Podcasts about argued

A psychiatrist has told a jury the man who lit the fatal Loafers Lodge fire was insane at the time and had no intention of hurting anyone. The 50-year-old defendant has denied murdering five people by setting the Wellington boarding hostel alight in 2023. Lauren Crimp is following the trial at the High Court in Wellington.

Episode 36: Center for Arizona Policy, Inc., et al. v. Arizona Secretary of State, et al.Center for Arizona Policy, et al. v. Arizona Secretary of State, et al., argued before the Arizona Supreme Court on September 11, 2025. Argued by Andrew Gould (on behalf of Center for Arizona Policy, Inc., et al.) and Eric Fraser and Alexander Samuels on behalf of Arizona.Background of the case [from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief]: Proposition 211 imposes sweeping disclosure rules unlike anything seen before. On every metric, the law expands on its predecessors. It covers more people, more speech, for longer time. Where other laws narrow, Proposition 211 widens. It is a drastic evolution in compelled disclosure—and one that should not survive constitutional scrutiny. But what kind of scrutiny even applies? The First Amendment requires what's called “exacting scrutiny.” See Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595, 607 (2021) (“AFPF”). It's a high bar in theory—part of the increasingly convoluted “tiers of scrutiny” the federal courts have adopted. Under this standard, a law's constitutionality often boils down to “if, in the judge's view, the law is sufficiently reasonable or important.” United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 731 (2024) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). Yet that “kind of balancing approach to constitutional interpretation” is inconsistent with “what judges as umpires should strive to do.” Id. (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).  Fortunately, “the Arizona Constitution provides broader protections for free speech than the First Amendment.” Brush & Nib Studios, LC v. Phoenix, 247 Ariz. 269, 281 (Ariz. 2019). Those protections do not depend on courts weighing the value of amorphous governmental interests. Rather, Arizona's Constitution guarantees that “[e]very person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects.” Ariz. Const. art. II, § 6. And this Court has taken a “more literal application” of that language, mandating that courts “avoid, where possible, attempts to erode [these rights] by balancing them against . . . governmental interests,” Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm'n, 160 Ariz. 350, 357 (Ariz. 1989).  That means laws like Proposition 211 do not live or die based on the freewheeling balancing that tests like “exacting scrutiny” rely on. If the law burdens the right to speak freely, it violates the Arizona Constitution unless the state can show it prevents abuse. See Plaintiffs' Supp. Br. at 5–6. And since no one disputes that Proposition 211's expansive disclosure rules deter protected speech, and no one argues that it targets abusive speech, it cannot survive scrutiny.  Statement of the issues [from the Arizona Supreme Court docket listing]: Is the Voters' Right to Know Act facially unconstitutional under the Ariz. Constitution? If not, did the court of appeals properly dismiss Plaintiffs-Appellants' as-applied challenge?Resources: Proposition 211 Language Institute for Free Speech Amicus Brief Institute for Free Speech Press Release The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 35: Gays Against Groomers, et al. v. Garcia, et al.Gays Against Groomers, et al. v. Garcia, et al., argued before Judges Joel M. Carson, David M. Ebel, and Richard E. N. Federico in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 10, 2025. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Del Kolde (on behalf of Gays Against Groomers, et al.) and Edward T. Ramey (on behalf of Garcia, et al.)Background of the case [from the Institute for Free Speech case page]:Colorado legislators' actions to suppress and ban disfavored speech during public comment time on HB24-1071, dubbed “Tiara's Law,” represent an alarming assault on First Amendment rights. Trans ideology requires adherents to use a trans-identifying person's preferred pronouns and adopted trans name. Doing otherwise is called “misgendering” or “deadnaming.” During hearings on what its sponsors called “Tiara's Law” certain legislators required that all speakers refrain from misgendering or deadnaming and engage only in “respectful discourse.” Speakers who failed to comply were interrupted, cut off, and prevented from expressing their opinions, including that “Tiara” is a male felon who illustrates why name changes should not be so easy. One speaker even had her testimony erased from the public record.  That's why Institute for Free Speech attorneys filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the group Gays Against Groomers, the Rocky Mountain Women's Network, and individuals from those groups affected by this attempt to shut down debate over transgender legislation. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, named Colorado State Representatives Lorena Garcia, Mike Weissman, Leslie Herod, and State Senators Julie Gonzales and Dafna Michaelson Jenet as having unlawfully restricted or chilled speech related to trans issues, particularly as it pertains to debate over “Tiara's Law.” Statement of the issues [from the Appellants' Opening Brief]:Does the First Amendment prohibit state actors from engaging in viewpoint discrimination during the public comment portions of legislative committee hearings, which the parties agree are limited public fora?Do legislators enjoy absolute legislative immunity for enforcing a viewpoint-based censorship regime during a public comment period on pending legislation that results in the silencing of individuals who dissent from transgender ideology, including the concepts of “misgendering” and “deadnaming?”Is legislative immunity a personal defense available to legislators sued in their official capacities for declarative and injunctive relief?Are claims for injunctive and declaratory relief moot where defendant legislators still maintain vague and subjective decorum rules, have previously censored disfavored views on a current topic, do not disavow future enforcement, and have erased, but not restored, a public comment due to the viewpoint expressed?In a case involving a dispute about transgender ideology, is it unlawful and prejudicial for the district court to require parties and their counsel to adhere to transgender ideology, including to conform their speech to the ideology by mandating the use of preferred pronouns contrary to their conscience and providing for a reporting mechanism for those who do not comply?Resources:Institute for Free Speech Case PageAppellants' Opening BriefAppellees' Answer BriefAppellants' Reply BriefThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 34: Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes LopezMoving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes Lopez, argued en banc before Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Consuelo M. Callahan, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, John B. Owens, Ryan D. Nelson, Eric D. Miller, Daniel P. Collins, Lawrence VanDyke, Lucy H. Koh, and Jennifer Sung for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 9, 2025. Argued by Chad Morgan (on behalf of Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc.) and Holly Whatley on behalf of Lourdes Lopez. Background of the case [from the Institute for Free Speech case page]:The City of Oxnard in California crafted a campaign finance law aimed at silencing its most vocal critic. That's why the Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief in Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes Lopez. The brief argues that “the city's deliberate attempt to silence a challenger by eliminating the financing that only he used is an attack on the democratic process, and the First Amendment requires an ‘independent and careful' review under closely drawn scrutiny.” The City of Oxnard targeted Aaron Starr and his nonprofit organization Moving Oxnard Forward through Measure B, a ballot measure that included caps on individual contributions to political campaigns. Starr has been a vocal critic of members of the Oxnard City Council, and Measure B's restrictions would disproportionately affect Starr's primary form of fundraising. Over the years, the Supreme Court has determined that contribution limits must be aimed at “quid pro quo corruption or its appearance.” However, as the panel's opinion in the case notes, “Measure B's campaign finance limits were much more closely drawn to the prohibited objective of stopping Starr rather than remedying corruption concerns.” In addition to challenging the constitutionality of Measure B, the brief also calls on the Ninth Circuit to overturn decisions in Montana Right to Life Ass'n v. Eddleman and Lair v. Motl., stating that the erroneous decisions “bless government abridgement of speech and association with the use of a standard that falls short even of intermediate scrutiny.” Resources:CourtListener page for Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes LopezInstitute for Free Speech amicus briefNinth Circuit OpinionCity of Oxnard Measure BThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

