We have been discussing how academics and students now define blocking speech or shouting down speakers to be an exercise of free speech. It is the very denial of free speech but also violates the rules of many universities. Yet, administrators are either supportive of such cancelling efforts or fearful in being tagged the next racist or reactionary by a mob. So we have scenes like the one at Yale Law School where students disrupted a conservative speaker and required the intervention of campus police to safely remove the speakers. It is particularly distressing to see such scenes unfold at law schools where free speech was once taught as a defining right in our system. As shown recently at Georgetown Law School, free speech is often portrayed today more as a threat rather than a guarantee in our system. Indeed, Yale students later complained that the police presence at the event created an unsafe space for students as they disrupted the event. Police were needed to escort the speakers safely out of the event.
The event was precisely what law schools once strived to present in sharing diverse viewpoints and allowing for the opportunity of dialogue on issues that are important to our society. A panel featured Monica Miller from the American Humanist Association and Kristen Waggoner, a conservative Christian of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) nonprofit to discuss issues related to the ongoing litigation in the Supreme Court over religious exercise, free speech, and anti-discrimination laws.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, the panel was going to explore various issues. However, it also allowed a discussion from a liberal atheist and a conservative Christian on the right of a baker in refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. I have previously written about that case as well as the new case coming before the Supreme Court.
Notably, as Professor Kate Stith tries to remind the students that Yale guarantees the right to free speech, one student yells “this is free speech” in shouting down such speakers. Stith finally tells the students to “grow up.”
After the speakers were escorted out of the room, the protesters chanted “protect trans kids” and “shame, shame” in the halls of the law school in protest of the speakers being able to appear on campus.
Miller, who opposes Waggoner’s nonprofit as a “hate group,” shared Waggoner’s shock at the conduct of the law students and, as a liberal advocate, noted that “if you can’t talk to your opponents, you can’t be an effective advocate.”
Yale expressly prohibits this type of disruption. The guidance posting states:
Yale is committed to fostering an environment that values the free expression of ideas. In 1975, Yale adopted the Report of the Committee on Freedom of Expression at Yale (the Woodward Report ) as providing the standard for university policy. This guidance addresses the university’s freedom of expression policy as applied in a variety of situations.
…
The exercise of free expression on campus is subject to three general conditions:
1) access to a university event or facility may not be blocked;
2) a university event, activity, or its regular or essential operations may not be disrupted; and
3) safety may not be compromised.
Two days after event, 417 students reportedly signed an open letter that not only supported the disruption but claimed that protesters were “imperiled by the presence of police” as they worked to prevent the exercise of free speech. They also attacked Stith and the Federalist Society for hosting an event that “profoundly undermined our community’s values of equity and inclusivity.”
The open letter states in part:
“It is important to recognize that, nationwide, LGBTQ people are six times more likely to be stopped by the police than non-LGBTQ people and trans people are especially abused by the criminal legal system. The danger of police violence in this country is intensified against Black LGBTQ people, and particularly Black trans people. Police-related trauma includes, but is certainly not limited to, physical harm. Even with all of the privilege afforded to us at YLS, the decision to allow police officers in as a response to the protest put YLS’ queer student body at risk of harm. Police have targeted Yale students who did not appear to “belong” before, so concerns about police presence are real and present for many in our community.
The safety of a large contingent of YLS students—a group of largely LGBTQ and BIPOC students—was put at risk, possibly by our own administration. The risk was not just hypothetical: one of the officers called into SLB went as far as to try to move a trans student by physically pushing against them with his much larger body, despite the fact that the student was standing where OSA representatives had asked them to stand.”
Law student Rachel Perler objected that “[It’s] just ironic that students who showed up to engage in free speech, either by asking questions or by protesting the event, were faced with armed police.”
There is no indication that Yale will enforce its rules and hold anyone responsible for disrupting the event. That is a common pattern in schools ranging from Northwestern to Georgetown.
What is also notable is the silence of most of the faculty at Yale. That is also a common factor in these attacks on dissenting viewpoints on campuses. The message is clear. Events featuring dissenting views, particularly from conservative or libertarian speakers, will not be tolerated.
Notably, alumni at Princeton have also objected to how the university has repeatedly undermined free speech despite its strong commitment to guaranteeing the expression of diverse viewpoints. Edward Yingling and Stuart Taylor Jr. have detailed that troubling history of the university fueling attacks on faculty and students holding opposing views. The organization, Princetonians for Free Speech, have recently called on the board of directors to investigate and intervene to preserve diversity of thought at the university.
It is an all-too-familiar pattern being played out across the country. The record of most schools is at best passive aggressive in declining to enforce their free speech rules. The result is a chilling effect on free speech that is perfectly glacial.
Yalies are bunch of weenies. One needs to go to Russia and take down Putin.
We are reaping what we have sown, i e public school system.
These Law School rioters didn’t want the police there to stop them from physically stopping others from speaking. Who had to be protected from physical violence by the mob composed of the lovers of fairness and diversity? It is amazing that they act in direct opposition to what they say they believe in. It would seem that after all they don’t really believe in fairness or diversity. They just meet in their little klavern and chant fairness diversity, fairness diversity, fairness diversity. Da da dee dum. Da da dee dum. Da da dee dum. Fairness for me dum. Not for thee dum. Not for thee dum. For hours on end they chant to the great god Hypocrisy. They will graduate and spread their religion throughout the nation. They have a right to their incantations. Let them chant but do not for a minute forget their intentions.
More of Turley’s pot-stirring, eliciting the usual rhetoric from the disciples. Why should Yale Law students “accept” the premise of the “conservative” speaker that LGBTQ people aren’t entitled to the same Constitutional protections enjoyed by everyone else? And, why should religion be used as a defense to discrimination against LGBTQ people? The entire premise of the “conservative” (bleached blonde, of course) speaker’s position is fundamentally flawed — that LGBTQ people are inferior, and that if you “disapprove” of them and want to discriminate against them, claim that your hatred is based on your religion. Law students study the Constitution, read SCOTUS cases and are imbued with the values of liberty and freedom for all and the fight for justice that lawyers have fought since this country was founded. Then, along comes the Federalist Society, trying to shove its hatred of those who are different down their throats under the guise of a “debate”. There’s nothing to “debate” here–law students aren’t going to fall for the “religious freedom” argument that discriminating against people due to their sexual orientation is acceptable, especially for something as trivial as a wedding cake. This was totally foreseeable, and it has nothing to do with freedom of speech: it has to do with the fundamental belief that all persons are entitled to freedom from discrimination under our Constitution. It’s not surprising that they would shout down this person because she’s in the wrong. She should save her preaching for her church.
Natch, sweety, I thought Yale had standards. Looking at that video all the women are horribly dressed and ugly, kinda like you.
I think the professor is the 2nd most boneable woman in the room besides the one sitting next to her.
Who touches least during sex? Yale law students, Natch or Bill n Hillary?
You are a prime example of what a shallow, coarse and ignorant person like Trump has done to this country: you have no substantive response to the position that law students won’t accept a speaker who doesn’t honor the concept that all people are entitled to protection under the Constitution, including LGBTQ, so you attack my appearance and wardrobe, and value the content of speech based on “bonability”.
WoC, you sound like you know Natch. I’d like to say she’s off her meds but then again I don’t know if she ever took them.
Okay Natacha, you can be all the LGBTQ you want to but when you tell a ten year old that it’s alright to sick his friends d**k or you say that its normal to apply chemicals to a seven year old to limit his testosterone or when you cut the penis of of a seven year old boy or stunt the growth of breast on an eleven year old girl I must find myself in complete disagreement to your position. When you deny a high school girl standing at the top of the podium at a swim meet because that spot is taken by a boy you confirm who you really are. When I stand against these things color me purple for prejudice against what the LGBTQ community is doing. The question is, who is causing the harm?
Gender reassignment surgery is NEVER done on people under the age of 18, and always REQUIRES extensive psychiatric evaluation over the course of years to validate the reasons, to be certain that the person knows there’s no going back. Hormones cannot be given to pre-pubescent patients without a doctor’s order, and this is a rarity. So, doctors aren’t cutting off the penises of 7 year olds.
Anyway, what business is it of yours if someone wants gender reassignment surgery or hormone therapy?
