"Language and Linguistics for Decolonization and Liberation and for Peace and Community Building — From the River to the Sea in Palestine and Israel to the Mountaintops of Haiti and Beyond."

That's the name of the class discussed in "The Controversial Class That M.I.T. Is Paying a Professor Not to Teach/Michel DeGraff, a vocal pro-Palestinian activist, can’t be easily fired because he has tenure. But he has been kicked out of his department" (NYT).

"An M.I.T. panel rejected the course over questions about whether Dr. DeGraff, a Haitian scholar and expert in the study of Creole languages, had the expertise to teach it. That was supposed to finish the matter.... He disagreed that he lacked the ability to teach the course.... 'M.I.T. should not be repressing my teaching in this way,' Dr. DeGraff said in an interview. He called the decision a 'violation of my professional rights.'..."

"The ruling from Judge Kelly, a Trump appointee, is a temporary reprieve..."

"It pauses a chaotic series of events that began last Friday, when Mr. Trump declared in a Truth Social post that the outlets were banned from the White House because of their reporting.... Judge Kelly’s rationale for ruling against the White House echoed his own reasoning in a similar case from November 2018, when Mr. Trump, in his first term, revoked the White House press credentials of the CNN journalist Jim Acosta. Mr. Acosta had not been given an opportunity to contest the decision, Judge Kelly said at the time. Fights over journalistic access have become a staple of Mr. Trump’s presidency...."

From "Judge Blocks Trump’s White House Ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico/Judge Timothy J. Kelly issued a temporary restraining order and told the White House to immediately restore the press credentials for the employees of the three news outlets" (NYT).

Trump is better off this way.

He's had his say against the press, but the press won — at least for now — and the fighting quiets down. The criticism of him is muffled. The leverage is gone. Trump can move on to things like this:

Trump just gave Xi the full American welcome package — Star-Spangled Banner, a rigid salute… then the sky starts roaring.

You don’t even see the jets. You HEAR them. That deafening B-2 / F-22 flyover rolls over Joint Base Andrews while Trump and Xi are standing there side by… pic.twitter.com/6zMNvVeqXQ

— Pete Santilli 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🎙️ (@petersantilli) September 24, 2026

ADDED: I love how Trump reacts like a human being — man, that's noisy! — and Xi holds his pose like a machine. That bland smile! Trump looks over at him as if the 2 of them could agree that the planes are indeed noisy, but Xi gave him nothing. They could have laughed together, Trump may have thought. But, no, Xi has one smile, for noise and for silence. Nothing is revealed.

"This morning, we notified the government that we are filing a lawsuit today to protect our First Amendment rights and defend the principle that the government does not decide what the press reports or publishes."

Say CNN, MS NOW, Politico, quoted in "CNN, MS NOW, Politico to sue White House over blocked access" (Axios).

Trump response, at Truth Social: "The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish. It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America. It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!"

"Washington professor who parodied university 'land acknowledgment' wins $600K settlement."

FIRE reports.

It has become increasingly common in academia to encourage statements that formally recognize indigenous ties to the land. In December 2021, Reges criticized land acknowledgment statements in an email to faculty, and the next month he parodied UW’s model statement in his syllabus: “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.” Reges’s statement was a nod to John Locke’s philosophical theory that property rights are established by labor, and a response to the Computer Science department’s recommendation that professors include the UW’s model statement in their syllabi. Reges objected to the political nature of the UW’s model statement and sought to demonstrate that there are competing views on the value of land acknowledgments.

That was retaliation and viewpoint discrimination [by the University] according to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"I’m pleased that the D.C. police recognize their part in violating my rights."

Said Sam O’Hara, quote in "Man who played Star Wars music at National Guard members receives settlement/The ACLU announced it had reached a financial agreement with the D.C. government and four of its officers, resolving part of the case" (WaPo)(gift link).

"For many years, these works have inspired audiences around the world by conveying values such as courage, friendship and perseverance."

