What Texas editors are saying |
Asian landownership
“There is no discernment about what type of land is being purchased or who is doing the purchasing,” [Rep. Gene] Wu stated earlier in the month. “It targets individuals indiscriminately.”
This bill is not only anti-Asian, but it also raises constitutional as well as economic concerns.
The bill bars individuals from certain nationalities, especially those of particular nationalities, and suggests that these communities are not to trust. This is a common refrain throughout a long history of discrimination and exclusion, which includes the Chinese Exclusion Act of1882.
These claims that link national origin to American loyalty, belonging and citizenship are common fodder. They are used in an endless stream of attempts to limit or ban Asian immigration. In the midst of a worldwide pandemic, there is no need to lighten the flames.
Kolkhorst responded to protests in Austin and Houston by stating that the bill would not prohibit citizens or legal permanent residents from buying land. She also said she would consider including people “in the pipeline to become citizens,” according to Chronicle reporting.
Supreme Court leak
The investigation [into a Supreme Court draft decision this past year reversing abortion rights] comprised 126 interviews with 97 court employees, determining 82 of them — not including the nine justices — had access to the draft. They searched for their search histories, printer logs and court-issued cellphones.
The court found no one among these employees to be responsible for the leak.
The initial report didn’t mention if justices or their spouses had been interviewed.
A day later, after criticism from the left and the right over this omission, Marshal Gail A. Curley said the justices and their spouses were interviewed but unlike their 87 subordinates, they didn’t have to sign sworn affidavits.
“During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions,” Curley said in a statement. “The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions, and answering mine. I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses.”
The draft opinion has been exonerated, meaning that 82 employees who might have lost their jobs due to leaking it have been exonerated. The justices and their spouses are the only ones left to be considered. Why aren’t they put under oath
Online harassment
State. Representative Jared Patterson from Frisco has proposed a bill that would ban minors using social media. We are sympathetic to his motivation. It is becoming more concerning to see the effects of social media on the mental health and well-being of young people.
However, parents are more able to decide what their children think than the state.
Instead, we encourage Patterson and other legislators not to ignore the need to make it easier to hold social-media companies civilly liable for the content they have disseminated. Why should Meta, Instagram’s parent company, profit from Kacie Smith’s harassment and fear? She should have recourse against the company that provided her harassment platform.
Screenshot of a now-deleted Instagram account that expressed hatred toward a Frisco ISD…Screenshot of a now-deleted Instagram account that expressed hatred toward a Frisco ISD teacher, with references to violence.(Instagram)She doesn’t because federal law gives social media companies broad immunity from civil liability for what is posted on websites. There is no significant impediment to creating an anonymous account to spread hate and threats.
“That’s just the world we live in” has become a strange defense to this new reality. It wasn’t always the world we lived in. In fact, it’s a pretty new and frightening world.
