The judge in Trump’s current case plaintively suggests that it’s not appropriate for Trump to try to litigate via social media. Fat lot of good that will do.

…the judge in the case, Lewis A Kaplan, rebuked Trump for an “entirely inappropriate” statement on his social media platform, Truth Social, shortly before proceedings began.

Kaplan warned the former president’s lawyers that such statements about the case could bring more legal problems upon himself.

Why “could”? Why isn’t it a legal problem now?

Trump, who has not attended so far, called the case “a made-up scam”. He also called Carroll’s lawyer “a political operative” and alluded to a DNA issue Kaplan has ruled cannot be part of the case.

“This is a fraudulent and false story – Witch Hunt!” Trump wrote.

Lawyers for Carroll, whose suit includes claims Trump previously defamed her by publicly calling her case a “hoax”, “scam”, “lie” and “complete con job”, mentioned his new statement to Kaplan.

The judge told Trump’s lawyers: “What seems to be the case is that your client is basically endeavoring, certainly, to speak to his quote-unquote public, but, more troubling, the jury in this case about stuff that has no business being spoken about.”

He also called Trump’s post “a public statement that, on the face of it, seems entirely inappropriate”.

No kidding.

The Trump attorney Joe Tacopina noted that jurors are told not to follow any news or online commentary about the case. But he said he would ask Trump “to refrain from any further posts about this case”.

“I hope you’re more successful,” Kaplan said, adding that Trump “may or may not be tampering with a new source of potential liability”.

Why all this caution and hesitancy? Why “ask”? Why “hope”? Why “may or may not”? Aren’t people normally just told not to try to litigate outside the courtroom?

That’s silly.

The First Amendment doesn’t forbid employers to fire employees because the employers don’t like their speech. The First Amendment doesn’t govern private employers at all.

It’s understandable that Russians would be unfamiliar with the details of free speech law.

The Wall Street Journal tells us

Tucker Carlson’s Vulgar, Offensive Messages About Colleagues Helped Seal His Fate at Fox News

Prime-time host called senior executive the c-word in redacted missive; network grew wary of further embarrassment from possible disclosure

Snappy headline and subhead.

Several weeks ago, as Fox News lawyers prepared for a courtroom showdown with Dominion Voting Systems, they presented Tucker Carlson with what they thought was good news: They had persuaded the court to redact from a legal filing the time he called a senior Fox News executive the c-word, according to people familiar with the matter. 

Mr. Carlson, Fox News’s most-watched prime-time host, wasn’t impressed. He told his colleagues that he wanted the world to know what he had said about the executive in a private message, the people said. Mr. Carlson said comments he made about former President Donald Trump—“I hate him passionately”—that were in the court documents were said during a momentary spasm of anger, while his dislike of this executive was deep and enduring.

Therefore it’s important that he call her a cunt and that it not be redacted. If you dislike a woman it’s necessary to call her a cunt and make it public and really lean into it. A woman someone dislikes=a cunt.

On Monday, Mr. Carlson’s famously combative stance toward members of Fox News management and other colleagues caught up with him, as the network abruptly announced it was parting ways with him, just minutes after informing Mr. Carlson of the change. 

The private messages in which Mr. Carlson showed disregard for management and colleagues were a major factor in that decision, according to other people familiar with the matter.

Interesting. I tend to think of everyone at Fox as being as bad as each other, but (as usual) it’s not quite that simple.

With an average audience of 3.5 million viewers, Mr. Carlson’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was the network’s most-watched evening show and second-most-popular telecast overall behind the afternoon talk show “The Five.” 

Which I had assumed would make him untouchable, but that isn’t that simple either. The explanation comes later in the piece.

Within Fox’s management, reservations had been mounting about risks Mr. Carlson presented for the network, people familiar with the matter said. Some of the people pointed to concerns that the populist firebrand had come to believe himself bigger than the network—a cardinal sin in Fox Corp. Chair Rupert Murdoch’s empire—and was increasingly operating as his own island.

He got too big for his britches.

