Rob Clifford
@robclifford.bsky.social
Conservative dog lover. Huntington Beach. Carlin fan. SODTAOE
Never Trump
Never Trump
Sadly he can spin it however he wants and his base will follow which means the spineless republicans will stick with him.
October 8, 2025 at 6:10 PM
Sadly he can spin it however he wants and his base will follow which means the spineless republicans will stick with him.
I think you’re confusing the fact that “giving a reason” itself really had nothing to do with why they settled with that creep for his defamation claim. It’s the fact they posted it publicly (very boneheaded).
Anyway that’s my two cents thanks for the chat
Anyway that’s my two cents thanks for the chat
June 26, 2025 at 3:32 PM
I think you’re confusing the fact that “giving a reason” itself really had nothing to do with why they settled with that creep for his defamation claim. It’s the fact they posted it publicly (very boneheaded).
Anyway that’s my two cents thanks for the chat
Anyway that’s my two cents thanks for the chat
Analogous to the workforce, this is why serious companies don’t just terminate with no explanation whatsoever. They put you on a performance review, they document your violations, etc.
June 26, 2025 at 3:31 PM
Analogous to the workforce, this is why serious companies don’t just terminate with no explanation whatsoever. They put you on a performance review, they document your violations, etc.
Versus you have a Code of Conduct, you tell someone what was broken, even set up a little appeal process perhaps . . . All of that would have to be part of the pleading process and absent anything else would not pass the plausibility standard.
June 26, 2025 at 3:28 PM
Versus you have a Code of Conduct, you tell someone what was broken, even set up a little appeal process perhaps . . . All of that would have to be part of the pleading process and absent anything else would not pass the plausibility standard.
If an org bans someone with no stated reason whatsoever in our scenario it’s much easier to get past the pleading stage and into discovery. Quite literally there’s an important thing to ‘discover’ so to speak.
June 26, 2025 at 3:24 PM
If an org bans someone with no stated reason whatsoever in our scenario it’s much easier to get past the pleading stage and into discovery. Quite literally there’s an important thing to ‘discover’ so to speak.
I googled this trouble you reference out of curiosity. The boneheaded decision they made was to issue a public statement as to why they banned the guy. If they had just put that in a private email to him he’d have had no leg to stand on at all. Publication to a third party is a required element.
June 26, 2025 at 4:53 AM
I googled this trouble you reference out of curiosity. The boneheaded decision they made was to issue a public statement as to why they banned the guy. If they had just put that in a private email to him he’d have had no leg to stand on at all. Publication to a third party is a required element.
Defamation with the fact pattern above is a nonstarter. But even private organizations are prohibited from discriminating against protected classes. A policy of banning people with no explanation whatsoever seems like a poor one in terms of shielding the org from those kinds of lawsuits.
June 26, 2025 at 4:44 AM
Defamation with the fact pattern above is a nonstarter. But even private organizations are prohibited from discriminating against protected classes. A policy of banning people with no explanation whatsoever seems like a poor one in terms of shielding the org from those kinds of lawsuits.
That sounds interesting thanks I’ll have to look into that
June 25, 2025 at 9:51 PM
That sounds interesting thanks I’ll have to look into that
Of course I wholeheartedly agree hopefully they are never in this position - I’m talking only a scenario where someone is operating in and faith and has the money to burn. Not as much of an occurrence as people think.
June 25, 2025 at 9:24 PM
Of course I wholeheartedly agree hopefully they are never in this position - I’m talking only a scenario where someone is operating in and faith and has the money to burn. Not as much of an occurrence as people think.
Let’s say I was a Muslim writer banned and given no explanation whatsoever. I could move ahead to discovery quite simply by alleging (1) protected class (2) adverse action and then all I’d need is some social media tweets about Gaza or something and I’d be in the door.
June 25, 2025 at 9:23 PM
Let’s say I was a Muslim writer banned and given no explanation whatsoever. I could move ahead to discovery quite simply by alleging (1) protected class (2) adverse action and then all I’d need is some social media tweets about Gaza or something and I’d be in the door.
I wonder what their basis for that extraordinary premise is. When it comes to protected class discrimination, pleading a case past the initial 12(b)(6) hurdle is a very low bar.
June 25, 2025 at 9:21 PM
I wonder what their basis for that extraordinary premise is. When it comes to protected class discrimination, pleading a case past the initial 12(b)(6) hurdle is a very low bar.
That’s usually enough to get past the initial pleading stage as the courts don’t expect plaintiffs to have the proof when they file. But you say these orgs have lost a lot of cases doing it that way so their attorneys probably know better. I’m not familiar with the litigation you’re referencing.
June 25, 2025 at 8:38 PM
That’s usually enough to get past the initial pleading stage as the courts don’t expect plaintiffs to have the proof when they file. But you say these orgs have lost a lot of cases doing it that way so their attorneys probably know better. I’m not familiar with the litigation you’re referencing.
It would be a far greater hardship in my opinion on the barred party if they were given a stated non-discriminatory reason. All they have to do is plead that they are a member of a protected class and that they suffered an adverse action.
June 25, 2025 at 8:36 PM
It would be a far greater hardship in my opinion on the barred party if they were given a stated non-discriminatory reason. All they have to do is plead that they are a member of a protected class and that they suffered an adverse action.
Someone lacking a good faith basis could just allege they were banned for no stated reason, they’re a member of a protected class, and that’s enough to move on to discovery. They would cover themselves more by just saying there’s an COC and here’s the specific violation we determined you broke
June 25, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Someone lacking a good faith basis could just allege they were banned for no stated reason, they’re a member of a protected class, and that’s enough to move on to discovery. They would cover themselves more by just saying there’s an COC and here’s the specific violation we determined you broke
That approach of not giving any reason can actually be more damaging as private organizations are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race/sex/religion etc.
June 25, 2025 at 5:26 PM
That approach of not giving any reason can actually be more damaging as private organizations are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of race/sex/religion etc.
I disagree that she minimizes physical/sexual abuse or that her piece is about that at all.
Emotional abuse on the other hand you may have a point.
Emotional abuse on the other hand you may have a point.
May 31, 2025 at 3:40 PM
I disagree that she minimizes physical/sexual abuse or that her piece is about that at all.
Emotional abuse on the other hand you may have a point.
Emotional abuse on the other hand you may have a point.
Yes that was her actual thesis which I came here to read criticisms of. Instead it was just accounts accusing her of defending parental sexual/physical abuse.
May 31, 2025 at 5:15 AM
Yes that was her actual thesis which I came here to read criticisms of. Instead it was just accounts accusing her of defending parental sexual/physical abuse.
Well she probably assumed people would read the entire op-ed. Which I admit is asking a lot of people.
May 31, 2025 at 4:46 AM
Well she probably assumed people would read the entire op-ed. Which I admit is asking a lot of people.
Bad faith reading. She goes on to say in the same piece that cutting off for physical abuse is indisputably a good thing.
May 30, 2025 at 8:41 PM
Bad faith reading. She goes on to say in the same piece that cutting off for physical abuse is indisputably a good thing.