From Outright: “Russia and Egypt attack sexual orientation protections in Olympic truce at U.N.”

 

I don’t reproduce press releases from advocacy groups on this blog often, partly because the scope of many releases is too narrow to really affect many people. But this one, from Outright, seems more important.  It maintains that some countries, especially Russia and Egypt, are trying to influence Olympic committees to jettison their protections for LGBTQ athletes and fans.

Remember that in February 2014, when the winter Olympics were held in Russia, Vladimir Putin had actually asked gays to “leave the children alone,” in response to the international condemnation of the 2013 law in Russia prohibiting promotion of homosexuality, much of this based on, in Russia’s case, concern over a low birth rate and the idea that many women especially might feel empowered to refuse to give men more children.

It’s worth remembering that a disproportionate percentage of the cases of LGBTQ asylum seekers in the U.S. seem to come from these two countries (and will probably include Chenchnya in Russia — that region’s president has made some of the most horrific statements imaginable in encouraging family honor killings), rather than Central America.

It’s worth noting that the 2017 Pyeongchong Winter Olympics in South Korea sound under a cloud because of tensions over North Korea’s rapid progress with nuclear weapons and the fear that Trump could start a war at any time.

For this press release, the media contact is  Rashima Kwatra at 1 (917) 859-7555.  The title is “Russia and Egypt Attack Sexual Orientation Protections in Olympic Truce at the UN”.

Here is the text of the release:

“Over the next two weeks, a decision will be made at the United Nations (UN) on whether governments globally will accept discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at the 2018 Olympics in South Korea.  While the UN General Assembly cannot remove the ban on discrimination from Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter itself, Egypt and Russia are leading a stealth attack on the Olympics at the UN General Assembly that is laden with meaning and must be stopped.

“Every two years, member states of the UN General Assembly negotiate the “Olympic Truce Resolution”, which calls for peace among nations during the Olympics and the one week preceding and one week following the games.  Since 2015, Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter has banned discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  Now, Russia and Egypt are aggressively trying to remove all reference to Principle 6 from this year’s Olympic Truce Resolution.

“In recent weeks, Egyptian authorities have arrested 60 people perceived to be members of the LGBT community, and last week, a member of parliament introduced a bill that would criminalize life, speech, and activism for LGBT Egyptians and their allies.  In recent months, the Russian government has turned a blind eye to the one hundred plus gay men in Chechnya arbitrarily arrested and tortured.

Jessica Stern, Executive Director at OutRight Action International, commented:

““’Egypt and Russia are not simply fighting over symbolic language but over the levels of violence governments are allowed to use against LGBT people. After systematic attacks on LGBT people in their own countries, they are now setting their sights on promoting violence and discrimination in every country of the world. The Olympics Games are supposed to be a time for sport, technique, pride and community, not for politicking, hatred and violence’

“In 2015, the UN General Assembly, under the leadership of Brazil, included the principle of non-discrimination in the Olympic Truce Resolution with a reference to Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter. Since that year, Principle 6 has included sexual orientation as a prohibited grounds for discrimination, a development deemed necessary following Russia’s attacks on gay and lesbian people in the lead-up to its role as host of the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games.

“In the back rooms of the UN Headquarters over the last two weeks, Russia and Egypt have proposed an ultimatum: remove explicit reference to Principle 6, or they will not sign the Truce. Their ultimatum has put South Korea, leader of the negotiations as the 2018 Olympics host, in a precarious and difficult position.

As in the style of UN negotiations, the removal of reference to Principle 6 from the Olympic Truce Resolution this year could mean never seeing these protections in the peace agreement again. Recognizing the high stakes, a cross-regional group of States has come out against the ultimatum by Egypt and Russia.

“OutRight has utilized its access to the UN General Assembly to monitor developments and advocate throughout the closed-door negotiations. OutRight has worked with key States to ensure cross-regional support for the inclusion of Principle 6. OutRight continues to triangulate information between governments and civil society, encouraging stakeholders to remain informed and actively engaged.

