Podcasts about gary t

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 13, 2021 114:14

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?" The second day of the conference commenced with a showcase panel on "Private Control Over Public Discussion."Online platforms host a growing share of public discussion and debate. As private businesses, they have been free to develop and implement their own content moderation policies, free of First Amendment constraints. But as the amount of speech hosted on a few platforms has grown, the resulting concentration of control over that speech has sparked questions about the power of private companies to stifle lawful expression.As Justice Clarence Thomas recently noted, the Court soon will need to consider how existing legal doctrines apply to these highly concentrated, privately owned, digital platforms. Part of the solution, he suggests, might lie with common law doctrines like common carrier or public accommodation – doctrines that might permit regulation that limits the right of private platforms to exclude.But what of the First Amendment interests of the platforms themselves? Do these corporations have a protected expressive interest in declining to carry speech which is lawful but which they find objectionable? How should we think about the digital platform model – are they more like a communications network distributing information, more like publishers that actively curate content and associate themselves with hosted expression, or do they toggle back and forth?Finally, should the concentration of private power over speech change how we think about public and private threats to free expression? Private businesses are presumptively free to set terms and conditions for the use of their own property. Have digital platforms assumed a degree of control over public discourse, sufficient to alter that presumption? Is some form of regulation appropriate to protect against private threats to liberty? Or is government intrusion into private decision-making still the greater threat?Featuring:Prof. Jane Bambauer, Professor of Law, University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of LawProf. Randy E. Barnett, Patrick Hotung Professor of Constitutional Law, Georgetown University Law CenterProf. Adam Candeub, Professor of Law & Director, Intellectual Property, Information and Communications Law Program, Michigan State University College of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. Barbara Lagoa, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

director university washington law online professor dc public court private corporations michigan state university first amendment appeals barnett intellectual property constitutional law ucla school eugene volokh eleventh circuit panel ii mayflower hotel public discussion james e rogers gary t securities & antitrust free speech & election law

Jeepcast This Week - Oct 5, 2021

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 6, 2021 72:05

In this episode, catch up with what we've been up to this week. October 5, 2021. Gary T returns to the studio and shares some of the fun he had on his European vacation, and Gary H shares his story about getting sick and getting better. Per usual we have a Jeep of the Week, plus new listener feedback. Tune in to hear a fresh new episode of the Northwest Jeepcast. Look for bonus content at patreon.com/nwjeepcast. --Visit Northridge4x4.com for all your Jeep needs and listen for a special coupon code. And follow us @nwjeepcast on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook.

european jeep gary h gary t

Tạp chí văn hóa - Từ Romain Gary đến Émile Ajar: “Tôi cuối cùng đã thể hiện bản thân trọn vẹn”

TẠP CHÍ VĂN HÓA

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 25, 2021

“HẾT RỒI” [...] “Tôi đã từng sống”. Đó là câu mở đầu và kết thúc tiểu thuyết Lời hứa lúc bình minh xuất bản năm 1960 của nhà văn Romain Gary. 15 năm sau, Gary ẩn mình dưới bút danh Émile Ajar viết tiểu thuyết Cuộc sống ở trước mặt, trở thành người duy nhất đoạt 2 giải Goncourt. Trong tiếng Nga, Gary nghĩa là “đốt cháy” và Ajar là “than hồng”. Câu chuyện về nhà văn, nhà ngoại giao, đạo diễn, phi công người Pháp gốc Nga, người sống muôn cuộc đời trong một cuộc đời, trở nên thú vị hơn từ đây. Gary từng viết trong Lời hứa lúc bình minh: “Đến giờ tôi vẫn coi cuộc sống là một thể loại văn học”, để rồi ông sáng tạo vượt khỏi đường biên của văn chương và biến cuộc đời thành một sân khấu lớn. Từ bút danh Romain Gary đến Émile Ajar là một câu chuyện hấp dẫn mà Gary đã dựng lên, khiến giới văn chương Pháp bị cuốn vào, còn mình, tự do ngồi sau sân khấu viết cuốn nọ nối cuốn kia, tung hỏa mù, khiến họ hoài nghi rồi tin tưởng, giữa thật giả giả thật về Gary và Ajar. Từ Romain Gary đến Émile Ajar Romain Gary tên thật là Roman Kacew, đoạt giải Goncourt lần đầu tiên năm 1956 với tiểu thuyết Rễ của trời.Năm 1974, Romain Gary xuất bản 3 tiểu thuyết dưới 3 bút danh khác nhau: Romain Gary, Émile Ajar và Shatan Bogat. Chính xác hơn, một mình Gary phân thân thành 4 người trong 3 cuốn sách. Cuốn La nuit sera calme là một cuộc phỏng vấn hư cấu giữa Romain Gary và François Bondy, một người bạn thời thơ ấu. Thực chất, François Bondy chỉ cho Gary mượn tên còn lại toàn bộ nội dung Gary tự phỏng vấn và tự trả lời. Trong đó, Gary viết: “Khi tôi bắt đầu một cuốn tiểu thuyết, đó là để đến nơi tôi không hiện hữu, để khám phá những điều diễn ra nơi nội tâm người khác, để rời bỏ tôi, để tái sinh tôi.” Đây có thể là lời dẫn ngầm ẩn trước văn đàn cho sự xuất hiện lần đầu tiên của bút danh Émile Ajar. Ẩn mình sau bút danh, Romain Gary đã nhờ người cháu họ có tên là Paul Pavlowitch đứng ra đóng thế. Pavlowitch kể:“Vào cuối năm 1972, Romain Gary nói với tôi rằng ông định viết “một cái gì đó khác dưới một cái tên hoàn toàn khác”, bởi vì, ông ấy khăng khăng rằng, “chú không còn có được sự tự do cần thiết nữa”.” (1) Năm 1975, tiểu thuyết Cuộc sống ở trước mặt của Émile Ajar đoạt giải Goncourt. Gary nói Pavlowitch viết thư từ chối giải thưởng, nhưng nguyện vọng bị Hội đồng trao giải bác bỏ. Báo giới bắt đầu nghi ngờ Ajar và Gary liên quan đến nhau khi phát hiện Gary và Pavlowitch là chú cháu. Romain Gary lập tức thanh minh trên Le Monde rằng mình không phải là Ajar, đồng thời vội vàng chạy sang Genève, chui vào một căn hộ yên tĩnh lên kế hoạch “cứu lấy” Émile Ajar trước khi “bị bại lộ”. Trong 15 ngày, Gary đã viết tiểu thuyết Pseudo và cho xuất bản năm 1976 dưới tên Ajar. Pseudo được viết dưới dạng tiểu thuyết tự truyện. Nhân vật trong tiểu thuyết có tên là Paul Pavlowitch, muốn nói lên sự thật, về bút danh Ajar của mình, về sự đeo đuổi của báo chí, về người chú Gary: “Tôi là Émile Ajar [...] Tôi là tác giả của chính tôi và tôi tự hào về điều đó. Tôi là có thật. Tôi không phải là trò lừa bịp”. Sau đó ông gọi cho Pavlowitch nói rằng bác đã bịa ra cháu một kẻ điên khùng và bịa cả ra bác nữa. “Cháu có đồng ý không?” (2) Người cháu không những vui vẻ chấp nhận mình bị điên mà còn giúp ông bác đánh máy bản thảo. Bằng “thủ thuật chính là không để người ta cảm thấy có thủ thuật”(3) Gary đã dập tan mọi nghi ngờ của báo giới và tiếp tục xuất bản cuốn sách thứ 4 dưới tên Ajar vào năm 1979. Từ Lời hứa lúc bình minh đến Cuộc sống ở trước mặt Ajar không thực sự là một cái tôi khác hoàn toàn Gary. Ajar chỉ là một mảnh ghép đủ đầy để Gary trở nên trọn vẹn. Lời hứa lúc bình minh và Cuộc sống ở trước mặt là hai tiểu thuyết có liên quan đến nhau mà sợi dây liên kết là tình mẫu tử, là khao khát thêm một lần được có mẹ trong đời. “Hết rồi. Biển Big Sur không một bóng người, còn tôi, vẫn nằm trên cát, đúng chỗ tôi đã ngã xuống[...]Hết rồi. Biển Big Sur trống vắng hàng trăm cây số, nhưng thỉnh thoảng khi ngẩng đầu lên, tôi lại thấy mấy chú hải cầu trên một mỏm đá trước mặt[...]Thế đấy. Sắp phải rời xa biển, nơi tôi nằm nghe biển khơi đã rất lâu rồi. Tối nay, ở Big Sur, sẽ có sương mù nhẹ, trời sẽ se lạnh, còn tôi, tôi chưa bao giờ học cách nhen lửa để tự sưởi ấm mình. Những chú hải cẩu đã lặng im trên những mỏm đá, và tôi ở đó, nhắm mắt lại, miệng mỉm cười, tôi tưởng tượng một chú hải cẩu nhẹ nhàng đi về phía mình còn mình thì bỗng cảm thấy một chiếc mõm thân thương cà vào má vào vai...Tôi đã từng sống.” Đó là những câu văn xúc động trong tiểu thuyết Lời hứa lúc bình minh, khi Gary trở về sau chiến tranh mới hay mẹ đã mất. Mẹ Gary, trước khi mất, đã viết sẵn 200 lá thư và nhờ người quen gửi cho con vào chiến trường. Trong những tháng ngày vào sinh ra tử, tuyệt vọng khốn cùng, nhờ những lá thư của mẹ, Gary đã thấy mẹ luôn hiện hữu trong thân xác mình, người ta đã quên cắt dây rốn giữa ông và mẹ. Làm sao một cuốn sách khiến ta không thể thôi cười ở từng trang mà cuối cùng lại làm ta khóc? Làm sao đằng sau lớp vỏ văn chương hài hước, hài hước trong tất cả mọi nghịch cảnh và bất hạnh của đời sống, vẫn có thể khiến ta cảm được nỗi cô đơn, niềm khao khát yêu thương và tình cảm con người thiết tha, ngậm ngùi đến thế? “Đối với tôi, trong suốt chặng đường của mình, tính hài hước là một người bạn thân thiết, nhờ nó mà tôi có được những khoảnh khắc chiến thắng nghịch cảnh thực sự.” Gary đã viết như thế trong Lời hứa lúc bình minh, và nét đặc trưng văn chương ấy không hề mất đi khi chuyển sang Cuộc sống ở trước mặt. Lời hứa lúc bình minh là tự truyện của Gary từ năm 8 tuổi khi sống bên mẹ, người có tình yêu thương khiến Gary “suốt đời phải chết khát bên bờ mỗi con suối.” Mỗi kỷ niệm để Gary nhớ lại luôn là những ký ức được vẽ bằng những bức tranh đậm màu bởi tính chất của nó luôn được đẩy đến đỉnh điểm từ tính cách quyết liệt và mạnh mẽ của người mẹ, và ở đó Gary, Gary đầy cô đơn chui vào trong đống gỗ thèm khát cái liếm mặt của một con mèo xa lạ, Gary yếu đuối nhưng nguyện làm tất cả mọi điều vì mẹ. Mẹ Gary tuyên bố ông sẽ trở thành đại sứ Pháp, sẽ được tặng Huân chương Bắc đẩu Bội tinh, sẽ trở thành nhà văn nổi tiếng. Nước Pháp với bà luôn thiêng liêng, bất khả chiến bại, đẹp nhất trần gian. Bà đã “ký hiệp ước với số phận” khẳng định con mình sẽ không chết trong chiến tranh. Đằng sau vẻ cực đoan ấy là sự tần tảo, hy sinh, vật lộn với đời sống mưu sinh để có tương lai tốt đẹp. Về sau, Gary đã thực hiện được tất cả mọi lời tiên tri của mẹ, kể cả sự sống. Với Gary, “dường như thế giới này không đủ rộng lớn để chứa đựng hết tình yêu thương tôi dành cho bà”. Có lẽ, điều Gary day dứt nhất trong lòng là những ngày cuối đời của mẹ, ông đã không được ở bên khi bà trút những hơi thở cuối cùng. Nên tiểu thuyết Cuộc sống ở trước mặt là nơi ông có thể làm được điều đó, hóa thân thành cậu bé Momo dành tình yêu thương cho Madame Rosa và ngược lại. Cuộc sống ở trước mặt là câu chuyện kể về cậu bé Momo được nuôi dưỡng bởi Madame Rosa, người lập ra "trung tâm chăm sóc trẻ em ngoài giá thú". Trong tiểu thuyết có một đoạn văn mang tính siêu thực khi Momo trò chuyện với ông Hamil: - Một ngày nào đó cháu sẽ đi Nice, cháu cũng thế, khi nào cháu trẻ. - Sao cơ, khi nào cháu trẻ? Cháu đã già rồi sao? Cháu mấy tuổi rồi, cháu bé của ta? Và một cảnh khi quay ngược những thước phim trong phòng lồng tiếng, Momo thấy cuộc đời mình trôi ngược về quá khứ và hình ảnh mẹ sượt qua trong ký ức. Đây là dấu hiệu chỉ dẫn lối thông nhau giữa tiểu thuyết Lời hứa lúc bình minh và Cuộc sống ở trước mặt. Khi đi sâu hơn vào những điểm tương đồng và trái ngược giữa hai tiểu thuyết, ta có thể thấy Gary tạo ra Ajar đểrời bỏ mình và tái sinh mình. Họ đều sống trên những căn hộ cao tầng khiến bà Mina và Madame Rosa đều phải lên xuống cực nhọc. Hai cậu bé đều không có tình yêu thương của bố, đều nhận được những tấm ngân phiếu hàng tháng. Cái chết của hai người bố không gây xúc động gì nơi Romain và Momo. Romain rất thích cảm giác được mèo hay sư tử biển liếm mặt, còn Momo tưởng tượng vào buổi tối có sư tử vào liếm mặt và ngủ cạnh mình. Điểm chung đặc biệt lớn nhất là tình mẫu tử của hai cậu bé và hai người phụ nữ, dù Madame Rosa không phải mẹ của Momo thì tác giả cũng đã làm ta tin rằng đó là tình mẫu tử. Nói về sự khác biệt, ở tiểu thuyết trước, Romain là một cậu bé yếu đuối và được bảo bọc trước mẹ bao nhiêu thì ở tiểu thuyết sau Momo là cậu bé chủ động, phá cách và tự do bấy nhiêu. Cậu xăng xái ra đường kiếm tiền, là chỗ dựa của Madame Rosa. Ở tiểu thuyết trước, tinh thần người mẹ dường như hiện hữu trong thể xác của Romain, hai người như hòa làm một trong những khoảnh khắc mong manh của kiếp người, và cuộc đời Romain đã sống là để dành trọn vẹn cho mọi ước mơ của mẹ; còn ở tiểu thuyết sau, Momo yêu thương Madame Rosa nhưng cậu được là chính mình, nhìn yêu thương trong cuộc đời theo một cách khác, dung dị hơn. Mẹ Romain trong Lời hứa lúc bình minh lúc nào cũng nhắc nhở con về một nước Pháp tươi đẹp, bất khuất và những ước mơ danh giá, còn Cuộc sống ở trước mặt dựng lên bối cảnh đời sống con người ở đáy tận cùng của nước Pháp với những người sống bằng nghề đĩ điếm, những đứa trẻ sinh ra bị bỏ rơi. Cậu bé Momo nói với ông Hamil rằng "việc trở thành anh hùng chẳng có nghĩa lý gì so với việc có bố". Momo chính là hóa thân của Gary mong ước được thấu hiểu, nên ông xây dựng hình ảnh những người đàn ông tốt bụng luôn luôn nói với Momo rằng cậu là một đứa trẻ nhạy cảm, có tâm hồn đẹp và khác biệt. Để thực hiện nguyện vọng được chăm sóc mẹ trong những năm tháng cuối đời, tác giả đã cho rất nhiều người đến viếng thăm, chăm sóc và nhảy múa mua vui cho Madame Rosa. Cuối cùng, ông hóa thân thành cậu bé Momo, ở bên Madame Rosa trong tổ Do thái của bà, đổ hàng tá chai nước hoa lên người bà, tô mặt bà đến khi không thể nào tô nổi, và nằm bên cạnh bà đến khi người ta phải phá cửa xông vào vì phát hiện ra những mùi đặc biệt. Kết “Tôi đã sinh ra”, là câu văn Gary viết trong Lời hứa trước bình minh nói về cảm giác của mình sau khi xuất bản tiểu thuyết đầu tay vào năm 1945. Cuốn sách cuối cùng của Gary, cuốn Cuộc đời và cái chết của Émile Ajar, xuất bản một năm sau khi Gary qua đời, tiết lộ sự thật về 4 tiểu thuyết ông viết dưới bút danh Ajar, và Paul Pavlowitch chỉ là người đóng thế, Ngày 2.12.1980, Gary đã tự sát bằng một khẩu súng. Không ai biết chính xác vì sao Gary quyết định từ giã cõi đời, nhưng trong lá thư để lại ông viết: “Vì sao ư? Có lẽ nên tìm câu trả lời trong tiêu đề cuốn tự truyện La nuit sera calme và câu cuối cùng trong cuốn sách cuối cùng của tôi. “Bởi vì ta không thể nói tốt hơn“. Tôi cuối cùng đã thể hiện mình trọn vẹn.” (4) “HẾT RỒI”[...]“Tôi đã từng sống”. (5) * (1) Người đàn ông mà chúng ta đã tin, Paul Pavlowitch, Fayard, 1981. (2) và (3): Cuộc đời và cái chết của Émile Ajar, Romain Gary, Gallimard, 1981. (4) http://www.1-jour.fr/2-decembre-1980-romain-gary-se-suicide/ (5) Lời hứa lúc bình minh, Romain Gary, Nguyễn Duy Bình dịch, NXB Văn học và Công ty sách Nhã Nam, năm 2009.

mile bi nh hai momo romain ng tl hu pseudo kh big sur sau gallimard nguy trong fayard sao goncourt nga khi bondy hamil ajar romain gary gary t

Textual Challenges of Section 230

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 17, 2021 64:38

This panel will address the textual questions of §230: is the statute correctly understood to permit discretionary content moderation on the part of social media platforms and other supporting tech entities, or does the text provide for a more limited range of moderation policies? Although several circuit courts have adopted a more expansive interpretation of the statutory protections, Justice Thomas has recently questioned whether the prevailing application is consistent with the text. Does viewpoint discrimination fall within the scope of §230 protection? Are decisions to ban individuals from participating on a platform covered by the statutory protections? To what extent does the statute preclude state regulatory initiatives to protect speech by platform users?Featuring: -- Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law School; President, New Civil Liberties Alliance-- Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law-- Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law-- Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

university president law challenges professor judge appeals hamburger columbia law school ucla school section 230 justice thomas textual united states court miami school distinguished scholar columbia circuit gary t katsas gregory g hilda friedman professor

Jeepcast This Week - June 15, 2021

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 16, 2021 54:03

In this episode, catch up with what we've been up to this week-- Gary T installed the Bullydog Tuner with help from Gary H in the RAM to set tire size and add more tow power, and started some maintenance on his rig in preparation for the Rubicon. And Gary H is working on the All Jeep Show planning and starting to plumb in the second fuel pump. Hear all about the fun we had this week. Per usual there is a Jeep of the Week and new listener feedback. Tune in to hear a fresh new episode of the Northwest Jeepcast. Look for bonus content at patreon.com/nwjeepcast. All Jeep Show 2021 --Visit Northridge4x4.com for all your Jeep needs and listen for a special coupon code. And follow us @nwjeepcast on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook.

ram jeep rubicon gary h gary t

Free Speech and Compelled Speech: First Amendment Challenges to a Marketplace of Ideas

