DUMB IS AS DUMB DOES: Remember how just last July, in Knight First Amendment Institute v Trump  the Second Circuit sided with Democrats who said (rightly, IMHO) that the President, using his Twitter account to make policy statements, could not block people? Someone forgot to tell Alexandria Occasional-Cortex, who blocked Dov Hivkin, a former Brooklyn Assemblyman who takes issue with her pro-Palestinian stance. He sued her pants off in federal court, and she threw in the towel this afternoon.

“I have reconsidered my decision to block Dov Hikind from my Twitter account,” Ocasio-Cortez said in a statement obtained by The Post on Monday. “Mr. Hikind has a First Amendment right to express his views and should not be blocked for them.”

I suspect she or her crack staff used Wikipedia for research again, an all-too-common problem with her.

*Wrong COA cited, fixed now. Thanks Prof. Volokh**

THIS JUST IN: U.S. Judge William Bertelsman today reversed course and ruled that attorneys for Nick Sandmann could start discovery for a portion of their lawsuit against the Washington Post over its coverage of the so-called Cov Cath incident. It turns out that on reconsideration, the Court found that at least three of the sued-upon statements were both defamatory and the complaint was plausible enough to warrant discovery. The ruling (hidden behind PACER paywall) which revives the case, states that:

“The Court also notes that the proposed First Amended Complaint makes specific allegations concerning the state of mind of [Nathan] Phillips, the principal source of these statements. It alleges in greater detail than the original complaint that Phillips deliberately lied concerning the events at issue, and that he had an unsavory reputation which, but for the defendant’s negligence or malice, would have alerted defendant to this fact.”

Seems to me the Post has three options: 1) continue to publicly slime the teen; 2) admit they were in a rush to publish and took the word of a less-than trustworthy source (shades of Rolling Stone’s “Jackie”!) or 3) fight in court till the last dog is hanged and try to grind them down to settlement by attrition and financial exhaustion.

More to come, I’m sure.

WHERE’S CASEY STENGEL WHEN YOU NEED HIM? The Washington Post changed their headline on the death of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi THREE times:

First, he was “terrorist-in-chief”. Then he was “an austere religious scholar”. (I doubt the Post will disclose the conversations that led to that). Now it reads “extremist leader.”

Another self-inflicted legacy media wound. Keep blaming “dumb people”, “privileged white men, “deplorables”, Trump…anyone but themselves.

Can’t anybody here play this game?
**Update: Glenn Greenwald weighs in:**

I LIKE A GOOD JOKE AS MUCH AS THE NEXT PERSON…but writing any cease-and-desist letter on an admittedly false and frivolous basis is sanctionable behavior. The Society of Professional Journalists’ Florida chapter fails to understand the difference between speech and behavior:

 A Florida chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) has applied to trademark the term “fake news”[…] So yes, this is satire. It’s a joke. But it’s a joke with a point, and as any student of public discourse will tell you, a joke sometimes hits harder than the truth,” [Teen Vogue writer]  Bloch wrote. “And if anyone accuses us of trolling the president, well, nothing else seems to work with him, so what do we have to lose?” While the SPJ chapter waits on the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Bloch writes, it intends to send letters to President Trump warning him he is infringing on a pending trademark.”

It’s also worth noting that filing a legal demand without a good-faith basis is more likely than not a violation of the Florida Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, which states in part that “A lawyer should use the law’s procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others.”

I’m waiting for some attention-seeking lawyer jerk to do this. Makes me wonder: Is Avenatti licensed in Florida?

I KNEW IT ALL ALONG: There are few articles I have ever read that I wanted so badly to be true. “Pork Fat is Officially One of the World’s Most Nutritious Foods.”

“Pork fat was given the nutritional score of 73. It bested other healthy food items like squash, salmon, and walnuts.”

Lest we forget Hitch’s brilliant expose of the bad rap endured by our planet’s most tasty animal.

FISTFIGHTS ERUPTING IN MSNBC AND BUZZFEED NEWSROOMS AS EDITORS TAKE DIFFERENT SIDES…

The man accused of shooting a transgender woman in Dallas last month was deported in 2010 and is committing a felony by being in the U.S., according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. His current whereabouts are unknown.

