Category: Law

47

"Crisis Manager" Xavier Hermosillo Shrewdly Defuses Immigration Tumult By Threatening Cartoonist

Murrieta, California is a town recently known for angry crowds screaming at Immigration & Customs Enforcement buses full of kids. Apparently Murrieta thinks that sort of coverage is not a selling point for the town, because they hired Xavier Hermosillo, a "Crisis Manager." This is a typical and prudent move. Across America, if you ask public officials "how can we recapture the media narrative, calm hostility and anger, and promote sensible dialogue," they will inevitably reply "hire an internet talk show host."

Hermosillo set to work. What could he do to calm the troubled waters, improve the town's reputation, and capture the sympathy of the media?

Of course! He could make moronic defamation threats against Lalo Alcaraz, a political cartoonist who writes the strip La Cucaracha! I can see no way that could go badly.

Hermosillo was apparently agitated over a La Cucaracha cartoon that suggested the bus-screamers were racist. A political cartoonist commenting on politics and public behavior? THIS WILL NOT STAND!

IFORGOTHOWTOCRISIS

For the picture-impaired: Mr. Hermosillo said "Lalo, There IS a fine line between your Constitutional right to draw cartoons and expressed [sic] your opinions, and falsely, deliberately, and maliciously labeling and attacking an entire community as racist or as 'Hate City.' You are working overtime to damage Murrieta and such a false premise is actionable. There's a fine line between humor and stupidity. You may have crossed that line at your own peril."

This is, of course, utter bollocks. An "entire community" can't file a defamation suit. Even if they could, political cartoons are at the very core of what the First Amendment protects. Like it or hate it, Lalo's cartoon is a classic example of a political opinion, stated cartoonishly, in reaction to public facts. You may disagree with Lalo's suggestion that the bus-screamers were racists, or that their behavior is fairly attributable to the community of Murrieta, but nobody with the most minimal grasp of defamation law or the First Amendment would think it's an actionable false statement of fact.

Under the familiar Streisand Effect, this buffoonish threat will probably draw far more attention to the comic, draw more negative attention to city leadership ("we paid tax dollars to hire this cretin?"), and make the media substantially more hostile, if that is possible. One thing is for certain: it will not promote any intelligent debate on immigration whatsover.

You would think that a "Crisis Manager" would understand the Streisand Effect, wouldn't you?

26

Gleeful Troll Todd Kincannon Files First Amendment Suit Against South Carolina Attorney Authorities

Todd Kincannon is a performance artist working in the medium of outrage — his own, and that of easily gulled critics. Surely you've heard of him. Perhaps you noticed him the time he got Salon in a tizzy over his obnoxious tweets about Wendy Davis, or the time he agitated the Huffington Post with his grotesque tweets about Trayvon Martin, or the time he enraged Daily Kos (and, for that matter, nearly everyone else) by saying transgendered people should be put in camps. Todd Kincannon would like to be Ann Coulter if he grows up, but lacks the subtle charm. Like Coulter — or like a dilatory burglar who only robs the homes of people who leave their doors unlocked — Kincannon relies on people agreeing to be outraged by someone whose purpose is outraging them for lulz, political advantage, and profit.

Now Kincannon, an attorney, claims he is being censored by South Carolina attorney discipline authorities. He's filed what I will very generously describe as a federal lawsuit over it.

(more…)

22

Monday Schadenfreupdates (Now Updated!)

Why do bad things happen to good people? I can't tell you that. But I can tell you that bad things happen eventually to bad people.

For instance:

1. Perhaps you remember David Bell, chief fraudster of the U.S. Telecom fraud ring discussed in my "Anatomy of a Scam" series. He's had criminal charges pending in San Bernardino County since 2011. Recently he entered a no contest plea to two counts of grand theft auto, plus enhancements for priors, thus not admitting guilt but admitting that the government could prove those particular counts against him. He'll be sentenced in September. And what about the feds? Be patient . . . .

2. You probably also remember Dennis Toeppen, the oddly truculent head of bus company Suburban Express, who liked to threaten online critics with lawsuits and heap them with abuse. Ars Technical reports that Toeppen was arrested on two misdemeanor counts of electronic harassment. I'd reserve judgment until seeing the basis for the case; many cyberbullying and cyberstalking statutes are ridiculously overbroad and a violation of the sacred First Amendment right to be a turd. Ars Technica points out a recent Yelp thread in which Toeppen, true to form, lashes out at bad reviewers; it's bad business, but almost certainly protected speech.

3. The Prenda Law gang, about whom I've written a word or two, suffered another setback last week in the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On May 27th, the D.C. Circuit overturned a trial court order permitting AF Holdings — a Prenda shell — to take early discovery from Cox Communications of the accounts associated with various IP addresses. The decision did not go well for Team Prenda. The D.C. Circuit recognized the various tactics criticized by other courts across the country, savaged AF Holdings' theories of why they would have personal jurisdiction over nationwide downloaders in D.C., and undermined Prenda's arguments about why they could combine multiple defendants in the same case. The court sent the case back to the trial court to see whether sanctions were appropriate for AF Holdings' notorious use of an allegedly forged signature on a copyright assignment. Protip — if a United States Court of Appeals refers to you as "law firm," with scare quotes thus, you're gonna have a bad time.

The wheel turns slowly, but it turns.

Update: Now With More Schadenfreude!

4. In Oregon Troy Sexton — who responded to the Popehat Signal and won an anti-SLAPP motion on behalf of an anti-telemarketing blogger sued for defamationThatLeftAMark has been awarded around $41,000 in fees and costs against the plaintiff, attorney F. Atone Accuardi. Keep those fee awards against censors rolling in, people.

48

Poseur Pastor Pouts, Pursues Preposterous Proceeding, Procures Painful Penalty

Ergun Caner was angry.

There he was, a successful man of God: a published author, Dean and President of the Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary and Graduate School, a sought-after inspirational speaker. Suddenly, crass miscreants laid him low. Critics pointed out he told puzzlingly inconsistent stories about his background. Though public records and his own book suggested that he emigrated from Sweden to Ohio at the age of four, in his inspirational speeches he claimed he had been raised in Turkey, learned of America only through television, and trained as an Islamic jihadist.

Perhaps the story of a foreign jihadist converting to Christianity was more inspiring than the story of an Ohioan converting.

Liberty University conducted an investigation and removed him. But though he found new employment, Egun Caner did not view the matter as resolved. He hungered.

In 2013, he filed a federal complaint in Texas against Jason Smathers and Jonathan Autry, men who posted to YouTube two videos of Caner's . . . shall we say imaginative public presentations. Caner claimed violation of a purported copyright in the videos. He sought damages, attorney fees, and an injunction against posting of the videos.

In other words, Caner sued someone for posting proof that he had been telling inconsistent stories about his background — that he is a fabulist.

Jonathan Autry agreed to take the videos down — no doubt because of the ridiculous expense of a lawsuit. That wasn't good enough for Caner, who continued to demand more concessions. That, as it turned out, was a very poor decision. Autry and Smathers, very ably represented pro bono by Josh Autry and Kel McClanahan, filed a strong motion to dismiss, arguing that (1) Caner could not demonstrate that he had a copyright in the videos, and (2) the posting of them to prove Caner's mendacity was classic fair use.

Caner and his attorney did not take this motion very seriously, I think. I would call their opposition brief nasty, brutish, and short, but it's not substantive enough to be nasty or brutish. It's a feeble two-page gesture that ignores most of the motion's arguments.

United States District Judge Norman K. Moon was unimpressed. He granted the motion and dismissed Caner's case in an extremely thorough (and no doubt very embarrassing to Caner) written opinion.1 First the court noted that Caner had conceded that he never filed a copyright application for one of the videos; that's a prerequisite to maintaining a copyright suit. Second, the judge agreed that the posting of the video was classic fair use, because it was a critical non-commercial use designed to impact discussion of Caner's dishonesty. The court made short work of Caner's thoroughly ridiculous arguments: that the defendants were not protected by fair use because it was the work of a "vindictive" "cyber terrorist", that the defendants were "not qualified" to offer criticism of Caner, and that fair use only protects "appropriate criticism from people that are qualified to render those opinions i[n] the market place and exchange of ideas in academia and elsewhere.” This is too much whaarbaargl.

But we haven't even gotten to the good part yet.

