“Potential and Real Harm”: Emory Law SBA Refuses Recognition of Free Speech Group

We recently discussed the controversy at Emory Law Journal over the decision to withdraw an offer of publication for an article after a law professor refused to make substantial changes to content discussing race issues that the editors found “hurtful and unnecessarily divisive.” Now the school is embroiled in another free speech controversy after the Student Bar Association (SBA) denied recognition for a free speech group in part out of concern over the “potential and real harm that could result from these discussions[.]”

The denial has been challenged by the Foundation for Individual Rights (FIRE), which is calling on the school to reconsider the decision. However, the school declined to respond to its initial letter.

The SBA informed the group that it was concerned that there was too much overlap with other groups like the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society. However, the listing of the over 60 groups at the law school shows considerable overlap of subjects. Indeed, a free speech group can work as an umbrella organization with other groups in creating forums for discussions.

The SBA also objected to the failure to use moderators to control such discussions. It added that it was “hesitant to issue a charter when there are no apparent safeguards in place to prevent potential and real harm that could result from these discussions[.]”

None of those objections seem particularly compelling. The Emory Free Speech Forum (EFSF) is a non-partisan student group “devoted to fostering critical discourse and open dialogue surrounding important issues in law and society.” However, the EFSF members said that, during the meeting on their request for recognition, some SBA members criticized not just its mission but its ideology and the proposed speakers.

The rejection letter that followed seemed a rationalization of the bias reported by the students. The SBA declared that it “fail[ed] to see a need for this particular club to be chartered and subsequently funded by SBA.” However, individuals in the majority often fail to see the need for groups seeking forums for greater free speech. As FIRE noted in its letter, the SBA ironically cited the “well-established promotion of free speech values across Emory schools” created by its “Respect for Open Expression Policy” and “Open Expression Initiatives” as proof that there really is no need for a free speech group on campus. That circular logic suggests that, once free speech is recognized, there is less of a need to recognize free speech groups.

However, the greatest concerns were raised by the reference to the potential danger in allowing a free speech group since it “will likely give rise to a precarious environment – one where the conversation might very easily devolve.” The SBA made specific reference to controversial subjects that the groups would like to discuss as potentially harmful to the community, insisting that “it is disingenuous to suggest that certain topics of discussion you considered, such as race and gender, can be pondered and debated in a relaxed atmosphere when these issues directly affect and harm your peers’ lives in demonstrable and quantitative ways.”

The last line strips away the prior rationalization of the decision to expose content-based discrimination of this group. This group is not required to guarantee that it will preserve a “relaxed atmosphere” but rather a respectful and civil atmosphere. The group wants to discuss the divisive issues of these days. It should not be prevented from doing so because those topics “directly affect and harm … peers’ lives in demonstrable and quantitative ways.” Indeed, that is the purpose of such forums — to discuss issues that impact lives in demonstrable and quantitative ways.

Emory University’s “Respect for Open Expression Policy” affirms:

As a community of scholars, Emory University is committed to an environment where open expression of ideas is valued, promoted, and encouraged. Recognizing that the educational process of our institution requires diverse forms of open expression – including freedom of thought, inquiry, speech, activism, and assembly – the university affirms the rights of members of the community to assemble and demonstrate peaceably within the limits of this policy. The university must simultaneously maintain the right of community members to pursue their day-to-day activities and to be protected from physical injury or property damage.

It is hard to protect “these freedoms of thought, inquiry, speech, and assembly,” when you are barring free speech groups seeking to express free thought and inquiry. The countervailing need to protect people “from physical injury or property damage” is an obligation of all schools to maintain a safe campus while guaranteeing such free speech rights.

Referring to “potential and real harm” is not some talisman that removes obligations to respect free speech rights. It is common for censors and speech regulators to act in the name of protecting people from potentially harmful or disruptive ideas. Moreover, it is the conduct of this group — not third parties who might protest its events — that is the measure of its fitness for recognition. These groups succeed or fail based on the interest and support of other students. Free speech has its own corrective element. The solution to any bad speech is better speech.

It is not enough to simply say that this is a “student decision.” We have recently discussed how SBA members, student petitions, and student groups have attacked free speech rights. Schools cannot just out-source free speech to students and allow them to deny this essential right to others. The school has an obligation, as stated in its policy, to guarantee the exercise of such free speech rights. Student governance is no license for student discrimination in the free speech area.

We have previously discussed the concern that the anti-speech movement rising in our universities has reached our law schools, where free speech is ideally taught as a defining right of our constitutional system. If we cannot hold the line on free speech in our law schools, there is little hope that we can do so in other schools.

There is a petition for Emory Law Dean Mary Anne Bobinski to intervene in the controversy. Emory has not been a school viewed as speech intolerant and has earned a “green light” from FIRE. It should reaffirm its excellent free speech policy and reexamine the basis (and possible bias) underlying this decision.

231 thoughts on ““Potential and Real Harm”: Emory Law SBA Refuses Recognition of Free Speech Group”

  1. OT: The FAA is another government agency that is cumbersome and slow to react. When Trump was President he tried to stop regulatory delays and push the bureaucracies to become more efficient. Democrats and the Biden administration love cumbersome government agencies, lockdowns, and spending.

