Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 484 posts

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#71

Post by [deleted] »

josefresco wrote: post #26
elliekelly wrote: post #10

I have a colleague who does environmental litigation. (Think Erin Brockovich.) They have a big civil case against a large energy company in a southern, “energy-friendly” state. They had an expert witness all lined up - a professor at the (public!) state university. Well this expert happened to be up for tenure and was (allegedly) told in no uncertain terms that, should they testify as an expert witness in this case,…

This seems like clear "witness intimidation" aka "Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant" https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1512 (b)Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to— (1)influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;…

[deleted]

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#72

Post by ceejayoz »

chmod600 wrote: post #42

If schools have become as much political institutions as educational institutions -- and there's little doubt about that -- why do they get public money at all? The real conflict of interest here is politicians spending your money for their political goals.

> why do they get public money at all?

Because we still believe there to be a societal benefit to an educated populace.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#73

Post by dahart »

endisneigh wrote: post #70
dahart wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no proof, just like you have no proof. I was talking about a possible state conspiracy, with the university being complicit in this particular case. Just because the university allowed it before doesn’t mean that the state hasn’t abused it’s power here, and that the university is too afraid to stand up to it.

Proof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven. My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state. There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.

> I didn’t make any claim that can actually be proven.

Correct, your claim “There’s no conspiracy here” is something you don’t know and can’t prove, therefore is an unjustifiable claim.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#74

Post by snovv_crash »

aigo wrote: post #65
productivepizza wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide links with information on countries that have discovered election fraud and banned mail-in voting? I could not find anything with a quick google search.

In the UK we did discover some postal voting fraud in a 2014 local election in an area of London called Tower Hamlets. We did not ban postal voting as a result. We have, however, imported a voter ID law from the US which was recently passed by the Johnson government, despite no voter impersonation occurring in Tower Hamlets (or anywhere else really). Previously, no ID was required.

Many other countries have mandatory IDs anyways, so in these cases ID presentation isn't problematic. The issue with ID verification is when only people with eg. a driver's license have IDs.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#75

Post by endisneigh »

dahart wrote: post #73
endisneigh wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof of what? I didn't make any claim that can actually be proven. My point is that the Smith in the article has been denied per UF's process, and has been approved twice by the same process to testify against the state. There's no evidence of a conspiracy. There's no systematic approval or denial.

> I didn’t make any claim that can actually be proven. Correct, your claim “There’s no conspiracy here” is something you don’t know and can’t prove, therefore is an unjustifiable claim.

Saying there's no conspiracy is not a claim, that's the default position. Look up "null hypothesis" and "burden of proof."

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#76

Post by gpm »

ameister14 wrote: post #69
gpm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't justify the post I was replying to at all...

Really? You were saying that the public university is subject to 1st amendment restrictions in this instance, that case says it could be otherwise. From the note: "In a 5-to-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged in as a private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties."

No, that case says that they are restricted by the first amendment, and discusses what exactly that stops the from doing. It does not say they might not be restricted by the first amendment.

The original comment I was replying to was arguing that "Google does this, therefore the university can", but that is not the case. Google is not bound by the first amendment, the university is, the argument fails at step 0. That doesn't mean the university can't do it, but it means it isn't a good argument that the university can.

Incidentally, acting as an expert witness is as a private citizen, not as part of the official's public duties, but even if that wasn't the case and this was something that the university could restrict my post would still be correct and the first reply to it missing the point.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#77

Post by obelos »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #62
obelos wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is none of U of F's business whether or not their testimony is politically biased.

It is so far as U of F is willing/unwilling to have its reputation put on a particular side of a particular political issue. Frankly, I think "if you're getting paid you can't use our name" is a sane policy for all issues on which professors may testify. It shouldn't be hard to imagine the shoe being on the other foot and some energy company paying professors to testify that some new environmental law is asinine. But…

> It shouldn't be hard to imagine the shoe being on the other foot and some energy company paying professors to testify that some new environmental law is asinine.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but this is completely normal and happens all the time.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#78

Post by philjohn »

poorjohnmacafee wrote: post #40

Most countries, including EU nations, ban mail-in voting minus exceptions like living abroad, these laws being passed because of discovered fraud in elections. Election integrity is the difference between democracy and a one-party state. Every citizen should be bending over backwards to make sure our elections dont have sources of fraud.

Need a citation on that.

UK has universal mail-in-voting for any reason.

Some US states also have universal mail-in-voting, and have done for some time.

The counterpoint to "make sure elections don't have sources of fraud" is that you need to strike a balance - the right to vote is sacrosanct (and in some cases was hard won) so any laws that pretend to be about election integrity, but are in fact a way to suppress voting in certain demographics are arguably more dangerous than the exceedingly low levels of fraud that elections have.

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#79

Post by ceejayoz »

ameister14 wrote: post #69
gpm wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't justify the post I was replying to at all...

Really? You were saying that the public university is subject to 1st amendment restrictions in this instance, that case says it could be otherwise. From the note: "In a 5-to-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Supreme Court held that speech by a public official is only protected if it is engaged in as a private citizen, not if it is expressed as part of the official's public duties."

It seems clear "serve as a witness on this case" is not part of these officials' public duties, yes?

Re: University of Florida bars professors from testifying in a voting rights case

#80

Post by [deleted] »

twofornone wrote: post #3

>As part of the testimony, the plaintiffs were seeking three professors from the university — Dan Smith, Michael McDonald and Sharon Austin — to testify as expert witnesses. All three specialize in voting rights and behavior and election law. Regardless of your stance on the issue, does anyone actually believe that three "voting rights" professors will give a politically unbiased testimony in 2021?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN