Not satisfied with imposing anti-free speech and potentially discriminatory rules on law schools, the American Bar Association (ABA) supports prohibiting practicing lawyers from engaging is speech that could offend someone in a favored protected group, on pain of losing their law licenses. The ABA promotes this ideology in other fora too.
Cancel culture brands any challenge to its ideology as "discriminatory" or "harassing"
- Princeton University called Joshua Katz a "race-baiter" for opposing a set of DEI demands
- The university eventually fired him on trumped-up claims based on a previously resolved disciplinary matter
The model rule is similar in purpose to changes ABA proposed as a revision to its law school Standard 206(c):
- ABA had more success pushing state-level attorney regulators to adopt its model rule 8.4(g)
- At least eleven states have already adopted a rule prohibiting a lawyer from engaging in conduct constituting harassment or discrimination based on race, sex, gender identity or expression, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, or socioeconomic status.
A federal court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) held the rule violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
- The ABA filed an amicus brief in support of the rule, claiming that there was a compelling need to police lawyers from being mean.
- Given the obvious risk that the rule would chill speech, the ABA could have limited its model rule to reinforcing proper policing of the profession.
- Its rule could have stated, proven illegal discrimination and harassment on the job constitute ethical violations, and attorneys guilty of such conduct would be sanctioned accordingly.
- Instead, it has designed a rule calculated to chill attorney discourse to voice only "acceptable" opinions.
No comments:
Post a Comment