Mr. Carlson sometimes trafficked in what critics—including some higher-ups within Fox—felt was thinly veiled racism on his show, such as when he recently suggested a Tennessee lawmaker got into a good college only because of his skin color, some of the people said.

That’s veiled? Thinly veiled but still veiled? I think higher-ups in more normal networks would struggle to see any veil there.

Inside Fox News, there has been a growing sense that Mr. Carlson couldn’t be managed, and viewed himself as untouchable, people familiar with the company said. Legal documents also revealed Mr. Carlson was unafraid to run roughshod over those whose views or actions he opposed. 

Britches. He couldn’t squeeze into them any more. But it turns out he wasn’t as valuable to Fox as he thought.

While Mr. Carlson’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was popular, it was also repellent to blue-chip advertisers. Top-tier marketers tend to steer clear of content they deem too controversial, and the show was sometimes the target of advertiser boycotts. As advertisers have fled prime time, some have shifted to airing commercials on Fox at other times. 

Mr. Carlson’s show has filled the void mostly with ads from direct-response advertisers and MyPillow Inc. The pillow manufacturer’s commercials star CEO Mike Lindell, who has also appeared as a guest on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” and was one of the most prominent people spreading the false election-fraud narrative. Direct-response advertisers typically are smaller businesses whose ads encourage people to take actions such as calling a toll-free number.

The lack of advertiser demand meant the commercials in many cases weren’t being sold at a premium or at a rate commensurate with its audience size, which meant it wasn’t providing a huge financial windfall to the network, people familiar with the network’s operations said. 

Ohhhhh. All this time I’ve been assuming his popularity meant $$$. I had no idea it was all low-rent MyPillow ads. That’s hilarious.

Updating to add: I’m not the only one who balked at the “thinly veiled racism” joke.

There are many many replies saying the same thing. What “thinly veiled”????????

From a Fresh Air conversation via J.A. at Miscellany Room:

By the time they enter kindergarten, most American children believe that being “thin” makes them more valuable to society, writes journalist Virginia Sole-Smith. By middle school, Sole-Smith says, more than a quarter of kids in the U.S. will have been put on a diet.

Sole-Smith produces the newsletter and podcast Burnt Toast, where she explores fatphobia, diet culture, parenting and health. In her new book, Fat Talk: Parenting in the Age of Diet Culture, she argues that efforts to fight childhood obesity have caused kids to absorb an onslaught of body-shaming messages.

And also, no doubt, to do a lot of bullying of kids who are fat or chubby or not quite thin enough. On the other hand some of what she says in this conversation seems a little silly to me.

So the fact that the first thing we’re all asked to do at a doctor’s office is to get on a scale, right there, you’ve immediately given the doctor this number to focus in on that doesn’t tell your full story about your health, but that narrows the focus of the conversation down to weight. 

Like that. That’s silly. Of course it doesn’t tell the full story, but no doctor thinks it does. They don’t weigh you and then tell you to leave. It’s one thing they can check quickly and easily, but so is blood pressure, and they do that too.

Thin privilege is a concept that is tricky to get our heads around, because if you have it, you don’t really see how much you have it. I mean, it’s a lot like white privilege in that way because you don’t see how much it’s benefiting you. 

Errrm no it isn’t. That’s worse than silly, it’s…well I guess the word is “appropriation.” That can be an irritating label, but it can also name something real. I think it names something real here. I think Sole-Smith is kind of helping herself to a form of oppression that isn’t hers, to make herself sound more serious and activisty, and to make her subject matter sound more profound. I can buy that thin privilege is a thing; I’m not buying that it’s comparable to white privilege.

The thin ideal is definitely a white ideal. When we trace the history of modern diet culture, we really trace it back in the United States to the end of slavery. And Sabrina Strings‘ book Fearing the Black Body is the iconic work on this that I would refer people to. But her research talks about how, as slavery ended, Black people gained rights, obviously, white supremacy is trying to maintain the power structure. So celebrating a thin white body as the ideal body is a way to “other” and demonize Black and brown bodies, bigger bodies, anyone who doesn’t fit into that norm. So this is really about maintaining systems of white supremacy and patriarchy.

