We’re excited to announce the release of the 3rd Edition of Legal Research for Non-Lawyers – a major 2025 update designed to make legal self-help clearer, faster, and more effective.
For years, Legal Research for Non-Lawyers has helped people across the country understand how to research the law, represent themselves in court, and protect their rights when hiring a lawyer wasn’t an option. This new edition takes things even further.
🔑 What’s New in the 3rd Edition
An entire chapter on using AI tools to speed up legal research and break down complex legal concepts.
Updated resources for 2025 with clearer guidance and practical checklists.
Expanded examples and forms to help you draft pleadings, motions, and objections.
⚖️ Why This Book Matters
Attorney fees can cost hundreds of dollars per hour, putting justice out of reach for many people. This book gives you the knowledge and tools to:
Respond effectively to lawsuits.
Fight debt collectors and predatory practices.
Research state and federal law with confidence.
Prepare for hearings, trials, and even appeals.
💡 Instant Access
The 3rd Edition is available now as a PDF download for just $19.95. 👉 Get your copy here
Don’t let the cost of legal help keep you from justice. With preparation and the right tools, you can represent yourself with confidence.
Understanding First Amendment Protections in Public Schools
Introduction
by R. Randall Hill
High profile firings as a result of comments made about the murder of Charlie Kirk was the primary motivation for this article.
Prior to his murder, I wasn’t familiar Charlie Kirk, however, his rhetoric was described as divisive, racist, xenophobic, and extreme by groups that studied hate speech, including the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Freedom of speech is an important contributor to critical thinking because it presents ideas and different points of view that might not be considered otherwise. Below is video of Shahid King Bolson, responding to the killing of Charlie Kirk, which in my opinion is one of the best responses I have seen!
As a public school teacher, you are both a government employee and a private citizen with constitutional rights. This dual status creates a complex legal landscape where your First Amendment right to free speech intersects with your professional obligations and your employer’s authority. Understanding these boundaries is crucial in today’s digital age, where a single social media post can have career-ending consequences.
It’s important to note that your First Amendment protections against your school district employer exist because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Originally, the Bill of Rights only protected citizens from federal government actions, not state or local governments. Through a legal doctrine called “incorporation,” the Supreme Court has gradually applied First Amendment protections to state and local government actions, including those by public school districts. This means that while you work for a state entity, you retain constitutional protections that can be enforced in federal court.
This guide will help you navigate the intricate balance between your rights as a citizen and your responsibilities as a public educator, providing you with the legal knowledge needed to make informed decisions about your speech both inside and outside the classroom.
The Legal Foundation: Key Supreme Court Cases
Pickering v. Board of Education (1968): The Foundational Case
The Supreme Court’s decision in Pickering v. Boardof Education established the basic framework for public employee speech rights that remains in effect today. Marvin Pickering, a high school teacher in Illinois, was fired for writing a letter to a local newspaper criticizing the school board’s allocation of funds between athletics and academics.
The Court ruled that Pickering’s dismissal violated the First Amendment, establishing that public employees do not surrender their free speech rights simply by accepting government employment. However, the Court also recognized that the government has interests as an employer that differ from those it has as sovereign.
The Pickering Test weighs:
The employee’s interest in commenting on matters of public concern
The state’s interest in promoting effective and efficient public services
Connick v. Myers (1983): Defining “Public Concern”
In Connick v. Myers, the Court refined the Pickering standard by establishing that speech must address a “matter of public concern” to receive First Amendment protection. Sheila Myers, an assistant district attorney, was fired after distributing a questionnaire to colleagues about office policies and morale.
The Court held that speech on matters of purely personal interest (like workplace grievances) receives less protection than speech on issues of broader public significance. This case established the critical first step in analyzing public employee speech: determining whether the speech addresses a matter of public concern.
Key Factors for “Public Concern”:
Political, social, or other concerns of the community
Issues that would be of legitimate news interest
Matters relating to political, social, or other concerns of the community
Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006): The Official Duties Exception
The Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos significantly narrowed First Amendment protection for public employees. Richard Ceballos, a deputy district attorney, faced retaliation after writing a memo questioning the truthfulness of a search warrant affidavit.
The Court ruled that when public employees speak pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens and therefore have no First Amendment protection. This created what’s known as the “official duties exception.”
Critical Impact for Teachers:
Speech made as part of curriculum, lesson plans, or official communications may lack protection
The line between personal and professional speech becomes crucial
Academic freedom arguments may apply differently than general free speech protections
Rankin v. McPherson (1987): Context Matters
In this case, Constance McPherson, a deputy constable, was fired for saying “If they go for him again, I hope they get him” after learning of an assassination attempt on President Reagan. Despite the shocking nature of the comment, the Court found her dismissal unconstitutional.
The Court emphasized that the content, form, and context of speech must all be considered, and that even offensive speech on matters of public concern may be protected if it doesn’t disrupt workplace operations.
Modern Applications and Social Media Challenges
The Digital Transformation of Teacher Speech
Social media has fundamentally changed how teacher speech cases arise and are analyzed. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok blur traditional boundaries between public and private expression, creating new legal challenges.
Key Social Media Considerations
1. Audience and Accessibility
Public posts are more likely to be considered matters of public concern
Privacy settings may not provide legal protection
Students, parents, and administrators may have access to “private” content
2. Professional vs. Personal Identity
Using your real name or school affiliation strengthens the connection to your employment
Professional photos or school-related content blur personal/professional lines
Time of posting (during school hours vs. personal time) matters
3. Impact and Disruption
Did the post cause actual disruption to the school environment?
Did it undermine your effectiveness as a teacher?
How did the school community respond?
Common Scenarios and Their Legal Analysis
Scenario 1: Political Expression
Example: A teacher posts on Facebook supporting or opposing a political candidate, tax levy, or controversial policy.
Legal Analysis:
Political speech typically addresses matters of public concern
Protection is strongest when posted on personal accounts during non-work hours
Risk increases if posts attack specific school officials or policies
Context matters: a post supporting higher education funding may be viewed differently than one attacking local school leadership
Protection Level: Generally HIGH, but depends on specific content and context
Scenario 2: Curriculum and Educational Policy Criticism
Example: A teacher criticizes standardized testing, curriculum changes, or educational policies on social media.
Legal Analysis:
Educational policy is clearly a matter of public concern
May be protected even if critical of employer’s policies
Risk increases if speech is made pursuant to official duties (e.g., as part of committee work)
Consider whether criticism is constructive vs. purely negative
Protection Level: MODERATE to HIGH, depending on role and context
Scenario 3: Student-Related Posts
Example: A teacher posts about challenging students, difficult parents, or classroom incidents without naming individuals.
