Poll: Almost Half Of College Students Do Not Believe First Amendment Protects Hate Speech

We have previously discussed how speech codes and regulations are changing the way students are viewing free speech. There is now a steady message for students from elementary school to college that speech must be regulated and that even people can be punished for not just hate speech but the ill-defined category of “microaggressive” speech. Past polls showed that one-third of students believed that violence is justified in dealing with some exercises of speech. Now a survey of college students found almost half do not believe that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment — a chilling indication of the collapsing support for traditional free speech values on our campuses.

The Knight Foundation conducted the survey that showed that 41 percent of college students believe hate speech should not be protected under the First Amendment. The survey also showed that the support for free speech is lower among women with 53 percent believing that hate speech should not be protected.

Of course, these polls do not press students on how should decide what speech is hateful and what speech is merely controversial. The polling shows the success of various faculty members who have been waging a war on free speech in preventing opposing views to be heard on campuses or enforcing speech codes.

We have been discussing the rising intolerance and violence on college campuses, particularly against conservative speakers. (Here and here and here and here). Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over mob rule on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, even including a few speakers like an ACLU official and James Comey.  Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.  At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.  In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech.  CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,”  Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech

The United States could easily fall victim to the European movement to criminalize and regulate speech. While anathema to our defining values as a nation, many academics support the right to curtail speech that they deem to be offensive or hateful or insulting. The poll shows that students and faculty who believe in free speech must carry a greater burden if we are to preserve this fundamental right in the United States.

105 thoughts on “Poll: Almost Half Of College Students Do Not Believe First Amendment Protects Hate Speech”

  1. “Academics” today are far from being actually academic. Their lack of basic Constitutional knowledge should be reason enough to deny the institutionalized protections of tenure. This is just another issue in a long line of issues that allow for the brainwashing of individuals to accept liberal groupthink and restrict freedom of expression and thought.

  2. College students are remarkable for the massive logical gaps in their worldviews. In the mid-1970s some friends of mine were followers of a religion invented by Gerald Gardner, Aleister Crowley and Doreen Valiente, others were sure that Stephen Gaskin’s “the Farm” was the Way, still others followed Roman Catholicism and other desert religions with just as much evidence behind their decision.

    It doesn’t surprise me a bit that college students in general are ignorant of the meaning and application of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Their professors could probably testify to their ignorance of so much more.

  3. We should offer our students a different way of thinking, one that makes college less about private comfort and more about citizenship in the public square: as we encounter and argue with people who have opinions different from our own, we learn not only the strengths and weaknesses of our own positions (perhaps altering them in the face of persuasive alternatives), but also how to engage respectfully with those with whom we disagree.

  4. “Poll: Almost Half Of College Students Do Not Believe First Amendment Protects Hate Speech”

    – Professor Turley

    And the lazy, greedy, thug striking teachers unions will be out on strike again next week. They really, really, really need those Range Rovers and Mercedes Benzes in the parking lots.

    This should be an easy lesson to communicate even for lazy, greedy, thug, striking union teachers:

    1st Amendment

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

  5. spoken like a true Millennial…AOC is proving she belongs in the sandbox with Maxine Waters and Elijah Cummings


    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Pressures Democrats to Impeach After McGahn No-Show

    Moments after former White House counsel Don McGahn failed to appear for scheduled testimony, Democratic New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said that House Democrats “have to move forward” on impeaching Donald Trump.

    CNN’s Manu Raju caught up with AOC shortly after McCgahn defied a subpoena — at Trump’s behest — by failing to appear before the House Judiciary Committee. Raju asked Ocasio-Cortez about impeachment, and while the congresswoman spoke deferentially about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, she said it was time for Democrats to get cracking.

    “You know, I trust the Speaker is taking a measured approach to ensure that we’re moving everyone forward and, you know, being a Speaker is hard, holding this party together is a difficult task,” AOC said, and added “but I personally think so. I think we have to move forward.”

  6. Unless you are one of those people who is unaware of anything that happened before last Thursday, you will recognize this attack on free speech as part of Progressive 101. Woodrow Wilson thought that the Constitution should be scrapped. In an NPR interview, Barack Obama said that the problem with the Constitution is that it tells the federal government what it CAN’T do. If this keeps up there won’t be a need for a wall to keep people out. They will need a wall to keep people in.

  7. Young People Today Have More Outlets For Free Speech

    And More Outlets Means ‘More Potential For Abuse’

    Professor Turley continually overlooks modern Social Media when telling us free speech is becoming endangered. Instead the professor keeps implying that political correctness by liberals is the main issue here. ..It is not..!!

    Social Media is still relatively new to the world. No government in any country has successfully crafted regulations encompassing responsible free speech. ‘Responsible free speech’ could be defined in many different ways.

    Thirty years ago mass media was limited to print, radio, television and film. Only well-financied companies could be players. Here in the United States the FCC was able to regulate the content distributed by those companies. However the major broadcast networks, magazines and newspapers were generally responsible in regulating themselves.

    Thirty years ago political and religious radicals were hard-pressed to reach mass audiences. Underground newspapers had few outlets for distribution while postal laws could be used to prosecute the mailing of offensive literature.

