UT Law School dean supports free speech except speech that . . .

If you follow @instapundit on Twitter, you are familiar with Twitter's decision to suspend Professor Glenn Reynolds. The reason for doing so was that Twitter didn't like his message! During the Charlotte riots thugs surrounded cars on the Interstate. Professor Reynolds tweeted "run them over." This advice was as opposed to sitting in your car until the thugs pulled motorists from their cars and beat them. 

Well, the sanctimonious Left rose up in outrage--this led to Twitter's action--and demanded action be taken. Twitter did reverse itself; but now UT Law dean Melanie Wilson has decided to investigate Professor Reynolds's speech. (Professor Reynolds teaches law at UT.) Dean Wilson assures us that she supports free speech except speech "that encourages violence." And apparently it is she who will make that determination. 

The surrounded motorists who are on Twitter and who follow @instapundit on Twitter probably had more pressing matters last night than checking Twitter. And by the time they were removed from the situation and checked Twitter it would have been too late for them to run the rioters over. So much for the dean's opposition to speech "that encourages violence." There was no real opportunity for the readers to engage in violence. And if my family and I had been surrounded by that band of thugs, I wouldn't have needed the good professor's advice: it sounds more like self-defense!

Don't let Dean Wilson and her ilk dictate to us the speech that should be allowed and the speech that should not be allowed. 

Here is the text of my e-mail to Dean Wilson and her e-mail address is mdwilson@utk.edu you can also try utk.edu@cmail20.com

Dear Dean Wilson,

Your claim to support free speech is belied by the statement that you don't support speech  "that encourages violence." And it is you who determines that? The speech you support is speech with which you agree. Otherwise, you would simply have told those whom Professor Reynolds offended that you are not in the business of policing speech. 

But I'll play your game and assume you should take action against speech "that encourages violence." How would Professor Reynolds's tweet have encouraged violence last night? Those in their cars who were surrounded by a mob on the Interstate would have had more pressing matters to deal with than checking Twitter. And by the time they were removed from the situation and looked at Twitter, assuming they follow Professor Reynolds, it would have been too late. 

If you insist on policing speech, please don't do it under the banner "I support free speech." Be honest and acknowledge that you support speech with which you agree and investigate all other speech.

Let the dean know how you feel!

  

53 days till the election

With 53 days remaining before the election, I thought I would challenge a couple of the reasons given for voting for Trump.

Trump says that he will push for women to have six weeks paid maternity leave. And he says he will appoint folks to the Supreme Court who are like Scalia.

A. He's a Conservative. Not true!

Maybe you think the first point is a good idea; and maybe so if the employer decides to offer it as a perk to its employees. But it is contrary to conservative principles for the government to force private employers to do this. Why? Because it is contrary to liberty. Some folks say, "Let's see how Donald plans to pay for it." He will pay for it through higher taxes or putting a bigger burden on employers. It's no mere coincidence that Hillary proposes the same thing only larger.

B. He will appoint Scalia-like folks to SCOTUS. 

Now, Trump hasn't got enough sense to know anything about Scalia. One can't be a narcissist and an intellectual: there's not enough time in the day. Trump's sister is a federal judge and her mother is the only person she’s ever thought shouldn't have an abortion. (One can't say there's a constitutional right to own slaves (Scott v. Sandford), to abortion (Roe v. Wade), to engage in homosexual acts (Lawrence v. Texas), or to buy condoms (Eisenstadt v. Baird),  and claim to be textualist in the vein of Scalia.) These are matters for the legislative branch--in the first instance--and the executive branch. Trump will not appoint to the Supreme Court the kind of folks we need there.

C. One of these reasons for voting for Trump is better than the ones discussed above.

So, if you want to vote for Trump, go ahead. But don't do it because he's a Conservative, he's not! Do it because you don't like Hillary, do it because Trump looks better in pants than Hillary, do it because you want more government in your business but at a slower pace, do it because you admire fascism, do it because Trump is more consistent with his hairstyle than Hillary, do it because Sean Hannity told you to, but don't do it because Trump is a Conservative.

And not voting for Trump is not a vote for Hillary. Our presidents are elected by the members of the electoral college. Hillary is not going to win Tennessee. Tennessee’s electors will go to Trump. Throw caution to the wind and write in a candidate or if marijuana is your thing, Gary “what’s Aleppo” Johnson will gladly take your vote.  

This week lawyers are having trouble with precedent.

Sandy Springs, GA bans sex devices unless needed for a bona fide medical, educational, scientific, legislative, judicial, or law enforcement purpose. The plaintiff sued claiming she needs a vibrator because her M.S. prevents her from getting sufficient pleasure from her partner. The Eleventh Circuit upheld the ordinance. But that’s not the important point; unless you live in Sandy Springs.

