Today in Supreme Court History: March 7, 1965

3/7/1965: Civil rights marchers are attacked by the police in Selma, Alabama. The event would become known as "Bloody Sunday."

Comments

[Holden C]

It is absolutely disgusting that the so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyberstalking and online harassment. In fact, he is trying to make victims of cyberstalking and cyber-harassment even more vulnerable by trying to strike down all legislation that would protect them.

Rather, Eugene Volokh has tried his best to HARM victims of cyberstalking by trying to argue, incorrectly and foolishly, that online harassment and cyberstalking is "Free Speech".

Eugene Volokh doesn't understand the nature of the internet and should not be opining dangerous statements on "Free Speech" when he hasn't experienced cyber-stalking himself.

Eugene Volokh, in his many "papers", completely ignores the impact of cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, doxing, and stalking to the VICTIMS of malicious mentally-ill cyber-stalkers and sociopaths. Instead, he works hard to protect the rights of these mentally ill criminals and leave victims with no legal recourse to regain their lives and stop this atrocious behaviour. Eugene basically supports the criminals.

Who in their right mind thinks "Free Speech" should be abused by plainly malicious individuals who are often mentally ill and are purposely using the internet to harm the victims by revealing private, personal information (doxing) or slandering them online, or posting their personal private pictures?

Rather than help the courts in the USA understand that cyber-harassment is NOT protected speech, Eugene Volokh has taken money ("bribes") from Google, Big Tech to peddle the false notion that harassment websites dedicated to tormenting a victim are "Free Speech" and "one-to-many speech."

Plainly, Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutism is EXTREMELY dangerous for America because it allows cyberstalking, cyber-harassment, doxing, and online abuse to flourish.

Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyber-harassment victims to file a civil suit against their perpetrators using a "pseudonym", to protect their privacy from even further harm. Rather than sympathizing with the unfortunate and undeserved situation of the victims, Eugene tries to argue that for the victim to file pseudonymously would be somehow "unfair" to the malicious defendant, a psychopath who DESERVES to be held accountable for his criminal and harassing behaviour.

Eugene Volokh reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has an ulterior agenda apparently, to de-regulate Big Tech so they can maximize profits at the expense of making Americans totally unprotected from cyber-harassment, doxing, and cyber-stalking by mentally ill individuals online.

It is highly likely that Eugene Volokh gets paid by Google and Big Tech behind the scenes. That's why all of his papers "happens" to fall on view that Big Tech should not be regulated, ever. This is clearly wrong, and dangerous.

Refute me, Eugene Volokh. Everything I said was fact.

Worse of all, Eugene has attempted to DELETE and CENSOR my truthful posts ABOUT him as he found it "harassing", while denying the same recourse to thousands of REAL online harassment victims across the country and protecting the rights of their harassers. So Eugene has exposed his dishonesty and biased - if someone posts TRUTHFUL information ABOUT him that casts him in an unfavourable light, he WANTS it CENSORED, but when it happens to millions of other Americans, he claims they DO NOT deserve legal recourse and that the postings are FREE SPEECH.

Tell me, what is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of mentally ill cyber-stalkers who continuous post private, personal information about victims online in an attempt to harass, disturb, cause emotional distress, or control their victims? What is Eugene Volokh's solution for victims of these crimes to get the harassers to stop, get the harmful content removed, and allow the victims to return to their normal lives? Does he even give a shit? Does he even consider that the First Amendment may be outdated for the internet age, where anybody with any type of axe to grind or slight against an individual can post anything harmful online to affect the lives of the victims?

The dangerous part of Eugene Volokh's analysis is he COMPLETELY ignores the mental impact to the victims of online harassment, he pretends like cyberstalking isn't even a thing. Free Speech absolutism without taking into account privacy interests, right of victims to be free from harassment, etc... is DANGEROUS. The result of Eugene Volokh's Free Speech Absolutism is that victims of malicious online harassment will NEVER be able to get legal recourse from their attackers, who can post any personal or embarrassing or private information with NO legal repercussion, maliciously, to ruin lives. This is apparently the world that Eugene Volokh wants.

I'm sorry, but Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutist interpretation is simply dangerous for humanity and America, and is totally incorrect and one-sided. In Eugene's dangerous world, victims of cyber-harassment cannot ever get relief from their attackers, ever. That's how Eugene wants it to be, unless of course, the victim is himself.

[Dan Schiavetta]

No Laurie Pritchett.

