Mediaboss Marketing

Bret Stephens: Happy Easter, Gail. The news has been so depressing lately. A crazy guy opens fire in a subway in Brooklyn. The Russians are committing atrocities in Ukraine and are about to start a major offensive in the east. And my tuna melt on rye costs $21 at a not-much-to-look-at New York City diner, not including the tip.

Anything cheering you up?

Gail Collins: Happy holidays to you, Bret. This is one of the many times in recent years when Ive appreciated the role professional sports play in our lives. You meet a friend who starts listing all the things about the world that could plunge anyone into depression, and at some point you can break in with: But say, how about those Mets?

Bret: The Mets are off to a strong start, but give them a few months and theyll be depressing you as well.

Gail: Otherwise, I guess its reasonable to at least note that winters over, job openings are way up in the past year, and the subway shooting was miraculously miraculously! without fatalities.

I admit that the last one is not an ideal example of cheery news.

Bret: Crazy Guy Aims, Shoots, Misses could also be a contender for the next Russian national anthem.

Gail: Love the way you think.

Bret: The strong employment numbers are obviously good news. But let me put the dark cloud inside your silver lining: The Wall Street Journal reports that roughly three million Americans have dropped out of the work force, often for health reasons, and that that labor shortage is going to keep inflation high. This strikes me as yet another good argument for offering every Ukrainian refugee a green card.

Gail: Even before the pandemic, we were moving into an era in which our birthrate was just not providing enough future workers to keep the economy going. Immigrants shouldnt just be tolerated; they should be welcomed with marching bands.

Bret: The other big story of last week, Gail, is Elon Musks offer to buy Twitter at $54.20 a share. Half the punditocracy seems to think this would be great; the other half thinks its the apocalypse. Where do you come down on this?

Gail: Am I nuts to think this is not going to happen?

Bret: Youre not nuts. The Twitter board seems determined to stop him, and Musk has been known to pull stunts like this before. Also, the 4.20 in $54.20 is an inside joke about getting high.

Gail: Lord help us. Even if Twitter tanked, wouldnt there be some new post-Twitter communications system coming around the bend soon? Youre 10 times smarter than me about this stuff, so tell me what you think, and Ill adopt it as my theory. At least for the spring.

Bret: Maybe in the distant future a big media company will create a platform in which non-unhinged adults can exchange ideas, air their disagreements without rancor, make a few jokes, have their claims fact-checked before they are published and then go out for a friendly drink.

Gail: Hope hes listening.

Bret: Im sympathetic to the idea that social-media companies should try to honor the spirit of the First Amendment, even if they arent legally bound by it. But the idea that Twitter is a good forum for speech is silly. Trying to communicate a thought in 280 characters isnt speaking. Its blurting. You dont use Twitter for persuasion. You use it for insults and virtue signaling. A healthy free-speech environment depends on people talking with each other. Twitter is a medium for people to talk at others. The best thing that could happen to Twitter isnt an acquisition, by Musk or anyone else. Its bankruptcy.

Gail: Wow, Ive always pretty much avoided Twitter, but it was mainly out of laziness. Now Im cloaked in righteousness and am deferring to you on all Twitter topics.

Dont suppose youd be willing to respond by deferring to me on health care?

Bret: Youve laid a trap, Gail. Whats on your mind?

Gail: I appreciate Joe Bidens call for increasing government aid to those who dont have good private coverage and putting a lid on the prices pharmaceutical companies charge for drugs people have to buy whether they want to or not. This would bring me back to my cheer for limiting the price of insulin to $35 a month.

Bret: The high cost of insulin is a national scandal. But I dont think price controls are ever a good answer. The biggest roadblock is the dearth of so-called biosimilars, which is largely a function of regulatory and legal roadblocks, including abuse of the patent system by some of the big pharmaceutical companies, as well as insufficient pricing transparency.

Here is the moment I can almost hear our readers screaming, Price controls are how other countries do it! But that almost inevitably leads to health care rationing and wait lists. Would you rather us be Canada?

