Muller banned me from his site after I asked if he was receiving and taxpayer dollars courtesy of the “Civil Liberties Public Education Fund”. I wanted to know because I don’t see how a legitamate scholar could accept taxpayer dollars that have been legislated to “educate the public” (a horror story in itself) on one side of an issue and then expect to be taken seriously. It’s kind of like the booze industry financing a study the concluded binge drinking is healthy.

So anyway, then I find at this site…

http://www.library.ca.gov/cclpep/index.cfm#admin

Muller’s name pops up as a $$$$ beneficiary in a couple of places, namely…

“Dr. Eric L. Muller
Chapel Hill, North Carolina
“LOYAL PROTEST: JAPANESE AMERICAN DRAFT RESISTERS IN THE FEDERAL COURTS”

This project has two related components: (1) the completion of a book chronicling the experience of the Nisei draft resisters of World War II and their encounters with the federal criminal justice system, and (2) a public lecture tour in California to share the results of the research on the Nisei draft resisters with interested organizations and groups in California. ”

…and…

“Eric Muller
University of North Carolina School of Law
Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Project Name: Judgments Judged and Wrongs Remembered: Examining the Japanese American Civil Liberties Cases of World War II on Their 60th Anniversary”

So I question Muller if he’s feeding at the reparations trough, he indignantly replies “never”, bans me from his site and then I find this information that exposes him as a fraud and a liar….

If you haven’t also been banned from Muller’s site, perhaps you may be inclined to give him a visit at his latest post and let him know he is a fraud and a liar.

Cheers!

This project is a conference to be held at the Japanese American National Museum commemorating the 60 th anniversary of the various legal cases on Japanese American civil liberties from World War II.

Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819.

Granted it was a Kennedy opinion, but it was a maj. opinion (w/ Rehquist, Thomas, Scalia, and O’Connor joining)

Takeaway point:

The necessities of confining a forum to the limited and legitimate purposes for which it was created may justify the State in reserving it for certain groups or for the discussion of certain topics. Once it has opened a limited forum, however, the State must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set. The State may not exclude speech where its distinction is not “reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum,” nor may it discriminate against speech on the basis of its viewpoint.

Thus, in determining whether the State is acting to preserve the limits of the forum it has created so that the exclusion of a class of speech is legitimate, we have observed a distinction between, on the one hand, content discrimination, which may be permissible if it preserves the purposes of that limited forum, and, on the other hand, viewpoint discrimination, which is presumed impermissible when directed against speech otherwise within the forum’s limitations.

829-830, citations omitted.

Basically, if the gov’t opens it up to the expression of some views, then it generally can’t discriminate based upon viewpoint.

So yeah, while it wouldn’t necessarily be unconstitutional, the gov’t would have to make the strong case.

In a related context, a public school prohibit certain books from its library, provided they aren’t do so based on the particular viewpoint of the books. Bd. of Educ. v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982).

There may be an issue re: the “public” nature of Manzanar–but it presumably is public in SOME respect since it’s administered by the Park Service–and accordingly, any regs must be content neutral.

It seems to me that Prof. Muller has a lot of “emotional involvement” in this issue and is unwilling or incapable to consider contrary views. I know, a bit of psychobabble on my part and when one engages in such tactics the statement can never be proven false (or true).

Malkin has compiled a great deal of interesting information that needs to be included in our history of this terrible episode.

The internment was wrong, a terrible injustice. But it’s much more complicated than I think Muller seems (note the qualifer) to portray it, e.g., simply racism. Of course, racism was a major factor; but not the only consideration.

SMG