Stop the #Gosnell Media Blackout

There's a backlash building against the Obamedia and its refusal to report on the Kermit Gosnell murder trial.

I'll have more blogging on this throughout the day. Meanwhile, if you you have time, via Weasel Zippers, "*Must-See* Documentary About Gosnell Clinic:Tying Women To Bed, Forcing Abortions on Them, Dead Babies In Jars, And The ‘Special Room’ For The White Women."

More at Legal Insurrection, "Tweet to break the #Gosnell news blackout."

From Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic, "Why Dr. Kermit Gosnell's Trial Should Be a Front-Page Story" (at Memeorandum), and from Mollie Hemingway, at Patheos, "Washington Post reporter explains her personal #Gosnell blackout."

Also, from Erika Johnson at Hot Air, "Gosnell abortion-clinic worker: I assisted with abortions while in high school."

Plus, AoSHQ has some of the pathetic push-back on the left, "More Gosnell: Wikipedia Weights Deleting Gosnell's Entry Due to Failure to Attract National Media Attention; Amanda Marcotte Declares, Contrary to the Facts, That Gosnell's Abbatoir Was "Underground" and Pro-Lifers Drove Women There."

Also, the hilarious Irin Carmon, at Salon, "There is no Gosnell coverup" (at Memeorandum).

Well, no, actually --- but the progs don't care about the facts.

I'll have more later...

Democracy v. Stability in Eygpt?

Just posted: "Egypt Crisis Intensifies — Suleiman Could Take Power as Washington Plans for Mubarak Exit."

And from earlier, a big shout out for National Journal's coverage of developments in the Middle East:

The "democracy v. stability" them is picked up by James Kitfield, "Obama's Risky Idealism: Reversing the 'Devil's Bargain'?"

This is a much better analysis than E.J.Dionne's (mentioned previously), and this is especially good:

In the short term, the democratic upheavals in the Middle East will almost certainly spread instability and cause furrowed brows in Washington and Tel Aviv. In the longer term, however, the strategic interests of both the United States and Israel could be well served by the death of the venerable idea that the only choice in the Middle East is between autocrats and theocrats.

“Regime change is coming to Egypt whether we like it or not, so for the Obama administration to continue to back an ill, 82-year-old dictator like Hosni Mubarak would have been both short-sighted and unwise,” said Michael Rubin, a Middle East expert and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. The United States should instead seize a rare opportunity to embrace a mostly secular, democratic opposition that is on the march throughout the Middle East, Rubin said in an interview.

And speaking of Barry Rubin, he's got more here: "Whose Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood? Answer: Sensible People." Rubin's responding to this at New York Times, "As Islamist Group Rises, Its Intentions Are Unclear." (And at Memeorandum.)

There are reports that the Muslim brotherhood has pledge an attack on Israel should they come to power, although perhaps the Times doesn't "get" the Internet. See, "Report: Muslim Brotherhood Wants Egyptians to ‘Prepare for War With Israel’." Maybe the Times is feigning ignorance? Wouldn't want some credible journalistic reporting to lead here: "U.S. 'held secret meeting with Muslim Brotherhood'."

RELATED: Get your kicks watching Conor Friedersdorf self-immolate: "Sophistry And Defining The Muslim Brotherhood, Ctd."

Hey, he claims to have lived in Egypt, so who knows, although the fact that he's posting at Sully's rabidly anti-Semitic blog doesn't much pump up the credibility factor.

Dick Cheney on "Face the Nation"

Via Flopping Aces, here's Former Vice President Dick Cheney's with Bob Schieffer yesterday:

CQ Politics has the transcript, via Memeorandum:

CHENEY: Well, Bob, first of all, it’s good to go back on the show.

SCHIEFFER: Thank you.

CHENEY: It’s nice to know that you’re still loved and are invited out in public sometimes.