Autry, as the prevailing party in a copyright litigation, filed for attorney fees. Last week, in a devastating opinion, Judge Moon granted $34,262.50 in attorney’s fees and $127.09 in costs to Autry's attorneys, agreeing that Caner's litigation conduct warranted it. The review of Caner's conduct is brutal. The court ruled that Caner (1) pursued the case after Autry took the videos down, (2) demanded, as a condition of settlement, that Autry's young children sign a non-disparagement agreement, (3) delayed the case, (4) failed to seek discovery, opposed the motion to dismiss on the grounds that he needed to take discovery, but could not articulate what discovery he needed, (5) contradicted himself, (6) made unreasonable legal arguments without any support (like the "you must be qualified to criticize" argument), and most importantly (7) filed the case to silence criticism:

In this case, Plaintiff filed a copyright infringement suit to stifle criticism, not to protect any legitimate interest in his work. He and his counsel prolonged this litigation, costing Defendant and his attorney valuable time and money. Defendant’s counsel has set aside other
profitable matters to attend to this meritless litigation, and deserves compensation for doing so. Likewise, Plaintiff should be deterred from seeking to use the Copyright Act to stifle criticism in
the future.

A-W-E-S-O-M-E, that spells Judge Moon.

Caner has failed utterly, has been exposed for his censoriousness, and has had his dishonestly much more thoroughly documented and widely publicized than it would have been if he had not been such a vindictive jackass.

This should happen more often. As I suggested yesterday, intellectual property claims are increasingly abused to silence criticism. Judges ought to avoid their normal squeamishness about attorney fee awards and hammer the plaintiffs in meritless and censorious cases.

Please join me in congratulating the victorious pro bono team.

23

Popehat Signal Update: Dream Team Victory In Texas

I bring good news: top-notch work by generous and dedicated lawyers has produced a free speech victory in Texas.

Last year I lit the Popehat Signal seeking help for J. Todd DeShong, a blogger and AIDS activist. DeShong, a longtime critic of the nutty and conspiratorial junk science occasionally directed at AIDS issues, ran afoul of Clark Baker, an ex-cop and full-blown AIDS denialist who offers "expert" "witness" services. You may recall my description of Baker's phone call to DeShong's mother:

I interviewed Mr. DeShong's mother, a sweet lady with a spine of Texas steel. She told me about how Mr. Baker called her out of the blue and ranted at her. Mr. Baker angrily denounced her son, and told her that, as a police officer, he knew about dangerous people, and that Ms. DeShong should fear that her son would kill her in her sleep. He also threatened that he was arranging for doctors Mr. DeShong had criticized to sue him for defamation. Ms. Deshong pointed out that such a suit would bring no joy; Todd DeShong is not a rich man. "But you have money, right? You have a house, right?" responded Mr. Baker, implying that he might put her assets at risk. "He thought he could intimidate me. He didn't know who he was dealing with," said Ms. DeShong, who sounds like a good person to have at your back.

Baker sued DeShong in federal court in Texas over DeShong's criticism of Baker's AIDS-denialist rhetoric and his "expert" "witness" service the HIV Innocence Group. Baker claimed that DeShong's criticism was not only defamation, but violation of the HIV Innocence Group's trademark rights in its name. Baker's motive may have been mixed: he may have wanted to silence DeShong, but he may also have wanted to use the federal suit to pursue his conspiracy theories about AIDS researchers. I cannot say what his lawyer was thinking, if he was.

Such federal litigation is ruinously expensive to defend; DeShong couldn't afford a defense and Baker might have succeeded in silencing critics through abuse of the legal system. Fortunately, lawyers who care about free speech rode into the breach: D. Gill Sperlein, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, Gary P. Krupkin, and Neal A. Hoffman filed motions to dismiss (attacking the thoroughly specious trademark claims) and a strong motion under Texas' relatively new anti-SLAPP statute.

Last week the dream team won. United States District Judge Sam R. Cummings granted DeShong's motion to dismiss the trademark claims, and then refused to hear the state law claims and dismissed them. The court's ruling held the line on a key free speech concept: using a company's name to criticize it does not violate the company's trademark in the name. Baker had claimed that sites like "HIV Innocence Group Truth" violated trademark rights and were part of an effort to destroy him by discrediting him. But Judge Cummings pointed out "[n]o reasonable person would take one look at DeShong's website and believe that Baker authorized its content." Moreover, the court explained, trademark law doesn't protect a company from criticism. The Lanham Act protects a competitor from profiting from the misuse of another company's trademark; it does not protect a company from vigorous and even ruinous criticism employing its name. Judge Cummings also rejected Baker's argument that DeShong violated trademark rights by using a URL likely to dominate search results for "HIV Innocence Group." That theory, too, would have allowed the Bakers of the world to abuse the Lanham Act to prevent criticism.