Legal Analysis:
Generally receives less protection as it’s more about personal job grievances
Risk of privacy violations and professional ethics concerns
May not constitute “public concern” under Connick standard
High risk of disrupting school operations and relationships
Protection Level: LOW to NONE
Scenario 4: Personal Lifestyle and Off-Duty Conduct
Example: A teacher posts photos from social events, discusses personal relationships, or shares lifestyle choices.
Legal Analysis:
Personal lifestyle typically not a matter of public concern
Protection depends on whether conduct affects job performance
Community standards and local values may influence analysis
Higher risk in small communities where teachers are public figures
Protection Level: LOW, varies by community
Scenario 5: Social Justice and Controversial Issues
Example: A teacher posts about racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, religious issues, or other socially divisive topics.
Legal Analysis:
Social issues typically constitute matters of public concern
High potential for community controversy and disruption
Balance between First Amendment rights and professional obligations
Consider school policies and community demographics
Protection Level: MODERATE, highly fact-dependent
Scenario 6: Criticism of School Administration
Example: A teacher publicly criticizes the principal, superintendent, or school board decisions.
Legal Analysis:
May be protected if addressing matters of public concern (policy, budget, educational quality)
Less protection for personal attacks or grievances
Consider whether alternative channels for complaints were available
Risk of workplace disruption and undermined authority
Protection Level: MODERATE, depends on nature and basis of criticism
Best Practices for Protecting Your Rights
Social Media Guidelines
Maintain Separate Professional and Personal Accounts
Use privacy settings consistently
Consider using a pseudonym for personal accounts
Avoid connecting with current students on personal accounts
Think Before You Post
Consider how content might be perceived by different audiences
Ask: “Would I be comfortable if this appeared in the local newspaper?”
Remember that screenshots can make “private” content public
Understand Your District’s Policies
Review social media and technology use policies
Understand reporting and discipline procedures
Know your union contract provisions
Document Everything
Save copies of posts that might be controversial
Document any retaliation or adverse employment actions
Keep records of policy violations alleged by administration
Professional Communication Strategies
Focus on Issues, Not Personalities
Criticize policies and practices, not individuals
Use constructive rather than inflammatory language
Propose solutions alongside criticisms
Choose Appropriate Forums
Consider internal channels before going public
Understand when union representation is appropriate
Know the difference between protected speech and insubordination
Understand Timing and Context
Be especially cautious during contract negotiations
Consider the impact on ongoing school issues
Respect sensitive periods (crises, investigations, etc.)
When Protection May Not Apply
The Garcetti Exception in Schools
Speech made pursuant to official duties receives no First Amendment protection. For teachers, this includes:
Curriculum-related communications
Grade reports and student evaluations
Committee work and professional development
Official school communications
Disruption and Efficiency
Even protected speech can be restricted if it:
Materially disrupts school operations
Undermines working relationships
Interferes with educational mission
Creates safety or security concerns
Professional Ethics and Standards
Teachers are held to higher standards than other public employees regarding:
Student confidentiality and privacy
Professional conduct and morality clauses
Community role model expectations
Fitness to teach determinations
State Law Variations and Additional Protections
Academic Freedom Statutes
Some states have specific academic freedom protections that may provide broader rights than federal constitutional protections. Research your state’s specific laws.
Whistleblower Protections
Many states have whistleblower statutes that protect employees who report illegal activities, safety violations, or misuse of public funds.
Union Contract Provisions
Collective bargaining agreements may provide additional procedural protections and substantive rights beyond constitutional minimums.
What to Do If You Face Retaliation
Immediate Steps
Document the situation thoroughly
Contact your union representative
Preserve all evidence (posts, emails, witness statements)
Follow grievance procedures if applicable
Consult with an employment attorney
Legal Options
Section 1983 civil rights lawsuits
State court wrongful termination claims
Administrative grievances and appeals
EEOC complaints if discrimination is involved
Recent Trends and Future Considerations
Technology and Privacy
Courts are still grappling with how traditional First Amendment analysis applies to:
Disclaimer: This guide provides general legal information and should not be considered legal advice. First Amendment law is complex and highly fact-specific. Laws vary by state and jurisdiction. If you’re facing employment action related to your speech, consult with an experienced employment attorney who specializes in public employee rights and First Amendment law. Your union representative can also provide valuable guidance and support.
Remember: The best protection is prevention. Think carefully before you post, understand your district’s policies, and when in doubt, consult with knowledgeable advocates before taking action that could jeopardize your career.
Imagine waking up in a world where schools no longer exist, history books are banned, and even memory is policed. That’s the chilling reality of The Erasure Protocol, the new dystopian novel by R. Randall Hill, author of Legal Research for Non-Lawyers and founder of Court.Rchp.com.
A Glimpse Inside the Story
“When they erase the truth, remembering becomes rebellion.”
In a near-future America where mass education has ended because of AI, citizens are divided into rigid classes:
Dependents, pacified with meaningless “comfort learning.”
Productives, trained only for repetitive labor.
Essentials, groomed to rule.
But one young woman, Maya, refuses to forget. With a hidden tablet and fragments of forbidden knowledge, she discovers that memory itself can be a weapon. As she connects with underground “Memory Keepers,” Maya must risk everything to challenge a system built on ignorance and control.
While fictional, the book is rooted in documented history:
From Roman “bread and circuses,”
To Bacon’s Rebellion,
To slave codes and the systematic exclusion of minorities from education.
These examples show how knowledge has been manipulated to maintain power. The novel’s warning feels urgent today, when schools and libraries face renewed pressure to restrict curricula or sanitize history.
Why This Story Matters Now
At Court.Rchp.com, our mission has always been to empower ordinary citizens with access to legal knowledge. The Erasure Protocol carries that mission into fiction, reminding us that access to truth is never guaranteed—it must be protected.
As the story makes clear: the most dangerous phrase in any language may be “Don’t worry about it.”
A Tribute to Teachers and Knowledge Keepers
This novel is also a tribute to the educators, librarians, and ordinary citizens who preserve and share knowledge, often at great personal cost. They are the heroes who stand between truth and erasure.
About the Author
R. Randall Hill is the author of Legal Research for Non-Lawyers and the founder of Court.Rchp.com, a free self-help legal website. His work is dedicated to empowering ordinary citizens to access knowledge and defend their rights.
Get Your Copy
The Erasure Protocol is available now in PDF, and Kindle formats. Teachers, administrators, and school staff can receive a 50% discount as a thank-you for their dedication to education.
If this story resonates with you, please share this article with a teacher, librarian, parent, or student who believes that education is freedom.
Closing Thought: The most dangerous phrase in any language may be: “Don’t worry about it.” The Erasure Protocol challenges us all to worry about it—to remember, to resist, and to keep the truth alive.
by Jean Lantz Reisz, University of Southern California
People hold signs on April 4, 2025, supporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador. AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana
The Supreme Court on April 10, 2025, unanimously upheld the lower court order directing the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to a maximum security prison in El Salvador.
The Supreme Court also directed the lower court to clarify aspects of the order.
“The order properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego García’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador,” the Supreme Court order states.
The Justice Department admitted to deporting Abrego García to a maximum security prison in El Salvador even though an immigration judge in 2019 ordered that he not be deported. The judge did so under an immigration law called “withholding of removal,” which is a protection, like asylum, for people facing persecution in their home country.
According to the Trump administration, such an order would be “constitutionally intolerable.” The government has compared the court order to return Abrego García to an order to “‘effectuate’ the end of the war in Ukraine or return hostages from Gaza.”
Abrego García should not have been deported
Abrego García received this protective legal status six years ago. That’s when he proved to the court he was highly likely to be persecuted by the government or gangs in El Salvador due to a specific reason, as required under immigration law.
Unlike asylum or refugee status, the status known as “withholding of removal” is not a pathway to citizenship. It allows a person to live and work in the U.S. indefinitely and not be deported to their country of nationality if they face persecution there.
That’s important, because the government failed to follow proper procedure to deport Abrego García based on gang membership. When someone is in “withholding of removal” status, the law requires the government to reopen immigration proceedings based on new evidence and seek to formally terminate the legal withholding status.
Abrego García should have been notified of the government’s desire to deport him, and he should have had the opportunity to make his case at a court hearing. His summary deportation to El Salvador likely violated his right to due process under immigration law and the Constitution.
The crux of the government’s position is that a court does not have the power to order the release of a person in a foreign prison. That would interfere with the separation of powers among the executive and judicial branches. The president has the sole power to conduct foreign relations with El Salvador, and the government has argued that ordering the return of Abrego García interferes with that power.
Prisoners watch as U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem visits the Terrorist Confinement Center in Tecoluca, El Salvador, on March 26, 2025.Alex Brandon/Pool/AFP via Getty Images
The court cannot order the Salvadoran government to do anything, but it can order the U.S. government to take steps to return García Abrego if he was unlawfully arrested and deported. That’s because the judiciary has the power to determine whether the president’s actions are lawful.
The district court’s order was based on its determination that the president has likely violated immigration law and the Constitution in arresting and deporting Abrego García. The appellate court agreed.
The Supreme Court has now said the order to facilitate Abrego García’s return is proper. But the high court also said the district court judge should further clarify its order, being mindful of the president’s authority when it comes to conducting foreign relations.
Trump administration lawyers have suggested in their briefing to the Supreme Court that there could be reasons under El Salvador law for Abrego García’s imprisonment. The government has not identified any reasons and has not provided any evidence that Abrego García is charged with a crime in El Salvador, or that he is being held under Salvadoran law.
The district and appellate courts determined in this case that the U.S. is using the Salvadoran prison like any other detention facility. Under those circumstances, the U.S. government, not El Salvador, has ultimate control over Abrego García.
The Supreme Court ruled that the government should facilitate Abrego García’s return.Drew Angerer/Getty Images
In fact, other appellate courts have ordered the government to return immigrants who had been removed from the U.S. but later won their appeals of their removal orders. Those people were not in foreign prisons.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has created a formal policy for aiding the return of immigrants who were deported while their appeals were pending and then subsequently won their appeals.
The government has argued that those situations are different. Here, it claims the court cannot demand the return of Abrego García, who is imprisoned in another country. The problem with the government’s argument is that it is the Trump administration that put Abrego García in a foreign prison.
The Trump administration has also argued that Abrego García is not entitled to return to the U.S.. It has argued that even though it was a mistake to deport him to El Salvador under his withholding of removal status, Abrego García could have been removed to another country and has no right to return to the U.S..
This would be true if Abrego García voluntarily left the U.S. or was deported to a country other than El Salvador, but that is not what happened. The government removed Abrego García to El Salvador in violation of U.S. law.
The White House’s position in this matter is troubling because the president is supposed to enforce the law, not circumvent it.
As Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a separate statement published with the order and joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson: “The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”
What steps the government will take to return Abrego García is unclear. The Supreme Court’s decision leaves open the question of how far the court can go to enforce his return.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
Fueled by the Supreme Court’s June 2023 ruling that bans affirmative action in higher education, conservative lawmakers across the country have advanced their own state bans on diversity initiatives, especially those that might make students feel shame or guilt for past harms against people of color.
This effort encompasses medical schools.
Despite clear and persistent gaps between white and Black doctors – and recent efforts to reckon with racial disparities within the medical profession – lawmakers have tried to advance policies to prohibit diversity initiatives in medicine.
U.S. Rep. Greg Murphy of North Carolina introduced one such bill to restrict diversity initiatives. “American medical schools are no place for discrimination,” said Murphy, a Republican, in March 2024. “Diversity strengthens medicine, but not if it’s achieved through exclusionary practices … of prejudice and divisive ideology.”
But the gaps in racial representation in medicine go beyond a professional numbers game. Modern research shows that the lack of Black doctors helps explain why about 70% of Black people don’t trust their doctors, and why Black people tend to die younger than their white peers.
The evidence is clear: America needs more Black doctors.
To that end, former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg pledged on Aug. 6, 2024, to donate US$600 million to four historically Black medical schools. The gifts to Howard University College of Medicine, Meharry Medical College, Morehouse School of Medicine and Charles Drew University of Medicine & Science are among the largest donations to any historically Black college or university. Xavier University, located in Louisiana, will also receive a $5 million grant to support its new medical school.
“This gift will empower new generations of Black doctors to create a healthier and more equitable future for our country,” Bloomberg said in a statement before the annual convention of the National Medical Association, an organization that advocates for Black physicians.
A limited landscape
According to a 2022 survey of 950,000 doctors by the Association of American Medical Colleges, 63.9% reported their ethnicity as white, and just 5.7% Black or African American. But according to 2023 estimates by the U.S. Census Bureau, Black people make up 13.6% of the population, while white people represent 58.9%.
Starting in 1906, the AMA has published directories of all qualified physicians in the U.S. These directories were created to be comprehensive records that excluded “quack” physicians and unqualified graduates of fraudulent medical schools.
Each physician’s record included a variety of details, including their place of practice and when and where they completed medical training.
Between 1906 and 1940, the AMA also insisted on publishing the race of Black doctors. Beside each entry appeared the label “col.” for “colored.”
Most Black doctors in the South were trained by a handful of Southern medical schools established to educate African Americans. Over half – 57% – of Southern Black physicians attended Meharry Medical College in Nashville, Tennessee, or Howard University Medical School in Washington, D.C. – schools that are still in existence.
But nearly a third – 29% – of Southern Black physicians attended schools that would be closed a few years after the 1906 directory’s release. In 1910, at the behest of the AMA, educator Abraham Flexner released a report after studying the standards of medical schools in the U.S. and Canada.
The results of the Flexner report was devastating to the number of Black doctors. Citing low admissions standards and poor quality of education, Flexner recommended closing five of the seven historically Black medical schools that trained the vast majority of Black doctors.
By 1912, three Black medical schools were shut down. By 1924, only two remained in operation – Meharry and Howard.
The consequences of this extremely limited educational landscape for aspiring Black physicians are reflected in the data. In most Southern states, the distance between medical school and practice locations was significantly greater, even before the closings, for Black doctors compared with their white counterparts.
The deep roots of inequalities
To help interpret where Black doctors established practices in the South, I also linked directory data to other historical sources, including the U.S. Census.
What I found was that places with larger Black populations were more likely to have a Black doctor, as were places that were closer to a Black medical school.
Many contemporary scholars and activists are looking to the past in order to increase the public’s understanding of how race has played a historical role in the health outcomes of Black Americans.
She was one of the first, for example, to warn health officials about the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on communities of color. As she wrote in 2020: Black Americans were more vulnerable during the pandemic “because of several manifestations of structural racism, including lack of access to testing, a higher chronic disease burden and racial bias within health care institutions.”
Without an accounting of how racial disparities in medicine were formed, it’s much more difficult to determine which kinds of progressive measures are needed to provide redress.
Future analyses will help unpack these racial disparities in greater detail. But for now, both academic researchers and the public can use our data to explore the importance of historically Black medical schools and the lives of Black physicians during the Jim Crow era.
It’s my belief that their legacies deserve to be a better-known part of the history of American medicine.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
by Anupam Chander, Georgetown University and Gautam Hans, Cornell University
TikTok users worry about losing their social media platform, but First Amendment rights are on the line, too. AP Photo/Ted Shaffrey
TikTok, the short-video company with Chinese roots, did the most American thing possible on May 7, 2024: It sued the U.S. government, in the person of Attorney General Merrick Garland, in federal court. The suit claims the federal law that took effect on April 24, 2024, banning TikTok unless it sells itself violates the U.S. Constitution.
The law names TikTok and its parent company, ByteDance Ltd., specifically. It also applies to other applications and websites reaching more than a million monthly users that allow people to share information and that have ownership of 20% or more from China, Russia, Iran or North Korea. If the president determines that such applications or websites “present a significant threat to the national security,” then those apps and websites, too, must either be sold or banned from the U.S.
TikTok’s suit says that the law violates the First Amendment by failing to provide evidence of the national security threat posed by the app and for failing to seek a less restrictive remedy. Despite legislators’ claims to the contrary, the law forcing the divestiture of TikTok – the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act – implicates First Amendment interests. In our view, it does so in ways that ripple beyond this specific case.
As a company incorporated in the United States that provides an online publishing platform, TikTok has a right protected by the First Amendment to select what messages – in this case, user videos – it chooses to publish.
A ban appears to us, scholars who study lawand technology, to be a massive prior restraint, which is generally barred by U.S. courts. Prior restraint is action by the government to prevent speech, typically some form of publication, before it occurs.
The First Amendment limits what the government can do to censor speech.
Speech in the crosshairs
The law’s backers say that it is not a ban – all TikTok has to do is sell itself. These supporters describe the bill as a divestiture, a purely economic regulation that they say should insulate it from First Amendment challenge. After the sale, users could happily keep on using TikTok, not caring who owns the company. But the law seems to us an attempt to control speech by mandating a change in ownership.
Changing the speech content on the app is the express goal of some of the law’s backers. The principal author of the bill, former U.S. Rep. Mike Gallagher, who stepped down from office in April to join a venture capital firm partly backed by Microsoft, explained to The New York Times that he was principally concerned about the potential for the Chinese Communist Party to spread propaganda on the app. The Times and The Wall Street Journal have reported that Congress passed this bill in part because of unsubstantiated accusations that TikTok was unfairly promoting one side in the Israel-Hamas war.
Imagine if the government told Jeff Bezos that he had to sell The Washington Post because it was worried that he might push a particular agenda using his control of the newspaper. Or to use a digital analogy, what if the government told Elon Musk that he had to sell X, formerly Twitter, because it didn’t like his content moderation of legal speech? Those scenarios clearly have a connection to First Amendment protections.
Ownership matters
Transferring TikTok’s ownership from one company to another matters greatly for the purposes of First Amendment analysis.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan observed during oral arguments in a case unrelated to TikTok’s ownership that ownership can make a difference in an app. She noted that the sale of Twitter to Elon Musk changed the character of the app. Kagan said, “Twitter users one day woke up and found themselves to be X users and the content rules had changed and their feeds changed, and all of a sudden they were getting a different online newspaper, so to speak, in a metaphorical sense every morning.”
Indeed, The Washington Post found a rightward tilt after Twitter changed hands.
By forcing the sale of TikTok to an entity without ties to the Chinese Communist Party, Congress’ intent with the law is to change the nature of the platform. That kind of government action implicates the core concerns that the First Amendment was designed to protect against: government interference in the speech of private parties.
U.S. Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi, co-sponsor of the House bill on TikTok, pointed to another instance where the U.S. government ordered a Chinese company to sell a U.S. app. In 2019, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States ordered the new Chinese owners of Grindr to sell the dating app, which the Chinese owners did the following year. In that case, the foreign owners could not assert First Amendment rights in the United States, given that they were outside the U.S., and thus no court considered this issue.
TikTok is claiming First Amendment protection against the law forcing its sale or ban.
National security claims
The government hasn’t disclosed to the public the national security concerns cited in the TikTok law. While such concerns, if accurate, might warrant some kind of intervention, some Americans are likely to decline to take claims of national security urgency on good faith. To address skepticism of secret government power, particularly when it involves speech rights, the government arguably needs to present its claims.
U.S. Sens. Richard Blumenthal and Marsha Blackburn, both of whom supported the TikTok law and have seen the government’s secret evidence, called for the declassification of that information. We believe that’s a vital step for the public to properly consider the government’s claim that a ban is warranted in this instance. In any case, the courts will ultimately weigh the secret evidence in determining whether the government’s national security concerns justified this intrusion upon speech.
What seems likely to happen, absent judicial invalidation or legislative repeal of the law, is a world in which TikTok cannot effectively operate in the United States in a year’s time, with mobile app stores unable to push out updates to the software and Oracle Corp. unable to continue hosting the app and its U.S. user data on its servers. TikTok could go dark on Jan. 19, 2025, in the United States.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
Much of the so-called Black-on-Black crime is directly related to centuries of institutionalized racism and racist policy that still persists today! Prior to the Supreme Court Decision of Brown v. Board of Education and Civil Rights legislation that resulted from the Civil Rights Movement, racism was overt and racists were direct. However, since racism is now technically illegal, it is practiced more covertly.
