Monthly Archives: November 2015

What would Santa say?

‘Tis the season — though I’m not sure why. (Should I be offended at Santa Claus showing up before Halloween?) Anyway, some retailers got in trouble with consumers this week for jokes that misfired. Continue reading →

Just when you thought you’d heard it all: In 2014, you may recall, a federal trademark appeal board cancelled the trademark registration of the Washington, DC, professional football team’s name, the “Redskins,” holding it offensive to Native Americans. The board said the mark is barred by the Lanham Act’s ban on disparaging names that may lead some people to hold others in contempt. In July a federal district court rejected a challenge to the board’s decision, holding that a trademark is “government speech” and so not shielded by the First Amendment. Continue reading →

Making Sense of the Flotsam

Stuffed into folders, stacked on my desktop, and strewn about elsewhere are random piles of articles more or less about “offense.” It’s time to put them into some kind of order. That will no doubt offend some people. Continue reading →

Anger verboten

Offense of the Month: November 2015.
A little hard to classify, this one. You’ve probably already read the story. A black woman in a hoodie is taking morning exercise in the street in her neighborhood in an affluent Dallas suburb. Cue white cops. They suggest she walk on other side of street, or even sidewalk, to better see traffic, to be safer. They ask to see ID and radio police station for a “name check.” All in three minutes. Police leave. A few days later, woman, a professor and dean of the University of North Texas Mayborn School of Journalism, publishes angry op-ed in the Dallas Morning News, claiming racial profiling: Continue reading →

2021: The Year in Review

Offenses of the Month, 2021
When 2021 began, I thought it was a year destined for quiet and change, one that I could devote to other literary pursuits. All I’d need to do, I supposed, was collect the few stories of the sort of offenders of the month who typically outwit themselves. Now, with 2021 just hours from seeping away, my report.

January to May
Right-Wing Snowflakism
By now it’s conventional wisdom that it’s left-leaning professors, students, and political action groups who pose a threat to American free-speech traditions through their hypersensitivity and promotion of politically-correct culture. To a point, the charge may even occasionally be true. But every once in a while, events unfold in such a way to show that the aversion to mockery, derision, and put-downs is a universal feeling, affecting even stalwart libertarians who ordinarily exalt free-speech principles over free-speech outcomes. Witness the spectacle of Stanford University Law School’s moment of stupidity.

About three weeks after the lethal mob attack on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, Nicholas Wallace, a third-year law student at Stanford, emailed fellow students a satirical flyer announcing a mock event titled “The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection.” The flyer claimed to be from Stanford’s chapter of the Federalist Society, a well-known libertarian organization, largely based at American law schools, that promotes conservative legal principles and judicial appointments. The flyer attacked, by name, U.S. Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, both major supporters of the laughable claim that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. The flyer’s tone was wildly over the top, advising students that they would be emailed riot information hours before the event, and calmly proclaiming that even though it conflicted with the rule of law, “violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government.”

In late March, Federalist chapter officers protested to the university that its members had been defamed and otherwise harmed in significant ways. On May 27, five days after the society pressed the university to act (or so the university said), Stanford officials notified Wallace that his degree, due to be awarded just fifteen days later, might be held up because of possible misconduct in circulating the flyers. Six days later, on June 2, Stanford relented. According to newspaper accounts, the university’s legal counsel told its law school administrators what you might have supposed law school administrators would already know, that Wallace’s email was legally protected speech. Stanford said it would reassess its procedures for holding up diplomas under such circumstances. read-more..

Taking Offense

Monthly Archives: November 2015

What would Santa say?

Making Sense of the Flotsam

Anger verboten

Offense of the Month

2021: The Year in Review

Dishonor Roll

Tilting at Filters or the Post-Postmodern Bowdler

The Wages of Giving Offense: From King to Clown in 23 Days

Midsummer Night’s Scream

May I call you Mr. Potato Head, instead of, oh, I blush to say?

From contact sport to social distancing

A Potpourri of Idiocies

Time Bombs

Mocking Misery

Megyn Kelly Flames Out

Meek Disinherited

Turtles, but not all the way down

Dying anyway

Gingrich Gets Giddy

Donald Trump, Olympian Offender

Less Majesty, More Speech in Germany

Meow

Wanted: Zombies without a Past

Football Über Alles

Anger verboten

TrumpGate?

Archives

Favorite Links