Rachel Maddow’s Own Attorneys Argued that She Shouldn’t be Taken Seriously

Glenn Greenwald Tweets"

MSNBC's lawyers argued - and a court agreed - that Maddow can't be sued for defamation, even when she accuses an outlet of being "literally paid Russian propaganda," because nobody takes her seriously. No liberal outlet will mention this even as they *constantly* say it about Fox

Follow the thread for details and yet another example about how there are two news teams out there. I think of them as two separate types of "News Filters."

Greenwald comments that the left leaning media team constantly thrashes a comparable case with a comparable argument made on behalf of Tucker Carlson, but when it comes to Maddow's own case, it's crickets:

[T]hose most guilty of being unreliable liars and propagandists are those in the media and even Maddow's own MSNBC colleagues who repeatedly cite this court ruling to delegitimize Carlson without ever mentioning that Maddow’s lawyers successfully used the same arguments in her defense.

Here is an excerpt from the Court's Opinion adopting the arguments of Maddow's own attorney and dismissing the case against Maddow:

Here, Maddow had inserted her own colorful commentary into and throughout the segment, laughing, expressing her dismay (i.e., saying “I mean, what?”) and calling the segment a “sparkly story” and one we must “take in stride.” For her to exaggerate the facts and call OAN Russian propaganda was consistent with her tone up to that point, and the Court finds a reasonable viewer would not take the statement as factual given this context. The context of Maddow’s statement shows reasonable viewers would consider the contested statement to be her opinion. A reasonable viewer would not actually think OAN is paid Russian propaganda, instead, he or she would follow the facts of the Daily Beast article; that OAN and Sputnik share a reporter and both pay this reporter to write articles. Anything beyond this is Maddow’s opinion or her exaggeration of the facts. In sum, when the total context surrounding Maddow’s comment is considered, the Court finds that the context weighs towards a finding that the statement constitutes opinion and rhetorical hyperbole protected under the First Amendment.

.    .    .

By protecting speakers whose statements cannot reasonably be interpreted as allegations of fact, courts “provide[ ] assurance that public debate will not suffer for lack of ‘imaginative expression’ or the ‘rhetorical hyperbole’ which has traditionally added much to the discourse of our Nation.” Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20 (quoting Hustler Mag., Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 53–55 (1988)). That is the case here.

Continue ReadingRachel Maddow’s Own Attorneys Argued that She Shouldn’t be Taken Seriously

The United States is Dictating to Facebook What We Can Say to Each Other

The U.S. government is providing a handy new service for us. We no longer need to worry about what to say and think! It is well-established, however, that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing private companies to censor.

I would like to think that the ACLU will file suit tomorrow to crush this obvious violation of the First Amendment, but I have no confidence that that will happen. And beware: Censorship is a potent narcotic that is difficult for governments to quit. Republicans are undoubtedly licking their chops now, waiting for their chance.

Continue ReadingThe United States is Dictating to Facebook What We Can Say to Each Other

Don’t Take the Bait by Arguing About the Proper Meaning of “Critical Race Theory”

Robby Soave makes his case at Reason. First of all, what does Critical Race Theory seem to mean? I've gathered many pronouncements. Soave offers this:

Critical race theory is the idea that structural racism is embedded in many U.S. institutions. Slavery was the reality when the country was founded, and segregation endured for a century following the Civil War. It would thus be naive to assume that supposedly race-neutral policies are actually race-neutral—there's nothing neutral about America and race. Working from this assumption, adherents of critical race theory tend toward a kind of progressive activism that views post-Enlightenment classical liberalism and its notions of equal opportunity, the prioritization of individual rights over group rights, and colorblindness with hostility.
Here's how the bait and switch is playing out, with a money quote by Ibram X. Kendi:

Now that critical race theory is under attack, Kendi has denied being an adherent of it, saying in a statement, "I don't identify as a critical race theorist." MSNBC host Joy Reid used this as a gotcha moment during a segment with Christopher Rufo, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and the foremost anti-CRT activist. But this is semantics: Kendi also told Slate that CRT was "foundational" to his work:

I've certainly been inspired by my critical race theory and critical race theorists, the way in which I've formulated definitions of racism and racist and anti-racism and Antiracist have not only been based on historical sort of evidence, but also Kimberle Crenshaw intersectional theory, which is she's one of the founding and pioneering critical race theorists who in the late 1980s and early 1990s said, you know what, black women aren't just facing racism. They're not just facing sexism. They're facing the intersection of racism and sexism. And it's important for us to understand that. And that's foundational to my work

What should this thing be called? Soave comments:

We could have called this thing intersectionality (my preferred term), or progressive antiracism, or even cultural Marxism (remember that whole debate?), but instead, we're calling it critical race theory. Oh well.