Covert racism is disguised and subtle, rather than public or obvious. Concealed in the fabric of society, covert racism discriminates against individuals through often evasive or seemingly passive methods.Covert, racially biased forms of discrimination are often hidden or rationalized with an explanation that society is more willing to accept. These racial biases cause a variety of problems that work to empower the suppressors while diminishing the rights and powers of the oppressed. It creates major obsticles which make if nearly impossible for some to escape generations of poverty. One example is how public education is funded based on property taxes. Well off communities tend to have better schools because more tax money is invested, however, students in poor communities often get trapped in underfunded and usually underperforming schools. Covert racism can't be easily proved or disproved and it can't be criminalize or deem unconstitutional and usually fall outside the bounds of the law. In fact, victims of covert racism often feels uneasy, excluded, ignored, silenced, rejected, marginalized, or exploited without necessarily knowing why.
The term Black on Black Crime is a form of covert racism. People commit crimes where they live, whom do you suppose is committing crimes in China or Russia? Racialized terms can be misleading. Since the United States is for the most part segregated, crime in black communities is most often commited by black people, for example, (90% of black murder victims are killed by black perpetrators) vs. White on White Crime (83% of white murder victims are killed by white perpetrators). However, with that said, because of the horrible legacy of racism, which includes psycological damage, homicide is the leading cause of death among young Black men.
Racist individuals and groups didn't simply fade away because civil rights legislation and Supreme Court decisions made racial discrimination illegal, they changed their strategies. Unfortunately, every major institution including banking/finance, education, government, health care, media, medicine, and most glaringly law enforcement have elements of covert racism that negatively impact African-Americans and other oppressed groups. In 2006, the FBI Reported how white supremacist had inflitrated law enforcement. Ten years later, in 2016, the FBI still could not determine whether racial bias in policing was an epidemic, even though common sense indicates it is. We can easily assume white supremacist have infiltrated each of society's major institutions. Therefore, I am often cautious about the covert intentions of so-called solutions, but I must admit that idea mentioned in the article below seems like it would have a positive impact.
MAIN ARTICLE
by Thaddeus L. Johnson, Georgia State University and Natasha N. Johnson, Georgia State University
President Joe Biden greets police chiefs from across the country at the White House on Feb. 28, 2024. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Image
After a historic spike in homicides in 2020, murder rates in most U.S. cities appear to be returning to pre-pandemic levels. This drop has sparked some public attention, as demonstrated during a meeting of police chiefs in February 2024 at the White House.
During the meeting, President Joe Biden lauded investments made in law enforcement and community anti-violence initiatives during his administration. In 2023, Biden said, the U.S. “had one of the lowest rates of all violent crime in more than 50 years.”
But the most striking fact about homicide in the U.S. has been largely overlooked during such meetings – Black Americans are murdered at nearly eight times the rate of white Americans.
This grave reality does not mean Black people are inherently violent. Instead, it largely reflects their disproportionate experience of systemic barriers such as poverty and limited access to quality education, good jobs and affordable housing – all factors that research shows contribute to neighborhood violence.
More people walking around with weapons raises the risks for minor disputes escalating into deadly encounters. Studies revealing a connection between increased gun carrying and a rise in gun-related fatalities highlight the dangers of ready access to guns.
Limits of tough-on-crime policies
To be clear, keeping Americans safe requires arresting and locking up dangerous offenders. But the problem of street violence transcends punishment strategies that emphasize more police, more enforcement of petty crimes and, ultimately, more incarcerations.
Such traditional, tough-on-crime responses fail to address deeper social issues and unwritten rules like the “street code” and the elusive American dream dictating daily life in many inner cities.
This street code discourages police cooperation and glorifies guns and violence as ways to resolve conflicts and gain respect. At the same time, the code encourages intimidation and swift retaliation against perceived threats or insults.
For many people in underserved communities, generational poverty and limited opportunities for upward mobility make crime a viable alternative to a system that seems rigged against them. When people are presented with few legitimate economic prospects, studies show that some turn to crimes such as drug-dealing and theft.
Despite being classified as nonviolent offenses, those involved frequently use violence to establish dominance or settle disagreements.
As scholars of criminal justice – one of us is also a former police officer of 10 years – we have found that one way to reduce crime and its harmful effects on communities is to develop strategies for at-risk individuals that offer a range of mental health and other professional services, including a monthly stipend.
It is no coincidence that young Black males, who are most at risk of gun violence, also have the lowest chance of escaping poverty.
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 54% of Black men born in the poorest households end up in the lowest earnings bracket between the ages of 28 to 35, compared with 22% of white men, 29% of white women and 34% of Black women.
Such grim prospects, along with the relatively small group of offenders driving community violence, highlight the importance of targeted, holistic interventions.
Cash incentives
There is one approach that cities can consider – cash allowances for young Black men at greatest risk of committing gun violence.
Community-based initiatives like Advance Peace, a nonprofit agency focused on anti-gun violence, are addressing the economic pressures behind street violence and demonstrate the potential of providing people with guaranteed payments each month.
Advance Peace members gather for a meeting in Sacramento, Calif., on Oct. 26, 2018.x
Launched in Richmond, California, in 2009, Advance Peace receives its funding from city contracts, federal grants and private donations.
Its programs offer participants as much as US$1,000 monthly for up to nine months. This stipend is conditional on meeting goals intended to steer them away from crime and violence, such as completing educational courses or finding jobs.
To address underlying emotional and behavioral issues, participants are also connected with round-the-clock mentorship by staff counselors for at least 18 months. Other services include cognitive behavioral therapy to help manage aggressive and impulsive tendencies associated with violence.
In addition, gang rivals are paired together during sponsored trips to foster dialogue and humanize one another.
In California cities implementing Advance Peace, such as Richmond, Sacramento and Stockton, shootings decreased from 2018 to 2021, and the overwhelming majority of participants have avoided both gun violence and new arrests.
Research on these California cities shows that neighborhoods with Advance Peace programs saw a 5% to 52% decrease in the number of victims of gun violence in 2021 compared with 2018.
Black men under 35 also were involved in 15% to 42% fewer shootings across the three cities.
Solutions that address root causes
Opponents of the monthly stipend, including former Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones, have criticized the idea of paying people to obey the law as “cash for criminals.” They contend that this approach suggests compliance requires monetary incentives rather than personal accountability. While understandable, we believe these criticisms are misguided.
The objective is not to pay off potential offenders but rather to stabilize tumultuous lives and open avenues for personal and professional growth. It is challenging to develop these initiatives without stigmatizing recipients or creating dependency. But the harsh truth is that we either pay now or pay later.
Besides the loss of life and the trauma caused by gun violence, its massive economic burden extends beyond victims and their families. Recent estimates reveal that the financial toll of gun violence in the U.S. amounts to a staggering $557 billion annually, surpassing the gross domestic products of countries such as South Africa and Denmark.
These costs include immediate and long-term medical bills, legal expenses and lost earnings from victims’ death or disability.
To this point, another analysis found the potential shootings prevented by Advance Peace programs saved cities $67 million to $268 million in associated costs in 2022. But direct payments to participants offer only temporary relief.
To effectively break the cycle of violence, comprehensive efforts are needed to improve access to quality education, jobs, housing, health care and community development in inner cities. Initiatives that address community violence without tackling its underlying causes is akin to treating symptoms while ignoring the root causes of a disease.
Strategically investing in equal opportunities for upward mobility can create a society in which young Black men are less likely to turn to guns for empowerment and self-preservation. We view this investment as a small price to pay for the promise of safer cities.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
by Clare Pastore, University of Southern California
A homeless person near an elementary school in Fruitdale Park in Grants Pass, Ore. AP Photo/Jenny Kane
On April 22, 2024, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could radically change how cities respond to the growing problem of homelessness. It also could significantly worsen the nation’s racial justice gap.
City of Grants Pass v. Johnson began when a small city in Oregon with just one homeless shelter began enforcing a local anti-camping law against people sleeping in public using a blanket or any other rudimentary protection against the elements – even if they had nowhere else to go. The court must now decide whether it is unconstitutional to punish homeless people for doing in public things that are necessary to survive, such as sleeping, when there is no option to do these acts in private.
The case raises important questions about the scope of the Constitution’s cruel and unusual punishment clause and the limits of cities’ power to punish involuntary conduct. As a specialist in poverty law, civil rights and access to justice who has litigated many cases in this area, I know that homelessness in the U.S. is a function of poverty, not criminality, and is strongly correlated with racial inequality. In my view, if cities get a green light to continue criminalizing inevitable behaviors, these disparities can only increase.
Western states strongly criticize the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rulings against criminalizing homelessness, but other states argue that local governments have better options.
A national crisis
Homelessness in the United States is a massive problem. The number of people without homes held steady during the COVID-19 pandemic largely because of eviction moratoriums and the temporary availability of expanded public benefits, but it has risen sharply since 2022.
The latest data from the federal government’s annual “Point-in-Time” homeless count found 653,000 people homeless across the U.S. on a single night in 2023 – a 12% increase from 2022 and the highest number reported since the counts began in 2007. Of the people counted, nearly 300,000 were living on the street or in parks, rather than indoors in temporary shelters or safe havens.
The survey also shows that all homelessness is not the same. About 22% of homeless people are deemed chronically homeless, meaning they are without shelter for a year or more, while most experience a temporary or episodic lack of shelter. A 2021 study found that 53% of homeless shelter residents and nearly half of unsheltered people were employed.
Scholars and policymakers have spent many years analyzing the causes of homelessness. They include wage stagnation, shrinking public benefits, inadequate treatment for mental illness and addiction, and the politics of siting affordable housing. There is little disagreement, however, that the simple mismatch between the vast need for affordable housing and the limited supply is a central cause.
Homelessness and race
Like poverty, homelessness in the U.S. is not race-neutral. Black Americans represent 13% of the population but comprise 21% of people living in poverty and 37% of people experiencing homelessness.
The largest percentage increase in homelessness for any racial group in 2023 was 40% among Asians and Asian-Americans. The largest numerical increase was among people identifying as what the Department of Housing and Urban Development calls “Latin(a)(o)(x),” with nearly 40,000 more homeless in 2023 than in 2022.
This disproportionality means that criminalizing homelessness likewise has a disparate racial effect. A 2020 study in Austin, Texas, showed that Black homeless people were 10 times more likely than white homeless people to be cited by police for camping on public property.
Increasing homelessness, especially its visible manifestations such as tent encampments, has frustrated city residents, businesses and policymakers across the U.S. and led to an increase in crackdowns against homeless people. Reports from the National Homelessness Law Center in 2019and 2021 have tallied hundreds of laws restricting camping, sleeping, sitting, lying down, panhandling and loitering in public.
Just since 2022, Texas, Tennessee and Missouri have passed statewide bans on camping on public property, with Texas making it a felony.
Under presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, the federal government has asserted that criminal sanctions are rarely useful. Instead it has emphasized alternatives, such as supportive services, specialty courts and coordinated systems of care, along with increased housing supply.
Some cities have had striking success with these measures. But not all communities are on board.
Members of a local ‘park watch’ group demonstrate against homeless encampments in Grants Pass, Ore., March 20, 2024.AP Photo/Jenny Kane
The Grants Pass case
Grants Pass v. Johnson culminates years of struggle over how far cities can go to discourage homeless people from residing within their borders, and whether or when criminal sanctions for actions such as sleeping in public are permissible.
In a 2019 case, Martin v. City of Boise, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the Eighth Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause forbids criminalizing sleeping in public when a person has no private place to sleep. The decision was based on a 1962 Supreme Court case, Robinson v. California, which held that it is unconstitutional to criminalize being a drug addict. Robinson and a subsequent case, Powell v. Texas, have come to stand for distinguishing between status, which cannot constitutionally be punished, and conduct, which can.
In the Grants Pass ruling, the 9th Circuit went one step further than it had in the Boise case and held that the Constitution also banned criminalizing the act of public sleeping with rudimentary protection from the elements. The decision was contentious: Judges disagreed over whether the anti-camping ban regulated conduct or the status of being homeless, which inevitably leads to sleeping outside when there is no alternative.
Grants Pass is urging the Supreme Court to abandon the Robinson precedent and its progeny as “moribund and misguided.” It argues that the Eighth Amendment forbids only certain cruel methods of punishment, which do not include fines and jail terms.
The homeless plaintiffs argue that they do not challenge reasonable regulation of the time and place of outdoor sleeping, the city’s ability to limit the size or location of homeless groups or encampments, or the legitimacy of punishing those who insist on remaining in public when shelter is available. But they argue that broad anti-camping laws inflict overly harsh punishments for “wholly innocent, universally unavoidable behavior” and that punishing people for “simply existing outside without access to shelter” will not reduce this activity.
They contend that criminalizing sleeping in public when there is no alternative violates the Eighth Amendment in three ways: by criminalizing the “status” of homelessness, by imposing disproportionate punishment on innocent and unavoidable acts, and by imposing punishment without a legitimate deterrent or rehabilitative goal.
‘Housing First’ is a strategy for reducing homelessness that has contributed to progress in cities including Houston, Salt Lake City and Columbus, Ohio.
The case has attracted dozens of amicus briefs, including from numerous cities and counties that support Grants Pass. They assert that the 9th Circuit’s recent decisions have worsened homelessness, stymied law enforcement and left jurisdictions without clear guidelines for preserving public order and safety.
On the other hand, the states of Maryland, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York and Vermont filed a brief urging the Court to uphold the 9th Circuit’s ruling, arguing that local governments retain ample tools to address homelessness and that criminalizing tends to worsen rather than alleviate the problem.