"Because of this, many fans feel concerned when images from these works appear to be used in political or military contexts that may differ from the intentions of the original creators or rights holders. This petition seeks to convey the voices of fans who, precisely because Japanese manga and anime are so widely loved around the world, hope that their cultural value and context will be respected."

Says an online petition seeking an end to the use of anime in political satire, quoted in "Trump draws anger in Japan with ‘disrespectful’ cartoon fakes/Fans of anime have called for action against the US president, who posts AI-generated clips of himself as their comic-book heroes" (London Times).

I'll just express my opinion in blog tags: "free speech" and "lawsuits I hope will fail."

This made me think of the old Walt Disney Productions v. Air Pirates case. Wikipedia:

"In contrast to the refined intellectualism and impersonal aesthetic of artists like Sol LeWitt and Donald Judd, he offered an art that reveled in raw emotion, extroverted brushwork..."

"... and a fierce engagement with the complexities of 20th-century German history.... Mr. Baselitz’s 'Hero' series of 1965 and 1966 — blocky figures in thick impasto stumbling through tormented landscapes — plunged the viewer into a nightmare vision of postwar Germany. No less disturbing were the woodsmen, hunters and cows of the 'Fracture' series, disassembled into horizontal strips and merged with the landscape. In a break with convention, Mr. Baselitz began turning the central images in his canvases upside down in the late 1960s.... 'The hierarchy where the sky is at the top and the ground down below is in any case only an agreement, one we have all got used to, but one that we absolutely do not have to believe in,' Mr. Baselitz told the critic and historian Walter Grasskamp in 1984."

From "Georg Baselitz, German Neo-Expressionist Painter, Dies at 88/Along with contemporaries like Anselm Kiefer, he mounted a frontal attack on Minimalism and Conceptualism, the dominant 'cool' styles of the 1970s" (NYT).

Here's an example from the "Hero" series 

I wish Baselitz could have done the official portrait for... various political figures. But I will not say who because I'm chilled by the arrest of James Comey.

And here's an example from the "Fractures" series, totally inappropriate for an official portrait:

"It was an emotional reaction. I never imagined the gravity of it all."

Said Agostina Páez, a white Argentine woman, on trial for something she did when she was a tourist in Brazil.

She's quoted in "When Racism Is a Crime: Brazil Puts a Tourist on Trial for Word and Gesture/An Argentine woman, who is white, could face years in prison after being accused of racism. The case has set off intense debate in Argentina and Brazil" (NYT).

The video, recorded in January by an employee of the bar, showed Agostina Páez imitating a monkey and uttering a racist slur as she walked away.... Ms. Páez has said, online and in interviews, that the bar overcharged her and two Argentine friends. Then, as the women left, she claimed, the employees made obscene gestures toward them. 

Security camera footage from the bar, reviewed by The New York Times, appears to show an employee taunting the tourists as they were leaving the bar.

Here's the seemingly trivial interplay:

A statement from the prosecutor: "Brazil is being painted as this authoritarian country when we are only seeking justice for the harm done."

"Justices Reject Colorado Law Banning ‘Conversion Therapy’ for L.G.B.T.Q. Minors."

"Colorado and more than 20 other states restrict therapists from trying to change the gender identity or sexual orientation of L.G.B.T.Q. clients under the age of 18."

The NYT reports.

“Colorado may regard its policy as essential to public health and safety,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch wrote for himself and seven other justices from across the ideological spectrum. “But the First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech in this country.” 

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, reading a lengthy summary of her opposition from the bench.

Here's the opinion: Chiles v. Salazar. 

The Times headline needs to be sharpened up. The Court didn't "reject" the whole "law." The opinion says that the therapist, Chiles, "stresses that she provides only talk therapy, employing no physical techniques or medications." And the case returns to the lower court to apply the correct standard — strict scrutiny.

Jackson's idea:

"Here’s a thought experiment: imagine Instagram, but every single post is a video of paint drying."