    But these days, the internet and social media allow ‘any’ crazed loner to make their voice heard. Consequently radicals of every stripe can create mischief online. An army of trolls in Saint Petersburg is creating mischief throughout the western democracies. ISIS has become a global threat enabled by the internet. These threats have challenged the brightest policy makers in every country.

    So it should come as no surprise that colleges are seriously challenged by free speech issues. Colleges, in fact, are probably ground zero for all the challenges wrought by the internet and social media. It’s uncharted territory that policy makers are still grappling with. One could say technology outpaced the ability of officials to regulate responsible free speech.

    But to suggest this issue is one of ‘over-reach’ by liberal forces of correctness is a misdiagnosis of the entire challenge.

    1. @shill

      So what legislation would you propose and who would you jail for “hate speech”?

      Give me specifics and replying with a slur is not an answer.

      At least be honest, I will respect you more for it.


      1. Antoinio, if you read my comment you would have grasped that I have ‘no’ clear answers. I don’t think anyone does. That’s the problem with this issue; ‘no one has an answer’.

        Yet like an idiot you turn around and imply that I’m ‘some crazy liberal wanting to jail people’. Which illustrates that Professor Turley attracts a lot of fringe readers; including Antonio.

        1. @shill

          How can you call me an “idiot” knowing nothing about me or my background? I am a licensed attorney in 4 states with dozens of cases tried to a jury, both civil and criminal. And besides I’m Hispanic part of a victim class according to lefties.

          You were the one who talked about “responsible free speech” and how it should be handled. Usually leftists are the only ones who speak as such.

          And the question remains, how would YOU regulate “irresponsible” speech?

          Answer the question, calling me an “idiot” is not an answer.


          1. Antonio not even a month’s supply of Naloxone can help Peter “crystal meth paid troll” Shill. Maybe David Brock should start paying his trolls in grams of crushed aspirin and talc to wean them. They will never know the difference


          2. Antonio, here’s all I need to know about you:

            “And besides I’m Hispanic part of a victim class according to lefties”.

            That, right there, tells me all I need to know about Antonio. He’s a so-called ‘Hispanic’ dying to present himself as a victim of some kind. What’s more Antonio cannot possibly think outside the rightwing media bubble. So he tends to see liberals as foreign invaders (or something along those lines).

            I am hard-pressed to believe Antonio is licensed to practice law in ‘any’ state. He sounds like a wing nut whose ‘Hispanic’ heritage is limited to a single grandparent.

            1. @shill

              I don’t really care what you think, to be honest. People hire my firm to represent their interests, which I do competently. Been an attorney for over 20 years which no history of discipline anywhere.

              Born outside the US to Hispanic parents and have a Spanish surname. Speak Spanish and English fluently.

              What offends you is that I’m not a left wing, victim, bitch and moan Hispanic that you can coddle. Don’t need you or anyone else to “save” me.

              Not particularly conservative, father was a blue collar union guy. Just detest multiculturalism and political correctness. Of course, that’s enough to be called a Nazi nowadays.

              Don’t you love leftist “tolerance”?

              And the question is still on the table, what “unreasonable speech” would you regulate and how so? Won’t hold my breath waiting for an answer.


              1. Antonio, hours ago I wrote there are no clear answers to regulating free speech on the internet. Then I repeated that in my first reply to you.

                Yet perversely you feel compelled to make this some major Culture Wars skirmish. Like the issue itself doesn’t matter! You’re just looking to manufacture a Culture Wars skirmish where none logically exists. And I remember several months ago you were literally begging me to call you a ‘racist’.

                So of course I have to wonder what your problem really is. It’s like you interpret issues through a Culture Wars filter that distorts everything lthe House of Mirrors at an old, traveling carnival.

                Lay off the right-wing media!

                1. @shill
                  ” It’s like you interpret issues through a Culture Wars filter that distorts everything lthe House of Mirrors at an old, traveling carnival.”

                  Just one of the hundreds of rambling comments, but at least you have the moral authority to judge others (Antonio), by internet proxy, by crystal ball, by conjuring, or whatever you use to make believe you are Superior. Heck, I’m pretty sure Josef Goebbels would be very proud of you.

                  1. Ron, you’re comparing Shill to Josef Goebbels..??

                    Here’s Antonio’s comment this morning to Turley’s column regarding French sales to Yemen:

                    antonio says: May 22, 2019 at 8:50 AM

                    Do you lefties really believe that censorship will stop with the censure of those who write about racial differences in average IQ or rates of black crime?

                    Here Antonio brings up Black I.Q.’s with regards to a completely unrelated topic. Why did Antonio think that was relevant?

                    If we’re going to be making stupid Nazi comparison’s, Shill is not the commenter in question.

                    1. @the new P.H.

                      Sir, my point was with regards to censorship and its extent. Once it begins, it will not stop with what many regard as politically unpalatable or unpopular, or hated opinions.

                      I am well aware that the Yemeni war has nothing to do with crime or IQ.

                      France has some of the toughest hate speech laws in the world. One could easily go to jail for content regularly posted on this blog.

                      Germany and the UK have IT techs working in police departments looking for people posting “hate speech” to social media. And they are hunted down afterwards.

                      And it is coming here in another 25 years. Lefties in academia are coming up with all sorts of creative ways to apply such laws here.

                      I would respect leftists more if they would just admit they don’t believe in the 1st Amendment. It was a different story when the people being persecuted were antiwar protesters or communists.

