Federal Court Rules Against SUNY-Binghamton in Important Free Speech Challenge

There is an interesting ruling this week out of New York where a federal court has ruled in favor of a conservative student group alleging that the State University of New York at Binghamton has engaged in a pattern of censorship of conservative speakers and events. We previously discussed the controversy. What makes this lawsuit by the Young America’s Foundation particularly significant is the allegation that SUNY-Binghamton barred events by allowing protesters to shut them down. Lawrence Khan, a U.S. district judge denied SUNY Binghamton’s motion to dismiss. I discuss this type of failure to protect public forums in my forthcoming law review article, Jonathan Turley, Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States, 45 Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (2021).

In 2019, conservative organizations had hosted an event with economist Art Laffer. The event followed a familiar pattern. The university imposed a series of conditions on the sponsoring groups and threatened to shutdown the event if there were serious protests. It then did little to maintain order and promptly removed Laffer within minutes of the event when protesters disrupted the event.

The attack on College Republicans was captured on videotape. Notably, you can see the intervention of campus police but there is no action to allow the Republican students to continue their advocacy after their tables are broken down and material scattered by activists.

The conservative YAF organization posted the videotape of the encounter that is now evidence in their complaint:

 

There is no indication of serious discipline against the students who stopped this exercise of free speech.  Instead, the university issued a statement that the students “acted in a manner that may have violated University rules.”  I would hope that the university believes that these students clearly did violate University rules after watching this video. I cannot imagine any basis for students claiming that they may tear down a table of other students with opposing political views — let alone verbally and physically threaten other students.
That lack of active support for free speech is the basis of the lawsuit. The plaintiffs hope to establish this pattern of passivity with the Laffer incident. The plaintiffs argue that the school was aware of the plans to disrupt the event and did nothing.

 

The lawsuit does raise an important question over the failure of universities to suspend or expel students (or fire faculty) who prevent others speaking or listening to opposing viewpoints.  The right to protest speeches by figures like Laffer is also protected. However, entering halls or classroom to shut down speakers is itself a denial of free speech and academic freedom.

This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others.  Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over the use of a heckler’s veto on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, even including a few speakers like an ACLU official.  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. (Bilek later 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).

A few years ago, I debated NYU Professor Jeremy Waldron who is a leading voice for speech codes. Waldron insisted that shutting down speakers through heckling is a form of free speech. I disagree. It is the antithesis of free speech and the failure of schools to protect the exercise of free speech is the antithesis of higher education.

This is why the ruling in New York is so important. The type of passive-aggressive response of SUNY is familiar to many on campuses today. The university made clear that if protests erupted, they would remove the speaker. They then not only did little to stop the disruption but took steps that seemingly made such disruption more likely.

Judge Khan wrote:

“By removing the speaker from the lecture hall instead of the unruly protesters, State Defendants were not only plausibly violating this basic constitutional right, but also preventing fruitful discussion—not the role of an enlightened university. See also id., 274 U.S. at 24 Case 3:20-cv-00822-LEK-ML Document 70 Filed 08/24/21 Page 24 of 33 375 (Brandeis, J., concurring) (“discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty; and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government.”)”

What was particularly important about the ruling is that the Second Circuit recently made it more difficult for students to litigate such claims over supervisory. In a 1983 action, a plaintiff previously could establish a claim in one of five ways:

“(1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation, (2) the defendant, after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, failed to remedy the wrong, (3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of [the plaintiffs] by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.”

Colon v. Coughlin, 58 F.3d 865, 873 (2d. Cir. 1995). However, the Second Circuit recently made it more difficult to establish supervisor liability in Tangreti v. Bachmann, 983 F.3d 609, 616 (2d Cir. 2020). The court held “there is no special rule for supervisory liability,” and “a plaintiff must plead and prove ‘that each Government-official defendant, through the official’s own individual actions, has violated the Constitution.” Id. at 618 (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 676). Specifically, Tangreti has supplanted the Colon factors and particularly the key third factor (“the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom”). See Smith v. Westchester County, No. 19-CV-03605 (NSR), 2021 WL 2856515, at *6 n.4 (S.D.N.Y. July 7, 2021).