The reason I’ve been speaking, and in effect what I’ve been doing is responding to press queries such as yours, is because I think the issues that are at stake here are so important. And, in effect, what we’ve seen happen with respect to the Obama administration as they came to power is they have moved to take down a lot of those policies we put in place that kept the nation safe for nearly eight years from a follow-on terrorist attack like 9/11. Dealing with prisoner interrogation, for example, or the terrorist surveillance program.

They campaigned against these policies across the country, and then they came in now, and they have tried, very hard, to undertake actions that I just fundamentally disagree with.

SCHIEFFER: Well, do you -- I mean, should we take that literally? You say that the administration has made this country more vulnerable to attacks here in the homeland.

CHENEY: That’s my belief, based upon the fact, Bob, that we put in place those policies after 9/11. On the morning of 9/12, if you will, there was a great deal we didn’t know about Al Qaida. There was the need to embark upon a new strategy with respect to treating this as a strategic threat to the United States. There was the possibility of Al Qaida terrorists in the midst of one of our own cities with a nuclear weapon or a biological agent.

It was a time of great concern, and we put in place some very good policies, and they worked, for eight years. Now we have an administration that’s come to power that has been critical of the programs, but not only that, there’s been talk about prosecuting the lawyers in the Justice Department who gave us the opinions that we operated in accordance with, or referring them to the Bar Association for disbarment or sanctions of some kind, or possibly cooperating with foreign governments that are interested in trying to prosecute American officials, those same officials who were responsible for defending this nation for the last eight years.

That whole complex of things is what I find deeply disturbing, and I think to the extent that those policies were responsible for saving lives, that the administration is now trying to cancel those policies or end them, terminate them, then I think it’s fair to argue -- and I do argue -- that that means in the future we’re not going to have the same safeguards we’ve had for the last eight years.

More here.

Also, Conor Friedersdorf demonstrates that Cheney derangement lives!

Jordan Peterson and the Failure of the Left

At Quillette:

This piece from someone on the left who feels fellow leftists were selling her a false bill of goods about who Jordan Peterson is dovetails with what I’ve heard from several other people in conversation and correspondence. https://t.co/tGBl7I76ft

— Conor Friedersdorf (@conor64) May 23, 2018

Defending Traditional Marriage

Okay, as promised, my essay on the implications of the Iowa Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling is published at Pajamas Media: "An Attack on Traditional Marriage in Iowa."

My argument at the piece distills a lot of the commentary I've offered here over the last few months, so readers may see some familiar themes. The push for same-sex marriage is more than about non-traditional wedded partnerships. It's about achieving a social revolution of nihilism and extreme secularization. One of the more interesting debates on the topic this week is the discussions by Rod Dreher, and the attacks on him by Damon Linker and Andrew Sullivan. Conor Friedersdorf jumps on the "pomo-con" bandwagon here.

Actually, Dreher doesn't do justice to the complexity of the issue, and thus he's easily attacked and ridiculed remorselessly as a theocon homophobe. Dreher makes it easy for his antagonists because he sets up opposition to same-sex marriage as opposition to homosexuality in toto. My personal experience in writing about this topic for the past six months, and in discussing it with people of various persuasions, is that people don't hate homosexuals. There's little homophobia per se. What gay hatred we do see, no matter how isolated, is highlighted and enlarged by the gay extremists as respresentative of an alleged hegemonic hetero-dominant dictatorship. Yet, when examining polling data, Americans demonstrate huge support for a type of civil unioin that affords all the legal guarantees of rights and responsibilities of marriage, while at the same time recognizing "marriage" as it's been historically substantiated - normatively and politically - is between one man and one woman for the regeneration of society.

Robert Stacy McCain's been shifting over to social conservatives issues in his writing this week, and he's got a really powerful essay up at the American Spectator that make the case for traditionalism, "Marriage: A Hill to Die On."

Robert notes that "Over and over, we find ourselves fighting what is essentially a defensive battle against the forces of organized radicalism who insist that "social justice" requires that we grant their latest demand." And further, "Such is the remorseless aggression of radicalism that conservatives forever find themselves contemplating the latest "progressive" demand and asking, 'Is this a hill worth dying on?'"