“In reaction to this threat, Stern concluded,

’Russia and Egypt are known anti-LGBTI campaigners at the UN, and they are prepared to sacrifice the Olympic spirit to do it. We cannot allow this type of bullying to target LGBT people or undermine the principle of global community’.”

Posted: Monday, October 30, 2017 at 7:30 PM EDT

Update: Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2017 at 1 PM ESR from Outright

“Today, 17 professional athletes came out against attempts by Egypt and Russia to thwart non-discrimination protections based on sexual orientation in the United Nations Olympic Truce Resolution. The letter, endorsed by respected athletes such as Billie Jean King, Greg Louganis and Martina Navratilova, is part of the #OlympicSpirit campaign spearheaded by OutRight Action International and Athlete Ally. It calls on countries to ensure that sexual orientation remains grounds of protection in the Olympic peace agreement.

“The Olympic Truce Resolution promotes civility among nations during the Olympics and the one week preceding and one week following the games. It is negotiated by all 193 United Nations Member States every two years. In 2015 it included, by unanimous consensus, a reference to Principle 6 of the Olympic Charter. Principle 6 prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation at the Olympic Games.

“Breanna Stewart, 2016 US Olympic basketball competitor, commented on the situation, saying,

Sport and society thrive when we embrace the diversity of our world. The Olympic spirit is grounded in inclusion, fair play and solidarity, and the explicit mention of Principle 6 within the Olympic Truce Resolution sends a clear message that we take these values seriously.””

“This year, the inclusion of Principle 6 has come under attack, with States, such as Egypt and Russia, trying to remove all reference to Principle 6 from the Olympic Truce. Both countries have openly persecuted and criminalized lesbian, gay, and bisexual people at home and exported their homophobic agenda to the United Nations.

“The letter released today emphasizes that, “At a moment when oppressed communities around the world remain under attack, we can’t afford to turn our back on our most vulnerable communities. Explicit reference to Principle 6 in the Olympic Truce Resolution sends a strong signal of our community’s support of respect, inclusion and diversity — values sport holds inherently close. Afterall, regardless of where in the world we practice sport, the rules are the same and apply to everyone. They are based on our shared values.”

“Layshia Clarendon, a WNBA basketball star, also voiced her opinion on the inclusion of Principle 6, stating,

Athletes and fans deserve the opportunity to enjoy the Olympic Movement free of the fear of discrimination, and should have the ability to live openly and authentically — regardless of sexual orientation. I believe sports performance happens at its highest level when one feels unburdened and free to focus on their games. The explicit mention of Principle 6 within the Olympic Truce Resolution sends a clear message that we take inclusion seriously.”

Luckily, with thanks to cross-regional support and pushback from key Member States, the efforts of Egypt and Russia have so far failed and Principle 6 still remains in the Truce. However, there is still time for Egypt and Russia to thwart a consensus and challenge the inclusion of Principle 6 in the Olympic Truce.

Hudson Taylor, Founder and Executive Director, Athlete Ally, commented,

We’re witnessing the greatest expansion of athletic activism in modern history — never before have we seen athletes speaking out so regularly for the protection and inclusion of the LGBTQ community. Today, the athletic community stands with its LGBTQ constituents and commits to not being sidelined in the fight for equality.”

Seventeen professional athletes have signed on to the letter and reject any opposition by Egypt and Russia, as well as any other State, that is attempting to undermine the spirit of the Olympics. OutRight Action International and Athlete Ally stand with all the athletes in calling for public support of States to include reference to Principle 6 in the Olympic Truce.

A vote on the Olympic Truce Resolution will be made on November 13th, 2017.

Jessica Stern, Executive Director of OutRight Action International, concludes,

Egypt and Russia are invested in promoting discrimination at the Olympics, undermining the very spirit of the games. Thankfully, there are other States which recognize that there is no place for discrimination at the Olympics. Today, we hear clearly from these Olympians that the Games is a place for friendly competition, athleticism, and diversity, not a place for politics and divisiveness.”

Petition for signature is here at this link.

Outright also provided a link to the new press release, here.

