Poll: Nearly 4 In 10 Americans Can’t Name Any First Amendment Rights: Local CBS affiliate distills a recent UPenn poll that sadly, isn’t shocking. Some snippets from the poll:

Nearly half of those surveyed (48 percent) say that freedom of speech is a right guaranteed by the First Amendment. But, unprompted, 37 percent could not name any First Amendment rights. And far fewer people could name the other First Amendment rights: 15 percent of respondents say freedom of religion; 14 percent say freedom of the press; 10 percent say the right of assembly; and only 3 percent say the right to petition the government.

At the risk of sounding like a dinosaur, I remember when they used to teach “civics” in elementary and high schools, and today — if at all — they are taught “feelgood” material out of social engineering textbooks. Fortunately, there’s a cure for that. Check out actor Richard Dreyfuss’ Civic Initiative:

“Despite having a political system that highlights individual freedom and responsibility, we fail to provide individuals with the skills they need to successfully fulfill the role of citizenship.  It is quite apparent that civic values have been absent in certain events of our country’s recent history.  We have experienced conflicting political parties unable to compromise, violent protests that have showcased a government unable to foster peace, and new generations that are falling behind its peers in education rankings. Extremism has plagued our government and caused shutdowns, fostered resentment between political parties, and generally caused inefficiencies.  The lack of civility in debate that has been seen in our political bodies is destructive and needs to be addressed.  On top of that, the average American citizen has a poor understanding of civics and the nuances of our political structure.  Civics must be taught so that our future leaders have the skills they need to run our country effectively, and future generations have the skills they need to be informed, active citizens.  This foundation of properly educated students will help address the problems we are experiencing today and begin to create the successful future we desire for our posterity.”

It’s surprising that Dreyfuss hasn’t been run out of Hollywood for using words like “responsibility.”

“PRO-CHOICE’ VS. “PRO-ABORTION”: The Daily Signal ran an interesting item that ought to have libertarians (and the few honest liberals left) asking themselves what “choice” means.

I did not know that the “abortion” pill could be neutralized if a woman changes her mind. According to The Daily Signal, in late July California’s Board of Registered Nursing informed pro-life Heartbeat International that it could award continuing education units for nurses who demonstrate a grasp for the science and patient care involved in counteracting the effects of a chemical abortion. But suddenly:

Acting at the behest of abortion activists in the state Legislature and online media, the board—which is overseen by California’s Department of Consumer Affairs—reversed its decision from just a month prior, demanding that Heartbeat International “cease and desist” educating nurses on a breakthrough medical intervention that can allow a woman to halt a chemical abortion.

Consent is only as good as the transparency of the information provided to the person making the choice. While I consider myself “pro-choice” (with limitations) for libertarian reasons, for abortion to be a truly free choice women must be able to hear all their options. Restricting that information is not “pro-choice,” it’s “pro-abortion.”

Minor correction: “morning-after” changed to “abortion pill” after legions of hysterical leftists who believe that abortion is a “right” that should be subsidized by the public fisc messaged me. FWIW, the thrust of the posting (how can it be “choice” if there is no transparency regarding options) remains unchanged.

I WAS JUST BEING “PAINTERLY” WHEN I CALLED YOU AN EXTORTIONIST: Hyperbole is all the rage these days, but when reporters use words like “extort” they and their lawyers and editors really need to think it through. That’s especially hard when you advertise yourself as a “just the facts” news outfit and then turn around and plead “hyperbole” as a defense. The Second Circuit (the most press-friendly in the nation) reverses in part, dismissal of a libel claim:

“[A] reasonable reader could interpret the word “extort” here as more than just “rhetorical hyperbole” describing [the] belief that the lawsuit was frivolous.   [They]  did not simply state that [the reported upon] lawsuit was an attempt to extort money from the company. Instead, [it was] stated that Plaintiff  “repeatedly” tried to extort money from them.  This statement can be read as something other than a characterization of Plaintiff’s underlying lawsuit against and is reasonably susceptible to a defamatory meaning—that Plaintiff actually committed the criminal act of extortion—a statement that is capable of being proven false.”