The Colon factors were an avenue to address this common form of speech suppression in using third parties. We have seen college officials actively encouraging such protests. However, most of these cases involve passivity in the face of mob’s using the “heckler’s veto” to stop events with bullhorns or rushing stages.

Nevertheless, the court found sufficient action in this case to reject the summary motion for dismissal. The YAF will now be able to pursue discovery with the university, a process that could shed light on whether the university counted on protesters to stop the event.

85 thoughts on “Federal Court Rules Against SUNY-Binghamton in Important Free Speech Challenge”

  1. “Social media has blasted the phrasing ‘New World Order’ which began trending on Twitter with the tech giant flagging the term as part of an ‘unfounded conspiracy theory.’”

    This is so stupid, anyone who knows history understanda there is an open conspriacy to create a global governent.
    \\][//

  2. “The attack on College Republicans was captured on videotape. Notably, you can see the intervention of campus police but there is no action to allow the Republican students to continue their advocacy after their tables are broken down and material scattered by activists.”
    **********************
    “Activists”? That’s a funny name for criminals. I like “cretins,” or “Brownshirts,” or “Bolsheviks” better. Just a suggested edit.

  3. Jonathan: I agree that conservative student groups should be allowed to invite almost anyone to speak on campus–maybe with the only exception for those who openly espouse racist or anti-Semitic views. Germans have apparently learned the lesson about letting Hitler speak in public. The German penal code now bans denying the Holocaust and disseminating Nazi propaganda. It also places strict rules on social media platforms to moderate and report hate speech and threats. Recent changes to the law were prompted by the rise in neo-Nazi and other right-wing extremism in Germany. It was a lesson learned the hard way. But I digress.

    The “Young America’s Foundation (YAF), according to its website, is dedicated to “ensuring that increasing numbers of young Americans understand and are inspired by the ideas of individual freedom, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and traditional values”. YAF’s founder was William F Buckley, Jr. The current president of YAF is former controversial GOP Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. How a guy born in 1967 could become the president of YAF is hard to figure–unless students can be followers but not in a leadership position. Of course, under the Nazis there was the “Hitler Youth” designed to indoctrinate the youth in Hitler’s ideology. That paradigm has not been lost on conservatives here who think students should be young warriors in the fight against “Socialism”, “Marxism”, liberal orthodoxy and CRT. To give you a taste of what YAF is all about in 1992 YAF published “Columbus on Trial” to counter attacks on Columbus that portrayed him as a racist and butcher of the Caribbean. In 1984 YAF sponsored campus tours for 2 pro-Contra students to promote Reagan’s illegal covert war against the Sandinista government. True to it’s masthead goal of promoting “free enterprise” and a “strong national defense” YAF thinks using the US military and mercenaries to overturn an elected socialist Nicaraguan government was perfectly appropriate–since the Sandinistas were not “inspired” by the principles YAF stands for.

    Now when it comes to “free speech”, “censorship” and “academic freedom” you are big on defending conservatives and their right to speak on campus. What about other existential threats to these lofty principles right under your nose? Say, the efforts by conservatives to ban teaching anything resembling CRT in schools. Eight states have passed these laws–20 other conservative controlled states are considering similar bans. Isn’t that also “censorship” in an effort to chill the “free speech” rights of teachers? And what about the “academic freedom” of students to learn something about the history of systemic racism in this country? I am a firm supporter of the principles you say you support–both for conservatives and everyone else. So when you show the same consistency I will start to believe you. Until then I will treat your views as just another form of conservative bias.

    1. “I agree that conservative student groups should be allowed to invite almost anyone to speak on campus–maybe with the only exception for those who openly espouse racist or anti-Semitic views.”

      So in other words, you do not believe in the inalienable right of free speech.

      “It also places strict rules on social media platforms to moderate and report hate speech and threats.”

      There is no such thing as hate speech in a society that has free speech. So again, you are against right of free speech.