He seems nice.

THE SEINFELD EFFECT: How to make a story out of nothing. Axios and Politico breathlessly report that “Judge orders White House to preserve records of Trump’s calls with foreign leaders.” Well, my, oh my, that must mean something serious is happening! We’ve got him now!

Not so much. In the initial stages of ANY lawsuit (even the fender-bender down the street) once an action has commenced parties are REQUIRED to preserve records. Here, the “whistleblower” had asked for an injunction ordering preservation and the Trump team agreed before the judge even “ruled.” The judge’s minute order said:

“In accordance with Defendants’ representations to the Court which obviated consideration of the motion for temporary injunctive relief since there was no issue in dispute, defendants are hereby ORDERED to preserve…”

This is an example of the hype-fest circus going on. If there are any courtroom hearings, I fully expect Axios to report that “An armed court security officer was present in the courtroom.”

“You ruined my childhood.”

GIBSON’S BAKERY V. OBERLIN REVIEWED: Law geeks and people concerned with the “inmates running the asylums” theme at today’s college campuses might find this of interest.

It’s a “point/counterpoint” sort of piece where I was squared up against a University of Michigan Law Professor (a genuinely nice guy, but drowning in the Kool-Aid). He insisted — against the facts — that Oberlin was being “punished for the students’ speech.” That’s the narrative of the MSM, anyway.

I took issue with that:

The narrative that this case “holds a college responsible for the improper speech of its students” is not correct. While the plaintiffs’ painted such a picture in their Complaint, when you read the depos and trial transcript, you’ll see that it is undeniable that school officials did in fact print and distribute the defamatory flyer. The judge called this “indisputable” in the summary judgment opinion. At least 3 credible witnesses testified in depositions and at trial that Dean Raimondo and another school employee carried stacks of the flyers to the protest and handed them out, which satisfied the “publication” element in Ohio libel law. At trial, Raimondo said one of the witnesses (a local journalist) “was lying.” Additionally, the jury heard Leslie Lubinski, an administrative assistant in the Dean’s office, admit that school staff made additional photocopies of the flyer for the protesters. (Trial Tr. 5/30/19, pg. 62).

The refusal of media lawyers to admit reality (remember Gawker’s lawyers insisting that sex tapes of Hulk Hogan “served the public interest”?) and just baldly pretending the facts are not there is just as responsible for the public’s ever-dwindling lack of trust in what is supposed to be one of our most trusted institutions.

Who are you going to believe? Me, or your lying eyes?

DIVERSITY? They keep using that word. I don’t think it means what Poynter thinks it means…

Jessi Combs Killed in Land-Speed Record Crash: Sad news in the motorsport world today. Supercool Jessi Combs, who held the title of “fastest woman on four wheels” after setting a record of 398 mph in her jet-powered North American Eagle Supersonic Speed Challenger in 2013 was killed yesterday in a testing crash.

TEACH PROGRESSIVES NOT TO BE SO RAPEY: Or something. On the one hand, this guy might be the victim of a #MeToo railroading, on the other hand, he might think, like many men, that his liberal credentials get him a free pass to grope. (As opposed to mere fame and money, which seems to cross party lines).

I don’t know…read it and make up your own mind.

BIGOTRY AT THE NEW YORK TIMES: Who knew about Tom Wright-Piersanti, and when did they know it?As Glenn pointed out here, Breitbart News discovered that Senior Editor Wright-Piersanti has been polluting social media with racist filth since at least 2009, possibly as early as 2007.

He apologized. And locked down his Twitter account. And as of this writing he inexplicably still works at the ̶T̶e̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶R̶i̶g̶h̶t̶e̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶S̶a̶n̶c̶t̶i̶m̶o̶n̶y̶  The New York Times. He has been posting racist garbage for at least nine years. And it is only logical to assume that some, if not many of his workmates and even superior-ranking editors follow him on Twitter. Is it even remotely plausible that nobody at The Times followed Wright on Twitter and never saw his screeds? I don’t think so.