I suspect Paul Alan Levy, who has done a lot of important work protecting "gripe sites" and critics from bogus trademark claims, had a strong hand in winning this issue.

Having dismissed the federal trademark claim, Judge Cummings declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims like defamation, finding that state issues (like application of Texas' anti-SLAPP statute) would predominate over federal issues. Therefore he didn't reach the anti-SLAPP motion. That's an increasingly common approach by federal judges in such cases; it's what the judge did in the censorious Naffe case in which I was co-counsel.

Baker has appealed, and could conceivably re-file his censorious screed in Texas state court. If he does, the dream team's work on the anti-SLAPP motion is already done, and I suspect Baker will find no joy before a Texas state judge. I'd lay very good odds that Baker will lose his appeal. Meanwhile, I hope that DeShong's legal team seeks and recovers legal fees from Baker based on winning the Lanham Act claim. The suit was contemptible and represents exactly the sort of case in which federal courts should use their statutory power to award attorney fees to deter such abuse of the system.

Please join me in expressing admiration and thanks to Gil, Paul, Neal, and Gary. Their generosity with their time and talents didn't just help DeShong's free speech: it helped yours. Contributions like theirs are essential to defending free speech principles in a broken system that allows unscrupulous clients and lawyers to silence dissent by inflicting ruinous defense costs. They are heroes.

63

Significant Developments In D.C. Anti-SLAPP Law.

UPDATE: Mr. Steyn advises me through Twitter that he has declined appeal of the Anti-Slapp motion to dismiss, because he wishes to conduct discovery against Dr. Mann. That makes the video below something of a wretched abortion, but as the other defendants in the case (Rand Simberg, National Review, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute) are moving forward with the appeal, I leave the video unaltered and unedited. My apologies to Mr. Steyn.

_____________________________________

Doe v. Burke is an important decision, handed down last week, on the District of Columbia's Anti-SLAPP statute. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals held that an anonymous "John Doe" defendant, sued for libel over internet comments concerning an attorney in a high-profile lawsuit, could immediately appeal the District Court's denial of a motion to quash a subpoena aimed at discovering his identity. The Court went further, and dismissed the suit against Doe entirely.  You may read the Burke decision here:

Doe v. Burke D.C. Anti-Slapp Opinion

This is a significant case. Defamation plaintiffs thinking of using D.C. as a venue for strategic lawsuits against public participation should think twice.  We've previously covered D.C.'s Anti-SLAPP law, extensively, in the lawsuit filed by climate scientist Michael Mann against journalists Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg. You may find our coverage here, and here.  As Steyn, Simberg, and their co-defendants are appealing the denial of their Anti-SLAPP motion to dismiss against Mann, we've invited a guest who is expert in the law of defamation to comment on the case:

68

Texas v. Johnson … v. Berg

1989:

wikipedia.org

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant Gregory Lee Johnson's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

2014:

wpxi.com

BLAIR COUNTY, Pa. — A Blair County man said he was standing up for this American Indian heritage and expressing his beliefs when he hung an American flag upside down and spray painted it earlier this week…

“I was offended by it…” said Allegheny Township police Assistant Chief L.J. Berg. Berg said he took the flag down and charged Joshua Brubaker with desecration and insults to the American flag. “I removed it from the building, folded it properly and seized it as evidence,” said Berg…

In Chief Berg's defense, intelligent people are barred by law from becoming police in many jurisdictions, and so we should perhaps not hold the chief to the same standards that we would use for a decent member of productive society.

35

That Claim Won't Fly

For my money, this is the best lawyer-to-lawyer letter of all time, involving, as it does, a millionaire throwing a porn star off a balcony into a swimming pool by – and I quote – "her vagina".

The issue apparently begins when the porn star grabbed the millionaire's shirt and alters her trajectory (something I'm pretty sure all the tutorials for Kerbal Space Program tell you not to do), thus breaking her foot during reentry.

The letter is from the lawyer of the tosser to the letter of the tossee.

http://totalfratmove.com

I represent Dan Bilzerian and received your letter on behalf of Janice Griffith.

Like your client, the facts of the claim won't, quite, fly.

Maybe your client's theory is that Mr. Bilzerian negligently violated the established standard of reasonable care for one who throws a porn actor off a roof and into a pool during a photo shoot for an adult magazine.

I'll let that one sink in for a moment.