                      As for the Goebbels comment, the Nazi comparisons are way overused – “Hitler ad absurdum” in the words of Norman Finklestein. A “Nazi” is basically someone who disagrees with some tenant of leftist thought. And of course, it’s ok to do violence to such people. I have never met an actual Nazi.


                    2. Antonio, missing in your convoluted explanation is any sound reason for the Black I.Q. reference. It’s just comes out of the blue. But of course you’re Hispanic so you couldn’t possibly be racist. Don’t think that’s an issue.

                    3. @the new ph

                      Again the reference to average black IQ differences (and crime rates) has no direct relationship to France’s censorship of speech (or the Yemeni war) Was making a point that censorship will not be limited to the suppression of politically unpopular opinions or “hate facts”.

                      As far as being “racist”, anyone can be such. I only play the Hispanic card because it really triggers s@@tlibs. They are not sure if they are supposed to hate me or suck up. I can say this as a Hispanic, most I encounter really do not care that much about my views one way or the other but if someone does, it is almost always a white liberal because most of them really, really believe in identity politics and as a Hispanic one is supposed to think certain things.

                      Saying only whites can be racist is similar to saying only “black lives matter”. Truthfully all lives matter.


                    4. ” missing in your convoluted explanation”

                      Peter, it is not unusual for you to miss a point if the reading requirement for understanding is greater than fourth grade. I find Antonio’s points very easy to uderstand and your rebuttals nonsense. You rely on circular reasoning and have given up on providing fact or intellect.

                    5. Antonio: This passage here illustrates your deep cynicism:

                      I only play the Hispanic card because it really triggers s@@tlibs. They are not sure if they are supposed to hate me or suck up. I can say this as a Hispanic, most I encounter really do not care that much about my views one way or the other but if someone does, it is almost always a white liberal because most of them really, really believe in identity politics and as a Hispanic one is supposed to think certain things.

                      This passage here validates The Shill’s reactions to your comments yesterday. The Shill recognized at once how cynical you are.

                      Why not debate from a level of sincerity? If you’re a skilled debater, it won’t make a difference. Skilled debaters are just as effective when they’re sincere. ..Try it out sometime..!

                    6. @the new ph

                      I appreciate your kind, thoughtful comment. Yes, I admit I am probably a bit cynical. I am really not a nasty guy. I don’t kick dogs or mistreat others. Let’s try a kinder, gentler Tony!


        2. peter you should know that the old Postal service rules policed the mailing of obscenity and fraudulent materials but not hate speech. in fact before the internet the postal service was the preferred means of spreading hate speech besides leaflets

          today we are in a perplexing situation where all forms of sexual obscenity among consenting adults including abominations such as poop-sex and bestiality are seemingly lawfully circulated over the internet — and minors access this material over phones will the search engine purveyors like google etc operate with impunity. somehow, this does not bother people!

          and yet social and political subjects deemed “hate speech” which are at the core of 1st amendment protections, in theory, are widely “deplatformed” and tacitly banned

          Judge Bork correctly surmised that the core values for the First amendment were not about sexual libertinage but rather religious and political speech.

          and I am not calling for a censorship regime like Britain is now trying to implement to address the problem of publication of sexual materials over the net to minors, and that is a problem. but their solution probably won’t work and will probably be used as a premise to ban more politically incorrect things in the future, rather than just limiting publication of obscenity to minors, the supposedly intended purpose.

          it’s a twisted world we live in, so many ways
          we may not agree on defining the problems — but —
          i would agree that there are no easy answers

          1. Kurtz, you’re probably right about the Postal Service.

            I was fascinated to read that in the early days of Playboy Magazine, The U.S. Postal Service was its main stumbling block to widespread distribution. And that whole controversy played out in Chicago.

            1. yes that’s a blast from the past


              ?He has been branded obscene in the past and has fought in court several times. In 1954 he won a legal battle against the US postal service when Postmaster General Arthur Summerfield refused to deliver copies of Playboy on the grounds it was obscene.

              Heff told the court: “We don’t think Postmaster Summerfield has any business editing magazines. We think he should stick to delivering the mail.” Playboy won.

              A year earlier the first edition featuring nude pictures of Marilyn Monroe (originally taken not for Playboy but for a calendar) caused a sensation in the sexually repressed post-war 1950s.

              “It gave sex a good name,” Mr Hefner tells me, “and incorporated it as a natural part of a men’s’ entertainment magazine.””


              I submit that the line between obscenity and erotica is a real one which can be judged by people. Even if that line is grey and fluid as time and culture changes. the concern about censorship of sexual content is usually overblown but it has a simple reason. money can be made from it! not a little money but a lot.

              it is a secondary concern of the First Amendment which has as its primary concerns, the freedom of religion, and social-political speech and assembly.

              historically, the overly restrictive efforts against erotic art and publications in the US backfired against champions of common decency big-time.

              today we have a bizarre situation where every kind of degrading filth can be published on an internet accessible to minors, but free adults engaged in consensual sex can’t exchange $100 in private for a groin massage.


              crazy? so the immodest publication of a private sex act can render an unlawful act of sex work suddenly, magically, “constitutionally protected.” insanity!


              this is a truly strange and inverted world we live in. the taboos which persist are feckless, and better taboos were long ago thrown by the wayside. what can be made of such a situation by parents for example?

              only one simple thing stands out.


              avoiding dopamine addiction to “likes” alone is worth it

              a secondary good thing would be to legalize sex work between free and consenting adults subject to proper licensing for public health

              a third good thing would be a private effort to reign in immodest publication of sexual conduct on all these platforms which promote early sexualization of minors

              I am not really for returning to the old censorship regime but i think the current situation is basically anarchy

              1. instead all the silicon valley killer app companies are busy policing “hate speech” which in many cases is just silliness

      2. this is hate speech. Someone in Hawaii should call Dept of Family Services on this nut case, Mazie Hirono


        “Sen. Mazie Hirono Says She Told 8th Graders Their Abortion Rights are Under Attack at Supreme Court Protest
        A number of congressional Democrats took the megaphone on Tuesday at an abortion rights protest in front of the Supreme Court, following the major controversy over the restrictive new law in Alabama.

        When Hawaii Democrat Sen. Mazie Hirono was up, she told a story about speaking to eighth grade students who “get it,” to whom she apparently spoke before returning to D.C. for the protest.

        “I just left 60 eighth graders from a public school in Hawaii, and I told them I was coming to a rally in front of the Supreme Court, and they said, ‘Why?’,” Hirono said. “I said it’s because we are–we have to fight for abortion rights and they knew all about it.”

        “And I asked the girls in that group of eighth graders: how many of you girls think that government should be telling us, women, when and if we want to have babies, not a single one of them raised their hands,” she continued.

        “And then, the boys who were there among the sixty, I told them, you know, it’s kind of hard for a woman to get pregnant without you guys,” she said, and the crowd laughed. “They got it.”

        “How many you boys think that government should be telling girls and women when and if we’re going to have babies, and not a single one of them raised their hand,” she added.

        Before and after the anecdote she talked about the court, and drew boos from the crowd when she mentioned Justice Brett Kavanaugh. “All the states know what’s at stake,” she said as her primary point, referring to various state laws coming out, like with Alabama.”


        1. Thank you for your comment about Sen.Hirino, Diane. Also, you are to be applauded for finding a more honest and appropriate username.

    2. Who determines who gets to use social media? And who will guard these selfsame guards?

      The people who want to censor our media have historically had reasons that sound good to them. Anthony J. Comstock and his Society for Suppression of Vice had a virtual stranglehold on freedom of expression in turn of the century (1800s-1900s) New York and around the United States because Americans might otherwise think bad thoughts, read depraved prose, and view pictures of debauchery.

      There’s absolutely no differece between your argument and Comstock’s. One might even think the Left sees a chance to define allowable thoughts and speech. That way lies tyranny. No thanks.

  8. When the ACLU decided back in the 90s they were going to green light “hate crime enhancements” because they had to put their “civil rights mission of helping the oppressed black minorities and gays etc etc” above the “Free speech mission” aspect of the organization— well then the slippery slope was firmly underway.

    1. Alan Dershowtiz and Nat Hentoff were publishing critiques of the fraudsters in the ACLU ca. 1988.

      1. the aclu is not a fraud but it does have a political agenda apart from free speech which impeaches its commitment to the perpetual fight against censorship

        specifically 2 things

        a) they are heavy on anti-religious litigation. more heavy by far than is needed to protect against the “establishment of religion” ….. they are constantly on the march against the twin bogeymen of Christmas and public prayer at football games for example

        b) they took a strategic decision, in line with their historical anti-segregation efforts, to back off anything which would impede “hate crime enhancements” which were the precursors to today’s “hate crimes legislation” which is the precursor to our subject: banning “hate speech”

        they still do a lot of valid work

      2. DSS, If I remember correctly Nat Hentoff resigned his position at the ACLU. I remember his column in th Village Voice.

  9. Present day college students all need to be sent to Siberia for a year to learn some things that Joseph Stalin could have taught them.

  10. There is trouble in Gotham City….There’s to many talking heads

    Catwoman perrrfers the sound of silence in this Batman episode.

  11. “Most men seem to live according to sense rather than reason.”
    ― Saint Thomas Aquinas

  12. Perhaps we need a national advertising campaign on billboards and milk cartons saying, Got Rights? Start the conversation.

  13. College students now thing the first amendment allows religions to do whatever they want! Why is this a surprise.

  14. I wonder how the polls would turn out if you told the college students that the first thing we will label as “hate speech” would be banning all violent video games and movies. Something tells me that the ol’ first amendment would make a big comeback.

    There is something twisted about asking a question about something that doesn’t exist. Since hate speech doesn’t exist, how can you ask if it should be protected. It would have been refreshing if the poll found out that college students when asked, didn’t know how to answer since their first thought should have been, what is “hate speech”? But this would have been asking to much of our monopolized public educated youth.

    1. Hate speech exists. The trouble is, the culture being what it is, the operational definition of it will always be sectarian. Look at the some of the deplatforming being done at the Brin and Zuckerburg ant farms if you want examples of that.

        1. Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate”.
          United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)…

          For these reasons, we hold that the disparagement clause violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The judgment of the Federal Circuit is affirmed.



          1. RETARDS ARE DUMB
            MEN ARE RAPISTS
            WOMEN ARE SLUTS

            hate speech! ban me

            1. @Anonymous

              Ban you? Speech is violence and you just committed aggravated assault.


        2. I just use the working one: “words the Left doesn’t like.”

      1. Brin and Zuckerberg ant farms

        you give FB and Google slugs far too much credit.

        Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise
        Book of Proverbs 6:6

      2. “Hate speech exists.”

        There is no controversy on the question of whether hate speech exists. It does. The issue is whether it is protected under the first amendment. The problem with most of the SJWs on college campuses and in Politburos of the various social media platforms in this respect are manifold:

        a. Almost none of them understand that hate speech is protected speech.

        b. Many of them have a grossly expansive version of what constitutes hate speech (e.g. “women
        don’t have penises.”)

        c. Many of them believe that offensive speech equals violence. (Strangely, many of them don’t
        have any problem at all with actual violence under certain circumstances, e.g. “Punch a Nazi
        (“Nazi” being an infinitely malleable term comprising anyone having ideas that fall into the
        aforementioned grossly expansive version of what constitutes hate speech.))

        d. The question of what constitutes hate speech is partially a function of who is speaking (e.g.
        homophobic or anti-semitic expressions by muslims is just fine; similar expressions by
        christians (esp. white) is hate speech rendering one a Nazi, thereby deserving of a punch.)

        1. there is a government reluctance to allow white people their “racist” speech

          at charlottesville the police allowed the ANTIFA who declared their intention to committ violence to attack the racist protestors before they even had started their lawful assembly


          this fact was concluded by responsible independent lawyers and the top guy was a former federal prosecutor

          if the ANTIFA had not been ALLOWED by police to attack the protestors, then would Heather Heyer still be alive at the end of the day?

          the national media, never brought this report to light.

          all they could do was ridicule Trump for being even handed

          the fact is the police FAILED to protect the free speech and assembly rights of the pro white faction

          in the lawfare battles that have followed the pro white factions, characteristically underfunded and out-financed, have folded like a paper tiger and abandoned their attempts at lawful assembly and free speech

          NO, I did not think Charlottesville was a good idea in the first place, and the fool who organized it failed in too many ways to count, but the people had a right to speech which was denied to them. tragedy was the result

        2. @Jay

          It’s called “Cultural Marxism”. It does not matter so much what is actually said but who is saying it and their rank in the victimhood scale.


  15. Orwell revealed the fundamental problem with the sanctity of any governing political document. First, it can be massaged by the leaders/enforcers to undermine its efficacy. Then, the populace begins to subscribe to the leaders/enforcers distortions. Finally, the revisions to the document remove all doubt that such governing political document is sacred, prudent, or relevant.

    1. Rob1967:
      Well your freedom always rests in hands not on paper. Soviet Russia has a constitution guaranteeing free speech. The real issue is holding those in power accountable. That’s the reason for free speech, the ballot box and the right to keep and bear arms. Pretty sacred trinity.

      1. “… your freedom always rests in hands not on paper” well said

        they supposedly have all kinds of laws in China not that anything matters besides who is more important or has lodged a bigger bribe. i hear bribes are complicated in china. like, if you pay a bribe but the other side is still more important than you, your bribe is just gone and lost and you don’t even get what you thought you were paying for

        pretty sad when the corruption is so bad they can’t even deliver on a decent bribed service

        and of course free speech matters not at all to them. these Chicoms are the friends and clients of Silicon Valley btw. and the California Dem party

      2. Way too many western movies in your youth has given you a distorted view on a man and his gun.

        1. YNOT:

          “Way too many western movies in your youth has given you a distorted view on a man and his gun.”
          Yeah, in addition to “How the West Was Won,” I particularly enjoyed the “movies” called “The American Revolution,””The Civil War,” “The Great War,” and “World War II.” I hear the Left has a sequel in the works tentatively called “American Revolution II.” I’m ready for that one.

        2. my views on one man and a gun are technical and sporting

          my views on many men with guns comes down to what Chairman Mao said:


          power grows out of the barrel of a gun

  16. Their ability to criticize speech depends on the very freedom they seek to deny.

  17. This is not happening in a vacuum, these same college kids will be power in another 30 years. Sure, the 1st amendment will likely exist on paper but not held applicable regarding “hate speech”. After all, unpopular speech is violence in and of itself and thus not protected with the definition of “hate” changing over time.

    Don’t worry sweet, tolerant liberals, this is coming to a locale near you! And people such as the good professor will be called a Nazi or at least a sympathizer for not supporting such crackdowns on speech. And Conservatism, Inc. will go along after the fact as they always do. Today’s conservatism was 20 years ago liberalism, in fact they “conserve” very little.

    1. antonio:

      You sell them short. About 50% of the populace can’t find their behind with a map and don’t give a hoot about their rights — until they’re infringed. Then our dolt class rises as if one to demand them. The rest of us and usually holding the reins of power know all along about the necessity of freedom and go happily and silently fighting for those rights in board rooms, courtrooms and other venues around the country. The Gored Ox Theory always holds sway and once triggered a renaissance of classic liberal political thought ensues. Once need only look to Australia, Austria, Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary and Italy to name just a few where a return to traditional orthodoxy is coming back into cycle. Don’t despair. The radicals are not breeding and will be a minority in 20 years. The largest future population groups in America based on fertility results are Mormons and the Amish. Guess how they think and vote? As I always plagiarize, “demographics are destiny” and ours looks bright.

      1. mespo,

        You are way more optimistic than I. I would argue that birth rate of radicals may not matter as long as they achieve power and enforce their damage on us. I’ve viewed progressives somewhat like terrorists. They are very patient and do not need to win all at once. I view their ideals as a socialist cog that can only turn one way. Obama care is a great modern example. It didn’t matter what it is was (Pelosi even told us this) or if it had failure written within it. All that mattered was getting it in, since once in, it will never be removed. The cog clicks again.

      2. @mespo727272

        I read and enjoy your comments regularly.

        A couple of observations. My family came from Latin America in the 60’s and while I am grateful for the opportunities (and fully assimilated) I believe the following to be true about Americans in general.

        1. They tend to be absolutely ignorant concerning the rest of the world. Whether it is knowledge of other cultures, languages, etc., the average American cannot find Uruguay on a map.

        2. Despite this limitation, Americans in general believe they have a right and duty to tell the rest of the world how to live.

        3. Goes with #2 – the American way is best for all countries, at all times regardless of that country’s culture or level of development.

        4. Part of the duty mentioned in #2 is the need to spread the American system by force, but it is for the receivers benefit, whether they realize it or not.

        Not saying this as an leftist egalitarian or America hater, I know that cultures and races differ, and cannot be made equal. Much of our civil rights and affirmative action legislation over the past 50 years is a well meaning but ultimately futile gesture. And the goal posts keep getting moved when this or that program doesn’t seem to work as intended.

        No 2 people are equal, let alone 2 groups or races. And evolution did not stop at the neck.


        1. Antonio:
          I always enjoy your perspective and thoughts. In the main, I agree with most all your observations. Your musings on American cultural myopia would be true of Caesar’s Rome, Napoleon’s France or Victoria’s Great Britain, societies who owe most of their success to decisive action fraught with sometimes unwarranted confidence rather than endless multi-factorial analysis and fretting over courses of action. It’s undoubtedly true that at some point, you have to believe in your cause to the exclusion of all others to succeed while daring greatly. If that’s a vice of Americans, it’s a venial one.

          1. @mespo727272

            You make a good point about cultural myopia. Probably wasn’t unusual 100 years ago for Brits to have a need to export their culture, values and way of life. Made me think about the Kipling poem, “White Man’s Burden”. Is probably a common characteristic of most enormously powerful countries.


  18. “Past polls showed that one-third of students believed that violence is justified in dealing with some exercises of speech. Now a survey of college students found almost half do not believe that hate speech is protected by the First Amendment….”
    That’s why they’re students. The real crisis if their numb-nuts professors believe it too and refuse to correct them. Here one particularly unaware SJW getting a lesson from Professor Big John Law at UNC about the First Amendment. Spoiler Alert: she gets to do her “lab” in lockup:


    Oh and Thank God for the Second Amendment.

    1. The young woman appeared not to believe she was doing anything wrong. She appeared decent and sincere totally shocked that her theft could lead to an arrest. There was a bit of innocence there. Who convinced her that this was an appropriate way to manage her feelings? She had to learn that somewhere.

      We can guess the school and or her teachers had something to do with her actions. Child endangerment?

        1. ““Why is this happening?” “Cause you’re a thief, Missy. LOL”

          Is she really? Did she steal anything with intrinsic value? Not really but she did steal and though I heartily agree with the arrest I wonder if we couldn’t look at some of her teachers as accessories even though I cannot see how they could be charged and convicted. I wonder if her teachers et al. couldn’t be civilly sued if there was adequate proof of them promoting such behavior?

          1. “Is she really? Did she steal anything with intrinsic value? Not really but she did steal ….”
            Since the law presumes that even a peppercorn has intrinsic value to its owner, I would think an expression of an idea would be priceless.

          2. Who are you to judge the value of someone else’s property? The only fact that matters is it was not her property and she took it without their consent.

            1. “Who are you to judge the value of someone else’s property? ”

              Olly, the law does that on a regular basis. Think petty larceny vs grand theft.

              However, you and Mespo seem to be missing the other half of what I said: “I heartily agree with the arrest I wonder if we couldn’t look at some of her teachers as accessories… “

              1. the law does that on a regular basis.

                I understood your comment completely. You are not the law. There’s a huge disconnect between not really any value and heartily agree with the arrest. It’s like saying Hillary had no criminal intent in the use of her private email account, so send her to prison.

                The most important lesson I was taught in boot camp is the importance of paying attention to detail. The CC’s don’t say it per se, they taught it to us by punishing our failures. Toes on the line, proper push ups, marching, folding our clothes, salutes, gig line, etc. To a civilian, not following these things to the letter are of no real value. Over time however, you’d get tired of re-folding your uniforms, doing extra PT and other punishments. Eventually you leave your civilian mindset behind and you followed the order. Wash, rinse, repeat. Then there comes a point when they show you examples of why the details are so important. Yes they may be petty infractions in boot camp. But when you get to your ship, not paying attention to detail is typically why people lose their lives.

                The same mindset that has this young woman believing she can take a sign of no real intrinsic value is the same mindset that makes one believe they can bypass laws that put our national security at risk.

                1. “There’s a huge disconnect between not really any value and heartily agree with the arrest.”

                  Olly, I’m not sure I understand you. Under the law we recognize the differences you seem to not appreciate. It is not innocence or guilt that is under discussion rather the penalty. There is no question of guilt. Though not discussed your implications almost lead one to conclude that this theft of a sign should have the same penalty as grand theft. They both, in your way of speaking, “makes one believe they can bypass laws that put our national security at risk.”

                  “There’s a huge disconnect” Not a disconnect rather a difference of assessment.

                  “between not really any value and heartily agree with the arrest” with regard to the penalty. Guilt exists in both scenarios.

                  1. Under the law we recognize the differences you seem to not appreciate.

                    I recognize the differences, I just don’t buy the rationalization.

                    You said: Did she steal anything with intrinsic value? Not really…

                    She stole…period. The rest of that question and answer is evidence of the subjective morality pervasive in today’s culture. We see it in this blog regularly. It’s as predictable as the sunrise. One side argues the law and the other rationalizes the intent or severity of the violation of the law.

                    1. Olly, I didn’t rationalize. Let me finished the sentence.

                      “Did she steal anything with intrinsic value? Not really ***but she did steal and though I heartily agree with the arrest.***

                      Why would you think that my agreeing with the arrest (when more frequently no arrest would have occurred) is rationalizing in a negative sense which is how I interpret your comment?

                      I used the words intrinsic value because that sign had no intrinsic value to her. She won’t be able to sell it. I am not going to disagree that our children lack discipline especially with their emotions. You were in the Navy and that probably benefitted you greatly, but she is a kid in today’s world. Overall, if the arrest doesn’t stain her record she will likely be a better person for it.

                    2. Allan,
                      You began this with the following:

                      “Why is this happening?” “Cause you’re a thief, Missy. LOL”

                      You then answered the question with this:

                      Is she really? Did she steal anything with intrinsic value?

                      That’s rationalizing the theft.

                      She won’t be able to sell it.

                      Think: GoFundMe and everyone’s 15 minutes of fame.

                      It obviously had some intrinsic value to her, otherwise why steal it? It certainly had intrinsic value to the young man that was displaying it, otherwise why bother?

                    3. Olly, my six year old ate a piece of candy without paying for it. Is he a thief? I guess to say otherwise in your mind would be to rationalize the theft.

                      I don’t think the young lady was thinking about Go Fund Me at the time. If you can show me she was I will revise my statement. Tell me what intrinsic value the sign had to her? None. She couldn’t sell it. She chose her method of vandalism. Had she had paint and the mindset to use it she might have destroyed the sign or made it unuseable.

                    4. Of course you’re rationalizing. If she didn’t find value in the property, perhaps she’ll discover some value in her choices as they impact her freedom.

                    5. Olly, we all rationalize our positions just as you rationalize not calling my six year old a thief even though he took property that wasn’t his and didn’t pay for it. My focus is not on her vandalism, though I want her punished for it, but on how oblivious she seemed to be when interferring with another’s rights. I am more interested in looking into the why’s.

                    6. Here we go. Another seemingly endless back and forth… — with Allan. He’s gotta have the last word. It’s apparently quite difficult for him to accept loss and move on.

                    7. That you are unable to see various points of view is one of the reason you are known as Anonymous The Brainless Wonder.

                  2. Dame’s a spoiled brat. You’re overthinking this, Allan.

                    1. “Dame’s a spoiled brat. ”

                      She could have been a spoiled brat if she were the one that owned the sign. Being a brat could have something to do with it but I don’t think that was the driving force and it is the driving force that is most interesting to me. She seemed too oblivious to the situation she placed everyone in.

          3. no they will applaud her for civil disobedience and raise a fund on gofundme to reward her

            this dynamic will and must play out until it either abates or goes to another level.

            the cop made a proper arrest and handled it well.

            I tell you, my kids would not have the gall to just take someone else’s placard and walk away with it, like the contents or not. they were trained by parents to FOLLOW THE LAW and not feign ignorance about it.

            the girl lied through her teeth at first about not having an ID. did you catch that? i found her fake and disingenuous.

            we need to enforce the laws like that or the people holding the placards will be forced into the decision of whether to give a pushy girl like that a knuckle sandwich. if someone tries to take my stuff, that’s the least they will get and I won’t be arrested for it either.

            but i don’t run around with offensive placards. those boys are on a provocative speech mission, which is their right. i don’t personally enjoy that sort of thing not for any “cause”

            1. Kurtz, yes I noted she initially didn’t want to give ID and I don’t hold that against her. She didn’t think she was going to be arrested. That is how kids of her age act. They even carry false ID’s to buy beer. My problem with her was not that she did something wrong rather she seemed oblivious to the rights of others and their free speech. She was trained that way so that she seemed oblivious to the fact that she did something wrong and violated another’s rights. That is what bothered me the most.

            2. “the girl lied through her teeth at first about not having an ID. did you catch that? i found her fake and disingenuous.”
              She looked like a stoner to me. And not particularly well raised by her undoubtedly one parent or blended family home.

    2. She’s a student at a Public Ivy, mespo. IOW, someone whose academic and test performance put her somewhere north of the 93d percentile of this nation’s 17 year old youth. I think it’s reasonable to expect such a person to have an adequate store of civic understanding by age 19.

