Laura Loomer from the conservative website The Rebel ran on to the stage on Friday of the controversial production of Julius Caesar in Central Park. The show has been criticized for its characters modeled on President Donald Trump and others. Trump, as Caesar, is killed in the show to the delight of the crowd. Many find the show to be distasteful and hateful. However, for those of us who have actively criticized liberals who shutdown conservative speakers on campuses and other public events, this is an equally objectionable effort to stop free speech. Indeed, it seeks to prevent both artistic and political expression.
Loomer was filmed by fellow blogger Jack Posobiec as she screamed “Goebbels would be proud” at the audience. It is reminiscent of some of the scenes we have criticized on campus of protesters interrupting speakers like Milo Yiannopolous
Loomer posted the video under the heading “Julius Caesar Meets Laura Loomer.”
I find nothing redeeming in Loomer’s action. One cannot oppose such efforts to prevent speaker in one public event while celebrating it another. Loomer and Posobiec might be well to have stayed for one particular line:
“The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
Really? Neither side respects the others’ freedom of expression? Both sides are full of douchebags who are dragging the whole country down? Color me shocked.
Under state criminal codes, which vary by state, it is an offense to knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person. It is also an offense to threaten to burn, destroy or damage property or threaten to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that belongs to a person.
In California, for example, political science teacher Michael Ballou started a furor over his “kill the president” e-mail assignment. In this case, however, the president was George W. Bush. Ballou, who teaches Introduction to Government at Santa Rosa Junior College’s Petaluma campus caught the attention of both the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI when a student told his mother about the homework assignment and she, in turn, called the FBI.
However, while the FBI and the Secret Service will take vigorous actions to protect Leftist presidents, like Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc., etc., not so for non-Leftist presidents who have not been approved of by the Elite Establishment and Deep State operatives working on the Elite Establishment behalf. Thus, when a drama or film is shown in which a Trump-look-alike is actually murdered on stage/screen, the FBI, the Secret Service, and Leftist judges consider such depictions to be not only acceptable but commendable.
Under state criminal codes, which vary by state, it is an offense to knowingly utter or convey a threat to cause death or bodily harm to any person. It is also an offense to threaten to burn, destroy or damage property or threaten to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that belongs to a person.
In California, for example, political science teacher Michael Ballou started a furor over his “kill the president” e-mail assignment. In this case, however, the president was George W. Bush. Ballou, who teaches Introduction to Government at Santa Rosa Junior College’s Petaluma campus caught the attention of both the U.S. Secret Service and the FBI when a student told his mother about the homework assignment and she, in turn, called the FBI.
However, while the FBI and the Secret Service will take vigorous actions against Leftist presidents, like Bush, Obama, Clinton, etc., etc., not so for non-Leftist presidents who have not been approved of by the Elite Establishment and Deep State operatives. Thus, when a drama or film is shown in which a Trump-look-alike is actually murdered on stage/screen, the FBI, the Secret Service, and Leftist judges consider such depictions to be not only acceptable but commendable.
I strongly disagree. This country has benefited much from civil disobedience (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr.). I believe that these were courageous acts, at a time so contentious, that radical violence in this country has become a “bipolar” issue. Like those who disobeyed laws in the past, they should accept punishment for their actions. However, their penalty will only make their actions stand stronger. Also, their “non-verbal” speech protection should be an issue raised by their attorney, and entertained by a by a court.
Turley has to open his yap about Shakespeare and free speech–things he knows nothing about.
The protestors in the Central Park WERE expressing free speech in the only way that they could.
Turley, of course, thinks that “free speech” means individuals can create images of savage murders of specific individuals–but only if those individuals depicted as murdered are non-Leftists. Depicting murders of non-Leftists by Leftists should not only be accepted, but should be encouraged and advance, according to TUrley–all, of course, in the name of “art” and “cultural significance.”
Turley would only have a problem with this “free speech” if individuals were targeting Leftists, like Turley and his family, depicting him and members of his family having their limbs severed, guts slashed with razors, and blood spurting everywhere. That might be a bit too personal for him and the “free speech” would, in that case, be “over the edge.” But showing such vile images of murdering Trump over and over are, for him, a wonderful “exercise” of free speech.
And, in typical Leftist hypocrisy, Turley compares the two individuals that verbally protested the heinous Central Park perversion of Shakespeare to the violent Leftist protestors of Milo Yannopoulis on the Leftist Berekeley campus in California, who physically attacked non-Leftists.
