The Rising Generation of Censors: Law Schools are the Latest Battleground Over Free Speech

Below is my column in The Hill on the rise of a generation of censors with attacks on both academic freedom and free speech throughout our educational system. This trend has reached law schools, which is ominous since these students are the future judges and lawyers who are expected to defend these core principles.

Here is the column:

Free speech on American college campuses has been in a free fall for years. From high schools through law schools, free speech has gone from being considered a right that defines our society to being dismissed as a threat. According to polling, the result is arguably one of the most anti-free-speech generations in our history. The danger is more acute because it has reached law schools where future judges and lawyers may replicate the same intolerance in our legal system.

A recent controversy at Duke Law School highlights this danger. “Law & Contemporary Problems” is a faculty-run journal that recently decided to do a balanced symposium on “Sex and the Law” — including transgender issues — and asked Professor Kathleen Stock of the University of Sussex (who has criticized transgender positions) to participate.

Protests erupted over allowing such intellectual diversity.

The new set of student editors demanded that Stock be removed from the symposium. The faculty board issued a statement explaining the importance of freedom of speech and academic freedom, particularly on a journal that serves as a forum for debates on contemporary issues. Students resigned rather than associate with a journal offering both sides of such issues.

Some legal columnists echoed calls to ban those with opposing views. The legal site “Above The Law” (ATL) published an article denouncing the faculty for supporting free speech. ATL editor Joe Patrice ran a factually inaccurate tirade against Duke for using academic freedom as “a shield for professors to opine and behave in ways that marginalize others.”

The ATL criticism of Duke was illustrative of the new anti-free-speech movement that is now taking hold in law schools and legal publications. Academic freedom and free speech are denounced as tools to “marginalize others.” Patrice sums up why both the student editors and the Duke faculty must be condemned: “A ‘vigorous and open exchange of ideas’ is valuable only to the extent it improves the academic mission of improving the human condition. Is Trans skepticism within that field? It shouldn’t be, but here we are.” In other words, you are entitled to free speech so long as you cannot be accused of “marginalizing” others.

While calling for professors like Stock to be barred from the publication for “marginalizing” others, ATL editors and other writers often stigmatize and denounce whole groups as requiring containment and condemnation. Elie Mystal, who writes for ATL and is The Nation’s justice correspondent, for example, lashed out at “white society” and how he strives to maintain a “whiteness-free” life. On MSNBC, Mystal declared, without any contradiction from the host, that “You don’t communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.”

In such campaigns, there is little time or patience with trivialities like free speech.

Mystal was celebrated for his declaration: “I have no intention of waiting around for them to try to kill me before I demand protection from their ‘free speech.’”

Dangerous thoughts are ill-defined beyond being rejected by these writers. Under this approach, free speech becomes like pornography under the famous test of Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart: “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material … and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it.”

Of course, free speech demands bright lines so that professors are not chilled in what they write or say. However, that is precisely the point. Whether Patrice and others can block the publication of Stock is immaterial. The fact is that most students and faculty do not want to be the subject of such a public campaign. Academics are notoriously risk-averse. They need conferences and publications to advance their careers.

The threat is to lose everything that academics need to be active intellectuals. This is the one-year anniversary of the move to force a criminology professor named Mike Adams off the faculty of the University of North Carolina (Wilmington). Adams was a conservative faculty member with controversial writings who had to go to court to stop prior efforts to remove him. He then tweeted a condemnation of North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for his pandemic rules, tweeting that he had dined with six men at a six-seat table and “felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina” before adding: “Massa Cooper, let my people go.” It was a stupid and offensive tweet. However, we have seen extreme comments on the left — including calls to gas or kill or torture conservatives — be tolerated or even celebrated at universities.

Celebrities, faculty and students demanded that Adams be fired. After weeks of public pummeling, Adams relented and took a settlement to resign. He then killed himself a few days before his final day as a professor.

Law schools have seen repeated disruptions of conservative speakers with the support or acquiescence of faculty. CUNY law school dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that law students preventing a conservative law professor from speaking was itself free speech. She also insisted that a law student threatening to set a man’s Israel Defense Forces sweatshirt on fire was simply “expressing her opinion.” Recently Bilek actually cancelled herself and resigned after she made a single analogy to acting like a “slaveholder” as a self-criticism for failing to achieve equity and reparations for black faculty and students.

Last year, the acting Northwestern law school dean declared publicly: “I am James Speta and I am a racist.” He was followed by Emily Mullin, executive director of major gifts, who announced: “I am a racist and a gatekeeper of white supremacy. I will work to be better.” Such public declarations can fuel demands for more mandatory demonstrations by others or intolerance for those who dissent. At Rutgers this year, the student government ordered all groups to hold critical race theory and diversity programs as a condition for receiving funds. At the University of North Carolina, student Sagar Sharma, who is a student of color, faced a recall election as the first-year class co-president for simply stating that he did not consider an argument between two fellow students to be racist.

Faculty and editors are now actively supporting modern versions of book-burning with blacklists and bans for those with opposing political views. Columbia Journalism School Dean Steve Coll has denounced the “weaponization” of free speech, which appears to be the use of free speech by those on the right. So the dean of one of the premier journalism schools now supports censorship.

Free speech advocates are facing a generational shift that is now being reflected in our law schools, where free speech principles were once a touchstone of the rule of law. As millions of students are taught that free speech is a threat and that “China is right” about censorship, these figures are shaping a new society in their own intolerant images.

