In the Mid-1960s in the rural South, I fought anonymous protesters in White Hoods. They were afraid to be identified and linked to their cause. Because, you know, they might lose their job.
I fail to see a difference between them and the Yale “protestors” on the issue of anonymity. Job loss is job loss. Only the spineless hide.
It's worth emphasizing that all members of the press were excluded, as mentioned in your post. The Washington Free Beacon was not singled out.
Judge Ho, and all of those who signed-on to his collective punishment of YLS graduates, will forever suffer the consequences: Whenever a case involving free speech comes before them, they can be forced to recuse themselves. On top of this, by refusing to consider individual applicants on their own merits, they are acting in bad faith. Arguably, these judges are violating their oaths of office. Certainly the most basic principle of jurisprudence is that each case must be decided on its own merits.
Another refreshingly fair and balanced summary by Mr. Lat! No agenda--I love it.
In the Mid-1960s in the rural South, I fought anonymous protesters in White Hoods. They were afraid to be identified and linked to their cause. Because, you know, they might lose their job.
I fail to see a difference between them and the Yale “protestors” on the issue of anonymity. Job loss is job loss. Only the spineless hide.
It's worth emphasizing that all members of the press were excluded, as mentioned in your post. The Washington Free Beacon was not singled out.
Judge Ho, and all of those who signed-on to his collective punishment of YLS graduates, will forever suffer the consequences: Whenever a case involving free speech comes before them, they can be forced to recuse themselves. On top of this, by refusing to consider individual applicants on their own merits, they are acting in bad faith. Arguably, these judges are violating their oaths of office. Certainly the most basic principle of jurisprudence is that each case must be decided on its own merits.