      The rest of your scribe doesn’t matter since your “examples” just show people having opinions and free thought. which leads us back to, you do not believe in the right to free speech.

      1. In a free society there’s no such thing as hate speech. Sticks and stones.I learned that as a 5 year old. We have to stop ” pussifying” our youth.

        1. Paul,

          I hope you saw my recent post demonstrating that Turley disagrees with your comment that there is no such thing as hate speech. The real question is how does a society react to it. Turley says denounce it and censure the propagators. I agree government should not censor. Where we disagree is whether a private company such as Facebook may refuse to enable hate speech by giving it an outlet on its platform.

          1. Jeff, I agree that a private entity like Facebook can have any terms that they like for their users. I am not going to get into how biased the censorship is. My position on hate speech is not a legal one but a practical one. If a Hitler lover wants to spew his or her hateful rhetoric I don’t care. I would hope the our citizens are educated enough to reject such hate. Unless the rhetoric incites or organizes violence, our citizens have the right to be hateful. The alternative is governmental censorship. Which I believe the 1st Amendment addresses.
            Unfortunately I didn’t see your post. But I will take your word for Turley’s position.
            But how can I accept any position taken by Turley with the knowledge that he is Fox News contributor?

            1. Paul,

              Here is what I said about hate speech:

              “ Jim22 says:

              “There is no such thing as hate speech in a society that has free speech. So again, you are against right of free speech.”

              Turley absolutely disagrees:

              “The solution to such hate speech is more (and better) speech. I would rather we denounce such speech than censor it.”

              https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/30/republicans-need-to-suffer-drake-professor-triggers-free-speech-debate-with-hateful-tweets-against-men-and-conservatives/

              If we would diligently censure those who engage in hate speech as Turley strongly advises, that would solve the problem of it.”
              ——————

              You ask me:

              “But how can I accept any position taken by Turley with the knowledge that he is Fox News contributor?”

              The fact that Turley’s oft-repeated denunciation of the “age of rage” is undercut by his employment at Fox which has done more to fuel this rage than even Infowars (which has an insignificant reach compared to Fox) does not necessarily invalidate the veracity of his opinions. A hypocrite can make a valid point! It’s just that his words and actions are inconsistent.

              When Turley departs Fox, I’ll depart this blog because I do not dispute his criticism of the media generally- just his turning a blind eye particularly at the rage emanating from the prime time hosts at Fox.

              1. Jeff, after all of our interactions I would have thought that you would have recognized when I was being sarcastic.
                And I would lament you leaving this blog for any reason. Your role here in my estimation is more than holding Turley accountable. And although I disagree with your premise as it relates to Turley’s occasional appearance on Fox, you have much to offer.

                1. Paul,

                  That’s the nicest thing anyone has ever said to me on this blog! When I make it to Chicago one of these days to take you up on your gracious offer, I’ll bring a bottle or 2 of Cabernet from my collection. I have a college buddy in Chicago so a visit is long overdue. I would enjoy making your acquaintance in person; it could be the start of a beautiful friendship!

                  1. Jeff, just telling the truth. As stated before ,I want to engage with those who have a different perspective than I. As long as it is respectful. That is how I learn. I am a lot of things but egotistical is not one of them. You are one of those people with whom I look forward to engaging with. And the beauty of it is my guess is we come from vastly different” parties”.
                    As long as we are on the free speech subject, I know that you are not a Trump fan. But do you think he should have been banned from Facebook and Twitter?
                    If so can you site specific reasons? And in MY mind lying does not meet the criteria for being banned. Now I know that I don’t make the rules for social media censorship. And if lying is the criteria, the punishments have certainly not been meted out equitably.

                    1. Paul asks:

                      “But do you think he [Trump] should have been banned from Facebook and Twitter?

                      I don’t agree with Turley’s opinion that the private companies should act as if they were a government entity. Turley concedes that they don’t have to do so as a matter of law. As I have stated repeatedly, people don’t have a right to be heard. And so, they don’t have a right to be given a platform by a private company which does not wish to facilitate their views.