The JL boys investigate what happens when someone leaves no will, or maybe they did depending on what a court constitutes an acceptable medium for sorting their means. And despite painful circumstances of both losing the same loved one two women reach a compromise, find common ground and avoid a continued courtroom confrontation.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sean and Daniel kick off a brand new series investigating a family feud over a contested will, an inheritance of seemingly biblical proportions and even allegations of murder. Then, after all the complex legal issues and arguments of blasphemous commentary end this family saga would reoccur 13 years later as another multi-million dollar battle begins.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Japan goes after arcades, Nintendo's Famicon gets its first licensee & Gamers come together online These stories and many more on this episode of the VGNRTM! This episode we will look back at the biggest stories in and around the video game industry in October 1984.  As always, we'll mostly be using magazine cover dates, and those are of course always a bit behind the actual events. Alex Smith of They Create Worlds is our cohost.  Check out his podcast here: https://www.theycreateworlds.com/ and order his book here: https://www.theycreateworlds.com/book Get us on your mobile device: Android:  https://www.google.com/podcasts?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly92aWRlb2dhbWVuZXdzcm9vbXRpbWVtYWNoaW5lLmxpYnN5bi5jb20vcnNz iOS:      https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/video-game-newsroom-time-machine And if you like what we are doing here at the podcast, don't forget to like us on your podcasting app of choice, YouTube, and/or support us on patreon! https://www.patreon.com/VGNRTM Send comments on Mastodon @videogamenewsroomtimemachine@oldbytes.space Or twitter @videogamenewsr2 Or Instagram https://www.instagram.com/vgnrtm Or videogamenewsroomtimemachine@gmail.com Links: If you don't see all the links, find them here:     https://www.patreon.com/posts/137421899 7 Minutes in Heaven: Lazy Jones Video Version: https://www.patreon.com/posts/7-minutes-in-137421447     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazy_Jones Corrections: September 1984 Ep - https://www.patreon.com/posts/september-1984-127470165 Ethan's fine site The History of How We Play: https://thehistoryofhowweplay.wordpress.com/     https://archive.org/details/atariincbusiness0000gold     http://jerrymomoda.com/universal-vs-nintendo-part-i-2/     https://www.patreon.com/posts/83174490/     https://www.filfre.net/2016/05/kit-williamss-golden-hare-part-1-the-contest/page_1big/     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Uz0LMbWpI         https://archive.org/details/zaprisefall00cohe/mode/2up      1944     Coinmen looking forward to VE Day     https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-03.pdf  pg. 1        https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-10.pdf pg. 3        https://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=2735         https://www.ipdb.org/machine.cgi?id=2736     https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-31.pdf   pg. 2     https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-10.pdf  pg. 2          https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/40s/44/CB-1944-10-17.pdf   pg. 5 First National Electronics Conference held     https://www.nytimes.com/1944/10/06/archives/electronics-holds-postwar-promise-war-expansion-of-uses-aids-in.html?searchResultPosition=2 1954     Popular Electronics debuts     https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/50s/54/Pop-1954-10.pdf    pg. 52 Von Neumann joins Atomic Energy Commission     https://www.nytimes.com/1954/10/24/archives/oppenheimer-friend-named-to-the-aec-von-neumann-gets-vacancy-on-aec.html?searchResultPosition=3        https://www.nytimes.com/1954/10/24/archives/von-neumann-had-key-hbomb-role-princeton-scientist-created.html?searchResultPosition=5 New York Magistrate resigns to head Comics Code Authority      https://www.nytimes.com/1954/10/02/archives/magistrate-resigns-murphy-to-draft-a-code-for-comic-magazine.html?searchResultPosition=4 1964     UNIVAC experiments with airflow computing     https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/18/archives/new-digital-computer-introduced-by-univac.html?searchResultPosition=2 Big Tech hit by defense spending cuts     https://www.nytimes.com/1964/10/13/archives/watson-announces-ibm-profits-mark-for-third-quarter.html?searchResultPosition=65 Bowling gets computerized     https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/60s/64/Pop-1964-10.pdf   pg. 46 1974     ASCII code extensions proposed     https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Poptronics/70s/1974/Poptronics-1974-10.pdf   pg. 26       https://www.aivosto.com/articles/charsets-7bit.html#body       Atari Debuts Touch Me     https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1974/CB-1974-10-19.pdf   pg. 31 Sega sponsors video game tournament     https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/70s/1974/CB-1974-10-26.pdf  pg. 45         https://segaretro.org/Sega_TV_Game-ki_Zenkoku_Contest     1984: Hasbro buys Milton Bradley     Toys Hobbies & Crafts, October 1984 Warner returns to profitability     "Posts $24.4 Million Profit Compared With Loss a Year Ago, The Associated Press October 23, 1984, Tuesday, AM cycle, Section: Business News" Atari Games Inc. established     Replay, October 1984, pg. 15      Jack is looking for cash     The second time around, Forbes, October 8, 1984, Section: COMPANIES; Pg. 42, Byline: By Anne Bagamery     Electronic Games, October 1984, pg. 12     Gerard Leaves as Warner Co-President, The Associated Press, October 16, 1984, Tuesday, AM cycle, Section: Business News Commodore financials break records     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater      Apple numbers soar     Apple earnings soar six-fold in quarter, Financial Times (London,England), October 19, 1984, Friday, Section: SECTION II; International Companies; Pg. 21 TI settles investor suit     Suit costs TI $12 million, Computerworld, October 15, 1984, Section: COMPUTER INDUSTRY; Pg. 116 Ocean buys Imagine     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/mode/1up?view=theater Sinclair buys rights to bandersnatch     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-11/mode/1up?view=theater     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-04/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater Activision to spend big as computer game maker     ACTIVISION; Details pre-Christmas advertising and promotion plans, Business Wire, October 24, 1984, Wednesday            ACTIVISION; Financial results, Business Wire, October 29, 1984, Monday PCS going into bankruptcy     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater      Konami goes public     KONAMI INDUSTRY TRADED FIRST AT 8,300 YEN, Copyright 1984 Jiji Press Ltd.Jiji Press Ticker Service, OCTOBER 1, 1984, MONDAY Japanese Arcade law     https://archive.org/details/game-machine-magazine-19841001p/page/n18/mode/1up?view=theater Japanese arcades diversify     https://archive.org/details/game-machine-magazine-19841015p/page/n16/mode/1up Chuck E. Cheese operations normalize     Play Meter, October 15, 1984, pg. 9 Fighting games are all the rage     Replay, October 1984, pg. 16     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch-Out!! AMOA set to be the battle of the carts     Replay, October 1984, pg. 27, pg. 31 Video Games donated to Smithsonian     https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-All-Music/Cash-Box/80s/1984/CB-1984-10-20.pdf  pg. 38      Namco moves to Famicom     https://archive.org/details/game-machine-magazine-19841001p/page/n18/mode/1up?view=theater     http://www.videogameden.com/fc.htm?lor      Parker Bros may be getting out     https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/page/n14/mode/1up?view=theater     Tom Dusenberry - Parker Brothers - Hasbro - Atari - https://www.patreon.com/posts/42807419 Adam woes continue     https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/mode/1up?view=theater     https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/page/105/mode/1up?view=theater     Cabbage Patch Sales Boost Coleco's 3rd-Qtr Profit, The Associated Press, October 25, 1984, Thursday, AM cycle, Section: Business News          No Headline In Original, United Press International, October 24, 1984, Wednesday, BC cycle, Section: Financial     Adam promotion costs hit earnings at Coleco, Financial Times (London,England), October 30, 1984, Tuesday, Section: SECTION II; International Companies; Pg. 15 Oric on the ropes     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-04/mode/1up?view=theater GEC drops MSX plans     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-11/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater Sega to launch MSX in UK     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater          https://www.msx.org/wiki/Yashica_YC-64         https://www.msx.org/wiki/Category:Yeno Amstrad bullish on CPC     Amstrad stays Sugar sweet, The Guardian (London), October 4, 1984, Byline: By MAGGIE BROWN Commodore prepping 128     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/mode/1up?view=theater Sinclair denies rumors of expanded speccy     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-04/mode/1up?view=theater Sinclair announces Spectrum+     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/mode/1up?view=theater         https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/page/n17/mode/2up?view=theater Home computers have the price right, just not the power     Byte, October 1984, pg. 6     Final bonanza for home micros / Sales of cheap home computers, The Guardian (London), October 8, 1984, Byline: By PETER LARGE Games on cassette are dead     https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/page/107/mode/1up?view=theater Bookware mania explodes!     https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/mode/1up?view=theater         https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-11/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater     Toy & Hobby World, October 1984, pg. 8      Visi On sold to CDC     https://books.google.de/books?id=d-tPdHcBE9wC&pg=PAPA41&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false Microsoft delays Windows... again     PERIPHERALS; SPECIAL INSURANCE COVERAGE COULD PREVENT COSTLY LOSSES, The New York Times, October 30, 1984, Tuesday, Late City Final Edition, Section: Section C; Page 6, Column 5; Science Desk Ensoniq plans ad campaign     No Headline In Original, ADWEEK, October 22, 1984, Eastern Edition, Section: ACCOUNT ACQUISITIONS; New England         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensoniq Crackers get organized     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/page/n4/mode/1up?view=theater          https://csdb.dk/group/?id=3423      Playnet Launches nationwide     PLAYNET; Launches national access to its in-home, on-line network, Business Wire, October 30, 1984, Tuesday Comp-U-Card hits 1 million     COMP-U-CARD-INTL; Announces individual membership base exceeds one million, Business Wire, October 18, 1984, Thursday      Micronet to take on Compunet in the UK     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-18/mode/1up?view=theater         Futures (Micro Guardian): Search and you will find / The World Reporter full text news and current affairs database, The Guardian (London), October 18, 1984 Videotex or videotext?     Business World;Infant videotext industry has identity problems in pitching home information systems to consumer, United Press International, October 21, 1984, Sunday, BC cycle, Section: Domestic News, Byline: By SUSAN POSTLEWAITE, UPI Business Writer              Business World; Infant videotext industry has identity problems in pitching home information systems to consumer; First question: What does it do?; Second question: Why do I want it?; Third question: Can I afford it?, United Press International, October 21, 1984, Sunday, BC cycle, Section: Financial, Byline: By SUSAN POSTLEWAITE, UPI Business Writer Game creators get chatty     https://archive.org/details/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_4.5/page/n13/mode/2up     https://archive.org/details/Computer_Gaming_World_Issue_4.5/page/n29/mode/2up      ISBN adds software     Byte, October 1984, pg. 10 Antic Reviews The Art of Computer Game Design     https://archive.org/details/artofcomputergam00chri/mode/2up?view=theater        https://archive.org/details/1984-10-anticmagazine/page/82/mode/2up      Nintendo beats Universal on appeal     "Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Nintendo Co., United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, May 23, 1984, Argued ; October 4, 1984, Decided, No. 84-7095     On the Light Side, The Associated Press, October 11, 1984, Thursday, PM cycle" MCA sues Atari     https://archive.org/details/computer-entertainer-3-7/mode/1up     https://www.atariprotos.com/2600/software/dune/dune.htm Commodore runs afoul of the FTC     Byte, October 1984, pg. 9      Learn to speculate - the Video Game!     INVESTMENT WATCH, The San Diego Union-Tribune, October 31, 1984 Wednesday, Section: BUSINESS; Pg. A-13, Byline: Janet Lowe, TRIBUNE FINANCIAL EDITOR          https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/comex-game-market-simulator-software-3764189470   Acorn dives into Laserdiscs     Venture in video discs,Financial Times (London,England), October 31, 1984, Wednesday, Section: SECTION I; Technology; Education; Pg. 15, Byline: EDITED BY ALAN CANE           https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=1661 RIP HESWare     https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-11/mode/1up?view=theater           Jay Balakrishnan - HESWare, Radical, Dynamics, Solid State Software - https://www.patreon.com/posts/jay-balakrishnan-103071267     No Headline In Original, United Press International, October 8, 1984, Monday, BC cycle, Section: Financial, Dateline: EUGENE, Ore. Quote of the month: https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1984-10-25/page/n2/mode/1up?view=theater Recommended Links: The History of How We Play: https://thehistoryofhowweplay.wordpress.com/ Gaming Alexandria: https://www.gamingalexandria.com/wp/ They Create Worlds: https://tcwpodcast.podbean.com/ Digital Antiquarian: https://www.filfre.net/ The Arcade Blogger: https://arcadeblogger.com/ Retro Asylum: http://retroasylum.com/category/all-posts/ Retro Game Squad: http://retrogamesquad.libsyn.com/ Playthrough Podcast: https://playthroughpod.com/ Retromags.com: https://www.retromags.com/ Games That Weren't - https://www.gamesthatwerent.com/ Sound Effects by Ethan Johnson of History of How We Play. Copyright Karl Kuras

Episode 33: Lowery v. MillsLowery v. Mills, argued before Circuit Judges Jerry E. Smith, Dana M. Douglas, and Carolyn Dineen King in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 4, 2025. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Del Kolde on behalf of Prof. Richard Lowery and Jeff Oldham on behalf of the University of Texas at Austin officials. Background of the case [from the Institute for Free Speech case page]: Prof. Richard Lowery, an Associate Professor of Finance at the McCombs School of Business at the University of Texas at Austin (UT), said the officials at the state's flagship university violated his constitutional right to criticize government officials. With the help of the Institute for Free Speech, Prof. Lowery sued UT officials who threatened to punish him for his criticism of the university administration by threatening his job, reducing his pay, and ending his affiliation with UT's Salem Center.  One key target of Prof. Lowery's critiques was the UT administration's use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) requirements to filter out competent academics who dissent from the DEI ideology. He also opined during a podcast that part of the job of university presidents in red states is to deceive republicans into funding leftwing indoctrination on college campuses.  Statement of the issues [from the Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief]: Have subsequent Supreme Court and Fifth Circuit decisions overruled or cabined to its facts the standard for public-employee First Amendment retaliation claims described in Breaux v. City of Garland, 205 F.3d 150 (5th Cir. 2000)?  Did Plaintiff state a viable claim for free-speech chilling under Jackson v. Wright, 82 F.4th 362 (5th Cir. 2023) and other cases?  Did Defendants' choice to repeatedly argue that the standard in Keenan v. Tejeda, 290 F.3d 252 (5th Cir. 2002) applied to Plaintiff's free speech chilling claim, and the district court's decision to accept this standard, render this standard binding under the law-of-the-case doctrine and judicial estoppel?  Did the district court err when it withheld various UT documents, reviewed by the magistrate judge in camera, under claims of attorney client privilege, including text messages sent by UT President Jay Hartzell shortly before the pressure campaign against Lowery began?  Did the district court err when it granted a protective order to block all discovery into allegations that President Hartzell engaged in nepotism by using state resources to benefit his son in admission to UT?Resources: Institute for Free Speech Case Page Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief Brief of Appellees The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 32: OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al.OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Raymond M. Kethledge, Eric E. Murphy, and Andre B. Mathis in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on July 23, 2025. Argued by Elisabeth C. Frost (on behalf of OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership), Mathura Jaya Sridharan (on behalf of Dave Yost, et al.), and Jason Walta (for Amicus Ohio Education Association).Background of the case, from the Brief of Appellees – Cross Appellants (Second Brief):It is well established that lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) are entitled to First Amendment protection, including for their political speech. And the Supreme Court has long held that spending to promote or oppose direct democracy measures is core First Amendment expression. Nevertheless, [in 2024], Ohio enacted Ohio Revised Code § 3517.121 (“Section 121”), making it a crime for any noncitizen—including LPRs—to engage in any political spending.Section 121's broad prohibitions reach every conceivable type of spending, from direct contributions to independent expenditures, whether made “directly or indirectly through any person or entity,” and apply even to spending “in support of or opposition to a statewide ballot issue or question, regardless of whether the ballot issue or question has yet been certified to appear on the ballot.” Id. § 3517.121(B)(2). At the same time, Section 121 invites political weaponization, mandating that the Attorney General investigate any alleged violation made by any Ohio elector. Id. § 3517.121(G)(2)(a). The law's sheer breadth, lack of tailoring, and threat of unrestrained investigations threaten and will chill the core First Amendment activity of not just noncitizens, but also citizens and domestic organizations who take donations from noncitizens or involve noncitizen decisionmakers….In support, Ohio relies overwhelmingly on a reading of Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288 n.3 (D.D.C. 2011), aff'd, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012), that is at odds with the decision itself. Bluman held that Congress may constitutionally prohibit foreign citizens other than LPRs from directly contributing to candidates or to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate, but in writing for that court, then-Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly cautioned that restrictions on political spending by LPRs or for issue advocacy would raise substantial constitutional questions. See, e.g., id. at 292 (making explicit court was not deciding whether Congress could extend ban to LPRs or restrict noncitizens engaging in “issue advocacy and speaking out on issues of public policy,” warning its holding “should not be read to support such bans”). [Emphasis in original.]The Bluman court was right to be concerned—and this Court should be, too, now that Ohio has enacted such a ban….Resources:CourtListener docket page for OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al.Ohio Revised Code § 3517.121 (“Section 121”)Brief of Appellants – Cross Appellees (First Brief) [Ohio]Brief of Appellees – Cross Appellants (Second Brief) [OPAWL]The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