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 15, 2021 76:00

Section 230 has been understood to shield internet platforms from liability for content posted by users, and also to protect the platforms' discretion in removing “objectionable” content. But policy makers have recently taken a stronger interest in attempting to influence tech companies' moderation policies. Some have argued the policies are too restrictive and unduly limit the scope of legitimate public debate in what has become something of a high-tech public square. Other policy makers have argued the platforms need to more aggressively target “hate speech,” online harassment, and other forms of objectionable content. And against that background, states are adopting and considering legislation to limit the scope of permissible content moderation to preclude viewpoint discrimination. Some have suggested that the §230 protection, in combination with political pressure, create First Amendment state action problems for content moderation. Others argue that state efforts to protect the expressive interests of social media users would raise First Amendment concerns, by effectively compelling speech by social media and tech platforms.What are the First Amendment limits on federal and state efforts to influence platform decisions on excluding or moderating content? Featuring:-- Eugene T. Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law -- Jed Rubenfeld, formerly Assistant United States Attorney, U.S. Representative at the Council of Europe, and professor at the Yale Law School -- Mary Anne Franks, Professor of Law and Dean's Distinguished Scholar, University of Miami School of Law -- Moderator: Hon. Gregory G. Katsas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Jeepcast This Week - June 8, 2021

ADDITIONAL HISTORY: Headlines You Probably Missed

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 9, 2021 77:30

In this episode, catch up with what we've been up to this week-- Gary T did a bunch of upgrades on Bridget's JK in preparation for the Rubicon, like a new bumper and driveline. And Gary H went wheeling in a typical Washington day of sun, clouds, rain, snow, and mud; and planning for the All Jeep Show. Hear all about the fun we had this week. Per usual there is a Jeep of the Week and new listener feedback. Tune in to hear a fresh new episode of the Northwest Jeepcast. Look for bonus content at patreon.com/nwjeepcast. Northwest Jeepcast All Jeep Show Rubicon: Tahoma staging area closed June 21-25 --Visit Northridge4x4.com for all your Jeep needs and listen for a special coupon code. And follow us @nwjeepcast on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook.

washington jeep jk rubicon gary t

Gary Klugiewicz: An Experiential Look at Law Enforcement Training

Tactical Breakdown

Play Episode Listen Later May 27, 2021 21:03

Gary T. Klugiewicz is recognized as one of the nation's leading Public Safety Trainers and Instructional Designers specializing in conflict management with four decades of experience. Gary provides a unique blend of physical expertise, adult learning principles, and communication skills along with the hard earned experience necessary to translate complex physiological, psychological, legal and ethical concepts into understandable terms. Gary Klugiewicz’s ability to create realistic training programs is without equal. His programs are based on the “guided discovery” concept that allows participants to discover the training concepts in order to reinforce learning principles. In addition, his programs stress professional communication skills and incorporate verbalization skills into every aspect of these training programs. Gary has channeled all his energies into the development of a control system and conflict management model that addresses the special needs of Public Safety personnel. Coming from a law enforcement background, he is best able to address the complex forces at work within our nation's police, correctional, military, security, mental health and health care organizations. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

training empathy law enforcement policing public safety experiential instructional designers gary t

MINI - February 11, 1979

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2021 14:56

I'm always game for a good shipwreck story, and this one does not disappoint. It's a story that has been told many times before, but even though more than forty years have passed since it happened, a million questions remain unanswered. _______ SOURCES “The Crew of the Sarah Joe.” Unsolved Mysteries Wiki. Accessed April 9, 2021. https://unsolvedmysteries.fandom.com/wiki/The_Crew_of_the_Sarah_Joe. John Christensen. “Hana Waits for Her Sons.” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (Honolulu, Hawaii), March 8, 1979. www.newspapers.com. “Joss Paper.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, December 1, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joss_paper. Kubota, Gary T. “Lost fishermen still cast shadow 30 years later.” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (Honolulu, Hawaii), February 20, 2009. www.newsappers.com. “Lost Hawaiian Fisherman.” Unsolved Mysteries, September 7, 2020. https://unsolved.com/gallery/lost-hawaiian-fishermen/. “Pigeons Used in Search for 5 Missing Fishermen.” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (Honolulu, Hawaii), February 14, 1979. www.newspapers.com. “Search Ended for Fishing Boat.” The Honolulu Star-Bulletin (Honolulu, Hawaii), February 17, 1979. www.newspapers.com. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

lost search hawaii wikipedia unsolved mysteries joss wikimedia foundation kubota fishing boat john christensen sarah joe gary t her sons

Experiences from King of the Hammers 2021

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 10, 2021 113:37

In this episode, Gary T interviews Gary H and Shawn on their experiences from KOH 2021. They discuss their crazy rock crawling, a race car recovery, and aiding all the 4400 class race cars up Backdoor. Per usual there is a Jeep of the Week and a bunch of listener feedback. Tune in to hear a fresh new episode of the Northwest Jeepcast. Look for bonus content at patreon.com/nwjeepcast. Michigan Snow Wheelin --Visit Northridge4x4.com for all your Jeep needs and listen for a special coupon code. Start your Amazon shopping experience at http://nwjeepcast.com/amazon to help support this show. And follow us @nwjeepcast on Instagram, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook.

amazon experiences jeep backdoor koh king of the hammers gary h gary t

Religious Liberties: Religious Liberty and the New Court

Gee, Talking All That Jazz

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 25, 2020 79:14

On November 9, 2020, The Federalist Society's Religious Liberties Practice Group hosted a virtual panel for the 2020 National Lawyers Convention. The topic of the panel was "Religious Liberty and the New Court."Religious liberty and religious free exercise in the modern era often involve the question of when religious exemptions are appropriate or required. A well-trodden debate asks whether the Free Exercise Clause provides relief only from laws that target religion, or whether it also requires courts to grant exemptions from generally applicable laws that happen to burden religion. But much less has been said about how courts should implement either of these two readings. First, how can courts tell if a law is truly general in application? If religious entities must be treated as well as secular analogues, what makes a secular entity "analogous"? Second, if the Free Exercise Clause requires something more than even-handed treatment of religious entities, what more is needed? What sort of test should be used to determine when to grant exemptions from a general law? The first question came up repeatedly in cases challenging the shutdown orders prompted by COVID-19, and is also at issue in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Depending on how the Court decides that case, it may address the second question as well. This panel explores both questions, and features opposing perspectives on religious exemptions as a matter of history, doctrine, and constitutional law.Featuring:Prof. Stephanie Barclay, Associate Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Gerard V. Bradley, Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law SchoolProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California, Los Angeles School of Law Ms. Lori Windham, Senior Counsel, The Becket Fund for Religious LibertyModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia CircuitIntroduction: Hon. Dean A. Reuter, General Counsel | Vice President & Director, Practice Groups, The Federalist Society *******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Relationships - Part II

