Some Judges Are Crazy?

"DKT argues that requiring it to adopt and to certify that it has a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of entering into an agreement (or sub-agreement) with USAID to receive funding for its HIV/AIDS prevention work constitutes viewpoint-based restriction on speech." Today, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with DKT's argument and issued an opinion holding that "defendant USAID is permanently ENJOINED from (1) requiring DKT to have a policy explicitly opposing prostitution and sex trafficking under 42 U.S.C. § 7631(f); and (2) requiring DKT to certify that it has a policy explicitly opposing prostitution under AAPD 05-04."

(The entire excerpt from How Appealing)

The link to the opinion is bad (the problem seems to be in the coding of the .pdf file) so we have to take How Appealing's word for what it says but I believe it.

So, let's see. We, the taxpayers, have to give them our money but we cannot, as a condition of giving them our money, ask them to formulate a policy against prostitution and sex trafficking? I think some smart clerk at the courthouse deliberately degraded the .pdf file just so fewer people will realize how nutty some of our judges are.

Well, why would anyone expect Clinton appointee Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to think that there's anything wrong with prostitution and sex-trafficking sufficient to condition the receiving of tax dollars on their disavowal.