Gail: You know, Ive heard that Canada threat for decades, and generally my reaction is, Thats our worst danger? Obamacare did a lot to make our health care system more efficient, but the system is still way too clogged with duplicative management and other administrative failings.

Bret: Obamacares many problems are the high road toward Medicare for all, which is why I was opposed to it in the first place.

Gail: Go, Bernie Sanders!

I guess we should move on to politics for a bit. Next month therell be big Senate primaries in places like Ohio where Republicans will have to choose between the newly anointed Trump favorite J.D. Vance of Hillbilly Elegy fame and a bunch of noncelebrities and Pennsylvania, where theyll have the option of selecting Trumps man, Dr. Oz of Oprah fame, or a half-dozen alternatives without reality-TV careers.

Anybody youre rooting for? And whats the chance the Republican Party is going to become the Home for Unwillingly Retired Entertainers?

Bret: My favorite Republican these days is the governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, who recently described Donald Trump as crazy, with a pungent modifier to go with it. Being able to say that out loud should be a litmus test for any serious conservative. Other litmus tests include the willingness to connect the words evil with Putin, legitimate with 2020 election, president with Biden and supercilious twerp with Tucker. All the rest is commentary.

Gail: Ah, Bret. Your vision of unshackling the Republican Party from Trump is stirring and about as likely as a snark-free Twitter.

Bret: Of course its easy to make fun of Republicans for their insanity. But isnt it the Democratic Party that could use a bit more introspection as it heads into what looks like a wipeout in the midterms?

Gail: Well, things certainly dont look good. Its ironic that the Democrats huge flaw is an inability to get anything serious passed in Congress because of the, um, lack of Democrats in the Senate. Which will probably cost them several more Senate seats.

But one of the other things Republicans seem to be counting on is a right-wing revolt on social issues, especially abortion. Is there any way for the pro-choice faction of the party to combat that, or is it just way too much of the Republican brand now?

Bret: Political parties often lose when their cultural values get too extreme for the mainstream. Thats what happened to Democrats in 1972 (amnesty, abortion, acid) and to Republicans in 1992 (Patrick, J., Buchanan). Right now it feels as if Democrats have become the party of wokeness, which is how they got hammered in last years governors race in Virginia and why they are losing votes over antipolice posturing. But that could change if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. As we discussed last week, that decision will be bad for women but probably good for Democratic candidates, since most Americans still want abortion to remain legal.

The other big court decision will be on affirmative action. Any thoughts on how that will play out politically if affirmative action is ruled unconstitutional?

Gail: Not sure about the politics, since its always easy to sell the idea that the people with the top scores/grades/extracurriculars should be the top choice. But for the country, ending affirmative action would be a disaster. We have to be sure that people from all races, creeds and economic backgrounds are part of the population thats moving up.

Bret: Agree about the importance of diversity in many walks of life. Disagree that affirmative action is the right way to get there. Looks like were going to have to debate this when the decision is handed down.

Gail: Theres one other huge Supreme Court decision coming around the bend: on New York Citys gun control laws. Im terrified the conservative majority is going to declare the government has no right to prohibit people from carrying concealed weapons in public. Do you think itll happen?

Bret: Yeah. And I think the decision will be 5 to 4, with John Roberts joining the liberal wing in dissent on states rights grounds. Hey, its never too late to move to Canada.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. Wed like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And heres our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Visit link:
Opinion | This Is Not the Year of the Optimist - The New York Times

The University of North Carolina at Greensboro lived up to its green light rating last week when it affirmed the First Amendment rights of students to invite Ben Shapiro, podcaster and cofounder of conservative news media company The Daily Wire, to speak on campus. The event went off without a hitch, and the universitys response to Shapiros appearance should serve as a model for institutions nationwide when controversial figures are invited by students to speak on campus.

Back in February, UNC Greensboros Young Americans for Freedom chapter invited Shapiro to campus. To advertise the event, the group posted a photo of Shapiro with a quote: Men cannot become women. Women cannot become men. Men who believe they are women are not real women. Other students at the school responded by starting a petition to have the chapter disbanded and argued that the chapter violated policies against harassment and discrimination.