Far be it for me to cast aspersions on the editorial standards of Hustler magazine and "totalfratmove.com", but I'd say that there's a reasonable chance that the entire event (including the allegation of a broken foot, the initial demand letter, and the response letter) was staged.

Even if it's performance art instead of cinema verite, it made me laugh. Go read the whole thing.

93

Department of Health And Human Services Threatens Blogger Over Satirical Posts

The blog Addiction Myth is devoted to a very out-of-the-mainstream proposition about medicine: that the entire concept of drug and alcohol addiction is a scam perpetrated by law enforcement, rehab groups, and the entertainment industry. By contrast, the United States Department of Health and Human Services is devoted to mainstream medical and scientific propositions2 It is perhaps inevitable that these two worldviews would conflict one day.

But it was not inevitable that HHS's Office of General Counsel would bumptiously threaten Addiction Myth over obviously satirical posts. That, given minimal good sense, could have been avoided.

(more…)

43

Who the what?

A. Suppose there's a standard recipe for people who want to make coffee: harvest and prepare (or simply buy) some coffee beans, grind them up, boil them for a few minutes, and serve.

B. Suppose a company — let's call it Feurig — declares a patterned approach toward following this recipe:

  • Provide penetrable cups of a certain size containing prepared, ground beans.
  • Provide a ring sized to hold the cup, a mounted pin to puncture the bottom of the cup, a mounted injection nozzle to penetrate the top of the cup, and a hinged apparatus to automate these penetrations when a cup is inserted into the ring and covered by depressing a handle.
  • Provide an encompassing container capable of heating water, detecting its temperature, and injecting that water into the cup at a rate suitable for cooking the bean dust.

C. Suppose Feurig then implements this patterned approach toward following the recipe by making cups and a device to accommodate and process them.

D. Suppose further that a competing company with an interest in making coffee notes Feurig's success in the marketplace and creates a different machine — made from different materials, employing a different heating, monitoring, and injection facility, and penetrating the cup differently.

E. Suppose even further that yet another company makes a cup different from Feurig's but consistent with the scale of the holding ring  on Feurig's machine and capable of being refilled with arbitrary contents (such as tea or sympathy).

What is the API?

The API is not the standard recipe (A) for making coffee: that's an obvious practice deeply embedded in the common culture and widely exercised in industry and among hobbyists.

The API is not the device that Feurig made as an implementation (C) of the patterned approach that Feurig had declared, and it is not the competing machine (D), and it is not the alternative cup (E).

The API is B: a patterned recipe-following approach capable of being realized in a concrete implementation.

F. Suppose now that a complex culture of innovation and competition has arisen around the API defined in B, and that a company — let's call it Deploracle — comes along and buys Feurig.

Deploracle argues that its newly acquired intellectual property extends not just to the physical brewing device its wholly owned subsidiary invented, but also to the abstract pattern to which that device and its successors (and many knock-off devices) conform to ensure interoperability, substitutability, and some other seven- or eight-syllable word.

That's sort of like claiming IP rights not only over the particular car you manufacture, but also over the general idea of exposing a latch to open a door, providing access to a seat, and presenting a wheel, some pedals, and a feedback display to enable intentional control of a driving machine– a contingent set of conventions that declare a patterned approach to the general recipe for driving a car. (Adherence to those declared conventions of capability and method ensure that many automobile manufacturers can make a car, that many people can learn to drive a car, and that people who learn to drive a car can thereby drive any car that conforms to the expectations implicit in that training.)

So Diabetes-Benz lays claim not only to its actual line of cars, but also to the very idea of doing a car in that way, simply because they declared that convention when implementing their car.

Does that seem right to you?

seemright

23

D.C. Court of Appeals Agrees To Hear Merits of Anti-SLAPP Appeal In Michael Mann's Defamation Case

In our last episode of the saga of Michael Mann's defamation suit against National Review, Mark Steyn, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and Rand Simberg, I explained that the matter was wrapped in a dry, but crucial, procedural issue: the District of Columbia Court of Appeal was faced with whether a defendant who loses a motion under D.C.'s anti-SLAPP law may appeal immediately, or must wait until the end of the case.

As I argued, the strategic implications are dire for defamation plaintiffs and defendants: if anti-SLAPP denials are not immediately appealable than much of the value of the statute is lost to defendants, but if they are immediately appealable then defendants may often delay defamation cases for years.