For now, the Duke symposium will include the offending article — but the resignations and condemnations show why this small degree of diversity in viewpoint is increasingly rare on our campuses.

This is a single (and close) victory for free speech, but make no mistake about it: We are losing the war.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

 

171 thoughts on “The Rising Generation of Censors: Law Schools are the Latest Battleground Over Free Speech”

  1. Our Kangaroo Court System of Injustice gives complete freedom of speech and expression, but only as long as it conforms with the mandated principles of Communazi ideology. Constitutional notions of “free speech” are considered to be obsolete according to our Kangaroo Court System of Injustice. So, please don’t discuss those obsolete notions further and, instead, try to practice obedience to our System’s rules.

  2. To Karen S and other interested parties, there is a video up on YouTube stating that Lieutenant Michal Leroy Byrd murdered Ashli Babbitt. In fact, that is the name of the video, so you can search for it. Photographic evidence is provided in the video. The poster is the Truth News Media History channel. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the video, but the evidence presented there is compelling.

    1. Government official executes an unarmed citizen and we can’t know his name? Welcome to the Banana Republic of the Dims. Chief Monkey Biden at the helm.

        1. Jeff, Castle Doctrine does not apply.

          “cas·tle doc·trine

          nounLAW
          noun: castle doctrine
          (especially in the US) the principle that one is justified in the use of deadly force to protect one’s home and its inhabitants from intruders, without being obliged to retreat.”

          I have made no statement on whether the killing of Ashli Babbitt was justified, or not. What I, and others, have repeatedly asked for is for transparency.

          When there is a police use of force, some stations will release a video of a press conference, with accompanying evidence video. The video will show what happened from as many perspectives as possible. It may include body cam or security camera footage, replay 911 calls, bystander video, and recorded witness statements.

          We don’t have that here. There is at least one bystander video of the incident without a good view. Perhaps there are more. But there are also thousands of hours of footage that has not been released.

          Why not?

          It’s like pulling teeth to get transparency.

          Why are the Jan 6 protesters rotting in solitary confinement, and charged with everything possible, including “illegally parading”, while the Democrat-voting rioters, looters, and arsonists either aren’t arrested, aren’t charged, or if they are, they are diverted to counseling programs.

          Why the double standard? Do we have a political party with special privileges?

          1. Jeff:

            Do you see the irony in the common claim that Ashli Babbitt deserved to get shot because she refused to obey commands from police officers? Often, these are the same people who claim that when black people get shot while refusing to obey commands from police officers, it’s unjust and due to racism.

            As said before, I have zero opinion on whether Babbitt’s killing was justified or not. That is because there has not been enough transparency for me to come to any opinion.

            1. Karen, I’ll make it simple for you. When George Floyd was on the ground, cuffed from behind, he was not refusing to obey commands from anyone. He was not resisting, and yet Chauvin kept kneeling on his neck, despite Floyd complaining of being unable to breathe and at one point asking for his mother. Chauvin persisted even after Floyd was unconscious. Floyd didn’t trespass into the Cup Foods store, either. He was not present at the store to commit crimes, unlike Ashli Babbitt. He didn’t violate police commands not to enter the building. Babbitt’s death is due to her misplaced faith in a narcissistic liar. The Capitol Police officer who shot her has been cleared by the DOJ of any wrongdoing.

              1. Not that simple. Chauvin used poor judgment. He did not intentionally kill Floyd. When a cop shoots someone who is not attacking him or another person that’s intentional killing.

                1. But, Babbitt was attacking the Capitol Police. If someone is breaking into a place in which there are police who are commanding you to stop, and you proceed nevertheless, you are on the attack, and they have every right to use deadly force. How could the police know whether she had a gun or not? She had already broken past several barricades, she was trespassing, participating in destroying property, and refused to obey police commands.She proceeded trying to go through a window even though there were guns pointed at her and people shouted that “they have guns”. Her intention in going through the window was to intimidate, threaten or maybe kill members of Congress to try to stop the will of the American people because she believed Trump’s lie about a “stolen election.” Her own family admits it was her own fault. The DOJ has cleared the officer of any wrongdoing. Trump claims she was murdered because he still refuses to take credit for the results of his lying.

              2. Natch, that is one case. In this instance you are correct. This does not speak to the hundreds of phony accusations of cops who at the time are using legitimate use of force. And what happened to Floyd was murder. But even he used the go to B.S. ” I can’t breath ” while standing with minimal restraint being used as the cop tried to put him in the car. And the ” mother ” he was calling for was a girlfriend. Not that that makes any difference.

              1. Jeff, you’ll have to paraphrase her if you would like me to know your response, then. Her posts are just too viciously unstable, she’s lied about me repeatedly, misrepresented most topics she brings up, constantly scolds Turley as if she thinks he reads the comments or cares about her opinion, and that last couple of anti-semitic screeds were just too much.

                Do you see the irony in the common claim that Ashli Babbitt deserved to get shot because she refused to obey commands from police officers? Often, these are the same people who claim that when black people get shot while refusing to obey commands from police officers, it’s unjust and due to racism.

                As said before, I have zero opinion on whether Babbitt’s killing was justified or not. That is because there has not been enough transparency for me to come to any opinion.

                Now, failure to obey commands usually leads to cops physically restraining a suspect, unless that command was to drop a weapon or stop assaulting an officer. I haven’t seen very much evidence at all of the incident, so this opinion might change. But from what little I know, she was probably shot because someone said “they have guns”, not because she was coming through a window. They falsely believed she had a gun or other weapon. Otherwise, they would have used a control hold and arrested her. Deadly use of force is warranted when there is immediate danger.

