We have been following the controversy at Georgetown over the effort to fire conservative law professor Ilya Shapiro. Now, the campaign to cancel Shapiro has extended to other schools, including law schools where free speech should be most fervently and faithfully defended. Yet, students at the UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco shouted down Shapiro to prevent others from hearing his views on the upcoming confirmation hearings for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson. What is particularly chilling is to see the support of some faculty in this campaign.
Shapiro is under fire for his opposition to the pledge by President Joe Biden to limit consideration for the next Supreme Court nominee to a black female. Shapiro sent out a horrendously badly worded tweet that supported a liberal Indian-American jurist as opposed to a “lesser black woman.” He later removed the tweet and repeatedly apologized. He explained that he was referring to lesser qualifications vis-a-vis his preferred nominee, Sri Srinivasan, a liberal judge on the D.C. Circuit.
Georgetown faculty has supported the effort to fire Shapiro, including my former colleague Paul Butler whose op-ed in the Washington Post is being cited by Hastings faculty and students for barring Shapiro from speaking.
Many of us have encouraged Georgetown to resist such calls in support of free speech and academic freedom protections.
I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments including “abolishing white people,” “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.
Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the viewpoint. None of these academics calling for Shapiro’s termination called for termination of those professors. Nor should they. This is all about free speech.
Conservative sites like National Review have detailed what occurred at Hastings where Shapiro was going to debate another professor on the selection. Students came for the debate titled “The Battle Over Justice Breyer’s Seat,” but other students insisted that they should not be able to hear Shapiro’s views. The 45-minute video shows activists affiliated with the school’s Black Law Students Association (BLSA) pounding the tables and shouting to prevent Shapiro from speaking.
As Shapiro tries to speak, the students yell insults like “When did you start balding? Are you sad that you’re balding? I would be.” Another yelled “You’re a f***ing coward!” as others blocked his view from the lectern or clapped in his face. The charge of cowardice is particularly odd given Shapiro’s willingness to face such critics. It is the mob that did not want to allow his views to be heard in a free and fair debate.
Academic Dean Morris Ratner tried to remind the students that they are not allowed to block or interrupt events under the student code. Ratner explained “There’s a way to do that that’s consistent with our institutional codes and norms.”
The response was laughter with one student stating the common mantra used today to excuse anti-free speech campaigns: “It’s not a legitimate point of view!” Another yelled “Remove him off the f***ing campus, because that’s what we want.”
The students are voicing anti-free speech sentiments legitimated by professors and administrators. 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).
Some faculty take more direct action. At the 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. We also previously discussed the case of Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free speech rights in the matter.
Hastings Law Professor Veena Dubal supported the BLSA campaign and objected that the law school would allow such views to be heard on campus: “Why is the voice of someone who has made overtly racist & misogynist statements being elevated? . . . I found [Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler’s] OpEd in the Washington Post useful in drawing a sharp line between speech protected by the ideal of ‘academic freedom’ & speech that is racist & sexist.”
Such views are being readily embraced to treat free speech as inherently harmful. Polls show growing support for preventing dissenting views from being heard on our campuses. We have previously discussed the worrisome signs of a rising generation of censors in the country as leaders and writers embrace censorship and blacklisting.
The danger is not just that protesters can stop others from speaking but that school authorities can use that speech as a pretext for barring or shutting down events. The issue is not engaging in protest against such speakers, but to enter events for the purpose of preventing others from hearing such speakers. Universities create forums for the discussion of a diversity of opinions. Entering a classroom or event to prevent others from speaking is barring free speech. I would feel the same way about preventing such people from protests outside such events. However, the concern is not with outdoor events where all groups can be as loud and cantankerous as their voices will bear. Both sides have free speech rights to express. The issue on campus is the entrance into halls, or classrooms to prevent others from hearing speakers or opposing viewpoints by disrupting events.
This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others. Berkeley and other schools have 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.
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. In most schools, people are not allowed to disrupt events. They are escorted out of such events and told that they can protest outside of the events since others have a right to listen to opposing views. These disruptions however are often planned to continually interrupt speakers until the school authorities step in to cancel the event.
Absent enforcement of school rules on such disruptions, there is little hope for the open exchange of ideas and a diversity of opinions on campus. The rules of most schools properly draw the line between protests and disruptions. Everyone is allowed to be heard. However, if you enter to disrupt it, you are disrupting free speech.