Wtf? What is she talking about? Not all white people were thin, and not all black people were fat – in fact it’s far more likely that most of them were too thin, on account of having been enslaved. I don’t think free black people were so generously paid for their work that they could eat all they wanted either – I think this branch of her argument is just trying to add gravitas to her work.

The Oxford University LGBTQ Society has a passionate Statement on Facebook denouncing the L part of itself.

Our statement on Kathleen Stock’s speaking event at the union. Watch this space for updates regarding our next steps.

Steps? Like what? Kicking her?

The Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society is dismayed and appalled that the Oxford Union decided to platform the transphobic and trans exclusionary speaker Kathleen Stock.

Stock has been campaigning against trans rights, labelling them as dangerous to women, calling for the exclusion of trans people from the LGBTQ+ movement, supporting conversion therapy, and supporting hate groups such as the LGB Alliance and Lesbian Project.

Once again, the Union is disregarding the welfare of its LGBTQ+ members under the guise of free speech. Letting Stock bring her campaign of hate and misinformation to Oxford, allowing her to stoke fear against trans people without challenge or opposition – right before pride month and at a time when the trans community is facing a constant attack on its lives and rights – is a move we vehemently oppose and will actively protest.

We call on the Union to rescind its misguided invite [invitation], and on all Oxford students to stand in solidarity with the trans community and express their dissent with these views.

As always, if you need support or someone to talk to, our welfare secretaries are available at ouwelf01@gmail.com. If you’d like to join the efforts against Stock’s speech, reach out to our president at ouprez@gmail.com.

Stock has not been “campaigning against trans rights.” There’s no such thing as a “right” to force other people to endorse or corroborate or play along with one’s personal fantasies. There’s no such thing as a “right” to force lesbians to pretend that men can be lesbians. There’s no such thing as a “right” to compel everyone to adopt the manipulative vocabulary of the trans ideology. Gender critical feminists are not trying to take human rights away from trans people, we’re trying to keep trans people from giving our rights to men who pretend to be women.

It’s almost funny. Almost. The Oxford LGBTQ+ Society celebrates Lesbian Visibility Week with one breath and libels Kathleen Stock with a pack of lies in the next. Lesbian Visibility no not that kind!!!

Immediately below that –

This is bad and sad news. Tarek Fatah is gone.

Renowned Pakistan-born Canadian columnist and famous television personality Tarek Fatah died on Monday, April 24 at the age of 73. The author, based in Canada, died after a long-drawn battle with cancer. His daughter Natasha Fatah confirmed the news of his death in a Twitter post.

NDTV goes on:

Tarek Fatah was born on November 20, 1949, in Karachi, Pakistan. He migrated to Canada in the early 1980s and worked as a political activist, journalist, and television host. He also authored several books including, ‘Chasing a Mirage: The Tragic Illusion of an Islamic State’ and ‘The Jew is Not My Enemy: Unveiling the Myths that Fuel Muslim Anti-Semitism.’

Mr. Fatah was known for his progressive views on Islam and his fiery stance on Pakistan. He called himself an ‘Indian born in Pakistan’ and a ‘Punjabi born into Islam’.

“Freda” Wallace complains that there are hundreds of hours of video of Kathleen Stock talking.

“I’ve watched endless hours of Kathleen Stock on YouTube talking to other academics, there’s no shortage of Kathleen Stock talking.”

So classic. So male. A woman talking! Can you imagine?!

“There are hundreds of hours of Kathleen Stock talking, she doesn’t need -“

At that point the presenter interrupted.

Who knew there was a limit or quota? Is it smaller for women than it is for men? It is, isn’t it. And bigger for trans women? Is that why he’s so cross and disdainful?

Funny thing: the Oxford LTGTBTQT+T+ guy already doxxed himself. I don’t think you get to call it doxxing when you’ve taken a Twitter bow for your services to public fanaticism and censorship.

Gotta pick one, dude. Self-promotion or complaint of doxxing; you can’t have both.

Outrage! No platform! How very dare?!

The Telegraph:

Oxford University students have called for the gender-critical feminist Kathleen Stock to be no-platformed in “solidarity with the trans community”.

