Greg Gentry
LightNews LightNews
greggentry.bsky.social
Greg Gentry
@greggentry.bsky.social
590 followers 2.9K following 1K posts
A lawyer living in MN, licensed in MO. Specializing, now, in litigation support, but have written about FDA regulations.
Posts Replies Media Videos
greggentry.bsky.social
So, some level of bullying is an acceptable result of protecting these particular First amendment principles.

Is it fair to say that some amount of suicide is also acceptable?

Remember this is evidence the PLAINTIFFS included:
November 26, 2025 at 7:24 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
This isn’t an obvious case, the dissent gives an example of one where the issues are clearly unconstitutional.

(I apologize for the lack of alt text - I’m in the car - not driving, though.)
November 26, 2025 at 7:17 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
But, as the dissent makes clear, the policy in question only addresses TARGETED speech, and the plaintiffs acknowledge the harm their actions would cause.

The plaintiff parents conceded the use of non-preferred pronouns would B “insulting,' 'humiliating,' 'dehumanizing,' 'derogatory,' 'unwanted'
November 26, 2025 at 7:04 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
The dissent questioned the extent it wasn’t targeted because shirts that say “there are only two genders” are allowed. And also in light of the plaintiff’s own statements.
November 26, 2025 at 2:07 AM
greggentry.bsky.social
Compare and contrast:

The school does not ban a kid from saying IN CLASS, “I don’t believe in transgenderness.” Or, as the dissent points out, wearing a T-shirt proclaiming it to the world.

It ONLY bans directly misgendering a student!
An excerpt from the decision: Defending Education's concessions also disprove the majority opinion's refrain that the basis for the School District's prohibition on the use of non-preferred pronouns stems from the “mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint.” Maj. op. at 31 (quoting Tinker, 393 U.S. at 509). If the basis for the prohibition was a desire to shield transgender and nonbinary students from the viewpoint that sex is immutable and “gender identity” separate from sex is not real, one would expect the School District to ban other expressions of that viewpoint—such as shirts containing these messages. The School District did not. Instead, it banned only a particular type of speech which, while expressive of that viewpoint, is highly disruptive to the learning environment because it directly targets other children.”
November 8, 2025 at 10:56 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Should probably pass this around to potential Dem politicians.
A poster when a “public warning” that most Nazis don’t wear swastikas and gives examples of the various Nazi insignia. Know your enemy, it says.
October 23, 2025 at 9:23 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Grok will give WILDLY different responses on "main" X versus in the Grok app.

Compare:
An @grok response to the prompt "have Haitian immigrants helped to revitalize rust belt towns?" with an answer that boils down to "No." A grok app response to the prompt "Have Haitians helped revitalize rust belt towns/" [a typo - I wanted a question mark] The answer boils down to "yes."
October 20, 2025 at 4:26 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Weird AI summary from Google, saying it was vetoed today. When I click through to sources … nothing. When I search specifically for a veto, it says it hasn’t been vetoed.
October 13, 2025 at 8:33 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Exec1: Every cooking direction will be slightly off. Microwave directions will be 1-2 minutes short. And we’ll have an oven alternative that’s just absurd. Like cook at 350 for 60 minutes, or microwave for 3 minutes.
October 11, 2025 at 7:23 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
“I’ll be in the cold cold ground before I recognize Missourah!”
October 1, 2025 at 7:43 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
“Remember Alf? He’s back! In pog form.”
October 1, 2025 at 7:39 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Just saw a truck with a Malort ad on it.

I actually laughed out loud. This is the ad, though I refrained from stopping to take a pic.
A Malort truck which has a guy on it making a face. The text says, “Malort, Do not Enjoy, Responsibly.”
September 29, 2025 at 3:54 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Just now.

I must say … I’m confused.

Is it that you both HAVE last names?
September 15, 2025 at 9:11 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
There’s nothing in the constitution that restricts juries to citizens.

Federal and state laws do, but no court has ever held that those laws are required.

www.stanfordlawreview.org/wp-content/u...
In the United States, which of the following is a responsibility reserved only for citizens? • Serve on a jury ® Own a home © Pay taxes © Possess a driver's license
August 31, 2025 at 8:05 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Funny
A tweet from Wes Moore simply saying, "lol" while retweeting a press conference with Trump where "Trump claims that West Moore privately told him 'sir, you're the greatest president of my lifetime'"
August 25, 2025 at 9:41 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
They also have a problem with the CONCEPT of art. Here they whine about a painting of the Statue of Liberty not being depicted accurately. They complain that she holds a tomato aloft and a basket of tomatoes instead of a torch and tablet as she should.
Text reads: An American History Museum exhibit features a depiction of the Statue of Liberty "holding a tomato in her right hand instead of a torch, and a basket of tomatoes in her left hand instead of a tablet." When we click through the attached link to the Smithsonian, we learn about the painting: “The Immokalee Statue of Liberty is holding a tomato in her right hand instead of a torch, and a basket of tomatoes in her left hand instead of a tablet. Her bronze skin tone represents workers from Mexico and Central America who labor on U.S. farms. On her pedestal is the message: ‘I, too, am America!’”
August 22, 2025 at 2:13 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Yep, any exhibit that doesn’t center cis-gender, white, able-bodied men is automatically suspect.
The White House complaints about the Smithsonian continue: “The National Museum of the American Latino features programming. highlighting "animated Latinos and Latinas with disabilities" - with content from "a disabled, plus-sized actress" and an "ambulatory wheelchair user" who "educates on their identity being Latinx, LGBTQ+, and disabled."” Then two paintings are shown, the first saying, “Latinos with disabilities are diverse.” The second translates that into Spanish saying, “Los latinos con discapacidades son diversos.”
August 22, 2025 at 2:04 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Uh yeah, Trump just hates black people.

And anything that reminds people that slavery was pretty shitty.

Just a reminder, as many as 2 MILLION people died in the Middle Passage.
White House press release detailing everything they found wrong at the Smithsonian, here describing: “The National Museum of African Art displayed an exhibit on "works of speculative fiction that bring to life an immersive, feminist and sacred aquatopia inspired by the legend of Drexciya,"" an "underwater kingdom populated by the children of pregnant women who had been thrown overboard or jumped into the ocean during the Middle Passage."”
August 22, 2025 at 2:00 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
This is kind of hilarious:

1) the noted historical source, scale models
2) and which country built the Bismarck again?
August 13, 2025 at 10:59 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
Here's the question Kennedy put to Bork and his response. It does not seem to mischaracterize his stance that poll taxes could be okay if not racially discriminatory.
"KENNEDY: Let me go to the issue of poll taxes. The right to vote is the cornerstone of a free society. For decades poll taxes were used to keep poor Americans, often of racial minorities, from exercising the franchise. In Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, which was decided in 1966, the Supreme Court struck down the poll tax because it deprived poor Americans of equal protection of the laws by barring them from exercising their fundamental right to vote. In its majority opinion the court stated: "Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications. The right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned." Judge Bork, is it not true that in your confirmation hearings to be Solicitor General in 1973 you testified that you thought that Harper, and I quote, "as an equal protection case seemed to be wrongly decided"? You were asked whether as far as the welfare of the nation was concerned the Harper case was correctly decided. Am I correct that you answered, "I do not really know about that. As I recall it was a very small poll tax. It was not discriminatory and I doubt it had much impact on the welfare of the nation one way or the other." And then you were asked about the constitutional issue, and you responded, "I think that is a question of degree. It depends on the size of the poll tax." Do you remember? Is that accurate? BORK: AS I recall it, Senator, yes. KENNEDY: NOW, am I correct that in 1985, in your forward to The Constitution and Contemporary Theory, you again suggested the Supreme Court had been wrong to strike down the poll tax in the Harper case? BORK: Sir, I am willing to discuss that case, fully, Senator." "KENNEDY: I am just wondering if you have changed your view that the Supreme Court was wrong in the Harper case to hold that poll taxes are unconstitutional? BORK: I think it was, and I will tell you why, and I have no desire to bring poll taxes back into existence. I do not like them myself. But if that had been a poll tax applied in a discriminatory fashion, it would have clearly been unconstitutional. It was not. I mean, there was no showing in the case. It was just a $1.50 poll tax. This Congress had just recently drafted and proposed to the States and had adopted an anti-poll tax amendment to the Constitution which this Congress carefully limited to federal elections so as to leave State poll taxes in place if States chose to have them. That seemed to me a little odd, therefore, that the Court would come along and mop up something that Congress did not bother to amend the Constitution to accomplish. Not did not bother; deliberately did not. The poll tax was familiar in American history and nobody ever thought it was unconstitutional unless it was racially discriminatory. Now, in Harper itself Justice Black--who was hardly a man who was insensitive to voting rights--Justice Harlan and Justice Stewart all dissented from the majority holding. Justice Black said the Court was using the old natural law due process formula to write into the Constitution notions of what it thinks is good government policy. Harper overruled a prior case in which the majority had upheld the poll tax and in that case Justices Black, Frankfurter, Jackson and others upheld the poll tax. Archibald Cox has said, and I quote, "the opinion seems almost perversely to repudiate every conventional guide to legal judgment," although he liked the result. I like the result too. I just do not see the legal judgment there. Alexander Bickel made much the same criticism. It is a decision that is hard to square with out constitutional history." "KENNEDY: Well, it was not only on the basis of race. It was also on the question of discrimination against the poor. I remember very well, because I offered that amendment on the Voting Rights Act. I suppose the question is, how high a price should a poor person have to be able to pay to exercise the fundamental right to vote. You and I may not have to worry about where each dollar goes but there are a lot of Americans who do. To suggest that a poll tax, if it is small enough, does not deprive a poor person of a fundamental aspect of citizenship, well that reminds me of Anatole France's famous remark that "the law in its majestic equality forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges and to beg in the streets and to steal bread." The oath every judge and justice takes requires them to do equal right to the poor as well as to the rich. I just think we have to be sensitive to the realities, not just legal technicalities."
August 13, 2025 at 9:12 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
I would compare Senator Kennedy's criticism of Bork, that poll taxes are facially invalid, with Bork's defenders who note that the there was (allegedly) no evidence of discrimination in the poll taxes in Harper.
August 13, 2025 at 9:01 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
NYT Letter to the editor, "At Robert Bork's confirmation hearing to be Solicitor General, he defended the poll tax struck down in Harper v. Virginia, saying, ''It was a very small tax, it was not discriminatory, and I doubt that it had much impact on the welfare of the nation one way or the other.'' In his 1987 confirmation hearing, he held firm to this view, stating, ''It was just a $1.50 poll tax'' (committee print draft, page 129). Judge Bork's statements on literacy tests are also a defense of their use -he characterized the decisions upholding Congressional authority to ban literacy tests as ''very bad, indeed pernicious, constitutional law.'' Under his theory, the courts and Congress would be prevented from taking any action, and the only remedy would be through constitutional amendment. While Judge Bork recognizes that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, one form of a right of privacy, at his confirmation hearing he reiterated his long-held view opposing an unenumerated right, ''I do not have available a constitutional theory which would support a general defined right'' of privacy (print draft, page 266)."
August 13, 2025 at 8:39 PM
greggentry.bsky.social
None of this appears to cross the line into incitement, even as actual murders are going on.
First, Facebook facilitated peer-to-peer interactions which affirmed and entrenched hateful narratives targeting Rohingya. One NGO study of online speech leading up to the genocide identified a crystallized narrative that took hold on Facebook. Citizens were identified as under threat from violent Muslim "foreigners" who aimed to displace and overthrow the Buddhist majority. The military was coded as a national savior, and the only force capable of protecting the integrity of the nation. The proliferation of degrading and dehumanizing language was staggering, with thousands of examples of Facebook posts referring to Rohingya as "dogs" "maggots" and "rapists" who ought to be "ted to pigs" and "exterminated. " The sheer quantity of these posts attests to the failure of Facebook to craft and enforce an effective moderation policy for the country.
August 5, 2025 at 12:50 AM
greggentry.bsky.social
Given Trump’s deploying troops and, generally deconstructing the American experiment, I feel we didn’t go far enough in punishing James Bennett (and Tom Cotton).
A selection from TCW’s article discussing the supposed excesses of the BLM movement, “such as when a "multi-ethnic mob of junior employees" ousted New York Times opinion editor James Bennet for publishing Senator Tom Cotton's call to deploy troops against BLM protests.”
July 24, 2025 at 5:08 AM
greggentry.bsky.social
Baldwin Wallace University has serifs on the B, but not the center serif (it looks like the Red Sox font).
July 23, 2025 at 4:46 PM