"Given that the child is of mixed race, it would seem apparent that the presence of the flag is not in the child's best interests, as the mother must encourage and teach the child to embrace her mixed race identity, rather than thrust her into a world that only makes sense through the tortured lens of cognitive dissonance."
Columbia University linguist John McWhorter on "anti-racism" as a new, misguided civic religion and his new book on curses, Nine Nasty Words.
whether the U.S., China, Israel, or anyone else.
The bill was introduced by Colorado Senate president pro tem Kerry Donovan (who is also running for Congress).
Colleen Oefelein was fired by the Jennifer De Chiara Literary Agency, and the incident illustrates the vagueness of New York law on this point.
A controversy at the University of Illinois Chicago John Marshall Law School (not to be confused with the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign).
Yes, the Ohio Court of Appeals held Thursday.
The more that big social media companies act like they can control what people say, the more competition they encourage.
But such a ban would be unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, whether applied to the Confederate flag, white supremacist symbols, or whatever else might be labeled as "hate[ful]."
Richard Stengel published that argument in the Washington Post last year.
The subject of the new film Mighty Ira explains why social justice warriors are wrong to attack free speech.
Inspired by Germany's notorious hate-speech law, more countries seek to impose steep penalties on platforms that don't comply with their censorship whims.
(at least unless she gets case-by-case permission to enter that property). But a federal district judge has correctly held that this likely violated the First Amendment.
The professor, chair of the Central Michigan University journalism department, was teaching a media law class, and quoted a case that discussed the use of the word "nigger" at public universities.
A thought experiment that came to my mind; I'd love to hear what others think about it.
Plus a new draft law review article on the subject, by Prof. Randall Kennedy (Harvard Law School), a leading scholar of race and the law, and me.
Three interesting opinions: a sound majority, a plausible concurrence, and another concurrence focused on "hate speech" that I think is unsound.
So holds a federal court, quite correctly; of course, the same is true about any religious group, racial group, or other such large group.
threatens to kick students out of class for "othering." Fortunately, the university has stepped in and rejected this position.
The case was filed against the Maricopa County Community College District, over Prof. Nicholas Damask's World Politics class.
The professor, the chair of the Central Michigan University journalism department, was teaching a media law class, and quoted a case that discussed the use of the word "nigger" at public universities.
This one focuses on student groups that get funding from public colleges, but it's an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction.
"Hate speech" would be defined as an intentional "insulting statement about a group of persons because of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion or beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity or physical, mental or intellectual disability."
... they apparently shed it well before the schoolhouse gate.
before UK independent press standards tribunal.
I, however, do not apologize.