One YAF member, who is also a member of the Student Government Association, responded by introducing a resolution affirming students free speech rights at UNC Greensboro. YAF reports that the SGA voted overwhelmingly to table the resolution and, ultimately, the controversy resulted in the YAF chapter working with Shapiro to host him on campus.

Faced with numerous pleas for censorship, the university held firm. Not only did the school resist pressure to abridge fundamental rights notable in light of routine compromises elsewhere it also took the opportunity to reiterate its commitment to free speech through a shared statement and answers to related FAQs. FIRE applauds this response.

In response to the question How can I stop this? UNCG provides resounding clarity: The speech and display are protected. You cannot stop it.

Shoring up policies and educating students on their rights and where they end before highly publicized events protected the free exchange of ideas on campus

The answer continues, You can voice your opinion, you can join or host a counter-demonstration, you can educate others, but you cannot enact a hecklers veto where you block the view of a display, impede walkway on the public sidewalk, shout down speakers, or in any other way interfere with the Constitutionally-protected free speech.

Thats exactly right. By plainly laying out avenues for peaceful protest, students were able to make their own views known by engaging in lawful activities that embraced free speech principles of more speech. For example, although the event did not directly address Shapiro, a Queer Celebration event was hosted nearby by the Campus Violence Response Center, the Dean of Students Office, and Spartan Open Pantry, among others.

Shutting down opposing viewpoints is a counterproductive approach to persuading others. In contrast, free speech principles embrace the idea that individuals at odds with certain messages maintain their own free speech rights to counter those views. Further, by having an opportunity to listen, those with conflicting beliefs are better able to come to their own conclusions.

Despite the opportunity to join active and lawful counter-activities, one student attended the speech and was escorted out of the building after shouting Fuck you at Shapiro multiple times during his presentation, to which the podcaster responded, Fuck you is not an argument.

The universitys FAQ also highlighted the value of academic inquiry, stating, We believe there is no better place than a college campus for thought-provoking discussions.

Similarly, the FAQs make clear that [f]ree speech is essential to a healthy Democracy, and we protect it because we believe speech is one method for learning and growth. Censorship of speech is illegal, violates our Democracy, and has no place in a University.

In response to the question How can I stop this? UNCG provides resounding clarity: The speech and display are protected. You cannot stop it.

UNC Greensboros efforts helped mitigate unlawful conduct by drawing the lawful parameters for response and reminding students of the reciprocal benefits of free speech ahead of Shapiros visit.

In the past, the on-campus presence of Shapiro, or other Daily Wire contributors, has raised concerns of violence not because words themselves are violence, but because, as was the case at UC Berkeley in 2017, banned weapons carried by demonstrators could result in it. At the time, hosting Shapiro on the California campus cost the university $600,000 in security fees and led to the arrest of nine individuals.

Violent protests are not unprecedented on campus. Some administrators take this concern as an excuse to waffle on the free speech rights of students to host certain guest speakers, which rightly raises concerns over viewpoint discrimination. Research conducted by FIRE suggests that disinvitations of guest speakers have become more common over the last twenty years and disinvitation efforts, from 2000 to 2013, were three times as likely to target speakers with views more conservative than their own than speakers with views more liberal than their own.

UNC Greensboro is a green light institution, meaning the university is one of the elite few that doesnt have any policies that seriously threaten campus expression. However, a green light rating only considers an institutions written policies, not their enforcement. Therefore, it is encouraging to see the university stick to its First Amendment commitments. By doing so, the university honors its legal obligations and preserves the academic benefits that freedom of expression affords students benefits which other universities too often deny their students.

Kudos to UNC Greensboro. Shoring up policies and educating students on their rights and where they end before highly publicized events protected the free exchange of ideas on campus and ensured that the university met its mission to prepare students for meaningful lives and engaged citizenship.

As always, FIRE stands ready to assist schools with revising their policies and speaker protocols so that students from across the ideological spectrum can hear from their invited guests without interference.

