Podcasts about Popehat

The Trump cabinet pageant continues! And we're all about to find out which of the judges – aka our elected U.S. senators – are willing to let President-elect Donald Trump run the show. On Wednesday, Trump selected Florida Rep. and contender for most hated member of Congress Matt Gaetz to serve as attorney general of the United States. Gaetz has little relevant experience, but he is one of Trump's most loyal — and vocal — supporters in Congress. At least one senator is already expressing skepticism. Ken White, a former federal prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney who writes the Popehat newsletter, games out what an Attorney General Matt Gaetz would mean for the Justice Department.And in headlines: President Joe Biden and Trump had an awkward meeting at the White House, South Dakota Republican Sen. John Thune is the new Senate majority leader, and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones' Infowars media empire is auctioned off to anonymous bidders.Show Notes:Check out Ken's podcast – www.serioustrouble.show/podcastSubscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday 

Today on Zooming In at The UnPopulist, we're diving into one of the most pressing issues of our time: free speech. Our host Aaron Ross Powell is joined by a special guest, Ken White—better known online as Popehat—a First Amendment expert, seasoned criminal defense attorney, civil litigator, and cohost of the Serious Trouble podcast. Together, they'll explore some of the most pressing questions in free speech discourse today: Have we become too quick to label some speech as offensive? Are we idealizing a past where free expression was supposedly more open? And, most importantly, how can we foster richer, more nuanced conversations in an increasingly polarized world?Stay tuned as Aaron and Ken skillfully navigate these difficult waters. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.theunpopulist.net

John and Craig lawyer up with criminal defense attorney Ken White (aka Popehat) to look at legal scenes in movies and TV, and separate the tropes from the truth. How do lawyers actually prepare a case? Will they meet a client in jail? Do they need to gather evidence themselves? And what happens when they go to trial? What are the rules for examining witnesses? How often do people represent themselves in court? And do judges really bang their gavel like that? In our bonus segment for premium members, John and Craig invite Ken to imagine traveling somewhere worse than prison — the beach. Links: Ken White on BlueSky, Facebook and Threads Serious Trouble podcast The Popehat Report by Ken White Hello, My Name Is Stephen Glass, and I'm Sorry by Hanna Rosin for The New Republic LibreOffice Sovereign Citizens Getting Owned The Rest is History podcast Get a Scriptnotes T-shirt! Check out the Inneresting Newsletter Gift a Scriptnotes Subscription or treat yourself to a premium subscription! Craig Mazin on Threads and Instagram John August on Threads, Instagram and Twitter John on Mastodon Outro by Lou Stone Borenstein (send us yours!) Scriptnotes is produced by Drew Marquardt and edited by Matthew Chilelli. Email us at ask@johnaugust.com You can download the episode here.

This week, we're looking closely at the deal Hunter Biden struck with federal prosecutors over his 2018 gun purchase while he was using illicit drugs. That's why I brought on a former federal prosecutor and current criminal defense attorney Ken White. He's also a podcast host and writes under the name Popehat. So, he's able to explain the ins and outs of the indictment and give some analysis of the politics of it all too. White noted that the felony charge Hunter struck a deal on is rarely pursued as a standalone charge. It's also almost never punished with the maximum possible sentence. He said the pretrial diversion program Hunter and prosecutors agreed to, which includes a lifetime ban on gun ownership, is not an unheard-of consequence for somebody without previous convictions on their record. He said the charge may not have been brought against other defendants under similar circumstances. But he agreed Hunter may have forced the prosecutors' hands by publicizing his drug use through a book and media tour. White also noted the deal does reflect poorly on Hunter's father because the senior Biden has pursued stricter gun laws in office while his son got himself in this mess. And all of the other controversies surrounding Hunter may leave people feeling he's received special treatment even if the deal he received was reasonable for the specific charges in the case. Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I discuss the surprising failure of the pistol-brace ban repeal resolution in the Senate. And Jake tells us about a collectible gun he bought from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. Special Guest: Ken White.

Jen and Noam touch on the ongoing FTX saga and Kanye's public meltdown before diving into the Twitter Files aka the Taibbi tweet thread about the internal goings on involving the Hunter Biden laptop story (spoiler alert - we don't agree on the significance of the revelations).  We will be on our regular Callin schedule this week of Wednesday night at 8:30 Eastern, what we'll discuss is anyone's guess at this point  https://www.callin.com/show/all-crossed-out-jVWglWcHxW  Show notes: Noam has a new Reply Guy; Elon Musk: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1596925202184564736 https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1599123578976604160 lol remember the Krassensteins?: https://variety.com/2019/digital/news/twitter-bans-ed-brian-krassenstein-brothers-fake-accounts-1203225266/ SBF has committed his live to never stop talking: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/01/business/dealbook/sam-bankman-fried-dealbook-interview-transcript.html …and he didn't dark money donate to Republicans: https://twitter.com/teddyschleifer/status/1598870359939649538 The Alex Jones - Kanye interview. Because what else is there to say here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/12/01/kanye-west-alex-jones-hilter-interview/ Kim K got sued, won: https://www.investopedia.com/kardashian-wins-the-crypto-lawsuit-6826710 When it comes to Kanye, everyone is an armchair psychiatrist now: https://twitter.com/jessesingal/status/1599423315939950593 The new plan in NYC to place homeless people in hospitals, exaplined: https://twitter.com/NoahCRothman/status/1598312180599988231 THE TWITTER FILES THREAD: https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1598822959866683394 Elon said Apple was going to pull Twitter from the app store, but it's all good now: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1597300125243944961 Elon tweets mild criticism of Vijaya Gadde: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1519073003933515776 NYT is being hyperbolic (again): https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1598686020630872066 Nuzzi doesn't understand her and SBF are not the same:  https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/12/media-after-trump/617503/ Dorsey's thread on Trump's booting from Twitter, which hits different now: https://twitter.com/jack/status/1349510769268850690 The usual suspects are mad at Substack Man : https://twitter.com/mtaibbi/status/1599194927333793792 Elon Musk follows no women on Twitter: https://www.vice.com/en/article/bmv5ev/elon-musk-follows-zero-women-on-twitter Popehat has second thoughts about joining the journalo Mastodon: https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1599132556594925568

Your Heard Tell Show for Tuesday, September the 20th, 2022 is turning down the noise of the news cycle and getting to the information we need to discern the times we live by having some grown folk talk and wider perspective on immigration, remembering a friend we have lost, another hurricane in Puerto Rico, and moreOur guest today is Aadi Golchha of Young Voices and host of The Economics Review podcast. Aadi and host Andrew talk big picture problems, cultural battles, and policy failures surrounding immigration in America. Aadi talks us through the different layers of mess immigration has become from the visa system, to green cards, citizenship process, and the outdated standards and caps put upon legal immigration. Aadi also talks about astonding data about the economic effect of immigration, and the startling bureaucratic failure that has created a backlog that is measured in decades to fix.Also, we remember our friend Patrick Anders by talking about how the saying "Twitter ain't real life" doesn't apply when you use social media to make real life friends, and how Patrick affected so many lives that the tributes mostly start with "I never met him in real life, but..." So, host Andrew talks about our friend in real life, and the lesson we should take from how he lived his.Plus, five years after Hurricane Maria wrecked havoc on Puerto Rico the island is again recovering from a storm, we cover what did - and didn't - change in the interval time and how old problems still are revealed by crisis while the folks down there suffer.All that and more on this Tuesday edition of Heard Tell.Ken White's (Popehat) tribute to Patrick can be read here: https://popehat.substack.com/p/a-farewell-to-a-friendNeva, Patrick's wife, tells their story here: https://twitter.com/pipandbaby/status/1571752928582541312?s=20&t=Tr8_8dzeuMzkBE1veZrVI--------------------Questions, comments, concerns, ideas, or epistles? Email us HeardTellShow@gmail.comPlease make sure to subscribe to @Heard Tell , like the program, comment with your thoughts, and share with others.Support Heard Tell here: https://app.redcircle.com/shows/4b87f374-cace-44ea-960c-30f9bf37bcff/donationsQSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/heard-tell/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy

Robert Tracinski is the author of the book, So Who Is John Galt, Anyway?: A Reader's Guide to Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged." Tracinski also writes the Tracinski Letter and Symposium at Substack, and he is a columnist for various other publications. This is the Self in Society Podcast #26.Time Markers00 Intro1:22 Would Any Rand be more concerned with today's "woke" anti-capitalist left or religious ethno-nationalist right?6:06 The collapse of fusionism; Rand's influence on conservatism9:50 Are Objectivists on "the right?"11:47 Trumpists and Putin apologists among Objectivists15:35 Joe Biden vs. Donald Trump as Atlas Shrugged villains19:50 Open vs. Closed Objectivism25:53 Ayn Rand as a liberal29:32 Today's conservative right as anti-liberal35:33 Problems with the welfare state; a baseline of life-serving values43:54 Why a reader's guide to Atlas Shrugged46:07 To what degree are Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, and Elon Musk Randian heroes?51:04 And Rand vs. the Stoics59:53 Parental love1:05:29 Should we be optimistic about America's future?1:10:17 Wrap-upOne article of Tracinski’s I found helpful is “Which Way, Western Man?” He also wrote, “Ukrainians Are Nobody's Pawns.”In 2016 I wrote an article, “Ayn Rand Is the Anti-Trump.”PopeHat has the parody of Trump.Sherri and Robert wrote, “10 Amazingly Enjoyable Things About Having Kids.” Get full access to Self in Society at selfinsociety.substack.com/subscribe