Natacha, a society needs to stand against pedophilia and those who want to perform it. A society needs to stand against telling a ten year old that it’s no big deal to suck the d**k of his ten year old friend. In the book “Lawn Boy” page 19, she said was the following quote: “Not that it really matters, in fourth grade at a church youth group meeting out in the bushes, I touched Doug Goebbels d**k, and he touched mine. In fact, there was even some mouths involved.” On page 91, she read, “What if I told you I touched another guy’s d**k? What if I told you I sucked it? I was ten years old, but it’s true. I put Doug Goebbels’ d**k in my mouth. I was in fourth grade, it was no big deal. He sucked mine too. And you know what, it wasn’t terrible. This book was found in an elementary school library. Who am I to say that these things are not acceptable you ask? Who are you to say that these things are acceptable? Who are you to say it’s acceptable to neuter a young boy by limiting his growth by lowering his production of testosterone? Who are you to say that’s alright to take a young female swimmers chance to be the best she can be at her sport. Who are you to say that its fine to take her years of sacrifice and throw them in the gutter? You know that sex change treatment is being performed on children under the age of consent. Who are you to tell us that these things must be accepted by the rest of us? Who are you? We know the answer.
Natacha says that gender age surgery is never performed on children under the age of consent. I offer the following link. You can go directly to paragraph fifteen if you want to see their plan. https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/gender-confirmation-surgery-transgender-youth-research/. Remember that Natacha told us that CRT wasn’t being taught in grade schools and that Hunter’s laptop was just Russian disinformation. This is a source that you can reasonably question. Oh wait. I forgot that Natacha swore that RussiaGate was true. If your waiting for contrition it’s not in her personality.
“their plan”: Whose plan? I won’t click on any link you provide because I don’t trust you. No one has any “plan” to mutilate children, and the fact that you think so proves you don’t know much about gender dysphoria and the emotional suffering it causes. All you know is that your alt-right sources tell you that young children are being surgically mutilated, which isn’t true at all. Of course, all of this is to stir up the disciples’ outrage against “Libs, the Left and Democrats”. CRT is not being taught in grade schools. Prove that it is. I never said that “Russian disinformation” was involved in the “Hunter Biden Scandal”. What I did say is that there wasn’t proof that the laptop belonged to Hunter Biden, so now if there’s proof it belonged to him, there’s still the issue of whether any information was planted there and is fake. Giuliani DID have a hand in this because he’s the one who came up with the laptop that he claims a Delaware computer repair shop gave him. The reason is because Trump flopped so badly in the debates. The plan was to try to derail Biden’s rhythm with salacious accusations against Hunter because Biden was kicking Trump’s ass. So much for Biden being “senile” or “demented”–all polls showed Biden won the debates. The details of whether information was planted on the laptop remain to be explored. Even Turley can’t say that there is proof of any crimes or that all of the data on there are genuine. Because of Giuliani’s hand in all of this, I have serious doubts about the authenticity of anything on the hard drive. Giuliani’s law license is suspended because he LIES.
What is “Russia Gate”? Some new moniker put out by the alt/right as a shorthand way to dismiss Trump’s crookedness? The Mueller Report proves that Russia helped Trum cheat. Trump has proven himself to be a Russian pawn by siding publicly with Putin at Helsinki over American Intelligence, by lobbying to try to get Russia back into the G-7, by trashing NATO and the EU, by threatening to pull the US out of NATO, and the latest, praising Putin for premeditated murder of innocent Ukrainians as “smart, savvy and wonderful”, which is being used as propaganda. The only “Russia Gate” is the fact that Trump is not, and never will be, legitimate: he ALWAYS cheats, and now, he and the alt-right media you rely on are helping Putin’s propaganda campaign to prevent the Russian citizenry from rising up against Putin. If Russian citizens knew the truth, Putin and his regime would be in real trouble, which is why journalists and protesters are arrested. So, Trump, Tucker Carlson and other alt-right media attack Biden and re-broadcast Russian propaganda, all to help Putin stay in power.
Contrition? You’ve pulled this one before. First of all, you’d have to be right and I’d have to be wrong, which isn’t the case. So, should I be sorry that you are a disciple to alt-right media, that you believe whatever lies they tell you, that you repeat their lies, that you worship a narcissistic liar who is the pawn of Russia and who won’t stop lying and tearing apart America all to help Russia because he’s in debt and needs to borrow money?. The issue here isn’t my “personality”–it’s your gullibility or outright dishonesty.
Natacha, of course you won’t read anything that might not agree with your position. You can’t open a mind that refuses to be open. If you had read my link you would see that it is from a publication that supports gender manipulation. My point is that in paragraph fifteen they can foresee a day when gender change can be performed on even younger children. Thus I present their plan stated in there own words. A horse wearing blinders doesn’t understand that it is not seeing the entire picture. But unlike you the horse can’t do anything about it.
