Ethics Panel Recommends Censure for Rep. Spillane for ‘Demeaning’ Comments; InDepthNH.org, July 17, 2026

 Nancy West , InDepthNH.org; Ethics Panel Recommends Censure for Rep. Spillane for ‘Demeaning’ Comments

"The Committee charged Spillane with violations of the Ethics Guidelines, Section 1, Principles of Public Service, Paragraph III, Principle of Accountability, which provides that legislators “shall ensure that government is conducted openly, equitably and honorably in a manner that permits the citizenry to make informed judgments, have confidence in the integrity of the legislature, and hold government officials accountable” and Paragraph IV, Principle of Conduct, which provides that legislators “shall treat each other, legislative employees, and the public with dignity and respect.”

It will be up to the House to vote on the committee’s recommendation. The next time the House is expected to be in session will be Veto Day in September or October.

The report said Spillane admitted to making the postings identifying him as a state Representative at a hearing on the matter, but said they weren’t made in the performance of his official duties so his conduct didn’t fall within the jurisdiction of the Committee. Spillane also argued that his comments in the social media posts are protected speech under the federal and New Hampshire constitutions.

“While the right of freedom of speech is fundamental, it is not absolute. Certain categories of speech such as defamation and harassment can be restricted. In this case Rep. Horrigan testified that the offensive statements made in the posts were not true and. Rep. Harvey testified that she had legitimate concerns about her safety,” the report said.

In 2020, the civil rights unit of the Attorney General’s Office investigated a social media post by Spillane that stated “Public Service Announcement: If you see a (Black Lives Matter) sign on a lawn it’s the same as  having the porch light on for Halloween. You’re free to loot and burn that house.” Spillane said at the time he meant that post as “tongue-in-cheek” political commentary and the investigation was suspended with no action taken."

Pete Buttigieg’s Ordeal Is a Frightening New Form of Political Harassment; The Atlantic, July 2, 2026

 Quinta Jurecic, The Atlantic; Pete Buttigieg’s Ordeal Is a Frightening New Form of Political Harassment

"The news that former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg was investigated by Child Protective Services for a false allegation of child abuse was surprising. Not that an accuser would attempt such a cruel form of harassment—this, unfortunately, is not shocking at all—but because nobody seems to have aimed this particular tactic at a prominent politician before. Even in these unimaginative days, Americans are still capable of new innovations in cruelty.

“Someone decided to hurt our family this week,” Buttigieg wrote in a Substack post last week. Buttigieg, the first openly gay Cabinet member and a likely Democratic presidential contender, wrote that state police and a CPS worker arrived at his home in the last week of June to investigate an anonymous report that Buttigieg may have harmed his 4-year-old twins. The matter was quickly resolved, but only after Buttigieg was separated from his children for 24 hours and CPS had interviewed them. State investigators in Michigan, where Buttigieg lives, determined that the tip had been false.

Life as a public servant in America requires an escalating tolerance for danger. Politicians, judges, election workers, school-board members, and librarians face online abuse, threats, true risk of physical violence, and bullying—persistent, creative torment that emerges from unexpected corners and darts back and forth across the line of physical and psychological peril. Now people considering a role in public life have a new nightmare to consider: the possibility that a malicious hoax will lead the state to take away their children."

How the Coast Guard Revised Its Policy on Swastikas, Nooses and Bullying; The New York Times, November 24, 2025

 John Ismay, The New York Times ; How the Coast Guard Revised Its Policy on Swastikas, Nooses and Bullying

"The revisions set off a backlash. Seth Levi of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit civil rights group, called the new policy “a national embarrassment.”

Just hours later, on Thursday night, the Coast Guard’s leadership gave assurance that the public display of hateful symbols would continue to be banned. But whether a service member could display such symbols in private remained unclear...

Why did the Coast Guard make the changes?

Neither the Coast Guard nor the Homeland Security Department offered an explanation for why the “hate incident” category was eliminated, nor why officials felt the need to create a distinction between public and private displays of symbols like nooses and swastikas.

The ban on gender identity issues, however, came straight from the White House."

In reversal, Coast Guard again classifies swastikas, nooses as hate symbols; The Washington Post, November 21, 2025

 

Tara Copp

, 

Michelle Boorstein

, 

Hari Raj

 and 

Victoria Bisset

, The Washington Post; In reversal, Coast Guard again classifies swastikas, nooses as hate symbols

"In a stunning and hasty reversal, the U.S. Coast Guard announced late Thursday that swastikas and nooses are prohibited hate symbols — erasing an attempt to soften their definition after the plan elicited furious backlash.

The abrupt policy change occurred hours after The Washington Post first reported that the service was about to enact new harassment guidelines that downgraded the meaning of such symbols of fascism and racism, labeling them instead “potentially divisive.” That shift had been set to take effect Dec. 15.

In a memo to Coast Guard personnel, the service’s acting commandant, Adm. Kevin Lunday, said the policy document issued late Thursday night supersedes all previous guidance on the issue."

Head of nation’s largest 4-year university system resigns under fire; Politico, February 17, 2022

 CHRIS RAMIREZ, Politico; Head of nation’s largest 4-year university system resigns under fire

"Three weeks before Castro was named chancellor in September 2020, Castro and Lamas entered a settlement agreement that barred Lamas from working for CSU. In return, Lamas was guaranteed $260,000, full benefits and a letter of recommendation from Castro to any other college jobs Lamas applied for, USA Today reported.

Castro apologized in an open letter to students and faculty at Cal State, saying he regretted offering Lamas the letter of recommendation. He added that Lamas was removed from campus immediately after a formal Title IX claim was filed against Lamas in 2019.

A growing number of faculty and state lawmakers had been calling for an investigation, outraged at the report. 

Such behavior happens “all the time,” CFA North Associate Vice President Meghan O’Donnell said in an interview Thursday. “It’s important for us to recognize that this is systemic,” she said, “and part of the problem is the fact that we have very little transparency or public input into the hiring of these senior level administrators.”...

The CSU also announced it will begin an initiative to “bring CSU to the forefront of Title IX innovation, accountability and response.”"