                There have been numerous, repeated calls for transparency, and the official release of evidence. That’s not unreasonable to ask. I am perfectly open to the possibility that her death was justified. I’d also be very curious to know who said “they have guns”.

                The same people who demand every millisecond of every video available from every angle seem to be full of excuses why no such information needs to be officially released in this incident.

                Most of time, video of the crowds showed a bunch of fools, posing for selfies, telling each other not to engage in violence. Yet that bottleneck where Babbitt was killed was crowded close together. They wouldn’t know what they were going to do. They could, for example, plan to act like the Democrats terrorizing Blue Cities, burning down police precincts, businesses, and killing cops.

                There is a double standard applied whether you’re a Democrat or Republican. There is also a tremendous disparity in the scope of property damage done by the Left compared with the Jan 6 protestors.

                What’s especially tragic is that up until Jan 6, Democrats owned rioting, looting, arson, assaults on cops, dangerous civil unrest, and other hostile, lawless behavior. This behavior ended many businesses struggling during the pandemic. The effects of this lawless rage will be felt in black communities for decades. A business owner would have to be a fool to open in a location that has experienced looting and riots. That’s why Democrats had to lie, and claim these protests were “mostly peaceful” as millions upon millions of dollars in property damage piled up. They couldn’t admit the CHOP autonomous zone was sedition, or that their politicians were derelict in their duty to allow it to continue. Residents were trapped inside. People were raped and murdered, but the police were barred entry.

                This was the albatross around the Democrats’ neck. This violence was repeated, lasted about a year, and was widespread among Blue Cities. The trend was absolutely undeniable that Democrat politicians made cops stand down, allowed riots to continue, excused them, failed to charge them, diverted some to counseling, and bailed them out of jail. This was a Democrat problem.

                And then here this ONE GROUP of idiots comes in and charges into the Capitol building, trespassing, breaking windows, taking selfies. Charges state they “illegally paraded”. The very Democrats who said Trump was a despot for wanting to send in the National Guard to restore order in burning Democrat cities, brought in thousands of National Guard, and erected a fence (suddenly not racist), to protect themselves, while leaving business owners and residents high and dry during BLM riots.

                The same people who wanted the McCloskeys thrown in jail and throw away the key, suddenly wanted lots and lots of armed guards protecting their place of business from anyone who might so much as think about trespassing.

                Imagine, for a moment, if Republicans engaged in the level of violence we’ve seen raging for a year from BLM, Antifa, and all the other Lefties. Imagine if Republicans burned down a police precinct, seized entire city blocks as an “autonomous zone”, rolled police cars, killed cops, assaulted cops, destroyed businesses, looted stores. If you have eyeballs, you’ve seen this. Would the media be out there standing in front of a burning building, calling it “mostly peaceful” if it had been Republicans doing millions of dollars in property damage all these many months?

                Democrats want to ignore the year of riots on their side. They only want to talk about the one group of people on Jan 6, never their own behavior. They certainly don’t want to compare the treatment of rioters.

                You’re in deep denial.

                1. Karen says: “Do you see the irony in the common claim that Ashli Babbitt deserved to get shot because she refused to obey commands from police officers?“

                  In the Ole’ West, there was an adage that no man always deserved to be hung for shooting another man cuz some had it comin’ to them, but horse thieves were always hung because no horse deserved to be stolen. I don’t know if Babbitt had it coming to her- it depends upon whether the shooting was justifiable homicide. I don’t want to speculate in the court of public opinion. I prefer to wait for the matter to be settled in a court of law.

                  You say; “The same people who wanted the McCloskeys thrown in jail and throw away the key….”

                  Throw away the key, eh? Now who sounds like Natacha? Hmm?

                  You say: “There is a double standard applied whether you’re a Democrat or Republican.”

                  I don’t see it that way. And there is nothing you can say which will make me see matters your way. You say that I am in deep denial. Well, I don’t deny that our different outlooks are intractable and irreconcilable. We ARE a house divided, irretrievably so.

                  Perhaps, we can agree on that fact and leave it at that.

          2. Karen,

            Even if the Castle Doctrine does not legally apply to the Capitol (I’m not so sure it does not to the People’s House), it’s the principle for which gun advocates have voted- the privilege to use deadly force with no obligation to retreat.

            As far as transparency, I’m afraid your demand falls on deaf ears after Trumpists applauded Trump’s refusal in transparently revealing his tax returns and denying his patently bogus lie that he could not do so because he was under audit. Now, we know why he would not reveal his returns- he is a tax cheat- though our law and order Professor of Law would have you believe that EVERYBODY does it, so no biggee.

            With regard to your suggestion that liberal rioters are more privileged than Trumpist rioters, you are making sweeping anecdotal allegations. It may be true, but I would need to see hard evidence that there is favoritism by the prosecutors and judges in the form of admissions or public statements expressing such an explicit bias which you allege.

            1. “Even if the Castle Doctrine does not legally apply to the Capitol (I’m not so sure it does not to the People’s House), it’s the principle for which gun advocates have voted- the privilege to use deadly force with no obligation to retreat. ”

              Jeff, if it is the people’s house, the people have a right to be there. We are not talking about a homeowner who suddenly discovers an intruder who might be violent. No, Jeff, the police do not have a right to shoot a person at city hall because that person is shouting or carrying a sign. They are trained not to shoot when lives are not in jeopardy. No lives were in danger from a woman climbing carefully through a glass door with her hand in the open.