The state of Minnesota recently announced $1.3 million in grants for projects that it says will make the state a better place to live as an older person. This includes funding for accessible design, housing and health care access. One of the projects hinges on the complicated relationships, choices and disagreements that families navigate as loved ones age. Community Mediation Minnesota, a network of nonprofits that provide mediation services, is receiving $60,000 from the state to do more work with older people. Katie Arnold, the co-executive director of Community Mediation Minnesota, joined Minnesota Now to talk about the grant and how their work can make a difference in the lives of families with aging loved ones.

Episode 31: Libby v. FecteauLibby, et al. v. Fecteau, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, and District Judge Camille Vélez-Rivé in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on June 5, 2025. Argued by Taylor Meehan of Consovoy McCarthy PLLC (on behalf of Laurel Libby, et al.), Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights (for Amicus Curiae United States, supporting appellant), and Jonathan Bolton, Maine Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of Ryan M. Fecteau, et al.).Background of the case, from the Brief of Appellants:In February, Libby took to Facebook to call attention to Maine's [transgender athlete] policy, borne out at this year's high school track-and-field state championship. The championship was a public event; the names, schools, and podium photos of participants were widely broadcast and readily accessible online. Libby re-posted already-public, truthful information showing the first-place girls' pole vaulter previously competed in boys' pole vault. That first-place finish propelled the athlete's high school team to win the girls' state championship by one point.Libby's post put Maine's policy in the national spotlight, prompting federal investigations regarding Maine's noncompliance with federal law. Days later, the Maine House censured Libby along a party-line vote of 75 to 70. The censure resolution called on Libby to “publicly apologize” for bringing “national attention” to Maine. H.R. Res. 1, 132nd Leg., 1st Reg. Sess. (Me. 2025). It denounced Libby's “statement criticizing the participation of transgender students in high school sports” as “reprehensible” and “incompatible with her duty and responsibilities as a Member of this House.” And while the resolution faulted Libby for identifying a “student athlete by [first] name” and “showing the minor in an athletic uniform” without “consent,” id., the post merely copied public information, showing podium photos from widely publicized state championship events, contained no threats, and violated no law. The resolution omitted that the Speaker and others regularly show minors on their social media, without any indication of consent from the subjects.Dissenting House members criticized the resolution as “a mockery of the censure process,” “set[ting] a standard … that the majority party, when they're displeased with a social media post that upsets them, can censure a member of the minority party.” Other representatives raised free-speech concerns and sought clarification on whether members who re-posted Libby's post could “expect censures to come forth on them as well.” The Speaker disclaimed knowledge of “any other censures.”After the censure resolution passed, the Speaker summoned Libby to the well of the House chamber and demanded she apologize. When Libby refused to recant her views, the Speaker found her in violation of Maine House Rule 401(11), providing that a member “guilty of a breach of any of the rules and orders of the House … may not be allowed to vote or speak … until the member has made satisfaction.”Ever since, Libby's district has had no voice or vote on the House floor. The Speaker has stopped Libby from speaking on any bill, including even posing a question in a recent debate on an equal rights amendment proposed for the state constitution.Statement of the Issue, from Brief of Appellants:Whether Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction on their claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and the Guarantee Clause [of “a Republican Form of Government].”The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