    AT&T announces delay of 5G launch near some airports, after request for White House intervention

    “We are frustrated by the FAA’s inability to do what nearly 40 countries have done, which is to safely deploy 5G technology without disrupting aviation services, and we urge it do so in a timely manner,” an At&T spokeswoman said.

    https://justthenews.com/nation/technology/att-announces-delay-5g-launch-near-some-airports-after-request-white-house?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter

    1. When we see a retired math professor echo Left wing talking points under the rubric of facts and science.

      😉

  2. jeffsilberman writes comments worthy of at least a moment’s consideration. That is vastly more than what most provide.

        1. David,

          There is that.

          On an older topic you mentioned I began reading “The Weirdest People in the World” and found the earlier chapters very interesting. I wonder if they are correct. Basically reading leads to organic changes in the brain after the manner said to occur with London cabbies. The changes bring new abilities and at least one liability–greater difficulty recognizing faces. That one I have but I always assumed it was because I didn’t care who they were. Maybe not.

            1. Nice that the Wikipedia article included Razib Khan’s review among others. He is brilliant and always thoughtful. Inevitably there were some who insisted on reading social darwinism into it. It is difficult to approach any new idea if those obsessions are always bending your mind. So far my thought is that the book may take on too much to be accepted easily. But reaching for big ideas is good even if you make errors and not everything fits together perfectly at first reading. You can rearrange the furniture once the house is almost complete.

  3. OT…

    The Jan 6th Select Committee has issued subpoenas for:
    * Giuliani
    * Jenna Ellis
    * Sidney Powell
    * Boris Epshteyn

    I’ll again recommend the detailed analyses at emptywheel.net for those who are interested in what’s publicly known about the DOJ and Select Committee investigations.

    1. The select committee is playing politics instead of governing.

      The Emptywheel is good at spinning and keeps your mind filled with a lot of useless garbage. That is proven when you have to debate and prove your case—empty knowledge in, empty knowledge out.

      1. I sometimes don’t mind living in your head rent free. Pretty spacious, since your brain doesn’t take up too much room.

        You’re so hate-filled that you can’t cope with Marcy Wheeler’s fact-filled and detailed analyses, so you resort to your usual: ad hominem. You don’t have the balls to post comments on a site like that.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, your site is a left-wing site where you obtain some of your talking points. You don’t debate those talking points. Instead, you regurgitate them and fail miserably.

          As far as living rent-free, that is your ultimate desire. You are all for entitlements. You need that extra step-up to make you feel taller.

  4. INSIDE EVERY LIBERAL IS A TOTALITARIAN SCREAMING TO GET OUT

    This was written in 2013, but it is apropos and oh so prescient. Be sure to read the entire piece.

    The organizing principle: Once the Progressive is permitted to intrude however slightly into matters that are properly beyond the sphere of government, then all aspects of the individual’s life may be subjected to control. Once any degree of coercion is permitted, then no level of force is out of bounds.

    https://archives.frontpagemag.com/fpm/inside-every-liberal-totalitarian-screaming-get-frontpagemagcom/

  5. bits and pieces of this has been kicking around my brain for while. Comes the fore when is visit comments here. I finally took a moment to suss out the quote.
    Very appropriate today.

    “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” ― William Paley

    1. that principle is contempt prior to investigation.

      Iowan2,
      That is so true. I refer often to Bastiat’s The Law. I believe the following two sections describe how that quoted principle from Paley has become the norm.

      The Results of Legal Plunder
      It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

      What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content ourselves with pointing out the most striking.

      In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

      No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

      The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

      The Fate of Non-Conformists
      If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.” If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought: “That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force.”

      Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

      Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

  6. If hearing opposing points of view “harms” them, how can any of these students expect to go into law, where they will be expected to confront and debate opposing views?

    This trend to label any viewpoint that is different than hard Left as harmful is insidious and pervasive. Ironically, that’s where the real harm lies.

    Such intolerance is a symptom of the internal rot of our society.

    We conservatives hear bigoted, false statements about us regularly. Yet we manage to heel-toe it through our lives. We don’t curl up in a ball.

    1. Who’s “labeling any viewpoint that is different than hard Left as harmful”? The SBA didn’t.

      Why do you so often turn the actual facts into something that’s more extreme?

      I hope you recognize that words sometimes do harm. That’s why verbal abuse counts in family court, why defamation is illegal, …

      We liberals ALSO hear bigoted, false statements about us regularly. You can read many on this very website. We don’t curl up in a ball either. Drop the hyperbole. It’s not productive.

      1. Anonymous:

        I cannot tell if you are pretending to be unaware of the bias, censorship, and harassment of conservatives on university campuses acros America, or if you actually do not know.

        Professor Turley regularly posts articles about this problem.

        While it’s true that each side insults the other, the Left controls academia, Hollywood, most of the media, the public education system. Leftist agendas have been incorporated by many corporations. Getting insulted by someone in the comments section of a blog post is not the same thing as losing your job because you define gender in biological terms.

        Plus, the last I checked, people could walk around confidently wearing t-shirts emblazoned with the images of mass murderers like Mao or Chavez, but the risk of being harassed or even assaulted while wearing a MAGA hat were high.

      2. Anonymous:

        Cisco employees who objected to the company’s support of the pro-crime, anti-cop organization BLM were fired.

