Where are this university president’s lawyers when they should be telling him that the state can’t ban fliers and flags because the content of those filers and flags is offensive?
Really, it’s not that complicated.  If you need an easy to remember example, just think of the one I always go back to: Nazis in Skokie.  

Cooperative associations and mutual companies are business organizations that are owned by their own employees or customers (users).  There’s a good chance that you already participate in a mutual company through your insurance, as many insurance companies are mutual companies.
Since these types of business organizations already exist and are free to compete in the marketplace with investor-owned corporations, there is no compelling reason to force existing investor-owned corporations to give stock to their employees, or to force them to put employees on their boards of directors.  I’m not sure what the proponents of such measures think they would accomplish, but I am sure that one of the results would be to make companies that are forced to take those measures less profitable and less able to provide good compensation to their employees.

Tax exemptions are another example of an area where the government can’t discriminate because viewpoints expressed by some exemption recipients may be disfavored.  To put it another way, if the government grants a tax exemption to a particular category of entity, the government cannot then deny that exemption to entities that are within the category but that express views that are objectionable.  Even if those views are, for example, racist.  
For an excellent discourse on the application of free speech jurisprudence to the granting of tax exemptions, I encourage you to read the recent testimony on the subject by Eugene Volokh before the Oversight Committee of the House Ways & Means Committee.  He does a great job of explaining why it’s so important that free speech principles be applied correctly in tax administration.  

From the National Constitution Center, a Constitution Day live blog.  

​This time it’s Justice Kagan repeating the free speech mantra: “The government may not discriminate against speech based on the ideas or opinions it conveys.”  As the Supreme Court said two years ago in the case involving The Slants, trademarks can’t be denied based on “scandalous” content.  

As soon as I read what the proposed trademark was and that it was denied on the ground that it is “scandalous,” I knew that the discussion would immediately turn to The Slants.  
How any times do I have to say it?  The First Amendment means that the government can’t prohibit speech based on the content of the speech.  

The Instapundit has an interesting column in USA Today analyzing recent comments by Justice Thomas on the constitutional underpinnings of Supreme Court case law in defamation cases.  Justice Thomas suggested that the rule established by the Supreme Court, that a defamation claim by a public official or public figure must include proof that the defamer acted with knowing or reckless disregard of the truth (the so-called “actual malice” standard), may not be required by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
To lawyers like me who are interested in First Amendment law, it’s an intriguing question.   

​Actually, his comment isn’t about the First Amendment at all, but about taxation and government power.  He cay say it, because of the First Amendment, but that doesn’t mean it’s right.  Here it is:

​His vision of government is to take money from disfavored constituencies and have the government, in its benevolence, apply that money (ostensibly) for the benefit of favored constituencies.  He thinks that the “wrong” people have an unlimited supply of money, and that taking it from them won’t have any effect on the forces that produced that money (or if does have an effect, that effect is desirable).  

I particularly enjoy it when an attempt to control behavior is invalidated because it violates free speech.  I’m not sure why this decision invalidating a law mandating warnings in advertising for high-calorie drinks doesn’t have broader application, however.
Via Overlawyered.

​            What in the World

What in the world-  my question following the Kavanaugh hearings, but in an attempt to put a finer point on it, asked otherwise-  can I sue for say defamation of character, on behalf of another, as I guess one citizen for another? Thinking, Justice Kavanaugh certainly can’t sue on his own behalf, from the bench.
The answer to my question turns out to be, no, and in very clear terms. As will be evident, I’ve gone so far as to seek this clarification in extant law:  206 Ariz. 520, Arizona Supreme Court. Dec. 4, 2003. “This court has, as a matter of sound judicial policy, required persons seeking redress in the courts first to establish standing, especially in actions in which constitutional relief is sought against the government . . . In Sears [v. Hull], we denied standing to citizens seeking relief against the governor because they failed to plead and prove palpable injury to themselves.” Federal case law in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals takes an almost identical approach. (I had help with this information).
Clear enough? Yes, I think so. What I might extrapolate from it is that mere embarrassment for the actions of our senators in the confirmation hearings, will not qualify any citizen for “standing.” Embarrassment would not be considered palpable, personal injury; which makes a kind of unassailable sense. Embarrassment will not even attract judicial notice. Nor should it, I suppose. The court goes on to say in the above citation, “A contrary approach would inevitably open the door to multiple actions asserting all manner of claims against the government.” I won’t argue with that.
But I remain troubled. Whether any of our sitting senators would willingly subject themselves to an interrogation of the sort Justice Kavanaugh has had to endure, is very much in doubt, reaching as it did into adolescent experience. Would the ranking minority member, for example, want to tell us about her first experience in the back seat of a car? No, at least I hope not, nor would any other members of the senate judiciary committee. Because it’s personal, very old stuff, and while some of our own reflections of this period of our lives may make us wince, we go on, most of us, to lead productive lives. We grow, up. 
Some senators will still resist, want to re-explore adolescence as if it were really legitimate investigative ground, at least for senatorial blessing’s sake. Our own senator Flake insisted on one more investigation into the adolescent behavior of our newest justice, which redirected our FBI on yet another panty raid mission.
Most of us have come to understand that American government has become politics, and that politics, particularly in recent years, have gravitated to no holds barred war. Someone in government said as much, not long ago. I forget who. Well even war has a few rules which pertain to decency; a Geneva Convention, other moral considerations regarding civilian populations. Decency, perhaps where decency might be loosely defined as some level of appropriateness supporting at least some consideration for others.
The senate purports to have rules, rules of order certainly, but not so certainly rules of decency. A senator from somewhere might be given five minutes to try to destroy someone’s reputation by reference to vague adolescent incidents beyond clear, complete memory, and by filling in blanks with innuendo. And then that same senator might yield some of his time to someone who’s got some more artfully dirty questions, to which there can be no convincingly clean or dignified answers. 
A hearsay rule is a provision of decency for both sides of dispute, but particularly, I think, for people who find themselves in circumstances of their own defense. When hearsay is permitted, and the accuser, absent any factual basis or corroborating evidence, is urged on in her remarks and commended again and again for courage, any prevailing atmosphere of decency evaporates. Hearsay in the Kavanaugh hearings took the form of testimony, testimony so blurred by youthful assessment, alcohol, and by the passage of time that the name ‘testimony’ hardly applies to what amounts to little more than self- assembled hearsay. I’m not sure there are any hard rules for inadmissibility in the senate chambers, but if there were, there would have been no substance or reason for a hearing of this sort. It couldn’t have taken place. No chance for a partisan grilling.
Apparently anything goes in the senate. How is it that our senators are allowed to operate below the law, below the belt, and beyond redress? What in the world? Well, somehow we picked them, oh for their political views yes, but trusting perhaps in an underlying presumption of their judgment, and in this instance their judgment as to what kinds of things are appropriate for their official consideration, especially as a senate judiciary committee. And shame on us I suppose, for supporting their offices in these pursuits.
The camera and the microphone were on, revealing as it was of America’s top tier representative house in action. Maybe the nation needs to call some of these senators home for a little old fashioned upbringing, a little schooling in what many of us would want to call common decency or respect for our fellow man. I don’t want people around the world to think democracy has lost its helm, or that in September we lost our minds, our moral compass, and our dignity in one senatorial swoop. 
What can I do? No courtroom remedy, is there, for just a red face. And I’m certainly not going to be invited to testify before the senate. (Maybe I’m not so certain of this). The answer though has been right in front of me all the time, hasn’t it; this next month coming, is November.

Christopher Osgood
Vail, Arizona