It doesn’t matter what “a publication” supports–mainstream medicine, and especially those who work with children and adults with gender dysphoria all agree that no surgery is to be done on anyone under the age of consent. The ONLY time that hormone treatments or hormone suppression is provided to people under the age of 18 is with parental agreement and consent. after extensive psychiatric evaluation, and only in cases in which the victim of gender dysphoria is so severely depressed and/or has experienced extensive emotional and/or physical abuse by his/her peers that there’s a substantial risk of suicide, and serious depression interfering with daily living. Some of them suffer from PTSD due to emotional and physical abuse by their peers and even from teachers at school. Even then, hormone suppression and/or therapy are completely reversible. So, no one’s mutilating children, and no reliable physician or mental health professional would agree to do so.
You have this cockamamie idea that people with gender dysphoria don’t understand the seriousness of a decision to undergo gender reassignment. YOU are the one who doesn’t understand them. YOU are the one with a mind that refuses to be opened. Like Karen S., you find some piece that confirms you bias and cite is as proof you are right. The peer-reviewed Journal “Pediatrics” recently published some pieces on this topic. I have distilled their conclusions. It’s people like you who discriminate against victims of gender dysphoria that add to their suffering, and it’s wrong.
Gender reassignment surgery is NEVER done on people under the age of 18,
Puberty blockers are administered to children as young as 10
Read up on the subject. Hormone blocking therapy is ONLY given if the child is suffering emotionally to the extent that they are depressed, cannot do their school work or are at risk of suicide. For someone born with male genitalia who identifies as female, developing breasts is traumatic. Some of them suffer from PTSD because of physical and emotional abuse doled out by their peers and sometimes teachers. Hormone suppression and hormone treatments are completely reversible, and are only given when the benefits outweigh the risks and with the consent of both parents, the child’s physician and therapists. It is done to alleviate suffering. There’s a difference between surgery and hormone blocking and hormone treatments. Surgery is irreversible. Hormone suppression and treatments are reversible.
I said it wrong: for someone who is born with female genitalia who identifies as male, developing breasts is traumatic. Blame my office cat; she keeps wanting to be petted.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/expert-group-praises-sweden-for-restricting-transgender-hormone-drugs-for-minors
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/11/27/sweden-trans-kids-suffered-injuries-as-a-result-of-puberty-blockers
Osteoporosis at an early age. Not a good outcome.
No doubt you’re as concerned about hormone blockers given to girls competing in gymnastics and figure skating. Oh wait, no, you’re silent about that.
No. It’s a stupid thing to do to those girls. It’s something like what happened to the castrati for entertainment.
But I do wonder what you were given. You seem so bitter and angry and somehow deformed.
You see the lens that you’re looking through.
Natch– “I said it wrong: ”
+++
No big deal. Everyone knew what you meant to say.
Natch: “Hormone suppression and hormone treatments are completely reversible, and are only given when the benefits outweigh the risks and with the consent of both parents,”
+++
Remember the Texas case where the father of a boy is refusing consent to trans treatment but the mother, and courts, are going along with it.
Sweden is stopping early hormone treatments because kids are suffering bone and other problems as they get older. Not innocuous.
Do you understand the difference between medication and surgery?
Were you aware that puberty blockers are also being given to young female athletes in sports like gymnastics and figure skating?
Natacha says:
“She should save her preaching for her church.”
I’m guessing that Turley is an agnostic if not an atheist. He married a Jew though he states that his family celebrates both religious holidays. I’m thinking that he is too well-educated and purely rational to continue to believe in childish fairy-tales though he would defend the freedom of speech of the people of blind faith as long as their nonsense is not preached in public schools.
Okay Anonymous, let me for the sake of argument agree that the Jan 6 rioters were prohibiting the counting of the electoral votes. Does it then follow that the interruption of speech by those with a leftist proclivity is somehow justified. Jan 6 was one big riot. The little riots stopping the right of free speech are happening throughout our highest level of law schools. The rioters at these law schools will soon fan out across our nation spreading the idea that those with opposing viewpoints should be forced to sit down and shut up. What group, the Jan 6 rioters or the rioting future Lawyers and Judges presents a greater danger to our freedom? Which of these two groups will in the long run have more influence and consequently constitute more of a danger to our way of life. These law students will be interpreting the law and hammering the gavel in the future. Your thoughts are ruled by a myopic vision of just the here and now and do not take into account the future damage that these law students will have the ability to do to us all. Correctional glasses are available.
