If you were in any doubt that prestigious American law schools are seeking to prepare a new generation of attorneys well suited to check off as many red boxes as possible on a diversity questionnaire, let the latest LSAT course registration form relieve your concerns that the future crop of lawyers won’t be at a loss in possessing the characteristics that really matter in the navigation of the American legal system.
A millennial supporter of Josh Hawley’s US Senate campaign, Amalia Halikias, tweeted the latest registration form for the LSAT, or Law School Admission Test, a standard issue test required for recent college graduates to evaluate their prospective law school admission potential. But the information she shared about what’s required for registration didn’t inquire on the prospective test-taker’s undergraduate college experiences, or their motivations in seeking to become a lawyer in the first place.
Instead, the LSAT registration form presented its users with a all-encompassing list of twelve gender identities to choose from, and the option to list a fully customized one should their options for selection prove to be not comprehensive enough. Curiously, an option for “questioning or unsure” was included, in the case that recent college graduates with approximately 22-25 years of life experiences might still be unaware or unsure of what gender they are.
Accommodating the demographic of prospective applicants identifying outside of a traditional male and female gender binary might not be the only way in which the face of American law school students might be changing. Recent statistics surveying beginning law school students in 2016 revealed that for the first time, women now outnumber men in as law students.
It remains to be seen if a vociferous campaign will be waged by advocates of equality in the legal profession to ensure that a perfectly balanced proportion is achieved in this pool of students, split 50% both ways. That is, unless, a proportion of spots for admission need to be explicitly reserved for future attorneys identifying of the Demigender and genderfluid categories.
Does the Arizona Constitution Provide Means for Lawmakers to Crack Down on Big Tech Censorship?
Does the Arizona Constitution provide protections from Big Tech?
The Arizona Constitution provides stronger protections for freedom of speech than the First Amendment does, potentially providing legislative solutions to Big Tech censorship in the state at a moment where political censorship is more pervasive than ever.
Article 2 Section 6, Arizona Constitution states that “Every person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right. “
This differs greatly from the federal constitution in that it doesn’t limit the powers of a legislature to restrict freedom of speech. The US Constitution identifies “Congress” as the body it’s restricting from making a law abridging the freedom of speech.
The speech rights established by the Arizona Constitution are thus expressed positively; recognizing a right belonging to the people, as opposed to negating an infringement of said right.
Quite obviously, the Arizona Constitution was written in an 1910, an era in which the internet would’ve been just as inconceivable as it was in 1789.
In a 2019 Arizona Supreme Court case, the state’s highest court recognized in a 4-3 judgement that the Arizona Constitution provided greater protections than the federal constitution. The case recognized that violations of the First Amendment would represent de facto violations of the
It’s not outside the realm of possibility that the Arizona Attorney General, or state legislature, could hold Big Tech oligarchs to account for violating the Article 2 Section 6 rights of Arizona citizens- especially in a context the major platforms are collectively adjudicated to be acting as a trust in order to suppress competition and silence lawful speech.
Three Arizona legislators called upon Attorney General Mark Brnovich to begin an antitrust investigation into Big Tech oligarchs following the coordinated deplatforming operation against Parler, in which both Amazon and Apple colluded to restrict the free speech platform from the internet.
In an era where the overwhelming majority of free speech is communicated online, the censorious actions of Big Tech very plausibly represent an assault of the right of free expression guaranteed in the Arizona Constitution. Both chambers of Arizona’s legislature remain Republican, even as the state has become purple, and action against Big Tech censorship on the state level could become a real possibility in the coming years.
Politics3 days ago
GOP Establishment Threatens President Trump with Impeachment Unless He Denies Election Fraud
States1 day ago
Grassroots Leaders Send Final Warning to GOP Establishment: Rejecting Trump Means Death of Republican Party
White House13 hours ago
President Trump Contemplates Ditching the GOP, Starting New ‘Patriot Party’ to Put America First
Big League National Security3 days ago
DNI Ratcliffe: China Interfered in 2020 Election, CIA Suppressed Info
Tech2 days ago
Free Speech Platform Gab Receives 3 Million New Users in 12 Days
Politics2 days ago
Constituents Already Beginning to Turn on Peter Meijer, Who Admits That Voting to Impeach Trump May Have Ruined His Political Career
Free Speech3 days ago
Tennessee High School Principal Suspended for Speaking Against Big Tech Censorship
Big League National Security3 days ago
Left-Wing Extremist Charged in Alleged Florida Capitol Attack Identified Soros as “Sponsor”