Eye on Miami has been reading the Miami Herald, and has learned that U Miami President Donna Shalala has changed.
It's true Shalala can be pretty scary at times, but I have never seen her in that headdress.
Eye on Miami has been reading the Miami Herald, and has learned that U Miami President Donna Shalala has changed.
It's true Shalala can be pretty scary at times, but I have never seen her in that headdress.
Mr. Dan Grech
WLRN Miami Herald News Director
Dear Mr. Grech,
I am a law professor at the University of Miami. I am writing to express my concern about something I heard on WLRN this morning during the Miami Herald News segment. The segment concerned the discussion held yesterday in the Miami Herald editorial offices between competing candidates for Congress in FL-22. (I was in my car, but I believe it ran shortly after 7:30am. I can't find it online.)
In the discussion of the candidates' differences over immigration, Allen West's position was described as “hardline”; his position was that babies born in the US should not have citizenship. Whatever the merits of this idea as social policy (the so-called 'anchor babies' to which he referred have been shown to be pretty much mythical) it does listeners, most of whom are not professors of constitutional law, a great disservice to call this a “hardline” position. It is not a matter of policy that could be changed by Congress or the Executive. It is, quite simply, part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.
Either the candidate is proposing that we ignore the Constitution as it has been understood for generations, or he is proposing that we repeal the 14th Amendment. Proposals to violate the law, or to amend basic rules that have served us for generations, may be called many things — I'd call them “radical” — but they cannot fairly be called “hardline” without substantially more context than your report offered.
We might call differences on how aggressively to attempt to enforce immigration laws — e.g. what resources to devote to factory or farm-worker raids — as an issue to which the “spend more on enforcement” position is fairly abbreviated as “hardline”. But the “ignore the Constitution” or the “repeal the 14th Amendment” positions are something else entirely, something I hope your future reports — even the very short ones — will make more clear.
Yours Sincerely,
A. Michael Froomkin
Laurie Silvers & Mitchell Rubenstein Distinguished Professor of Law
It still boggles my mind that the Miami Herald can be so boring when there's so much talented state and local coverage online.
Today's Herald front page gives most of its real estate to a large, competent, story on property taxes. (“As market values plummet, tax bills still rise.”) Yes, it has some take-home value. But it doesn't say anything I haven't read in the Herald before.
The Herald routinely gives prime placement to predictable columnists such as Myriam Marquez (motto: “boring and conventional since 2009”), while burying on an inside page one of its few remaining, Fred Grimm Today's Grimm column was typical — a solid double. In Nut preacher hits jackpot in digital age makes the somewhat predictable point that Terry Jones is a cheap publicity hound, but illustrates it with personal experience from growing up in 50's West Virginia in an “unpainted, plumbing-free clapboard house where I lived with an aunt and her hard-preaching husband.”
Worse, the political coverage just isn't even close to being all it could be. The Herald could save itself it would just buy in some talent from online. Where — other than the soon-departing Beth Reinhard will you find anything to equal The Reid Report or Eye on Miami? How can the Herald stand to be so outdone?
In a sign either that I'm getting stronger or that I'm nuts, I've agreed to be interviewed on camera by a crew from ABC's Nightline tomorrow a bit after class. They want to know about when it's OK to film and record people in public (and sometimes put it on YouTube).
Many states — including Florida — have two-party consent laws requiring that speakers agree to be recorded (one-party consent laws only require that the person doing the recording consent). Oddly, most of those states don't use a similar rule for photos or videos, most likely because many of these laws were drafted with wiretapping/phone recording in mind as the evil to be controlled; state public policy is/was that citizens have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their telephone communications. But no one was thinking about videos, perhaps because video equipment was exotic and expensive; allowing photos in public is also consistent with the “plain view” doctrines that apply in the context of police investigations.
But even on its own terms, the two-party consent rule runs into the First Amendment if the conversation is in a public place, and even more so if it is with a public official … say, a police officer. Conversely, there is also the issue of the citizen's privacy right if a third party (or the state) seeks to publish the recording. Currently common law privacy torts cover outrageous interference with privacy in public places, but these are very very limited circumstances such as accident victims speaking to first responders (medical privacy) or upskirt photos (legal pudeur). Only California has tried to legislate an anti-paparazzi rule, and even this is carefully circumscribed to avoid very real First Amendment concerns.
As for the photos, that's getting harder and harder too in the face of spurious claims of “security” and “anti-terrorism” that have been raised, usually arbitrarily and without actual legal authority, to prevent still photography of public buildings.
I gather the ABC cameras will also be visiting local celebrity photography-is-not-a-crime Carlos Miller.
The segment won't air for some time, though.
If and when someone smart writes the obituary of the by then late and unlamented Miami Herald, she will point to this moment in 2000 when the Herald had a chance to make a turnaround hire, and didn't.
Earlier relevant posts:
The media tempest over Shirley Sherrod's firing has reached down to me, and I'm quoted in the Palm Beach Post's take, Racism allegations, apologies fly fast Ex-Ag exec thrust into racism debate.
The reporter wanted to know if Ms. Sherrod might have a libel claim. Leaving aside the issues as to against whom a libel or false light claim might be filed, I tried to explain to the reporter that economic injury (if it existed) was only the easiest sort to prove, not the only sort that mattered, but that got lost somewhere, I fear.
The reporter seemed surprised that it could be hard to prove the case if Ms. Sherrod ended up with a better job, even though she had been held up to a degree of insult and ridicule, but a tort claim requires you prove injury as an element of the claim and I can certainly imagine a defense based on the claim she ended up better off so where's the damage? With some juries it could work.