“Tell me how it's fixed. We're not continuing this conversation until you explain exactly how.”That's the challenge Skin throws down in this wildly entertaining episode of The Ben and Skin Show, where conspiracy theories, celebrity run-ins, and hilarious weekend recaps collide in a perfect storm of chaos and comedy.Ben Rogers, Jeff “Skin” Wade, Kevin “KT” Turner, and Krystina Ray are back on 97.1 The Eagle, and they're bringing the heat—and the laughs. From Skin's yacht rock weekend and KT's electric night with Saul Goodman's secretary (yes, really), to Krystina's storm-shortened but stellar performance at the Wildflower Festival, the crew dives into their weekends. But the real fireworks start when Ben recounts a birthday party conversation gone off the rails: two friends, a few drinks, and a full-blown belief that the NBA Draft is rigged. What follows is a masterclass in comedic frustration, as Ben and Skin try to reason with the unreasonable. The result? One of the funniest and most relatable sports rants you'll hear all year.Memorable Moments:

Episode 30: Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Patrick J. Bumatay, and Gabriel P. Sanchez in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 15, 2025. Argued by Derek L. Shaffer (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity, et al.) and David Kolker (on behalf of Intervenor-Defendant Voters' Right to Know) and Eric Fraser (on behalf of Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief:Proposition 211 imposes sweeping disclosure rules unlike anything seen before. On every metric, the law expands on its predecessors. It covers more people, more speech, for a longer time. Where other laws narrow, Proposition 211 widens.….Proposition 211 expands on other disclosure rules in virtually every way. It does not limit disclosure to speech about elections, to speech close in time to elections, or to speech by those engaged mainly in election advocacy. It does not limit disclosure to donors who intend to support election advocacy, or even donors who know their dollars might be used for election advocacy. By expanding every part of an ordinary disclosure rule, Proposition 211 “accomplishes a shift in kind, not merely degree.” See Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 583 (2012) (“NFIB”) (Roberts, C.J., op.). And that shift in kind turns a series of individually problematic provisions into a cataclysmic First Amendment violation.Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants' Opening Brief:Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is facially valid even though its disclosures are untethered to electoral activity, its burdens surpass the strength of the State's asserted interest, and its requirements are not narrowly tailored to the problems it purports to solve.Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 is valid as applied to Appellants, even though Appellants alleged a reasonable probability that disclosure of their donors' names will subject them to threats, harassment, or reprisals.Whether the district court erred in concluding that Proposition 211 does not compel association even though its disclosure requirements tie organizations and their donors to candidates and causes irrespective of their actual beliefs.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al.Appellants' Opening BriefDefendant-Appellees' Answering BriefAnswering Brief of Appellee-Intervenor DefendantAppellants' Reply BriefInstitute for Free Speech amicus briefThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 29: Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al. argued before Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod and Judges Kurt D. Engelhardt and Greg Gerard Guidry in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of the Institute for Free Speech) and Cory R. Liu (on behalf of J.R. Johnson, et al.). Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech website: Texas law prohibits corporations—including nonprofits—from making “in-kind contributions” to candidates and political committees. The Texas Ethics Commission (TEC) recently interpreted this ban to extend to pro bono litigation services, even when such services aim to challenge the constitutionality of state laws. The Institute for Free Speech (IFS) filed a federal lawsuit against the TEC commissioners and executive director over this ban on pro bono legal services. This law stops organizations like IFS from advocating for the civil rights of Texas candidates and political committees in court. It imposes stiff civil and criminal penalties for violations. The lawsuit argues that the TEC's interpretation of the Texas Elections Code violates IFS' First Amendment rights to free speech and association. The TEC's reading of the law prevents IFS from representing potential clients like Chris Woolsey, a city councilmember in Corsicana, and the Texas Anti-Communist League PAC, headed by Cary Cheshire, both of whom want to contest a state law that compels speech on political signs. Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page Institute for Free Speech press release Plaintiff-Appellant's Opening Brief  Complaint  The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

In the first hour, DVD discuss Cam Ward offically being a Tennessee Titans. Willy and Dmase arguing over whether the Titans should've traded away No. 1 to get more draft capital and more reaction. 

Truth Be Told with Booker Scott – Conservative parents challenge government overreach as the Supreme Court weighs their right to withdraw children from LGBTQ+ or objectionable content in schools. From drag queen story hours to pandemic vaccine mandates, this landmark case could redefine parental authority, educational boundaries, and the balance between community standards and individual personal convictions.