As Ahmaud Arbery's murderers prepared to plead guilty to federal civil rights charges last week, two of the men appeared ready to tell a judge that they chased and killed a 25-year-old man because he was Black. Those admissions would have represented a long-delayed reckoning in a case that animated the racial justice movement globally and drew attention to what many described as a modern-day lynching in the Deep South.Then, the deal fell apart, with Arbery's family denouncing prosecutors for even contemplating such a plea agreement.On the latest episode of Law&Crime's podcast "Objections: with Adam Klasfeld," prominent legal commentator Ken White—better known by the nom de plume Popehat—unpacks why that happened, what it means for the criminal justice reform movement and what to expect at the trial which began this week with jury selection.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Our 200th Episode! Former President Donald Trump files a class action lawsuit against the world's biggest social media companies. Does that mean we will lose Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube? Ken White (of Popehat) returns to Ken-Splain. Special thanks to our sponsor Nota.

Our 200th Episode! Former President Donald Trump files a class action lawsuit against the world's biggest social media companies. Does that mean we will lose Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube? Ken White (of Popehat) returns to Ken-Splain. Special thanks to our sponsor Nota.

Our 200th Episode! Former President Donald Trump files a class action lawsuit against the world's biggest social media companies. Does that mean we will lose Twitter, Facebook, or YouTube? Ken White (of Popehat) returns to Ken-Splain. Special thanks to our sponsor Nota.

We talk about monsters and furries and teletubbies OH MY! There is also a brief mention of breakfast.

Renato and Patti discuss the federal and state indictments and investigations arising from the assault on the U.S. Capitol.  They were joined by former federal prosecutor Ken White, who writes and tweets under the pseudonym "Popehat."

Welcome! Someone has referred you to this post because you've said something quite wrong about the First Amendment. I apologize for this impersonal approach to your mistake. I would prefer to offer you an artisanal response to your wrongness, something that would respect and celebrate the unique ways that you've taken https://www.popehat.com/2016/06/11/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-the-first-amendment/ 1925 decisionfaced with an Alabama defamation judgment against the New York Times for running an advertisement about abuse of civil rights protesters by local officialsconsider these classic media free speech tropes.

In 1919, The US Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States established the rule that if words create a "clear and present danger" to incite criminal activity or violence, the government has the right to prevent and punish that speech. For nearly fifty years, through wars and the Red Scare, that rule was applied largely without question. Then, in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, a white supremacist in Ohio, convicted for an inflammatory speech at a Klan rally, challenged his conviction saying it violated his First Amendment rights...and the Court agreed. A new test was born which has lasted for now more than 50 years. But, having been formulated in an era of much more limited media, does it still hold up today? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from Popehat.com, host Ken White explores how the First Amendment has handled inflammatory speech, from Schenck to the current Brandenburg standard and all the way up to today. With the help of Professors David Cunningham and Richard Wilson, Ken digs into what makes the “imminent lawless action” test of Brandenburg such an important turning point in First Amendment law but also investigates whether the proliferation of online communication necessitates a renewed look at the standards set out in a “simpler” time. Professor David Cunningham is professor and Chair of Sociology at Washington University in St. Louis. Professor Richard Wilson is the Gladstein Distinguished Chair of Human Rights and Professor of Law and Anthropology at UConn School of Law.

In 1919, The US Supreme Court in Schenck v. United States established the rule that if words create a "clear and present danger" to incite criminal activity or violence, the government has the right to prevent and punish that speech. For nearly fifty years, through wars and the Red Scare, that rule was applied largely without question. Then, in the 1969 case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, a white supremacist in Ohio, convicted for an inflammatory speech at a Klan rally, challenged his conviction saying it violated his First Amendment rights...and the Court agreed. A new test was born which has lasted for now more than 50 years. But, having been formulated in an era of much more limited media, does it still hold up today? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from Popehat.com, host Ken White explores how the First Amendment has handled inflammatory speech, from Schenck to the current Brandenburg standard and all the way up to today. With the help of Professors David Cunningham and Richard Wilson, Ken digs into what makes the “imminent lawless action” test of Brandenburg such an important turning point in First Amendment law but also investigates whether the proliferation of online communication necessitates a renewed look at the standards set out in a “simpler” time. Professor David Cunningham is professor and Chair of Sociology at Washington University in St. Louis. Professor Richard Wilson is the Gladstein Distinguished Chair of Human Rights and Professor of Law and Anthropology at UConn School of Law.