(Nov. 8)

 

New litigation regarding an image of an NFL star may threaten use of embedded images and videos by amateurs on the web

There is some new litigation which appears to threaten a sacrosanct principle in the user-generated content world on the Internet:  that generally, embeds of copyrighted videos or photos do not create secondary liability for the web publisher doing the embed, because an embed is essentially just a hyperlink – that is, the legal equivalent to a footnote on a college term paper.

However, recently Justin Goldman, backed by Getty Images, has sued several prominent news websites (Breitbart, Time, and the Boston Globe) for hyperlinking through embed code to an image of New England Patriots pro football quarterback Tom Brady. It’s true that these are substantial news companies, not individual uses (so this is not like “Righthaven”).  Kit Walsh and Karen Gullo ran a legal analysis in Electronic Frontier Foundation Oct. 24, 2017, “What if you had to worry about a lawsuit every time you linked to an image online?”  The article links to EFF’s own amicus brief through a Scribd PDF.  The litigation is filed in the Southern District of New York.

This whole issue had started back in 2000, with some companies trying to stop other sites from deep-linking into them, denying them ad revenue.  Courts quickly established the “English teacher rule” based on the footnote and bibliography analogy. But there was some more litigation, particularly over embeds, around 2006 or 2007.   One of the leading cases was Perfect 10 v. Google (settled in the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco).

The amicus brief gets into some ancillary issues.  One could be contributory infringement. Possibly, a website that embeds material it knows is infringing and, behind the scenes, encourages the original infringement, shares the liability.  One would wonder if the plaintiffs are attacking a culture of amateur propagation of infringing material, but then again the defendants are not amateur users. It’s worth noting that in a different area, defamation, there have been a few cases of successful litigation against websites that deliberately linked to defamatory material.

As a practical matter, one could wonder if this case could create problems for YouTube embedding. Normally, when YouTube gets a complaint, under DMCA Safe Harbor it deletes the offending video and all embeds to it simply stop working and give a gray subscreen, but the secondary bloggers are not pursued.  I try to embed only videos that “look” legitimate (like I don’t embed  a free full movie unless I believe the distributor authorized it).  Some publishers, like CNN, tend to attract a lot of pirated videos of their content that quickly disappear from YouTube but don’t put up timely previews or trailers for their own shows on time.  Most motion picture distributors put up their own trailers under their own brands, and these are OK.

The amicus brief notes that liability for using an embedded video for public display like on a Jumbotron in a sports bar might exist under other laws.  The brief also questions why the parties who hosted the actual copyright infringing image were not named as defendants.

The brief also notes that embedding images doesn’t normally create a right of publicity claim for the subject.

As an ancillary matter, it’s worth noting that typically the photographer to takes an image usually owns the copyright, not the subject, unless there is an agreement beforehand.   That’s covered here by “Photoattorney”.  But in some countries the law is different, and it can even be illegal to take someone’s photo without permission in some countries, even France.

If someone takes a photo of a copyrighted image and uploads it into a blog, that could lead to liability (because the blogger stored another copy of the image).  In practice, there are many situations where the blogger knows that the image is in public domain or that the original owner has no real interest in copyright claims, but one should be careful with this.  Likewise, bloggers should be careful about copying actual digital images.  Wikipedia allows this for most commons images along as proper attribution (including CCSA level) is stated.

There was a bill proposed in 2011, S. 978  which could, taken literally, imprison someone for embeds a copyrighted video if 10 people watched it (the “10 strikes law”).   The bill apparently died.

(Posted: Saturday, October 28, 2017 at 1 PM EDT)

House Judiciary committee holds hearing on refugees and asylum seekers

On Wednesday Oct. 26, 2017 the House Judiciary on Oversight of the United States Refugee Admissions Program (basic link).

The 96 minute hearing was chaired by Mr. Labrador.

The featured witnesses from the Trump administration were Simon Hershaw, L. Francis Cissna, Scott Lloyd, and Rebecca Gambler, with titles listed on the link.

The overall takeaway from the hearing is that the U.S, should try to be more generous with admitting refugees than the current administration has been willing to, but that security and screening needs to be very nuanced and thought out.