DISCLOSURE: I served as Global Media Counsel to Bloomberg News for almost 14 years.

THE ART OF CREATIVE SMEARING: Megan McArdle nails it on how the SPLC uses overbroad and malleable ideology to smear conservatives:

I spent a day diving down the rabbit hole of one of the listings on the hate group, for the Ruth Institute, a small nonprofit that thinks the sexual revolution was a giant mistake. The Ruth Institute does seem to have a couple of marginally attached figures who have at some point theorized an unsupported connection between homosexuality and pedophilia. But however wrongheaded and insulting this may be, by itself, it hardly merits branding the whole organization a “hate group.”

As the Professor says: “Read the whole thing.”™

“THE NEW YORK TIMES STILL OWES SARAH PALIN AN APOLOGY.” It’s heartening to know that there are some journalists out there who still see the journalist’s duty as one to truth and common decency, not political partisanship and chest-thumping. Media reporter Erik Wemple notes in today’s Washington Post that he may have been initially wrong in seeing the case as stronger than it was:

Never again will we sell short jurisprudence that protects journalists when writing about public figures. These protections are so powerful that an editor, without doing any research to speak of, can insert language in an editorial accusing a politician of inciting murder — and secure a quick and unequivocal bouncing of the case.

But  at the same time Wemple makes the more important point that:

Dismissal, however, is less than a full-throated victory for the New York Times […] The lingering lesson of the case is that The New York Times could well have saved itself the hassle of even a short-lived court proceeding, though doing so would have required it to shed its institutional arrogance for a day or two. Consider that the paper’s response to learning of the falsehood was sufficient to satisfy a judge ruling on a lawsuit, but not sufficient to satisfy any standard of decency and respect. The immediate correction, after all, didn’t even mention Palin’s name: “An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated that a link existed between political incitement and and the 2011 shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords. In fact, no such link was established.” Nor did a second correction.

(Emphasis added).

NANCY PELOSI HAS HER JUDY COLLINS MOMENT: Better late than never, and perhaps spurred on by articles proving the AntiFa/Progressive/Resistance thuggery, issues a release (just as late as Trump’s, mind you):

“Our democracy has no room for inciting violence or endangering the public, no matter the ideology of those who commit such acts.  The violent actions of people calling themselves antifa in Berkeley this weekend deserve unequivocal condemnation, and the perpetrators should be arrested and prosecuted.”

(Emphasis added). Better late than never, I suppose to come around to “Both Sides.” Perhaps the intellectually bereft wordbarf “false equivalency” will be uttered no more. Oh who am I kidding?
**Not sure I can claim “classical reference” in posting headline**

BAKE MY CAKE OR SUFFER THE PENALTIES: As Ed Driscoll reported yesterday, the D. James Kennedy Ministry is suing SPLC, GuideStar, and Amazon over “Hate” labeling. I’ve had a chance to go through the Complaint, and my view is the defamation claims may have enough merit to proceed, the Trademark claims are weak, but the most interesting thing — and what may be the most impacting aspect of this suit — is the claim under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 4 2000(a), which the Plaintiffs point out:

“Because the Amazon Defendants are operating a public accommodation(s), it is a violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically 42 U.S.C. § 2000(a), for the Amazon Defendants to deny the Ministry the privileges and advantages of the AmazonSmile program on the basis of the Ministry’s religion and the beliefs that are inherent to that religion.”

Now here’s where it gets interesting. If the Commerce Clause gives government the authority to trump a businessman’s personal beliefs, even if couched as a First Amendment expression, then the same logic that requires Christian fundamentalists to bake “gay” wedding cakes against their beliefs ought to mean that Amazon has no right to deprive the Ministry of a public accommodation because they “don’t like” that Church’s view on gay marriage.

I’m betting if Amazon doesn’t settle, that this issue is headed to the Eleventh Circuit, and maybe even SCOTUS. This is right in Justice Gorsuch‘s wheelhouse. Stay tuned.