[Holden C]

Under Eugene Volokh's dangerous interpretation of the First Amendment, all of cyberstalking, cyberharassment, doxing, posting private information about others to cause them, cause them emotional distress, bully them, would ALL be legal. Victims would simply be out of luck. Volokh thinks (erroneously), that the speech rights of the cyberstalker trump all of the rights of the victim, including the right to be free from harassment, the right to privacy, the right to be free from criminal interference, etc....
This is absolutely irresponsible, dangerous, and not what the framers of the Constitution intended.

Eugene needs to stop working to make Americans more vulnerable and exposed online. He is helping criminals.

[jimc5499]

Total silence about which Party controlled the Police at that time.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Silence from whom?

[DaivdBehar]

The police are the agents of the prosecutor. They also failed to arrest anyone for extra-judicial executions in lynching innocent blacks and Jews. They totally immunized the KKK, resulting in the South being a shithole until a few years ago. Since the Republican Party has prevailed more in the South, it has thrived and become a population magnet for its balmy weather.

These lawless attacks, immunization of genocidal, murderous manias, keeping their location a shithole. 100% the fault of the lawyer profession.

[DaivdBehar]

Today's Democrat Party has policies that result in 4000 excess murders of black young men a year. It took the Democrat Party, the KKK, and their lawyer founders and protectors 100 years to lynch 4000 people. Today's Democrat Party is 100 times more lethal to black people than the KKK. Why? To generate the rent.

[Krychek_2]

And if the people who controlled the police at the time all came back from the dead, today they would be voting Republican. You seriously think today's Democratic Party would welcome George Wallace or Lester Maddox or Orville Faubus?

[Michael P]

Yes. Those Democrats would pander to the racialist crowd every bit as much today as they did then. It's just a question of the details.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You think the party of John Lewis, Fred Grey and Julian Bond, Thurgood Marshall, Shirley Chisholm, etc etc is going to pander to segregationists?

[Michael P]

Republicans are not the ones calling for racially and ethnically segregated activities today. Democrats are.

[LawTalkingGuy]

You didn’t answer the question.

[Michael P]

Today's Democrats are (again) pandering to segregationists, when they're not busy segregating people by race or ethnicity.

[Michael P]

Or were you making the point that today's Democrat party is no longer the one that Lewis, Grey, Bond, Marshall, Chisholm, etc belonged to?

[LawTalkingGuy]

No I’m making the point that you’re making stuff up and don’t know what you’re talking about.

[Michael P]

No, you're trying to gaslight people into forgetting that leftists are the ones setting up segregated residence halls, town halls, and more, because Race Matters. Which president made it clear that he would nominate someone specifically on the basis of race and sex?

You are a shameless liar and propagandist. Try to be a better person.

[Krychek_2]

Michael, every time I think you've said something so ridiculous you can't possibly top yourself, you prove me wrong.

[Krychek_2]

And what makes your comments especially egregious is that Southern racists stopped voting Democrat just as soon as the Democrats became the party of racial equality. They took a principled stance against Jim Crow, knowing they would lose the South as a result, which is precisely what happened.

[Bob from Ohio]

"Southern racists stopped voting Democrat just as soon as the Democrats became the party of racial equality"

A myth. It took many years.

Southern democrats did not stop voting Dem for legislature and many state executive offices for decades. Kentucky house didn't switch until 2016.

Jimmy Carter won the South [except Virginia but including Texas] after "Democrats became the party of racial equality". Clinton won 4 as well.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“ , you're trying to gaslight people into forgetting that leftists are the ones setting up segregated residence halls, town halls, and more, because Race Matters.”

You have a specific news story in mind, so just link it. Otherwise I’ll assume you are making it up. And to the extent this is real, it almost certainly isn’t affiliated with the Democratic Party or part of a larger trend.

“ Which president made it clear that he would nominate someone specifically on the basis of race and sex?”

The one trying to diversify the least diverse institution in the country. The one trying to bring a perspective other than prep school white man who was the son of belt-way insiders. Has it ever occurred to you that race and sex mattered to Trump too, but he didn’t need to announce it because white men are considered the norm by default (NB: Trump explicitly conditioned his last pick on sex)

“You are a shameless liar and propagandist. Try to be a better person.”

I’m neither of these things. Please apologize. (You still haven’t apologized for saying I supported rioters and murderers btw). This seems like projection. You’re spinning wild tales and assuming I’m the liar and propagandist simply for questioning you.