A brief from 165 former local elected officials agrees. Service providers, social scientists and professional organizations such as the American Psychiatric Association filed briefs noting that criminalization increases barriers to education, employment and eventual recovery; erodes community trust; and can force people back into abusive situations. They also highlight research showing the effectiveness of a nonpunitive “housing first” model.
A race to the bottom?
The current Supreme Court is generally extremely sympathetic to law enforcement, but even its conservative members may balk at allowing a city to criminalize inevitable acts by homeless people. Doing so could spark competition among cities to create the most punitive regime in hopes of effectively banishing homeless residents.
Still, at least some justices may sympathize with the city’s argument that upholding the 9th Circuit’s ruling “logically would immunize numerous other purportedly involuntary acts from prosecution, such as drug use by addicts, public intoxication by alcoholics, and possession of child pornography by pedophiles.” However the court rules, this case will likely affect the health and welfare of thousands of people experiencing homelessness in cities across the U.S.
Republished with permission under license from The Conversation.
I've often wondered if OJ Simpson would have been arrested, charged with murder, and what the reaction would have been if his murdered ex-wife had been a black woman. In the early 1990s, the former professional football player and Hollywood actor was earning $55,000 per month and had a net worth of nearly $11 million, according to court records.
I was born in 1965, the same year as Ron Goldman, and within my lifetime, interacial marriage was still illegal in some parts of the country until the Loving v. Virginia U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1967. Centuries of systemic racism has been codefied in law, policy, and custom which results in disastrous outcomes for African-American criminal defendants and civil litigants even today. Yesterday's racism didn't disappear, it simply evolved.
Too often in our society, when a black male celebrity is involved with a white woman the results are disastrous. From Jack Johnson to the lastest example Jonothan Majors, famous black men have had their lives tuned upside down because they dared date white women. Rape or attempted rape was the second most common accusation used as pretexts for lynching black people who violated Jim Crow etiquette or engaged in economic competition with white people. Even the bombing and destruction of the Greenwood District in Tulsa, OK and the murder of Emmett Till were based on false allegations by white women.
Even though Ron Goldman's family had had ties to drugs and money laundering, he was never considered the target. Ron Goldman was stabbed and wounded many times according to the autopsy report. Goldman sustained dozens of defensive wound on his body, mostly found on his hands, face, and upper body indicating he fought with his attacker for what could have been 5 – 10 minutes. The killer most certainly would have been covered in blood.
The prosecution of OJ Simpson involved perjured testimony, questionable DNA and circumstancial evidence. Los Angeles police detective, Mark Fuhrmann was a chief witness during the trial. Fuhrmann denied ever using the word "nigger" on the witness stand. Simpson’s defense team produced audiotapes of Fuhrman using the word "nigger" multiple times and Fuhrman later pleaded no contest to committing perjury. Prior to the Simpson case, Mark Furhman took part in taped interviews with a screenwriter in which he used the word "nigger" 41 times. At one point he said, “all these niggers in L.A. City government … should be lined up against a wall and fucking shot.” Read the court transcript for yourself.
The jury did not believe OJ had enough time to commit the murders, base upon the evidence, the jury determined OJ only had 8 minutes to murder Nicole Brown and Ron Goldmann, travel back to his estate, get cleaned up and ready for his trip. Additionally in those 8 minutes, OJ would have needed to clean the bloody Bronco and remove all traces of blood from the drain pipes that investigators checked for any traces of blood.
The only cut or bruise was on OJ's middle finger, which he said he cut in Chicago. Six or seven different witnesses testified they saw OJ at the airport and he didn't have a cut on his finger. Oj was shaking hands,signing autographs, and showing off his hall of fame ring.
OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder because the prosecution failed to prove their case against him. The legal defense team believed evidence was planted by police. Jurors are allowed to used their background, education, life experience, common knowledge and common sense when evaluating evidence. A bloody nose I had one day during the trial became a piviotal moment for me. I rushed to the my bathroom for tissue. After my nose stopped bleeding, I realized blood was several places between the living room and bathroom. I then thought about the tremendous amounts of blood killing two people with a knife would generate. If OJ was the killer, vast amounts of blood should have been found.
When I also consider the fact that the Los Angele Police Department was known to have racist officer and a large number of officers were proven to have planted evidence during the Rampart Scandal just a few years after OJ's acquital. Over 70 officers within the Rampart Division were accused of being corrupt. Rampart officers planted evidence and committed perjury which resulted in 106 prior convictions to be overturned and more than 140 civil lawsuits against the city of Los Angeles, costing the city an estimated $125 million in settlements.
I still believe the OJ Simpson jury reached the right verdict!
by Frankie Bailey, University at Albany, State University of New York
O.J. Simpson shows the jury a pair of gloves, similar to those found near the crime scene, during his trial in Los Angeles in 1995. POO/AFP via Getty Images
With the death of O.J. Simpson, I can’t help but wonder whether the media has learned any lessons from its coverage of his trial, in which the ex-football star was acquitted of murdering his ex-wife and her friend.
In many ways, the “trial of the century” brought out some of the media’s worst impulses.
As criminologist Gregg Barak explained, the O.J. Simpson case was a true “spectacle” – essentially a nine-month live news broadcast. At the same time, because of Simpson’s celebrity, the case was being followed as popular culture.
Of course, crimes have always attracted morbid interest, generating media attention and inspiring true-crime narratives.
But since the late 20th century, this has occurred more often – sometimes even before a trial has ended. The lines between news and entertainment have become increasingly blurred – what criminologist Ray Surette calls “infotainment” – with race, class and the quest for ratings influencing which crimes get covered and how they get portrayed.
Trial by media
Whenever I teach the O.J. Simpson trial in my criminal justice classes, I bring up a late-19th century murder case involving a white, upperclass woman named Lizzie Borden.
Both Simpson and Borden were accused of double murder – and both of their trials became a media circus.
In August 1892, Andrew Borden, a wealthy businessman, and Abby, his second wife, were hacked to death in their home in Fall River, Massachusetts. Accused of killing her father and hated stepmother, their 32-year-old daughter, Lizzie, became the subject of exhaustive media coverage.
A century before O.J. Simpson hired what the media called a legal “dream team,” Borden had a star-studded defense team that included a former governor and the Borden family lawyer. Like the Simpson case, the legal strategies of the prosecutor and the Borden defense team were subjected to much media scrutiny.
Most of the evidence against Borden was circumstantial; in the end, she was acquitted by an all-male jury that may have found it difficult to believe a respectable spinster could commit such a horrific crime.
Yet, Borden was never able to escape the stigma of having been accused of murder. Upon being set free, she found herself ostracized by former friends. For years, newspaper coverage documented Borden’s life after her acquittal. Since her death, the countless books, articles, a made-for-TV movie – even a recent TV series about Borden’s life after the trial – demonstrate the staying power of the high-profile, 19th-century trial.
Like Borden, Simpson was able to use his class and wealth to his advantage. But he also was excoriated during and after his trial.