Ti T, here are the names of people who have been charged with breaking the law in connection with Jan. 6 and the indictments identifying the crimes they’re charged with (mostly for crimes committed on Jan. 6, but a few, like Enrique Tarrrio, for conspiracy and crimes committed in the lead up): https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases
Now your turn: tell me the names of and charges against the people you refer to as “rioting future Lawyers and Judges.” Turley’s story does not refer to anyone rioting. I think you’re mostly imagining it, but I can be convinced with actual names and charges.
The problem is the professor’s who’ve indoctrinated them. The students can’t debate their positions so they prevent anyone from offering an opposing view. There’s no ramifications for their actions so they will continue and grow bolder. I wonder what would happen if each of those breaking university rules were subject to immediate dismissal, no acception? Surely these people don’t represent the majority of the student body who are there for a real education? I’m sure they won’t be missed.
PS: How is it that Juicy Mullet only served 5 days? Talk about crime and punishment.
ARE YOU READY FOR YOU!!!!! (it has been a long long time, since I have been this flat out mad!! I do mean, PISSED OFF!! if I didn’t live so far in another state, I would have drove to the jail like many people did lineup to try to keep him in there I don’t know if you saw that or not!! But I would have been one like others, not minding if I got arrested for it!! Some did. Thank God for Patriots like them. Many people between things like this and the fake false lying media and pushing and pushing and pushing by this administration to get waxed when a large majority of people that are dying or people that have been double and triple Vaxxed . Etc etc etc. Folks have simply had enough!!! Of the horse-hockey-left!! But I digress because I had to vent!!
Anyway, The judge let him out because his lawyers are appealing his sentence. And his lawyers drew up a list of what they call extraordinary pre-trial- circumstances. I will not give you any exhaustive list but I will give you a few of the reasons that are part of the exhaustive list of extraordinary circumstances. (And, you can be rest assured when I said the last two words I said them with the most vile & disgust as I could muster!!!!
A. He’s never been arrested before.
B. He’s not even had a traffic ticket. What that has to do with anything is beyond me.
C. His family is not financially well off and they need him out of jail to help support them!!
( like nobody has never been sent to jail or prison that didn’t have family members that were not hurting for money!!!!)
D. The longer he stays locked up the more he’s liable to lose certain pieces of property!!
E. Jussie finally, FINALLY Admitted to Mama!!! he guesses he needs to be in therapy for his actions but to be in therapy he needs to be out of jail. And wouldn’t you know it, they found a therapist that will take him immediately upon his release!!! She, not a he but a she, will be, are you ready for this??? She will be, “waiting in the wings”. To immediately! take Jesse in-tow.
To her office for his first session. As I was listening to all of this last night, watching my Tucker Carlson Show, I don’t know if I should throw up or throw something at our television 📺 they tried the same judge but he denied it immediately. So then they filed any immediate motion after, well after!! 9:00 🕘 O’clock.
Tucker did an outstanding job by showing his derision when he quoted the words below from one of the writers for, NPR. Read this. (You should have seen and heard him say it all. With such contemp, Derision. Who knows, chances are you may have watched it!! Lol 😆
“The appeals court, in a 2-1 decision, said Smollett could be released after posting a personal recognizance bond of “$150,000 dollars. Meaning,
he doesn’t have to put down money but agrees to come to court as required. It was unclear late Wednesday how soon he may be released. It could be immediately, or by in the morning. Or even later on during the week.
This writer must point out that something like this rarely ever takes place. Furthermore, it’s nearly always addressed at the previous sentencing court. For a defendant to be released pending, “pretrial detention”. Hardly ever does a defendants lawyer, and or group of lawyers, even agree to file an emergency execution with an appellate court. And even then it’s extremely rare for an appellate court to grant an emergency hearing in the middle of the night!
Smollett’s attorneys had argued that he would have completed the sentence by the time the appeal process was completed and that Smollett could be in danger of physical harm if he remained locked up in Cook County Jail. The office of the special prosecutor called the claim “factually incorrect,” in a response to the motion. but that’s one of the dangers of being locked up in jail or prison, and not just for smollett, But for anyone.
I meant to say are you ready for this!! professor Turley really needs to have this set up so that we can go back and correct our mistakes. An Edit tab. Like they have on the Wall Street Journal, Facebook, like they have on many websites.