A lawyer writing an article about the case, wrote that the Eleventh Circuit “was more or less bound by previous precedent . . . .” Is there another kind? Black’s Law Dictionary defines precedent as “a decided case that furnishes a basis for determining later cases . . . .” Hence precedent—by definition—must be before, i.e., previous to, the case to which it applies.

Precedent is giving lawyers trouble this week. Earlier this week a lawyer wrote in an e-mail “there's some good precedence” in the appellate court. Precedence is “the order or priority in place or time observed by or for persons of different statuses on the basis of rank . . .” or “the act or state of going before something else according to some system of priorities.” And precedent we’ve already covered. Because the lawyer meant “precedents” she should have written “there are some good precedents . . . .” 

Things to remember: "precedent" and "precedent" are homographs, i.e., words that are spelled the same, pronounced the same, but have different meanings and they are also a more specific type of homograph the heteronym: heteronyms are words that are spelled the same, have different meanings, and sound different. "Precedent" is pronounced prə-seed-ənt and pres-ə-dənt and means preceding in time or order. "Precedent" is pronounced pres-ə-dənt and is a decided case that furnishes a basis for deciding a later case. Finally, there is "precedence" that is pronounced either pres-ə-dənts or prə-seed-ənts and I defined it above. Oh, and if you are going to Sandy Springs, check your bags because there are some things you can't by their; just kidding "buy there." 

   

Trump and the coming of the second Democratic Party!

Is the GOP about to become just another Democratic Party? The question arises following the GOP's convention in Cleveland that--in a surprise to no one--Trump deemed a "yuge success." (Trump's got more problems with Hs than his inability to aspirate.) But is there any real difference between Hillary's party and Trump's?  The GOP has now embraced several points that the Democrats have long prided themselves on: (1) they had some guy talk about how proud he is to be gay; (2) Ivanka said her daddy is all about equal pay for equal work (embracing the myth that men are paid more than women for the same work); (3) Trump is pro-abortion; (4) Trump's history shows he has been a big contributor to Democratic candidates; and (5) Trump's moral fiber is as tenuous as Bill Clinton’s. This latter point denies credibility to Republican criticism of the Clintons as immoral and unethical. Oh, and the Republicans’ candidate has a campaign staff that not only plagiarizes, but steals from Democrats’ speeches. 

A lot of folks claim that if Trump wins he will nominate conservatives to the Supreme Court. What is the basis for believing Trump would look for, much less nominate, a conservative? His record belies his claim. Trump is not a converted pro-life candidate. His sister is a pro-abortion judge of the RBG type. Is it because he said so? In other words, is it his word? Let's examine. 

What do we know about Trump's word? Melania says it is his bond; she, the third Mrs. Trump, should be at least third in the line of doubters , not the chief proponent of the claim. And, having stolen this line from Mrs. Obama's speech, maybe she's not quite the expert on truth she would have us believe.

What about Trump's claimed respect for veterans? Is he not the same Trump who joked that STDs were his own personal Vietnam? Was it not Trump who disrespected Sen. John McCain? Is Trump really any different from Hanoi Jane? What of the Republicans' years of attacking Bill Clinton because of his draft dodging? Again, the GOP has given up the credible argument on this and other points that once distinguished the GOP from the Democrats.

The modern GOP is starting to look a lot like the Democratic Party! 

A few words on "your word is your bond."

Perhaps you’ve heard that Melania Trump used the phrase “your word is your bond” in her speech the other night. This along with other parts were lifted from Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech. There’s “information” on the Internet that this phrase has its origins in black America or, more specifically, hip-hop culture. Patently untrue! 

Similar biblical references aside, this phrase appeared in Chaucer around 1400, Cervantes quoted it in Don Quixote about 200 years later, and its first cited reference in America was in 1777 in The Diary of Col. Landon Carter of Sabine Hall. Gregory Titelman, America’s Popular Proverbs and Sayings at p. 223 (2^nd ed. 2000). I don’t know what hip-hop culture is or when it began nor do I care to know; but I dare say Chaucer, Cervantes, and Landon Carter pre-date hip-hop culture. And lest we forget, Scout tells us that “Mr. Radley’s word was his bond . . . .” Titelman (quoting Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird).

It is not a phrase that came out of hip-hop culture specifically or black America in general. (It would be okay if it did, but it didn't.) And contrary to what the Slovenian-born Madame Trump claims it has no Eastern European context.

We’ve had two women whose husbands coveted the presidency assure us that their husbands keep their word. The history of the last eight years is replete with examples of Mrs. Obama’s husband’s failures in this regard. And Madame Trump has forgotten that she is Madame Trump number three. Of course, I might be too hard on the political class. Madame Trump's husband, like Mrs. Obama’s husband, might intend to keep his word only until he decides not to. But then it really wouldn't be much of a bond! 

Will Bill claim that Hillary too was raised to believe that "your word is your bond"?