                      I would consider allowing a hate group such as the KKK to maintain a Facebook page but not one that is made public. Nor could people find it in a search. The only way to gain access to this association is to be invited personally by one of the members by email, etc. Perhaps such non-public pages already exist. In this way, Facebook allows haters to associate without assisting the spread of their hatred. Turley’s argument that Facebook is like ATT’s telephone line is preposterous because a phone call is private not public like a Facebook page.

                      With regard to Trump, he was spreading election lies. Unfortunately, Turley characterizes all misinformation and disinformation as mere opinion. If only it were opinion, I would not refuse to broadcast (unless it was racist). I can’t recall a single example of Turley conceding that a banned statement was unequivocally false, e.g., the Big Lie, and then to acknowledge the harm to the faith in our country’s institutions such a lie would wreak. Turley wants the tort of defamation to be the only recourse to deter demonstrably false statements. He does not believe that private companies ought to take it upon themselves to prevent the spread of undeniable falsehoods.

                      He would ask: who determines what is false? I answer: common sense and lack of evidence. I would think Facebook would err on the side of allowing dubious statements to be published, but unmistakeable falsehoods by bad actors should not be tolerated. Good speech, despite what Turley thinks, cannot always remedy a lie. Thus, I do believe that private companies should prevent obvious liars taking advantage of their infrastructure for malign purposes especially if they have a track record.

                      Obviously, we don’t agree on who is lying, and what constitutes a clear falsehood. That’s a problem, I admit. Perhaps, there could some independent process instituted by Facebook by which a person’s could appeal the banning of his apparent lie, and if he could substantiate its veracity before an impartial committee, he could be rewarded a large amount of money to punish Facebook. I would think this could be litigated virtually without in-person appearances.

                    2. “With regard to Trump, he was spreading election lies. ”

                      After this length of time, one would think that you would be stating his lies and debating them. Without that happening, your comment is nothing but empty words that make your ideas look empty as well.

                      “I can’t recall a single example of Turley conceding that a banned statement was unequivocally false, e.g., the Big Lie, ”

                      I can’t recall a single example of you adequately defining the Big Lie and then defending your viewpoint. Yesterday you attributed the Big Lie to two different things. This makes what you say hard to believe.

                      You seem to think that your common sense can define the truth. Anyone listening to that should realize that such an opinion places you outside the realm of being reasonable.

      2. Jim22 says:

        “There is no such thing as hate speech in a society that has free speech. So again, you are against right of free speech.”

        Turley absolutely disagrees:

        “The solution to such hate speech is more (and better) speech. I would rather we denounce such speech than censor it.”

        https://jonathanturley.org/2021/01/30/republicans-need-to-suffer-drake-professor-triggers-free-speech-debate-with-hateful-tweets-against-men-and-conservatives/

        If we would diligently censure those who engage in hate speech as Turley strongly advises, that would solve the problem of it.

    2. Dennis:

      “I am a firm supporter of the principles you say you support–both for conservatives and everyone else. So when you show the same consistency I will start to believe you. Until then I will treat your views as just another form of conservative bias.”

      I agree with you. Turley sacrifices his credibility as an academic when he exhibits such an outright conservative bias. Of course, I attribute his bending over backwards to his gainful employment at Fox News where he is paid to toe the line. He is Fox’s legal mouthpiece in the court of public opinion. He will dutifully advocate on Fox’s journalistic behalf short of parroting the lies of Trumpists. We have to give him credit for occasionally calling out Trump’s lies in the past if not the current Big Lie.

      1. One has to laugh at a person that thinks Turley sides with conservatives. He is a liberal but he sides with freedom of speech. You have been called an American Marxist for good reason that is always on display.

          1. “Those who would call me an “American Marxist” are American Nazis.”
            ***********
            I see you more as an American Harpo Marxist without the mime charm but still funny.

              1. Jeff, good humor is more often than not tied in with personalities or real events. Sometimes it just magnifies a persons attributes with certain truths remaining behind the humor. Your remarks on the blog frequently conflict with one another and some of the things you say about yourself are inherently funny when thought about in the context of what is known about you.

          2. American Marxists are very close to American Nazis so if you prefer we could call you an American Nazi as well. Either one is distasteful, and fits you.

            Most of the ones you disagree with are loyal American citizens that are loyal to the Constitution, and what it represents. Only you can make claim and deserve to be called an American Marxist or American Nazi.

    3. “. . . under the Nazis there was the “Hitler Youth” . . .”

      In Nazi Germany, young people studied an ideology and followed a leader.

      In America, young people (YAF) study an ideology and follow a leader.

      Ergo, YAF are Hitler Youth.

      If that’s what passes for critical thinking, it’s no wonder that this culture is so demented.

  4. What universities are doing is not “passivity,” but complicity. And attacking other students and physically disrupting their events is not “free speech” — it’s assault. The Left likes to play with words, because that’s all the weaponry they have. Clearly they don’t have the law, the Constitution, or common sense on their side. Just word games.

  5. In WWII the American government rounded up so called German American citizens who belonged to The German American Bund which promoted Hitler. The government arrested many Japanese people even if they were born in America and we’re this born citizens. They were sent to concentration camps until the war was over. Our Supreme Court upheld this in the Korematsu decision.

  6. Until there’s a strenuous resistance from freedom loving Americans this will continue. At this point it should be obvious these people understand one thing bullying and violence. The authorities you elected who you hoped would protect your basic constitutional rights encourage the mob for their end.

  7. Honestly? I kind of blame the conservative YAF organization for letting these idiots bully them into submission. Why did they just let them dump their stuff and their tables? Where is the push back? the conservative YAF organization knew that this was a possibility, why not be more prepared?

      1. I only blame them because they refuse to stand up for themselves and cave to these whining jerks. If they want a war, give it to them. Interrupt their next liberal stupid fest using the same tactics.

        1. Jim22, with all due respect for your right to express your opinion on this case, I think that you have missed the point. SUNY Binghamton has an important responsibility here, and it abdicated that responsibly. The fact that this case survived a motion to dismiss is significant. The plaintiffs should be commended for pursuing their legal rights. It’s a case to watch.

          1. Cassidy,

            I agree, and I’m glad they pursued the case. But again, why do the YAF let themselves get walked all over? They are there to make a point, they should be prepared to defend that point. We can keep complaining and going to liberal judges with hope but as most anyone who has dealt with a bully, they only respond when you punch them back in the nose.

  8. My Hope was for honest discourse. Instead I am met with attacks and insult. How ironic. Considering the subject of this thread.

      1. I had no intention of that being a double post. Nor am I offended. I am pointing out the irony that the same people who make claims that the left are intolerant bullies who can not engage in free speech use the same tactics themselves. You guys proved my point without my even having to make a point. I asked two very non political based questions. And that was all it took to trigger a pair of frosted flakes into insulting and attacking me.
        “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster… for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.”

  9. My hope was for honest discourse. Instead I am met with attacks and insult. How ironic. Considering the topic of this thread.

    1. Or spell the word YOU wrong? We all make typos. A bit of nit picking here. This a blog after all and not a formal article.

  10. The people have the right to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. This has been generalized by many to mean a right to protest anything. To maintain civil order, an application for and receipt of a permit is required for gatherings/protests utilizing public grounds (streets, parks, etc). I think most people aren’t aware of this, partially because most levels of law enforcement attempt to accommodate spontaneous demonstrations. It seems like a lot of conflict could be better managed by enforcing the need to get a permit. The application to gather should be supported as best as possible, but there is no requirement to allow opposing groups to gather at the same time and place. The protesters in this case were not peaceable and didn’t appear to be voicing a disagreement with the Government. I believe they were acting in ignorance and believe they have a right to exercise their free speech to curtail the free speech of others. I also believe our schools are responsible for their ignorance. I may be wrong, but I believe our schools are emphasizing social issues and paying little attention to real history, the Constitution and how our government works. For example, you wouldn’t believe how many people I’ve heard express with frustration that the Government should pass a law to do away with the Electoral College. I cringe to see such rampant ignorance.