"Same infinite scroll. Same autoplay. Same algorithmic recommendations. Same notification systems. Is anyone addicted? Is anyone harmed? Is anyone suing? Of course not. Because infinite scroll is not inherently harmful. Autoplay is not inherently harmful. Algorithmic recommendations are not inherently harmful. These features only matter because of the content they deliver. The 'addictive design' does nothing without the underlying user-generated content that makes people want to keep scrolling.... If every editorial decision about how to present third-party content is now a 'design choice' subject to product liability, Section 230 protects effectively nothing...."

Writes Mike Masnick, in "Everyone Cheering The Social Media Addiction Verdicts Against Meta Should Understand What They’re Actually Cheering For" (TechDirt).

I found that because David French links to it in "Don’t Cheer Too Hard for the Facebook Verdicts." French writes: "It’s quite possible that these verdicts will be overturned or heavily modified on appeal. But that process can take years. In the meantime, there will almost certainly be many more trials and many more verdicts that will put social media companies under pressure to increase their own censorship and their own controls over free speech online."

Afroman tells his own story: "My proof's on the internet."

For a quick read, go here: "Afroman found not liable in bizarre defamation case brought by Ohio cops who raided his home" (NY Post): "The hip hop star wrote the satirical song 'Lemon Pound Cake' and made a music video with real footage of the raid taken from his home surveillance cameras to raise money for property damage caused during the search, he has said. Seven cops with the sheriff’s office then sued him in March 2023, alleging the music video defamed them, invaded their constitutional privacy, and was an intentional infliction of emotional distress...."

Here's penguinz0 with clips from the trial and mockery of the plaintiffs for their Streisand effect problem:

Here's Afroman's impressive testimony.

Here's "Lemon Pound Cake," one of the songs that led to the lawsuit, with the security camera footage of the cop's cake double-take:

"When a spectator shouted that banning clapping was 'undemocratic,' the mayor countered that 'clapping for some and not all is not democratic'..."

"... and that 'we have to allow for people to feel safe to say what they feel.' The mayor’s attempt at enforcing her idea of civility only prompted more shouting, after which she said: 'I’m not going to argue. If I hear any more clapping or disruption from the crowd, I will have to unfortunately have you all removed.' 'Do it now! Do it to me!' David Reed, 77, a Takoma Park resident, yelled, according to the city’s video recording of the meeting. More applause followed. 'You’re not the dictator of the council!' Paul Huebner, 75, a retired project manager, shouted. 'This is outrageous!'... The kerfuffle prompted a robust discussion among the lawmakers about civility and First Amendment rights that spilled into subsequent meetings and online discussions over the next two weeks...."

From "A mayor ordered no clapping at a city meeting. Applause did not follow. The Takoma Park, Maryland, mayor’s order that people not clap during a public meeting led to insults and even a poll" (WaPo).

It's funny that the mayor used the word "democratic" to refer to responding to every person and every idea equally. It strikes me as the very opposite of democracy. In democracy, people choose, we express favoritism, and the person that gets the most support obtains power to impose it on others.

The real victim is Jasmine Crockett.

I'm reading "The Colbert-CBS spat is about overregulation/Keeping the equal-time rule in place is a political choice" — gift link. That's by the Editorial Board of The Washington Post.

I remember writing about FCC regulation when I was a law student — I graduated in 1981 — and even back then the argument was made that times have changed and the basis for regulation — the scarcity of the airwaves — was being overtaken by technology — then, cable TV. I remember using the phrase "based on a future that has not yet arrived," because cable TV was expensive and it wasn't even available everywhere. But now, it's 45 years later, and the FCC is still pressuring broadcast media avoid the most egregious sort of political imbalance.

The equal-time rule hasn’t been vigorously enforced in recent years, reflecting its obsolescence. But as with many outdated business regulations, Congress hasn’t bothered to revoke it.

"The State Department is taking decisive action against five individuals who have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose."

