Blocked and Reported

Richard Hanania, a right-wing writer known for his controversial past on race and politics, joins the conversation to discuss his journey from racism to anti-racism. He shares insights from his time in a Mexican boot camp that reshaped his identity. The discussion touches on how Democrats can connect with young white men, the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the allure of extremist ideas in online spaces. Hanania reflects on his ideological evolution, offering a unique perspective on breaking down online radicalization.

Richard Hanania, a writer and commentator known for his insights on Chuck Johnson, joins the discussion to unravel the chaotic life of the controversial figure. They explore Johnson's bizarre journey through the alt-right landscape, his dubious journalistic practices, and the surreal nightmare of his legal battles. The dialogue highlights the absurdities of his courtroom antics and the larger implications of his influence on media culture. Expect amusing anecdotes and a deep dive into the intricate web of conspiracy theories surrounding this enigmatic personality.

Amanda Knox, an author and advocate for criminal justice reform, shares her harrowing journey from wrongful conviction in Italy to exoneration. She discusses the complexities of navigating trauma while making peace with her past. Knox reflects on the role of responsible journalism and the misconceptions that surrounded her case, emphasizing the importance of understanding the legal intricacies involved. Additionally, she explores her new projects, including her latest book and podcast, which aim to shed light on justice and representation.

Dive into the chaotic world of MAGA-land as the hosts dissect the Epstein Files and Trump's reaction to them. Explore the disturbing legacy of Jeffrey Epstein, his connections with powerful figures, and the public outcry following his death. Discover the bizarre interplay between conspiracy theories, political scandals, and the media's role in shaping narratives. With humorous insights, they also highlight online scams and their societal implications, while critiquing the ongoing issues of accountability and identity in today's political climate.

In a gripping discussion, the hosts dive into the tragic story of Aubreigh Wyatt, a 13-year-old whose heartbreaking experience with bullying led to her suicide. They explore the intersection of social media, particularly TikTok, with personal tragedies, questioning how online narratives complicate real-life events. The discussion also touches on the cultural aspects of Canadian identity and music, including a light-hearted take on Nickelback. The psychological impacts of digital interactions on youth mental health are critically examined, highlighting the fine line between grief and social media engagement.

In a whirlwind of discussion, the hosts tackle conspiracy theories following a disaster in Texas and the chaotic nature of political organizing on college campuses. They delve into the complexities of racial identity through a controversial college application case, questioning journalistic ethics in revealing such sensitive matters. The impact of budget cuts on disaster preparedness at NOAA is scrutinized, highlighting grave implications for public safety. Amidst the chaos, entertaining exchanges about pizza and a Titanic documentary offer light-hearted moments.

This discussion dives into the fascinating journey of Palmer Luckey, from VR innovator to defense contractor. The hosts humorously contrast Fourth of July and Canada Day celebrations, sharing entertaining anecdotes. They tackle the infamous reputation of Nickelback and its connection to Canadian pride. The podcast also scrutinizes the clash between tech entrepreneurship and political controversies, revealing how media narratives can shape public perception. Finally, listeners reflect on the ethical dilemmas in journalism through a perspective of betrayal.

This bonus discussion features a lively debate over youth gender dysphoria between Jesse and YouTuber Lance. They tackle misinformation, how media narratives shape perceptions of gender identity, and the complexities surrounding gender-affirming care for minors. The conversation unpacks research findings, ethical dilemmas in journalism, and the implications of political agendas on children's healthcare. Throughout, they engage in critical analysis while maintaining a humorous tone, highlighting the need for balanced narratives in an often contentious discourse.

Dive into the intriguing tale of Palmer Luckey, the VR innovator whose rise to fame took a tumultuous turn after leaving Facebook. Discover the backlash surrounding his financial support for political memes and how misinformation can skew public perception. The hosts also explore the ethical dilemmas faced by journalists, balancing truth-telling with the complexities of political correctness. With humor sprinkled throughout, they debate hiking gear preferences while tackling serious issues like law enforcement's immigration priorities.

This week on Blocked and Reported, a deeper dive into the recent Supreme Court decision on youth gender medicine and its aftermath. Plus, the Washington Post’s unconventional plan to make a few bucks. Note: After we recorded this episode, Mark Joseph Stern sent Jesse an email laying out his views and responding to Jesse’s b******g on Twitter. That email is below and we’ll discuss it, plus any further correspondence those two have, at the top of the next free episode.Hi Jesse,Although I'm not on Twitter anymore, a friend flagged your tweet about my coverage of Skrmetti and your question about sex discrimination. I would like to help explain why SB1 does, indeed, discriminate on the basis of sex in a way that triggers heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause.First, I'll note that while the term "sex discrimination" is more common in media coverage, the more accurate legal standard is "sex classification." (The court's canonical cases, like Reed v. Reed and U.S. v. Virginia, favor this term.) The two can be used interchangeably, but I think "classification" is a little clearer for the purposes of addressing your arguments.You, and the Skrmetti majority, are undoubtedly correct that SB1 classifies on the basis of medical condition. But to do so, at least under many circumstances, it must also classify on the basis of sex. I see that you're suspicious of one way I've been explaining this: a cis boy can receive testosterone to develop more male features, while a trans boy cannot. I still think that example works as a legal matter, even if such treatment for a cis boy is uncommon in real life. (Although—is it? Don’t doctors prescribe testosterone to cis boys with delayed puberty to jump-start secondary sex characteristics that are fundamentally cosmetic, like facial hair?) So set it aside.Consider instead an adolescent cis boy who experiences gynecomastia, unwanted but harmless growth of breast tissue. Under SB1, he may still receive testosterone therapy to reduce his breasts. Not because the excessive growth of tissue is medically harmful, but because he does not wish to appear to have breasts, as they are incongruent with his gender identity. But an adolescent trans boy may not, under SB1, receive the same treatment to achieve the same effect—reduction of breasts that are incongruent with his gender identity. Why?I take it you would say: Because the trans boy seeks the treatment for gender dysphoria, whereas the cis boy seeks it for gynecomastia. True enough, but irrelevant for the purpose of deciding whether the law classifies on the basis of sex. That's because, in addition to classifying on the basis of medical condition, the law classifies on the basis of sex to determine who may receive the same treatment to achieve the same outcome. An adolescent's access to testosterone to reduce breast growth turns on the sex they were assigned at birth. Those assigned male can get testosterone; those assigned female cannot. Thus, the law classifies patients on the basis of sex, and triggers heightened scrutiny under the equal protection clause. Put differently, to determine the medical condition—gender dysphoria or gynecomastia—a doctor must consider the patient's sex assigned at birth. That consideration, under longstanding precedent, compels heightened scrutiny.It is not uncommon for laws that classify on the basis of sex to classify on other bases as well. For instance, in Morales-Santana, the law at issue classified on the basis of a parent's physical presence in the United States. That, all agree, was permissible. But the law also classified on the basis of the parent's sex. And that, the court held, created a "gender line" that triggered heightened scrutiny. There is a similar dynamic at play in Skrmetti. Yes, the law dictates what treatments a minor may receive based on their medical condition. But to do so, it must classify minors on the basis of sex. And that, under the court's precedents, should be enough to trigger heightened scrutiny.I will note that, as you know, the question of whether a law classifies on the basis of sex is only the first step of the analysis. If the answer is yes, the next step is to apply heightened scrutiny by asking whether the law serves important governmental interests and is substantially related to the achievement of those interests. I think your objections probably lie in this second step; to return to my example, you may think the government has a strong interest in preventing minors with gender dysphoria from altering their bodies, and you believe SB1's restrictions are sensibly drawn to encompass those cases while allowing cis minors to receive the same treatments. But even if that is correct (and I won't opine on it here), SB1 still classifies on the basis of sex, requiring the application of heightened scrutiny to survive constitutional muster. And in my view, the Skrmetti majority erred in denying that reality.Best,MarkThe Washington Post Will Ask Some Sources to Annotate Its Stories - The New York TimesUnited States v. Skrmetti‘Trans rights’ has never been a civil rights issue | The SpectatorOpinion | How the Gay Rights Movement Radicalized, and Lost Its Way - The New York TimesOpinion | Author explains anonymity behind a pediatric gender medicine report - The Washington PostA Precocious Puberty Case: I Went Through Puberty at Age 2The conservative defense of Kenosha shooter Kyle Rittenhouse is nonsense.Skrmetti: John Roberts' anti-trans opinion isn't just cruel. It's incomprehensible.Massive Ordnance Penetrator - Political Gabfest - Apple Podcasts (Bazelon argument starts at 44:00) To hear more, visit www.blockedandreported.org