And I do try to be a better person every day. Maybe you should try it, I haven’t seen any evidence that you are, though. But you can start by apologizing to me, for this comment and your previous false ones about me.

And lol at you telling me to be a better person. I strive for that every day, you clearly do not m

[Michael P]

I don't have a particular news story in mind. There have been a long series of them. It's not even particularly new: for example, https://www.thedemands.org/ lists demands (from 2016) for segregated spaces at UCLA, NYU, UC Berkeley and more. That movement has picked up steam since then. As a more recent example of how far it has spread, last month the Ohio Department of Health announced a schedule for racially/ethnically segregated town halls about COVID-19 vaccines. There have been dozens of other examples.

If there was only one example, I would have pointed to it specifically.

[apedad]

Wow Mi-P, you don't see the difference between people wanting to have a safe space and a Whites Only drinking fountain?!?

Wow.

[LawTalkingGuy]

So none of these are affiliated with the Democratic Party. So you were at best embellishing to create a narrative. Isn’t that just lying and propaganda? Turns out I was right about the projection.

Be a better person.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Also the Ohio health department wasn’t “segregating” it was targeting some town halls specifically at African Americans because that is a historically underserved community. It’s also a community that often (for good reason) distrusts the medical community due to well documented racism in medicine.

Maybe try learning about things before complaining.

[Michael Ejercito]

In the field of public education, separate but equal has no place.

[LawTalkingGuy]

It wasn’t “separate but equal” it was a program specifically targeting African Americans to address their particular concerns. Noticeably they didn’t bar them (or anyone else) access to any facilities or information.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

Isn't it policy du jour of the Modern Democrat to resegregate now into color-specific "safe spaces"?

[Krychek_2]

Assuming without conceding that that is the Democrats' policy du jour, you honestly can't tell the difference between providing minorities with safe spaces versus beating and turning dogs loose on civil rights protesters trying to enforce their right to vote? When some white guy gets bitten by a police dog for stopping by a minority safe space, get back to us.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

The outcomes are the same, no?

[Krychek_2]

No, the outcomes are not the same just because both of them have something to do with race. In Selma, people were marching for the right to basic participation in society as voters, which had been denied to them by violence and intimidation. With a safe space, an opportunity is given to someone who has suffered a history of prejudice to escape it for a time by being with others who have similar histories.

[Michael P]

Yes. As we can see, modern Democrat hacks defense not only pander to segregationists, they proudly defend segregation.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Dude. Why are you lying. Stop it.

[apedad]

Yeah, with the detail being instead of wearing Dems! on their hats they'd now be wearing MAGA.

[Bob from Ohio]

"George Wallace or Lester Maddox or Orville Faubus?"

How about Al Gore Sr., Bill Fulbright and Bob Byrd?

[Krychek_2]

It's telling you have to go back half a century. And today, those three musketeers would all be voting Republican.

[LawTalkingGuy]

Well Byrd wouldn’t. Because he transformed into a fairly mainstream Obama supporting Democrat by the end of his career. Didn’t do the Strom Thurmond or Jesse Helms thing.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It's telling you have to go back half a century."

We were discussing how much or little the Democratic Party has changed since the 60s. Of course I'm "going back" to then.

"And today, those three musketeers would all be voting Republican."

They were liberals outside of race. Fulbright famously opposed the Vietnam War for instance.

[Krychek_2]

Bob, you live in Ohio; I grew up in, and live in, Florida. I think you underestimate the extent to which white supremacy still hovers over much of what goes on here (which is not the same as saying things haven't gotten better -- they have).

In 2008, a month before Obama's election, I was at a courthouse on the Florida panhandle for a foreclosure sale. While I was waiting for the sale to begin, I overheard two good ole boys discussing the election. The sanitized version of what they said is that that black gentleman Obama better stay out of the South because someone is going to take him out, but hopefully whoever does it will use a knife so they don't take our guns away.

In 2015 I was at another courthouse, this time in South Georgia, researching a lynching that took place a century earlier. The deputy clerk who brought me the files actually said that they didn't have as much crime back then because people knew how to take care of people who committed crimes.

So, would it be a fair statement to say that racism explains 100% of why the South started voting Republican once Democrats became pro civil rights? Of course not. But neither is it a fair statement that race has nothing to do with it either.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Bob lives in Can't Keep Up, Ohio (the part of Ohio that might as well be in Kentucky, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, West Virginia, or Oklahoma). He is directly familiar with the degree to which half-educated racists, backwater white supremacists, superstitious gay-bashers, downscale xenophobes, old-timey misogynists, and other bitter clingers are still prevalent in America's less-advanced communities.