Excerpt from:
UNC Greensboro: Ben Shapiro speaks at green light university and 'you cannot stop it' - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

In brief

The Trade Competition Commission of Thailand (TCCT) published a draft amendment of the Notification of the Trade Competition Commission re: Guideline on Fair Trade Practices relating to Credit Terms with SMEs Offering Goods or Services (or commonly referred to as the SME Credit Term Guideline).

This is the first amendment after the guideline became effective in December 2021 (see our previous newsletter in August 2021) and is now open for public hearing.

The draft amendment proposes changes to the definition of an SME as shown below. The other provisions remain unchanged.

*The proposed amendment refers to the employee threshold as well. However, in essence, the annual revenue threshold will dominate.

The main objective is to carve out businesses which are able to generate substantial revenue with a small number of employees (e.g., less labor-intensive industries such as tech companies, having work outsourced to third parties).

The TCCT is accepting public comments on the draft amendment until 20 April 2022. The public is encouraged to submit their comments electronically viawww.tcct.or.th.

After the public comment period, the TCCT will consider the comments and suggestions from the public and will publish a summary report, along with its opinion, and proceed with the issuance of the official amendment.

We will closely monitor the situation and keep you updated on the developments.

Read more:
Thailand: Draft amendment to the SME Credit Term Guideline - Open for public hearing - GlobalComplianceNews

From Hershey v. Curators of Univ. of Missouri, decided Wednesday by Judge Douglas Harpool (W.D. Mo.):

Plaintiff often handed out flyers and brochures, and he advocated for vegetarian or vegan eating. Plaintiff claims that the University's policy that placing regulations on speech on areas of campus is unconstitutional. More specifically, he claims that Defendants applied the policy, CRR 110.010, unconstitutionally against him and infringed on his First Amendment rights by restricting his speech based on content.

Plaintiff alleges that, in December of 2021, he was distributing literature at the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU) and was asked by a Jane Doe who identified herself as "with operations" to relocate to another location on campus. Plaintiff claims that Ms. Doe called University police after Plaintiff "declined to remove himself from his desired location." Plaintiff asserts that he spoke with a MU police officer for "approximately ten minutes," who purportedly told Plaintiff he would be removed from campus if he made students feel uncomfortable or if he was otherwise rude. He claims that "the University's actions interfered" with his protected speech activities and that the officer's presence "deterred some students from accepting a booklet from Hershey."

Plaintiff next alleges that, on August 23, 2021, he was distributing literature regarding vegetarianism on the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) campus. Plaintiff alleges that UMSL staff "demanded that he distance himself farther from his intended audience outside the [Millenium Student Center]." Plaintiff names as a defendant Dorian Hall ("Hall"), the Director of the Millenium Student Center, and claims that Director Hall "directed his staff to move Hershey farther away from the door." Plaintiff alleges that "UMSL's actions interfered with Hershey's lawful and protected speech activities" and that the "staff's presence" deterred students from accepting Hershey's literature."

Plaintiff next asserts that, on May 7, 2021, he was distributing literature on the Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T) campus when he was approached by Sergeant Mark Ritter ("Ritter") and told he "had to leave the University." Plaintiff claims that Ritter "looked at the booklet for several seconds" and "arbitrarily, in response to the content and viewpoint of the booklet," told Plaintiff he was "prohibited from handing out his literature" and that he was on "private property." Plaintiff concedes that Ritter "relent[ed]" after speaking with his police chief. Plaintiff alleges that "Ritter's actions interfered with Hershey's lawful and protected speech activities and caused Hershey to not offer his booklets to some of the passersby." Plaintiff alleges that Ritter's presence deterred students from accepting booklets.

Last, Plaintiff alleges that, on December 5, 2018, he was distributing booklets regarding vegetarianism on MU's campus. He contends that Nancy Monteer, the Director of Campus Dining ("Monteer"), "arbitrarily, in retaliation based on the content and viewpoint of the booklet," confronted Plaintiff and "yelled" at him to "get away" from the dining hall doors. Plaintiff alleges his confrontation with Monteer culminated in Plaintiff "rais[ing] his arms up to protect himself from Monteer's increasingly aggressive advances."