Episode 28: Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich, argued before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on April 17, 2025. Argued by Eric D. McArthur (on behalf of Appellants Taylor Budowich, et al.) and Charles D. Tobin (on behalf of Appellee Associated Press). Lawyers for the Trump administration are seeking a stay on the DC District Court's preliminary injunction rescinding “the denial of the AP's access to the Oval Office, Air Force One, and other limited spaces based on the AP's viewpoint.” Case Background, from the Memorandum and Order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia: About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the President. The AP now sues the White House chief of staff, her communications deputy, and the press secretary (collectively, “the Government”), seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the Government from excluding it because of its viewpoint.  Today, the Court grants that relief. But this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the Government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the President or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views. No, the Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints. The Constitution requires no less. Resources: District Court Memorandum and OrderCourt Listener Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 27: Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. EdelblutLocal 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. Edelblut, argued before Circuit Judge Lara Montecalvo, Senior Circuit Judge William J. Kayatta, Jr., and Circuit Judge Seth Aframe in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2025. Argued by Charles G. Moerdler and Gilles R. Bissonnette (on behalf of Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO, et al.) and Mary A. Triick, Senior Assistant Attorney General (on behalf of Edelblut, et al.).Case Background, from the Brief for Plaintiffs—Appellees Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO:New Hampshire's “Banned Concepts Law” (or the “Law”) is unconstitutionally vague. Enacted in June 2021, the Law bans the teaching, instruction, advocacy, advancement, and training of—or compelling a student to express belief in or support for—four concepts in public schools and places of public employment. The four concepts implicate aspects of “age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or physical disability, religion or national origin.”Statement of Issues Presented for Review, from the Brief for Plaintiffs—Appellees Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO:Did the district court correctly hold that the Law violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause on its face because its “prohibitions against teaching banned concepts are unconstitutionally vague,” and because the law contains “viewpoint-based restrictions on speech that do not provide either fair warning to educators of what they prohibit or sufficient standards for law enforcement to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement”?As an independent basis for affirmance, does the Law violate the First Amendment where it implicates the private, extracurricular speech of educators on matters of public concern?Resources:CourtListener case docket for Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. EdelblutNew Hampshire “Right to Freedom from Discrimination in Public Workplaces and Education” lawBrief for Defendants—AppellantsBrief for Plaintiffs—AppelleesReply Brief for Defendants—AppellantsThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoicesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Holmberg's Morning Sickness - Tuesday March 25, 2025 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Episode 26: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, et al.Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 19, 2025. Argued by Cameron Norris (on behalf of Parents Defending Education); Elliott Gaiser, Solicitor General of Ohio (on behalf of Ohio and 22 other states as amici curiae); and Jaime Santos (on behalf of the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, et al.).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech's second amicus brief (in support of reversal): While students may freely identify as having genders that do not correspond to their biological sex, other students enjoy the same right to credit their own perceptions of reality—and to speak their minds when addressing their classmates. Students cannot be compelled to speak in a manner that confesses, accommodates, and conforms to an ideology they reject—even if that ideology's adherents are offended by any refusal to agree with them or endorse their viewpoint. Yet that is what the Olentangy school district's speech code does.“Pronouns are political.” Dennis Baron, What's Your Pronoun? 39 (2020). History shows that people have long used pronouns to express messages about society and its structure—often in rebellion against the prevailing ideology. And the same is true today. Choosing to use “preferred” or “non-preferred” pronouns often “advance[s] a viewpoint on gender identity.” Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 509 (6th Cir. 2021). So mandating that students use “preferred” pronouns or none at all elevates one viewpoint while silencing the other. It compels students to adopt the district's ideology on gender identity while at school, and in doing so, “invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.” W. Va. Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943).Statement of the Issues, from the Brief of Appellant Parents Defending Education:The use of gender-specific pronouns is a “hot issue” that “has produced a passionate political and social debate” across the country. Meriwether v. Hartop, 992 F.3d 492, 508-09 (6th Cir. 2021). One side believes that gender is subjective and so people should use others' “preferred pronouns”; the other side believes that sex is immutable and so people should use pronouns that correspond with biological sex. Id. at 498. Like the general public, students have varying views on this important subject, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that students don't “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503, 506 (1969). Yet the Olentangy Local School District has adopted policies that punish speech expressed by one side of the debate—the use of pronouns that are contrary to another student's identity. The district court upheld the Policies as consistent with the First Amendment and denied PDE's preliminary-injunction motion.The issues presented in this appeal are:Whether the District's speech policies likely violate the First Amendment because they compel speech, discriminate based on viewpoint, prohibit speech based on content without evidence of a substantial disruption, or are overbroad.Whether, if PDE is likely to succeed on the merits, the remaining preliminary-injunction criteria favor issuing a preliminary injunction.Resources:CourtListener docket page for Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Brief for Appellant Parents Defending EducationBrief for Appellee Olentangy Local School Dist, et al.Supplemental En Banc Brief of Plaintiff-Appellant Parents Defending EducationInstitute for Free Speech first amicus brief (in support of rehearing en banc)Institute for Free Speech second amicus brief (in support of reversal)

On a new TAGSPODCAST aka Talk About Gay Sex podcast, Host Stevie V and Co-hosts Lincoln and Kodi Maurice Doggette are in studio with all new hot LGBTQ topics, sex and relationship advice and more:Letter from CEO of Nasty Pig encouraging to live your best gay life now...Is Trump coming for our Poppers?PrEP coverage could be threatened ahead of it being heard on Supreme CourtThe Vivienne's cause of death is Ketamine...Best dating advice tips for success!Is using 'girl' not as common as we thing in the gay community?Explore Sexual Fantasy with Finn Deerhart and Stevie V in NYC on April 13Support TAGS and get extra special perks! New Bonus Episode for 2025 out now! Patreon.com/tagspodcastGrab a tier or get our Free Tier and get Behind the Scenes content plus you can now purchase individual content!Follow Steve V. on IG: @iam_stevevhttps://linktr.ee/kodimauricehttps://linktr.ee/kodimauriceFollow Kodi's Life Coaching on IG: @kmdcoachingFollow Kodi Maurice Doggette on IG: @mistahmauriceFollow Lincoln on IG: @madlincolnFollow Protein Bakery on IG: @proteinbakeryWanna drop a weekly or one time tip to TAGSPODCAST - Show your love for the show and support TAGS! Visit our website: tagspodcast.comNeeds some advice for a sex or relationship conundrum? Ask TAGS! DM US ON IG or https://www.talkaboutgaysex.com/contactFollow Of a Certain Age on IG: @ofacertainagepod

New details on what really happened in that reportedly explosive meeting with the Trump cabinet and Elon Musk. At least two cabinet members flat out accusing Musk of lying before President Trump reigned in some of Musk's powers.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Episode 25: Powell, et al. v. United States Securities and Exchange CommissionPowell, et al. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, argued before Circuit Judges Sidney R. Thomas, Daniel A. Bress, and Ana de Alba in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2025. Argued by Margaret A. Little of the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) (on behalf of Powell, et al.) and Archith Ramkumar (on behalf of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission).Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief:For more than fifty years, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has used the threat of debilitatingly expensive litigation to coerce defendants into accepting a lifetime ban on speech. The SEC's Gag Rule commands that, once defendants have settled, they can never publicly challenge—or even permit others to undermine—the truth of the SEC's factual allegations, even if those allegations are indisputably false.The SEC's Gag Rule is a ban not just on speech but a ban on true political speech. It imposes an eternal, viewpoint-discriminatory prior restraint on speech critical of the SEC's enforcement regime. For a country with “a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials,” the unconstitutionality of this policy is clear. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964). Nonetheless, the SEC refuses to initiate a rulemaking to amend its Gag Rule.Statement of Issues Presented, from the Petitioner's Opening Brief:Whether the Commission acted contrary to constitutional right by refusing to amend 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(e) because the rule violates First Amendment and due process rights and is against public policy.Whether the Commission acted in excess of statutory authority and without observance of procedure required by law by refusing to amend 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(e), which improperly binds individuals outside of SEC.Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to provide a reasoned explanation for denying the petition to amend 17 C.F.R. § 202.5(e).Resources:CourtListener docket page for Powell, et al. v. SECNCLA case pagePetitioners' Opening BriefBrief for RespondentPetitioners' Reply BriefInstitute for Free Speech amicus briefThe Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Follow Dan on LinkedIn at linkedin.com/in/cotterdan Follow Pat on LinkedIn athttps://www.linkedin.com/in/donald-patrick-eckler-610290824/ Predictions Sure To Go Wrong: Piasa: Reverse Blanquart: Affirm Mazurkiewicz: Reverse Illinois Supreme Court, Piasa: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/supreme-court/oral-argument-audio-and-video/ IL App: https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/courts/appellate-court/oral-argument-audio/

Near-death experience guest 1251 is Laurie Curtin, who was given direction for her life by God during her NDE experience. Laurie's Website https://www.elev3n.com/ CONTACT: Email: jeff@jeffmarapodcast.com WEBSITE www.jeffmarapodcast.com SOCIALS: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeffmarapodcast/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/jeffmarapodcast/ Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/jeffmaraP/ JeffMara does not endorse any of his guests' products or services. The opinions of the guests may or may not reflect the opinions of the host.