Said Marco Rubio, quoted in "'Witch hunt': Ex-EU commissioner Breton denounces U.S. visa ban targeting ‘censorship'" (CNBC). 

The Trump administration imposed visa bans on Thierry Breton, a former European Union commissioner behind the Digital Services Act (DSA), and four anti-disinformation campaigners, accusing them of censoring U.S. social media platforms.... The DSA forces tech giants like Google and Meta to police illegal content more aggressively, or face hefty fines.... 

Breton... wrote on X: “Is McCarthy’s witch hunt back?” He added: “As a reminder: 90% of the European Parliament — our democratically elected body — and all 27 Member States unanimously voted the DSA. To our American friends: Censorship isn’t where you think it is."

I can't find anything by Breton explaining his idea of "where" censorship really is. Try to persuade us, Thierry. Give us a chance to argue with you. If you've got a good idea put it up for sale in the marketplace of ideas. Prove us wrong.

ADDED: Breton seems to be giving priority to whatever the majority decides to do. We Americans have traditionally put individual rights above majoritarian choice. I suspect that when he says "Censorship isn’t where you think it is," he means it's never censorship when it's done democratically. Believe that, and you don't believe in individual rights. 

"[I]t is now clearly established that I cannot be prosecuted for saying, in this essay, 'Members of the military have not only the right, but the obligation, to refuse illegal orders.'"

"Nor could I be prosecuted for stating, as I also have, that the orders to kill suspected drug smugglers are illegal. The First Amendment protects all such statements. Indeed, it protects explicit calls for illegal conduct unless the speech is both intended and likely to incite imminent illegality, a standard rarely met, and one not even approached by Senator Kelly’s words...."

Writes David Cole, in "Mark Kelly Is Being Investigated for Telling the Truth" (NYT)(gift link, so you can read the whole thing, including the part that rejects the idea that Kelly has less free speech because he's a retired member of the military).

"You rely heavily on the history of regulating the medical profession. What's the history of regulating therapists? When did that begin?"

Asked Justice Thomas in yesterday's oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar. 

He was speaking to the lawyer defending a Colorado law that prohibited licensed therapists from delivering treatments aimed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. 

The lawyer, Shannon W. Stevenson, responded with a surprisingly early date:

Mental health care and healthcare delivered through words were both well-established at the founding of this country. At that time, such practices were primarily carried out by physicians, whose work largely involved giving advice through words.

That's a far cry from the history of regulating therapists, but I'm intrigued by the idea of people in the late 18th century talking to their doctors about their mental difficulties. And when did the licensing of doctors begin? That is a much older idea, going back the middle ages. But I think licensing therapists is much more recent, and Stevenson quickly pivots to that:

"The medical consensus is usually reasonable and important. But have there been times when it has been politicized or influenced by ideology?"

Said Justice Alito in yesterday's oral argument in Chiles v. Salazar. He was confronting the lawyer defending Colorado's law prohibiting licensed therapy treatments aimed at changing a minor's sexual orientation or gender identity. The lawyer responds:

MS. STEVENSON: We have no facts about that in this case, but I wouldn’t disagree that it’s possible.

JUSTICE ALITO: Isn’t it a fact that it’s happened in the past?... “Three generations of idiots are enough”?

Those few quoted words invoke an infamous case, Buck v. Bell, where a state had seen fit to sterilize  a "feeble minded woman" without her consent. The Supreme Court did not object to the state's approach to medical science.

MS. STEVENSON: That’s certainly a concern. If there were evidence in the record that a standard of care wasn’t based on patient safety, that would be highly relevant.

Justice Alito didn't ask about whether the motive was correct — whether medical scientists were sincerely pursuing patient safety. He was concerned with whether the goal was pursued in a truly scientific manner and was not skewed by politics and ideology. 

JUSTICE ALITO: Isn’t that a reason to apply First Amendment scrutiny when what’s being regulated is pure speech, rather than just accepting the medical standard of care and medical consensus as the end of the matter, allowing rational basis review where anything goes?

