First Amendment news

Those of you who enjoy irony, or maybe mental confusion, may want to take a look at the dissent in the recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that turned down an appeal of a defamation ruling against Donald Trump.

A pair of Trump-appointed judges produced a full-throated defense of the First Amendment and the principles of New York Times v. Sullivan.

I’m a sort-of news person so I have a hard time arguing with that — but will those same judges do the same thing the next time the president is the plaintiff suing, say, The New York Times?

It’s too easy being cynical these days — but it’s fun.

Someone may want to keep track of how those two judges rule in the next defamation case.

More First Amendment. A federal judge in Dallas has ruled against a group of SOBs. “SOBs get what they deserve in court” should have been the headline if anyone had covered the story. At least that’s what I would have written.

SOBs, of course, are sexually oriented businesses. They get no respect and local rules about them can be very odd.

The rule in this particular case was that they had to be closed between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. The crime rate at night rationale might make sense for the first part of that, but why let them open at 6 a.m.? Are there people who require strippers first thing in the morning?

OK, there’s probably less crime at 6 a.m. but how does 6 a.m. compare to 5:30 a.m.? Should Daylight Stripping Time be a factor?

The SOBs, in case you’re wondering, claimed the regulation violated the First and Fourteenth amendments. What if there’s a need for free expression at 3 a.m.?

The judge didn’t care: “The record contains no evidence suggesting that a twenty-hour window, rather than a twenty-four hour window, is essential to the expressive nature of the performances, or that twenty hours is an inadequate amount of time for protected expression.”

A break from all that communicating is probably a good thing. Consult a physician if your protected expression lasts more than four hours.

Dangerous expression. It’s easy to be critical of police, but you have to remember they have feelings.

They also have guns and jails they can take you to.

A guy in New Mexico who was trying to be funny discovered this the hard way after he made a trio of TikTok videos while wearing what looked like a New Mexico State Trooper uniform that he found at a dry cleaner.

Troopers took offence and charged the comic, Aldin Hamdy, with the crime of Unauthorized Wearing of Uniform or Badge.

According to the suit filed on behalf of Hamdy this month, one of the officers filed a probable cause statement that said they started investigating after hearing that someone was “making videos nefarious in nature” that were “upsetting” to officers.

Weird comedy can hit hard.

My favorite line from the lawsuit is this: “Mr. Hamdy further attempts to connect with his community by helping the owner of a small local dry cleaner.”

You’ve got to love a clean comic.