Which leaves us with the question that must be asked of each and every “Timesman” that worked there between 2007 and now: Did you know? Why didn’t you say anything?  Margaret Sullivan was their Public Editor from 2012 to 2016. How could she have not known? Bill Keller was the paper’s Executive Editor from 2003 to 2011. Did he follow Wright-Piersanti? Did anyone complain to Keller about him? Did Jill Abramson, now under fire for alleged plagiarism by the paper at which she served as Executive Editor from 2011 to 2014 follow Wright-Piersanti?

Look, this isn’t a partisan issue, it’s an honesty issue. This episode is so parallel to the #MeToo movement it’s scary. Being Harvey Weinstein wasn’t bad enough. People were (rightfully, IMHO) being held accountable for looking the other way, for enabling, and even encouraging behavior that can’t be described as anything other than despicable.

So too, bigotry is despicable, and The New York Times has embarked on a campaign to remind us of this self-evident truth. Not only The New York Times, but its cadre, its core leaders and rank-and-file past and present have to be asked these questions. Heaven knows the “media watchers” from the same club won’t ask.

So I’m encouraging you and your friends to ask. Be polite, be direct, don’t use foul language or rabid hyperbole. The emails addresses for some of these people are (); () and (). This is not a call for harassment or doxxing. These people have made a living communicating with the public and have assumed the very genuine mantle of the public trust in so doing. Thus, asking them politely “what did you know and when did you know it?” is not just fair, but important, and like the #MeToo movement it  starts with ordinary people speaking truth to power.

(Bumped up from late last night.)

BIGOTRY AT THE NEW YORK TIMES:Who knew about Tom Wright-Piersanti, and when did they know it?As Glenn pointed out here, Breitbart News discovered that Senior Editor Wright-Piersanti has been polluting social media with racist filth since at least 2009, possibly as early as 2007.

He apologized. And locked down his Twitter account. And as of this writing he inexplicably still works at the ̶T̶e̶m̶p̶l̶e̶ ̶o̶f̶ ̶R̶i̶g̶h̶t̶e̶o̶u̶s̶ ̶S̶a̶n̶c̶t̶i̶m̶o̶n̶y̶  The New York Times. He has been posting racist garbage for at least nine years. And it is only logical to assume that some, if not many of his workmates and even superior-ranking editors follow him on Twitter. Is it even remotely plausible that nobody at The Times followed Wright on Twitter and never saw his screeds? I don’t think so.

Which leaves us with the question that must be asked of each and every “Timesman” that worked there between 2007 and now: Did you know? Why didn’t you say anything?  Margaret Sullivan was their Public Editor from 2012 to 2016. How could she have not known? Bill Keller was the paper’s Executive Editor from 2003 to 2011. Did he follow Wright-Piersanti? Did anyone complain to Keller about him? Did Jill Abramson, now under fire for alleged plagiarism by the paper at which she served as Executive Editor from 2011 to 2014 follow Wright-Piersanti?

Look, this isn’t a partisan issue, it’s an honesty issue. This episode is so parallel to the #MeToo movement it’s scary. Being Harvey Weinstein wasn’t bad enough. People were (rightfully, IMHO) being held accountable for looking the other way, for enabling, and even encouraging behavior that can’t be described as anything other than despicable.

So too, bigotry is despicable, and The New York Times has embarked on a campaign to remind us of this self-evident truth. Not only The New York Times, but its cadre, its core leaders and rank-and-file past and present have to be asked these questions. Heaven knows the “media watchers” from the same club won’t ask.

So I’m encouraging you and your friends to ask. Be polite, be direct, don’t use foul language or rabid hyperbole. The emails addresses for some of these people are (); () and (). This is not a call for harassment or doxxing. These people have made a living communicating with the public and have assumed the very genuine mantle of the public trust in so doing. Thus, asking them politely “what did you know and when did you know it?” is not just fair, but important, and like the #MeToo movement it  starts with ordinary people speaking truth to power.

MORE QUESTIONS FOR REP. TLAIB: When will you speak out against this obvious human rights violation being committed by the Palestinian Authority? Not that any MSM reporters have the guts to ask: she hates Trump, they hate Trump, and well, you know, priorities…

PLACE YOUR BETS: “Did he make an honest mistake, or did he, because of his animus against Palin and Republicans generally, repeat the smear even though he knew or suspected it was false?”