Episode 24: Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on January 15, 2025. Argued by Braden H. Boucek of the Southeastern Legal Foundation (on behalf of Brooke Henderson, et al.) and Tina Fowler (on behalf of the Board of Education of the Springfield R-12 School District, et al.). Background of the case, from Circuit Judge Colloton's Eighth Circuit panel opinion: In 2020, the Springfield R-12 School District required its employees to attend “equity training.” Two employees who attended the training sued the school district and several school officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged that during the training, the defendants compelled them to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern, and engaged in viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court granted summary judgment for the school district on the ground that the plaintiffs did not suffer an injury in fact and thus lacked standing to sue. The court also found that the lawsuit was frivolous and awarded attorney's fees to the school district. The plaintiffs appeal. Because we agree that the plaintiffs did not establish an injury in fact, we affirm the dismissal. We conclude, however, that the fee award was unwarranted and reverse that portion of the judgment. Statement of Issues Presented for Review, excerpted from the Brief of Appellants: Whether SPS [Springfield Public Schools] unconstitutionally compelled Plaintiffs to speak on matters of public concern and adopt its views in violation of the First Amendment. Whether SPS unconstitutionally discriminated against Plaintiffs' views when it adopted a position on current affairs and told Plaintiffs that their views were wrong. Whether SPS created an unconstitutional condition of employment when it compelled speech on matters of public concern and engaged in viewpoint discrimination. Whether the district court erred in finding Plaintiffs' claims frivolous. Whether the district court erred in awarding attorney fees in the amount of $312,869.50 and costs in the amount of $3,267.10 to Defendants. Whether reassignment to a different judge is appropriate on any remand. Resources: The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Send us a textThis episode dives into an eclectic mix of subjects ranging from lighthearted banter to deeper reflections on societal norms and historical narratives. The hosts begin with a discussion about hair loss and confidence, exploring the practical and emotional impacts of embracing baldness versus pursuing treatments like hair transplants. The conversation shifts to weather preferences, with humorous takes on the struggle between cold-blooded individuals who thrive in winter and those who prefer sweltering heat.Childhood memories resurface as they reflect on past experiences in Cub Scouts and school, particularly moments that shaped their perspectives on self-expression and creativity. This segues into a broader conversation about parenting, emphasizing the importance of letting children explore their true interests without imposing adult expectations or societal norms.The hosts delve into history, discussing pivotal moments like Viking raids in Ireland, the Boston Tea Party, and the migration of Neanderthals and early humans. These reflections are framed with humor and a sense of curiosity about how history has been shaped, rewritten, and taught. The discussion also touches on the complexities of societal brainwashing, from historical narratives to modern national security issues, critiquing how the U.S. government uses terms like “terrorism” to control public perception.Cultural and genetic history becomes a central theme as they explore personal connections to Ireland, considering travel as a means of discovering identity and familial roots. The conversation incorporates reflections on how ancestry influences modern identity, with a humorous take on topics like Viking raids, Irish potato farming, and the genetic quirks of Neanderthals.Food nostalgia makes an appearance with a longing for discontinued treats like Butterfinger BBs, sparking a larger commentary on the emotional connections people form with comfort foods. There's also a whimsical exploration of social behaviors, from the excessive use of personal fans to the awkwardness of forced interactions, especially in nightlife or drug-induced settings.Animals and their intelligence are discussed, with the hosts highlighting how humans often dismiss the innate abilities of animals, particularly their advanced sensory perceptions and emotional intelligence. This leads to reflections on societal attitudes toward intelligence, drawing parallels between historical perceptions of Neanderthals and current biases against certain groups or ideas.The episode closes with heartfelt reflections on friendship, emphasizing the unique and irreplaceable bonds formed with close friends. The hosts consider how true friendship provides a sense of belonging and authenticity, contrasting it with superficial social interactions or fleeting acquaintances. This theme ties back to the idea of seekingSupport the showAs always you can write us at nowellpodcast@gmail.com or call us at ‪(614) 721-5336‬ and tell us your Not Wells of the week InstagramTwitterBobby's Only FansHelp us continue to grow and create amazing content, like a live tour or just help fund some new headphones when needed. Any help is appreacited. https://www.buzzsprout.com/510487/subscribe#gaypodcast #podcast #gay #lgbtq #queerpodcast #lgbt #lgbtpodcast #lgbtqpodcast #gaypodcaster #queer#instagay #podcasts #podcasting #gaylife #pride #lesbian #bhfyp #gaycomedy #comedypodcast #comedy #nyc #614 #shesnotdoingsowell #wiltonmanor #notwell

Episode 23: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 15, 2025. Argued by Derek L. Shaffer (on behalf of Free Speech Coalition, et al.), Brian H. Fletcher, Deputy Solicitor General of the United States (on behalf of the United States as amicus curiae), and Aaron Nielson, Solicitor General of Texas (on behalf of Ken Paxton). Background on the case, excerpted from the introduction of the Brief for Petitioners: Texas House Bill (H.B.) 1181 imposes requirements on commercial websites “more than one-third of which” are “sexual material harmful to minors”—a term that includes all sexually suggestive content, as might be found in romance novels or R-rated movies. The law requires a covered website to verify the age of every user, typically via government-issued identification. Entities conducting such verification may not “retain” users' “identifying information,” but H.B. 1181 does not prohibit transfer of that information or impose any other protection against disclosure.  And while Texas insists that forcing users to endure chilling online privacy and security risks is necessary to protect minors from harmful sexual content, H.B. 1181 exempts the search engines and social-media platforms that are principal gateways for minors' access to that very content.  Confirming Texas's real aims, H.B. 1181 also requires covered websites to post stigmatizing, unscientific “[w]arnings” that condemn their content as harmful to health. The district court preliminarily enjoined H.B. 1181, finding that the law is subject to strict scrutiny and likely to fail it under this Court's governing precedent.  In particular, the court explained that H.B. 1181's age verification requirement is materially identical to the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), 47 U.S.C. § 231, which this Court in Ashcroft held was subject to strict scrutiny and likely unconstitutional.  The Fifth Circuit agreed that H.B. 1181 is materially identical to COPA, but a divided panel held that it was not bound by Ashcroft because that decision contains what the majority termed “startling omissions.” The majority concluded that the proper level of scrutiny is instead rational-basis review, as applied in Ginsberg.  To justify its departure from Ashcroft, the majority reasoned that this Court there applied strict scrutiny to COPA only because Attorney General Ashcroft, represented by Solicitor General Olson, erroneously accepted strict scrutiny rather than urging mere rational-basis review in defense of the statute. Question Presented: This Court has repeatedly held that States may rationally restrict minors' access to sexual materials, but such restrictions must withstand strict scrutiny if they burden adults' access to constitutionally protected speech. See, e.g., Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656, 663 (2004). In the decision below, the Fifth Circuit applied rational-basis review—rather than strict scrutiny—to vacate a preliminary injunction of a provision of a Texas law that significantly burdens adults' access to protected speech, because the law's stated purpose is to protect minors. The question presented is: Whether the court of appeals erred as a matter of law in applying rational-basis review to a law burdening adults' access to protected speech, instead of strict scrutiny as this Court and other circuits have consistently done. Resources: Full Supreme Court case docket for Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton Brief for petitioners Brief in opposition The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Episode 22: TikTok Inc. V. Merrick Garland TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 10, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd.) and Jeffrey Fisher (on behalf of Creator Petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al.), and Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General of the United States (on behalf of Merrick Garland). Background on the case: Adam Feldman's “The Universe of TikTok v. Garland in a Nutshell” contains an excellent synopsis of relevant facts and procedural history. Question Presented: Whether the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, as applied to petitioners, violates the First Amendment. Resources: Full Supreme Court case docket for TikTok v. Garland Free Speech Arguments Podcast episode on D.C. Circuit version of TikTok v. Garland Brief for petitioners TikTok, Inc. and ByteDance, Ltd. Brief for petitioners Brian Firebaugh, et al. Brief for the respondent The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