OH, ISIS: Can’t a girl just make a living in peace? “Porn star reveals ISIS have threatened to BEHEAD her and mocked up sick execution pics.” I wonder if those are real. The glasses, I mean.

LOOK OUT! FASCISTS ARE MAKING MUSIC! Dennis Prager explains in The Daily Signal how he was mugged by The New York Times in a story about his (gasp!) conducting an orchestra.

The Times writer wasted no time in portraying me [as a bigot]. He wrote, “a number of [the musicians] are refusing to play the fund-raiser, saying that allowing the orchestra to be conducted by Mr. Prager, who has suggested that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy and incest, among other contentious statements, would be tantamount to endorsing and normalizing bigotry.”

Prager continues with a series of explanations on how a clever but dishonest reporter (and his or her asleep-at-the-switch editors) can create a political narrative out of thin air:

“Lesson No. 1: When the mainstream media write or say that a conservative “suggested” something that sounds outrageous, it usually means the conservative never actually said it.”

Gee, it’s almost as if there were a standard operating procedure to create a smear!

PURE COMEDY GOLD: Antifa protester getting hit in the groin with a rubber bullet + “I Will Always Love You” = Comedy Gold. And better yet, it’s backed up by Science! In a 1993 article, Popular Science asks “Why Is It Funny When A Guy Gets Hit In The Groin?”

Besides the Freudian implications of the aggressive and sexual tension in the situation, there’s also the suddenness with which a blow to the ‘nads can take down even an otherwise big, strapping man. “Someone who’s powerful and dignified, who’s now keeling over in response to what seems like this minor infraction–so easily brought down from their normally human perch–is a violation of expectation..”

All I can add is: “Hey, nice shooting, officer.”
**UPDATE: not clear whether it was a rubber bullet or paintball-type of tear gas projectile. Still, I’m betting the cop who fired that shot won’t have to pay for his own drinks for a month.**

“I’M HELPING”: If you believe you have the high moral ground, why jump off the cliff by posting fake or misleading photos? To be fair:

“The Twitter account @TEN_GOP, which says its an unofficial account for Republicans in Tennessee, tweeted the photo […] The account is not affiliated with the Tennessee Republican Party. The tweet has been deleted.”

Still, if you believe in the strength of your convictions…why make things up? It’s no better than the “hands up, don’t shoot lie” that fooled so many, especially in the smarter-than-you legacy media. I guess we believe what we desperately want to believe…

VOX GONNA VOX: OK, being Vox, the odds are good that it’s factually way off, but this is a neat little widget. Punch in your zip code and you’ll see what to expect on Eclipse Day.

COMMON SENSE, MID-WESTERN STYLE, FROM THE ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH: “Daryle Lamont Jenkins, a member of the anti-fascist movement, told National Public Radio on Thursday that violent confrontation is justifiable when police won’t stop white supremacists from marching. In other words, he believes in illegal vigilante action when police refuse to violate marchers’ constitutional rights.” That’s the bases loaded-triple. Here’s the home run:

Imagine how quickly our country would descend into anarchy if vigilante action ever did become justifiable. The minute it becomes acceptable to break the law to silence one group, all others become vulnerable to attack by anyone who disagrees with them […]Ahead of Trump’s inauguration, extreme left-wing groups began using the slogan “Punch a Nazi” as they advocated violent intervention to halt demonstrations by far-right groups. One self-declared anti-fascist punched white supremacist Richard Spencer, a Trump supporter, in the face on Inauguration Day while he was being interviewed on a Washington, D.C., street. It was not OK then, nor will it ever be.

“A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.” — Justice Anthony Kennedy, in Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ___ (2017).

WHEN IS A FLAG A ‘THREAT”? Snowflake SJW’s and virtue-signallers on social media are now claiming that the mere appearance of some clown in a Nazi uniform or holding a Nazi flag is a “threat.” Legendary photojournalist Stan Forman showed us in this 1976 Pulitzer-winning photo when a flag is really a threat. (In Boston, not the Deep South, BTW).
Otherwise it’s just a piece of cloth.

FAKE NEWS AND FASCISTS: The Paranoid Style in American Journalism: Blogger Anthony Senatore does some historical review of interest.

Hofstadter offered evidence that paranoia was not the exclusive domain of politics and conservatives in his claim that a paranoid style was often a component of the left-wing press. The history of journalism as seen through the lens of paranoia and grandiose conspiracy is well documented. Fox News provided the fertile ground for President Trump’s birther beliefs from 2011 to 2016. Even so, on December 8th, 2015, Rachel Maddow and MSNBC took the paranoid style of journalism to heights hitherto unknown.

Read the whole thing.™

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF “DO AS WE SAY AND NOT AS WE DO”: The Columbia Journalism Review today points out that newsrooms are failing at the hiring diversity that their Op/Ed pages demand from everyone else:

According to the study, minority individuals (black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, or other) accounted for one person on the 11-person masthead of The Washington Post, three people on the 18-person masthead of The New York Times, one person on the five-person masthead of NPR, three people on the 14-person masthead of the Chicago Tribune, and one person on the 14-person masthead of the Los Angeles Times.

Don’t even dare to ask about ideological diversity.
BONUS FLASHBACK: Huffington Post’s idea of “diversity.”

LET’S SET FIRE TO THINGS AND BREAK STUFF: The Washington Post — under the fig leaf of “analysis” –rationalizes and justifies mob violence today, saying “Charlottesville showed that liberalism can’t defeat white supremacy. Only direct action can.” A helluva dog whistle kicker:

Segregationists have again assumed their pedestals in the Justice Department, the White House and many other American temples. Paper alone won’t drive them out. Start throwing rocks.

The best part is you can fulfill all your Antifa needs –baseball bats, Antifa masks, helmets and camouflage gear — by ordering them through Amazon! It’s a win-win for Bezos!

FROM THE DAILY SIGNAL: “Meet 2 Political Prisoners From Socialist Venezuela.”

In The Daily Signal’s feature series, “Underreported,” we interview Francisco Marquez, an ex-political prisoner who now lives in the United States, and Wuilly Arteaga, who recently was thrown into jail after peacefully playing his violin on the streets.

Sean Penn could not be reached for comment. Why is is that celebrity idiots who tout “socialist paradises” always disappear when that regime shows its natural outcome?

HARPERS’ “BIZARRE” TAKES TRUMP DERANGEMENT TO A NEW LEVEL: “If You Are Married To a Trump Supporter, Divorce Them.” This isn’t Lysistrata, this is flat out virtue signalling/moral preening.

Supporting Trump at this point does not indicate a difference of opinions. It indicates a difference of values.

Don’t tell Jim Carville and Mary Matalin. (Yes, she later changed her affiliation to Libertarian but for reasons unrelated to Trump).

WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG? “Journalists to use ‘immune system’ software against fake news.” The reliance on ‘bots instead of real live humans (we used to call them “editors”– how quaint!) has already caused problems in financial reporting, which relies on automation. One Business Insider story pointed out that:

Headline price figures for Amazon and for Google’s parent company, Alphabet, were displaying as down by more than 80% as a result of the error, which emerged after US markets closed.

Like automated financial reporting that depends on data input, General Assignment news is not immune to robo-errors. This year, the LATimes “Quakebot” incorrectly reported an earthquake that happened in 1925, and Facebook promoted a bogus story that Megyn Kelly was fired for “being a traitor.” Even super gay-friendly Google’s YouTube had a faulty algorithm that inadvertently censored any YouTube videos even remotely gay-themed.

I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.

JUDGE NOT SO SURE IN PALIN’S NEW YORK TIMES LIBEL SUIT: This afternoon Judge Jed Rakoff — a jurist of impeccable integrity — did not dismiss Sarah Palin’s libel suit against the Times, but instead took the highly unusual step of ordering an evidentiary hearing on what the Op/Ed writers knew.