Yes, marriage is a "hill worth dying on." That is to say, there's not a whole lot left in the culture that hasn't been broken down and destroyed by radical individualism. Conservatives, as Mark Levin points out in Liberty and Tyranny, borrowing from Edmund Burker, are not opposed to change. But change absent of prudence is radical and destabilizing.

But let's go back to Robert's essay on why traditionalism is worth the fight:

Some conservatives are wholly persuaded by the arguments of same-sex marriage advocates. Others, however, are merely unprincipled cowards and defeatists. Concerned about maintaining their intellectual prestige, some elitists on the Right do not wish to associate themselves with Bible-thumping evangelicals. Or, disparaging the likelihood of successful opposition, they advocate pre-emptive surrender rather than waging a fight that will put conservatism on the losing side of the issue.

Yet if the defense of traditional marriage - an ancient and honorable institution - is not a "hill worth dying on," what is? In every ballot-box fight to date, voters have supported the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage. As indicated by exit polls in California last fall, this is one issue where the conservative position is widely endorsed by black and Latino voters. Should such a potentially promising political development be abandoned? ....

It is only by the activist rulings of judges and other officials, never at the behest of voters, that the radical crusade for same-sex marriage has advanced this far. We know which side the people are on. Even Barack Obama was shrewd enough to declare his opposition to same-sex marriage during the presidential campaign. We have seen voters in 30 states pass constitutional amendments to defend the "one-man, one-woman" definition of marriage, and conservatives in Iowa are now planning efforts to add their state to the list.

Having been given an inch, the radicals now attempt to take a mile. But this is a hill to die on.

Read the whole essay at the link.

Barrett Brown Cross-Posts Lame Response to R.S. McCain at Sick and Evil Little Green Footballs

There's little advantage for me in posting on Barrett Brown's cross-posting of a hit piece against Robert Stacy McCain to Little Green Footballs. That's because while Barrett is likely to respond, I'm not sure if he can link to my blog from Little Green Footballs (since Charles Johnson often refuses links to enemies). And it's definitely no linkage at Ordinary Gentlemen, which is home to sleaze-blogger E.D. Kain. It's okay actually, since I often refuse to throw links to those who're unworthy --- the lying dirtbag RepRacist3 comes to mind. But in this case the stakes are fairly high. Barrett Brown has threatened Robert Stacy McCain with a libel suit. I sometimes communicate with Barrett Brown, and of course I'm a long-time blog buddy to Robert, so I thought I'd just throw out a few thoughts for the heck of it. Maybe there's some utility in this as an excursion in the blogospheric politics of flame wars.

I do link to Ordinary Gentlemen, as folks will recall. It's hilarious when E.D. Kain checks out my blog while analyzing his stats. E.D.'s ashamed to this day of once being the proprietor of a boldly neoconservative webzine known as NeoConstant. He got tired of it just as the ideological winds were shifting toward the Democrats in 2008. Long-time readers will recall that in response to my series of essays on E.D.'s craven ideological and moral machinations, he launched a campaign of workplace harassment at my college. I had bestowed upon him the "Conor Friedersdorf Wannabe Award for Faux-Conservative Punditry!", and no doubt that didn't sit too well. (See, "Sleaze-Blogger E.D. Kain Reaches Pinnacle of 'Conservative' Blogosphere! Simultaneously Linked by Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson!") And while I often hear folks still refer to E.D. as a libertarian-minded conservative, the truth is he's a dyed-in-the-wool progressive. He finally gave up the ghost at Balloon Juice a few months back, "Why I am Not a Conservative." E.D.'s obviously on a search for acceptance --- by someone, anyone, no matter how deeply immoral and without possibility of redemption. It's pretty bad.

And that's why E.D. refuses to link me at Ordinary Gentlemen. I've hammered him mercilessly. The truth hurts, seriously. And ignoring me is his way of admitting he's a tool of the even cheapest sleazeballs higher up the blogging chain, like RAWMUSLGLUTES and husky über narcissist Charles Johnson.

Anyway, I'm perplexed that Barrett Brown has decided to go all out with the cross-post to Little Green Footballs, linked here and here. (And the Confederate illustration appears only at LGF, although Ordinary Gentlemen is not above those kinds of base smears.) Barrett's post is the basis for his accusation of libel against Robert. And folks can read the latter's original post here: "Narcissism, Isolation and Trolls." And Robert's response to the libel threat is here: "Nothing Says ‘Merry Christmas’ ..." All of this entails a lot of reading, and frankly I don't really see where Barrett's case for libel can be found. Robert's a judicious blogger, and having made a living as an established journalist I'd expect he knows how to avoid litigation. But here's a quote in any case, for a flavor:

Brown pretends to disprove my skeptical remarks about his characterization of Vanity Fair reporter Michael Hastings as his “colleague.” What I wrote was that, in using this term in his YouTube video lecture to National Review editor Rich Lowry, Brown was “expressing a collegiality that probably exists mainly in Brown’s mind.”

The jury will please note the word “probably” in that sentence. Of course I could not know the extent of Brown’s acquaintance with Hastings, despite Brown’s having written sundry things about that relationship, for we have already established that by his own admission Brown perpetrates falsehoods on the Internet. (See defense Exhibit B.)

Given Brown’s confessed use of online deception (his phony “alter-ego,” etc.), his mere assertion as to any particular state of affairs — e.g., an alleged professional relationship with Michael Hastings — proves nothing, as an admitted liar has no credibility. Therefore, skepticism toward such an assertion by Brown was entirely warranted. And what does Brown say of his relationship with Hastings?

We talked on the phone several times and exchanged some number of e-mails . . .

Brown does not say, “We’re best buds,” or “We hung out and had beers together.” No, it’s e-mails and phone calls. By that standard, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I’ve got a whole crapload of “colleagues,” including several members of Congress. But you’ll notice that, so far as we can tell from Exhibit A, Brown and Hastings have never met in person, thus sustaining my assertion, in the blog post that the plaintiff claims is libelous, that “while Brown and Hastings were both True/Slant contributors, it wasn’t like they were hanging out around the office coffee machine, swapping stories.”

My credibility once more vindicated, I next call to your attention this statement by Brown:

. . . the rest can be confirmed by Andrew Sullivan, with whom I discussed the events after he linked to my piece.

Andrew Sullivan. Andrew Sullivan? Does the plaintiff really wish to bring to this honorable court’s attention his professional collaboration with Andrew Sullivan? Your honor, the defense would like to introduce at this time Exhibit C, showing that this same Andrew Sullivan has a criminal record for possession of illegal drugs. We also introduce Exhibit D, a blog post from Ace of Spades HQ, containing certain relevant information about Suliivan’s other behaviors, although there is perhaps no need to discuss this information at this time.

So far, then, we have established that Barrett Brown is a confessed drunkard, by his own admission “arrogant and narcissistic,” a deceptive Internet “troll” who is friends with others who engage in similar deceptive activity online, and an associate of a criminal drug abuser, Andrew Sullivan.

Given all this, your honor, it is the belief of the defense that Barrett Brown is a person of such infamous ill-repute that any negative comments made about him on the Internet could not possibly be considered defamatory.

I'm now going back over Barrett's response, and I see that he's quick to engage in race-baiting allegations against Robert and the latter's ties to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, ad nauseum. And Barrett has a book coming out on all of this as well, with an entire chapter devoted to McCain, Hot, Fat, and Clouded: The Amazing and Amusing Failures of America's Chattering Class. (In recalling this I'm understanding why Robert has something to be pissed about.)

And for a flashback, here's Barrett Brown attacking me as dishonest earlier this year. I later updated a post he criticized (don't remember which one), so I guess this is mostly of entertainment value at this point, if that. Related: "Barrett Brown Doesn't Read Well."