On Wednesday3 the D.C. Court of Appeal decided to decide, probably. That is, they issued an order denying Mann's motion to dismiss the appeal, and accepting all of the amicus briefs on the issue, and directing the parties to brief the issue of appealability along with the merits of the anti-SLAPP issue. On the one hand, this signifies that the Court didn't think that the procedural issue was completely obvious, and therefore didn't dismiss the appeal or accept it without reservation. On the other hand, the Court still wants to hear more arguments about whether it should be hearing more arguments. The Court also ordered that the appeal be expedited, which means something somewhat different than you or I mean when we say "expedited."

The upshot: the defendants (save for Mr. Steyn, who apparently is not joining this appeal) will get to brief their arguments that Mann's lawsuit should have been dismissed under D.C.'s anti-SLAPP statute. Mann will get to re-make his argument that the appeal should be dismissed because the defendants shouldn't be able to appeal until the end of the case. The Court will then either punt by dismissing the appeal as premature, or agree that D.C. anti-SLAPPs are immediately appealable and address the anti-SLAPP merits.

Stay tuned. The First Amendment and anti-SLAPP issues in the case are very important, and I hope the Court reaches them.

163

Why Should Guns Trump Principles?

Charles W. Cooke highlighted this story of state legislation proposed by Florida Republicans:

With supporters pointing to Second Amendment rights, the Florida House on Tuesday gave final approval to a bill that seeks to prevent insurers from denying coverage or increasing rates based on customers owning guns or ammunition.

. . .

House members voted 74-44, along party lines, to approve the bill (SB 424). The Senate also passed the National Rifle Association-backed bill last month, meaning the measure is ready to go to Gov. Rick Scott.

The bill would apply to property and automobile insurers and add language to part of state law that deals with “unfair discrimination.” As an example, the bill would seek to block insurers from refusing to issue policies because of customers’ lawful ownership or possession of firearms. Similarly, it would bar them from charging “unfairly discriminatory” rates based on gun ownership or possession.

The Republican party attempts, with mixed success, to brand itself as the party of small government, reduced regulation, and free markets. This bill illustrates why that branding is not entirely successful — because too many Republicans, given a favored issue (Guns! Drugs! Crime!), are as unabashedly nanny-statish as Bloomberg on his most Big-Gulp-decrying day.

The proposition is, apparently, that because gun ownership is a cherished right under threat, private insurance companies should be regulated and precluded from charging gun-owning customers more based on the insurance companies' risk assessment. I suppose this is a coherent argument taken in isolation; it's just not consistent with economic conservatism. Saying "greedy insurance companies should be regulated and not permitted to charge what they want, because the free market isn't working" sounds, instead, more like a classic progressive position.

Consider, for instance, the position of Republican state representative Matt Gaetz:

But bill sponsor Matt Gaetz, R-Fort Walton Beach, said Floridians have a constitutional right to bear arms, and even one case of insurers taking action because of gun ownership is “too much.”

“How much discrimination based on the exercise of a constitutional right is tolerable?” Gaetz asked.

Gaetz apparently believes that a private insurer charging a customer more based on its own risk assessment is a violation of that customer's constitutional right to do whatever he or she wants. So, Mr. Gaetz: would an insurance company that offers policies covering defamation be violating my First Amendment rights if it charged me — a mouthy blogger — more than a homebound shut-in who never utters or writes a word? Does an insurance company interfere with my right to procreate if it charges me more for a family health plan than an individual one? Should private insurance companies assume the risk of our exercises of constitutional rights? If the government disagrees with the private insurance market's risk assessment, should it intervene? Is it a good thing to increase the power of government bureaucracies and the courts to regulate whether insurance rates are "discriminatory?" Is the insurance market broken and incapable of addressing anti-gun-bias by driving customers away from gun-penalizing insurers and to gun-friendly insurers? I can see why someone would say those things, Mr. Gaetz. I just find them difficult to reconcile with your other positions:

Healthcare and Insurance

Matt Gaetz believes that health care decisions should be made by doctors and patients, not the government. That’s why Matt Gaetz wants to make sure that you can keep the health insurance you currently have. He will fight to keep health care costs down by eliminating junk lawsuits and fraud in the system.

Uh-huh.

This is not new. Florida is the state that passed a patently unconstitutional law purporting to regulate what doctors could ask their patients about guns. Florida is the state that decided the right to carry a gun trumps the right of private property owners to control their property.

Treating guns as an asterisk to principles — treating the Second Amendment as if it empowers the government to regulate private conduct, rather than just limiting the government — is incoherent and un-conservative.