  11. Those parents should not be proud of what their children did in that video, but unfortunately some of them are. Clearly an indictment of public education, given the reliance on the F bomb.

    Good for the Court and good for you Professor Turley, for fighting the good fight. The ACLU should be involved here, but they abandoned their purpose years ago

  12. Cue the uproar and drivel from the Left over the Good Professor’s observations.

    Fortunately for them…. but a detriment to rational discourse….they are free to do that. here and go unpunished for their trampling upon commonsense and decorum.

    Here they enjoy what they would deprive others who have different views and opinions when they can control the venue and other’s exercise of free speech.

    So…drag up a comfy chair…get your favorite beverage and snack and watch them prove me right.

    The usual suspects shall hold forth…offer insults and invective….and prove themselves unable to debate in a sane rational and reasonable manner.

    They just cannot restrain themselves…..must be something caused. by a poor upbringing as a Child I suppose where manners and showing respect for others was not a part of it.

    That or it is caused by their irrational beliefs founded upon emotion rather than facts and data.

    1. I find Turley’s arguments ironic and a bit tone deaf. Here he argues that conservatives are being denied free speech because of disruptive protests which are themselves constitutionally protected. Turley often cites that the best way to express opposition to certain views or ideas is more free speech. Protesting should be under that umbrella of “more free speech”. The only distinction is the nature of how it is done. In SUNY’s instance it involved vandalism. That’s genuinely a valid concern on how it prevents free speech and certainly not protected.

      However Turley states, “The right to protest speeches by figures like Laffer is also protected. However, entering halls or classroom to shut down speakers is itself a denial of free speech and academic freedom.”

      Isn’t this exactly what happened during the Jan 6 insurrection attempt? Using violence to prevent or disrupt a government function a denial of free speech?

      1. Where does this idea come from that it is free speech to shut down others speech by drowning it out? By definition that is denying free speech and simply wrong. You win arguments through logic, facts, and reasoning, not by by disallowing the other person to express their views.

        1. Carpslaw says:

          “Where does this idea come from that it is free speech to shut down others speech by drowning it out? By definition that is denying free speech and simply wrong. You win arguments through logic, facts, and reasoning, not by by disallowing the other person to express their views.”

          I agree that shutting down a speech by interfering with it is not an expression of free speech but, rather, a denial of it.

          However, you can’t win an argument against liars through logic, facts and reasoning as you suppose. It has not worked against Trump’s election lies because he is LYING and he knows it!

          1. Maybe you are the liar. How does one know who is lying without looking at both sides? Trump has said why he thought there was lawlessness in the election, but everyday you say he lies and can’t even say what those lies are. You tried the other day and failed. Your record on the truth is dismal.

            1. Someone nameless says:

              “Maybe you are the liar. How does one know who is lying without looking at both sides? Trump has said why he thought there was lawlessness in the election, but everyday you say he lies and can’t even say what those lies are.”

              Do we read Turley defending Trump’s claim that the election was stolen? Do we read him taking issue with the Michigan judge’s decision to hold Trump’s lawyers in contempt of court for perpetuating a fraud? Do we read Turley objecting to thus judige referring these Trump lawyers for disciplinary actions before their State Bars?

              No we do not. Why? Because Turley will not defend the indefensible. He will not lie on behalf of Trump because he is no Trumpist. That is why.

              1. “Do we read Turley defending Trump’s claim that the election was stolen?”

                Can you prove there wasn’t lawlessness in the election? Of course not. Judges can be political creatures as well as the rest and that is a problem. Do we not see that problems did occur with the election? Absolutely.

                Turley doesn’t seem to be lying about anything. He provides his opinion and lets you provide yours on the same blog. He is respectful of you but you are not respectful of him. You don’t seem to have any manners despite your private schools.

                1. I repeat:

                  “Do we read Turley defending Trump’s claim that the election was stolen?”