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2020 27:46

Relationship advice from Gary T. Davis

relationships gary t

Civil Liberties and COVID-19

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 17, 2020 100:31

The Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference concluded with a panel on "Civil Liberties and COVID-19". The panel took place via teleconference on Friday, June 12, 2020.Various governmental and private measures relating to COVID-19 are raising challenging civil liberties questions both in the US and around the world. What are the limits on States and localities’ ability to restrict movement? Should journalists be able to be sued for promoting approaches deemed insufficiently or overly aggressive? Do businesses shut down by government order have any legal recourse? What kind of reason do police need to stop people on the street to enforce stay-at-home orders? What about government redirection of medical resources away from abortions? What about government redirection of goods and production capacity? Rationing of scarce medical resources on the basis of anticipated quality of life? What about churches told not to hold in-person or drive-in services? What about prisoners and detained unlawful entrants at heightened exposure risk? What about landlords forbidden to evict tenants? Nor are the challenges limited to the immediate emergency measures. Potential public health steps intended to facilitate safer reopening also raise thorny problems. Should the government be able to condition going back to work or getting on an airplane on a negative COVID-19 test? Or a positive antibody test? Should a company or an airline? Should privacy laws including HIPAA and others be relaxed to permit more effective isolation of people who test positive, including using cell phone location information to send phone alerts to health officials about people who have tested positive and are not self-isolating? Or their close contacts? Or to help with contact tracing? If not how will this affect the efficacy of stepped up testing efforts? Even if in theory some of this makes sense, does the US really have the enforcement resources and bureaucratic capacity effectively to borrow/emulate some of these techniques that have been used in other countries? This panel will explore these questions.Featuring:Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law; Class of 1963 Research Professor in Honor of Graham C. Lilly and Peter W. Low, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union, 1991-2008Prof. Mila Versteeg, Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law; Director, Human Rights Program; Senior Fellow, Miller Center, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Civil Liberties and COVID-19

Providence Church Audio Podcast - ProvidenceSWFL.com

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 17, 2020 100:31

The Federalist Society's COVID-19 & the Law Conference concluded with a panel on "Civil Liberties and COVID-19". The panel took place via teleconference on Friday, June 12, 2020.Various governmental and private measures relating to COVID-19 are raising challenging civil liberties questions both in the US and around the world. What are the limits on States and localities’ ability to restrict movement? Should journalists be able to be sued for promoting approaches deemed insufficiently or overly aggressive? Do businesses shut down by government order have any legal recourse? What kind of reason do police need to stop people on the street to enforce stay-at-home orders? What about government redirection of medical resources away from abortions? What about government redirection of goods and production capacity? Rationing of scarce medical resources on the basis of anticipated quality of life? What about churches told not to hold in-person or drive-in services? What about prisoners and detained unlawful entrants at heightened exposure risk? What about landlords forbidden to evict tenants? Nor are the challenges limited to the immediate emergency measures. Potential public health steps intended to facilitate safer reopening also raise thorny problems. Should the government be able to condition going back to work or getting on an airplane on a negative COVID-19 test? Or a positive antibody test? Should a company or an airline? Should privacy laws including HIPAA and others be relaxed to permit more effective isolation of people who test positive, including using cell phone location information to send phone alerts to health officials about people who have tested positive and are not self-isolating? Or their close contacts? Or to help with contact tracing? If not how will this affect the efficacy of stepped up testing efforts? Even if in theory some of this makes sense, does the US really have the enforcement resources and bureaucratic capacity effectively to borrow/emulate some of these techniques that have been used in other countries? This panel will explore these questions.Featuring:Prof. Julia Mahoney, John S. Battle Professor of Law; Class of 1963 Research Professor in Honor of Graham C. Lilly and Peter W. Low, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, Emerita, New York Law School; Former President, American Civil Liberties Union, 1991-2008Prof. Mila Versteeg, Martha Lubin Karsh and Bruce A. Karsh Bicentennial Professor of Law; Director, Human Rights Program; Senior Fellow, Miller Center, University of Virginia School of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Hon. Christopher C. DeMuth, Distinguished Fellow, Hudson Institute*******As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speakers.

Diego Valeri: Not just an MLS MVP

Trail Blazers Outsiders

Play Episode Listen Later May 29, 2020 35:27

Portland Timbers midfielder Diego Valeri joins Talkin' Blazers to discuss his soccer career, his love for Portland and whether Major League Soccer might be returning to the pitch anytime soon.1:30 Dan says Deigo Valeri deserves a statue outside Providence Park.2:00 Talking about the Timbers Army.3:30 How do you make the Timbers/MLS even better?5:15 Talking about the expectations put on him when he arrived to Portland in 2013.9:30 How do you stay in shape during this time?10:40 He says he must stay in shape because the season may return at any moment.12:00 Have you thought about how things will be if you return and there is no Timbers Army?14:00 How much discussion have you and your teammates had with your families about possibly being away for at least a month?16:00 What Portland restaurant will you go to when things open up?17:00 Who is the greatest Argentinian athlete ever?21:00 Talking about soccer's popularity in Argentina.24:00 Talking about how many great Argentinian soccer players play the same position as he does.27:00 Talking about his relationship with his daughter.31:00 Says he's a basketball fan and a Blazer fan.

EP184 Gary Trey Taylor: Uphold 318

Tsunami Healing

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 7, 2020 35:30

Owner & Founder of Mental Health & Wellness Organization “Uphold 31:8,” Gary T. Taylor, joins us on this Episode of Tsunami Healing. Trey takes all of his experiences of being a social worker, his personal journey and what he has seen in the industry to create this movement that is a safe space for the … Continue reading EP184 Gary Trey Taylor: Uphold 318 →

founders mental health owner uphold trey taylor gary t

Decision Making God's Way - 1.29.20 - Decision Making God's Way

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 29, 2020

"Decision Making God's Way - 1.29.20" Dr. Gary T. Meadors

decision making god's way gary t

Episode 29 - The Refinement Group

Corner Pocket Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later May 17, 2019 75:27

In this episode, Freeze had to hold it down without Gary T and interview The Refinement Group. Darren Brown and Darius Mitchell came on the corner to promote Derby Detroit 2019 and explain what The Refinement Group is all about and what sets them apart from all other groups. This episode should be sponsored by Tito's Vodka because Darius, Darren and Freeze had a great time informing the public about The Refinement Group and Detroit Filmmakers Awards. You have to listen to this to believe it! Listen! Follow! Share! Subscribe! --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/cornerpocket/support

freeze refinement darren brown tito's vodka gary t

Say What You Will?: Government Compelled Speech

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 8, 2019 94:22

When can the government require you to speak, or to host speech on your property, or to pay for speech you dislike? Three of the Court’s 2018 cases – the Masterpiece Cakeshop wedding cake/same-sex wedding case, the Janus union dues case, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates pregnancy crisis center case -- all involved this question. So do many other matters that are in the news: For instance, the controversy over whether people can be required to use particular pronouns to refer to others is in large measure a controversy about compelled speech. But the law in this area is surprisingly complicated, ambiguous, and unsettled. This panel will consider what the law is, and what the law ought to be.Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of AmericaProf. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor, Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The University of Pennsylvania Wharton SchoolProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of LawModerator: Hon. Sandra Segal Ikuta, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

family university law professor government court prof speech assistant professor national institutes first amendment appeals compelled catholic university janus business ethics legal studies ninth circuit united states court mark l masterpiece cakeshop eugene volokh columbus school rienzi life advocates gary t california los angeles school free speech & election law