The university’s LGBTQ+ society has urged the Oxford Union to rescind its “misguided” invitation to the academic, who is scheduled to speak about her views on gender identity theory at the end of May.

In a statement posted on social media, the LGBTQ+ society said it was “dismayed and appalled” that the historic debating society had “decided to platform the transphobic and trans exclusionary speaker Kathleen Stock”.

It accused the union of “disregarding the welfare of its LGBTQ+ members under the guise of free speech”.

So it’s bad for the welfare of lesbians to invite a lesbian to speak about her views? It’s hard to make sense of that, unless you think the T part of LGBTQ+ is the only part that matters.

Oxford’s LGBTQ+ society is led by Amiad Haran Diman, a PhD politics student at Lincoln College, and Zoë-Rose Guy, a computer science student at Hertford College.

In a post retweeted by Mr Diman, Ms Guy said: “As an Oxford student, I view the Union in the same way as the rest of the world seems to view Oxford – a bunch of privileged gits vying to be the next PM, there to stroke their already massive egos. They cannot be allowed to throw trans people under the bus unchallenged.”

Bus shmuss. We’re all allowed to talk about the ideology of magic gender.

Further development: random guy is outraged that the Telegraph reports on the attempt to prevent discussion of the ideology of magic gender.

They want to prevent Stock from speaking and they want to keep their activities secret?

What’s next for Angry Cable Guy? It’s tricky finding a new home that’s angry enough for him.

Among Carlson’s most passionately pursued topics was the idea – contrary to all able evidence – that white people were being persecuted in the US.

Across his tenure at Fox News, Carlson pushed the concept of the great replacement theory – which states that a range of liberals, Democrats and Jewish people are working to replace white voters in western countries with people of color, in an effort to achieve political aims – in more than 400 of his shows, a New York Times analysis found.

Because that’s how it works, right? Either white people vote – or everyone else votes – it can’t be that they all vote.

One thing that is likely, however, is that Carlson “attacks Fox”, Carusone said.

“He wasn’t shy about attacking his colleagues and management when he was at a company – he’s certainly not going to be shy about attacking them now,” Carusone said.

The idea of an aggressive response is “tightly tied into his brand”, Carusone said “And he’s also just a venomous, spiteful guy, so the reflex will be to take a shot.”

Or he could just disappear into irrelevance.

Originally a comment by Rev David Brindley on From today they re-group.

Well, Possums

Bill Shorten, a government minister, is urging the city of Moonee Ponds (Dame Edna’s home) to erect a brass statue of the Dame.

People in Adelaide, remembering how hard Humphries worked to save Her Majesty’s Theatre from destruction are calling for it to be renamed The Barry.

And Gladioli growers are hastening to develop a new flower to be called Edna.

Meanwhile, an actual, proven friend of paedophiles, former Governor-General of Australia and former Anglican Bishop of Brisbane, has been found “fit for ministry” as long as he apologises to two sex abuse victims he failed. This is the “Bishop of Christ” who appeared on a national TV program and blamed one of the victims!

Adding, via Rev David Brindley; do hit play.

Joan Walsh at The Nation on Tucker Carlson calling her a cunt.

…nine years ago, Carlson called me the C-word to a Salon intern, multiple times, and told the young man I needed to get “fucked.” I remember it because of the firestorm it caused in our small office.

The intern, Ethan Sherwood Strauss, remembers it too, telling Washington Post media reporter Erik Wemple that he’d called to ask Carlson to do an opinion piece about President Obama (I don’t remember that detail, and, assuming it’s true, I apologize for our news judgment), when, out of nowhere, Carlson began calling me the C-word and sharing his views on my sex life. Strauss, understandably, was shocked, and told his supervisor what happened. 

Uproar. They wondered if they should write about it.

It was appalling, but was it newsworthy? Maybe; Carlson had moved to Fox News the year before. One problem was that Strauss didn’t tape the call, and when he called him back to confirm, Carlson denied it. His supervisor called too—she recently shared with me an e-mail she sent to a friend that afternoon. “I talked to Tucker Carlson on the phone for a half hour about how he called Joan a ‘c****’ during a conversation w/one of our interns and is now pretending like he didn’t.”