        In an open forum discussion, they wrote things like “all lives matter”, or that black people can be racist against other races.

        It’s support the Left, or be impoverished. Fascism.

  7. Thank you very much for your reporting. I will not be hiring any attorney alumni from Emory Law.

  8. JT generates posts detailing how some entity is violating rights, and the ensuing debate is between those arguing on the grounds that they can and those arguing on the grounds that they shouldn’t. I can think of no better way to destroy a country than to convince a large percentage of the population that the principle of can outweighs the principle of should.

    1. JT’s argument isn’t honest. The students remain free to say what they want. This is about funding, not speech.

      1. Really?? Because that’s not what SBA said. They were worried more about the skin color of the founders of the group.

      2. This is about funding, not speech.

        The SBA disagrees with you. While they talk about denying the charter, they explicitly argued why denying the charter was “also” about topics they don’t believe should be discussed.

        However, the greatest concerns were raised by the reference to the potential danger in allowing a free speech group since it “will likely give rise to a precarious environment – one where the conversation might very easily devolve.” The SBA made specific reference to controversial subjects that the groups would like to discuss as potentially harmful to the community, insisting that “it is disingenuous to suggest that certain topics of discussion you considered, such as race and gender, can be pondered and debated in a relaxed atmosphere when these issues directly affect and harm your peers’ lives in demonstrable and quantitative ways.”

        So back to my original comment. You are arguing why the SBA can deny the charter based on overlap and funding, do you believe they should based on their speech concerns?

        1. Olly,

          Of course you are right. The SBA wouldn’t discover the same funding issues if another species of Black Lives Matter wanted to set up. When a light shines the Left doesn’t want to own up to what it really is: Totalitarian.

          1. Agreed.

            Time and time again we (Conservatives) find ourselves arguing for the security of rights for everyone, against Leftists arguing for the abuse of rights against their ideological enemies.

            I’ve said this before, they’re gambling with house money. I might be inclined to defend the rights of the ignorant when they eventually “lose”, but I’m not so inclined for those that knowingly gambled on the totalitarian state.

        2. I suggest that you read the letter in full in the original and not rely on JT’s summary, as he cuts off text from some sentences in ways that change the meaning and totally omits other relevant text. Unfortunately, he often does this.

          Before what you quoted, they note that their concern is about “the lack of mechanisms in place to ensure respectful discourse and engagement.” Right after what you quoted, they note that “As brought up during our meeting, there is nothing to prevent you from having these conversations in the casual manner you envision (my emphasis).

          I have no way to independently assess the ESFS application, since neither JT nor FIRE have posted it. But I’ll point out that the bolded text above is true, so this is ultimately about funding rather than whether students can discuss what they want.

          Your claim that “they explicitly argued why denying the charter was “also” about topics they don’t believe should be discussed” is BS. They didn’t say that they shouldn’t be discussed. It’s about whether they should *fund* it in the absence of a moderator.

          1. Right after what you quoted, they note that “As brought up during our meeting, there is nothing to prevent you from having these conversations in the casual manner you envision

            it is disingenuous to suggest that certain topics of discussion you considered, such as race and gender, can be pondered and debated in a relaxed atmosphere.

            Hmm? On one hand they assert these conversations can be done in a casual manner, and then on the other assert they cannot. Who said debates are required to be done in a casual manner and/or relaxed environment?

            The overlap excuse is just that, an excuse to deny the charter for a group they don’t want to fund.

            So I will ask about something I posted earlier: The SBA can deny the charter, but in the interest of free speech, should they?

        3. I suggest that you read the letter in full and not rely on JT’s summary, as he cuts off text from some sentences in ways that change the meaning and totally omits other relevant text. Unfortunately, he often does this.

          Before what you quoted, they note that their concern is about “the lack of mechanisms in place to ensure respectful discourse and engagement.” Right after what you quoted, they note that “As brought up during our meeting, there is nothing to prevent you from having these conversations in the casual manner you envision (my emphasis).

          I have no way to independently assess the ESFS application, since neither JT nor FIRE have posted it. But I’ll point out that the bolded text above is true, so this is ultimately about funding rather than whether students can discuss what they want.

          Your claim that “they explicitly argued why denying the charter was “also” about topics they don’t believe should be discussed” is BS. They didn’t say that they shouldn’t be discussed. It’s about whether they should *fund* it in the absence of a moderator and given the overlap.

          1. Sorry about the double post. The first one didn’t show up initially, and sometimes my comments don’t post.

          2. Anon,

            Olly quoted what is, in their own words, the SBA’s “greatest concern”. The fact that the “lessor” concerns that were listed before and after the “greatest concern” were not also quoted by Olly is irrelevant.

            1. Ray,

              No, the phrase “greatest concern” comes from Turley, not from the SBA. This is one of the problems of relying on his summary instead of reading the SBA’s own letter in full.

              I suggest that you read their letter in full. It’s appended to the response from FIRE that Turley linked to. Frankly, I think it’s bad form for Turley to comment on the letter without ever telling readers where to find a full version.

              1. Ray, this anonymous is always criticizing others for not reading all the information he pretends to have read. He has a habit of linking to things without ever having read them. Frequently he has linked to things that do not agree with his statements or have little to do with the discussion.

  9. Instead of some fringe ramblings from no one of any significant import, we could mention what the Democrat Party of Michigan advance as their core values.

    The Party added, “The purpose of public education in a public school is not to teach kids only what parents want them to be taught. It is to teach them what society needs them to know. The client of the public school is not the parent, but the entire community, the public.”

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/landonmion/2022/01/17/michigan-dems-say-parents-shouldnt-tell-schools-what-to-teach-n2601964

    The letter fails to define exactly who “society” is , if not the parents of children, living in the communities served by the School. (or is that backward, do I serve the School?)

      1. I never said “only” nor used the word currently

        You define society as it pertains to public primary schools.

    1. Iowan, tell us how parents can dictate school curriculums. One suspects that every community within a city might have different ideas of what an appropriate curriculum should be.

      At the end of the day Education Professionals need to decide which textbooks to order. Parents, however well-intentioned, are not the proper judges of education needs. They will never agree with other on curriculums.

      1. Iowan, tell us how parents can dictate school curriculums. One suspects that every community within a city might have different ideas of what an appropriate curriculum should be.
        The school board. That is the proper role of the elected board. Set the educational tone, tenor and substance, and the direction of the school. Sadly the education cabal has figured a way to eliminate the community from that job.

        Parents, however well-intentioned, are not the proper judges of education needs
        Thousands of Catholic, Christian, and Jewish schools across this nation prove you wrong. Parents are the guiding hand. If parents were ignored, the schools would not exist.
        With your “experts,” public schools are losing students to parent directed private schools,almost exclusively based on God. A significant portion of those students are not practitioners of the faith based schools they attend. The are there to get educated. Not indoctrinated into what ever educational whim is sweeping academia.

          1. And those schools are growing. Because the parents have a voice. Public Schools are loosing students because the parents are treated like terrorists.

          2. My larger point. Catholic High Schools across this nation have provided a much better educated graduate. That’s working with the input of parents and largely ignoring the “experts” you defer to with absolutley zero evidence they can produce the desired result. The stupid notion that following the experts is superior to following parents desires, is proven wrong by centuries of Catholic High Schools. Catholic High Schools that graduated a substantial number of students that are not Catholic. Meaning they are there because of the superior curriculum. A curriculum directed by parents.

  10. Damn, JeffSilberman is right. The Washington state school board is not considering internment camps for the unvaccinated. The are only considering a requirement requiring school children be vaccinated to attend school. If the children are not vaccinated they will only be subject to house arrest. https://sboh.wa.gov/Portals/7/Doc/Meetings/2022/Jan%2012/WSBOH-Agenda-2022-01-12-Final.pdf?ver=2022-01-05-175008-690. However, in the case of HIV patients if they do not accept treatment the can be detained. Ok, maybe Tucker allows Beck to exercise his free speech rights on his program but CNN allows AOC to speak freely on their outlet. For Jeff the fringe element is excused by Jeff on his favorite news source but not on Fox News. When Jeff condemns CNN for allowing the fringe elements I will be more generous in considering his viewpoint.

    1. What is happening in microcosm in our universities will be happening in macrocosm for society at large if we do not course correct.

    2. “If the children are not vaccinated they will only be subject to house arrest.”.

      Only in your fevered dreams.

  11. There are many avenues that the Woke Troglodytes are attempting to alter our free society, but the most dangerous of all is ‘controlled speech’.

    As Earl Lloyd-George of Dwyfor said “The world is becoming like a lunatic asylum run by lunatics”

    Further quoting from George Orwell’s “Inside the Whale” below, with little alteration, could be a precise description of today’s
    Woke University liberals, whether an Administrator, Professor or lowly student, and their attempts to ban un-favored speech or behavior.

    “Most revolutionaries are potential Tories, because they imagine that everything can be put right by altering the shape of society; once that change is effected, as it sometimes is, they see no need for any other.”

  12. OT

    2020 was STOLEN

    …by the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

    “Delaware County, PA Democrat Elections Manager Admits Election Laws Were Not Followed In 2020”

    “So we’re gonna actually follow the law fully this time,” democrat elections manager.

      1. OT

        ILLEGAL

        SAY IT WITH ME: ILLEGAL.

        COMMUNISTS (LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALISTS, DEMOCRATS, RINOS) STOLE THE 2020 ELECTION.
        _________________________________________________________________________________________

        “WISCONSIN JUDGE RULES BALLOT DROP BOXES USED IN 2020 ELECTION WERE ILLEGAL”

        A judge in the state of Wisconsin ruled on Thursday that the use of ballot boxes in the 2020 election was, in fact, illegal. Joe Biden was declared the winner over Donald Trump in the state by 20,682 votes.

        Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren issued the decision in a lawsuit that had been filed on behalf of two voters by the Wisconsin Institute of Law & Liberty (WILL). WILL argued that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) had unilaterally issued guidance to election clerks, authorizing the use of ballot collection boxes, in contradiction of state law.

        “The guidance from the Wisconsin Elections Commission on absentee ballot drop boxes was unlawful. There are just two legal methods to cast an absentee ballot in Wisconsin: through the mail or in-person at a clerk’s office. And voters must return their own ballots,” commented WILL Deputy Counsel Luke Berg. “We are pleased the court made this clear, providing Wisconsin voters with certainty for forthcoming elections.”

        – By Athena Thorne Jan 16, 2022 12:24 PM ET
        _____________________________________

        P.S. “Tuesday” is the law in the Constitution – Presidential Elections must begin and end within the 24 hours of Tuesday – Voting in person has been understood since the inception of democracy in Greece.

  13. More of the famous leftist tolerance we keep hearing about. I am just waiting for the first s@@tlib to explain why this is justified. Surely our morally superior and erudite leftist friends can explain when and why censorship is necessary.

    antonio

    1. Antonio, it’s a private school. The SBA is a student organization. Students who are paying tuition to a private school chose not to recognize the free speech group. The first amendment applies only to government or public entities.

      1. The first amendment applies only to government or public entities.

        AGAIN, this is not about the law. This is about core values. Is free speech a core value to be taught and advocated?

        You have no desire…No. You advocate that universities silence all that they consider inappropriate speech? That takes in a swath of speech.

        1. Is free speech really a core value for you?

          I don’t see you expressing concern about the comments that get removed here. Of course, it’s legal for JT to remove them. But as you note, we’re not discussing what’s legal.

          Also, for the umpteenth time, the students aren’t being prevented from speaking.

          “You advocate that universities silence all that they consider inappropriate speech? ”

          I don’t. But that isn’t what’s happening here, as the ESFS members remain free to say what they want.

  14. Seriously: when are dyed in the wool liberals (the ‘JFK crowd’) going to realize this is about $$$ and control and nothing else? Why is it so very difficult for ‘classical liberals’ to accept that the modern democratic party is basically the aristocracy of the 17th century and their intentions are nothing good whatsoever? That’s some mighty impressive brain washing/cognitive dissonance/I don’t even know what for people that are supposed to know better. Someone raised these children, and when you are raised with a legitimately open mind you do not behave like this. Come on. The issue is the issue and but a symptom, the root cause seems to be a blind spot on the level of a black hole. We can do better, and have too many times to count.

  15. JT, this is about dollars, not “free speech”. The student disbursable funds are limited. This organization appears to overlap at least to others. The decision makers voted to disburse the funds elsewhere.

    Go pedal your own canoe.

    1. Thats a budding fig leaf the attempted to use for cover. Their real reasons were scattered throughout the letter.

    2. David,

      These ‘decision makers’ said their decision was based on their desire to prevent free speech on some issues.

      1. BS.

        The students remain free to say what they want. The issue here is funding and things like the ease of reserving rooms, not speech.

        1. The issue here is funding and things like the ease of reserving rooms, not speech

          Try that same reasoning for a transgender group, or BLM organization, I’m positive the lie would hold up to scrutiny right 😉

          1. Name a transgender group or BLM organization that has applied to the Emory SBA.

            There’s no transgender group or BLM organization that’s gotten an Emory SBA charter, you can check the full list of groups with an SBA charter.

            1. that has applied to the Emory SBA.

              But that is not what I said.

              I’m talking about any student group denying a charter to any group. SBA only exists with the consent of the university. SBA does not operate in a vacuum. It is a part of the whole of the University culture.

              Do you agree that the lack of dollars would hold up to scrutiny with any other group. Like money is more important than debate. Jim Crow Democrats did that. I thought we all agreed it was a bad practice. A practice devoid of underlying values. Like freedom, liberty, speech…

              You insist on drilling down to the most minute and meaningless minutia, to keep from admitting you are against free speech as a valuable underlying core principle. An overriding value to control the decision making process.

        2. ATS,

          It appears you missed this part of the professor’s comment”

          “However, the greatest concerns were raised by the reference to the potential danger in allowing a free speech group since it “will likely give rise to a precarious environment – one where the conversation might very easily devolve.” The SBA made specific reference to controversial subjects that the groups would like to discuss as potentially harmful to the community, insisting that “it is disingenuous to suggest that certain topics of discussion you considered, such as race and gender, can be pondered and debated in a relaxed atmosphere when these issues directly affect and harm your peers’ lives in demonstrable and quantitative ways.”

          1. No, stupid, not only did I not miss that, I commented earlier on JT’s choice to quote only part of the sentence and omit text that affects the meaning of the sentence. He relies on his readers to be to lazy to read the full letter.

            1. ATS,

              Your reliance on costs and logistics rather than the open desire to stop free speech that is uncomfortable speaks for itself.

              There will always be an excuse for totalitarian acts ‘for the greater good’. But the acts remain totalitarian.

              1. Stupid, in no way does their decision stop free speech. You imagine a desire that isn’t there, not the first straw man argument from you.

                1. Stupid, in no way does their decision stop free speech.

                  Again, Try that with any leftis group, transgender, LBGWXYZ, Black etal. Garland will have a swat team in their rooms before sunrise.

                  Just admit your world view collapses under open debate. That’s all this suppression of speech means. Debate exposing the lies.

                  1. I have no problem with open debate. If I couldn’t cope with views that are different from mine, I wouldn’t be here.

                    Instead of demanding that I admit to your false claims and conjectures, deal truthfully with the actual facts.

                    Have you even gotten around to reading their entire letter yet? Can you distinguish between fact and conjecture?

              2. Young, Anonymous the Stupid needs to prove himself. That is why he always tries to let others know he has degrees and some people find him useful. That is likely true, but overall, ATS is a failure and knows it. That is why he plays these games to pull everyone else down. That is the only way he can rise and be noticed.

                1. Lately degrees are becoming a little like blue ribbons on pigs at the county fair except that the ribbons on pigs actually indicate some true merit.

                2. S. Meyer,

                  “ Young, Anonymous the Stupid needs to prove himself.”

                  No he doesn’t. What you and almost everyone else is being literally stupid. He’s pointing out to you EXACTLY what the issue is about and everyone else keeps bloviating without actually reading what the full letter is saying. Young and Iowan2 keep avoiding the facts and instead are proposing strawman arguments in order to avoid acknowledging that Turley is being disingenuous here. On the off chance they did read the entire letter it only means they didn’t get it and continue to make themselves look stupid by pushing useless strawman arguments.

                  Anonymous is correct here.

                  1. Svelaz, you provided a lot of rhetoric absent content. Tell us precisely what Anonymous the Stupid was right about. Or, like a monkey, are you only able to mouth words?

    3. That isn’t true. It’s what they backpedaled to say, but this is about the color of the founders’ skin. It was said in their own meeting.

  16. Just another in a long line of examples that show the political left’s rights for me but not for thee anti free speech anti political right initiatives.

    For the 21st century political left, there are four tenants of “truth”…

    1. The left is right.
    2. The right is wrong.
    3. Wrong is evil.
    4. Evil must to be destroyed

    …that’s the dead end of the 21st century political left’s critical thinking skills and that’s what these kind of anti free speech anti political right initiatives are targeting.

  17. [WARNING_OT_DO NOT READ_IGNORE]

    “CLAIM OF INTERNMENT CAMPS FOR THE UNVAXXED DRAWS HASTY CLARIFICATION FROM TUCKER CARLSON.”

    “Beck, who was on Fox’s top-rated Tucker Carlson Tonight promoting his new book The Great Reset, claimed that an international “reset” is underway that is moving Western civilization toward a fascist dystopia and that there is proof of it in Washington State – upcoming Covid-19 “internment camps.”

    “The Great Reset is not a conspiracy theory, it is something that the Davos people have put together along with the World Economic Forum,” claimed Beck, while Carlson listened intensely, “and it is running rampant through every Western capital and every Western country.”

    Beck charged:

    “Tomorrow morning at 9:30, the Washington state Covid detainment emergency, they are going to have a state board of health discussing from 9:30 to 3:30 tomorrow allowing health, local health officers to use law enforcement to force an emergency order in involuntarily detaining a person or group of persons’ families to be isolated in a quarantine facility following the refusal to voluntarily comply with requested medical examinations, testing, treatment, counseling and vaccination. This is an internment camp.”

    “They are going to bankrupt the entire West and only the elites are going to be able to have money, the food they want, the jobs they want, et cetera, et cetera,” Beck concluded. “We will be left in the dust. We must educate ourselves right now.”
    Carlson, for his part, left Beck unchallenged in his unfounded and wild assertions, but added at the end:

    “We’ve got and let of communication about the law that Glenn mentioned in Washington state. We’ve not been able to track that down, obviously, things have happened in the last years we never would have imagined are true. So, of course, our minds remain open and we will continue to look.”

    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/glenn-becks-bonkers-claim-of-internment-camps-for-the-unvaxxed-draws-hasty-clarification-from-tucker-carlson/

    How much money does it take to persuade a respected law professor to appear alongside a talk show host who would give a platform to spread the lies of a crazed conspiracy theorist like Glenn Beck? A talk show host who interviewed on his program a rabid anti-Semite, Ted Nugent, who Turley himself called a “true lunatic”?

    If ever I met Turley, the first question I would ask him would be, “Would you ever consider appearing as a legal analyst on Infowars with Alex Jones?” After he undoubtedly stated “Of course not,” I would ask him, “Why then do you appear with Tucker Carlson?” I would love to hear him explain the difference between Alex Jones and Tucker Carlson; why associating with Jones is utterly undignified but appearing with Carlson is not!

    No wonder Turley won’t take questions….

    1. Public Service Announcement

      ————–WARNING————–
      Please Don’t Feed The Trolls

      This concludes the public service announcement.

      Please return to your regularly scheduled commentary.

          1. If Turley contacts me through Darren that I am no longer welcome here, I will respect his wishes. You don’t speak for Turley

              1. Is it possible that you and I can have a civil conversation without your calling me disparaging names?

                1. jeffsilberman asked, “Is it possible that you and I can have a civil conversation without your calling me disparaging names?”

                  Yes it’s possible and if you look at my comments across this blog you’d see that’s true.

                  I’m bold and honest enough to say this outright; stop your trolling and you’ll get a lot of generally “civil” discussion, including from me. Your choices have consequences, so if you choose to write like a trolling moron then stop your whining like a snowflake when you don’t like the responses you get. Choices have consequences and you’re like the pompous rich guy from Chicago that builds a really expensive home next to a 200 year family owned dairy cow farm in southern Wisconsin and then complains to the local government to shut down the dairy farm that’s been there for 200 years because you don’t like the smell and it drives down your property value. Choices have consequences, make different choices and you’ll get different consequences but if you continue to make the same trolling choices and expect different results then… well you know the old saying.

                  1. I don’t agree I am a troll. I detect that Turley is often being hypocritical. I offer news items which he ignores which demonstrates my point.

                    Turley correctly claims that the MSM and Democrats as well as Republicans are often hypocritical. Why can’t I? Do you honesty think that Turley himself would censor my criticism given his free speech absolutism? Turley implores everyone to counter bad speech with more speech. If you believe I am mistaken, explain why I am wrong. Calling me a “troll” is tantamount to saying, “shut up.”

                    I don’t believe Turley would approve of your name calling. It’s too bad we cannot ask him. Darren would block me if he thought I was a genuine troll who was always acting in bad faith. But I am doing simply what Turley often does- holding journalists accountable for their silence on topics which they ought not to ignore.

                    1. jeffsilberman wrote, “Calling me a “troll” is tantamount to saying, “shut up.””

                      No it’s not. Saying someone is trolling is a description of that they are actually doing in their comment and it’s defined…

                      TROLLING: verb Posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, often for their own amusement.

                      If you don’t like that being applied to your comments then change what your doing.

                      A internet troll is someone that is trolling and you’ve earned that title time and time again.

                      Again; if you don’t like the title then change your ways and stop trolling, it really is that simple.

                      jeffsilberman wrote, “I don’t believe Turley would approve of your name calling. It’s too bad we cannot ask him.”

                      I’ve talked directly with Turley a number of times and you can too, simply email him.

                      jeffsilberman wrote, “But I am doing simply what Turley often does- holding journalists accountable for their silence on topics which they ought not to ignore.”

                      Jonathan Turley is NOT a journalist and you expecting Turley to do what journalist are supposed to do is an ignorant expectation. This is Turley’s blog not yours and he can write what he chooses, you criticizing him for the billions of things that he doesn’t write about is pure ad hominem attack dog nonsense.

                    2. By calling me a “troll,” you are effectively telling everyone to dismiss my contributions without reading them. Svelaz, Natacha, Fishwings, Paul, EB and others do not believe that I am a troll. Why should I accept your word? Yours is but one man’s opinion.

                      If Turley does not bother to read his blog comments as we have been led to believe, then what am I to say to him or ask him? He knows nothing of my criticisms. I don’t flatter myself that he knows anything about me. I contribute to this blog to lay a record for those persons who one day may do some research on Turley by reading his posts and our reactions to them. I recognize that I am held in contempt by 98% of the Trumpists here. I am content, however, to be read by the 2%. So if you don’t mind, I intend to continue to share my opinions with them.

                    3. “By calling me a “troll,” you are effectively telling everyone to dismiss my contributions without reading them.”

                      That is true, and anyone who has read them and has reasonable intelligence knows that what you consider contributions are merely repetitive statements that are meaningless. However, it is your right to troll, and Turley permits it. Turley believes bad speech should be countered with good speech. That is why you find so many negative comments about your lack of knowledge on subjects that you frequently admit to.

                      SM

                    4. NO ONE HAS DISPROVEN MY CLAIM THAT TURLEY HAS NEVER CRITICIZED HIS EMPLOYER FOR ANYTHING (EXCEPT ONCE HE CRITICIZED HANNITY FOR ATTENDING A TRUMP RALLY)

                      Instead, Trumpists attack me personally rather than disputing my contention that Turley is hypocritically ignoring advocacy journalism as well as rage at his Fox News while correctly pointing it out at Fox’s competitors.

                      All I’m asking for is one example.

                    5. jeffsilberman wrote, “NO ONE HAS DISPROVEN MY CLAIM THAT TURLEY HAS NEVER CRITICIZED HIS EMPLOYER FOR ANYTHING (EXCEPT ONCE HE CRITICIZED HANNITY FOR ATTENDING A TRUMP RALLY)”

                      That statement is a bassackwards rejection of logic; plus, (this is significant) the statement in its entirety is actually self contradicting; plus, it has a brazen inaccuracy.

                      Point #1 – Bassackwards Rejection of Logic:
                      It’s not up to others to disprove a claim that someone makes, it’s up to the person making the claim to prove their claim and only an immature fool would openly claim otherwise.

                      Point #2 – Self Contradicting:
                      The author makes a statement that the thing has “NEVER” happened then the author provides an example that proves his own claim of “NEVER” to be completely false. When the word “NEVER” is used in a claim like this it only takes one contradictory example to prove that “NEVER” is completely false. The ignorant author literally contradicted himself.

                      jeffsilberman wrote, “All I’m asking for is one example.”

                      Jeff asks for “one example” where Turley has criticized “HIS EMPLOYER” (that should be read as Fox News and anyone that appears on Fox News and not what Jeff actually wrote – see Point #3) and he’s already provided it and I’ll prove that with Jeff’s own words, “EXCEPT ONCE HE CRITICIZED HANNITY FOR ATTENDING A TRUMP RALLY”

                      I couldn’t have asked for a better comment example to show how an ignorant internet troll functions.

                      Point #3 – Brazen Inaccuracy:
                      Jonathan Turley is not an employee of Fox News as the comment directly implies, an employee/employer relationship is completely different than what Turley has with Fox News. Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School and only a commentator and legal analyst for Fox News when they would like his input.

                      CONCLUSION
                      That comment from jeffsilberman in its entirety was a rhetorical gift, a motherlode of information condemning our public education system, it’s what you call a signature significant¹ Freudian Slip² that reveals a general lack of intelligence. I think it’s fair to predict that the author will either show the usual trolling pattern where the troll drags the goal post out of the stadium and down main street or he will run off with his tail between his legs as his chin drags the ground.

                      Above jeffsilberman wrote, “I don’t agree I am a troll.”

                      Of course he doesn’t agree! From what he’s shown me in this comment alone, he might not have the intelligence to critically think about his own actions so self reflection is likely not even possible.

                      Non potes figere stultus!!!

                      ¹Signature Significance: Signature significance posits that a single act can be so remarkable that it has predictive and analytical value, and should not be dismissed as statistically insignificant.

                      ²Freudian Slip: noun, is a slip of the tongue that is motivated by and reveals some unconscious aspect of the mind.

                    6. Witherspoon says:

                      “Point #1 – Bassackwards Rejection of Logic:
                      It’s not up to others to disprove a claim that someone makes, it’s up to the person making the claim to prove their claim and only an immature fool would openly claim otherwise.”

                      No one has to do it, but until someone falsifies my contention that Turley does not criticize advocacy journalism at Fox, it remains unrefuted.

                      Witherspoon says:

                      “Jeff asks for “one example” where Turley has criticized “HIS EMPLOYER” (that should be read as Fox News and anyone that appears on Fox News and not what Jeff actually wrote – see Point #3) and he’s already provided it and I’ll prove that with Jeff’s own words, “EXCEPT ONCE HE CRITICIZED HANNITY FOR ATTENDING A TRUMP RALLY”

                      The fact that Turley has criticized a Fox employee just once compared to the many times he has criticized the MSM proves my point that Turley will not hold Fox to the same standard he holds the MSM.

                      Witherspoon says:

                      “Jonathan Turley is not an employee of Fox News as the comment directly implies, an employee/employer relationship is completely different than what Turley has with Fox News. Turley is a professor at George Washington University Law School and only a commentator and legal analyst for Fox News when they would like his input.”

                      Turley receives a sizable income from Fox. Therefore, he cannot be an impartial commentator.

                      If the moderator Darren agrees with you and asks me to quit this blog, I’ll comply. Given Turley’s principled stand on free speech, however, he wouldn’t dare.

                    7. jeffsilberman wrote, “No one has to do it, but until someone falsifies my contention that Turley does not criticize advocacy journalism at Fox, it remains unrefuted.”, “The fact that Turley has criticized a Fox employee just once compared to the many times he has criticized the MSM proves my point that Turley will not hold Fox to the same standard he holds the MSM.”, “Turley receives a sizable income from Fox. Therefore, he cannot be an impartial commentator.”

                      Such blatant immaturity.

                      That comment from jeffsilberman was the rhetorical equivalent of a child putting their fingers in their ears and screaming na, na…, na, na…, na so they don’t have to hear the factual truth. He also dragging the goal posts out of the stadium and down main street. Plus has has shown us blind prejudice against an attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst simply because that person is paid for their analysis.

                      This particular conversation with the immature man-child jeffsilberman, is over.

                    8. Witherspoon,

                      I simply asked you whether it was possible that you and I could have a civil conversation without your calling me disparaging names?

                      All you had to say was “no.”

                  2. Witherspoon says, “ Jonathan Turley is NOT a journalist and you expecting Turley to do what journalist are supposed to do is an ignorant expectation.”

                    Actually Turley IS a journalist. He publishes columns in various publications. He meets the very definition of what a journalist is. Writing columns for the Hill is journalism. He is bound by the very same rules of journalism standards.

                    1. Some fool wrote, “Actually Turley IS a journalist. He publishes columns in various publications. He meets the very definition of what a journalist is. Writing columns for the Hill is journalism. He is bound by the very same rules of journalism standards.”

                      Using that kind of ridiculous spin then anyone that writes anything that gets published in any kind of publication (maybe including any opinion blogs) is a journalist and that’s a b-a-s-t-a-r-d-i-z-a-t-i-o-n of what a real journalist is. Using your spin, you would have to consider me a journalist simply because I’ve actually written opinion columns for a magazine publication.

                      Yes journalists can write columns in publications but not all those who write columns in publications are journalists.

                      No; a person that is simply sharing their opinions in written, audio, or video form that’s then published in publications are not automatically considered to be journalists” they are commentators; in this regard, Jonathan Turley is a American attorney, legal scholar, writer, commentator, and legal analyst that sometimes has input into the news, this is not “journalism” and Turley is not a journalists”.

                      I think your argument is foolish.

              1. I dunno. I’m kinda feeling unwanted. If I leave, that is just one less person you Trumpists can kick around. You sure you want that?

    2. I was going to respond with some facts and substance, but noticed the author.
      Nope not wasting my time on an uninformed troll

      1. The information is contained in a News article. And just raise questions. Like you, Turley does not want to face embarrassing questions.

    3. Would be nice if commenters stuck to the subject and not go off on rants that are silly and muddled.

Leave a Reply