The Faculty Lounge

Science, Art, Policy, and the Importance of Good Science Communication

Recently, several media outlets, including NPR, the New York Times, and Big Think, have covered the story of Ph.D. student in Electronic Arts Heather Dewey-Hagborg, who makes 3-D "masks," or "portraits," of the faces of unknown individuals using the DNA they unwittingly discard on such things as cigarette butts and chewing gum. The media coverage has conjured an Orwellian dystopia for readers (check out the first few comments on the NPR piece for a sample). The artist herself apparently shares these concerns. In addition to her upcoming exihibit, Stranger Visions, she will be leading policy discussions on the implications of her art. She's also working with the Delaware medical examiner's office to try to identify the remains of a 20-year-old body.

The problem? As I commented over at Bill of Health, based on what she's said about her methods, they do not allow her to predict someone's face with anything but the crudest of guesses.

Matthew Herper of Forbes took my criticisms and those of others directly to the artist. I confess that her response does not make me feel any better. Even if you're "only" engaging in art, it seems to me that when that art has an obvious science policy message — indeed, one that you invite — you have some obligation to be clear about how "speculative," as she puts it, your art is. But when you decide to move from the world of art into the world of science, and to start leading policy discussions based on your speculative art and working with forensic examiners? Then you really have a strong duty to be very clear about what your work does and does not mean. Among other things, you should take care when talking to the media, and correct the media if they get it wrong. (This is, of course, a lesson that applies to all scholars, including legal scholars, not only to scientists.)

Yesterday, the Social Science Genetic Association Consortium, an international consortium that pools and conducts social science research on existing genome-wide association study (GWAS) data, and on whose Advisory Board I sit, published (online ahead of print) the results of its first study in Science. That paper — "GWAS of 126,559 Individuals Identifies Genetic Variants Associated with Educational Attainment" (plus supplemental data) — like much human genetics research, has the potential to be misinterpreted in the lay, policy, and even science worlds. That's why, in addition to taking care to accurately describe the results in the paper itself, including announcing the small effect sizes of the replicated SNPs in the abstract, being willing to talk to the media (many scientists are not), and engaging in increasingly important "post-publication peer review" conversations on Twitter (yes, really) and elsewhere — we put together this FAQ of what the study does — and, just as important, does not — show. So far, our efforts have been rewarded with responsible journalism that helps keep the study's limits in the foreground. Perhaps Dewey-Hagborg should consider issuing a similar FAQ with her speculative art.

[Adapted from a post and comments at Bill of Health]

Kudos to This American Life

A few weeks ago I blogged here about a recent episode of This American Life, "Dr. Gilmer and Mr. Hyde," about the quest of one Dr. Gilmer (Benjamin) to understand why another, beloved Dr. Gilmer (Vince), had brutally murdered his own father after hearing voices that compelled him to do so. The episode ends (spoiler alert) with the revelation that Vince suffers from Huntington's, a rare, neurodegenerative disease that causes progressive physicial, cognitive, and psychological deterioration.

Listeners, it seemed to me, could naturally conclude from the episode that it was Vince's Huntington's that had caused him to murder his father. That might or might not be true in this particular case. Huntington's can cause behavioral and mood changes, including irritability, aggression and belligerence. It can also cause (less often) psychosis. But even if Huntington's caused Vince to murder his father, or somehow contributed to the murder, the extreme violence that Vince displayed — strangling his father, then sawing off his father's fingertips to preclude identification — is in no way typical of the Huntington's population as a whole. And so what most troubled me about the episode was its failure to note just how rare this kind of extreme violence is among those with Huntington's, just as it is very rare among human beings generally. And so I wrote to TAL, requesting a clarification.

I'm happy to report that the TAL producer for the episode, Sarah Koenig — who had not intended to suggest any causal link between Vince's murder of his father and his Huntington's, much less between murder and Huntington's more generally — has issued a clarification on the show's blog, and promises to make a similar clarification in the episode itself, should they ever re-air it. Kudos to TAL, and many thanks to Sarah for being incredibly gracious in our exchanges.

One clarification deserves another. In my earlier blog post, I also worried that some listeners might  conclude that Vince's father was similarly driven to commit horrific acts of sexual abuse on Vince and his sister because he, too, was (presumably) suffering from Huntington's (an autosomal dominant genetic disease). Although I think that a listener who didn't know better could reasonably conclude that Huntington's causes people to become sexual predators almost as easily as they could conclude from the episode that Huntington's causes people to become murderers, nothing in the episode suggests that Sarah, Benjamin Gilmer, or anyone else at TAL believe that Huntington's causes sexual abuse, or that they intended for listeners to reach that conclusion. I regret anything in my earlier post that suggested otherwise.

Again, I'm very grateful to Sarah and everyone else at TAL for hearing me (and other listeners) out and for agreeing to make the clarification — and just in time for HD Awareness Month!

This American Life and Stigma

Update: TAL has made a clarification. Please see this post for more.

Let me begin by saying how much I absolutely adore This American Life. I listen to it religiously. I particularly had been looking forward to the most recent pocast episode of TAL: Dr. Gilmer and Mr. Hyde. As the episode's blurb teases, "Dr. Gilmer and Mr. Hyde" concerns a doctor — Benjamin Gilmer — who takes over the rural South Carolina practice of Vince Gilmer (no relation). Vince is no longer available to see patients because he is serving a prison sentence for killing his father. As Benjamin gets to know Vince's — and now his — patients, he forms a picture of Vince that's at odds with his status as a convicted father murderer. How could this doctor who was so devoted to his patients have so brutally murdered his own father?

This episode is right up my alley. True crime? Check. Forensic psychology? Check. The intersection of law and medicine? Yes, please. So when I awoke yesterday morning at 5 am and couldn't go back to sleep, I eagerly cued up the podcast. The episode recounts, in TAL's  typically-riveting fashion, the story of Benjamin's search for the truth behind Vince's murder of his father. I enjoyed every minute of the episode until the last five minutes or so, when I became troubled by one critical omission.

Spoilers  follow after the jump; listen to the episode first.

Do You Want to Know Who Owns a Gun (on Your Faculty)?

The Journal News, a local publication based in Westchester County, New York has published an interactive map of the names and addresses of  pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland Counties.  Officials in nearby Putnam County (NY) have declined to release the information in response to FOIA requests.

The publication of the map has resulted in threats to the publishers, prompting the Journal News to hire armed guards to protect the organization's offices (see news coverage here, e.g.).  Public opinion on the appropriateness of the publication of the information is divided (see, e.g., here). 

In some parts of the country, in some towns and cities, at some universities, gun ownership may be part of the culture.  Not so in my slice of New York or at my institution, though.  Given that 40% of my faculty colleagues live in Westchester or Rockland County, I admit that the map piqued my interest.  After some hesitation, I did look at the map (as did lots of other folks; apparently the map is the most popular feature on the website of the Journal News).  I admit to feeling somewhat uneasy about the act of looking, though, for reasons I can't quite articulate.  On the one hand, I believe that all state licenses should be a matter of public record.  On the other hand, I can imagine that if I were a gun owner in Westchester or Rockland County, I might not want that information available to my neighbors.

Why is Grading so Aggravating?

    Over the last few days, I have been considering the twice-a-year obligation that we have to grade examinations. (Thinking about grading exams is certainly more enjoyable than actually doing it). I have yet to meet any colleague who enjoys grading; indeed, most of us seem to treat it as the most loathsome part of our jobs. Why?

    For those of us who teach larger classes, I suspect some of the dread stems from the idea of having to read the same answer (or at least what should be the same answer) time after time after time. Certainly, in the years where I’ve had over a hundred students in my Introduction to Property course, this has been a significant factor. How many of us would go to the same movie or read the same novel a hundred times? But repetition cannot be the only explanation — I also teach much smaller classes and don’t enjoy the grading any more.

    Grading can also expose the fact that there is a difference between teaching and learning. I have not found it uncommon to read an answer and wonder whether the student ever came to class or read the materials. “Executory vested remainder” can never be the correct answer to any question on a Property exam as no such thing exists. At the same time, all of us know that not everyone who attends law school should be doing so. Finding the occasional failure among the examinations should be unfortunate, but should not trigger such dread. Also, you would expect this to be more relevant for introductory classes rather than more advanced ones whose members have already shown some competence. Fearing student failure cannot be the full reason, for our grading discomfort, therefore.

    The last reason I’ve come up with is one of potential misdirection. When we grade an examination and find it wanting, are we also saying something about our inability to teach? While, like most other professors, I can articulate many reasons why students’ failures are their own responsibility, maybe the dread of grading we feel originates with a feeling that it is our failing not the student’s.

    So, assuming that you also dislike grading, do you have a reason?

Sexiest Man Alive

Confession. 

The NYT piece, you know, that one, the joyless, unwitty, matronly rebuke of irony.  It did irk me, of course.  But it wasn’t just that.  The staid op-ed just served as a convenient provocation...... 

For about an year, I’ve been thinking, in spite of myself, about irony and its relationship to political authority.  And it seemed to me that authoritarian governments obsess over regulating its traffic.  These governments might look the other way, at least sometimes, with regard to other perceived vices—drugs, porn, illegal booze, gambling.  But it’s irony—that spiky variety of humor—that keeps them up at nights in their totalitarian beds. 

Makes sense, I suppose; the logic (or momentum) of irony won’t broke sacred cows but authoritarian leaders justify their rule as unquestionable and worthy of deference; divine bovines, such leaders keenly cry out for ironic taunting. 

It is in democracies where rambunctious irony is embraced, and the case can be made (or, has been sought to be made, anyway) that biting satire breeds the sort of impiety and insolence that helps to underwrite constitutional democracy. 

But that’s just me; ask a better (if you'll pardon the dumb pun) authority.  The People’s Republic of China.  Ask, oh I don't know, the Party Leaders who they think is the Sexiest Man Alive. 

 

 

 

Scenes from Lower Manhattan

Hurricane Sandy has caused severe damage and loss along the East Coast.  All of Lower Manhattan, where I live, has been without power since Monday.  For most of us, that means no heat or water (and definitely no elevator), either.

Here's a scene from the small pedestrian park right in front of my house. 

 

Exempt Research & Expedited IRB Review: Curb Your Enthusiasm

A while back, over at PrawfsBlawg, Martin Pritikin had a useful post collecting advice for legal academics looking to break into increasingly popular empirical legal studies (ELS). As Jeremy Blumenthal notes in the comments, Step 1 is to be sure to get IRB approval. This post addresses what I’ll call, with a nod to Cass Sunstein’s work on Chevron deference, IRB Step Zero: Determine whether your research needs IRB approval at all.

Don’t worry, it’s an easy step: As Jeremy’s plenary admonition to all wannabe ELS scholars implies, the answer is almost certainly Yes. Although the regulations in theory establish three risk-based tiers of review — human subjects research (HSR) otherwise subject to IRB review that the regulations nevertheless exempt; HSR that is eligible for expedited review; and HSR that requires review by a fully convened IRB (everything else) — in practice, the first two tiers tend to collapse into the third. In this sense, and now I borrow from Matthew Stephenson and Adrian Vermeule, IRB review has only one step.

A quick note of clarification: As I’ve noted before (here and here), several projects I have in the works, beginning with Regulating the Production of Knowledge: Research Risk-Benefit Analysis and the Heterogeneity Problem, forthcoming next June in the Administrative Law Review, argue that we suboptimally regulate knowledge production. Just to be clear, my argument in that article doesn’t depend on my argument here about the broad scope of the regulations and their failed attempt to achieve risk-based levels of review.* Consider this post a public service for ELS types. That said, I draw here on The Heterogeneity Problem's background section, where interested readers will find the relevant citations.

Hey, IRBs: You're Doing It Wrong (But It's Not Your Fault). Also, Thanks a Lot, Toshiba

So I've just posted a draft paper on SSRN, "Regulating the Production of Knowledge: Research Risk-Benefit Analysis and the Heterogeneity Problem," the first of a pair of companion articles on, well, how we regulate knowledge production -- focusing on IRBs in particular and on the peculiar risk-benefit standard that pretty much every federal agency (and the governance frameworks of many other countries) requires them -- futilely, I argue -- to perform. As soon as I finish navigating the ExpressO/Scholastica maze, I'll be blogging about some of issues raised in this paper, its companion, and "Legal Experimentation: Legal & Ethical Challenges to Evidence-Based Law & Medicine," a workshop (and edited volume) I'm organizing this spring.

But for now, a few brief thoughts:

(1) I hate the title of the draft paper. It's hideous. I long for the concise elegance of Prison Vouchers or some of the others mentioned here. The companion paper is tentatively titled "Research Contracts." That's followed by the usual boring descriptive subtitle, of course, but I consider it a victory at least to have begun with the kind of title I aspire to. For the posted draft, though, I can't even manage to do that. "Hey, IRBs: You're Doing It Wrong (But It's Not Your Fault)" is a fair description, but seems a little glib for a law review article. So I'm all ears if anyone comes up with a less jargonistic, sleep-inducing title. (More importantly, and in all seriousness, I'm very open to feedback on the paper itself.)

(2) Toshiba is on my s*** list. Partly because I'm a die hard Mac person, but mostly because of Toshiba's latest ad campaign, embedded above, which stereotypically portrays research participants as the passive objects of mad scientists -- that is, as proverbial guinea pigs. Like other historically disempowered groups, career research participants have reclaimed that moniker. But Toshiba's customers don't know that, and its ad helps perpetuate the image of research participation as terribly dangerous and degrading and as something that only someone who is either irrational or desperate (and willing to be exploited) would agree to. In reality, research participants can and do initiate research, and in the increasingly popular Citizen Science and Quantified Self movements, the distinction between researcher and "subject" disappears altogether. It's also closer to the truth (ahem, Time Magazine) to say that a lack of experimentation has turned millions of us into human guinea pigs in the realms of health care and legal services, and as the subjects of any number of laws, regulations, and policies (see the "Legal Experimentation" prospectus, linked above). /Rant

How to Deal With an Irrational Faculty Colleague

A reader over at Lifehacker asks, "How Do I Get Out of an Argument with an Irrational Person?"  The advice boils down to this:

In the real world, the best way to win when someone gets irrational is to keep your calm, exit the conversation skillfully while leaving the option open to future discussion—because after all, you're the one with the evidence to back you up and the willingness to discuss it, and leave the other person blowing steam while you keep your cool. When you know for sure you're not getting anywhere, exit the conversation quickly, making clear that you could continue to prove your point, but see that there's no reason to continue.

Keep calm, maintain your position, and postpone the conversation.  Makes sense in the interpersonal context. (The full piece is available here.)

I don't think this advice translates easily to faculty politics.  (Of course, I do not imply that any colleage of mine might hold an intractable position about faculty parking, the brand of turkey on offer in the school cafeteria, or...anything....ever!)  "Keep calm, maintain one's position and postpone the conversation" would lead to institutional gridlock.  Sure, sometimes it's good to table a motion, but what about the cases in which postponement isn't a viable alternative. 

 

So how to deal with an irrational faculty colleague?  A friend once described the importance of squirt guns to her business school working group.  Each member had a squirt gun and was meant to deploy it against anyone who did not observe group norms during brainstorming sessions.  The person who repeated himself, interrupted another, or otherwise failed to observe group norms was likely to be hit with water from the rest of the group.

Super Soaker, anyone?  Backpack water-storage option available.

    image source: here

College Tuition in the News

MSNBC news story here.

TIME magazine story here.

And any college/university that participates in federal student-aid programs must provide on its website a net-price calculator no later than this Saturday, October 29, 2011.  Additional reading here and here.

(Astute readers will notice I'm including this post under the "fear" category.)

Two Narratives of Courage

One of the corollaries of any study of manliness is courage, the supremely male virtue.  But if courage forms the center of male virtue, do we know what courage is?  In a work in progress, I’m interested in juxtaposing two narratives of courage, those proffered by judges to underwrite their opinions and those ushered by combat soldiers to make sense of what they experienced.  I know the below examples, not at all the product of random sampling, hardly begin to scratch the surface; perhaps, though, they’re food for thought. 

 Three Judges on Courage

 “Those who won our independence believed. . . .courage to be the secret of liberty. . . .”--Justice Brandeis, Whitney v. California (1927). 

“. . . the exercise of First Amendment rights often requires an act of courage,. . . .” --Judge Ramirez, Keene v. Meese (1985).  

“To justify a homicide the fears of the slayer must be those of a reasonable man, one reasonably courageous, reasonably self-possessed, and not those of a coward.” --Judge Louis L. Brown, Wheeler v. State (1934). 

Three Soldiers on Courage

“It is hard to know what bravery is.”--Tim O’Brien, Vietnam War combat veteran.

“It was some months and only a few more bullets and shells later that I knew my courage for what it was—a reaction to the shame I felt at being afraid,. . . .”--Robert Crisp, World War II veteran, recipient of Britain’s Distinguished Service Order and Military Cross.

“I understand desertion.  A man distraught determines that the last act of his life shall at least be one of his own volition; and who can say that what is commonly regarded as the limit of cowardice is not then heroic?”--Max Plowman, World War I combat veteran.

Man up!........Man up?

Thanks to Dan for letting me guest blog.  Alas, I immediately repay his kindness by exploiting this opportunity to post on something bleakly provincial to my own scholarly preoccupations:  manliness.  Specifically, manliness in the context of law and literature.  I know, I know.  Here we are, in the debt crisis, facing the impending end of Western civilization, and I want to blog about law & literature. . .regarding. . . “manliness.” (isn’t this the shameless epitome of the self-indulgent academic?) 

But so much of the debt crisis is suffused with the idiom of manliness, isn’t it?  Liberals cry that Obama needs to “man up” and confront the Tea Party while Boehner, even for a dude who doesn’t mind having a good ole’ public cry now and then, once committed, can’t stand down from his manly posture without embarrassment. 

But this post isn’t me expounding my views on manliness (ummmm, you can find that here, incidentally).  It’s rather me asking for your help.  I’m trying to put together an annotated bibliography, provisionally titled, “Manliness:  A Law and Literature Perspective.”  So, for example, I would include—would have to include—Mario Puzo’s The Godfather.  Talk about manliness, it has every aspect of it:  the patriarch, the reckless man-child, the avuncular bully, the callow son trying to prove his manhood, the faltering wimp, you name it.  And all of it takes place in the context of law.  Guys trying to violate it, bribe it, evade it, enforce it.  Much of the law, then, presents obstacles and opportunities for and extensions and emanations of manliness. 

So, I need your help:  what do you think would be good pieces of literature to include in such a bibliography of manliness in law and literature?    

"You can do it, Japan!" Penn Students Raise Funds for Japan Earthquake Relief

 
Members of the LL.M. Class of 2011 at the University of Pennsylvania Law School have joined with students from Wharton's Japan Club to fundraise for earthquake relief efforts in Japan.  The students are selling a t-shirt, with all proceeds going to the Red Cross.  Their email (reprinted with permission) appears below.

We are the Japanese LL.M. 2011 students of University of Pennsylvania Law School.

As you might know, the Japanese people are struggling to recover from the unimaginable wreckage and loss of life from the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami, which happened on March 11^th. Fortunately, all of our family members in Japan are safe, but about 380,000 people are still living in evacuation centers and are in desperate need of basic supplies. In addition to the thousands who lost their lives, more than 10,000 others are still missing.

In cooperation with the Wharton Japan Club, we Japanese law students have decided to do some fundraising in the Law School for the victims of the devastation. We are grateful if you would help us by buying a T-shirt and making a donation online here . Also, you can directly donate through this website here.  All donations and proceeds from the sale of T-shirts will go to the Red Cross, where the money will be used to help those affected by the earthquake and tsunami.

For updates on ways to help, please join this Facebook group. Any assistance you can provide would be most appreciated.

Sincerely,

Japanese LL.M. 2011 students of Penn Law

The t-shirt says in Japanese, "You can do it, Japan!"  The shirts are available for purchase only by residents of the U.S., Canada and Mexico.  World-wide donations are being accepted via the FirstGiving website here.  Kudos to the Penn students for putting this together. 

Wikileaks: House Judiciary Committee Hearings

 

Hearings held this morning on "Wikileaks, the Espionage Act and the Constitution."

Just 10 minutes in, but so far the "voice of reason award" goes to . . . . 

 

Wikileaks: Beware The Blacklist

 

As a follow-up to Dan's earlier post on the hysterical response to Wikileaks, check out why grad schools (including one law school) are warning students not to access docs posted on the site.

 

 

Facebook: Virtual "Panic Button"?

In an effort to curb online bullying and online predators, a British child protection agency is apparently working to convince Facebook to institute a virtual "panic button" that would allow Facebook users to immediately alert authorities if a suspected predator was online.  See story here.

Law Review Haiku

eXpresso contacts

for expedited review.

Rain, taxes, April. 

Gym Rats

Miriam Cherry's wonderful post on gyms and BFOQs brought to mind my own experiences as a gym goer.  Her BFOQ hypo rests on the fact that something in the gym experience, as well as the behavior of some gym goers, can make the thought of working out at a gym as frightening as -- eek -- public speaking!  The desire to control that environment -- such as by limiting who can work at the gym -- is targeted at that fear.

So, here's my theory, based solely on personal experience, of why a gym can be an intimidating place.  When I began exercising, I avoided gyms, preferring the solace of solo, outdoor exercises like walking and running.  The thought of going to a gym made me feel vulnerable.  For one, as someone who has struggled with weight and body image issues all of my life, I worried that standard gym attire allowed others a fairly good view of where my body stands.  (And that doesn't touch on pool attire, which always bring back flashes of the grade school gym class shaming ritual known as shirts v. skins.)  It also doesn't help that exercise performance can be quantified (what's your mile pace? what's your one rep max on the bench?), adding the anxiety of measuring up to -- or being judged by -- other gym dwellers.  And beyond these neuroses, there is a learning curve to working out safely and effectively.  So, finding a gym with a supportive environment was important to me.  To pick up on a point in Miriam's post, I wanted to preserve an aspect of privacy while working out in a public space.  If a person finds a single-gender environment important to preserving that privacy, I support that choice.

Once I got beyond my gym hangups, and found a gym where I felt comfortable, I still had to deal with the usual cast of misfits who have no sense of gym etiquette, or even minimal social graces.  I mean, no gym is perfect.  So I can also see that a person would prefer a gym where the likelihood of bad behavior, and thus the invasion of one's privacy, is lower.  And for some a single-gender environment may create that security.

To close, I'll share my top gym behavior pet peeves.  I'd be interested in hearing from others on the subject.

Excessive Grunting.  I can see that you are lifting REALLY heavy weights, so I don't need accompanying grunts to highlight your Herculean effort.  And while we evolved from primates, there's no reason to act like one at the gym.  Just one question -- will you make the same sound when you pop a hernia while eking out your last rep?

Singing Out Loud.  Two words -- sound travels.  Now don't get me wrong -- I listen to music while I exercise, and I've been known to top off a good runner's high by belting out the chorus to It's Raining Men.  But here's the thing -- I was outside, and no one was within ear shot.  As we like to say in the law biz, singing inside a gym is distinguishable.  So while it's impressive that you know 87% of the lyrics to Lady Gaga's Bad Romance, the rest of us have our own iPods, so we're covered music-wise.

(BTW -- true story.  I overheard one gym goer trying to sing Bad Romance, and they came out with the line "caught in a bathroom stance" instead of "caught in a bad romance."  Not only does that line not fit the rest of the song, but, as far as I know, the song is not about former Idaho Senator Larry Craig.)

Not Wiping Down Sweat on the Equipment.  It's gross.  If I wanted to get wet, I would have gone to the pool.  Wipe the equipment. Enough said.

Not Re-Racking Weights.  Yes, I know you're lifting heavy weights (see "Excessive Grunting" above). So you don't need to leave your dumbells lying on the floor, hoping I'll trip on them and be shocked and awed when I notice their immense size as my head crashes to the gym floor.

Homophobic/Misogynistic/etc. Put Downs.  At some -- but not all -- of the gyms I have been to, I have heard taunts like, "Oh, that's so gay," "You lift like a girl," or "You're behaving like such a retard."  While the other behaviors merely annoy me, this one gets me angry.  This is no laughing matter, and it is the one thing I will always take time to address.  Especially at the University rec center, where I work out on campus, because faculty and staff have a responsibility to model behavior.  This is an area where I hope fellow gym goers will join me in showing zero tolerance.

So, there you have it.  Hope to see you -- but not necessarily hear you -- at the gym!

"Blame it on the Muslims . . . no, wait, it's the Jews." Actually, the problem is the prosecutor.

Remember back in 2006 when a Dutch newspaper published a cartoon of the prophet Muhammad wearing a turban shaped like a bomb that was about to explode?  Neither the cartoonist nor the newspaper were investigted for inciting hatred under Denmark's restrictive hate-speech laws, and two years later when police discovered a plot to kill the artist, the newspaper went ahead and reprinted the cartoons in an homage to free speech and "gesture of solidarity" with the cartoonist. 

And remember 'Fitna,' the rabidly anti-Islamic cinematic nightmare by Dutch lawmaker and right-wing radicalist Geert Wilders - the guy who called Islam a Nazi religion and the Quran an instrument of fascism?  The prosecutor declined to open an investigation until a public outcry (and court order) forced him to reconsider whether Wilders violated laws against inciting religious hatred.  Charges were filed but ultimately dropped when the prosecutor concluded that Wilder directed his rants toward Muhammad alone, but not to Muslims as a group.  (whatever.)

But now prosecutors are charging the Dutch affiliate of the Arab-European League with inciting hatred in a cartoon that suggests that the holocaust was a hoax.  Immediately after the cartoon appeared on the group's website in August, the prosecutor gave them two weeks to take it down, or face criminal charges.  The AEL complied initially, but reposted the cartoon once charges against Wilders were dropped.  

A spokesperson for the AEL said the cartoon was not meant to incite hatred and did not reflect its actual views about the holocaust.  Their goal, apparently, was to highlight the prosecutor's double-standard, and the  'incomprehensible' decision to threaten prosecution against AEL while dropping charges against Wilders.  Neither of the cartoons, he said, should lead to prosecution.

Still, prosecutors are forging ahead with charges that carry a year long prison sentence and $6700 fine.  The justification: although the Muhammad cartoons "can be offensive . . . the Holocaust cartoon crosses the line."     

It's hard to get your mind around the level of hatred wrapped up in these events.  But leaving aside the arguments for or against hate-speech laws generally, one does have to wonder what measure prosecutors are using to distinguish cartoons that are merely 'offensive' from ones that will land you in jail.

-Kathleen A. Bergin