[Frank Drackman]

what about Sleepy Joe's opposition to "Jungle Schools"? OK, I went back a half century, just like Common-Law Harris did when she slapped Sleepy for opposing Bussing.

[John F. Carr]

From Dave Barry's 2020 year in review: "The Democrats, fed up with the long-standing pattern of systemic racism and police misconduct in major U.S. cities, vow to bring about real reform, just as soon as they can figure out who, exactly, is in charge of these cities."

[bernard11]

The idiot RW non-gotcha.

[Holden C]

Malicious cyberstalkers (often mentally-ill sociopaths) posting doxing information about victims online to harass them, ruin them, destroy their sense of peace and their lives, is just Free Speech to Eugene Volokh.

Cyber-criminals posting private pictures or information about victims online, making horrendous webpages to stalk victims, is just Free Speech to Eugene Volokh.

If you read through Eugene's papers, NOT ONCE does he even try to balance the rights of the victims against the "Speech" rights of the perpetrators.

The guy elevates "Free Speech" to almost saintly status and ignores all other types of rights and social concerns that should be balanced when dealing with cyberstalkers and cyberharassers.

Eugene Volokh's views are dangerous, America needs to be careful about relying on this guy. He has a neo-liberal pro-tech agenda to destroy all regulation that would force the tech industry to make products safer for Americans.

Eugene Volokh is helping criminals.

[Holden C]

It is absolutely beyond disgusting that so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyberstalking and online harassment, which is increasingly prevalent as a new type of tech-enabled crime.

Rather, Eugene Volokh has tried his best to HARM victims of cyberstalking by trying to argue, incorrectly and foolishly, that online harassment and cyberstalking is "Free Speech".

Eugene Volokh, in his many "papers", completely ignores the impact of cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, doxing, and stalking to the VICTIMS of malicious mentally-ill cyber-stalkers and sociopaths. Instead, he works hard to protect the rights of these mentally ill criminals and leave victims with no legal recourse to regain their lives and stop this atrocious behaviour. Eugene basically supports the criminals, most who are clearly malicious and trying to everything they can to ruin people's lives. These mentally-ill sociopaths do not deserve First Amendment protection for maliciously trying to stalk and harm victims by using the internet.

Who in their right mind thinks "Free Speech" should be abused by plainly malicious, mentally-ill, sociopathic individuals who are often mentally ill and are purposely using the internet to harm the victims by revealing private, personal information (doxing) or slandering them online, or posting their personal private pictures?

Rather than help the courts in the USA understand that cyber-harassment is NOT protected speech, Eugene Volokh has taken money ("bribes") from Google, Big Tech to peddle the false notion that harassment websites dedicated to tormenting a victim are "Free Speech" and "one-to-many speech."

Plainly, Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutism is dangerous for America because it allows cyberstalking, cyber-harassment, doxing, and online abuse to flourish.

Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyber-harassment victims to file a civil suit against their perpetrators using a "pseudonym", to protect their privacy from even further harm. Rather than sympathizing with the unfortunate and undeserved situation of the victims, Eugene tries to argue that for the victim to file pseudonymously would be somehow "unfair" to the malicious defendant, a psychopath who DESERVES to be held accountable for his criminal and harassing behaviour.

Eugene Volokh reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has an agenda - to de-regulate Big Tech so they can maximize profits at the expense of making Americans totally unprotected from cyber-harassment, doxing, and cyber-stalking by mentally ill individuals online.

Refute me, Eugene Volokh. Everything I said was fact. Maybe you'll try to censor me again, as you do when someone engages in "one-to-many" speech ABOUT you.

[Holden C]

It is simply beyond disgusting that so called "Professor" Eugene Volokh has DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to help the USA address the increasingly common issue of cyberstalking and online harassment, which is increasingly prevalent as a new type of tech-enabled crime.

Rather, Eugene Volokh has tried his best to HARM victims of cyberstalking by trying to argue, incorrectly and foolishly, that online harassment and cyberstalking is "Free Speech".