Plaintiff sued for violation of the First Amendment and of the Missouri Campus Free Expression Act:

The court held that the Act hadn't sufficiently expressly waived Missouri's sovereign immunity from lawsuits in federal courts:

"[A] federal suit against state officials on the basis of state law contravenes the Eleventh Amendment." Even if a state has waived immunity with regard to "its own courts," this "is not a waiver of the Eleventh Amendment immunity in federal courts."

But it allowed the First Amendment claim to go forward:

Defendants do not dispute that the areas where Plaintiff alleges interference with his free speech rights, including preventing him from communicating with his target audience, harassing, accosting, arresting, and banning him, were traditional public forums. It has long been bedrock, clearly established First Amendment law that the most stringent standard is applicable to restrictions on speech in a traditional public forum, particularly at public schools, parks and streets.

Here, Plaintiff specifically alleges that the Defendants imposed content-based exclusions that are not necessary to preserve a compelling state interest and that the restrictions are not narrowly tailored.

It is clearly established law that that restrictions on speech based on the content of the speech is subject to the highest scrutiny under the law. "For the State to enforce a content-based exclusion it must show that its regulation is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and that it is narrowly drawn to achieve that end. The State may enforce regulations of the time, place, and manner of expression which are content-neutral, are narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and leave open ample alternative channels of communication."

The clearly established law regarding content-based restrictions on speech is one which a reasonable person would have understood at the time of the Plaintiff's alleged deprivation. Plaintiff alleges Defendants Monteer, Hall, and Ritter infringed on his rights to freedom of speech based on the vegetarian/vegan content he was communicating. Plaintiff has sufficiently pled actions by these defendants overcome their claim to qualified immunity. Accordingly, Plaintiff's 1983 claims against the remaining defendants (Monteer, Hall, and Ritter) in their individual capacities are not dismissed.

More here:
First Amendment Lawsuit by Vegan Advocate Against University of Missouri Can Go Forward - Reason

CINCINNATI Shawnee State University professor Dr. Nick Meriwethers three-year court battle for his First Amendment rights has concluded with a settlement in his favor.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in March 2021 that the university violated Meriwethers free speech rights when it punished him because he declined to call a student by their preferred pronouns.

According to court documents, Meriwether offered to use any name the student requested instead of titles and pronouns, but the university rejected that compromise, instead forcing the professor to speak contrary to his religious convictions and philosophical beliefs.

As part of the settlement, the university has agreed that Meriwether has the right to choose when to use, or avoid using, titles or pronouns when referring to or addressing students. The university also agreed Meriwether will never be mandated to use pronouns, including if a student requests pronouns that conflict with his or her biological sex.

This case forced us to defend what used to be a common beliefthat nobody should be forced to contradict their core beliefs just to keep their job, said ADF Senior Counsel Travis Barham. Dr. Meriwether went out of his way to accommodate his students and treat them all with dignity and respect, yet his university punished him because he wouldnt endorse an ideology that he believes is false. Were pleased to see the university recognize that the First Amendment guarantees Dr. Meriwetherand every other Americanthe right to speak and act in a manner consistent with ones faith and convictions.

Public universities should welcome intellectual and ideological diversity, where all students and professors can engage in meaningful discussions without compromising their core beliefs, said ADF Senior Counsel Tyson Langhofer, director of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. Dr. Meriwether rightly defended his freedom to speak and stay silent, and not conform to the universitys demand for uniformity of thought. We commend the university for ultimately agreeing to do the right thing, in keeping with its reason for existence as a marketplace of ideas.

As part of the settlement in Meriwether v. The Trustees of Shawnee State University, the university agreed to pay $400,000 in damages and Meriwethers attorneys fees. Additionally, considering the 6th Circuits ruling, the university is rescinding the written warning it issued Meriwether in June 2018. In light of the settlement, ADF attorneys filed a voluntary dismissal of the case Thursday.

The Portsmouth Daily Times reached out to Shawnee State University but has not received a comment at this time.

Meriwether

See the original post here:
Meriwether reaches settlement in First Amendment case with university - Portsmouth Daily Times