Margot says:
“I wonder what would happen if each of those breaking university rules were subject to immediate dismissal, no acception? Surely these people don’t represent the majority of the student body who are there for a real education?”
That’s the problem. They likely DO represent the majority of the student body. If you expel all those who aggressively protest against prejudice and bigotry, there will be very few students left! I don’t know why Conservative students don’t have the grades to get admitted into elite schools of higher education. If they were better educated (less homeschooling perhaps?) we would not have an over-representation of Liberals. For whatever reason, Liberals seemingly excel at education. Must be because of their open minds, I guess.
Tell that to the Asian kids that were refused admittance because their ethnicity would be overly represented. By the way what was Obama’s grade point average at Harvard. I think he spent his time at Harvard just like he did when he was a state senator in Illinois. He always voted present. While he was supposed to be at Columbia, nobody seems to remember seeing him on campus. And furthermore, what was the big secret about what kind of scholarship he received from Occidental College. I also suspect that when a prospective applicant is being screened at a school like Harvard the institution will get enough background info on the applicant to know what the applicants social and political philosophies are.
Independent Bob says:
“And furthermore, what was the big secret about what kind of scholarship he received from Occidental College.”
Not another Birther….
Those who go to Yale should be in jail.
Turley– “required the intervention of campus police to safety remove the speakers.”
+++
Why not have campus police remove the disrupters?
Then charge them with disorderly conduct.
Then expel them.
Exactly!
Why are the bullies being coddled?
“Don’t taze me bro!”
😂
Why did they grab him and throw him out? What am I missing?
Home school your children.
If they choose to go to a university, make sure it is one that educates, not indoctrinates.
Trade schools are a good option too.
I was disappointed but not surprised that the police were there to enforce the protesters’ hecklers veto and not the right of the speakers to say their piece.
This is all very sick and at some point, maybe tomorrow and maybe not for 100 years, people will wake up and realize how our elites are encouraging mob rule.
Mhj says:
“This is all very sick and at some point, maybe tomorrow and maybe not for 100 years, people will wake up and realize how our elites are encouraging mob rule.”
I agree. I have no doubt that the storming of the Capitol by Trumpist and Q-Anon thugs will be remembered 100 years from now and the elitist lawyers and the President who encouraged this raging mob will not be soon forgotten.
How didclawyers encourage this mob?
Eastman, Giuliani, Powell, Wood, etc.
What do they have to do with anything?
Nothing. Nothing at all. I made it all up. And you didn’t fall for it. Good for you. I’m proud of you!
Jeff, my guess is that he was obliquely noting that he’d asked you for “how” and you reply with “who.”
You are correct, but his second reply proves that my answer to “how” would not get through to him.
Only tangentially related, this might interest you re: the fake allegations about Dominion:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/mar/16/trump-white-house-aide-secret-author-dominion-report
Thanks for this link.
FYI, I don’t deny that the Steele Dossier had unsubstantiated information. We always conceded that it could be Russian disinformation, but given Trump’s inexplicable pro-Putin public statements, his apparent favoritism for Russia understandably raised FBI suspicions.
The ultimate question in all of this is whether the events leading to the Meuller investigation were made in good faith or, as Trumpists would have you believe, bad faith. So far, there is no evidence that the investigation was made in bad faith but, rather, dutifully (despite the fact that the investigators held Trump in the greatest contempt as was their privilege). And the investigations of the investigators did not establish that they violated their oaths of office in allaying their suspicions notwithstanding their personal distaste for Trump.
Turley has never suggested that these investigations were made in bad faith however misguided and fruitless they have been. Given the dangling of pardons by Trump and the lies told by Manafort, et.al., Mueller was not able to find sufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy. So be it. Unfortunately, Turley sums up the Mueller Report as indicating “no collusion” with Russian operatives which is bogus, for there was collusion between Manafort and his Russian partner though not provably criminal.
Hey America…you better fight the far left now…because it was much harder to fight the socialists/fascists of Germany in the 1940’s, then the 1930’s!
Fascist is going to fascist. They are in training! Time to remove all government support(loans, grants, etc) for colleges!
President Trump was in the process, of moving on the University’s to do that very thing. Not allow any longer federal largesse, tax payer dollars to go to all, All universities until they nipped this vile fascist horse-shit in the bud. Of course we know that only so much can get done in one term. He, and Attorney-General, Bill Barr, along with Secretary Of Education, Betsy DeVos held a press conference pertaining to this very thing.