The question is whether Hastings will now sanction these students. The law school issued an important and commendable email stating that “disrupting an event to prevent a speaker from being heard is a violation of our policies and norms, including the Code of Student Conduct and Discipline, Section 107 (“Harmful Acts and Disturbances”), which the College will—indeed, must—enforce.” However, it does not state that these rules will be enforced in disciplinary actions taken against these students.
We have previously seen universities decline to do so, even when protesters disrupt actual classes at schools like Northwestern. These students were told that disruption of the events violated the student code and they continued to disrupt the event.
The only way to protect free speech is to enforce these rules against those who would block opposing views from being heard on our campuses.
Here’s video.
Jonathan: It seems your previous column defending Ilya Shapiro’s racist attack on Judge Jackson has only served to highlight Shapiro’s racist views–now in contention at Hastings College of Law. It’s called the law of unintended consequences. For you, of course, “free speech” is a one way street. It only applies in the cause of conservative speakers.
There are other serious free speech issues you choose to ignore: (1) In states controlled by conservatives teachers are told what they can and cannot discuss in class–racism, gender identity, etc. are subjects forbidden. Books are being banned. In these same states conservatives are passing voter suppression laws to make it more difficult to exercise the ultimate “free speech” right–the right to vote; (2) At Tuesday’s State of the Union Marjorie Taylor Green and Lauren Boebert, radical right-wing conservatives, tried to shout down Biden when he began to address immigration. They interrupted Biden got up and shouted “Build the wall!”. How is that different from what some students tried to do half-way through Shapiro’s presentation sponsored by the conservative Federalist Society?; (3) Yesterday, during a visit at South Florida University FL conservative Gov Ron DeSantis was faced with students wearing face masks. He turned, bullied and berated the students: “You do not have to wear those masks. I mean take them off”. The superintendent of schools responded by defending the right of students to wear masks if they choose. The students were apparently trying to make a political statement against the Governor’s anti-mask legislation. Doubtful you will champion the “free speech” rights of students in Fl.; (4) Conservative FL Senator Rick Scott wants all kids to be compelled to “salute the flag”. Don’t students have a “free speech” right to refuse?; (5) Last night Tucker Carlson was straight up racist. He attacked Judge Jackson by saying confirming her on the Court would make the US look like “Rwanda”. Carlson demanded Biden release Jackson’s LSAT scores–something he did not demand for the three white conservatives Trump appointed. Will Carlson or Fox invite someone on to counter Carlson’s racist rantings? Not likely and more unlikely you would challenge Carlson’s racism.; (6) Trump’s new social media platform, “Truth Social”, is already banning those who have opposing POVs, something you and Trump have complained about re Twitter and Facebook. It appears only conservative views will be allowed on Trump’s platform.
The above cases highlight your selective “free speech” commitment. It only applies to conservatives–when it is conservatives who are threatening free speech around the country. So when you say you are a “free speech absolutist” I can only smile.
Whenever a Shapiro is shut down by students, it is usually a Ben Shapiro. So I was surprised when it wasn’t a Ben this time.
Leftists, even some on this blog, deny cancel culture as it is being applied and CRT. They refuse to own up to their ways of treating a diversity of opinions and races.
They are haters.
The only way this will end is for parents to quit paying for kids to go to these schools. I admire your stance on free speech, but I fear you are hitting your head on a brick wall.
The only way this will end is for parents to quit paying for kids to go to these schools
Alumni.
Find the largest contributors. That’s where the real the money comes from. College Deans are hired for their ability to harvest those dollars. Alumni start withholding money, change will happen, because Deans get fired.
Next up are corporations. Going to be hard to crack. Corporations hire graduates. If they let the college know their graduates will be shunned, word will get around to the students. But corporations hiring is done by a way left of center HR dept. As a rule, not very bright, and excellent followers, not leaders or risk takers.
I let University of Missouri Ag College know I would no longer interview their graduates. They are still whining about it. But I’m small potatoes. But I do have lots of friends int the industry.
Response to these so-called law students might be…..”
“Mr. Hart. Here is a dime. Take it. Go call your mother. Tell her there is serious doubt about you ever becoming a lawyer.”
Professor Turley gives examples of what he calls “similarly disturbing” speech. Without wishing to question the right of those speakers to say what they want, I think characterising their deliberate racism as “similarly disturbing” is odd. It is obvious that Shapiro meant that relative to the potential male candidate of Indian background he considers most qualified ANY candidate Biden would choose would be “lesser.” That Biden chose to limit the applicant pool to black women was Biden’s choice not Shapiro’s. So accusing Shapiro of racism for accurately parroting Biden’s choice is disingenuous. Like much faux outrage these days it is a form of performance art or theatre designed to coerce conformity.
@Daniel Thank you for taking the time to add greater context to Professor Shapiro’s speech. While all the expressions deserve protection, the lack of moral equivalency and parity under current societal norms ought to be acknowledged in fairness to the Professor. Your context provides the necessary fairness.
None of these law students are concerned with the merits, so the facts are not relevant. The point is to exert power. I’m old enough to remember the late 1960’s and school administrators were just as weak then. Somehow we made it, but this trend is very scary.
this is chilling, and unfortunately it’s rampant. Do these people not understand how important it is to hear other sides of the story to get a full picture? What the hell happened to America’s universities. And, more importantly, is it too late to turn it around? You experienced the cancel culture first hand when you testified at one of Trump’s impeachment trials as a constitutional attorney. This trend is more worrisome, if possible, than the Ukraine invasion.
“Remove him off the f***ing campus, because that’s what we want.”
They are faithful fascists who have learned from their professors how to be uncivilized.
The students and professors make a mockery of the proper methods of dealing with opinions they consider harmful. In the cases of disrupting speech they use methods that are more appropriate for clear and present danger or actual cases of serious harms to life, liberty or property to replace reasoned discussion against views they think are wrong. This is the typical transfer of small non-coercible offenses to major harms. This is done in both a substantive redefining of what counts as a serious harm and a permission of procedural travesty for what counts as due process for small harms. Substance: Harms have to be extremely serious for the coercion of harming the offender. Serious injury to one’s life or body, serious abuses of liberty like slavery and kidnapping, and serious harms to property like stealing and destruction all fit in the category of intervention, usually by the government, where the intervention itself is punishment that takes away life (shooting criminals who are in the act of killing someone), liberty (jail time), and property (fines). Voicing opinions should not count as any of these. Process: Typically in these cases, mere accusation counts as a guilty verdict, mere “feeling threatened” counts as a guilty verdict and mere claim of psychological damage counts as a guilty verdict and taking away free speech counts as due process for these students and professors and administrators.
I do think that if college presidents had even a smidgeon of courage they could be bulwarks against the idiotic abuse of free speech, but almost unanimously, they quiver as “Towers of Jello” in the face of even the slightness hint of not being politically correct. Compare these wet noodles to the example of Sam Hayakawa who became the president of San Francisco State University after the previous president was beaten up by the Black Panthers. This was about 50 years ago when campuses were in turmoil for the same reasons as today. Hayakawa refused to buckle under to the mob and expelled anyone who broke the law in their protesting. He was no right wing person. He was strongly against the Vietnam War but insisted upon protests being conducted in a civilized way. Today’s college leaders should follow his lead.
some other ideas for democrats following their socialists forebears from 1930’s German
“Decree to Protect the Government of the National Socialist Revolution from Treacherous Attacks” (21 March 1933),
the “Law of 20 December 1934 against insidious Attacks upon the State and Party and for the Protection of the Party Uniform”,
the “Law for the Guarantee of Peace Based on Law” of 13 October 1933
America, 2022: A third-world banana republic of hob-nailed fascists and Nazis. The head of this Leftist snake needs to be cut off. The squeaking wheel always cries out for more grease—and usually gets it. This wheel needs to be destroyed….and the time is growing very short.
“ The danger is not just that protesters can stop others from speaking but that school authorities can use that speech as a pretext for barring or shutting down events. The issue is not engaging in protest against such speakers, but to enter events for the purpose of preventing others from hearing such speakers. Universities create forums for the discussion of a diversity of opinions. Entering a classroom or event to prevent others from speaking is barring free speech. I would feel the same way about preventing such people from protests outside such events. However, the concern is not with outdoor events where all groups can be as loud and cantankerous as their voices will bear. Both sides have free speech rights to express.”
Turley’s arguments on free speech are sometimes so convoluted that they are more of a struggle to define that “bright line” that really is never going to be defined if he only believes “ bad free speech can only be countered with more good free speech.