Say What You Will?: Government Compelled Speech

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 8, 2019 94:22

When can the government require you to speak, or to host speech on your property, or to pay for speech you dislike? Three of the Court’s 2018 cases – the Masterpiece Cakeshop wedding cake/same-sex wedding case, the Janus union dues case, and the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates pregnancy crisis center case -- all involved this question. So do many other matters that are in the news: For instance, the controversy over whether people can be required to use particular pronouns to refer to others is in large measure a controversy about compelled speech. But the law in this area is surprisingly complicated, ambiguous, and unsettled. This panel will consider what the law is, and what the law ought to be.Prof. Mark L. Rienzi, Professor of Law, Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of AmericaProf. Amanda Shanor, Assistant Professor, Legal Studies & Business Ethics, The University of Pennsylvania Wharton SchoolProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of LawModerator: Hon. Sandra Segal Ikuta, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

family university law professor government court prof speech assistant professor national institutes first amendment appeals compelled catholic university janus business ethics legal studies ninth circuit united states court mark l masterpiece cakeshop eugene volokh columbus school rienzi life advocates gary t california los angeles school free speech & election law

Episode 14 - Single Women's Panel

Corner Pocket Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 11, 2018 154:30

In this episode, we have several beautiful women discussing dating, what they want, need, and desire in a relationship. Gary T and DJ Freeze asks the questions that every man wants to know and the ladies didn't pull any punches answering. Kenzie Current (Whats The Current) makes a return appearance (and she's late again =)). Everyone will enjoy this episode and learn a thing or two. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/cornerpocket/support

single panel gary t

Episode 12 - Boys 2 Men Mentoring & Gary T Everett Sr.

Corner Pocket Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 29, 2018 89:28

We have Boys 2 Men Mentoring Group president Mark Watts and retired police officer Gary T. Everett Sr. with special guest host Racquel Shelby from Porch Talk Podcast on the corner discussing the importance mentorship in the community. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/cornerpocket/support

boys mark watts men mentoring gary t

ALDF v. Wasden: The Ninth Circuit and Idaho’s “Ag-Gag” Law

Play Episode Listen Later May 22, 2018 38:11

Early this year, a Ninth Circuit panel issued a split decision in an Idaho case that pits interests protected by the First Amendment against property rights and privacy interests. More specifically, as the panel majority noted, the appeal “highlights the tension between journalists’ claimed First Amendment right to engage in undercover investigations and the state’s effort to protect privacy and property rights in the agricultural industry.” In ALDF v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2018), the panel considered constitutional objections to a new Idaho statute that makes it a crime to engage in “interference with agricultural production.” A number of states with substantial agribusiness operations have enacted or considered enacting similar statutes, which some opponents call “ag-gag” laws. The Idaho law was passed in 2014, after an animal rights group posted a “disturbing,” “secretly-filmed exposé of the operation of an Idaho dairy farm” on the Internet. Animal rights organizations filed suit in federal district court, challenging several provisions of the statute. After the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the Idaho attorney general appealed. As relevant here, the Idaho statute defines the crime of “interference with agricultural production” to include (and thus to prohibit) four categories of knowing conduct: (1) knowingly making misrepresentations to enter an “agricultural production facility”;(2) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain records of an agricultural production facility;(3) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain employment with an agricultural production facility, coupled with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the owners, the facility, and other persons and things; and(4) knowingly entering an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public and making audio or video recordings of the facility’s operations without the owner’s consent and without any judicial or statutory authorization. The panel unanimously upheld the second and third prohibitions, and unanimously struck down the fourth prohibition. But the panel divided 2-1 over whether the first prohibition (on knowingly making a misrepresentation to enter an agricultural production facility) is constitutional. The majority (Judge M. Margaret McKeown, joined by Judge Richard C. Tallman) held that the prohibition violates the First Amendment. Judge Carlos T. Bea, who dissented in part and concurred in part, would have upheld the prohibition. Among other things, he disagreed with the majority’s reading of United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S 709 (2012), an important recent case in which the Supreme Court struck down the federal Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized false claims about the receipt of military decorations or medals. Professor Eugene Volokh will discuss and evaluate the separate opinions in the case and their analyses of the statutory provisions at issue, noting possible implications for litigators as well as for legislators who may be considering similar legislative proposals. Featuring:Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

united states internet law partner supreme court animal idaho first amendment alvarez ucla school tall man cir federalist society ninth circuit property law eugene volokh ag gag wasden aldf varcoe gary t teleforum stolen valor act

ALDF v. Wasden: The Ninth Circuit and Idaho’s “Ag-Gag” Law

Play Episode Listen Later May 22, 2018 38:11

Early this year, a Ninth Circuit panel issued a split decision in an Idaho case that pits interests protected by the First Amendment against property rights and privacy interests. More specifically, as the panel majority noted, the appeal “highlights the tension between journalists’ claimed First Amendment right to engage in undercover investigations and the state’s effort to protect privacy and property rights in the agricultural industry.” In ALDF v. Wasden, 878 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir. Jan. 4, 2018), the panel considered constitutional objections to a new Idaho statute that makes it a crime to engage in “interference with agricultural production.” A number of states with substantial agribusiness operations have enacted or considered enacting similar statutes, which some opponents call “ag-gag” laws. The Idaho law was passed in 2014, after an animal rights group posted a “disturbing,” “secretly-filmed exposé of the operation of an Idaho dairy farm” on the Internet. Animal rights organizations filed suit in federal district court, challenging several provisions of the statute. After the court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, the Idaho attorney general appealed. As relevant here, the Idaho statute defines the crime of “interference with agricultural production” to include (and thus to prohibit) four categories of knowing conduct: (1) knowingly making misrepresentations to enter an “agricultural production facility”;(2) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain records of an agricultural production facility;(3) knowingly making misrepresentations to obtain employment with an agricultural production facility, coupled with the intent to cause economic or other injury to the owners, the facility, and other persons and things; and(4) knowingly entering an agricultural production facility that is not open to the public and making audio or video recordings of the facility’s operations without the owner’s consent and without any judicial or statutory authorization. The panel unanimously upheld the second and third prohibitions, and unanimously struck down the fourth prohibition. But the panel divided 2-1 over whether the first prohibition (on knowingly making a misrepresentation to enter an agricultural production facility) is constitutional. The majority (Judge M. Margaret McKeown, joined by Judge Richard C. Tallman) held that the prohibition violates the First Amendment. Judge Carlos T. Bea, who dissented in part and concurred in part, would have upheld the prohibition. Among other things, he disagreed with the majority’s reading of United States v. Alvarez, 567 U.S 709 (2012), an important recent case in which the Supreme Court struck down the federal Stolen Valor Act, which criminalized false claims about the receipt of military decorations or medals. Professor Eugene Volokh will discuss and evaluate the separate opinions in the case and their analyses of the statutory provisions at issue, noting possible implications for litigators as well as for legislators who may be considering similar legislative proposals. Featuring:Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of LawModerator: Andrew R. Varcoe, Partner, Boyden Gray & Associates PLLCTeleforum calls are open to all dues paying members of the Federalist Society. To become a member, sign up here. As a member, you should receive email announcements of upcoming Teleforum calls which contain the conference call phone number. If you are not receiving those email announcements, please contact us at 202-822-8138.

