Well, not me, specifically. I don’t get healthy school lunches because I’m not even in school.
But a poster ad placed by the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (warning: PDF file) asks that question of passers-by in Washington DC’s Union Station. The ad urges reform of the Child Nutrition Act, presumably to rectify the claimed inequality between Sasha and Malia’s lunches and those of the rest of the country’s children. I know nothing about the Act, the desired reforms, or the merits of that request.
What’s more interesting to me is that White House lawyers apparently contacted the nonprofit group’s president, Dr. Neal Barnard, and asked that the poster be removed, based on their mention of the Obama girls.
Barnard refused.
I think it’s pretty clear that there’s not going to be any legal action. The First Amendment pretty clearly protects the posters.
Now, I think it’s both foolish and douchbaggery for the organization to do this. You don’t win a “reform the law” fight by alienating the White House. And surely there are better ways of making the point.
I do object to the White House lawyers threatening, or appearing to threaten, legal action when those threats are baseless, though.
So I guess there are two topics worth discussion: does anyone want to defend the organization’s poster idea as wise or good? And does anyone want to defend the White House lawyers’ use of a phantom legal Big Stick?
I don’t have a problem with any of it: I think it’s okay to reference the Obama girls in the poster, and I expect the White House to be proctective of their privacy and to try to keep people from using them in political issues. As far as alienating the White House goes, the poster was probably a dumb move, but given the attention it’s drawn it may have served its purpose.
I don’t understand why the President’s daughters are referenced at all. It seems gratuitous, and there’s a potential implication that somehow Obama is responsible for the little girl on the poster not getting the same lunch options, something he clearly has nothing to do with.
As for the White House’s response, I read it in the same vein as a minor trademark infringement - failure to formally object to the reference to the girls in this instance may make it more difficult to object to some other less benign reference in future, when the lawyers may indeed be set loose.
It’s a trivial issue that provoked a cursory response, and it’ll probably go away quietly on its own.
Of course you can – just get your father elected President (or even VP!) – or arrange to be adopted by someone whose family gets Secret Service protection. GW and Laura might want a son!
I’ve made plenty of decisions in my life taking into account the impact my choices would have on my children. Surely President Obama has had the same opportunities I’ve had.
I have great respect for Prof. Volokh, but I must disagree here. The ad DOES put the kids in a position where they might be embarrassed if they see the ad, or if a friend asks them about it. It suggests that they, by virtue of their father’s wealth or station, get privileges that not all children get.
Now, of course that’s a true statement. But I can’t imagine it’s something kids would like to be reminded of. (Just speculating, here, because as a child I certainly did not have that problem…)
I don’t think we have any proof that the WH threatened legal action. Even Dr. Bernard said he felt that was only an “implication,” so unless we see some kind of specific threat of legal action, I don’t see how that aspect can be debated.
Like any privileged kids, they’d be better off if they *did *know it to be true.
Now why aren’t you interested in the problem of the large number of undernourished children in the country instead of what you imagine the feelings of two most well-protected girls there might be?
Captain of the ship, my friend. I hope Barry didn’t think it was going to be all Royal IPods and Beer Summits.
I think it’s quite effective. The children of the powerful are always held up as exemplars for how well we could care for the less well-born.
Horrors, Bricker! How will they survive? I hope you’re not claiming that such “suggestions” (I’d call them “truisms” myself) are anything but dead to rights. Should, in addition to all the other advantages that children of the rich and powerful get, they also be entitled to be oblivious to their privileges and the plight of those less fortunate? And seriously, Bricker, but for this ad, M&S are just another pair of black girls at Sidwell? :dubious: (Pssst: Their friends already know that their dad is the President!!)
Wow…I find myself conflicted. On one hand these girls deserve to be able to grow up outside the spotlight when neither they nor their parents did anything to put them in it.
On the other hand, it is a legitimate point of criticism to say that Obama supports one thing for his daughters, but something else for other peoples’ kids. (not saying that he does, just what the poster may say)
Well, then perhaps the debate can be: is it proper for White House lawyers to call a private citizen and imply that they might take legal action of some kind when they know, or should know, that they cannot take that action?
Even if that were a sensible debate, why would you restrict it to White House lawyers in particular? Isn’t that tactic fairly common out in the real world too?
Isn’t it unethical to threaten a suit about something which wouldn’t be a legitimate cause for a suit? Does the fact that he is employed by the White House have anything to do with it -assuming there was an actual threat. Or maybe the thread should be about unethical government lawyers being fired?
Which reminds me - it seems Alberto Gonzalez is teaching next term, since no law firm has hired him. My respect for the legal profession has gone up a notch.
I wasn’t aware that he didn’t support other people’s kids having the right to get a good lunch when their parents pay to send them to a private school where good lunches are served.
If they were getting the royal treatment at some public school while their classmates were fed slops, then there would be a point here. They’re not, so there isn’t.