Celebrity crimes make good TV
Of course, there was no television in Borden’s time.
On Oct. 3, 1995, an estimated 150 million Americans tuned in to hear the jury’s verdict in the O.J. Simpson trial. It marked the culmination of 16 months of wall-to-wall, prime-time television coverage.
On the evening of June 12, 1994, Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend, Ronald Lyle Goldman, were slashed to death outside Nicole Simpson’s upscale condo in Los Angeles, California. After the police pursued O.J. Simpson’s white Bronco in a low-speed car chase that mesmerized TV viewers, O.J. Simpson was arrested and charged with the murders.
For the broadcast networks and their fledgling cable news counterparts, it was a recipe for high drama – and high ratings.
With a captivated nation glued to their TVs, radios and newspapers, media outlets rolled out a slate of trial experts to offer daily commentary. This template would become the norm for future celebrity trials, as a cottage industry of legal pundits would appear on the airwaves to comment on cases ranging from Tom Brady’s “Deflategate” lawsuit to the indictments of former President Donald Trump since he left office in 2021.
Post-trial research has found that audience perceptions of guilt or innocence in the Simpson trial were shaped by the amount – and type – of media consumed. The more someone became sucked into the daily happenings of the trial, the more likely they were to become emotionally invested in O.J.’s life. Developing what’s known as a parasocial bond, they became more likely to believe in his innocence.
How the media colors crime and race
When the jury declared Simpson innocent, reactions largely fell along racial lines. Throngs of white Americans responded with shock, dismay – even anger – while crowds of Black Americans responded with elation.
Polls and surveys later found people’s reactions to the verdict reflected not only their opinion about Simpson’s guilt or innocence, but also their beliefs about race and the fairness of the country’s criminal justice system.
Simpson’s own relationship to race was always complicated.
In a 1970 New York Times article titled “For the Black Athlete, New Advances,” reporter Robert Lipsyte quoted Simpson describing how he had overheard a racial slur while attending a wedding with mostly white guests. Lipsyte wrote that race relations would have to improve dramatically for Simpson “to be able to transcend blackness in his public image.”
By the 1990s, Simpson seemed to have done just that. A middle-aged O.J. had achieved celebrity status, and he appeared to have transcended this blackness by distancing himself from poor and working-class black people, while gaining the acceptance of white people who saw him as a celebrity immune to the trappings of racial stereotypes.
Despite some incidents of domestic violence, Simpson had been able to maintain this genial reputation – until he was accused of the murder of his white ex-wife and her friend.
Simpson’s fall from grace was symbolized by a controversial 1994 Time magazine cover photo, which some claim was altered to make Simpson’s skin appear darker.
By 2014, the gap between how Black people and white people viewed Simpson’s verdict had narrowed: Black people were far more likely to believe that Simpson was guilty.
Since the rise of Jacksonian democracy and the expansion of the vote to all white men in the late 1820s, however, the support of rural white people has been vital to the governing power of almost every major party coalition. Which is why my co-author Paul Waldman and I describe rural white people as America’s “essential minority” in our book “White Rural Rage: The Threat to American Democracy.”
As a political scientist, I’ve written or co-written five books addressing issues of racial politics at some level of government or part of the country. My latest, “White Rural Rage,” seeks to understand the complex intersections of race, place and opinion and the implications they hold for our political system.
The unfortunate fact is that polls suggest many rural white people’s commitment to the American political system is eroding. Even when they are not members of militant organizations, rural white people, as a group, now pose four interconnected threats to the fate of the United States’ pluralist, constitutional democracy.
Although these do not apply to all rural white people, nor exclusively to them in general, when compared with other Americans, rural white people:
Express the most racist, least inclusive, most xenophobic, most anti-LGBTQ+ and most anti-immigrant sentiments.
Subscribe at the highest rates to conspiracy theories about QAnon, the 2020 presidential election, Barack Obama’s citizenship and COVID-19 vaccines.
Support a variety of antidemocratic and unconstitutional positions and exhibit strong attachments to white nationalist and white Christian nationalist movements inimical to secular, constitutional governance.
Are most likely to justify, if not call for, force or violence as acceptable alternatives to deliberative, peaceful democracy.
Let’s examine a few data points.
Xenophobia
In a Pew Research Center poll conducted in 2018, 46% of white rural Americans said it is important to live in a diverse community. That’s a lower proportion than urban and suburban dwellers and even nonwhite rural residents.
And in rural areas, fewer than half the people said white people have advantages Black people do not, approve of the legalization of same-sex marriage, and say immigrants make American society stronger.
In addition, Cornell researchers found that rural whites reported feeling less comfortable with gay and lesbian people than urban whites do. And 49% of rural LGBTQ+ people between the ages of 10 and 24 called their own towns “unaccepting” of LGBTQ+ people – nearly twice the rate of suburban and urban LGBTQ+ young people who said the same about their communities.
Rural residents are also more likely than urban and suburban residents to believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump, according to 2021 polling by the Public Religion Research Institute.
And people who live in rural areas are also less confident as a whole than those who live in urban areas that votes will be counted accurately and fairly in their state or across the country, according to a 2022 poll from the Bipartisan Policy Center.
In addition, by our analysis, of the 139 U.S. House members who voted to reject the certification of Joe Biden’s presidential election just hours after a violent mob of Trump supporters rampaged through the Capitol, 103 – 74% – represented either “purely rural” or “rural/suburban” districts, as categorized by Bloomberg’s CityLab project.
Antidemocratic beliefs
A scholarly analysis of multiyear data from the American National Election Studies project finds that rural citizens are “much more likely (than urban residents) to favor restrictions on the press” and to say it would be “helpful if the president could unilaterally work” without regard to Congress or the courts.
This is one of several signals that rural residents are disproportionately likely to support white Christian nationalism, an ideology that reaches beyond Christian ideas of faith and morality and into government. Its followers want the United States to base its laws on Christian values rather than maintain the centuries-old separation of church and state the founders saw as fundamental to a secular democracy.
Justification of violence
Rural residents are more likely than urban or suburban residents to say the political situation in the country is heading to a point where violence may be necessary to preserve the nation, according to polls from the Public Religion Research Institute in 2021 and the University of Chicago Institute of Politics in 2022.
Of the estimated 21 million Americans who in late 2021 said Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential win was “illegitimate,” according to the Chicago Project on Security and Threats, 30% lived in rural areas. And 27% of Americans who say Trump should be returned to office even if “by force” are rural residents. Those are minority views, but both proportions are significantly higher than the rural proportion of the overall population.
With the 2024 election fast approaching, the views of rural white people are once again of vital importance because they and the members of Congress who represent them disproportionately believe the 2020 election was stolen from Donald Trump by Joe Biden. A Pew Research Center study found 71% of rural white voters voted for Trump in 2020, so their preference in November will be key to who returns to the White House for a second term.
Republished with permission from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license.