…

The other appalling fact is that, on another level, it wasn’t that newsworthy. The year before, disgraced Fox host Bill O’Reilly told me I had “blood on my hands” and spewed other personal invective, because I had defended the murdered abortion provider Dr. George Tiller (whom O’Reilly slandered as “Tiller the baby killer” for years). A few months before that, former GOP House majority leader Dick Armey told me he was “so damn glad you can never be my wife because I surely wouldn’t have to listen to that prattle from you every day” during a routine MSNBC debate about the economy. Another day, another threatened right-wing man insulting a liberal woman in the coarsest personal terms.

Been there, seen a lot of that.

Also Don Lemon, I guess to even the numbers or something.

CNN anchor Don Lemon has hit out at the network over his firing months after being accused of misogyny over remarks about top Republican Nikki Hayley.

No he didn’t “hit out at” the network. Don’t be so silly. He objected to his firing – he complained, he fumed, he griped – but he didn’t hit anything.

“I am stunned,” Mr Lemon wrote on Twitter, saying he was told by his agent he had been let go.

He wasn’t “let go”; he was fired. One minute it’s a crude exaggeration and the next it’s a crude euphemism. I do wish journalists would use real words.

Was it because of the ridiculous and misogynist remark he made about Nikki Haley and his ridiculous and misogynist defense of same? Or was it because of a longstanding pattern of sexist crap? Or perhaps both?

The 57-year-old had appeared on CNN on Monday during the morning programme as normal, before reports of his dismissal were publicised later that day.

57. Nikki Haley is 51. Ah well – he says women become worthless earlier than men, so I bow to his superior wisdom.

Melbourne International Comedy Festival has a hell of a nerve.

Tucker Carlson fired fired fired fired.

Fox News said Monday that it was parting ways with Tucker Carlson, its most popular prime time host who was also the source of repeated controversies and headaches for the network because of his statements on everything from race relations to L.G.B.T.Q. rights.

The network made the announcement less than a week after it agreed to pay $787.5 million in a defamation lawsuit in which Mr. Carlson’s show, one of the highest rated on Fox, figured prominently for its role in spreading misinformation after the 2020 election.

So we’re supposed to think Fox News wasn’t behind Carlson’s “misinformation” aka lies? Ha, yeah, sure, that’s hilarious. But anyway: GOOD.

Mr. Carlson is also facing a lawsuit from a former Fox News producer, Abby Grossberg, who claims that he presided over a misogynistic and discriminatory workplace culture. Ms. Grossberg said in the lawsuit, which was filed in March, that on her first day working for Mr. Carlson, she discovered the work space was decorated with large pictures of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wearing a swimsuit.

Ms. Grossberg, who was fired after filing the lawsuit, also claimed that after she was coerced by Fox’s lawyers into providing a misleading deposition in the Dominion trial and defending an offensive text from Mr. Carlson, his producers emailed the rest of the staff in recognition of “Abby Day” and suggested ordering a staff lunch to celebrate.

Fox says nuh-uh. I’m sure they’re far more credible than, say, anyone else on the planet other than Donald Trump.

Now where’s that bale of confetti I’ve been saving…

Special guest: Kyle Rittenhouse.

Republicans in Idaho have been criticized for “glorifying political violence” after the party hosted Kyle Rittenhouse, the American who shot and killed two people at an anti-racism protest and injured another, as a celebrity guest at a fundraiser.

The 20-year-old was the guest of honor at a Bonneville county Republican party event, in Idaho Falls, Idaho, on 15 April, where an AR-15 style rifle signed by Rittenhouse was auctioned off as part of a fundraiser and people could buy tickets to “Trigger time”: a Rittenhouse-hosted shooting event at a gun range.

Ah that’s so attractive, so public-spirited, so benevolent.

The event, amid a prolonged spate of mass shootings – many conducted with AR-15s – suggests a further embrace by Republicans of the most extreme elements of the gun lobby in the US, despite polls showing a majority of Americans, across party affiliation, supporting some gun control laws.

