A constitutional law professor analyzes Trump's suggestion that the "Second Amendment people" stop Clinton; Boyle Heights reacts to the officer-involved shooting death of a 14-year-old; plus, is shaming dopers unsportsmanlike or justified?
Debating intent, meaning, consequences of Trump's 'Second Amendment' remark
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is blaming faulty interpretations and media bias for an uproar over his comments about the Second Amendment.
He's insisting he never advocated violence against Hillary Clinton, even as undeterred Democrats pile on. Trump made the remarks at a rally in North Carolina yesterday.
Claiming that Clinton wants to revoke the right to gun ownership guaranteed in the Constitution's Second Amendment, Trump said there would be "nothing you can do," if she's elected, to stop her from stacking the Supreme Court with anti-gun justices. Then he added ambiguously: "Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is - I don't know. But I'll tell you what: that will be a horrible day."
Was Trump making an off-color joke? Was he suggesting gun owners take matters into their own hands if Clinton wins the White House? Or was he musing about the influence of the gun lobby? If so, wouldn't that undercut his argument that there's "nothing you can do" about gun-control judges?
How should Hillary Clinton's campaign react to the comment - exploit it or let it play out? Former CIA Director Michael Hayden suggested Trump could be arrested for the comments. How does that square with that other Constitutional Amendment?
With files from the Associated Press.
Guests:
Paris Dennard, Republican political analyst and former staffer for President George W. Bush and the Republican National Committee
Tamara Draut, Vice President of Policy at Demos - a public policy organization focused on equity; Author of the brand new book, “Sleeping Giant: How the New Working Class Will Transform America” (Doubleday; April 2016)
Eugene Volokh, constitutional law professor, UCLA School of Law, where he specializes in the First Amendment
Officer who shot 14 year-old in Boyle Heights was on vandalism call
Shaming dopers, is it unsportsmanlike or justified?
It seems every Olympic year the games arrive hand-in-hand with a doping scandal.
This summer is no different with Russia’s track team almost being banned, and many teams including, the U.S., bringing athletes with sullied pasts - but there is a difference in the way that clean-record athletes are speaking publically about those who’ve previously served doping suspensions.
On Monday night the 100-meter women’s swim meet was more tense than usual after 19-year-old U.S. swimmer Lily King commented on her Russian competitor Yulia Efimova’s history with performance enhancing drugs. Efimova, 24, recently served a 16-month suspension for doping and was only cleared for the Olympic games last Saturday.
Is it unsportsmanlike for Olympic athletes to call out competitors with doping histories, or are their comments justified?
Guest:
Paul DiMeo, a scholar at the University of Stirling in Scotland, whose research focuses on sports policy and drugs in sport. He is the author of “A History of Drug Use in Sport: 1876 – 1976: Beyond Good and Evil” (Routledge, 2007)
Should internet privacy be a luxury?
In our online lives, a lot of us make privacy concessions for the benefit of free email services or using social media.
But what about handing over personal details to your internet company for a lower bill?
That’s what Comcast defended in a filing to the Federal Communications Commission last week. The web service wants to offer two different plans: Privacy-conscious customers can pay more to keep their information out of the hands of marketers and those trying to save a few bucks can opt for a lower bill but with more ads online.
In the FCC filing Comcast argues this kind of information exchange already exists online, for example when you use Google or Facebook and then get personalized ads.
According to Comcast, banning two-tier pricing “would harm consumers by, among other things, depriving them of lower-priced offerings.”
Critics say pay-for-privacy discounts aren’t about providing lower-income customers with more options; they’re make the basic right to privacy cost prohibitive. The FCC is currently reviewing new rules on internet privacy. For now the potential regulations don’t ban two-tier pricing but it’s not out of the question.
Last week FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said, “I would hope that privacy doesn't become a luxury item.”
Do you feel people should pay more for their internet service to see less ads? Does two-tier pricing create privacy inequality online for those with less disposable income or give customers more affordable options? Would you share personal information for cheaper internet access?
Guests:
Doug Brake, Telecom Policy Analyst, Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Dallas Harris, Policy fellow, Public Knowledge --a digital-rights group in Washington D.C; she tweets from