Of course, there’s an in-between that is more likely: What if he didn’t know or suspect it was false, but repeated the smear because of his animus and bias? As the Constitutional Law stands, if that’s the case, I think he gets off scot-free. (That’s common-law malice, not “Actual Malice.”)

One could argue that this is the transaction cost of living in a society that protects mistakes made for the right reason, but on the other hand, there’s something perverse in the fact that one can legitimately tell a judge in many circumstances that “my client was under no obligation to do any research” and have a libel case dismissed.

THEY CAN’T HELP THEMSELVES: A councilman in Seattle is reportedly opposed to hosing sidewalks that reek of excrement near a local courthouse because he fears that it might be racially insensitive.

“The area surrounding King County Superior Court includes a homeless shelter and other social-services organizations and has become an “unsanitary and potentially frightening” scene — one “that reeks of urine and excrement” — according to an article in the Seattle Times. Desperate for help with the disgusting environment, two of the court’s judges have asked the city to please power-wash the poop-covered sidewalks. That seems like a pretty reasonable request, but apparently, one councilman is worried that doing so might be a form of microaggression. A councilman in Seattle is reportedly opposed to hosing sidewalks that reek of excrement near a local courthouse because he fears that it might be racially insensitive.”

I got nothin’.

WHO KNOWS MORE ABOUT DECEPTIVE EDITING THAN THE POLITICAL REPORTERS AT THE WASHINGTON POST? Glenn Kessler had to correct a story today using the “deceptively edited” line to defend Ilhan Omar (D-Jihadistan). In so doing, he not only got the source wrong and blamed the wrong publisher (The Daily Caller) but credited it to a person who doesn’t even work for The Daily Caller.

Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed the deceptive video to the Daily Caller and said it was tweeted by a Daily Caller reporter. Neither statement is correct.

Speaking of “deceptive editing”, the Post among most others have quoted President Trump telling the Jihad Squad to “Go back to where you came from.” You want deceptively edited? Here’s deceptive editing (snipped out part in italics):

“Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came. Then come back and show us how it is done. These places need your help badly, you can’t leave fast enough.“

If it weren’t for double standards, some of these people would have no standards at all.

SELF-DESTRUCTION, PART DEUX: “‘My job is to shut other white people down when they want to interrupt,’ [Sally Boynton Brown, the executive director of Idaho’s Democratic Party] said.”

To paraphrase The Good Professor, in order to win, the Democrats simply have to not be crazy. They’re failing at not being crazy.

THE PENNY DROPS FOR MAUREEN DOWD? Ed Driscoll summarized earlier the NYT Op-Ed piece from Maureen Dowd, titled “Scaling Wokeback Mountain.” I couldn’t help but notice this rather telling paragraph:

“The progressives act as though anyone who dares disagree with them is bad. Not wrong, but bad, guilty of some human failing, some impurity that is a moral evil that justifies their venom.”

Conservatives and Libertarians and even a few still-sensible Democrats have been saying this for years, that substituting reason and logic with a self-appointed high moral ground is a form of “shut-upism” a way of avoiding solutions (other than your own) by demonizing (and subsequently deplatforming) the opposition.  A few, a very few, have begun to realize that Podesta and Hillary’s polarization game (“Deplorables!”) has contaminated — and possibly rendered toothless — Democratic politics for years to come. It was only a matter of time until they began to use this tactic on each other.

Maybe Maureen Dowd has looked around and asked what happened to the Mensheviks. And perhaps she’s inching closer to being red-pilled.

“FASTER, PLEASE”: “Johnson & Johnson is preparing to test an experimental HIV vaccine in the U.S. and Europe in a move toward developing the first immunization against the deadly disease after decades of frustration.”

As the Good Professor says: “Faster, please.”

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HAVING IT BOTH WAYS: The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, along with The New York Times, Washington Post, Associated Press and others, have filed a brief in the Fourth Circuit asking the appellate court to affirm that Maryland’s Online Electioneering Transparency and Accountability Act is unconstitutional. (A federal district court held it unconstitutional in January, and the State of Maryland is taking an appeal to defend the law).