The Trump administration has ended the ban on refugee processing but announced heightened screening for arrivals from eleven countries in the Middle East and Africa (and North Korea).

Some of the general concerns of the committee at the outset were that overly strict refugee policy stirs resentment in some parts of the world and reinforces the ISIS narrative, and that Trump’s antics have damaged security partnerships with allies.  Australia in particular was mentioned at the outset.

There was note at the outset that immigration per se has not added to terrorism risk in the US (paper by Cato Institute).  There was also note that immigrants have been hard workers and have generally shown more entrepreneurial talent and risk taking than most native Americans, particularly in running retail and franchise businesses.

On the other hand, Goodlatte reminded us that two of the 911 hijackers had been admitted legally as refugees.

There was discussion of repatriation, of the possibility of settling refugees in militarily supervised safe spaces closer to home, and of the general expectation that refugees become largely self-sufficient within 90 days of admission.

Henshaw stumbled at 57:00 discussing the RFC program and fraud that has occurred at “the RFC level”.

The discussion then moved to asylum seekers, with great concern that the load and backlog have become untenable.  There was considerable concern that the notions of credible fear and membership in a particular social group would be tightened because of the backlog.  This could have significance for people hosting asylum seekers, who might be less likely than in the past to win their cases and be able to remain here legally.

There was discussion of whether immigrants (especially women and girls, who could face sexual assaults during crossing into the U.S,) are guaranteed the same constitutional rights as citizens.  Jackson Lee and Ms. Jayapal were particularly emphatic on this matter. There was particular concern over recent abortion denial in case where a judge’s order was ignored by the administration

I didn’t hear any discussion of the sponsorship issue per se, where Canada is much more pro-active with getting citizens to support it than the U.S.

(Posted: Friday, Oct. 27, 2017 at 8 AM EDT)

ACA has shorter enrollment period this fall under Trump

A Facebook friend from Florida posted this advisory to everyone, about the reduction in the open enrollment period for the ACA to 45 days for 2017:

Here it goes:

“Congratulations, Americans!! https://www.facebook.com/images/emoji.php/v9/f4/1/16/1f60f.png😏

“The 2018 ACA (Affordable Care Act) enrollment period has been shortened to 45 days (Nov 1-Dec 15). Fortunately, your friends are posting this and using the word “congratulations” so it gets posted more frequently in Newsfeed by Facebook algorithms.

“Please copy and paste (don’t share) on your own timeline, if you want to help spread the word. Finally, if you don’t have coverage, get coverage. Too many people have fought for the ACA for you to be uninsured in America.

“Congratulationscongratulationscongratulationshttps://www.facebook.com/images/emoji.php/v9/f8c/1/16/1f389.png🎉 https://www.facebook.com/images/emoji.php/v9/f19/1/16/1f37e.png🍾

“Please get enrolled, we all deserve care.”

The particular friend probably is not in any dire straits, and I don’t know whether Facebook thinks it’s OK to just copy posts as if they were original with metatag keywords like “Congratulations”.  (I think of “Greetings” for the draft, previous post). So I rewrote it and added a link of my own from Health Affairs, here.

Sarah Kiff of Vox shows and tells why our “free market” (sic) healthcare prices are so high, along with this cardstack explainer.

(Posted: Wednesday, October 25, 2017 at 2 PM EDT)

 

McCain’s recent comments makes one wonder if he favors resuming the military draft (for women, too?); even more so with Kelly

John McCain, starting a statement that at first would have accused Donald Trump (like Bill Clinton) of draft dodging, seemed to demur as he then criticized a system in the 1960s that allowed rich kids to get doctors to write them medical disqualifications, while poor people went. Dan Merica has a typical story on CNN.  At first glance, it may sound to male millennials or even younger men that different moral standards are applied to men of earlier generations than to them or to women.

Actually, there was a sequence of privileges that I outlined in the footnotes to my DADT-1 book, after 48b, where it says “Chapter 2 additional conclusion” and I supply a table.

For a while, during the Kennedy years, married men with children were protected, and then married men without children were protected until a single-male pool was exhausted.  The marriage and paternity deferments were ended under LBJ in 1965, but the student deferments, which figured so much into the course of my own life, continued until the lottery started in 1969.  In my case, deferemnt meant that I was much less likely to see combat or even go to Vietnam when I went in, in 1968.

It is well to look at statistics of Vietnam War deaths by race, and also by conscription status (War library; world history)

McCain blithely speaks of an obligation to be available to serve your country.  Of course, it sounds a lot more credible from him than Trump. But it’s always seemed like a contradiction to the idea of the “right to life”. For a while, men who did not consummate procreative sexual intercourse with women were more likely to be drafted.

The Supreme Court, in Rostker v. Golberg, had upheld the male-only Selective Service registration iin 1981, but recently there have been bills in Congress to require women to register, as in Israel.

The capacity to share risk and sacrifice was a major part of the moral climate when I was growing up. Cowardice was a real crime. If you evaded your share of the risk, someone else had to pick it up in your place. That certainly complicates the moral compass compared to the more linear idea of personal responsibility and harmlessness in libertarian thought in more recent times. It also complicates the meaning of marriage.

The deepest “meaning” might have had to do with community resilience.  Most men experienced the sense of shared duty to protect women and children, with some degree of fungibility or interchangeability. Some duties in life were very gender-based.  Milo Yiannopoulos said as much, that manhood included willingness to lay down one’s life for others, although I can’t find the best link right now, here’s a related one.  But spouses of men who came back from war maimed and disfigured were to be expected to remain interested in their partners for life – an expectation that my projection of fantasy life in my days at NIH attacked.

There are other ways men take risks – dangerous jobs of the Sebastian Junger viariety help men “pay their dues”.  Yes, women can do them sometimes, maybe most of the time.  But I didn’t see any women as hotshots in “Only the Brave”, about wildfire firefighters. All of this invokes the low-level hum of debate over national service.

McCain’s echo of the obligation to offer oneself to military service needs to be considered in light of his reluctance to support the end of “don’t ask don’t tell” at the end of 2010.  Yet today he seems to support the service of some transgender members, and he opposed Trump’s brusque attempt to re-impose a transgender ban on Twitter.  But I advanced arguments in my first DADT book that the possibility of future conscription (or even the “Stop-Loss” backdoor draft of the Iraq war) added to the moral urgency of ending the gay ban and DADT. Few writers tried to make this argument.  My staying in this way may (online with search engines, letting my content go to “It’s Free”) have helped with the repeal.

There is a way that people today take risks that weren’t expected in the past – that is, in going all out in very personal ways, like organ and bone marrow donations, to save lives.  That’s partly because medicine makes such outreach – using your own body components — possible as a new kind of sacrifice.  This gets personal and intimate in ways that were unknown when I was growing up.

The New York Times has a couple of impressive pieces on this topic. Michael Stewart Foley describes “The Moral Case for Draft Resistance” in the 1960s here.  Even more challenging may have been John Kelly’s ancillary statement about the ignorance of Americans who haven’t served in a NYTimes “editorial notebook” piece by Clyde Haberman, which argues for the return of the draft, or maybe some kind of national service (civilian service could recur into old age).  Remember how Charles Moskos had helped author “don’t ask don’t tell” but decided the whole ban should be lifted after 9/11 when he started arguing for return of the draft.

(Posted: Tuesday, Oct. 24, 2017 at 4:45 PM EDT)

Trump’s travel ban 3.0 falls flat in court; why “lawless government” argument doesn’t work

Trump’s latest travel bans were struck down again last week.  In Hawaii, the decision was reported Oct. 17 with this copy of the opinion from the ACLU.  Ditto recently in Maryland.

The Hawaii judge actually cited a post by Cato’s Alex Nowrasteh noting that there have been no fatalities in the US from immigrants or travelers from those countries.  Cato had also provided an Amicus brief to Hawaii.

David Bier has contributed a major op-ed to the Washington Post, “Why bother?” to the Washington Post, here.   I think his most important argument is that visitors from countries with weak governments or weak security still bear the burden of proof when trying to enter that their purposes for a visit are legitimate.  In individual cases, some people may be able to prove legitimacy.  The overall statistical chances are that many will not.  In many cases, legitimacy would have to do with known family connections in the U.S.

There are good examples of this reasoning.  For example, in the Minneapolis area, there is a well established Somali community, which was never controversial, even after 9/11 (although there have been a few cases of attempted youth recruitment in more recent years in that area).

I’ll note that in my own information technology career, which started in 1971, I often encountered people from India and Pakistan, who dressed and behaved like ordinary Americans and simply never got into issues of religion at work (this was particularly true in the 1980s in Dallas). A major software bridge for an insurance company in Minneapolis that I worked for through Y2K and into the 9/11 period was coded entirely by a C++ (object oriented) and server technology guru from Pakistan who ran his own contracting company of advanced internals coding projects for corporate infrastructure.  He often hosted social events for other techies and no one ever thought anything of his religion.

(Posted: Monday, October 23, 2017 at 1 PM EDT)

David Brooks explains how losers resent winners as they delve into identity politics

David Brooks, the conservative who wants to teach us how to be good, has an op-ed in the New York Times today that looks like it was penned by me, “Upwsingers and downswingers”.

Brooks points out that both major political parties have their own winners and losers.  Economic growth adds wealth to society, but tends, by creating efficiencies, to provide gains to some at the expense of others, especially traditional workers. Further innovation tends to smooth things out and the cycle repeats.  In my own 2014 DADT III book, I characterized innovation (paired with ego) as in tension with equality (as paired by belonging to the group).

On the right especially the “losers” (to borrow from Trump, ironically) tend to find identity in a zero-sum world in ethnicism, nationalism, and sometimes religious fundamentalism and even racism. People who don’t do well in a society where they have to make a lot of their own choices and get held responsible for them, tend to gravitate to identification with the group, and identity politics. They may become combative and try to deny people outside of their own circle of victimhood a right to be heard, and also tend to view speech as attacking group rights already achieved. Along these lines, we should also read Katy Steinmetz’s recent piece in Time, “The fight over free speech on campus isn’t about just free speech.”

Brooks notes the slope between economic, political, cultural, and even personal cycles. He criticizes hyperindividualism, as needing to be curbed by ways to get the “leavers” to do “penance” – a process I have called “right-sizing” here in previous posts. It can also be called “pay your dues”, although that doesn’t quite cover all the ground.

What would those dues be?  National service?  Some sort of encouragement of people to put their own skin in the game before they are heard?

Brooks notes that the cultural resentment gets personal, when the “losers” resent those who think that the winners are really better than losers.

My own interest is in looking at moral ukase though the eyes of the individual. I am a bit of an existentialist: what happens to someone is what happens, and there is no honor in claiming that victimization changes it. Ultimately, we are all responsible for ourselves, but we are also responsible for what we inherit and become complicit in. Past persecution of one’s group does not change this or demand special treatment for the individual.  Along these lines, this piece by Frances Lee on callouts, shared today on Facebook by DC Center’s David Mariner, is interesting.

Posted Wednesday, Oct. 18, 2017 at 10 PM EDT)

Trump’s threat to media broadcast licenses, while silly and self-contradictory, shows the dangerous paradoxes of his populism

The media is indeed swooning at Trump’s latest supposed outrages, including his veiled threat to broadcast licenses after NBC supposedly reported his plans for increasing US nuclear supremacy.

Oliver Darcy and Brian Stelter have a typical summary on CNN.

There’s a potpourri of obvious legal problems if Trump were to try to do this. The biggest is that it is owned stations that have licenses, not the networks.  I remember this from my own days working for NBC as a computer programmer in the 1970s. I was responsible for an accounting ledger for “owned and operated stations”.  I remember networks were allowed to own five. Often, individual stations are owned by one company and affiliated with a network, like WJLA is owned by Sinclair and affiliated with ABC.  Often the stations don’t follow the bidding of owners.  Sinclair is a “conservative” media company that has played up the power grid threats which I have reported here, but WJLA has toned down these reports, even though I’ve encouraged WJLA (which knows me) to take them seriously.