Footnote: For the origins of the "sick and evil" reference to LGF, see "Ace of Spades Smacks Charles Johnson in a Post Every New* Blogger Should Read."

So, John McAdams Hasn't Updated the Marquette Warrior Since Last Wednesday...

... Because the university is revoking his tenure and canning his ass --- for a blog post!

The Marquette Warrior is apparently in legal limbo.

See Conor Friedersdorf, at the Atlantic, "Stripping a Professor of Tenure Over a Blog Post."

Make sure you follow the links, especially to Cheryl Abbate, who left Marquette's philosophy graduate program after McAdams' alleged "misogynist" attacks. See the loooong post, "Gender Based Violence, Responsibility, and John McAdams." She really goes after iOTW Report, claiming that the blog should be shut down because the "rape culture" comments. Yeah, how's that working out for ya?

Look, I'm sympathetic to the women on the receiving end of all these so-called misogynist attacks --- the GameGate dust-up hasn't been one of my hottest topics, mainly because I can't see how folks like Anita Sarkeesian deserve the abuse. But then, there's a lot of inside baseball in the gamer culture, so I leave the coverage to those better up on the issues --- Milo Yiannopoulos, for example. Or see Robert Stacy McCain, "The #GamerGate Hate Hoax."

Meanwhile, the FIRE has come to Professor McAdams' defense, "The Travesty of Due Process at Marquette."

BONUS: From Megan McArdle, at Bloomberg, "Free Speech and Ivory Towers."

The Shellie Ross Twitter Controversy

This is some weird and deeply troubling pattern: It was just yesterday that I wrote about the death of Bengals wide-receiver Chris Henry, and the genuinely evil Twitter posts falsely reporting his death (it was Biodome10).

Now it turns out that Shellie Ross, whose 2 year-old son drowned on Monday, was tweeting at the time of the accident and sent a message just 19 minutes before her son's death: "Please pray like never before, my 2 yr old fell in the pool."

Now Ms. Ross is taking a lot of heat, and blame, for bad mothering, and even culpability in the boy's death. At USA Today, "Mom's tweet as son was dying stirs debate":

Ross' decision to broadcast that message Monday night to more than 5,300 people who follow her posts on Twitter has unleashed torrents of support and derision. Social networking experts and friends said Ross was right to reach out for help, while critics questioned whether her son would be alive if she spent less time online.

"Could this child's death have been averted had the mom not been on Twitter all day?" asked Madison McGraw, a personal security guard and writer who blogs at madisonmcgraw.com. "This woman spent all of her time on Twitter. It was unbelievable," said McGraw, who lives outside of Philadelphia and doesn't know Ross.
Ross, 37, is also a blogger — blog4mom.com — and a prolific poster on Twitter. She has two other sons, ages 18 and 11, and her husband is an Air Force sergeant.

She tweeted throughout Monday. At 5:22 p.m., she posted a message about the fog that rolled in as she worked in her chicken coop.

The emergency call to police came at 5:23 p.m., from Ross' 11-year-old son Kris, said Joe Martin, Brevard County homicide investigator. Ross and her son found Bryson at the bottom of the pool. While Kris was on the phone, Ross performed CPR on Bryson, Martin said.

Bryson was taken to Cape Canaveral Hospital where he was pronounced dead at 6 p.m. Ross was notified at 6:31 p.m., Martin said. At 6:12 p.m. she posted to Twitter, asking for prayers.

Checking the Madison McGraw blog brings up, "Shellie Ross Continues to Twitter After Death of Son."

ABC News reports that Shellie Ross was tweeting about the fog rolling in and her chickens going back to the coop while 911 was called by her middle son @ 5:23 to report that his 2 year old brother was floating in the pool. Ambulance arrives at 5:38 to find child in cardiac arrest. At 6:12 pm Shellie tweeted and asked for prayers for her son. She had been tweeting from 8:37 in the morning, right on thru while her son fell into the pool, and continued to tweet even after his death - which I find ironic because maybe if she wasn't tweeting, her son might still be alive.

