Seriously I’ve been reading up on this assuming that there has to be something more to the story than “it’s illegal to support a boycott,” because that’s laughably unconstitutional, but definitely something I could see the media wrongly reporting. And.......I’ve come up with nothing. It really seems that ridiculous…

This is one of those issues that splits the movement in two. On one side, you have Sessions and the cop boot-lickers, whose primary goal is to pander to police. On the other side, you have the libertarians and libertarian-leaners (think Amash and Rand Paul) who have been opposed to this for years (there’s an article…

Part of the reform efforts stems from the fact that colleges have wildly different procedures for hearing these claims, and it sounds like your school provides far more protections for accused students than many schools.

They were being sued for sponsoring a targeted campaign against a student, which the student claims was based on a false rape accusation. The fact that the school found him not responsible doesn’t help.

I was a bit surprised that the judge only let in one other allegation (to prove that this was a pattern and specific M.O.); I would have thought you would have had more people testify in order to prove the pattern of conduct. That being said, not letting 13 people testify was clearly correct, because at some point…

It’s actually been standard for every type of crime for hundreds of years to not let people testify about prior occasions of people committing the same crime. This is subject to limited exceptions, and (in the federal system) subject to an exception that makes it easier to prosecute people for sex crimes.

Someone mentioned hearsay below, which I suspect is why the objection was sustained, but I wanted to add that a jury COULD consider this as a reason not to report, but you would need to have the father testify and say that. You can’t have somebody else testify about what the father would say/feel

Law student not yet a lawyer, but my understanding is that a prosecutor can’t admit evidence of prior bad acts to show that a person has a propensity to act in that way, and therefore did. So for example, you couldn’t admit evidence of prior rapes by Bill Cosby to say “see, Bill Cosby is the kind of person who rapes…

My bad. I actually had the RAINN link copied and ready to paste into my comment, and then forgot.

This is a common belief, but I don’t think it’s true. Per RAINN, about 63% of rape cases referred to prosecutors result in a conviction, which is higher than robbery, and significantly higher than assault & battery. The problem isn’t jurors or defense attorney actions; it’s cases not being reported or prosecuted in…

The other thing I’m concerned with is Kleindiest v. Mandel, where the Court upheld a law banning the entry of Marxists. While there’s a lot of stuff in the case about Congressional delegation of power to the executive, the holding ultimately has to accept that Congress can bar the entry of Marxists because they’re…

This is just patently untrue. Thomas writes his own opinions (which nobody joins, usually because Thomas wants to overturn precedent) all the damn time.

Wait, they were straight-up standing in front of the clinic doors? Yeah....can’t do that. Even the angriest Scalia dissents in the abortion clinic protest cases make it clear that states can obviously prevent that because.....duh

After listening to your butchering of First Amendment law, if I had to go associate with the Gamergate pondscum and listen to their butchering of the First Amendment I might actually get an aneurysm

Ah yes, I point out that your idea that government can shut down speech that violates “school values” is patently false, you respond with a temper tantrum.    This is the natural response of an ignorant fool who knows nothing, is confronted with their utter ignorance, but refuses to accept that they know nothing. …

Well, you’re beyond help, as is the other person I was talking to. Thankfully, the first amendment exists as an actual body of law outside your own fantasies.

Oh good, you’ve finally decided to get Chaplinsky completely 100% wrong.

No, they could not shut down those student groups if they “violated the code of conduct or school values.” The code of conduct itself cannot viewpoint discriminate because that would violate the First Amendment. It also violates the “values of America” to say that all black people should be re-enslaved, but the…

This is false. Berkeley is a public university, it is therefore a state actor, and is thus bound by the First Amendment. The university may establish content and viewpoint neutral restrictions on who may speak and what they may say, but it cannot discriminate based on viewpoint. See, once again, Rosenberger. And…

Well first of all, advocating violence is also protected by the first amendment unless the speech is directed towards and likely to cause imminent lawless action (see Brandenburg v. Ohio and Hess v. Indiana).