The lawyer must resist this idea that the therapy is "pure speech." The idea she uses is that these are "words used to deliver medical treatment" (which are different from words expressing the opinion that conversion therapy is good (or bad)):

"If you are a minor struggling with gender dysphoria, and you want to become comfortable with your body, the Colorado law won’t allow that."

"But there is an explicit exception in the law that allows a counselor to encourage a gender transition."

Said Jim Campbell, lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom, quoted in "Supreme Court to hear arguments on Colorado ban of conversion therapy for minors" (WaPo). Oral argument is this morning.

The Supreme Court laid out a test for state laws regulating speech by medical professionals in a 2018 case. The government must show a compelling interest to impose content-based regulation on professional speech and must narrowly tailor any such law, the court ruled. Nevertheless, the high court found the government could regulate professional conduct that “incidentally” steps on free speech rights.... 

The state points to studies that show conversion therapy is ineffective and harmful.... What’s more, the state argues, if the Supreme Court embraces [the therapist's] free speech arguments, it could undermine professional standards and consumer protections....

There seems to be a weakness in the whole idea of the government licensing talk therapists. People can talk to each other about whatever they want, when there's no issue of the state giving the relationship a seal of approval. Once there is a system of designating some conversationalists "licensed therapists," it must consist of line-drawing about speech. 

And if Colorado gets away with its ban on conversion therapy, wouldn't that entitle some other state to ban affirming transgender identity?

UPDATED: I listened to most of the oral argument (which was available at the WaPo link). I'll have more to say when I get the transcript. 3 things I'll be looking for are: 1. Whether the state can take sides in what is really an ideological dispute, 2. Would the state's argument work in "mirror image" cases, where a state has adopted the other ideological side, and 3. Did the lawyer for Colorado really say that "talk therapy" was around at the time of the founding?

"The Trump administration’s push earlier this year to arrest and deport international students for their pro-Palestinian activism was illegal, a federal judge ruled Tuesday..."

"... calling the crackdown a 'truly scandalous and unconstitutional suppression of free speech.' In a sweeping rebuke, U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston said that the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department sought to target non-citizens 'for speaking out' with the 'goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated' students. Young [a Reagan appointee] decried the administration’s conduct in striking terms, quoting President Ronald Reagan’s declaration that freedom must 'be fought for and defended constantly by each generation.”

From "Trump administration illegally targeted pro-Palestinian protesters, judge rules/The efforts to detain and deport noncitizen activists earlier this year represented an unconstitutional infringement on the First Amendment, the ruling says" (WaPo)(gift link).

"Driven by the belief that liberal tech and media companies have unfairly silenced viewpoints on the right, [Brendan] Carr is working to transform the F.C.C. from a once sleepy agency..."

"... best known for licensing local TV stations and expanding 5G cellular networks into a protector of conservative speech.... Mr. Carr, who became the F.C.C. chairman in January, has argued in recent days that he has been a consistent champion of the First Amendment and said he was helping protect free speech by weighing in on local TV programming decisions that no longer serve the public interest.... Much of the F.C.C.’s power lies in its control over licenses for stations that lease access to airwaves. A license holder is 'required by law to operate its station in the "public interest, convenience and necessity,"' according to the agency, which has rarely revoked licenses.... '[Local broadcasters] have something special that distinguishes them from lots of other speakers, which is that they have this right to use the federal spectrum, which is a scarce resource,' Mr. Carr said at the public meeting. 'For a lot of years, the F.C.C. walked away from enforcing that public interest obligation.'"

I'm reading "Brendan Carr Plans to Keep Going After the Media/While 'Jimmy Kimmel Live!' returned to ABC on Tuesday, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission has promised to continue his campaign against what he sees as liberal bias in broadcasts" (NYT).

I don't trust Carr's judgment (or his ability to articulate the scope of the FCC's power), but I wish his critics would be meticulous about the broadcast media context and the "public interest" limitation imposed on licensees.