This is unusual, because in libel cases, under a doctrine called “Iqbal/Twombly”, plaintiffs are required to show in their complaint more than a naked assertion of wrongdoing and have to set out a “plausible” claim with some degree of specificity. Here, most media lawyers thought the Times had it in the bag, because under a motion to dismiss, external fact-finding is not allowed, and the judgment is made within the four corners of the pleadings. But Rakoff was not convinced that Palin failed to make a plausible claim, and instead noted that:

One close question presented by that motion [to dismiss] is whether the Complaint contains sufficient allegations of actual malice, an essential element of the claim. To a large extent , determination of that issue may turn on what inferences favorable to the plaintiff are reasonable given the circumstances alleged in the Complaint. For example, the Complaint alleges that the allegedly false statements[…] were contradicted by information already set forth in prior news stories published by the Times. However, these prior stories arguably would only evidence actual malice if the person(s) who wrote the editorial were aware of them…Accordingly, to help inform the Court of what inferences are reasonable or unreasonable in this context, the Court, pursuant to Rule 43(c), will convene an evidentiary hearing on Wednesday, August 16 at 2:00 PM EST.

Normally, judges unsure of who knew what (the key question in this libel case) will deny a motion to dismiss, and after discovery, and a motion for summary judgment, if a genuine issue of material fact remains, they send it to a jury. Here, Rakoff seems to be short-circuiting that procedure, and will decide for himself, hearing testimony as to whether it was plausible that the Op/Ed writers knew that other sections of the paper had already debunked a connection between Palin and the shooting of Rep. Giffords. Hard to read tea leaves here, given that he could have dismissed the case, and it would appear he is giving Palin an extra chance (through cross-examination) to raise triable questions about what the editorialists knew or didn’t know. Stay tuned.

FROM THE DAILY CALLER: Like her predecessor, Eric Holder, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch used an email alias to conduct government business, The Daily Caller has confirmed.

Using the pseudonym “Elizabeth Carlisle,” Lynch corresponded with DOJ press officials to hammer out talking points in response to media requests about the meeting. The tarmac encounter drew criticism from conservatives because Lynch was overseeing the federal investigation into whether Hillary Clinton mishandled classified information on her private email system.

Honestly, can anyone give me a straight-faced, non-gymnastic answer why the Attorney General would use an alias in government business emails? This was not yoga tips or cookie recipes.

TIME MAGAZINE SLIMES KOCH IN HEADLINE: Time Magazine covered a Charles Koch speech with the headline “Charles Koch says U.S. Can Bomb Its Way to $100,000 Salaries.” Except what he actually said was:

“I think we can have growth rates in excess of 4%. When I’m talking about growth rates, I’m not talking about that GDP, which counts poison gas the same as it counts penicillin,” the 79-year-old industrialist said, veering off his prepared remarks. “What a monstrous measure this is. If we make more bombs, the GDP goes up — particularly if we explode them.”

Time later changed the headline to say “Charles Koch Mocks Common Measure of Prosperity.” Reason points out that the URL still has the telling phrase “charles-koch-bomb-economy/” and goes on to take apart the reporters’ woefully inadequate understanding of basic economics.  This is a classic case of a form of libel (privacy, actually) called “false light”, generally wherein untrue implications, rather than directly false statements are made. For instance, an article about sex offenders illustrated with a stock photograph of an individual who is not, in fact, a sex offender could give rise to a false light claim, even if the article and photo caption never make the explicit false statement.

If legacy media had spent the last 10 years practicing responsible journalism and less time being party apparatchiks, they might not be in the trouble they’re in.

WHEN FOIA WORKS: E-mails produced in federal court show Washington Post reporter Matt Zakowski emailing DOJ that he hopes he can put editors’ interest in Clinton-Lynch tarmac meeting “to rest.”

WHEN SESSIONS ROLLS OUT HIS PLANS TO INVESTIGATE OR CONTROL LEAKS, and the inevitable rending of garments and gnashing of teeth precursors the latest iteration of Trump-as-Hitler, share this refreshingly honest piece from the New York Times: If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama.