“Inherently Violent”: Case Western Newspaper Denounces Funding for Pro-Life Student Group

Occasionally we discuss pieces in student newspapers that reflect the evolving views on our campus toward free speech.  One such editorial appeared last week in the Case Western Reserve University (CWRU) student newspaper The Observer. The Observer editorial board wrote that the recognition of a pro-life student group presents an unacceptable risk to the student body. The editorial, which due criticism from sites like Campus Reform, is legitimately a concern over the rising anti-free speech movement taking hold on our campus.

     The editorial objected to the university recognizing a group for pro-life students called Case for Life, which seeks to “protect and promote respect for all life from conception to natural death” through education, outreach, and volunteering at local pregnancy centers. The editors denounced the failure of the University to “protect” the student body. The newspaper claims that “protesting outside of an abortion clinic is inherently violent.” It adds:

There are several problems with what this organization represents and does. Hence, it is apparent that they pose a threat to the student body and anyone who chooses to have an abortion, and it is the university’s responsibility to prevent harm to our community. They failed and have been failing for quite some time now.

It is not just that students have to worry about laws that impose on their bodily autonomy, but they also have to worry about being in an environment that is supposed to be safe but isn’t.

The students equate students with opposing views as a harmful threat to the student body as a whole. They further dismiss the notion that it is an assault on free speech to base funding on whether the editors or even the majority of the students agree with the views of a given student group. It would effectively eliminate groups with minority views and values. Yet the editors insist:

“Invoking the First Amendment to reject recognition is a weak argument; not allocating funding does not equate to banning Case for Life from campus. If anything, allocation of funding through students’ tuition leaves students voiceless, unable to fight back against an organization that infringes upon at least half of the students’ right to reproductive privacy.”

It is an utterly ridiculous argument. Of course, this is a content-based denial of free speech. Otherwise, schools could deny resources and access to groups with dissenting or minority views. The editors are declaring the very act of protesting to be violence and the expression of their views as a threat to the student body.”

     Lingering within these lines is the emerging view of free speech as harmful. They are not alone. CNN’s media expert Brian Stelter has called for censorship as “a harm reduction model.” Stelter mocked those who have raised concerns over censorship and assured CNN’s viewers that there is nothing to fear from campaigns to censor and ban speakers. In addition, he appeared to defend campaigns to have Fox News dropped from cable carriers.

     Others have sought to embrace censorship by declaring the speech of others as harmful. This  includes New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who insisted that “cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.” Washington Post columnist and CNN analyst Max Boot also wrote that cable providers should “step in and kick Fox News off.” He added that it may be necessary to also block Newsmax and One America News Network. (For the record, I am a legal analyst on Fox News).

     The saddest aspect of this anti-free speech movement is to see students embrace it. Students were once the champions of free speech. Yet we have a rising generation of censors. Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.

    Once faculty and students succeed in treating speech as harmful or violence, free speech becomes a privilege controlled by whatever the majority says it is. With journalism professorswritersfaculty, and students all arguing for censorship, free speech itself is being cast as a danger rather than the defining right of our society.

113 thoughts on ““Inherently Violent”: Case Western Newspaper Denounces Funding for Pro-Life Student Group”

  1. A must read, but one needs to read the entire article for a complete picture.


    Gen. Milley: A Traitor, Or Not?

    Bob Woodward has written a new book, in which he makes the sensational allegation that Gen. Mark Milley conspired with counterparts in China against then-president Donald Trump. This is from today’s Washington Post:

    In the book’s account, Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, stressing the rapport they’d established through a backchannel. “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

    Believing that China could lash out if it felt at risk from an unpredictable and vengeful American president, Milley took action. The same day, he called the admiral overseeing the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, the military unit responsible for Asia and the Pacific region, and recommended postponing the military exercises, according to the book. The admiral complied.

    Milley also summoned senior officers to review the procedures for launching nuclear weapons, saying the president alone could give the order — but, crucially, that he, Milley, also had to be involved. Looking each in the eye, Milley asked the officers to affirm that they had understood, the authors write, in what he considered an “oath.”

    1. Collusion with Iran. Collusion with Russia. Collusion with China. Democrats speak truth to leverage through projection for more than 20 trimesters in progress. #HateLovesAbortion

    2. Milley on one hand. Pelosi et al on the other denying the President’s offer to provide security to carry out crowd control, a senior capitol officer’s elective abortion of an unarmed woman in a prone position in a novel case of self-defense (a la planned parent/hood), embedded instigators (Whitmer Closet 2.0?), then pulling out the rug from the people assembled and forcing disorder (“riot”), followed by a Biden-led military coop in DC.

  2. All of the theatrics and hysteria by the anti-science abortionists have demonstrated that they are shooting blanks. They are not viable. Since women womyn are vastly affected by the new Texas law, maybe Trans can pick up the slack?


    Opponents of the Texas Abortion Ban Are Struggling to Find Defendants They Can Sue To Prevent Its Enforcement

    But meanwhile, the law has already had its intended effect, since the threat of litigation has led Texas clinics to stop serving the vast majority of women seeking abortions.


    1. I’m pro-choice.

      I am not an abortionist. I am not pro-abortion. I am not anti-science. I’m not hysterical.

      You should not be so gleeful about Republican Texas legislators acting to “evade federal judicial scrutiny by outsourcing the enforcement of unconstitutional laws to its citizenry” and turn residents into spies.

      1. You should be more concerned with the federal government outsourcing violations of the First Amendment. I know, such an understanding is above your pay grade.

        Is the law unconstitutional? I don’t know. I don’t even know if I would support such a law. It is complicated and your word games don’t meet the needs of intelligent discussion. So far the Supreme Court hasn’t acted and so far there is no case going forward that seems it will make it to the Supreme Court.

        1. The First Amendment is not an unconstitutional law, and the federal government has outsourced neither enforcement nor violations of the First Amendment.

          “I don’t even know if I would support such a law. It is complicated”

          No, it isn’t complicated. No one should support laws that are structured like SB8, regardless of whether they’re about abortion or gun rights. I guess “such an understanding is above your pay grade.”

          “so far there is no case going forward that seems it will make it to the Supreme Court.”

          Maybe it’s also “above your pay grade” to understand that United States v. Texas is a case going forward that may settle it, and it doesn’t have to make it to the Supreme Court. It might instead end up being settled by the 5th Circuit, with the Supreme Court choosing not to grant cert.

          1. “The First Amendment is not an unconstitutional law,”

            Yo missed the point, possibly because I am not redrawing the entire argument that has been placed on the net earlier, along with Hamburger’s actual op-ed.

            The First Amendment is Constitutional and is one of our most important rights. It is unconstitutional for the government to limit first amendment rights whether directly or indirectly. You seem unable to understand this point.


            1. The government is not illegally limiting First Amendment rights (there are some legal limits, such as prosecuting people for perjury). You seem unable to understand this point.

              1. Again you are lost in the weeds. I suggest you read the WSJ article. Your points don’t line up with what is being said.

              2. Eb , Once again you missed the issue at hand. But, you keep proving that you do not have the intellect to involve yourself in this type of discussion.

          2. “No, it isn’t complicated. No one should support laws that are structured like SB8”

            If that is the case and it isn’t complicated you should easily be able to tell us why SB8 is unconstitutional and should be before the Supreme Court today. So far despite the word games you have failed to do that.

            “Maybe it’s also “above your pay grade” to understand that United States v. Texas is a case going forward that may settle it, “

            That is true and that is what your argument should have been. Instead you have deflected making believe you understand the Constitutional principles involved. I don’t pay much attention to SB8 because of this other case which will likely change the dynamics of the argument. You, on the other hand, like to argue trying to prove how smart you are. You failed.

            1. I doubt you’ve even read SB8 in its entirety. You want to be spoon fed. Read it in its entirety, and think about whether you want other states to do the same thing with other rights, and then perhaps you’ll figure out for yourself why no one should support laws that are structured like SB8. If you’re still unable to understand, then look up conservative critiques of SB8 and get the help you need.

              1. You are an idiot. You spend your time telling others they haven’t read something when you post links you never read.

                Anonymous the Stupid, whether or not I read SB8 is not applicable. You who supposedly read it can’t adequately provide why SB8 is unconstitutional or why the Supreme Court should hear that case now. You are a waste of time and apparently without knowledge.


                1. “You are an idiot. … You are a waste of time and apparently without knowledge.”

                  You’re looking in the mirror, bud. That I choose not to do something on your behalf — because you’re such an abusive person and I will not put myself out for abusers — doesn’t imply that I’m incapable of doing it. If Prairie Rose had asked instead of you, I would have answered her.

                  And I didn’t say that SCOTUS “should hear that case now.” In fact, I pointed out that US v. TX “doesn’t have to make it to the Supreme Court. It might instead end up being settled by the 5th Circuit, with the Supreme Court choosing not to grant cert.”

                  You demand that I do things you want done, but I don’t take commands from you.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, you have tried to answer the questions to others and failed as well. It has nothing to do with me. It has to do with you and the fact you cannot produce reasonable answers. I don’t care if you do or you don’t. I take note, however, of your twisting and turning. The question was why SCOTUS didn’t hear the case. Now you are changing what you say in that it might end up elsewhere. I think that will happen. The SCOTUS case will not.


                    1. LOL that you consider yourself an unbiased judge of debates I’ve had with others.

                      “I don’t care if you do or you don’t.”

                      You care enough to respond day after day. The abuser doth protest too much methinks.

                      “The question was why SCOTUS didn’t hear the case.”

                      ROFL. I guess you don’t understand when SCOTUS has original vs. appellate jurisdiction and how the latter cases work their way up to SCOTUS or, more often, end with a District or Circuit Court opinion. US v. TX was filed in a Texas district court less than a week ago, and it hasn’t been heard by anyone yet. You referred to “that case.” Maybe you’ve been confusing cases all along, even though I’ve repeatedly named the case I was talking about: United States v. Texas. Certainly if *you* were trying to talk about a different case, the onus was on you to name it. I wouldn’t be surprised if you don’t know the names of any of the suits that have been filed about SB8.

                      “Now you are changing what you say in that it might end up elsewhere.”

                      BS. I told you in my 10:59 AM comment that “United States v. Texas is a case going forward that may settle it, and it doesn’t have to make it to the Supreme Court. It might instead end up being settled by the 5th Circuit, with the Supreme Court choosing not to grant cert.” For goodness sake, Allan S. Meyer, work on your reading skills.

                    2. In this set of responses, you are trying to resurrect yourself. Go ahead. That has been your intent on this mini thread. What you are doing is moving to a position I was at from the start. I think this will go to court, and I doubt the law will be upheld. SCOTUS has another case that might change some of the dynamics, so I don’t fret about this law. Whether I like it or not is a different story.

                      Abortion is killing a living being. Sometimes we kill because we have to. I disapprove of abortion, but it will exist no matter what the law says. Abortion legislation doesn’t belong on the federal level. It always was a state concern. My best hope is that even if abortion exists, people will recognize it for what it is.

    2. “The Texas Abortion Ban Violates Conservative Principles
      “S.B. 8 relies on litigation tricks that conservatives have long condemned as a threat to the rule of law. … S.B. 8 invites lawsuits by financially incentivized plaintiffs who need not claim any personal injury, rigs the rules in their favor, establishes vague liability theories that threaten freedom of speech, and offers a model for attacking other rights that the Supreme Court has said are protected by the Constitution. …
      “And although S.B. 8 says aiding or abetting does not include “speech or conduct protected by the First Amendment,” its authorization of lawsuits based on what a defendant “intends” to do, even when he does not actually do it, makes that limitation illusory in practice. Anyone who provides information on how to obtain a post-heartbeat abortion, for example, can be sued based on the allegation that he intended to facilitate the procedure. His First Amendment defense would come into play only after he is forced to invest time and money in responding to that claim. S.B. 8 makes that threat especially potent because it bars prevailing defendants from recovering their legal costs. …
      “Pro-choice legislators could attack the pro-life movement by authorizing lawsuits against anyone who “intends” to facilitate the blocking of abortion clinic entrances, which arguably would include anyone who expresses the view that abortion is tantamount to murder. Conservatives may regret sacrificing their avowed principles for short-term political gain.”


    3. Sex and conception is not a mystery. A woman and man have four choices: abstention, prevention, adoption, and compassion, and still six weeks. Baby steps.

      Abortion in self-defense is not affected. The edge cases of rape… rape-rape (i.e. involuntary exploitation) and incest (i.e. superior exploitation) can and should be addressed separately, but within the established parameters (i.e. 4 choices, and still 6 weeks).

      That said, I’m opposed to the Pro-Choice religion, not limited to the wicked solution.

      Can progressive liberals abort the baby, cannibalize her profitable parts, sequester her carbon pollutants, and have her, too? Time will tell if people.. persons will take a knee, again, and again, and again.

  3. The Big ‘What-About?’

    Karen writes:

    “Democrats have loudly questioned the election integrity of every single election they lost. They still call Trump’s win a stolen election”.

    Karen vaguely implies that Democrats have long contested elections as matter of standard practice. She cites no examples but Trump’s, claiming ‘his’ victory was questioned.

    The truth is Hillary Clinton conceded to Trump on Election Night. And that was arguably unwise of her. Clinton’s Popular Vote victory widened after that. It kept growing as the West Coast tallied all its numbers.

    Hillary Clinton, to her credit, went into seclusion after that election. Nothing much was heard from her for several weeks. At one point a neighbor spotted Clinton on a nature path and manged a selfie with her. That photo famously made the news as an update on Clinton who had dropped from public view. ‘She was hiking the trail in her gated subdivision’.

    Clinton was following established protocol. Historically losing candidates hung-low after elections. The concept was to let winners establish themselves in office before commenting on their performance.

    For generations every loser accepted this protocol. Even Richard Nixon when he lost to JFK. Nixon would’ve been justified in questioning that election. But Nixon felt contesting it would polarize the country.

    Q: What about The Mueller Probe?

    Trump had never held public office. He honestly didn’t know how presidents should behave. Nor did he care! Trump asked James Comey to terminate the Russia Investigation. Comey refused, so Trump fired him.

    Never mind that Trump had no business whatsoever summoning Comey to discuss that issue. Trump ignored a firewall between Justice and The White House. Anyone who followed Watergate would’ve recognized that wall.

    Trump then summoned the Russian Ambassador to assure him, with cameras rolling, that Comey was gone; a truly bizarre spectacle. Why was Trump accountable to the Russian Ambassador??

    That same day, Trump gave an interview to NBC’s Lester Holt. Incredibly Trump admitted that he fired Comey to end the Russia Investigation. It sounded like an admission to ‘Obstruction of Justice’. Mueller was appointed shortly thereafter.

    Donald Trump’s behavior was so inappropriate that a Special Counsel Probe ‘had’ to be chartered. When a president acts that suspicious, it would be wanton negligence ‘not’ to investigate.

    Therefore to suggest The Mueller Probe was just sour apple Democrats questioning an election is absolutely cynical. It ignores the fact that Trump recklessly behaved in the most suspicious manner. He seemed to be a Russian Agent right out in the open.

    What’s more, the events of January 6 are perfectly consistent with the Russian Agent narrative. No president would cause that much damage to the country without intending to. Trump knew what he was doing and that’s the scary part.

    1. Never mind that Trump had no business whatsoever summoning Comey to discuss that issue. Trump ignored a firewall between Justice and The White House.

      Trump is Comey’s boss. Plenary power. I told you to learn the word. If you would, You wouldn’t say stuff that is wrong. Since you don’t understand how government functions, it is not really a lie, right?

      That firewall you reference is in the “Rules for Politicians”. While lots of common sense advise is in the book, no rules, laws, or codes. Just pointing out political pitfalls is meaningless.

  4. OT A few bullet points followed by a link to the article
    What Should the World Expect of Gifting Afghanistan to Fundamentalists?
    The Taliban, by trying to introduce themselves as “moderate,” also appear to be playing “good cop, bad cop” regarding the IS, presumably to get international support and recognition. The West should be skeptical. As long as the Taliban and other terror groups, whether Shi’ite or Sunni, have not changed ideologically, they will remain a significant threat to the US and the Free World.

    Although the Taliban pledged to protect future US economic interests on Afghan soil by vowing that it would not allow other groups to form and organize terrorist attacks against the US and its allies, this promise will probably last only as long as the US keeps complying with the Taliban’s blackmail demands regarding the US hostages and co-workers Biden abandoned.

    The newly formed government consists of acting interior minister, Sirajuddin Haqqani, who has a $10 million bounty on his head , is on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, and whose family are longtime supporters of al-Qaeda; and four of the senior commanders are terrorists whom former President Barack Obama released from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for US Army deserter Bowe Bergdahl.

    Reports have also begun questioning if Biden’s surrender of Afghanistan with not a trace of resistance – including the great Bagram airbase and nearly as much military aid as the US has provided to Israel since 1948 — might have been deliberate in view of China’s “investment” of $1.5 billion in Biden’s son, Hunter, when Biden was vice-president, as well as for possible future returns.

    A few key questions remain unanswered: Has America, in seeking coordination with a terror group against which it fought for years, ended its own supremacy? Is America about to cap the horror by officially recognizing a state run by known terrorists, armed to the teeth with America’s finest military equipment, and who seem to have every intention of establishing a terrorist state?

    Another question is the geostrategic factor, if any, of the West’s position in the future of Afghanistan, Central Asia and the Free World?

    So far, the main losers in Afghanistan disaster, apart from the US and the Free World, are the people of Afghanistan, especially those who helped the US and found themselves betrayed, and the women who for 20 years, thanks to the US and its allies, had for the first time known freedom.