united states internet law partner supreme court animal idaho first amendment alvarez ucla school tall man cir federalist society ninth circuit property law eugene volokh ag gag wasden aldf varcoe gary t teleforum stolen valor act

Mandatory union fees and the First Amendment

We the People

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 22, 2018 55:20

Alicia Hickok and Eugene Volokh join National Constitution Center President and CEO Jeffrey Rosen to discuss a major Supreme Court case about public-union dues. The Supreme Court is considering arguments in a case that could have a huge effect on public-section unions and their membership. The case of Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) will be heard on February 26 at the Court. The question in front of the nine Justices is if public-sector “agency shop” arrangements -- payments that workers represented by a union must pay even if they are not dues-paying members -- should be invalidated under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court said in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) that government employees who don’t belong to a union can be required to pay for union contract negotiating costs that benefit to all public employees, including non-union members. The Abood decision has been challenged in court several times, and an evenly divided Court couldn’t decide a similar case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, in 2016. This time, a full Court will consider the issue. Alicia Hickok is a Partner at the law firm Drinker Biddle and a Lecturer in law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School. She wrote an amicus brief in the Janus case on behalf of the Rutherford Institute, siding with Janus’s position. Eugene Volokh is Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law at UCLA Law School. He co-wrote an amicus brief in Janus with Will Baude siding with the union. Questions or comments? We would love to hear from you. Contact the We the People team at podcast@constitutioncenter.org And don't forget to take our new podcast survey at constitutioncenter.org/survey The Constitution Center is offering CLE credits for select America’s Town Hall programs! Get more information at constitutioncenter.org/CLE.

america university education law state partner court supreme court union fees lecturer first amendment mandatory town hall janus justices cle american federation pennsylvania law school friedrichs jeffrey rosen ucla law school eugene volokh abood california teachers association rutherford institute detroit board drinker biddle gary t municipal employees afscme will baude national constitution center president

MechanHackery in the Shack

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 26, 2017 66:58

This week Gary and Gary discuss MechanHack Shack workings on Gary T's front axle to get him back on the trails and progress on Gary H's new 'high n tight' bumper. And as always the world-famous Jeep of the Week is announced as is listener feedback. Tune in to hear a fresh new episode of the Northwest Jeepcast. Look for bonus content from this episode at patreon.com/nwjeepcast. Links ** Yukon Hard Core Lockout Hubs || ** RCV axle shafts || ** SpynTec JK Hub Conversion || ** Evo HnT rear JK bumper ** --Visit Northridge4x4.com for all your Jeep needs and listen for a special coupon code. Start your Amazon shopping experience at http://nwjeepcast.com/amazon to help support this show. And follow us @nwjeepcast on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.

amazon jeep jk shack gary h gary t

The Future of Libel Law

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2017 90:05

Libel law leads two lives. Most famously, there is the life of presidential candidates and the New York Times; of celebrities and the National Enquirer; of exposes in Rolling Stone. The rules here seem settled, with the “actual malice" standard and public/private figure distinctions. President Trump seems to be questioning whether they were settled right -- were they?But there is also the life created by the Internet: of Yelp reviews, of gripe blogs, of consumer complaints on RipOffReport and sites such as BadBoyReport.kr and ShesAHomeWrecker.com. People are finding it easier than ever to widely publicize their grievances, whether accurate or not. Here the questions focus more on remedies than on “actual malice" and similar substantive standards. The traditional compensatory, presumed, and punitive damages remedies are often seen as largely pointless. Criminal libel survives, and is in some measure being revived; should it be? Injunctions against libel, long thought by many to be quintessential unconstitutional prior restraints, are routine; is that good? As to either life of libel law, how can the law punish defamatory falsehoods without unduly deterring accurate accusations?Mr. Paul Alan Levy, Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation GroupMs. Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLCProf. Rodney A. Smolla, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware School of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of LawModerator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

university donald trump internet law new york times professor partner rolling stones criminals attorney yelp first amendment appeals national enquirer libel united states court fifth circuit injunctions eugene volokh ripoff report gary t california los angeles school free speech & election law

The Future of Libel Law

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2017 90:05

Libel law leads two lives. Most famously, there is the life of presidential candidates and the New York Times; of celebrities and the National Enquirer; of exposes in Rolling Stone. The rules here seem settled, with the “actual malice" standard and public/private figure distinctions. President Trump seems to be questioning whether they were settled right -- were they?But there is also the life created by the Internet: of Yelp reviews, of gripe blogs, of consumer complaints on RipOffReport and sites such as BadBoyReport.kr and ShesAHomeWrecker.com. People are finding it easier than ever to widely publicize their grievances, whether accurate or not. Here the questions focus more on remedies than on “actual malice" and similar substantive standards. The traditional compensatory, presumed, and punitive damages remedies are often seen as largely pointless. Criminal libel survives, and is in some measure being revived; should it be? Injunctions against libel, long thought by many to be quintessential unconstitutional prior restraints, are routine; is that good? As to either life of libel law, how can the law punish defamatory falsehoods without unduly deterring accurate accusations?Mr. Paul Alan Levy, Attorney, Public Citizen Litigation GroupMs. Libby Locke, Partner, Clare Locke LLCProf. Rodney A. Smolla, Dean and Professor of Law, Widener University Delaware School of LawProf. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of California Los Angeles School of LawModerator: Hon. Jerry E. Smith, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

university donald trump internet law new york times professor partner rolling stones criminals attorney yelp first amendment appeals national enquirer libel united states court fifth circuit injunctions eugene volokh ripoff report gary t california los angeles school free speech & election law

Winter Maintenance - Coilover Rebuild

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 7, 2017 64:41

This week, Gary and Gary discuss winter maintenance tips and specifically a MechanHack Shack project on Gary T's rig to rebuild his King coilovers. Need help with coilover maintenance? Well, you've come to the right place as we cover it all in this latest episode of the Northwest Jeepcast. Send any of your jeep maintenance questions in to nwjeepcast@gmail.com. They also discuss some listener feedback about the ORO SwayLOC for JKs and TJs, link below. The following links provide information on the coilover maintenance discussed on the show: ** King coil over rebuild kits || ** King shock oil || ** King coilover springs || ** King Coilover Rebuild Instructions || ** King Coilover Rebuild Video || ** EVO Rear Lever King coilover system || ** EVO King Coilover Front Kit || ** SwayLOC for Jeep Wrangler JK with remote control || ** B&M 80250 Automatic Transmission Universal Drain Plug || --Visit Northridge4x4.com for all your Jeep needs and listen for a special coupon code. Start your Amazon shopping experience at http://nwjeepcast.com/amazon to help support this show. And follow us @nwjeepcast on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.

amazon rebuild maintenance jeep bm tjs jks gary t

Traction Challenges in the Snow

Jeep Talk Show, A Jeep podcast!