What’s that law about? You might remember certain newspapers (*ahem*) have been pounding the drums for two years now about dark and secretive influences online responsible for “hacking our democracy” and putting The Bad Orange Man in the White House. Thousands of column inches (not to mention hours of cable TV time) have been dedicated to demanding that government step in and make sure the “correct” political voices are heard and the “fake” ones be filtered out.

So what’s the problem here? Oh, buried in the RCFP’s press release is this telling nugget:

“The brief also notes the significant and adverse financial impact that the law will have on news organizations if they must comply with the disclosure requirements, noting that Google stopped accepting political advertisements in Maryland when the law went into effect. “The Act would be especially devastating to local and regional newspapers,” the brief states, emphasizing the financial burden smaller news outlets would incur in order to simply comply with the advertising reporting requirements.

Allocating staff time and financial resources to reporting advertisements could directly take away from the amount of journalism that the news organization can produce, Reporters Committee Staff Attorney Caitlin Vogus said. If news outlets were required to disclose publication-specific advertising information, it could also potentially compromise their competitive edge in the local news market.”

So the core of the matter is that our Gatekeepers of Democracy want accountability in political advertising, but are not willing to share the burden. They want the glorious ad revenue (and believe me, political season is Christmastime for publishers) but want someone else to carry the expenses associated with that revenue. As my ConLaw Professor Burt Neuborne once said: “The First Amendment is not a license to print money.”

BANNING THE “WRONG” VIEW: IT’S ALL THE RAGE! Is it possible that YouTube and Twitter “set the table” for banning or demonetizing any viewpoint but the “approved” one? It appears that banning statements of support for President Trump is forbidden now…on a bulletin board about knitting. Say those with newly-found power:

“We cannot provide a space that is inclusive of all and also allow support for open white supremacy. Support of the Trump administration is undeniably support for white supremacy.”

On the one hand, how people could drag politics into a knitting forum is just plain weird. But other forums are picking up the pace as well. RPG.Net, a forum for video gamers has also signaled their virtue thus:

“We are banning support of Donald Trump or his administration on the RPGnet forums. This is because his public comments, policies, and the makeup of his administration are so wholly incompatible with our values that formal political neutrality is not tenable. We can be welcoming to (for example) persons of every ethnicity who want to talk about games, or we can allow support for open white supremacy. Not both.”

[Insert joke about living in parents’ basement here].

Now, to be honest, there’s a part of me that says “yeah, I get it, I came here to participate in a [whatever hobby] forum.” But of course, it’s rather revealing because these moderators are almost certain to see everything in black-and-white. If you do not express utter contempt for the Administration at all times and in all ways, then You Are Evil.

You know, someone should write a book about this.

IF YOUR HATRED FOR TRUMP EXCEEDS YOUR HATRED OF POINTLESS WARS: You have some serious problems. It’s about a week behind, but here’s a “must watch” clip of Tucker Carlson calmly, rationally, and factually praising Trump for not starting a war with Iran.

Look, I can’t bear the idea of an Islamic theocracy anymore than the next person (and a Jew at that) but this would not be like swooping in on Grenada. Anyone with a lick of military experience would tell you this would evolve into a debacle we’ve seen before, with horrific loss of blood and treasure.

Of course, the deepest sufferers of Trump Derangement Syndrome egging us into war are never the ones who pay with their lives on the line. To them, our soldiers are (to paraphrase John Kerry) expendable idiots who are not smart enough to marry rich condiment heiresses.

THERE’S “WOKE” THEN THERE’S “FAKE WOKE.” The mark of the crybully is when a corporation’s CEO postures and preens, but it’s all a PR front. Take Apple, the “wokest” of the “woke”, whose CEO is the openly gay Tim Cook. Spent millions of shareholder money on LGBTQWTF marketing and virtue signalling this month, yet there are still plenty of Apple stores in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, where this is a not uncommon occurrence:

Photo: Amnesty International

What I want to know is, where are the shareholder activists?