Eugene Volokh, in his many "papers", completely ignores the impact of cyberbullying, cyber-harassment, doxing, and stalking to the VICTIMS of malicious mentally-ill cyber-stalkers and sociopaths. Instead, he works hard to protect the rights of these mentally ill criminals and leave victims with no legal recourse to regain their lives and stop this atrocious behaviour. Eugene basically supports the criminals, most who are clearly malicious and trying to everything they can to ruin people's lives. These mentally-ill sociopaths do not deserve First Amendment protection for maliciously trying to stalk and harm victims by using the internet.

Who in their right mind thinks "Free Speech" should be abused by plainly malicious, mentally-ill, sociopathic individuals who are often mentally ill and are purposely using the internet to harm the victims by revealing private, personal information (doxing) or slandering them online, or posting their personal private pictures?

Rather than help the courts in the USA understand that cyber-harassment is NOT protected speech, Eugene Volokh has taken money ("bribes") from Google, Big Tech to peddle the false notion that harassment websites dedicated to tormenting a victim are "Free Speech" and "one-to-many speech."

Plainly, Eugene Volokh's First Amendment absolutism is dangerous for America because it allows cyberstalking, cyber-harassment, doxing, and online abuse to flourish.

Eugene also tries to make it as difficult as possible for cyber-harassment victims to file a civil suit against their perpetrators using a "pseudonym", to protect their privacy from even further harm. Rather than sympathizing with the unfortunate and undeserved situation of the victims, Eugene tries to argue that for the victim to file pseudonymously would be somehow "unfair" to the malicious defendant, a psychopath who DESERVES to be held accountable for his criminal and harassing behaviour.

Eugene Volokh reminds me of a wolf in sheep's clothing. He has an agenda - to de-regulate Big Tech so they can maximize profits at the expense of making Americans totally unprotected from cyber-harassment, doxing, and cyber-stalking by mentally ill individuals online. It is highly likely that Eugene Volokh gets funding and "bribes" or "kickbacks" from Google, the EFF, and other dishonest organizations who only care about their profits and not about the safety of online users.

Refute me, Eugene Volokh. Everything I said was fact. Maybe you'll try to censor me again, as you do when someone engages in "one-to-many" speech talking ABOUT you. But by your own definition, this is "Free Speech", isn't it?

[DaivdBehar]

Holden, do you believe, Eugene is in love with you?

[Holden C]

And don't worry Eugene, I know you like to censor "one-to-many" speech about you if you don't like it, but if you delete my posts here, I will be posting on other websites, social media sites, and blogs the TRUTH ABOUT YOU so the world will know what type of person you really are, that you work to increase suffering for victims of cyber-stalking, cyber-harassment, and cyber-bullying.

I think you should appreciate my exercise of the First Amendment (that you staunchly advocate) to reveal the truth about you.

[Bored Lawyer]

Meds not working today?

[Holden C]

Based on Eugene Volokh's dangerous First Amendment absolutism, malicious individuals who want to destroy another person, harm an innocent victims, can post whatever they want about that person online, and this will follow that person for the rest of their lives. Is it fair to allow a victim to be harmed indefinitely by malicious actors simply for the right of the cyberstalker to exercise plainly malicious, low-value speech? What is wrong with Eugene Volokh's brain when a simple calculation and balancing of interests (privacy v. free speech) becomes impossible for him to do?

Or is he ignoring this point on purpose, because Silicon Valley is paying him behind the scenes to peddle Free Speech absolutism because they don't want Section 230 repealed as it saves them money?

You decide.

[Nisiiko]

In the last 57 years, blacks have surely shown us the "content of their character." Most whites don't like what they have seen.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

This batch of comments vividly illustrates what a flaming shitstorm The Volokh Conspiracy has become.

And this appears to be the best that current movement conservative legal academia can generate.

Ouch.

Very ouch.

[Bored Lawyer]

And yet, you keep coming back. Says much about you.

[Nisiiko]

Do you leftists have anything to contribute to society at all?

[DaivdBehar]

Artie. The resignation, please. Stop talking woke. Start walking woke.

[Frank Drackman]

or other blacks, hispanics, asians.....

[hobie]

Could be some good pro bono work for you, Blackman. Or are you one of the targets?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/03/07/trump-lawyers-election-misconduct-initiative-to-discipline/

[Voize of Reazon]

this is q

[Voize of Reazon]

titlesome stuff
second titlemore stuff

[Voize of Reazon]

WWF History
The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international organization working on issues regarding the conservation, research and restoration of the environment, formerly named the World Wildlife Fund. WWF was founded in 1961.