    1. S Meyer:

      Everyone I know who is either currently serving, or formerly served in the military, and their families, are incandescent with rage that we A) left anyone behind and B) handed over billions in military equipment and vehicles to terrorists, who promptly shared it with Iran, and probably China and Russia. Then there was State actively blocking civilian airlifts.

      This negligence is going to kill our people. We have strengthened terrorists to unbelievable levels. Once they have a good and strong foothold, then we’ll end up sending our men and women to face down our own weapons. There are also people walking around today who are going to die at the hand of some upcoming 9/11-sized terrorist attack, because of surrendering Afghanistan.

      China hastened to pick up the asset we so carelessly dropped.

      This was criminal negligence that involved quite a few people at the senior level.

      Are you the parent of a son or daughter who will turn 18 within the next 10 years? If so, this catastrophe is probably going to affect them when they become draft aged. We have set up a disaster that is going to put our current and future military at terrible risk.

      Are we going to hold anyone responsible, or are we going to roll over and accept the garbage excuses we’ve been fed?

      1. You are absolutely correct. This administration has made America less secure and has destroyed a good part of our soft power. The left is giving America to our enemies.

  5. Kristof’s Idea Has Merit

    Professor Turley notes, with disdain, a very sensible suggestion made by Nicholas Kristof:

    “New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof who insisted that “cable providers should be asked why they distribute channels that peddle lies.”

    Trump’s election claims were dismissed by more than 60 courts around the country. The Supreme Court, with 3 Trump appointees, refused to even hear Trump’s claims. Johnathan Turley himself has never penned a column supporting Trump’s claims.

    Yet Fox News, a staple of almost every cable provider, spent weeks questioning the election outcome while providing NO EVIDENCE that any court would hear. Was that not totally irresponsible of Fox??

    Where are we as a nation when a long-established news channel can essentially broadcast lies with impunity?
    Is there no accountability??

    The irony is that on Election Night, Fox News called Arizona for Biden which infuriated Trump. Trump, according to insiders, had Jared Kushner call Rupert Murdoch to demand that Arizona be taken out of Biden’s column.

    Murdoch refused Trump’s demand because he had faith in the analysts contracted by Fox. Yet Murdoch eventually allowed Fox News to methodically question the election results. Apparently Fox was truly afraid of losing its audience if it didn’t question the election.

    In other words, Fox News questioned the election strictly as a business decision and ‘not’ because Rupert Murdoch really believed the election was stolen. ..How utterly cynical..!!

    Because Fox News caved to Trump’s base, America has entered a doomsday cycle where the losers of any election can claim they were cheated without a shred of proof.

    Here in California, Larry Elder is already claiming the gubernatorial recall is ‘rigged against him’. Never mind that Gavin Newsom was first elected with 62% of the vote. Never mind that Republicans haven’t won a major state office in 18 years. Elder can just claim he’s a victim with no proof whatsoever.

    One needn’t be a constitutional scholar to know this doomsday cycle is a race to the bottom. It’s hard to see how free speech can be used as an excuse dissove our institutions over baseless lies. Yet Johnathan Turley has no problem with that.

      1. Gray Anonymous,

        ‘Facist’ is just a childish cliche nerdy Trumpers use to label non-Trumpers.

        1. No. Fascist is a word that describes a political system. It sounds childish only because you don’t know what it is and how you are related to the fascists.

    1. Anonymous – Democrats have loudly questioned the election integrity of every single election they lost. They still call Trump’s win a stolen election. They peddled the Russia hoax. They claimed Trump called white supremacists “very fine people” in direct contradiction of video evidence. They’ve lied over and over and over again about conservatives in general and their hated Trump specifically.

      Live by the sword, die by the sword. By your own reasoning, every single cable news show that made the above false claims deserves to be off the air.

      People who oppose free speech always have their excuses for why only their own opinions should be allowed.

      1. Evidently the Dems are at it again in the California Recall election. There are reports of Republicans trying to vote and being told they have already voted. Many other irregularities. The Democrats have convinced themselves that they act for the greater good and they believe election fraud is a higher virtue.

        1. “The Democrats have convinced themselves that they act for the greater good and they believe election fraud is a higher virtue.”

          BS. I’m a Democrat. Election fraud is not a virtue. Prove that it occurred, and I’ll want the person(s) who engaged in it prosecuted. Making false claims like the one quoted above also is not a virtue, so you should stop doing it.

  6. The authoritarian left is unable to deal with simple debate so they have to censor it. That is what offends some on this blog. Professor Turley permits DIVERSITY of opinion, forcing those on the left side of the aisle to think.

Comments are closed.