Adolfmadinejad

I just watched the speech by achmyrimjoberdo at Columbia University. The segment where he states there are no homosexuals in Iran is hilarious and I am glad he was laughed at vociferously. I originally thought it was a bad idea to have him come speak, and I still think it is kind of stupid to let him make a propoganda film out of a visit to America, but after seeing that he was publicly humiliated and made to look like an ignorant fool, I think there might be a positive effect to his visit.

But before I say what I think was good about his speech, I should say that this speech was not about the First Amendment. Because this is a legal blog, I should make some attempt to make a legal point. The First Amendment does not say that we have to give a platform for all views. It simply protects someone who expresses views that may be contrary. Almost all of what we consider the fundamental rights are less positive rights than negative restrictions on what the government can do to you as an individual. So his speaking at Columbia has nothing to do with a First Amendment right, except that he was not arrested for what he said.

But what he said was both extreme and dangerous. The best thing that might have come from the speech is that more people will realize what a crazy tyrant Adolfmadinejad really is. He denies the holocaust on the basis of needing academic freedom, he denied well documented torture and killing of homosexuals and women by claiming that homosexuals don't exist in Iran and that woman are beautiful creatures, and that the moderator was insulting him because he asked the simple question of whether he believed Israel should be wiped off the map (which he ha said many times in the past but avoided today by talking about the plight of Palestine.)

Basically, after watching that speech, I have the following question. . .would you rather have America trying to establish order in Iraq or this guy?

Semester Preview

I am just about to head to class for the beginning of a new semester. As much as last semester was focused on the more philosophical and theoretical questions of the constitution and policy, this semester is going to be a focus on the nitty-gritty details of contemporary litigation. I have legal writing again this semester, where I will be preparing pre-trial and appellate briefs and making oral arguments. I am also taking evidence and forensics, which I will hopefully be able to put to use this summer after I get my Rule 9 certification (a limited license to practice law prior to passing the bar and under direct supervision of an attorney.) Unfortunately, because I am doing plaintiff's work, we do whatever we can to resolve claims before they ever see a court room. Still, the statutes are about to run on a bunch of our cases, so I might get some court time after all.

I do have a couple of substantive courses to balance out the procedural emphasis of this semester. My medical liability course looks fairly interesting. My doctor/med school friends have already put in a request that I fall on the defense side of that issue. Then there is the class I am most looking forward to, constitutional law and terrorism. Our professor is the U.S. Attorney for the Western States and we are going to have a lot of really interesting speakers in that class. I am sure I will be tying in some of the topics from that course to posts on this blog. It is nice to have a class that is so contemporary as to be in the news daily. We are Reading Hamdan v. Rumsfeld for the first class and meeting with the former defense council for detainees in Guantanamo.

Looks to be an interesting semester. I will keep you all updated as it shapes up.