                  No, because he can’t because it wasn’t. Case closed.

          2. Name a lie that Trump told about the election! I doubt you can find a lie that matches the monumental lies people like you on the Left have told about that election.

            1. William_JD says:

              “Name a lie that Trump told about the election! I doubt you can find a lie that matches the monumental lies people like you on the Left have told about that election.”

              You might as well be ISIS. That’s how far apart our are belief systems. There is no point in having a conversation. We don’t belong in the same country.

  13. This is been going on now for a number of years. We are watching the decline in the destruction of America right before our very eyes. And then these sorry pieces of scum graduate on taxpayer money and the data shows the majority of them don’t pay it back. I will never forget when Donald Trump said if the colleges do not allow conservative speakers the right and the chance to speak, and if they keep going down the road that they are going down he would do everything he could to withhold federal tax payer dollars.

    I knew right then he made a big mistake because they were not going to clean up their act. This was another time that the Republicans missed a big chance when they held both houses to correct this problem. I never thought I would live to see the day that my own country would be producing so many pussies.

    And I also hold my generation baby boomer parents responsible for a large majority of this by not jerking a knot real tight in there offspring asses. My wife and I raised our 4 boys just like I was raised when I was growing up here in NW Montana.

  14. The Radical WOKE CROWD loooooose AGAIN in the Courts. The Universities and Biden Admin. and etc will never learn. They have a terrible track record in the courts.

    The Ruling comes as schools open for the year. Suggest more schools will face losses in courts by limiting free speech and encouraging their storm troopers of Antifa and Radical left

  15. Turley says it well.

    The interesting posts are from the Lefties who will try to insist that up is down.

    And they will cite Turley’s Fox appearances as proof of his inability to comment honestly.

    These posters really do not understand what it means to be American.

    And many of them are morally dishonest.

    1. @MonumentColorado. You’re making some very bold statements “These people do not understand what it means to be American. And “They are morally dishonest.” So in your own words What does it mean to be American , and morally honest?

      1. If you have to ask “ What does it mean to be American , and morally honest” then you really are an idiot. Because only an online Anti-American
        Village-idiot, Would ask such a question.

      2. It probably means something that most Americans other than you would understand. Rather than play that game, why do you tell us what you think it means to be American and morally honest?

    2. Monument says:

      “And they will cite Turley’s Fox appearances as proof of his inability to comment honestly.”

      This comment was directed at me since I lead the charge on this blog in pointing out Turley’s abject hypocrisy in decrying what he calls the “age of rage” while profiting from Fox which hosts a weekly show by Mark Levin, one of the leading rage entrepreneurs on talk radio. Turley pretends he has never heard of him. Sure!

      It so happens, I agree with Turley’s commentary in this article. A heckler should not be permitted to prevent listeners from wanting to hear from a speaker even if that speaker happens to be a Mark Levin who dehumanizes Democrats by calling them “American Marxists.”

      Despite the fact that Turley is not a Trumpist, he will not condemn Levin who fuels the rage which he rightly deplores on account of the fact that Levin is his Fox colleague. Turley should be held accountable for his hypocrisy.

      1. This comment was directed at me since I lead the charge on this blog in pointing out Turley’s abject hypocrisy in decrying what he calls the “age of rage” while profiting from Fox — JeffSilberman

        Well Jeff, do you condemn Maddow, Lemon and Reid (and others), as well as the television networks paying them, for fueling this “age of rage” as well? Seems your criticism is more than a bit hypocritical if not…

        1. Sparky says:

          “Well Jeff, do you condemn Maddow, Lemon and Reid (and others), as well as the television networks paying them, for fueling this “age of rage” as well? Seems your criticism is more than a bit hypocritical if not…”

          I condemn all those fueling the age of rage. I don’t dispute Turley’s claim that MSNBC is biased. I just argue that Fox is worse, and Turley ignores his own.