Turley’s understanding of “math” is akin to the following: Verbal protests by non-Leftists against Leftists = Bloody, violent, and murderous attacks by Leftists on non-Leftists.
Thus, I will end my comment with a Shakespeare quotation that is far more meaningful and relevant:
”The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.”–Henry VI, Part II, act IV, Scene II, Line 73.
(I would modify this to include only the disingenuous lawyers.)
“Ah, what fools these mortals be.”
Indeed, forsooth, the Leftist fool has spoken of himself.
How do you know that I am mortal?
God forbid.
Liberals “attacked the children.”
Liberals “attacked the children” when Baron and the other Trump children saw the Trump version
of the “Caesar” assassination re-enactment on TV news.
Liberals “attacked the children” when Baron Trump was caused to view the
bloody, severed head of President Trump in effigy on TV news.
They have the right to put on the show. Posobiec has the right to criticize it, but not to interrupt it. Contributors to Shakespeare in the Park have every right to either support, or withdraw their support, due to content or execution (pardon the pun) of the material.
The argument has been made that Shakespeare in the Park often casts contemporary characters as Shakespearean figures. And, obviously, Trump was cast as Caesar, one of the greatest rulers and military minds in history, who became a tyrant and was later betrayed and murdered by his own people.
However, the audience gleefully enjoys the assassination of “Trump” because death threats against Trump, and conservatives in general, is acceptable hate speech. It’s despicable, hateful, divisive. And anyone who claims that the play was not condoning violence against Trump is oblivious to the gleeful cheers of the crowd when he is killed.
But the response to bad speech is good speech.
Nice try but interruption is a form of protest. As long as she didn’t attempt to stop the performance, she may be rude but not outside the bounds of normal protest.
No. Bullsh*t! You never have a “right” to interrupt other people’s speech, or the right of other people to hear that speech.
Do you think if you go to a James Taylor concert, that you have the “right” to stand up and sing Fire and Rain??? About all you have a “right” to do is applaud Taylor, or boo and hiss him if he says something you don’t like. You have absolutely no right to get up on stage and stop his performance. Plus, one should have more respect than that for other people.
Your “right” to petition the government for a redress of grievances should never include the “right” to protest something to where you shut it down. Period. If Neo-Nazis march in Central Park and call for the exile of all Jews in the country, if you are in the crowd, you can boo and hiss all you want, or applaud. But you don’t have the “right” to shut it down, or tear down their soapbox.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
There is an unwritten rule in the theatre that if you do not harm the audience, they will not harm you. Since this play has continued after an assassination attempt on a Congressman, regardless of how good it is, it is it violates the rule. The woman clearly was within her common law rights to protest the play and I am glad she did it.
I’m reading a book on the Founding Fathers’ classical educations. They all considered Julius Caesar to be the worst tyrant, so this play has a historical dimension. However, President Trump is hardly a tyrant, so the analogy fails.
ty·rant
noun: tyrant; plural noun: tyrants
1. a cruel and oppressive ruler.
“the tyrant was deposed by popular demonstrations”
synonyms: dictator, despot, autocrat, authoritarian, oppressor
I think that you should have the right to shoot a guy who has shot the President.
I am sooo proud of these young people, these young activists who took a stand against hate speech and violence and divisiveness! Because you know, it isn’t either rude or fascist-like if someone really, truly believes that what they are doing isn’t rude or fascist-like.*
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
* Not really. I think this was very rude behavior, and they should not have done it. If they had been wearing black masks and carrying bats, or were violent, then I would have called it fascist, just like I do with the SJW and the so-called Antifas. BUT, I wanted to say something liberal-ly and Democratic Party-ily, and leftish as a sarcastic thing.
Because just like SJWs disrupting a Trump Rally, this kind of stuff is wrong. Period.
You fight fire with fire
One of the best comments. Agree, time to re-focus on Hillary, et al.
Nothing helps a sagging presidency more than focusing on a candidate that you beat .
Hillary isn’t the president.
That does not excuse her from her crimes. She should be held accountable.
I see no attack on free speech on any side in this – Laura and the players are all exercising their freedoms
whether you like it or not. In good taste or not.
However the attempt at moral equivalence in this story (‘shutting down’ free speech) does not ring true – Laura did not show up with molotov cocktails nor baseball bats threatening actual harm as do antifah. Laura did not reach out to the sponsors of the show with palpable threats. Laura was not in a position of authority (like the administration at Berkeley) who refused to protect free speech when it was their turn to step up to the plate.
Discernment people.