The Newspapers v. Maryland


I’ve previously posted about a group of newspapers filing suit against Maryland to stop the state’s unconstitutional attempt to regulate political advertising on the Internet. The newspapers are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the law from going into effect. The State has filed an opposition to the motion for a preliminary injunction.

There will be a hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction. It was originally scheduled for early October, but the lawyers and Judge Grimm are trying to resolve scheduling conflicts. When the hearing is scheduled, I’ll make arrangements to attend and report on it.

They Have the Right to Remain Silent


As I’m sure the Gentle Reader has seen elsewhere on the Interwebz, the Parkland High School Children’s Crusade gang is now whining about how their rights are being infringed by having to use transparent book bags at school. David Hogg has complained about how that violated their First Amendment rights.

Uh, no.

Having to use a see-through book bag doesn’t infringe on the rights to peaceably assemble or petition the government. It doesn’t infringe on their right to speak. It doesn’t infringe on the rights of a free press. And it’s unclear (pun intended) how it would infringe on anyone’s religious rights.

If he’d tried to make an argument based on the prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure of the Fourth Amendment … “secure in their … persons, … papers, and effects” … then he wouldn’t have further revealed his ignorance of the Bill of Rights.

Just as the right of self defense in a natural right, so is the right to remain silent. As the proverb says: Better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and prove it.

The First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, Sexual Harassment, and the TSA


There’s nothing new under the sun. This tweet deals with an incident that occurred in 2011.While the fizzled attempt at lawfare wasn’t a government act, the “search” was.

Here is Ms. Alkon’s OC Register Op Ed.

Here is the Tech Dirt post.

UPDATE—Introductory paragraph added. It will be interesting to see how future such incidents play our in the post-Weinstein era.

I’m Not Making This Up, You Know


Some boneheaded local politician in Massachusetts wants to be able to send the local cops in to gun owners’ homes to “inspect” how their guns are stored. Perhaps this bozo hasn’t heard of the Fourth Amendment. You know, that bit in the Bill of Rights about a warrant being needed for a search.

The guy is a selectman in the town of Swampscott. I wonder how far that is from Lexington and Concord?

Dogs and Cats Living Together!


(H/T, Shall Not Be Questioned) Reuters is reporting that the NRA is filing an amicus brief in support of the ACLU’s suit against the Obama Administration concerning NSA surveillance. The ACLU is welcoming the NRA’s support.

The ACLU is asking the court to stop the NSA’s program of tracking telephone calls, to declare the program illegal, and to order the government to purge all its databases of the call records.  The NRA says in its brief

The mass surveillance program could allow identification of NRA members, supporters, potential members, and other persons with whom the NRA communicates, potentially chilling their willingness to communicate with the NRA.

The NRA has also notes that the Obama Administration’s interpretation of section 215 of the the Patriot act would have the effect of nullifying the statutory ban on the centralization of gun purchase and ownership records.