          1. I condemn all those fueling the age of rage. — JeffSilberman

            And yet all we ever hear from you is Turley, Turley, Turley; Fox, Fox, Fox…

            1. Spanky says:

              “And yet all we ever hear from you is Turley, Turley, Turley; Fox, Fox, Fox…”

              Very well. I agree that the MSM is ignoring Biden’s apparent mental deterioration. Still, I prefer a president who has lost a step or two to a conniving liar.

              I agree that the MSM largely ignored the Hunter Biden laptop revelation though I don’t believe it was relevant to Biden’s candidacy except insofar as it proved corruption on the part of Joe. For the record, I don’t buy Joe’s assertion that he never discussed Hunter’s business affairs. If there is evidence of corruption on the part of Joe, I’m sure the Republicans will bring it to the public’s attention.

              Finally, and these are just off the top of my head, I believe the MSM is overplaying the events of 1/6 by calling it a “coup” or an “insurrection” just as much as the Rightwing is Pooh-poohing the day’s horrendous events. I would refer to it as a “riot” by a bunch of Trumpists and Q-Anon followers. I don’t think they would have really hung Pence had they gotten their hands on him or killed any Congress people, but who can say for sure. Still, there needs to be an investigation into the circumstances that led up to this assault on the Capitol and let the blame fall on whomever is at fault- be they Democrat, Republican or Trumpist.

              1. Still, I prefer a president who has lost a step or two to a conniving liar.

                I agree that the MSM largely ignored the Hunter Biden laptop revelation though I don’t believe it was relevant to Biden’s candidacy except insofar as it proved corruption on the part of Joe. For the record, I don’t buy Joe’s assertion that he never discussed Hunter’s business affairs. — JeffSilberman

                So, to recap, you hate Trump because you consider him a liar, but Biden gets a pass for corruption and lying…

                1. Sparky claims I said,

                  “So, to recap, you hate Trump because you consider him a liar, but Biden gets a pass for corruption and lying…”

                  Um, I’d like to challenge your call on the field of what I have said. I’d like to get the booth to review my statements in slow motion playback. I’m pretty sure your biased interpretation will not be confirmed.

                  1. Um, I’d like to challenge your call on the field of what I have said. — JeffSilberman

                    What part of your quoted comment is inaccurate?

                    Still, I prefer a president who has lost a step or two to a conniving liar.

                    I agree that the MSM largely ignored the Hunter Biden laptop revelation though I don’t believe it was relevant to Biden’s candidacy except insofar as it proved corruption on the part of Joe. For the record, I don’t buy Joe’s assertion that he never discussed Hunter’s business affairs. — JeffSilberman

                    The call on the field stands…

              2. You don’t believe it was relevant to Joe, “EXCEPT TO SHOW HIS CORRUPTION”? Oh ok, I guess banning proof of a president’s corruption is now not an election issue????

                1. Hullbobby says:

                  “You don’t believe it was relevant to Joe, “EXCEPT TO SHOW HIS CORRUPTION”? Oh ok, I guess banning proof of a president’s corruption is now not an election issue????”

                  You are as obtuse as Spanky. Of course, corruption IS an election issue, you idiot, but not Hunter’s fornicating, drug taking and influence peddling UNLESS it can be shown that Joe was getting kickbacks. I have said previously that if Joe is suspected of corruption, impeach him.

                  1. Of course, corruption IS an election issue, you idiot, but not Hunter’s fornicating, drug taking and influence peddling… — JeffSilberman

                    The only person being obtuse is you, Jeff.

                    Whose influence was drug and sex addict Hunter peddling?

                    1. I’ve explained myself on this question repeatedly. You just don’t like my answer. I can’t help you any further.

          2. ” I don’t dispute Turley’s claim that MSNBC is biased. I just argue that Fox is worse”

            Once again you have offered a judgement when comparing two things, without any fact behind your statement. You are entitled to your uninformed opinions, but all one has to do is recall all the major things and hoaxes that were said on MSNBC to Fox News that was much more correct when we assess what was said with the advantage of time and the release of documents.

            That makes you a pretty funny guy, supposedly educated, but one who comes up with all the wrong answers. WE could make a great SNL skit out of you.

Leave a Reply