On November 3, Special Counsel Jack Smith filed  the “United States’ Opposition to Applications to Broadcast the Criminal Trial of United States v. Trump” with the US District Court for the District of Columbia.

A “coalition of media organizations” has petitioned the court to allow recording and broadcasting of former president Donald Trump’s federal trial on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States, obstructing an official proceeding (and conspiring to do so), and conspiracy against rights.

Granting that request seems like a no-brainer. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to a “public” trial, and it’s clearly in the public’s interest to be able to follow judicial proceedings in real time.

Unfortunately, federal courts respect neither that right nor that interest. “The relief the Applicants seek,” Smith argues, “is clearly foreclosed under rule 53 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Local Criminal Rule 53.1.1.”

The latter being a more detailed version of the former, I’ll quote from it:

“The taking of photographs and operation of tape recorders inside the United States Courthouse and radio and television broadcasting from inside the courthouse during progress of or in connection with judicial proceedings, including proceedings before a United States Magistrate Judge, whether or not court is actually in session, are prohibited.”

In theory, you or I could personally attend Trump’s trial.

In reality, unless we’re members of a select club or can camp outside the courthouse for days in advance, our chances of getting in approach zero. The courtroom will be packed, and those who can’t get in will be limited to hearing about the proceedings from those who CAN get in.

In an age of inexpensive and unintrusive audio and video broadcasting, that’s the exact opposite of “public.” There’s no good excuse for limiting the public to hearing at second hand about a public proceeding that we could, if allowed to, easily watch in real time or in recorded format.

A footnote to Smith’s filing claims that “Counsel for former President Trump has requested that government counsel convey that he takes no position with respect to these Applications.”

He SHOULD take a position — the position that the Sixth Amendment trumps (pun intended) the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. And he should direct his lawyers to actively pursue broadcast of his trial by supporting the petition and joining any appeal of its denial, all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Like most people, I’m a sucker for click bait, and one of my favorite variations of the genre is the feel-good big-tip story. For example, rapper Post Malone leaving a $3,000 tip above and beyond the $500-plus “gratuity” charge on a large restaurant bill. Nice guy by virtually all accounts, and the server was grateful for the unexpected pocketbook boost.

Not everyone tips so well, of course. Some people don’t tip at all, and not all restaurants tack on the “gratuity” charge. Anyone who works in a “tipped” service role can relate stories of demanding customers who stiffed them on tips.

I try to tip generously, with bigger tips for outstanding service However, the movement to eliminate tipping and replace it with a minimum wage (usually coupled with a proposal to increase the minimum wage) is a bad thing all around.

In trying to make the case for such changes, The New Republic‘s Elena Soderblom inadvertently exposes the scam involved by lying, then admitting she’s lying in the very next paragraph, in the apparent hope that no one will notice.

The lie: “Many are unaware of the subminimum wage that allows a tipped employee to be paid as little as $2.13 per hour.”

The admission of the lie: “[E]mployers are not required to pay minimum wages as long as customers make up the difference.”

By law, employers are required to ensure that employees receive AT LEAST the legally mandated minimum wage (I oppose minimum wage laws, by the way, but they do exist).

The idea of replacing tipping with a minimum wage doesn’t provide a “floor” to the employee’s earnings — that “floor” is already there. Rather, it creates an artificial “ceiling” to those earnings.

If the minimum wage is $15 an hour, the un-tipped employee makes $15 an hour and not a penny more unless the boss decides to offer a raise. With tipping, someone who provides good service to grateful customers may average $20 or $30 or more per hour … but still gets that $15 per hour, bare minimum, regardless.

The only real explanation for the effort to get rid of tipping is that proponents want to corral service employees — at their own expense — into political pushes for higher minimum wages, and perhaps unionization efforts.

Some service workers resist these efforts, for good reason. The District of Columbia’s bartenders and wait staff  opposed a 2022 tipping law that drove up bar and restaurant menu prices by requiring the full $16.10 minimum wage. With tipping, they were accustomed to making $36-40 per hour.

If you live in an area with such counter-productive rules, don’t blame your waiter or bartender for the higher prices. Blame the politicians who imposed those higher prices. And if you can, please tip generously anyway.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“Civilians are not collateral damage,” the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for the Eastern Mediterranean tweeted (or whatever it’s called now on X, formerly Twitter) on October 27. “Patients are not collateral damage. Health staff & health facilities are not collateral damage. Children, women & men sheltering in health facilities are not collateral damage. International Humanitarian Law must be respected.”

WHO is obviously referring to events in Gaza. Unfortunately, the statement goes both too far and not far enough.

The “too far” part:

On a quick read of “international law” — specifically Protocol I and the 1997 Additional Protocol of the 1949 Geneva Conventions — the claim that people in hospitals can’t be “collateral damage” seems unsupported. Article 19 does order that such facilities “shall not be attacked,” but if the attack is on a nearby “legitimate” military target, then per Article 51(5)(b) the attackers merely need avoid  “anticipated civilian damage or injury” that’s “clearly excessive” in relation to “anticipated military advantage.”

The “not far enough” part:

There is no moral, nor should there be any legal,  Get Out of Jail Free Card for those who injure or kill non-combatants.

War is an intentional activity and “collateral damage” is therefore by definition not “accidental.”

When YOU squeeze the trigger on a rifle, pull the lanyard on a howitzer, or press a button that drops a bomb or launches a missile, YOU are morally responsible — and should be held legally responsible — for the results of your actions.

It’s on YOU to know where that munition is going and who’s on or near that spot.

If the results of your action include the deaths of, or injuries to, non-combatants, that’s also on you.

Your action may be intentional, reckless, or negligent, but whatever else it may be it is NOT accidental.

The obvious objection to imposing something analogous to a  “felony murder rule” on actions taken during war is that few would willingly participate in such activities if they expected to be held to account for their crimes. That’s a feature, not a bug. War is a bad thing. Making it harder to recruit people to conduct it is a good thing.

Regimes (both actual and would-be) try to claim special exemptions from basic morality for themselves and their agents when it comes to the lives and livelihoods caught in the middle of their fights. But shiny badges and fancy uniforms don’t change the moral equation. Nor should they.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY