Greg Gentry
@greggentry.bsky.social
A lawyer living in MN, licensed in MO. Specializing, now, in litigation support, but have written about FDA regulations.
Wolff played fast and loose with sourcing. Using OTR material on-record and other ethical issues.
“Bannon may well have said all that stuff but let’s remember that Wolff is an unprincipled writer of fiction.”
www.politico.com/story/2018/0...
“Bannon may well have said all that stuff but let’s remember that Wolff is an unprincipled writer of fiction.”
www.politico.com/story/2018/0...
Journalists scrutinize Michael Wolff's credibility
'Fire and Fury' author to appear on 'Today' while other reporters criticize — and defend — his reporting.
www.politico.com
November 27, 2025 at 2:26 PM
Wolff played fast and loose with sourcing. Using OTR material on-record and other ethical issues.
“Bannon may well have said all that stuff but let’s remember that Wolff is an unprincipled writer of fiction.”
www.politico.com/story/2018/0...
“Bannon may well have said all that stuff but let’s remember that Wolff is an unprincipled writer of fiction.”
www.politico.com/story/2018/0...
Okay, but do I go to the wrong carnivals?
“When a headline instead draws attention to itself, it feels as wrong as a carnival barker cursing out passersby.”
Do other carnival barkers NOT curse out the passersby?
“When a headline instead draws attention to itself, it feels as wrong as a carnival barker cursing out passersby.”
Do other carnival barkers NOT curse out the passersby?
November 26, 2025 at 10:50 PM
Okay, but do I go to the wrong carnivals?
“When a headline instead draws attention to itself, it feels as wrong as a carnival barker cursing out passersby.”
Do other carnival barkers NOT curse out the passersby?
“When a headline instead draws attention to itself, it feels as wrong as a carnival barker cursing out passersby.”
Do other carnival barkers NOT curse out the passersby?
Saying you “want them to die” might be a more sharp-elbowed way to say it than I would, but I think it’s entirely fair to be upset with the moral calculus you and FIRE are making.
November 26, 2025 at 7:35 PM
Saying you “want them to die” might be a more sharp-elbowed way to say it than I would, but I think it’s entirely fair to be upset with the moral calculus you and FIRE are making.
The dissent notes that it is foreseeable that this “behavior [would] result[] in trauma, humiliation, depression, and self-harm.”
So, yeah, I think it’s fair to say that FIRE sees some risk of “trauma, humiliation, depression and self-harm” as an acceptable result to protect 1st A rights.
So, yeah, I think it’s fair to say that FIRE sees some risk of “trauma, humiliation, depression and self-harm” as an acceptable result to protect 1st A rights.
November 26, 2025 at 7:33 PM
The dissent notes that it is foreseeable that this “behavior [would] result[] in trauma, humiliation, depression, and self-harm.”
So, yeah, I think it’s fair to say that FIRE sees some risk of “trauma, humiliation, depression and self-harm” as an acceptable result to protect 1st A rights.
So, yeah, I think it’s fair to say that FIRE sees some risk of “trauma, humiliation, depression and self-harm” as an acceptable result to protect 1st A rights.
Getting there - poor internet connection in the car.
November 26, 2025 at 7:26 PM
Getting there - poor internet connection in the car.
“The same article notes that the difference between use of preferred pronouns and use of non-preferred pronouns to refer to a transgender student can be the difference between a student who is "depressed, SUICIDAL, [and] OFTEN-SELF HARMING" and a student who is "thriving."
November 26, 2025 at 7:25 PM
“The same article notes that the difference between use of preferred pronouns and use of non-preferred pronouns to refer to a transgender student can be the difference between a student who is "depressed, SUICIDAL, [and] OFTEN-SELF HARMING" and a student who is "thriving."
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:
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
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:
Is it fair to say that some amount of suicide is also acceptable?
Remember this is evidence the PLAINTIFFS included:
So, FIRE sees an ambiguous case where the analysis could go either way and, because you’re a First Amendment group, you value the First Amendment issues over bullying.
As you acknowledge, “your First Amendment position makes it more difficult to prevent bullying against trans kids…”
As you acknowledge, “your First Amendment position makes it more difficult to prevent bullying against trans kids…”
November 26, 2025 at 7:21 PM
So, FIRE sees an ambiguous case where the analysis could go either way and, because you’re a First Amendment group, you value the First Amendment issues over bullying.
As you acknowledge, “your First Amendment position makes it more difficult to prevent bullying against trans kids…”
As you acknowledge, “your First Amendment position makes it more difficult to prevent bullying against trans kids…”
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.)
(I apologize for the lack of alt text - I’m in the car - not driving, though.)
November 26, 2025 at 7:17 PM
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.)
(I apologize for the lack of alt text - I’m in the car - not driving, though.)
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'
The plaintiff parents conceded the use of non-preferred pronouns would B “insulting,' 'humiliating,' 'dehumanizing,' 'derogatory,' 'unwanted'
November 26, 2025 at 7:04 PM
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'
The plaintiff parents conceded the use of non-preferred pronouns would B “insulting,' 'humiliating,' 'dehumanizing,' 'derogatory,' 'unwanted'
Every legal advocate will choose a particular gloss on the facts and law to get to their particular point across. So, FIRE presents this policy as entirely non-targeted and not actually very damaging. (Those are 2 of the main points of the FIRE brief.)
November 26, 2025 at 6:59 PM
Every legal advocate will choose a particular gloss on the facts and law to get to their particular point across. So, FIRE presents this policy as entirely non-targeted and not actually very damaging. (Those are 2 of the main points of the FIRE brief.)
That does not seem substantively different than “your First Amendment position makes it more difficult to prevent bullying against trans kids…”
And she is right that it IS a choice.
And she is right that it IS a choice.
November 26, 2025 at 6:57 PM
That does not seem substantively different than “your First Amendment position makes it more difficult to prevent bullying against trans kids…”
And she is right that it IS a choice.
And she is right that it IS a choice.
Let’s take this post as an example:
bsky.app/profile/aric...
Notice she doesn’t ACTUALLY say “you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.”
She says You/FIRE are using your legal talents to create the conditions that lead to these tragedies by supporting the right to bully’s
bsky.app/profile/aric...
Notice she doesn’t ACTUALLY say “you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.”
She says You/FIRE are using your legal talents to create the conditions that lead to these tragedies by supporting the right to bully’s
Alejandra Caraballo: I need to be nicer to people.
Also Alejandra: I disagree with you on whether a policy was written unconstitutionally broadly, so I am going to tell the world you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.
What a remarkably dishonest, awful human being.
Also Alejandra: I disagree with you on whether a policy was written unconstitutionally broadly, so I am going to tell the world you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.
What a remarkably dishonest, awful human being.
November 26, 2025 at 6:56 PM
Let’s take this post as an example:
bsky.app/profile/aric...
Notice she doesn’t ACTUALLY say “you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.”
She says You/FIRE are using your legal talents to create the conditions that lead to these tragedies by supporting the right to bully’s
bsky.app/profile/aric...
Notice she doesn’t ACTUALLY say “you WANT trans kids to be bullied and kill themselves.”
She says You/FIRE are using your legal talents to create the conditions that lead to these tragedies by supporting the right to bully’s
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
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.
The dissent questioned how compelled the speech actually was since the policy wasn’t “don’t use incorrect pronouns,” but: “[it] requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
November 26, 2025 at 2:03 AM
The dissent questioned how compelled the speech actually was since the policy wasn’t “don’t use incorrect pronouns,” but: “[it] requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
You’ve heard of “deadnaming,” right? I think that conveys a message similar to using incorrect pronouns, no?
“The [district’s policy] requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
“The [district’s policy] requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
November 26, 2025 at 2:01 AM
You’ve heard of “deadnaming,” right? I think that conveys a message similar to using incorrect pronouns, no?
“The [district’s policy] requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
“The [district’s policy] requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
You know it wasn’t a unanimous decision, right? There was a spirited dissent (28 pages) that focused on different facts and had a much different reading of the legal standards at play.
For example, the dissent called into question how the speech in question was compelled. Or non-targeted.
For example, the dissent called into question how the speech in question was compelled. Or non-targeted.
November 26, 2025 at 1:58 AM
You know it wasn’t a unanimous decision, right? There was a spirited dissent (28 pages) that focused on different facts and had a much different reading of the legal standards at play.
For example, the dissent called into question how the speech in question was compelled. Or non-targeted.
For example, the dissent called into question how the speech in question was compelled. Or non-targeted.
I think if I started calling you Aribella, or Susan, it might convey similar sentiments. Especially if you’d changed your name from Aribella.
November 26, 2025 at 1:53 AM
I think if I started calling you Aribella, or Susan, it might convey similar sentiments. Especially if you’d changed your name from Aribella.
Apparently, the use of names IS a belief, because the policy, as described in the majority opinion was:
“The school district’s policy requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
“The school district’s policy requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
November 26, 2025 at 1:23 AM
Apparently, the use of names IS a belief, because the policy, as described in the majority opinion was:
“The school district’s policy requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
“The school district’s policy requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.”
“The school district’s policy requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.” (Opinion at 78)
So, they’re compelling them to call you Cohn as opposed to Aribella?
So, they’re compelling them to call you Cohn as opposed to Aribella?
November 26, 2025 at 1:21 AM
“The school district’s policy requires the student plaintiffs to do one of three things: use preferred pronouns, use first or last names, or not speak certain words of identification at all.” (Opinion at 78)
So, they’re compelling them to call you Cohn as opposed to Aribella?
So, they’re compelling them to call you Cohn as opposed to Aribella?
That last one is almost definitional of ADHD!
Yes, we focus better on things that interest us - it’s bound up in the phenomenon of “hyperfocus!”
Yes, we focus better on things that interest us - it’s bound up in the phenomenon of “hyperfocus!”
November 24, 2025 at 2:37 PM
That last one is almost definitional of ADHD!
Yes, we focus better on things that interest us - it’s bound up in the phenomenon of “hyperfocus!”
Yes, we focus better on things that interest us - it’s bound up in the phenomenon of “hyperfocus!”
SO BAD! I'm screaming at my phone at the "science started in 1492" because we knew our assumptions about the world were wrong and map makers drew maps with spaces left to fill in.
Argh! A spherical earth was common knowledge by that time. Eratosthenes calculated its circumference pretty well.
Argh! A spherical earth was common knowledge by that time. Eratosthenes calculated its circumference pretty well.
November 20, 2025 at 8:41 PM
SO BAD! I'm screaming at my phone at the "science started in 1492" because we knew our assumptions about the world were wrong and map makers drew maps with spaces left to fill in.
Argh! A spherical earth was common knowledge by that time. Eratosthenes calculated its circumference pretty well.
Argh! A spherical earth was common knowledge by that time. Eratosthenes calculated its circumference pretty well.
I need a gift link to see, but that kind of looks like Pizza Shoppe pizza, with their cracker crust. I’ve grown in my pizza tastes, but that was the pizza of my childhood.
November 20, 2025 at 8:21 PM
I need a gift link to see, but that kind of looks like Pizza Shoppe pizza, with their cracker crust. I’ve grown in my pizza tastes, but that was the pizza of my childhood.
We lived on the Kansas side, between KCMO and Lawrence, KS, where much of the film was shot and where a lot of the action takes place.
Both my parents, myself and my wife, all attended KU in Lawrence.
Both my parents, myself and my wife, all attended KU in Lawrence.
November 20, 2025 at 4:23 PM
We lived on the Kansas side, between KCMO and Lawrence, KS, where much of the film was shot and where a lot of the action takes place.
Both my parents, myself and my wife, all attended KU in Lawrence.
Both my parents, myself and my wife, all attended KU in Lawrence.