Legal news about President Donald Trump often outrages people, but it shouldn’t. And at the same time, his administration makes outrageous legal statements that many accept as normal, says Kenneth White, a former assistant U.S. attorney known as "Popehat" on Twitter. Now a partner at Brown, White & Osborn in its Los Angeles office, White recently spoke with ABA Journal Senior Writer Stephanie Francis Ward. Special thanks to our sponsor, LawPay.

Legal news about President Donald Trump often outrages people, but it shouldn’t. And at the same time, his administration makes outrageous legal statements that many accept as normal, says Kenneth White, a former assistant U.S. attorney known as "Popehat" on Twitter. Now a partner at Brown, White & Osborn in its Los Angeles office, White recently spoke with ABA Journal Senior Writer Stephanie Francis Ward. Special thanks to our sponsor, LawPay.

Legal news about President Donald Trump often outrages people, but it shouldn’t. And at the same time, his administration makes outrageous legal statements that many accept as normal, says Kenneth White, a former assistant U.S. attorney known as "Popehat" on Twitter. Now a partner at Brown, White & Osborn in its Los Angeles office, White recently spoke with ABA Journal Senior Writer Stephanie Francis Ward. Special thanks to our sponsor, LawPay.

First Amendment litigator, criminal defense attorney, writer, and podcast host Ken White has a wealth of knowledge and perspective about some of today’s most pressing issues, including freedom of speech, the justice system, and American historical precedent.

Ken White of the Popehat blog joins us to discuss the dispute between Twitter and President Trump regarding hidden or “fact-checked” tweets. Oh, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was also mentioned. Sources: Make No Law Podcast “Deplatformed: Social Media Censorship and the First Amendment” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute: 47 U.S. Code §230. Protection for Private Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material President Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship Electronic Frontier Foundation article ‘CDA 230 The Most IMportant Law Protecting Internet Speech’ The Guardian article ‘Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for ‘Glorifying Violence’ CBS News article by Jason Silverstein ‘Twitter flags Trump Tweet with Fact Checking Label for First Time’ Fox News article... https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/twitter-fact-check-policy-clarification

Ken White of the Popehat blog joins us to discuss the dispute between Twitter and President Trump regarding hidden or “fact-checked” tweets. Oh, and Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was also mentioned.  Sources: Make No Law Podcast “Deplatformed: Social Media Censorship and the First Amendment” Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute:  47 U.S. Code §230. Protection for Private Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material President Trump’s Executive Order on Preventing Online Censorship Electronic Frontier Foundation article ‘CDA 230 The Most IMportant Law Protecting Internet Speech’ The Guardian article ‘Twitter hides Donald Trump tweet for ‘Glorifying Violence’ CBS News article by Jason Silverstein ‘Twitter flags Trump Tweet with Fact Checking Label for First Time’ Fox News article... https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/twitter-fact-check-policy-clarification

How do you know when something’s obscene? It’s not exactly an easy question. Plenty of now respected works were, at one point, declared obscene and subject to judicial scrutiny - James Joyce’s Ulysses, Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, and George Carlin “7 Words You Can’t Say on TV” to name just a few. But how exactly does a court answer the question? And how can the layperson know, with any degree of certainty, whether something is obscene or not? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from Popehat.com, host Ken White explores the United States Supreme Court’s approach to obscenity law through the lens of the landmark case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, in which we find one of the most well known lines in Supreme Court jurisprudence - “I know it when I see it.” With the help of guests Professors Philippe C. Met and Geoffrey R. Stone, Ken explores the rules set forth by the Supreme Court, their notorious ambiguity, and how they apply in the modern day. Professor Philippe C. Met is a professor of French and Francophone Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He also serves as Editor-in-Chief of French Forum. Professor Geoffrey R. Stone is a noted First Amendment scholar, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and formerly served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

How do you know when something’s obscene? It’s not exactly an easy question. Plenty of now respected works were, at one point, declared obscene and subject to judicial scrutiny - James Joyce’s Ulysses, Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, and George Carlin “7 Words You Can’t Say on TV” to name just a few. But how exactly does a court answer the question? And how can the layperson know, with any degree of certainty, whether something is obscene or not? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from Popehat.com, host Ken White explores the United States Supreme Court’s approach to obscenity law through the lens of the landmark case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, in which we find one of the most well known lines in Supreme Court jurisprudence - “I know it when I see it.” With the help of guests Professors Philippe C. Met and Geoffrey R. Stone, Ken explores the rules set forth by the Supreme Court, their notorious ambiguity, and how they apply in the modern day. Professor Philippe C. Met is a professor of French and Francophone Studies at the University of Pennsylvania. He also serves as Editor-in-Chief of French Forum. Professor Geoffrey R. Stone is a noted First Amendment scholar, the Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago, and formerly served as law clerk to Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr.

Renato and Patti discuss the recent DOJ motion to dismiss the charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, as well as Trump’s allegations about the origin of the Flynn investigation.  They are joined by former federal prosecutor Ken White, who frequently comments on legal issues under the moniker “Popehat.”All the President's LawyersMake No Law: The First Amendment Podcast

Ken White is a First Amendment litigator, lawblogger at Popehat.com, and the hilarious Twitter personality Popehat. He joins Heaton to talk about Free Speech: what's legally protected and what will prompt the cops to come knocking? How do public decency laws work?  Interview at 5:30 Heaton's Heathens Discord Link Feedspot Top Ten Political Comedy list

Politically conservative voices have been arguing recently that social media outlets such as Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube have been illegally censoring their views. They claim, as a result of their political leanings, that they are being “deplatformed”, or having their accounts suspended or removed. These allegations have led to congressional hearings, complaints from the President, and claims that these platforms are a serious threat to Americans’ freedom of speech. Critics and pundits argue that Twitter bans and videos pulled from Youtube amount to censorship and nothing less than an unconstitutional abridgement of their First Amendment rights. Are they right? Is there something to the argument that these services serve as the modern day “public forum” and are therefore required to be neutral? In this episode of Make No Law: The First Amendment Podcast from Popehat.com, host Ken White reviews the common arguments made by critics of these moderation policies by highlighting the legal foundations on which they’re made: the First Amendment right to free speech; Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act; and anti-discrimation law. With the help of professor Eric Goldman, Ken pulls these arguments apart, demonstrating that these companies are not breaking the law when they ban, block, or demonetize an individual due to their political beliefs. Eric Goldman is a professor at Santa Clarita University School of Law where he teaches, amongst other subjects, Internet Law. He is also the author of the Technology and Marketing Law blog

Tracking the QAnon legal claims — including the infamous 100'000 sealed indictments — with attorney Ken White (AKA Popehat). follow ken: twitter.com/popehat Subscribe for 5 bucks a month at patreon.com/qanonanonymous and get a second premium episode every week, plus all the ones we've already recorded. Thank you!

Criminal or civil, plaintiff or defendant — what’s the one piece of legal advice all should follow? Shut up! That being said, should a judge be able to make you do this? In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White talks to Steven Zansberg about gag orders and how far judges can go to restrict the dissemination of case information. They outline the practices of issuing prior restraints and gag orders on case participants and the media, and discuss whether these orders are constitutional. Steve talks about his litigation efforts to keep courtrooms and court records open and they highlight the fact that the legal profession’s rules of professional conduct contain restrictions that negate the need for additional orders issued by judges. For more than two decades, Steven D. Zansberg has represented media companies, online publishers, and individuals in defending claims based on content, fighting subpoenas, and seeking access to government information and proceedings.

Renato and Patti discuss the lenient sentence given to former Trump chair Paul Manafort by federal judge T.S. Ellis, as well as sentencing disparities and other structural inequities in federal sentencing law. They are joined by former federal prosecutor Ken White, who tweets and blogs as "Popehat."

Zack Ford isn’t quite the unicorn the Bible promised us, what with his making a full-time living in journalism and getting to be an activist to boot. Zack talked about his circuitous route to getting a plum gig at ThinkProgress, why conferences are important even when they lose that new conference smell and what he really thinks about Rent. Zack show notes: https://thinkprogress.org/author/zack-ford/ https://twitter.com/ZackFord Follow him on Facebook Live Read Tributes to Deborah McTaggart or Heretic Woman https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSYzIkz6hOo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pcarHu-tM8&t=1s PopeHat takes down Richard Dawkins https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1089377831337914368 Trans ban in the military https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/us/politics/trump-transgender-military.html Japan’s Supreme Court upholds sterilization rule for trans people who want to legally change their gender https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/japan-s-supreme-court-upholds-transgender-sterilization-requirement-n962721 Support me on Patreon: http://www.patreon.com/zachrilege Itunes https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/zachrilege-cast/id996785602?mt=2 Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/zachrilege

Renato and Patti discuss the revelation in Michael Cohen’s sentencing memorandum that Cohen discussed his false testimony with Trump’s lawyers. They also discuss the sentencing memorandum in Michael Flynn’s case, which was filed as the podcast was recorded. They are joined by former federal prosecutor Ken White, who tweets as @Popehat.

On April 26, 1968, Paul Robert Cohen walked down the corridor of the Los Angeles County Courthouse at the corner of Grand and 1st. He didn’t start a fight, he didn’t make any threats, he didn’t even hold up a sign, but he did wear a jacket. This jacket featured “STOP THE WAR,” two peace signs, and the phrase “FUDGE THE DRAFT” (only it didn’t say “fudge”). The result was a court battle over whether the government has the power to punish the use of the word fuck because many find it offensive. In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White takes a look at the case Cohen v. California and whether or not the F word is protected by the First Amendment. He addresses the claims that foul language qualifies as fighting words and/or disturbs the peace while also discussing how defending the right to use the word often involves using the word. This episode features guests Melissa Mohr, author of a book called “Holy Shit: A Brief History of Swearing,” and Alan Garfield, a professor at Delaware Law School. It also includes snippets from the case itself and a brief soundbite of your mom.

I recently participated in a debate hosted by Reason, in a West Coast version of the popular New York City-based debate series, The Soho Forum— against Ken White, an attorney at Brown, White & Osborn, author at the legal blog Popehat. For full show notes, go to: thaddeusrussell.com/podcast/72

While the idea of free speech seems straightforward enough, its execution can be a little messy. Current events especially have underscored the complexity of what is protected by law and what is a punishable offense. Luckily, there are First Amendment lawyers that can answer our questions. In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White answers common questions his listeners have about freedom of speech and the First Amendment. He addresses the misleading claim that “hate speech is not free speech,”, explains the case that challenged President Trump’s ability to block people on Twitter, and talks about how anti-SLAPP statutes work. Ken also takes advantage of the opportunity to discuss yelling on the internet and the constitutional right to petition the government.

In this episode, host Jared Holt and co-host Jack explore the day's news. Ken White (a.k.a. Popehat) joins us to talk First Amendment law and Alex Jones. Then, Travis View breaks down how QAnon went unhinged after it hit the mainstream.Show Ken some love: twitter.com/popehatTravis, too: twitter.com/travis_viewThe call-in voicemail inbox is (202) 630-0580Support this show: patreon.com/shtpostpodcast Get on the email list at shtpost.substack.com

News out of President Trump's White House moves fast. And you probably have questions about what's been going on. Rebecca Ballhaus, of the Wall Street Journal, and Ken White, a former federal prosecutor and criminal defense attorney, join The Takeaway to demystify some of the big words you hear in the news, from indictment to impeachment.

Everyone loves a good redemption story. Maybe that's because it helps us believe it's never too late to change. But how does the same Justice who decided Schenck v. United States, a low point for First Amendment jurisprudence, become the ultimate source of famous First Amendment concepts and rhetoric? In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White explores Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’s transformation into the First Amendment hero we know him as today. To do this, Ken discusses the Sedition Act of 1918, Holmes’s dissension in United States v. Abrams, and the discourse with his friends and colleagues that ultimately swayed his opinion on free speech. He also talks to Professor Thomas Healy, First Amendment and constitutional law professor at Seton Hall and author of “The Great Dissent: How Oliver Wendell Holmes Changed His Mind And Changed The History Of Free Speech In America.”

Foster and Fisher are joined by legendary civil liberties attorney Ken White (of Popehat blogger and Twitter fame) and Damon Root (Reason's resident SCOTUS journalo and the author of "Overruled") to chop up the Justice Anthony Kennedy's surprise retirement announcement, his legacy, and the confirmation shitstorm that's sure to come.Also on tap:- SPLC's capitulation to Maajid Nawaz's defamation suit- SCOTUS upholds the travel ban, busts public sector unions, and tells cops to get a warrant for long-term cellphone location records.Bonus bull session on civility, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, civil rights, public accommodations, free association, and why no elected officials should be allowed to eat anywhere,  ever.(Recorded: Tuesday, June 27th 2018) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Foster and Fisher are joined by legendary civil liberties attorney Ken White (of Popehat blogger and Twitter fame) and Damon Root (Reason's resident SCOTUS journalo and the author of "Overruled") to chop up the Justice Anthony Kennedy's surprise retirement announcement, his legacy, and the confirmation shitstorm that's sure to come.Also on tap:- SPLC's capitulation to Maajid Nawaz's defamation suit- SCOTUS upholds the travel ban, busts public sector unions, and tells cops to get a warrant for long-term cellphone location records.Bonus bull session on civility, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, civil rights, public accommodations, free association, and why no elected officials should be allowed to eat anywhere,  ever.(Recorded: Tuesday, June 27th 2018) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

“You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” is one of the most commonly used First Amendment catchphrases -- but does it really support exceptions to free speech? The answer to this question can be found in the writings of Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. He penned the phrase in 1919, not to justify moderate limits on speech, but to justify government prosecution of those speaking out against the draft. In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White explores the origins of the phrase “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” and whether or not it actually calls for exceptions to the First Amendment. Featured guests include history professor Michael Kazin, who shares his knowledge of the WWI effort and the resulting tension, and author Nat Brandt, who expands on what made fire in a theater such a powerful analogy. Ken also discusses the Espionage Act of 1917 and the role of Oliver Wendell Holmes in the history of free speech.

What pushes a 51 year-old decorated World War II veteran to burn the American flag? In June of 1966, Sidney Street heard the news that James Meredith, an icon of the Civil Rights Movement, had been shot on the second day of his March Against Fear. Street, an African American himself, burned the flag and was arrested. Street declared, “If they let that happen to Meredith, we don’t need an American flag.” So sparked the question of whether the government can punish someone for using words to defile or disrespect an American flag. In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White examines Street v. New York, the Supreme Court case which concluded that the First Amendment allows freedom of expression towards the American flag -- if not yet the right to burn it. The episode features the input of Professor Aram Goudsouzian, the chair of the History Department at the University of Memphis, and the author of the book “Down to the Crossroads: Civil Rights, Black Power, and the Meredith March Against Fear.” The episode also features a listener question from Ben Olson about the inclusion of the word “Congress” in the First Amendment -- if the First Amendment says it only applies to Congress, why is it applied to protect us from action by state and local government? This question leads Ken to discuss the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incorporation Doctrine. If there’s a case you want to hear about, or a First Amendment question you’d like answered on the podcast, email Ken at ken@popehat.com.

Law isn't simple, and truly learning about it takes more than a few short primers or even an in-depth guide or two — which makes it the perfect topic to explore via the medium of podcasts. This week, we've got a pair of guests who are doing exactly that: Ken White of Popehat fame, who recently launched the Make No Law podcast about First Amendment issues, and Elizabeth Joh, co-host of the What Trump Can Teach Us About Constitutional Law podcast. Instead of picking their brains about the law itself, we've got an episode all about their experience using podcasts to teach people about legal issues.

The Animal Crush Video Prohibition Act of 2010 was an animal cruelty prevention law aimed at videos showing women in high heels crushing small animals. While the law took aim at these videos, it ended up being used to target Robert Stevens instead. United States v. Stevens is a landmark case that may be the most important First Amendment decision of the 21st Century so far, but not many people have heard of it. It centers around Robert Stevens, a pit bull enthusiast who was charged with violating the crush video law in March 2004. The case eventually led the Supreme Court to make an important clarification about how we decide what speech is protected under the First Amendment. In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White examines United States v. Stevens and the question of whether the government can continually come to the Supreme Court with potential exceptions to the First Amendment. The episode features input from Marc Randazza, a nationally-known First Amendment and intellectual property attorney. It also examines other relevant cases including New York v. Ferber, a 1982 case in which the Supreme Court decided that the government could punish distribution of child pornography even if it didn’t meet the Miller test for obscenity.

Simon Tam named his band “The Slants” as a way to fight back against racism and take back the word as a form of self-empowerment. But when he tried to register the name as a trademark, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the application and refused to register the trademark under Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act. This law allowed the PTO to refuse a trademark if it could be considered disparaging. No one outside of the PTO actually found the band name disparaging. In this episode of Make No Law, the First Amendment Podcast by Popehat.com, host Ken White examines the Matal v. Tam case in which the Supreme Court vindicated Simon Tam and The Slants, finding that Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act -- which allows the PTO to deny trademarks it finds offense -- violates the First Amendment. In the episode, Simon Tam himself explains how the PTO substituted its own judgment for the advocacy of Asian-Americans trying to highlight and fight back against racism. This episode also features quotes from the justices involved and music from The Slants.

When Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney in Los Angeles County, expressed concern about the validity of a search warrant in 2000, he discovered the fuzzy line between free speech rights and the need for government entities to maintain workplace discipline. His case brought to light the question of whether the government can terminate its employees based on their words as well as why acting as a citizen versus an employee is an important distinction. In this episode, host Ken White explores the Garcetti v. Ceballos case, the results of which saddle government employees with a tough decision. Either they can report misconduct to their superiors and potentially face discipline, or report to media or other sources on the outside and face different discipline. The episode features recordings and documents from the Ceballos’ case as well as an interview with Richard Ceballos himself. It also includes details from other relevant cases, including the  1968 Supreme Court case Pickering v. Board of Education and the 1983 case Connick v. Myers which resulted in the Pickering-Myers test used in Ceballos’ case.

My legal dream team, not helping someone up when they're down, Madcucks reads his own version of the letter, Carmen Mandiego, flu shots are a scam, falling off a child's bicycle ramp, Larry doesn't wax-off at his TNS Dojo--if you know what I'm talking about, Bitcoin retirement homes, silicone ice trays, Ken White sends out the Popehat signal and despises me, a keen eye for Morlocks branding, I track down the Maddox fan who I believe is responsible for all vulgar abuse directed at Mental Jess, the fate of free speech online rests in the hands of Santa Cuck, unboxing dress shirts, dominant hands, and I steal an entire podcast from Madcast Media, how's that for irony? All that and more this week on The Dick Show!

Should you be able to say and do whatever you want online? And if not, who should police this? More Perfect hosts a debate at WNYC's Jerome L. Greene Performance Space about online hate speech, fake news, and whether the First Amendment needs an update for the digital age. The key voices: Corynne McSherry, legal director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation Elie Mystal, executive editor at Above the Law and contributing legal editor at More Perfect Ken White, litigator and criminal defense attorney at Brown White & Osborn LLP — he also runs Popehat.com The key cases: 1957: Yates v. United States 1969: Brandenburg v. Ohio The key links: ProPublica's report on Facebook's censorship policies   Special thanks to Elaine Chen, Jennifer Keeney Sendrow, and the entire Greene Space team. Additional engineering for this episode by Chase Culpon, Louis Mitchell, and Alex Overington. Leadership support for More Perfect is provided by The Joyce Foundation. Additional funding is provided by The Charles Evans Hughes Memorial Foundation.  Watch the event below: NOTE: Because of the topic for the night, this discussion includes disturbing images and language, such as religious, ethnic and gender slurs and profanity. We have preserved this content so that our audience can understand the nature of this speech. ADDENDUM: During the debate one of debaters misspoke and said World War II when he meant World War I. The case he was referring to can be found here.

This week on Intercepted: New York Times reporter Charlie Savage and former federal prosecutor Ken White of Popehat break down the recent indictment and plea deal and what it may mean for Trump. Investigative journalist Nick Turse and Kenya scholar Samar Al-Bulushi take us into the world of US militarism in Africa: secret drone bases, US commandos and Washington-backed African forces operating under the guise of the “war on terror.” Musician Roberto Lange of Helado Negro performs.

Ken White has made a name for himself in First Amendment circles for his particularly astute and often comical commentary on free speech issues for the popular “law, liberty, and leisure” blog ‘Popehat.’ An attorney by day, Ken likes to use his considerable legal chops—he’s a 1994 graduate of Harvard Law School—to take a rhetorical axe to what he sees as facile arguments in favor of censorship. Ken is our guest on today’s episode of “So to Speak.” We talk with him about his list of the worst censors of 2016 and spend some time remembering the life of a giant in the free speech world, Nat Hentoff, who passed away this past weekend. Ken also explains how he successfully uses the “Popehat Signal” to rally attorneys to provide pro bono assistance to people wrapped up in free speech legal battles. www.sotospeakpodcast.com Follow us on Twitter: twitter.com/freespeechtalk Like us on Facebook: facebook.com/sotospeakpodcast Email us: sotospeak@thefire.org Call in a question: 215-315-0100

. The post Mom, Boogey Man, & Popehat with Danielle Meitiv & Ken White appeared first on RealClear Radio Hour.

Ken White, a writer at the legal blog Popehat is back to talk to Bennet Kelley about how broke the news regarding how federal prosecutors based in New York sent a grand jury subpoena and letter to Reason.com. Plus, we learn how a gag order came from a U.S. District Court, meaning Reason could not write or speak publicly about the subpoena or gag order—even to acknowledge either existed.

Ken White and his partner started his firm with rented desks and unreliable phones and built their firm to around a dozen lawyers today. Meanwhile, he became a champion of free speech by defending bloggers threatened by censorious douchebags. He also reveals the secret of the name Popehat. Sam & Aaron start out today's show by talking about legal hacking, about which Aaron is a little confused and Sam is pretty interested.

Marketplace Fairness Act Debate pairing Rebecca Madigan of the Performance Marketing Association and Steve DelBianco from Internet advocacy organization NetChoice, plus Ken White aka Popehat (criminal defense lawyer with Brown, White and Newhouse) returns to discuss sanctions on copyright troll.

Discussing the FunnyJunk lawsuit vs.TheOatmeal.com as Bennet welcomes LA criminal defense lawyer Kenneth White (aka Popehat). Kevin Winston, the founder of Digital LA, Explains Why Los Angeles aka Silicon Beach has become a new Hub for Start Ups.