Have you ever gotten into a fight with your significant other about something fictional? Like a movie plot or a dream? Jeff and Corey got into it over a couple in a movie fighting.2nd Date Update revolved around Chris and Mina. A squirrel invaded their date and they thought it was cute, they even both like mystery novels...but she ghosted.2025 will give us Gen Beta and they are already making fun of our clothes. We talked about what the future will be like...for example: no actual paper money.Marcus threw an impromptu power outage party last night. He was the only one with a generator. How generous is too generous? They provided food, power and alcoholic beverages...when is it time to go home, especially on a school night?

Qualities of a true friend. One thing Sam never argued with a spouse about. True crime and your brain.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Jodi's homemade pimento cheese recipe.What Sam never argued with any spouse about.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Does Ireland have an anti-Semitism problem?

The Mancave Caucus discusses all the hot topics of the week and more! *This episode is missing content due to technical difficulties*

Jodi's homemade pimento cheese recipe.What Sam never argued with any spouse about. Murphy doesn't whistle??See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

It turns out that singer Liam Payne of One Direction had a rocky relationship with his so-called friend and maybe manager, Roger Notes. In August, Liam reportedly pushed Notes out of his management team. As I piece together all the details, it's looking like some of the people who Liam trusted the most may have been the ones who betrayed him the most.#liampayne #latestnewsliampayne #onedirection #breakingnews #trending #truecrime #singersdeath #payne #argent #liampaynetribute #lianpaynenews#truecrime #idaho #moscowidaho #kayleegoncalves #madisonmogen #ethanchapin #xanakernodle #moscowstudentmurders #idahostudentmurders #moscowhomicides  #truecrimeunsolved #truecrimeunsolvedSupport the show

"Death Penalty Decision: Court Weighs Bryan Kohberger's Fate" #Kohberger #DeathPenalty #IdahoMurders The Bryan Kohberger case has shaken the nation, and many are left wondering what's next for the accused murderer. As the investigation continues to unfold, one question remains on everyone's mind: is Bryan Kohberger facing the possibility of death row? In this video, we'll dive into the latest developments in the case and explore the potential consequences Kohberger may face if convicted.

Video Replay on Twitch! Video Replay on YouTube! Happy Monday! The courts are arguing over Net Neutrality again! The DA investigating Musk over $1 Million prices is getting death threats. Russian fines Google an IMPOSSIBLE amount of money. Microsoft stock is down after earnings call, they're delaying Recall again, and they're already set to abandon "CoPilot" branding to copy Apple. Tidal needs more marketing, so Jack Dorsey fired the marketing team. Intel is in ROUGH shape. NVIDIA might make an ARM chip. Apple is buying a popular photo editing app. And lets talk about those Snapdragon 8 Elite benchmarks... Let's get our tech week started right! Support Talking Tech with SomeGadgetGuy by contributing to their tip jar: https://tips.pinecast.com/jar/talking-tech-with-somegadgetgu Find out more at https://talking-tech-with-somegadgetgu.pinecast.co This podcast is powered by Pinecast. Try Pinecast for free, forever, no credit card required. If you decide to upgrade, use coupon code r-c117ce for 40% off for 4 months, and support Talking Tech with SomeGadgetGuy.

Happy Monday! The courts are arguing over Net Neutrality again! The DA investigating Musk over $1 Million prices is getting death threats. Russian fines Google an IMPOSSIBLE amount of money. Microsoft stock is down after earnings call, they’re delaying Recall again, and they’re already set to abandon “CoPilot” branding to copy Apple. Tidal needs more … Continue reading "#SGGQA 371: Snapdragon 8 Elite Runs HOT, Microsoft Fumbles AI Strategy, Net Neutrality Argued Before Judges, Apple Buys Pixelmator"

What is the dumbest argument that you got into with your significant other? Over the weekend Joe and his girlfriend got into a heated debate over something that is going down this weekend...

PREVIEW: SCHLIEFFEN: Conversation with Professor Lloyd regarding the long-argued explanations for the failure of the Schlieffen Plan to capture Paris and end the war in weeks. More later. 1899 THE KAISER AND VON SCHLIEFFEN, ARMY MANEUVERS

What Sam never argued with any spouse about. Love at 1st sight. Moms have superpowers. What's yours?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

A word about boundaries with friends for Jr. High and High School kids!The 1 thing Sam never argued with his spouses about. Coke products that are going away!?See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

oday we argue all the NBA debates you've been looking for across the internet. Check out the TD3 merch: https://the-deep-3-shop.fourthwall.com/ Join the TD3 discord!: https://discord.gg/RUkjpMPp7E Listen on Spotify!: https://open.spotify.com/show/3elbbqVumwqz8wlIdknsLW Listen on Apple Podcasts!: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-deep-3-podcast/id1657940794 Follow us on TikTok!: https://www.tiktok.com/@thedeepthree Follow us on Instagram!: https://www.instagram.com/thedeep3podcast/ Isaac's twitter: https://twitter.com/byisaacg Muhamed's twitter: https://twitter.com/Mojo99_ Donnavan's twitter: https://twitter.com/Dsmoot3D Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

PREVIEW: #SCOTUS: Excerpt from a conversation with Professor Richard Epstein of Hoover re the Fischer vs US case -- turning on the obstruction charge against intruders on January 6 -- to be argued before the court in April -- that could influence the Smith prosecution of former President Trump before the Election.  It's complicated -- and more of this later. 1886 SCOTUS