Another interesting point is that the president doesn’t have the full legal authority to order the FCC exactly what to do. Furthermore Trump’s appointment, Ajit Pai, has favored loosening and eliminating Obama’s network neutrality rules in a way that would benefit Comcast, which owns NBC.  Even so, loosening of network neutrality rules really hasn’t in big companies like Comcast trying to throttle smaller businesses and individual speakers from having fair treatment in access to self-broadcast on their telecom pipes (something that the “liberals” feared more than the gutting of Section 230 as a threat to user speech).

It’s ironic that, in his propagation of “the people” and populism, Trump really hasn’t gone after individual elites (like standalone bloggers) as much as he had certain big companies (mainstream liberal media) whom he can portray to the “people” as their enemies with fake news.  But, of course, it is the world of user-generated content that the Russians infected with their fake news barrage in order to divide the people further.  But Trump wants the people divided. He believes that it is the strongest tribes that survive, not the strongest individuals.  Yet, in Trump’s individual behavior, it’s obvious that Trump admires strong young adult individuals – look at who he hired on “The Apprentice”.  At a personal level, he probably does admire young scientists, young tech entreprenuers, and even young conservative journalists who would show him up.   More contradictions on the LGBT side: he seems to admire plenty of LGBT individuals, but attacks the intersectional politics of the LGBT activist establishment with all his appointments.

The mainstream media’s reaction to this latest flap over violating the first amendment (the freedom of the press standards apart from the more general freedom of speech in the First Amendment) has sometimes been a bit silly and hyperbolic.  Look at how the Washington Post (“Democracy dies in darkbess”) asks “can he really do that?” by dragging you into listening to an overlong podcast.  By now everybody has forgotten all about “opening up libel laws.” British style (as Kitty Kelly explains in 1997, truth doesn’t always defend against libel, especially if absolute truth no longer exists).

Trump’s latest action on health care (like with immigration) shows he is willing to let “ordinary people” become pawns as he makes his ideological points, which really do have some merit.  Yup, making health young people buy coverage they don’t need sets a bad example for other areas.  Yes, it may really be illegal for the Executive to continue premium and copay support for poor people until Congress does its job, does its math, and can explicitly authorize it (sounds like how he handles DACA).

And, yup, previous administrations may have appeased North Korea too much, and a “domino theory” that tends to enlist ordinary citizens as potential combatants may have some real merit (as I covered particularly in my first DADT book).  But all of this, right now, sets up a very dangerous situation, the most perilous for the safety of ordinary Americans since the Cuban Missile Crisis, even more so than 9/11.  If Trump really wants his zeal for populism to wind up with martial law (as one friend on FB suggests), or a “purification” (as another puts it), he might have his duel in the Sun.

I also wanted to point out Sean Illing’s compendium on Vox, “20 of America’s top political scientists gathered to discuss our democracy. They’re scared”.  One out of six Americans is OK with military rule (like in the Philippines — that’s like saying one out of six movies should be a horror movie).  Our society of individualism requires a talent for individualized abstraction.  That tends to leave out a lot of “average joes”.  But all of us find more meaning in power structures and “station in life” than is healthy for freedom.

(Posted: Friday, Oct. 13, 2017 at 11:30 PM EDT)

 

Jury duty could pose a significant challenge for some bloggers

I recently got a questionnaire about eligibility for jury duty.  In fact, because I will be moving to an adjacent county very soon, the event is probably moot point.

States vary in the frequency registered voters are summoned for potential jury duty.  But typically many states are coming to a “one day one trial” concept, which, for example, Texas has followed for years. Less frequent is the possibility of jury duty for a federal trial.

Juror conduct has long been a subject of controversy, as can be seen from this US Courts Manual. Jurors are not allowed to discuss a case of subject matter related to a case outside the courtroom, or “research” it, even in newspapers.  In the past twenty years, the likelihood of finding related material on the World Wide Web or through social media sites has obviously increased exponentially.  The AP has a major story in the Los Angeles Times in April 2016 on the problem.