Shellie Ross's tweets on 12/14 during the hour her son died leading up to her Byrson Ross's death are as follows ...

Check the post for the tweets, and then:

After this tragedy, Shellie Ross has spoken and continued to Tweet, calling people assholes, hoping they rot in hell...but not once has she said, "I take full responsibility and I wish I could take that day back. I feel horrible and am so, so, sorry."

But then again, even if she did say that, I guess actions speak louder than words. And her actions leading up to and after her son's death speak volumes. She was twittering while her child died and she continues to Twitter, telling people to "Go Get Bent" and "Fuc* Tards."

If your child died because you were twittering, wouldn't that be the LAST place on earth you'd want to return to? If this was such a terrible time and you wanted people to 'leave you alone' why wouldn't you at least make your Twitter stream private?
I have no doubt it's only days before Ms. Ross appears for interviews and of course, people are already setting up donations.

I wish we could start a donation in Bryson Ross's name to sue his mother for negligence.

Why aren't people asking more questions about this? Do people not care about children and their safety at all? Who is looking out for children?

The ABC News story is here, "Mom Shellie Ross' Tweet About Son's Death Sparks Debate Over Use of Twitter During Tragedy: Mommy Bloggers Defend Ross' Tweet, Saying Online Community Is a Support System."

Ms. Ross has now protected her tweets. She's got a blog post up, however: "Please allow us to grieve the loss of our child."

I'm just going to say a prayer for all involved. All of this crazy Twitter stuff is unreal.

NO WAIT!!

Conor Friedersdorf blogged on this, at the Daily Dish no less, saying it's no big deal:

Isn't this just the latest example of people becoming insanely judgmental about a fellow citizen merely because she conceives of technology differently? It is unimaginable to me that people would react this way if Ms. Ross shouted over the back fence in the middle of the crisis to ask all in earshot to pray, and five hours later, still in shock, mechanically composed a letter to friends lamenting her loss.

But doing what amounts to the same thing on Twitter? It provokes vitriol that I find every bit as inexplicable as I do the Tweeting of a child's death. In this moment of utmost gravity, you're criticizing her approach to social media? "This woman is a perfect example of where humanity is heading as it becomes more enslaved by technology," one commenter said. In fact, the callousness strangers direct via Internet at a grieving mother is a far more dire harbinger of where we're headed.

Hmm. I wonder if he'd be saying the same thing if that was Trig Palin floating in the water? Somehow I doubt it.

'Ask God What Your Grade Is' ... Judge Rules in Favor of LACC Student Defending Traditional Marriage

From the Los Angeles Examiner, "Judge Rules in Favor of LACC Student Defending Traditional Marriage":

A California court has ruled in favor of a Los Angeles Community College student who said he was called a "fascist bastard" by his teacher for defending traditional marriage.

The court also ordered LACC to strike from its website a sexual harassment policy that censors speech deemed "offensive" to homosexual people.

Saying it violates students' free speech rights, a federal judge has barred the Los Angeles Community College District from enforcing a sexual harassment policy that bans "offensive" remarks in and out of the classroom, the Los Angeles Times reports.

U.S. District Judge George H. King granted a preliminary injunction against pressing the policy at the request of Jonathan Lopez, an L.A. City College student who in February filed a suit accusing a professor of censoring his classroom speech about his religious beliefs, including opposition to gay marriage.

Lopez said his professor called him a “fascist bastard” and refused to let him finish his speech against same-sex marriage during a public speaking class last November, weeks after California voters approved the ban on such unions.

When Lopez tried to find out his mark for the speech, the professor, John Matteson, allegedly told him to “ask God what your grade is,” the suit says.

Lopez also said the teacher threatened to have him expelled when he complained to higher-ups.

The district disciplined the professor, John Matteson, and Lopez received an A in the course. His suit sought financial damages and a ban on enforcing the sexual harassment code, according to the LA Times.

