. 331. “I’m all in on vouchers. But we have a long way to go before we get there,” Cox further explained. “With the price of housing, with inflation happening right now, I don’t want to live in a state where teachers can’t buy a home… When teachers are making $60,000 a year to start, I will fully support vouchers.”

Currently, the average starting salary for Utah teachers is around $35,700. An increase of more than 70-percent per teacher would constitute a drastic realignment in education funding since the state average teacher salary is only $50,000. By increasing the starting salary to $60,000, Utah would be paying its starting teachers more than any other state in the country, despite having a cost of living slightly below the national average.

Despite Cox’s characterization, H.B. 331 is not truly a “voucher” program: Like other programs around the country, it utilizes education savings accounts (ESAs), in which parents of students are allowed to use state money on educational expenses for their children. Families qualify for a portion of the money the state would otherwise spend on their education determined by a sliding scale based on their income. Families earning up to 200 percent of the federal poverty line would receive twice the amount that the state spends per student, and the multiplier decreases from there. Parents may spend the money on books, tutoring, outside lessons, or tuition to a private school.

It is entirely possible that H.B. 331 is not the right option for parents of Utah students. And it is also possible that Utah teachers should make more money: Despite a cost of living near to the national average, Utah’s average teacher salary is more than $10,000 below the national average. But these are entirely separate issues, and Cox’s attempt to tie them together is disingenuous. If, as he claims, he is a supporter of school choice, then he should either sign the bill or indicate why it fails on that metric. Then, he can make the case for increasing teacher pay. Making one dependent upon the other undermines the seriousness of both issues.

The post Utah Governor To Veto School Choice Bill Unless His Demands Are Met appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/t8JAfye
via IFTTT