The “heckler’s veto” is a legitimate form of free speech. Free speech is not a right to be HEARD. It’s a right to SPEAK. To express your view. If someone doesn’t like your view or idea nobody is obligated to listen. But unfortunately there are those that don’t want to let others express those views or ideas by shouting down or heckle a speaker. This happens all the the time during protests. There’s people constantly being “silenced” by being shouted down. Being shouted down or heckled is rude, but still free speech. Biden was heckled during his SOTUS by Republican lawmakers. Were they attacking free speech? According to Turley they were.
What about the censorship of a different idea like CRT being banned by Republican legislatures? Isn’t that attacking free speech too?
“The ‘heckler’s veto’ is a legitimate form of free speech.”
No it’s not. There is no such thing as the “right” to violate another person’s rights.
Sam, “ No it’s not. There is no such thing as the “right” to violate another person’s rights.”
No there’s not, BUT the right to be heard is does not really exist. Just the right to speak. Two people shouting over each other in an argument is not one violating the other’s right. It’s TWO people e exercising their free speech right at the same time. Whoever is the loudest and most insistent usually prevails over the other who either gives up or decides to throw a punch.
What Turley is really arguing is more about decorum and civility. If you never seen how the British parliament operates you would notice that heckling is a big part of it. It’s more controlled but still a form of free speech. Shouting down someone is not illegal or unconstitutional. It’s just plain rude and obnoxious but still free speech. It happens all the time during protests and even in debates when moderators can’t control the debate.
“Two people shouting over each other in an argument is not one violating the other’s right. It’s TWO people e exercising their free speech right at the same time. ”
You are wrong! You assume only “TWO” people are involved. The rest of the people paid to hear the professor. You are stealing their opportunity to learn.
You are a thief.
“You assume only “TWO” people are involved.”
Good for you. You caught the fact that he arbitrarily switched the context.
In addition to your point, the fuller context is: The speaker was invited to speak. It is his rights and the host’s rights that are being violated.
Sam, Svelaz’s ideas are seldom consistent. Any complexity causes him to create conflicting ideas. What he writes should be added to the crossword puzzle books where people are asked to find all the conflicting ideas that make his writing a joke. Like other puzzles it would be a good exercise.
S. Meyer,
“ Sam, Svelaz’s ideas are seldom consistent. Any complexity causes him to create conflicting ideas.”
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!!!! S. Meyer you can always be counted on projecting your faults into others. Couple that with your bad reading comprehension skills and you have a recipe for irrationality.
Those “conflicting” ideas are called opposing views. You should look it up sometime.
“Those “conflicting” ideas are called opposing views. You should look it up sometime.”
That is true, Svelaz. Unfortunately, your opposing views oppose other things you say. You are a mishmash of ideas that conflict *with one another*. Your ideas are poorly thought out, and you are intellectually unable to rectify your problem.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ That is true, Svelaz. Unfortunately, your opposing views oppose other things you say. ”
Such as? Give us an example S. Meyer. Obviously you should have no trouble posting what you are claiming. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Svelaz, I already provided the examples in my prior post. If you wish, I can link you to all these discussions. I did that in the past. It’s a waste of time because everyone on the blog already recognizes your peculiar problems, whether they say so or not.
Here is a link https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/21/the-other-big-lie-democrats-fuel-doubts-over-the-legitimacy-of-the-coming-elections/comment-page-1/#comment-2153325
It’s self-explanatory, as are the surrounding links. I’ve done this many times, but you keep asking for these things again.
Here is another one that has surrounding explanatory comments.
That is the max permitted. I have loads of Svelazisms.
Sam, it wasn’t an arbitrary switch. It was an example proving that the concept that shouting down someone is not violating another’s freedom of speech. It was S. Meyer who switched the context of my point when he claimed I assumed “only” two people. I never stated it in that context. S. Meyer often has difficulty with reading comprehension.
“ In addition to your point, the fuller context is: The speaker was invited to speak. It is his rights and the host’s rights that are being violated.”
No they were not. Disrupted perhaps, but not violated. You can always escort hecklers and protesters out. Being rude is not a violation of someone else rights. Being obnoxious isn’t either. It’s entirely up to the speaker to continue even in the face of such actions.
“It was S. Meyer who switched the context of my point”
No. I didn’t switch context. Look at the video and the number of people. Classes and lectures have more than two people. You are in constant turmoil because your ideas are bad and always in conflict. No one is concerned about an argument with two people. The discussion is over classroom and lecture behavior.
Anonymous, I’m only using the example of two people arguing. Not a venue where a group of people came to hear someone speak.
In a venue where a group of people wanting to hear a speaker also take the risk that there could be a heckler or a group of hecklers opposing the speaker’s views or opinions. Heckling while rude and obnoxious is still a legitimate form of free speech. You CAN remove hecklers. Especially if the venue is a private one, just like Facebook or Twitter can.
Who were all those people sitting in the classroom? Maybe they didn’t all pay to go to school, but someone is paying the bill. Didn’t you recognize that the discussion was in a classroom with others? You are making things up again. You are a thief.
A class room, venue, auditorium, rally, etc. where a speaker is is irrelevant if you’re gonna have heckling and/or disruption. Even in school board meetings where parents shout down board members and disrupt the meeting ARE exercising their free speech rights. If what Turley is saying that such activities are attacks on free speech then why didn’t he criticize those parents shouting down speakers at those school board meetings? What’s the difference?
“Even in school board meetings where parents shout down board members and disrupt the meeting ”
Frequently, it is the school board trying to shut down parents. Parents get an allotted time, and there are plenty of videos showing school board members shutting parents up when parents complain about the abuse their children are forced to endure.
The intention of the leftists at our universities is not discussion. It is shutting the other side down.
“What about the censorship of a different idea like CRT being banned by Republican legislatures? Isn’t that attacking free speech too?”
No. It’s the government doing its job of overseeing *public* educational institutions.
If you don’t like the government involved in education, then get education out of the government.
Sam,
“ No. It’s the government doing its job of overseeing *public* educational institutions.”
That doesn’t include censoring a different point of view because it makes others…uncomfortable. It’s the whole point behind the 1st amendment. Government is prohibited from preventing a different point of view regardless of how “uncomfortable” it makes others feel. Just as it is uncomfortable or disgusting letting neo-nazis parade and spout their views. The threshold is discomfort of the idea that this country isn’t as “pristine” as many would like it to be. CRT challenges that notion and many conservatives and republicans don’t want to or cannot acknowledge a glaring inconsistency in history that contradicts the sanitized version of history we have already been taught.
It wasn’t until CRT became an issue that we learned about the Tulsa massacre. They didn’t even teach that relevant history in Tulsa schools. It presented a very ugly part of their history. But because it is ugly and an uncomfortable truth it was never mentioned.
“It’s the whole point behind the 1st amendment. Government is prohibited from preventing a different point of view regardless of how “uncomfortable” it makes others feel. ”
We see people fired because they made a minority feel uncomfortable by saying that minority person made a mistake.
Your ideas conflict with one another, and you don’t even know that. We know why, but you are unable to figure that out.
S. Meyer,
“ We see people fired because they made a minority feel uncomfortable by saying that minority person made a mistake.
Your ideas conflict with one another, and you don’t even know that. We know why, but you are unable to figure that out.”
Nope. You just have horrendous reading comprehension problems.
People get fired by PRIVATE companies who are not bound by the restrictions the constitution places in GOVERNMENT. People get fired when they DO stupid racist things that affect THEIR employer’s reputation. They didn’t just make a minority feel uncomfortable, they were being subjected to bigoted and racist assumptions. There’s a BIG difference between feeling uncomfortable discussing an issue and deliberately using race to get someone in trouble like Karens complaining to police.
You really do have serious problems around complex issues. Your limited intelligence does not allow you to make subtle or complex distinctions.
Svelaz, maybe your brain hasn’t evolved enough to understand what was said. We see people fired because they made a minority feel uncomfortable by saying that minority person made a mistake. You want to argue based on ignorance. Go ahead.
You are a thief. I paid the university to hear what the professor had to say. You have stolen that opportunity from me, and now I am poorer. Will you ever go to jail for such thievery? You should, or at least you should, be suspended. Your right to free speech does not have greater standing than my right to get what I paid for.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
That’s not thieving. It’s merely an annoyance. You have a right to listen to what a speaker has to say, but if there is. Heckling or disruption going on all that can be done is kick those people out. That’s it. The act of heckling itself is a form of free speech. Even hecklers get heckled by bud rest of the crowd if they choose to.
Look at it this way. Comedians get heckled ALL the time and the majority of the time they handle hecklers exactly the same way Turley often says it should be. With MORE speech. Smart comebacks, insults, ridicule, OR just ask the hecklers to leave.or be thrown out. A good speaker would address the hecklers directly and shut them down with a good retort or comeback.
When you pay to hear a controversial speaker you also take a risk that those who oppose it COULD heckle or disrupt the event. A good speaker would continue to speak after the hecklers and rabble rousers are removed.
It’s thievery. Someone pays for something, and you steal it away. You make a lot of excuses for being a thief, but they don’t hold water, and some don’t even make sense. The latter is more frequent. There is a difference between being a heckler and a thief though both can be arrested.
False analogy re CRT – an imposed curriculum isn’t an exercise in free speech.
CRT is not an imposed curriculum. It’s a different point of view which is being censored because it makes some people “uncomfortable”.
“It’s a different point of view which is being censored because it makes some people “uncomfortable”.
***************************
That’s exactly what George Wallace said about segregation. Great minds, ya know …. Personally, I think we should teach CRT and all the ways it is just a Maoist shill for class warfare and false oppressor verus oppressor metality. It should go right there beside Lebensraum, Eugenics and Grimms’s Fairy Tales as creepy works of fiction that cause more harm than good.
You are a racist so I will provide you with several quotes that will warm your heart.
“All white people are racist or complicit by virtue of benefiting from privileges that are not something they can voluntarily renounce.” _Barbara Applebaum
“White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy.” _Robin DiAngelo
“According to studies, babies at two to three years old, start internalizing racist ideas, start discerning and making decisions based on racist ideas … We’re allowing our society to raise them to be racist.” _Ibram Kendi
You believe this trash. That doesn’t improve your image.
CRT is “a different point of view . . .”
No. It’s collectivist-racist propaganda, being used to subject children to the pyschological torture of “struggle sessions.”
Free Speech has been dead about…when was Obama elected? DC is lost!
GOP needs a landslide and then cut 50% of DC area government…and move 40% to the Heartland!
No doubt this group is the same group who feel traumatized by the misadventure of George Floyd? You can hear them shouting “Black Lives Matter” maybe they know who assumes responsibility for where the BLM donation money is/went?
“Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical. If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition. To allow opposition by speech seems to indicate that you think the speech impotent, as when a man says that he has squared the circle, or that you do not care whole heartedly for the result, or that you doubt either your power or your premises. But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That at any rate is the theory of our Constitution” Abrams v. US in 1919 (J. Holmes, dissent)
Turley says:
“Hastings Law Professor Veena Dubal supported the BLSA campaign and objected that the law school would allow such views to be heard on campus: “Why is the voice of someone who has made overtly racist & misogynist statements being elevated? . . . I found [Georgetown Law Professor Paul Butler’s] OpEd in the Washington Post useful in drawing a sharp line between speech protected by the ideal of ‘academic freedom’ & speech that is racist & sexist.” Such views are being readily embraced to treat free speech as inherently harmful. Polls show growing support for preventing dissenting views from being heard on our campuses.”
Not good faith “dissenting views,” but rather a person who had espoused racist and sexist views. I don’t agree with the “heckler’s veto,” but I do draw a distinction between a racist statement and a good faith dissenting viewpoint. I don’t believe that institutions of higher learning must provide a platform for a neo-Nazi advocating that Jews are untermeschen. We don’t have the right to silence a Nazi from freely speaking as long as we reserve the right to ignore him and tell him that we are not obligated to entertain his hate.
Let me guess-YOU get to decide what is ‘racist and sexist’ and who is a ‘neo-Nazi’, right?
You simply show your historical ignorance calling someone you disagree with a ‘Nazi’-the Nazi’s didn’t debate Jews, they killed 6 million of them. This hysterical hyperbole by the left continues to make their argument less serious, and more cartoon-like….if that’s possible.
but first they spread propaganda, took over the media, issued edicts, rioted,…you know…like Democrats are doing!
A Sondergericht (plural: Sondergerichte) was a German “special court”. After taking power in 1933, the Nazis quickly moved to remove internal opposition to the Nazi regime in Germany. The legal system became one of many tools for this aim and the Nazis gradually supplanted the normal justice system with political courts with wide-ranging powers. The function of the special courts was to intimidate the German public, but as they expanded their scope and took over roles previously done by ordinary courts such as Amtsgerichte this function became diluted.
Stoppitt asks:
“Let me guess-YOU get to decide what is ‘racist and sexist’ and who is a ‘neo-Nazi’, right?”
No. WE all do.
useful in drawing a sharp line between speech protected by the ideal of ‘academic freedom’ & speech that is racist & sexist.
If speech never offended, the 1st Amendment would be useless.
The First Amendment exist to SPECIFICALLY PROTECT offensive language. Not the bland, sop, the university’s are pushing
To allow the government to “judge” which is offensive speech is to have the govt censor speech.
This is very simple stuff. Stuff I learned in elementary school.
In this article, Turley was referring to Little Brother NOT Big Brother.
In this article, Turley was referring to Little Brother NOT Big Brother.
Look retard. We were never talking about this being a supreme court case. We are talking about a principle. Free speech.
You and Universities come down on the side of forced propaganda. That is the discussion.
Just tell us why you need to resort to propaganda
Please ignore my contributions. I’m not interested in conversing with lying Trumpists. Don’t waste your time.
This has nothing to do with Trump.
Your wear your label of Retard with misplaced pride. But parr for the course. Unable to debate the issue, unable to cancel me, you just run away.
Yes. I run away from you. I want to keep my distance. I don’t want anything to do with Trumpists liars. You people are dead to me.
Today, there are constitutionally oath sworn officials that view perfectly legal and non-threatening online speech as essentially “probable cause” to perform an illegal search. They forget the remainder of the 4th Amendment that requires permission from a Judicial Branch court.
That’s really the summary of the 21st Century – the 1st and 4th Amendment restraints on executive branch authority is dead! There are no constitutional-cops and no enforcement. Parents should teaching their children not to use this technology with these pretend rights. We no longe have a Bill of Rights and few judges are enforcing the supreme law of the land.
The left censor the ideas they fear. The ideas they can’t counter with facts.
Iowan2,
“ The left censor the ideas they fear. The ideas they can’t counter with facts.”
The right does it just as badly. Trump’s new platform “Truth”. Is already censoring and kicking out people. Ironically their terms and conditions are EXACTLY the same as Facebook and Twitter. They want to have the ability to censor or remove those who violate their rules just like Facebook and Twitter. It’s their right, and certainly their rules….just like Facebook and Twitter. They can and do censor ideas as a private company.
“The right does it just as badly. Trump’s new platform “Truth”. Is already censoring and kicking out people. ”
Let us see if there is the slightest bit of honesty in what you say. Provide examples. When it comes to facts, you stop existing because you make things up.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Let us see if there is the slightest bit of honesty in what you say. Provide examples. When it comes to facts, you stop existing because you make things up.
“ You agree that by accessing the Service, you have read, understood, and agree to be bound by all of these Terms of Service”
…” your Contributions are not false, inaccurate, or misleading.”
..” your Contributions are not obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, violent, harassing, libelous, slanderous, or otherwise objectionable.”
…” your Contributions do not depict violence, threats of violence or criminal activity.
your Contributions do not advocate or incite, encourage, or threaten physical harm against another.
your Contributions do not violate any applicable law, regulation, or rule.
your Contributions do not violate the privacy or publicity rights of any third party.”
…,
“ Any use of the Service in violation of the foregoing violates these Terms of Service and may result in, among other things, termination or suspension of your rights to use the Service and removal or deletion of your Contributions.”
https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/
Obviously they reserve the right to remove or delete content that violates their rules. You can’t even make fun of the site.
The right DOES censor just as the left does.
The terms of use do have limiting factors necessary to prevent destructive people from interfering with the rights of others.
There is such a thing as libel, so don’t lie. Perhaps you are a lascivious and violent person. Such behavior is not permitted on the street where you live nor on the blog.
“You can’t even make fun of the site. ”
Where is that stated? Where is your proof? Are you making that up?
“The right DOES censor just as the left does.”
We already know the left censored the truth. Where has Trump’s network censored the truth? Examples. Don’t run away.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ You can’t even make fun of the site. ”
Where is that stated? Where is your proof? Are you making that up?”
Nope.
“ harass, , intimidate, or threaten any of our employees or agents engaged in providing any portion of the Service to you.”
https://help.truthsocial.com/legal/terms-of-service/
Making fun of truth Social employees or agents can easily be interpreted as harassment. Trump IS an agent engaged in providing any portion of the service.
People have already been booted out for making fun of Trump on the platform.
“harass, , intimidate, or threaten any of our employees or agents engaged in providing any portion of the Service to you.”
Interesting. Svelaz thinks harassing, intimidating and threatening people should not be prevented. Svelaz, you are an idiot.
So far, no examples.
Anonymous (S. Meyer),
“ Interesting. Svelaz thinks harassing, intimidating and threatening people should not be prevented. Svelaz, you are an idiot.
So far, no examples.”
No, what is interesting is that I gave you THE example you demanded. But because of your poor reading comprehension skills you insinuated something I never said or implied. It’s Truth Social who will interpret that clause as a reason to censor anyone who mocks Trump or the platform. It’s extremely easy to claim mocking comments as harassment.
People have already been kicked out for doing just that.
You have provided no examples. You are not a credible individual.
Svelaz, you can pretend to be smart, but you are dumber than a brick. This type of notification: “harass, , intimidate, or threaten any of our employees or agents engaged in providing any portion of the Service to you.” is to maintain peace and prevent people from being harmed. You believe in threatening and intimidation because you don’t have a mind that can do anything but threaten and intimidate.
You have screwed up on almost every discussion. Over and over, you talked about vaccine approval despite being provided the written memorandums along with excerpts. You think an inaccurate textbook is an excellent textbook. You claim a person to be an authority on CRT is fully trained when he states he is still working for his degree. You don’t have the slightest idea of tax law. I don’t think a person on this blog exists with less knowledge than you.
“ The terms of use do have limiting factors necessary to prevent destructive people from interfering with the rights of others.”
Exactly, just like Facebook and Twitter.
“ Where has Trump’s network censored the truth? Examples. Don’t run away.”
Here ya go,
“ Where has Trump’s network censored the truth? Examples. Don’t run away.”
https://gazette.com/news/truth-social-criticized-by-far-right-talk-show-host-for-censorship-as-it-surges-in/article_af7df1cb-a9c3-5fc1-a975-fb88a954dac3.html
The right does it just as badly. Trump’s new platform
You want to compare a University, to a web site?
Get serious
Iowan2, you didn’t mention universities. Just,
“The left censor the ideas they fear. The ideas they can’t counter with facts.”
Appropriately I mentioned the right does the same thing by providing a relevant example. How hard can it be to grasp the concept?
you didn’t mention universities.
“College” is in the title of the post.
Its in larger font. Easy to see. Colleges and Universities are the subject of discussion. That’s why your whataboutism, is a pathetic attempt to be relevent in an adult conversation.
Something you always fail.
Iowan2, you only mentioned “the left”. You offered a generalization and I reciprocated with an example that the Right does it too, but if you want to use a college or university as an example.
“ FIRE wrote to Liberty University President Jerry Falwell, Jr. on August 24, 2018, regarding media reports detailing years of censorship of student newspaper the Liberty Champion. ”
https://www.thefire.org/cases/liberty-university-tradition-of-student-press-censorship/
Fire, compalints about editing and killing of stories in the student newspaper, sounds like the norm in every college newspaper I’ve been around. Not the same as shouting down speakers and firing professors.
I would like to say I feel you pain. But I have never been in to position of trying to defend opposin poisitons at the same time. I have core values that prevent that.
Putin is reading this Turley blog this morning and is happy that America has “gone south”.
can you explain why Hillary hired a British spy to work with the Russians to overthrow the US election! Then the Democrats at the NSA, DOJ, FBI…used the Hillary Russian Conspiracy to attack Trump? The facts are known!
The Russians take Crimea when Biden is Vice President, then they take a 4year hiatus during Trumps term, then after Biden takes over they attack Ukraine. And Trump was conspiring with the Russians.
Limiting the “short list” to members of a certain race is … racist.
Limiting the “short list” to members of a certain sex is … sexist.
Exactly what happens when you admit unqualified leftist activists into academic settings under the banner of diversity and inclusion, It’s why places like Hastings College School of Law serve as indoctrination centers instead of education centers. Academic cowardice is prevalent and appalling and it’s confirmation of Nixon’s observation that higher education strengthens the mind but weakens the backbone.