      In a sane world, the purveyors of elementary education would devote 80% of their manpower to imparting basic literacy and numeracy, and the remaining 20% to civic education – the fundamentals of American history, geography, and civics. For a great many and perhaps most pupils, it will go in one ear and out the other. About 70% of the young suitable for classroom instruction should have been drilled in this by age 14 and most of the residue slow learners by age 18.

    3. the problem is that the men who own guns in this country are generally a very law abiding and passive lot and they will submit to other infringements of liberty under color of law without organizing fierce resistance

      the powers that be can strip away one “Right” after another and so long as they let gun nuts grease their barrels in peace and stockpile more and more cases of unfired ammunition, no problem!

      this is my observation after long decades of association with many fine gun nuts

  19. well, it does appear that the united efforts of academia and the dept of ed have rendered our students unable to comprehend our most precious document, and that is as they planned. An misinformed populace is far more malleable.

    1. It surely wasn’t inadvertent. The Maoists run the presses and the academy. Can’t wait to see those empires fall. Now there’s a real game of thrones.

      1. What’s distressing is that 40-odd years ago, the exclamation, ‘It’s a free country’ was part of popular culture. It was something ordinary people actually said. I cannot recall the last time I heard it in any venue.

        1. “Govenment is founded on property
          Property is founded on conquest
          Conquest is founded on power
          All power is founded on brain and brawn.”
          ― Ragnar Redbeard, Might is Right
          “The natural world is a world of war; the natural man is a warrior; the natural law is tooth and claw. All else is error. A condition of combat everywhere exists. We are born into perpetual conflict. It is our inheritance, even as it was the heritage of previous generations.”
          ― Ragnar Redbeard, Might is Right

          1. BS Kurtz. Humans have succeeded beyond the imagination of our ancestors – who go back several hundred thousand years – because of cooperation. Since WWII, we have excelled because of more cooperation, not less, and consequently we are richer almost across the board, live longer, and have a much lower chance of dying at the hands of another human than at any other time in at least recorded history and probably going back to our roots.

            1. Social cooperation mostly exists among members of rival “teams”
              teams can be multilateral national pacts like NATO, they can be nation states, they can be ethnic or religious groups, organized corporations for profit or nonprofit, families, other groups of any kind formal and nonformal.

              they all operate according to some set of rules called “law” that are basically all just the predictable conseqences of organized violence that will descend upon those who break the “law”

              the foundation of the state is indeed organized force and that is the very essence of what is “law”

              in the end even the moral codes behind the legal codes, are themselves consequences of organized force and conflict, every bit as much as the stories that religions tell

              that’s why today a billion people form Islam

              and a billion people form Christianity

              tolerant religions fade away like ghosts in a forgotten dream
              intolerant religions live on to fight another day

              1. this is also why “Buddhists” in Myanmar are “oppressing” Rohynga Muslims ….. and why China has a million Uighur Muslims locked up for spitting on the sidewalk

                because they understand what the Muslims do too–

                in the long term it all comes down to organized force
                and the ones who throw the first punches often win.

                they see themselves on a collision course with Muslims and they are taking the first steps to win.

                It is not pretty. It is not just. it is not fair. but it is what it is.

                Americans are so used to thinking about individual rights that we fail to see the social organization ie POWER That goes into forming those laws and rights and systems in the first place

                we sometimes foolishly believe that our system can’t be crushed and destroyed and outmaneuvered

                that obnoxious girl understands something many conservatives dont.
                the LEFT understands things in many ways better, more realistic.
                power comes from groups and groups that are willing to use force in an organized way.

                she used force. now she goes to jail. but the point has been made.
                and when they bail her out she will not be sorry,. she will feel her sense of accomplishment at using force and she will do it again.

                Conservatives by nature are peaceful and don’t understand how an organized force of brute power can change whatever dusty set of paper laws on the books they want by an existing set of “Rules” on the ground that supersede whatever is in the dusty tomes

                Books don’t rule men. MEN rule men.

                Wake up

            2. WW II is not an apt example for you. It was the second bloodbath that followed the first. IT was such a disaster for Russia, Germany, China, and Japan, mostly; and such a big win for the US, that the US enforces its will as “law” all around the world in terms of law, finance, and a thousand other social endeavors,

              pretty much just because all the US rivals were decimated and exhausted

              all of that “cooperation” is built upon the skeletons of defeated foes who were NOT “cooperative”

            3. ” because of cooperation”

              Actually no Anon. This might be a child’s answer but is totally inadequate for an adult. Cooperation can occur with force or other circumstances. Soldiers frequently cooperated on the battlefield because their leaders would shoot them if they didn’t. Stalin got a lot of cooperation through force and fear. Of course you seem to lean in the Stalinist direction.

              If one has to pick one item that has caused human success in the past several hundred years I think one would pick capitalism which causes cooperation as both parties hope to benefit from the transaction. I would also add reason based on intellect, free from fear and mysticism.

              1. I think one would pick capitalism

                Again, ‘capitalism’ refers to a disaggregation of functions between production, management, finance, &c. You’re confusing ‘capitalism’ with free exchange.

                1. DSS, I don’t think so, but if you wish to substitute free exchange for capitalism I’ll accept that, but I find that term used in this sense a bit murky. I think capitalism is much better understood than free exchange which seems to lack “of what”.

Comments are closed.