It’s not an embrace of the gun lobby or its “extreme elements”; it’s an embrace of guns and violence and murder. It’s treating murder as a goal and a virtue. It’s a fucking death cult, a murder cult.

Rebecca Casper, the mayor of Idaho Falls, said Rittenhouse “does not represent the majority of the people in Idaho Falls”.

“Make no mistake, this unfortunate, distasteful and insensitive event was in no way supported by the City of Idaho Falls,” Casper said. “We are an inclusive and welcoming community and we join with so many others in voicing our dismay over such an insensitive and patently offensive event.”

But it’s not merely insensitive and offensive; it’s glorification of murder, which amounts to incitement of murder. Calling it “offensive” misses the point.

Rittenhouse’s appearance comes amid a series of high-profile shootings in the US. According to the Gun Violence Archive there have been 167 mass shootings – defined as incidents where four people were shot or killed – in the US through 21 April.

Through April 21 starting when? January 1?

After that the article for some reason lurches into talk of “violence against trans people and gender non-conforming people” and the point gets completely lost.

Human progress is a sight to behold. Never mind about AI; we now have batteries for girls.

50p? Pikers! Here they’re a whole entire dollar more.

Some Victorian Greens are not entirely ecstatic about the new and more sweeping definitions of “transphobia.”

A newly expanded definition of transphobia is threatening to reopen divisions within the Victorian Greens after a senior member accused the party’s leadership of stifling free speech with its revamped code of conduct.

Others have welcomed the updated policy, which was passed by the party’s state council late last week, arguing the Greens now have the strongest anti-discrimination safeguards of any political party in Victoria for transgender members.

But not the strongest anti-discrimination safeguards for women or feminists or people who understand what words mean.

The Victorian Greens now define transphobia as the vilification of trans people; intentionally misgendering people individually or as a group; denying that non-binary genders exist; or “promoting the unnecessary prioritisation of sex characteristics above gender”.

Aka questioning the fanatical doctrine that “sex characteristics” don’t determine who is a woman and who is a man.

The party’s new rules also state that “advocating for unnecessary restrictions on transition care” and “asking leading questions that cover for doing one of the above” can constitute transphobia.

And who will decide when those conditions have been met? Why, the fanatics, of course. The people who are guaranteed to find sin where sin is expected, and never to err on the side of thinking people are allowed to know who is a woman and who isn’t.

A member of the Victorian Greens, who holds a senior position and was speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorised to discuss internal party matters, said the new code of conduct went too far.

“The old code already prohibited vilification, harassment and misgendering,” the party member said. “Now you won’t even be able to ask questions about or propose changes to our policy without threat of expulsion. One way or another, this will split us.”

The member went on to accuse MPs – including Victorian Greens leader Samantha Ratnam – of trying to “cleanse the party of dissent”.

“They’re not interested in freedom of expression, facts or science. They’ve declared war on half the membership.”

And on women. That’s how this crusade works – the punishment always lands mostly on women.

However, another Greens member – also speaking on the condition of anonymity – stressed the expanded definition of transphobia was about giving the party the appropriate tools to grapple with important issues, rather than predetermine an outcome.

The member added that in the past, trans-exclusionary feminists – who often prefer to be called gender-critical feminists – have used official Greens meetings to question, among other things, whether men can give birth. Some party members find these sorts of questions offensive because, in their view, it presupposes that trans men are not men.

Which, of course, they’re not; that’s what “trans men” means. They may be butch; they may even be more butch than most men (though that’s hard to pull off without the requisite body type); but they’re not men.

Greens LGBTQ spokesperson Gabrielle de Vietri said the new code of conduct would protect serious debate while ensuring unsubstantiated questions aren’t weaponised against gender-diverse people.

“Respectful debate which is grounded in evidence is crucial to policy development and will always be welcome in the Greens,” she said.

“Leading questions, on the other hand, are a highly effective tactic that bigots can use to fearmonger and mislead people about complicated issues.”

And of course it’s the zealots who will decide which questions are “leading” and which are permitted. Fewer but better Greens.