Occupiers often tout the importance of reaching a consensus before acting, but their “commitment” to such a decision-making philosophy obviously doesn’t extend to cooperating with the millions of people who don’t wish to attend a General Assembly or rely on finger-wiggling to communicate, and who aren’t under the illusion that by claiming to be petitioning the government for a redress of grievances, a group of protesters is somehow entitled to live in a park indefinitely.

Maher suggests: “Instead of organizing interstate hootenannies, maybe it’s time for Occupy Wall Street to actually participate in the American political process.” He’s right about the arena, but when he later urges Occupiers to serve the Democratic Party, he misses the mark.

There needs to be probable cause (incriminating evidence) that the shooting was unlawful. The use of deadly force when it’s reasonable to fear great bodily harm or death is a right, not just a defense that can be used in response to charges. That’s why the State of Florida submitted a probable cause affidavit. In other words, it’s unlawful to prosecute someone without probable cause. Renowned criminal defense attorneys such as Jeralyn Merritt and Alan Dershowitz have explained (here, here and here) why the affidavit is terribly flawed. If the best refutation of their criticism is that it’s common to prosecute people who’ve shot others, the State has failed to meet its evidentiary burden.

One needn’t be a legal expert to recognize that nothing has been disclosed which indicates Zimmerman violated any law. There’s a huge and discrediting gap between that nothingness, and the phony certainty of the lynch mob.

Francescani’s “reporting” (as if it were an undisputed fact) that Zimmerman “disregarded police advice against pursuing Martin” is typical of the pro-prosecution bias that dominates our culture. It’s not even complicated. Quite simply, nobody is known to have witnessed what George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin did or said between the moment Zimmerman finished speaking with the police dispatcher, and when the Zimmerman/Martin encounter thereafter began. Zimmerman said “okay” when the dispatcher implied he shouldn’t keep following Martin. He then sounds (in the recording of his conversation with the dispatcher) as if he indeed aborted his pursuit. Zimmerman later told police that after the call, he did what he and the dispatcher agreed he should do, which was find an address so he could tell the responding cops exactly where to meet him. How does this add up to Zimmerman chasing Martin with murderous intent – or chasing him at all – after the phone call?

That such a flub is contained in even a basically impressive piece of journalism, and that nobody (to my knowledge) has commented on it, shows how deeply ingrained the bias is.

Of course all killings should be thoroughly investigated. My beef is with the public’s rush to judgment, and special prosecutor Angela Corey’s decision to charge Zimmerman with second degree murder when no evidence has been presented that supports it. Corey is placating the lynch mob instead of honoring established evidentiary standards.

It’s not as if charging Zimmerman with second degree murder was a prerequisite to uncovering evidence. Corey’s ample investigative powers would not have been diminished had she decided Zimmerman should not be charged.

Those who demanded a criminal prosecution see themselves as righteous defenders of a victim, but they fail to realize Zimmerman is also a victim, because he’s been denied the due process rights to which he’s entitled. Moreover, the lynch mob’s phony certainty undermines the stalwart and important efforts of reputable watchdogs who are working to eradicate police misconduct, particularly the sort of racial profiling that infringes on the liberty of innocent Americans. In the name of justice, misguided supporters of Trayvon Martin and his family are rallying around a ridiculously weak case, and ignoring incidents in White Plains, NY and Los Angeles that deserve greater scrutiny.

This story was also published by The Huffington Post.

In most circles, it’s no longer considered disreputable for a single woman to have sex, so why exaggerate the effect of a dinosaur feebly claiming otherwise? To call for a boycott of Limbaugh’s advertisers is to attach more significance to a cheap insult than is warranted.

Likewise, it would be a terrible mistake for Fluke to sue Limbaugh, as she says she might do. Fluke would have to emphasize how harmful it is to be branded as sexually active, which would undermine her status as an advocate for contemporary women. It might also turn a detestable person (Limbaugh) into a somewhat sympathetic figure in the same way feminists who otherwise shunned Larry Flynt supported him when Jerry Falwell sued him for having published an offensive ad parody.

The other problem is that Fluke has no case. Legal bloggers Eugene Volokh, Ann Althouse and Jeralyn Merritt have all written disapprovingly of Limbaugh’s anti-Fluke commentary, but none of them see a lawsuit against the talk titan as a possibility even worth mentioning.

First Amendment attorney Marc John Randazza comes right out and says Fluke has no “basis for a defamation claim.” He explains on his blog that there can be no libel without:

1. A false statement of fact
2. About the plaintiff
3. That harms the plaintiff’s reputation

Limbaugh expressed an opinion about a belief (insurance policies should cover the cost of contraceptives) that Fluke publicly championed. That what he said was crude, illogical and gratuitously insulting does not make it actionable. What saves Limbaugh is that he did not make a false and harmful assertion as if it were a fact. In other words, he didn’t claim that Fluke had done or said something she hadn’t actually done or said.

It seems many people are dwelling on Limbaugh’s indecency to make themselves seem wonderful by comparison. They’re neither advancing the cause of women, nor weakening Limbaugh. His contract runs through 2016, and he’ll be paid $38 million per year no matter how many sponsors drop out for a while. If Limbaugh has any talent other than his ability to mock liberals, I’m not aware of it. So I wouldn’t play to his limited strength. It seems to me that he’s getting a publicity boost and more fodder for his shtick.

Thanks to the boycotters, the main issue is now whether or not (or to what extent) Limbaugh should be scolded or punished. It would be better to focus instead on Fluke’s argument.

As with most attempts to intimidate, discharge or control an offensive speaker, the effort to silence Limbaugh is based on no discernible principle. His detractors are pretending he violated some rule that was known before he violated it. Misogyny can and should be repudiated without resorting to such arbitrary retribution. No speaker should have to wait until after the fact to find out what’s prohibited.

This story was also published by The Huffington Post.

Watching the video, I was reminded of my own surreal experience in South Florida back in 2000 when I was there to cover the infamous Gore/Bush election recount. I was subjected to the same self-important attitude by the media, and the same disregard for my First Amendment rights by the police.

Then and now, the bullies provided great comedic entertainment after the fact, even though it was disturbing to endure the abuse when it occurred.

This story was also published by The Huffington Post.

The Norman Report videos were produced by Carter Mays.

In a recent phone interview, ballot access expert Richard Winger explained why the Justice Party of California is likely to prevail if, as expected, it sues for an extension on the deadline to attract the 103,000 members needed to qualify for the ballot. More news on the legal front is coming soon.

Please click on the blue button to open the registration form, fill it out (be sure to check “other” and write “Justice Party”), print it, sign it and mail it. That’s all you need to do! There’s no downside because you can vote for anyone you want regardless of your party affiliation.

“Though he’s socially conservative and highly partisan, Bopp nonetheless is willing, whenever possible, to find common ground with liberals if it furthers his primary, driving goal: to make the words ‘Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech’ an insurmountable barrier to regulating money in politics.”

I asked Novak if her organization takes any position on campaign finance, or if it maintains a neutral stance, and she said, “We think that donors should be disclosed.”

I’ve heard it argued that some donors would be more likely to give money to challengers if it could be done anonymously, because if the incumbent is reelected, legislative revenge would be a real possibility. Novak escaped before that logic could be explored. But she was a good guest, and I hope she comes back.