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 9, 2017 51:08

This week, Gary and Gary talk about a couple snow wheelin trips done over the holidays, one on the west side of the Washington Cascades and the other on the east side of the Cascades. They discuss different types of snow conditions encountered that made traction difficult and the techniques they used to tackle them. And they introduce a teaser of a build that they are doing in the MechanHack Shack. A whole bunch of new events including some classic bucket list trips is announced as well as a new prize giveaway opportunity. Listen to find out how you can win some jeep parts. Check out nwjeepcast.com/events for our latest list of events. --Visit Northridge4x4.com for all your jeep needs and listen for a special coupon code. Start your Amazon shopping experience at http://nwjeepcast.com/amazon to help support this show. And follow us @nwjeepcast on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook. Gary T pulling two jeeps through the snow on Tonga Ridge. Gary T on Cowiche Mill near Yakima

amazon challenges snow traction cascades yakima gary t

Ep.259 - Top 12 Detailing Hacks for Your Jeep

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 16, 2016 72:05

Leave comments for the show! Voicemail (530) 675-4102 This Week In Jeep FCA you naughty tease! Jeep Joins the Polizia! The Grand Adventure Reviews Cr4n3um - 20% Information 80% Infomercial Uncle_Buck - Like a fine wine... Peter An email from Gary T at the NorthWest Jeepcast Tech Talk with Jeep Talk Top 12 Detailing Hacks for your Jeep! Voice mails Dave from Oregon From the Mind of NickyG Camp Fire Side Chat

voice mind hacks jeep voicemail detailing polizia gary t

Northridge 4x4 on Steroids

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 12, 2016 71:46

This week, Gary and Gary announce a new give-away this month that is time sensitive due to the prize being awarded before Christmas, listen to the podcast for details how to play. Gary T visits Northridge 4x4 and has an interview with David Johnson, and Gary H comments on the interview. They announce the winner of the Thanksgive-a-way, however the winner decided to forgo the prize as he already has those items. Listen to the podcast to learn how you can claim the prize yourself. They discuss some listener feedback including some error corrections from the last episode on radios and additional information on radios used in Jeeping. Check out http://nwjeepcast.com/events for our latest list of events Products discussed on the show: ** BaoFeng BF-F8HP 8-Watt Dual Band Two-Way Radio || --Visit Northridge4x4.com for all your jeep needs and listen for a special coupon code. Start your Amazon shopping experience at http://nwjeepcast.com/amazon to help support this show. And follow us @nwjeepcast on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook.

christmas amazon products steroids david johnson northridge jeeping gary h gary t

Ninth Annual Rosenkranz Debate: Hostile Environment Law and the First Amendment 11-19-2016

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 24, 2016 68:31

RESOLVED: Hostile Environment Law, On and Off Campus, Often Violates the First Amendment. -- The Ninth Annual Rosenkranz Debate was held on November 19, 2016, during The Federalist Society's 2016 National Lawyers Convention. -- Featuring: Prof. Deborah L. Rhode, Ernest W. McFarland Professor of Law; Director, Center on the Legal Profession; Director, Program in Law and Social Entrepreneurship, Stanford Law School and Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law. Moderator: Hon. Jennifer W. Elrod, U.S Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Introduction: Mr. Eugene B. Meyer, President, The Federalist Society.

ROUNDTABLE: Areas of Constitutional Doctrine Transformed [Showcase Panel IV] 11-19-2016

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 24, 2016 117:35

The final Showcase panel examines Justice Scalia's transformation of five very important areas of Supreme Court doctrine. First, Justice Scalia transformed freedom of expression doctrine by entrenching a rule of viewpoint neutrality in place of different tests for different kinds of speech. In the five to four flag burning cases, Justice Scalia teamed up with Justices Brennan and Marshall to protect political speech. In the five to four decision in Citizens United he did the same thing with a different block of Justices. In another five to four opinion, Justice Scalia recognized constitutional protection for hate speech in RAV v. City of St. Paul. He joined a summary affirmance of a Seventh Circuit opinion by Judge Frank Easterbrook banning Catherine MacKinnon's anti-pornography laws. Second, Justice Scalia revolutionized the law of the religion clauses by largely burying the Lemon test and leading the Supreme Court in affirming the constitutionality of education vouchers for religious schools. Third, Justice Scalia revolutionized the Second Amendment by finding that it protected an individual's right to bear arms to defend himself, and he was very libertarian and protective of criminal defendants' rights in his criminal procedure jurisprudence. Fourth, Justice Scalia surprised some observers with his criminal law and procedure opinions on searches, the Confrontation Clause, and more. Finally, Justice Scalia played what some describe as a unique role in standing, including in his opinion in Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. -- This panel was held on November 19, 2016, during the 2016 National Lawyers Convention in Washington, DC. -- Featuring: Mr. Floyd Abrams, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Hon. Michael W. McConnell, Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Director of the Constitutional Law Center, Stanford Law School; Senior Fellow, Hoover Institute; Hon. David R. Stras, Minnesota Supreme Court; Prof. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School; former President, American Civil Liberties Union; Prof. Eugene Volokh, Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law; and Mr. Edward Whelan, President, Ethics & Public Policy Center. Moderator: Hon. Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Introduction: Hon. Lee Liberman Otis, Senior Vice President, The Federalist Society.

director president washington law washington dc partner court supreme court prof roundtable panel senior vice president transformed doctrine areas lemon senior fellow appeals constitutional second amendment mcconnell justices ucla school american civil liberties union stanford law school citizens united rav david r federalist society ninth circuit michael w new york law school justice scalia nadine strossen hoover institute seventh circuit minnesota supreme court eugene volokh floyd abrams constitutional law center confrontation clause lexmark international frances mallery professor gary t catherine mackinnon edward whelan

Free Speech, Anti-Corruption, and the Criminalization of Government Affairs 11-13-2015