In a cursory look at the problem, I didn’t find any evidence that most juror duty episodes wind up with jurors being required to cut off all Internet access.  But if you think about it, the likelihood of this sort of the thing in the future seems to increase. It is true that most actual cases are obscure and are likely to be unknown to a juror and not obviously conspicuous even on the Internet.

The greatest danger, of course, is sequestration, which is pretty rare, although it may happen more frequently in the future, given the controversy of many cases. Changes in venue could become more common, but one could argue that Internet coverage makes venue change less effective.

However, if a juror is denied all Internet access for a significant time, he or she can face significant losses, such as even of social media accounts or followers or even of hosted accounts if not able to respond to a problem, and if not having an employee or proxy person who can handle questions (I do not).

People can get out of duty if old enough (in some states, over 70), or if having sole custody of minors or disabled persons, or if the sole person with certain work responsibilities.  Blogging alone, even given the risk to it, would not qualify unless it paid its own way.

But a news blogger could possibly “ get out” of being selected in a voir dire by having blogged in the pst about the subject matter.  An interesting, if evasive, strategy.

This is an area where the fundamental right to a fair trial can live in tension with free speech.

(Posted: Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017 at 11:30 PM EDT)

On immigration and health care, Trump seems all too willing to play with individuals’ lives as political bargaining chips

Dave Bier of the Cato Institute has a new detailed analysis of all the flaws in Trump’s Faustian demands (call it a “wish list“) on Congress before he’ll go along with letting most of the DACA “Dreamers” stay after six months, as in this link.

The most conspicuous demand was overbuilding “that Wall”, much of which might be ineffective or relatively unnecessary.

But another demand is practically requiring asylum seekers to prove their cases on entry.  This would sound like it could shut down most LGBTQ asylum seeking.

Furthermore, overstayed visas would be treated much more harshly.

At the same time, there is a lot of attention to the “new” (?) travel ban. Jason Dzubow, normally very cautious in his blog posts, takes a cheerier approach on the affect on asylum seekers (in his most recent post), which in many cases, he feels, won’t be important.  People who have already applied and getting some sort of legal and perhaps housing assistance in the US will not fare worse than before.

My own reaction would be to imagine myself in the shoes of a “dreamer” (maybe Jose Vargas in the 2014 film “Documented”).  I would feel that, while the president has claimed a big heart and that somehow things will turn out OK personally, my own life had been made into someone else’s political bargaining chip. It’s easy to imagine that if I were a member of a racial minority in a poorer community subject to police profiling. As a white gay man with some of the typical troubles in the distant past, it is not so clear cut.  I did not perceive myself, when younger, as a member of an oppressed “group”, but rather as someone who individually had difficulty conforming to some of the gender-related expectations made of me which were more understandable in the Cold War world in which I grew up.

Likewise, I’m disturbed that Trump sounds willing to play with the existing health insurance of disadvantaged Americans to claim he is keeping a promise to some people in his base.

AOL has a discussion of the Supreme Court’s actions today allowing one of Trump’s travel bans to stand; likewise Politico.  It’s hard to give much reaction because the sands keep shifting. Here’s the June 2017 opinion for Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project.

(Posted: Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2017 at 11 PM EDT)

Update: Thursday, Oct. 12, 2017 

Jason Dzubow has a 9-part piece “DACA Reform and it’s Hostages (i.e., Asylum Seekers)” which seems to be a change in tone and alarm level. I would particularly wonder if the application of concepts like “membership in a social group” or “political opinion” would be tightened in a way to affect LGBT asylum seekers already in the U.S. (possibly some in detention seeking parole), especially from non-Islamic countries, including Russia (Chechnya) and Central America.

Sessions says he will ask Congress to tighten the rules on asylum seekers, claiming asylum fraud is widespread, Washington Post story by Sari Horwitz, link. The Center for Immigration Studies had made claims like this in a session reported here May 10 (q.v.)