King said the policy's use of "subjective" terms such as "hostile" and "offensive" discouraged students from exercising their 1st Amendment rights.

See also, Los Angeles Examiner, "Student Wins Court Ruling After Being Slandered for His Spiritual Morals: Ask God Your Grade."

This is great news.

My question is how come this story's not plastered across newpapers nationwide? Not a toughie. Obviously, Judge King's decision violates the left's "gay marriage is inevitable" meme, and the liberal media-commissars wouldn't want to deviate from the program. Seriously. A Google search right now turns up paltry results (look here, here, and here).

It's fascinating, really, since a look over at Volokh Conspiracy pulls the mask off of the "rights" program of the radical left. Judge King has enjoined the LACC district's policy on sexual harrassment, and check out the language highlighted by the court:

It is important to be aware that sexual remarks or physical conduct of a sexual nature may be offensive or can make some people uncomfortable even if you wouldn’t feel the same way yourself. It is therefore sometimes difficult to know what type of behavior is sexual harassment. However the defining characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted and pervasive. It’s important to clearly let an offender know that certain actions are unwelcome. The four most common types of sexual harassment are:

1. Sexual Harassment based on your gender: This is generalized sexist statements, actions and behavior that convey insulting, intrusive or degrading attitudes/comments about women or men. Examples include insulting remarks; intrusive comments about physical appearance; offensive written material such as graffiti, calendars, cartoons, emails; obscene gestures or sounds; sexual slurs, obscene jokes, humor about sex ...

I like the part that says "the defining characteristic of sexual harassment is that it is unwanted and pervasive."

Man, that's broad. Who's to say what's "unwanted," much less "pervasive." On that standard, my class lectures include a lot of "unwanted" comments that would be deemed as "harrassment" by the left's gay marriage ayatollahs.

And get this, from an update at Volokh, "A Footnote You Wouldn't Want to See in a Court Opinion":

This case is likewise not mooted by Defendants’ recent revelation that the Policy was supposedly repealed in 2007.[2] First, the Policy continues to appear on the District’s and LACC’s websites.... Thus, Plaintiff, and other students and employees, can reasonably believe they are subject to the Policy and experience a chilling effect.

[2] We are chagrined that defense counsel and Defendants’ representative who were present at the oral argument on June 10, 2009 were apparently ignorant of the status of a policy they purported to defend. This lack of preparedness is viewed with great disfavor.

It's important to remember that the First Amendment is central to the debate over same-sex marriage. After Californians passed Proposition 8 last November, the gay radical lobby launched its infamous outing and shaming campaign to intimidate and silence those who exercised their First Amendment rights to contribute to the intitiative measure (see, "Outing Liberal Blogger – Bad; Outing Prop 8 Donors – Good"). In the immediate aftermath of the election, Diana West described the chill in California as "soul-grinding" and akin to "something out of Soviet show trial history."

There's no word on the District Court's ruling at some of the big gay radical blogs, for example, Joe. My. God., Pam's House Blend, or Towleroad. The ever-so-prodigious Andrew Sullivan is on vacation from The Daily Dish, but hot-shot stand-in Conor Friedersdorf missed this story as well.

Pretty interesting, you think? Recall that these folks are quick to shout down "unwanted" speech they deem offensive (see, "Pam Spaulding Falsely Accuses Christians of Inciting Violence — But What About Her Own Behavior?").

No comment on the Volokh post at Memeorandum either.

It's a big news week, but not that big. The Sotomayor hearings are winding down, the administration's trying to keep the health reform story alive in the press, and folks have pretty much forgotten about authoritarianism in Iran. One might think even the Los Angeles Times would run a piece on the story, but I'm not holding my breath.

(Now, if the court would have upheld the LACC District's policy, THAT would have been big news!)

For additional background, see Eugene Volokh, "Professor in Speech Class Refuses to Grade Student's Presentation."

**********

UPDATE: Patriot Room links! See, "Court Rules 'Ask God What Your Grade is' Prof Violated Student's 1st Amendment Rights."