              “Now, we know why he would not reveal his returns- he is a tax cheat-”

              There is not a shred of evidence yet reported proving Trump was involved in what should not even be considered criminal. Half of the claim that is being made approximately equals the Freeh – Biden exchange. The problem with the latter is that Biden’s checks came from the government, and he was supposed to represent the people, not his greed.

              “I would need to see hard evidence that there is favoritism”

              The evidence is right in front of your nose. Unfortunately, your nose has grown so big you might need binoculars to see anything in front of it.

              1. KarenS,

                As you may know, I don’t reply to S.Meyer for obvious reasons. I responded to your comments and I await *your* civil reply.

                1. Jeff, you don’t respond to me because I don’t put up with your nonsense and demand you deal with facts. You like meaningless rhetoric that never gets to the point in the hope everyone will forget about the facts.

                  You are also insulting without even knowing it.

                  You await Karen’s “civil reply”. She is one of the most civil persons here. You will state that what you said had more than one meaning, but the insult was part of the way you communicate.

                    1. Add a mega ditto + 100 and that takes out the anonymous hate monger below. Thank you very much.

            2. Jeff, the “peoples’ house” is the White House, which is also a literal home where the First Family lives. Absolutely, Castle Doctrine would apply to the White House, however, it is my understanding that DC is not a Castle Doctrine area, though neighboring Maryland is. In DC, you are required to try to walk away or escape. If it was Castle Doctrine, you would not be required to retreat or hide if someone broke into your home.

              Again, please note that Castle Doctrine means you do not have a responsibility to retreat if you are inside your home and someone is breaking in. You don’t have to go hide in a closet and hope the intruder doesn’t shoot you in the face when they open the door. You don’t have to be assaulted before you are allowed to defend yourself. If anyone breaks into your house, you are allowed to stand your ground and defend it.

              But not in DC.

              This was not a house. This was a police use of force, which has very specific rules.

              It is a red herring to claim that if Trump did not release his private and personal tax returns, which are not required to run for president, then the police don’t have to release the evidence in a use of force case. False logic.

              Should the police never release any more evidence in use of force against black suspects because BLM refuses to explain where all the money went?

              Since you bring up presidents, you are to consider that when Democrats accused Trump of having dementia, he promptly took a cognitive test, and instructed his doctor to release the results, as well as that of his physical and overall health, to the American people. We have all watched Biden forget where he is, forget names, start whispering during press conferences, talk about how much he loves when kids he’s not related to stroke his leg hairs in the public pool, and say that he’s not “allowed” to answer questions from any reporter not on his list, and that “I’ll get in trouble” if he answers certain questions.

              Yet he angrily refused to take a cognitive function test and share it with the American people. Remember all that talk about how Trump shouldn’t have the nuclear codes if he had dementia? Well, Trump took a medical test to prove he did not, and Biden won’t. Biden has the nuclear codes, is exhibiting loss of function, and refuses to take this test. Is this a problem, or do only Republican presidents need to take cognitive tests?

              1. To clarify, the people who live in the White House, i.e. the First Family, would be entitled to use Castle Doctrine to defend themselves against intruders breaking in IF they lived in a Castle Doctrine State or district. DC is not.

                Happily, they have the Secret Service.

              2. Karen,

                As a lawyer, I will rely upon a trial to get to the truth about the killing of Babbitt. I dismiss all the conjectures and lies tossed around in the court of public opinion. I will await the results of a criminal and/or civil trial. Enough said.

                I was not attempting to make a logical argument raising the Trumpists’ indifference to Trump not releasing his tax returns. I simply was pointing out the HYPOCRISY of your demand for transparency in the one case and not in the other.

                I have said repeatedly that I am perfectly willing to concede that Biden’s mental faculties are deteriorating if and only if you are willing to concede that Trump is a chronic and habitual liar.

                Fairer than that, I can’t be.

              3. “Remember all that talk about how Trump shouldn’t have the nuclear codes… Biden has the nuclear codes,”

                Trump made the world safer. Look at the Mideast and was trying to keep us out of wars. Biden has made the world a more dangerous place and appears to wish to keep us in wars.

            3. Jeff:

              You said, “With regard to your suggestion that liberal rioters are more privileged than Trumpist rioters, you are making sweeping anecdotal allegations. It may be true, but I would need to see hard evidence that there is favoritism by the prosecutors and judges in the form of admissions or public statements expressing such an explicit bias which you allege.”

              So, you won’t believe there is bias unless a prosecutor or judge admits to this bias in public? I’m sorry, I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or serious.

              I’ve sent you numerous articles outlining prosecutorial guidelines not to charge BLM rioters. You simply chose to ignore or not read them.

              1. Karen asks: “So, you won’t believe there is bias unless a prosecutor or judge admits to this bias in public? I’m sorry, I can’t tell if you’re being facetious or serious.”

                Serious. Are there any tweets you can point to or statements made in court?

                Karen says: “I’ve sent you numerous articles outlining prosecutorial guidelines not to charge BLM rioters. You simply chose to ignore or not read them.”

                You have me confused with someone else as I don’t recall any such links, but if they are sourced from Alt-Right websites, Fox News, Newsmax, OAN, or Infowars, please don’t waste your time doing so. I will indeed ignore them. I’ll heed Turley if he has written so.

                Karen, here is the bottom line. Prosecutors take an oath to faithfully execute the law without favor subject to disciplinary consequences if they contravene the rules of professional responsibility or otherwise violate their oaths as officers of the court. Have you taken an oath to be truthful on this blog? Thus, I have every reason to believe that the prosecutors of both the Trumpists as well as the prosecutors of ANTIFA are doing their jobs honorably unless and until either have been proven to be prejudiced at a hearing subject to due process. I am sure that Turley would agree with that statement. You, on the other hand, have made your feelings abundantly and unmistakably clear. So, you’ll forgive me if I place my trust in prosecutors who have sworn to uphold their duty in spite of their feelings.

      1. No one “executed” anybody. Babbitt’s misplaced faith in a narcissistic liar resulted in her trespassing into the Capitol to commit crimes, ignoring police commands, with the result that she ended up getting shot.

        1. Since the details and videos of Babbit’s death are not being revealed like they were in other instances one has to assume there was a cover-up. The first thing that comes to mind is that the one who shot her should be openly investigated for murder. If that doesn’t happen (which it didn’t) then it is logical to assume she was murdered until the details are all released.

          We have heard a lot about police restraint. What we know tells us that there was no restraint in the shooting of Babbit and one wonders about the mindset of the one who shot her and what the DC policemen were told to do.

    2. Old Edo: how many videos of Babbitt’s effort to break into the Speaker’s Lobby have you seen? I’ve seen several and they all show (some better than others) that she got onto a ledge under a broken window to the right of the main door, intending to go through, at which point several people yelled “they have a gun”. She didn’t stop–in fact, she persisted in attempting to go through the window, and got shot. It was her fault. Whether she was armed or not armed is irrelevant. She had no right to even be where she was, and refused to comply with Capitol Police commands to cease and desist and to disburse.. Ask yourself: why was she trying to break into the Speaker’s Lobby? Wasn’t the reason to intimidate, and if that didn’t work, harm members of Congress to prevent them from accepting the certified vote totals? What right is there for anyone to do this? Did she have a right to be there, or even be present inside the Capitol Building in the first place? How many police commands did she ignore to even get to the location where she lost her life?

      I just found out that the election loser people like you worship is putting out the meme that Babbitt was murdered. Her death was Trump’s fault. He incited the riot by lying about his landslide victory being stolen. He should pay her funeral expenses and compensate her family for her death.

  3. Thomas Lifson, whom I respect, wrote on American Thinker that Joe might not be dumped until Kamala is Agnewed.

    I said the same here a few days ago, mentioning Agnewing Kamala, and then I added that Liz Warren [or her like] could take Kamala’s place to then Gerald Ford it to the Oval Office when Joe goes.

    I was stretching, but it is satisfying to see that I am not the only one:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/07/the_question_is_when_not_if_hunter_bidens_laptop_will_bring_down_joe_bidens_presidency.html

    1. CDC’s VEARS Report as a base number, 7000 died, A Harvard study & other studies point out that the VEARS numbers are 10 to a 100 times higher because of wrongful & fraudulently reporting, along with supporting intel from Docs, Nurses, Hospital employees, forced to massively under report, that this week here, 7/11/2021 that aprox., 70,000 to 700,000 people have died directly from the Covid19 Fauci/Gates/etc., Vaccine just in the US.

      ( Why do I laugh like this morning of the older guy falling over dead after the Jab in the commons area there & everyone else was still walking around the body to get their Fauci/Gates Jab? LOL;) Idiocy Writ Large Much? Sick, go ahead & race to throw yourself into the Deep States Wood Chippers

      Off hand I forget the current injuries/permanent injuries, 1.5 mil? What we do suspect is that Workers Comp Rates will be going through the roof for Employers/Schools that Forced people to take the vaccine.

      (
      Young says:
      July 8, 2021 at 11:58 PM

      Off topic for all of you here who adopted the party line and told me HCQ and ivermectin were dangerous and should never be used for Covid:

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297521000792

      You did it only because Trump said it could be beneficial. I wonder how many died because Democrats and trolls injected hate-filled politics into medicine. )

      So Yes, looks to me like Nuremberg 2 trails Dead Ahead!

      88

      CDC’s VEARS Report as a base number, 7000 died, A Harvard study & other studies point out that the VEARS numbers are 10 to a 100 times higher because of wrongful & fraudulently reporting, along with supporting intel from Docs, Nurses, Hospital employees, forced to massively under report, that this week here, 7/11/2021 that aprox., 70,000 to 700,000 people have died directly from the Covid19 Fauci/Gates/etc., Vaccine just in the US.

      ( Why do I laugh like this morning of the older guy falling over dead after the Jab in the commons area there & everyone else was still walking around the body to get their Fauci/Gates Jab? LOL;) Idiocy Writ Large Much? Sick, go ahead & race to throw yourself into the Deep States Wood Chippers

      Off hand I forget the current injuries/permanent injuries, 1.5 mil? What we do suspect is that Workers Comp Rates will be going through the roof for Employers/Schools that Forced people to take the vaccine.

      (
      Young says:
      July 8, 2021 at 11:58 PM

      Off topic for all of you here who adopted the party line and told me HCQ and ivermectin were dangerous and should never be used for Covid:

      https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2052297521000792

      You did it only because Trump said it could be beneficial. I wonder how many died because Democrats and trolls injected hate-filled politics into medicine. )

      So Yes, looks to me like Nuremberg 2 trails Dead Ahead!

  4. Whites aren’t the problem, cops aren’t the problem. There real problem is those same people who have always been the problem… Do I really need to spell it out?