Regardless of what we call it, what is the solution? We should not prohibit the teaching of any idea, only the preaching. That's where many legislative attempts go awry. Soave offers a two-fold solution:

First, foes of critical race theory should spend their time more productively by working to ban racial discrimination in schools. Tinkering with the curriculum is usually a local issue, but states can prohibit race-based hiring and admissions systems. Bar elite public high schools from requiring white and Asian students to score higher on entrance exams, and from segregating students by race. David French is also correct that civil rights law already provides a potential avenue for students to sue school districts that have fostered a racially hostile and discriminatory climate. If the thinking behind "aspects of white supremacy culture" is put into practice in schools, those schools can be sued.

Soave's article is titled: "Critical Race Theory Can't Be Banned. It Can Be Exposed, Mocked, and Avoided: The semantics battle obscures reasonable objections to antiracist diversity seminars."

For more on David French's criticism of most of the legislative attempts to prevent CRT from being "taught" in schools, with which I agree on legal grounds, here is my comment on the conversation involving David French, Christopher Rufo and Bari Weiss.

Continue ReadingDon’t Take the Bait by Arguing About the Proper Meaning of “Critical Race Theory”

A Question for Those Who Claim that America’s Schools are Properly Teaching Students About Racism

We're repeatedly hearing that Critical Race Theory (or whatever you want to call this, which is being taught in all these places) merely means teaching America's racial history in classrooms (as though this sad and deplorable American history is not being taught in most schools).  Here is a summary of what is happening:

Increasingly, American institutions — colleges and universities, businesses, government, the media and even our children’s schools — are enforcing a cynical and intolerant orthodoxy. This orthodoxy requires us to identify ourselves and each other based on immutable characteristics like skin color, gender and sexual orientation. It pits us against one another, and diminishes what it means to be human.

I would ask a question to those who advocate for CRT: Do you agree with the following basic principles that have been articulated by Foundation Against Racism and Intolerance (FAIR):

What We Stand For

We defend civil liberties and rights guaranteed to each individual, including freedom of speech and expression, equal protection under the law, and the right to personal privacy.

We advocate for individuals who are threatened or persecuted for speech, or who are held to a different set of rules for language or conduct based on their skin color, ancestry, or other immutable characteristics.

We support respectful disagreement. We believe bad ideas are best confronted with good ideas – and never with dehumanization, deplatforming or blacklisting.

We believe that objective truth exists, that it is discoverable, and that scientific research must be untainted by any political agenda.

We are pro-human, and promote compassionate anti-racism rooted in dignity and our common humanity.

The FAIR Pledge

Fairness. “I seek to treat everyone equally without regard to skin color or other immutable characteristics. I believe in applying the same rules to everyone, and reject disparagement of individuals based on the circumstances of their birth.”

Understanding. “I am open-minded. I seek to understand opinions or behavior that I do not necessarily agree with. I am tolerant and consider points of view that are in conflict with my prior convictions.”

Humanity. “I recognize that every person has a unique identity, that our shared humanity is precious, and that it is up to all of us to defend and protect the civic culture that unites us.”

FAIR Principles of Peaceful Change, Based on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s Principles of Nonviolence

Exercise Moral Courage. Telling the truth is a way of life for courageous people. Peaceful change cannot happen without a commitment to the truth.

Build Bridges. We seek to win friendship and gain understanding. The result of our movement is redemption and reconciliation.

Defeat Injustice, Not People. We recognize that those who are intolerant and seek to oppress others are also human, and are not evil people. We seek to defeat evil, not people.

Don’t Take the Bait. Suffering can educate and transform. We will not retaliate when attacked, physically or otherwise. We will meet hate and anger with compassion and kindness.

Choose Love, Not Hate. We seek to resist violence of the spirit as well as the body. We believe in the power of love.

Trust in Justice. We trust that the universe is on the side of justice. The nonviolent resister has deep faith that justice will eventually win.

It is my strong suspicion that tens of thousands of teachers in thousands of school districts no longer agree with the above principles.  I am seeing increasing amounts of evidence for this every day.

I proudly stand behind the above principles set forth by FAIR. I am honored to stand for the above principles along with FAIR's Distinguished Board of Advisors.

Continue ReadingA Question for Those Who Claim that America’s Schools are Properly Teaching Students About Racism