          1. Dreams from My Real Father | Films by Joel Gilbert …
            [Search domain joelgilbert.net] https://www.joelgilbert.net/films/dreams-from-my-real-father/
            Dreams from My Real Father A Story of Reds and Deception. In Dreams from My Real Father, Barack Obama is portrayed by a voiceover actor who chronicles Barack Obama’s life journey in socialism, from birth through his election to the Presidency. The film begins by presenting the case that Barac

  5. Every time I read a story like this I compare the sentiments to the virtues that the ancient Roman citizenry aspired to and which fueled their ascent on the world’s stage. Sadly, we’re disavowing almost every one of them. Here they are for those who might need a refresher:

    Auctoritas–“Spiritual Authority”: The sense of one’s social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.

    Comitas–“Humor”: Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.

    Clementia–“Mercy”: Mildness and gentleness.

    Dignitas–“Dignity”: A sense of self-worth, personal pride.

    Firmitas–“Tenacity”: Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one’s purpose.

    Frugalitas–“Frugalness”: Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.

    Gravitas–“Gravity”: A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.

    Honestas–“Respectibility”: The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.

    Humanitas–“Humanity”: Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.

    Industria–“Industriousness”: Hard work.

    Pietas–“Dutifulness”: More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.

    Prudentia–“Prudence”: Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.

    Salubritas–“Wholesomeness”: Health and cleanliness.

    Severitas–“Sternness”: Gravity, self-control.

    Veritas–“Truthfulness”: Honesty in dealing with others.

    And the greatest virtue being the last – very Roman. Vincit omnia veritas!

    1. “And the greatest virtue being the last – very Roman. Vincit omnia veritas!”

      You must be talking about Project Veritas. 🙂

    2. ( Comitas–“Humor”: Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness. )

      We all should save that list & send it out to different people as we all go through this journey with a nice short message attached:

      ****

      A friendly Gent sent reminder out, read this list & thought we all to keep trying to improve, so if you find the extra time please pass this along.

      Every time I read a story like this I compare the sentiments to the virtues that the ancient Roman citizenry aspired to and which fueled their ascent on the world’s stage. Sadly, we’re disavowing almost every one of them. Here they are for those who might need a refresher:

      Auctoritas–“Spiritual Authority”: The sense of one’s social standing, built up through experience, Pietas, and Industria.

      Comitas–“Humor”: Ease of manner, courtesy, openness, and friendliness.

      Clementia–“Mercy”: Mildness and gentleness.

      Dignitas–“Dignity”: A sense of self-worth, personal pride.

      Firmitas–“Tenacity”: Strength of mind, the ability to stick to one’s purpose.

      Frugalitas–“Frugalness”: Economy and simplicity of style, without being miserly.

      Gravitas–“Gravity”: A sense of the importance of the matter at hand, responsibility and earnestness.

      Honestas–“Respectibility”: The image that one presents as a respectable member of society.

      Humanitas–“Humanity”: Refinement, civilization, learning, and being cultured.

      Industria–“Industriousness”: Hard work.

      Pietas–“Dutifulness”: More than religious piety; a respect for the natural order socially, politically, and religiously. Includes the ideas of patriotism and devotion to others.

      Prudentia–“Prudence”: Foresight, wisdom, and personal discretion.

      Salubritas–“Wholesomeness”: Health and cleanliness.

      Severitas–“Sternness”: Gravity, self-control.

      Veritas–“Truthfulness”: Honesty in dealing with others.

      And the greatest virtue being the last – very Roman. Vincit omnia veritas!

      *****

      And I just copied/saved it to send out.

  6. Svelaz says:

    “I’m more concerned about Turley ignoring real censorship when it comes to legislatures banning the teaching or discussion of CRT.”

    Whatever Turley had in mind for Res Ipsa Loquitur, it’s not about teaching us his views. We cannot learn if our questions go unanswered. I know that Turley is busy with all his commitments, but he initiated this blog, and consequently, he should devote some time to respond to some pertinent questions in order to clarify and defend his commentary. I understand that he does not wish to get drawn into long debates with internet trolls. Ok. But he could submit to having a taped discussion with an expert to pose some of the questions we have raised. Instead, Turley acts not unlike a talk show host where the rule is “I talk, you listen” with no opportunity to challenge his rhetoric.

    Turley argues passionately for more speech as a cure for bad speech, yet by ignoring any and all questions, is he not essentially censoring our speech because he refuses to listen? That’s his right, of course, but it is hypocritical for a free speech absolutist.

    1. Turley writes for those who wish to hear what he, as a well known expert, has to say. He is not here to bottle-feed Jeff or feed Jeff’s ego. Jeff can’t adequately respond to less trained individuals, so if Turley wanted to discuss something with one of the bloggers, he certainly wouldn’t discuss those things with Jeff. He would try to find someone intelligent that knows how to use facts and data and knows what the word proof actually means.

  7. “In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”…. G. Orwell. What Turley is doing is nothing more than what the right-wing think tanks have wanted pounded into the public’s conscience since the days of the Lewis Powell memo. All based on what they want to say is lies and outright propaganda to further their goals, and they call that “free speech”. The hell with facts or truth, it does not matter anymore in the world of alternative realties. Like finding no fraud in the voting system, but makes new rules to make it harder to vote. Now that’s a free speech issue.

    1. ” What Turley is doing is nothing more than what the right-wing think tanks have wanted pounded into the public’s conscience”

      It’s amazing that today anyone that supports the Constitution or the Rule of Law is a right-winger. That doesn’t say much for anyone not on the right.

      1. The right-wingers on January 6th, did they support the constitution and the rule of law?

        1. Actually most of them did and some of them broke the law. We should be able to see the tapes and know who killed Ashley Babbit. Those that broke the law should be punished, but we need all the information that is on audio and video.

          In any event you were talking about Turley who stands up for the Constitution and the Rule of Law (Turley is center left). Don’t you stand up for them as well? I am sure you will answer yes, but does that mean you understand what the Rule of Law is and you believe the ideas behind it such as the ’shoe on the other foot’? I don’t think so.

          1. Several times I’ve posted the link to the NYT doc on 1/6 to numerous people here that, in addition to being a thorough accounting by the minute of the unfolding of the Capitol riot, but it also provides the most direct footage of Ashli Babbit being shot as she tried to jump through a smashed window minutes after Congress members were being evacuated a few feet away from the door. Just posted the link to you in another thread, but it seems to have been actively censored by Darren, or maybe by the site itself…

            Any rate, if you don’t see it in my response to you, Allan, it’s easily accessible on youtube. Just type in NYT documentary on 1/6.

            eb

            1. Bug, I saw what I believe were those videos posted in several locations as I was responding to comments. I linked to two of them and they were identical. I’m not sure why you haven’t seen them as well.

              SM

            2. Anonymous:

              Why hasn’t the name of the police officer who killed Ashli Babbit been released? We get these names within hours of shootings involving a black suspect.

              Why hasn’t security footage been released? Would a written account of transpired events be sufficient instead of body cam footage if the victim had been black?

              1. CNN has broadcast the footage showing Babbitt defying police commands to cease and desist and trying to go through a broken side window into the Speaker’s Vestibule when she was shot. Before she was shot, she saw officers pointing guns at the rioters who were trying to smash the main window in the door to the Speaker’s Vestibule. Why should the name of the police officer be released? For what purpose other than to place his life at risk by dumbass lawbreaking Trumpsters who still don’t get it. You Trumpster still claim she was “murdered”. Even her own family says it was her own fault for believing Trump lies. Watch the CNN documentary. i dare you.

          2. And Turley says he is center left, but he actively pushes talking points from the right on this blog. In fact, points he pushes on this blog travel right into the zeitgeist of Fox content creation. Turley is a social media influencer and it would be interesting to find out the details of his relationship to right wing think tanks/lobbying arms such as ALEC.

            eb

            1. Bug, many of his positions are from the left. He is a classical liberal of the left. The left, left Dershowitz, and is starting to leave Turley, but when he speaks in policy terms, not the law, he is mostly left.

              SM

            2. Anonymous:

              Turley speaks the truth. Sometimes those align with the right, and sometimes with the left. Which political party the truth benefits is immaterial.

              Turley voted for Obama and regularly criticizes Trump. He is a free speech advocate. He has supported the free speech of righties and lefties, although Lefties usually get cover already.

              1. Turley skews the facts on those pieces he decides to write, but he ignores major stories, like the SCOTUS he’s paid to defend gutting the Voting Rights Act, which was predicted, along with some bombshells on abortion rights and “religious freedom” coming this fall. We don’t really know who Turley voted for, and he never truly “criticizes” Trump. He has yet to address the Big Lie, and the lukewarm comments on Trump’s lies, like calling them “strange” or “bizarre” is disingenuous. For instance, Trump claiming that his father was born in Germany. This is a lie, pure and simple. When someone like a law review, for example, balks at publishing hurtful pieces, Turley goes on the attack against Joe Patrice who criticized the law faculty for overriding the students who refused to provide credence to the anti-trans author. Instead of pointing out that Patrice was commenting on why the students resigned in lieu of supporting an academic publication glorifying ignoramus discrimination as the reason for not publishing it, Turley calls Patrice a liar and then tries to turn it into a First Amendment issue. A law review publication is not limiting free speech by refusing to publish writings by people who write hurtful things about others under the guise of freedom of speech.

                1. And notice how all of a sudden Turley becomes a stickler for fact checking Nikole Hannah-Jones while excusing and justifying brazen lies by William Barr and Trump. Not just that, but engaging in a right wing online bullying campaign to make sure she wouldn’t have a clear path at UNC.

                  eb

                  1. Nikole Hannah-Jones is not a scholar and her 1619 was loaded with error. The single most important point was wrong and she had to step away from it. That you don’t realize these things tell a lot about you.

                    SM

                2. By ‘Big Lie’, you’re obviously referring to the whole Trump is an illegitimate president because he stole the election with Russia’s help, right? Of course you are….

            3. Regrettably, Eb, there is much we can’t know that goes on behind the curtain.

              As I have stated, what good is it for Turley to inform us merely that he is a “contributor” to Fox News?

              We don’t know what that really means because we don’t have any clue what the terms are of his Fox contract. He obviously signed a lengthy one.

              Does it include a non-disclosure term? Has Turley agreed not to disparage Fox News, it’s advertisers, owners or personalities? Has Turley agreed not to compete with Fox News by contributing to one of its media competitors?

              We know none of that. All we know is that Turley is under contract. But what are we to make of that fact?

              I suppose at a minimum it is an admission that he is prejudiced against Fox’s competitors, CNN and MSNBC and would explain why Turley NEVER has criticized Fox since being employed apart from one instance where he criticized Hannity for taking the stage beside Trump at one of his rallies. That is the sum and substance of Turley’s criticism of Fox (anyone please prove me wrong).

              An impartial academic should not take sides. It is simply untenable for Turley to hold himself out as an objective legal commentator while being paid handsomely by Fox. I’m not insinuating that Turley is a hack who will lie to retain his job at Fox. I do not believe that he would perpetrate a fraud at the risk of forsaking his intellectual honesty.

              Accordingly, he simply ignores the lies of Fox talk show hosts as if he is unaware of them. Instead, he looks for and rightly points out faults at CNN and MSNBC exclusively. He doesn’t even turn his attention to the lies broadcast by ANY Rightwing network- even those that are now attacking Fox News for not supporting Trump’s Big Lie.

              I doubt Turley will criticize the networks to the right of Fox, namely, NewsMax and One America Network, since the Fox hosts don’t mention their attacks. Fox hopes to ignore those attacks lest it ramps up the war of words and falls victim to the tactic it has employed against the MSM, that is, being labeled “Fake News” by the Far Right.

        2. FishWings:

          Do those who seized city blocks of Seattle to create the “autonomous” zone CHOP follow the rule of law?

          Did the Democrat BLM/Antifa rioters, looters, and arsonists that have laid siege to blue cities for around a year follow the rule of law?

          Did those Left wingers who stormed the Capitol Building to protest and disrupt the Kavanaugh hearing follow the rule of law?

          Did those Lefties who assaulted dozens of police officers, murdering some of them, follow the rule of law?

          Did the Lefties who destroyed businesses already suffering during a pandemic follow the rule of law?

          Answer: Obviously not. Yet, Democrats ignored, excused, failed to charge, or diverted to counseling rioters who caused millions of dollars in property damage and drove businesses out, while they called the one group of Trump supporters seditionists. They broke a couple of windows, trespassed, and illegally paraded, yet they’ve been in solitary confinement all those time while those Lefties who caused millions in damage skated.

          The law is not applied equally.

    2. Fishy, according to your logic the news outlets who promoted the clearing of Laffeyette Park by Donald Trump for a photo op should be cancelled. Both the Times and the Post had to retract their stories. It should then follow according to you that the Times and the Post should no longer be allowed to publish their newspapers because of the untruths they presented to the public. You say shut the liars down but I say let them speak because we need to know who they really are. I am thankful that freedom of speech allows you to post on this forum so that who you are is revealed. You stand firm fast to the free speech of those you agree with but you believe in a policy that would limit the speech of others. Of course, examples of this approach to public discourse can be found in every dictatorship throughout history. History? Asks FishWings. We don’t need no stinkin history to warn us of a nearing danger.

    3. FishWings:

      You think that we’re lying about the existence of censorship against conservatives? How do you ignore the many examples given by Turley and others here?

      That’s willful blindness.

      1. Karen: you are neither a conservative nor credible blog poster because you are a disciple of the Church of Trump. To cleanse your palate, why not read what people like Bill Kristol, George F. Will and George Conway write, explaining why Trump is not a conservative and why the things he stands for violate conservative principles? No matter how many times “Judge Jeanine”, Hannity, Ingraham and Tucker tell you that you are a “conservative”, that does not make it true.

        1. “why not read what people like Bill Kristol, George F. Will and George Conway write”
          It is not the 1980’s any more?

        2. “Trump is not a conservative”

          Natacha, Trump is neither a conservative nor a Liberal. He isn’t an ideologue. He did what he thought was good for the nation, and he was correct. People need not like Trump. They vote for him because his policies worked well for the nation.

          I think providing jobs and reducing unemployment was very important. He even had the lowest unemployment numbers for blacks.

          Lower-income folk saw an increase in their take-home pay.

          He permitted our economy to start moving forward again. That economy took us through Covid with a tremendous rebound when the nation reopened despite the lack of Democrat assistance. The economy was on an upswing when Trump left the WH.

          We have had very little good news from the Biden administration. He benefits from Trump’s efforts in pushing for a Covid vaccine. Biden also benefits from an economy that is growing. Yet, we are now starting to see the economy on the verge of faltering. We see gas prices rise, and inflation is returning much earlier than expected by Bidenites. That will wipe out the savings of the elderly that are retired and will take away the gains of those with lower or fixed salaries. It will also hurt the nation in the long term.

          Many people like the fact that Trump wanted to extricate ourselves and our troops from foreign military action. He helped to provide peace in the Middle East. Biden destroyed that peace and likely has brought us closer to potential war.

          Trump’s actions promoted stability and peace. Biden’s actions promote instability here and over the world.

          When you compare Biden to Trump, think of it this way. Biden let the Russians build the pipeline that is against American interests and for Russian interests. At the same time, Biden prevented America from building a pipeline in America’s interest and against Russian interest. That is what the Biden administration is all about. Biden favors our enemies over America and its citizens.

    4. fishflaps …. the universal deceit we see today is the demoratzi party in league with an apparatchik state. They will not allow criticism…spying on citizens and reporters with the NSA etc etc…. the faucian fraud of the scamdemic , criticizing and out right attack on dissenting views and people that don’t toe the party line of our senile puppet leader and his handlers. George Orwell’s quote is oxymoronic used by you…as it aptly describes the sewage tidal wave you surf on , and accept like it was a religion. Hypocrisy was never so grand when worn by the likes of your type. And you wear it proudly , ignorantly with bliss as the spittle foams upon your lips from your incredulous lies . Truth and freedom disappear with people like yourself as judge and jury opinionated snake oil partisanship vitriol.

Leave a Reply