They had, What I call a, “Full-Court-Press of folks all in behind all 3 of them. People that had been attacked either verbally, or physically. Or both. Many of them are extremely well known. Starting with, Ben Sharipo, then Steve Crowder, who is “LOUDER WITH CROWDER” across the board on all, or nearly all social media platforms.
YOUTUBE / FACEBOOK / GETTR / RUMBLE / GAB / Etc Etc. Also, Tim Pool / Ann Coulter / Patricia Cornell / Stephenie Meyer / Dennis Prager / Charles Murray and about 15 to 20 more extremely well-known conservatives that tried to give a speech at various college campuses across our nation. Some of them couldn’t even make it to the podium or even get inside the building.
And some of them was being hunted from car to car as they were being hustled off campus because word has been spread they meant to do as much physical damage to the person as possible and three of them believe it or not, was, Well, still are, Women!! Ann Coulter & Candace Owens. With all this being said I will leave you with this. If you want to see a list, an exhaustive list mind you, of all the things that President Trump managed to get accomplished even with all the vile, evil, sick, disgusting lying opposition he faced on a monthly, weekly, Hell daily opposition he faced!
Then please go to this website. https://barenakedislam.com/2021/01/19/how-did-president-trump-make-america-great-again/
P.S. The press conference I speak of, is over on, YouTube. I helped a friend watch / find it right about, Oh, I’d say, hmmmmmmm, 2 1/2,
3 Months ago??????
Do you ever notice that the PEOPLE WITHOUT RESPECT for other people, who are disruptive or threatening are ALWAYS THE WOKE LIBERAL MOB of students who have been TAUGHT that if they MOB UP TOGETHER AND DISALLOW CONSERVATIVE SPEECH they are somehow “standing up” for the oppressed or the downtrodden? How is it that IN UNIVERSITIES WHERE DEBATE and EXCHANGE OF IDEAS, PROPER DEBATE and REPRESENTATION OF ALL IDEAS is absolutely necessary in order for these “new minds of our future” to learn and be exposed to ALL VIEWS (EVEN THE ONES THEY DO NOT AGREE WITH!)
What the liberal mob does not realize is that WHEN THEY PREVENT Conservative voices from speaking in the greatest Halls in our land THAT ACTION ACTUALLY MAKES THE CONSERVATIVE POINT! It is ALL about respect. You either respect EVERYONE or YOU RESPECT NO ONE. The University Administrations NEED TO GROW A PAIR and stand up to WOKE MOB IMPERIALISM in order to maintain any control whatsoever.
BS. Some liberals do what you describe and so do some conservatives.
Consider, for example, the insurrectionists who on Jan. 6, 2021 interrupted the certification by Congress of the Electoral College vote. Those hundreds of people who broke the law and temporarily shut down speech by members of Congress were not a “woke liberal mob.” They were a conservative mob.
“Conservatives” – One anemic ‘riot’— a scuffle, certainly not an insurrection — in 300 years; “Leftists” – Three hundred violent riots in one year! You do the math, Einstein.
Hundreds of people committed crimes during the Jan. 6 insurrection, many charged with weapons crimes, including some firearms violations. Several have been charged with seditious conspiracy and one has already pleaded guilty to that. They interrupted the peaceful transfer of power via certification of the EC vote. Yes, that’s an insurrection.
This “insurrection” the liberals are clinging to was allowed to develop by the Captial Police, planned by some knowing it would be stopped or not go anywhere. If it would have been an organized, real insurrection then it would not have been so amateurish. What I really want to know is how is our Country going to prevent the votes from being tampered with again. When you count votes you cannot subtract votes in the vote counts, ever. That happened repeatedly in the 2020 Presidential Election and now we have this unloyal, dementia-ridden weakling barely reading his teleprompters correctly. I don’t see much difference between Joe and Hunter Biden at this point. Joe Biden may as well have been the one smoking the crack for all those years based upon what the Biden Administration has done to our Country!
Horsesctivist says:
“I don’t see much difference between Joe and Hunter Biden at this point. Joe Biden may as well have been the one smoking the crack for all those years based upon what the Biden Administration has done to our Country!”
You come to that conclusion reading Turley’s posts? Turley has never said anything remotely that inane. How do you come by such ideas? What are your sources of information?
“If it would have been an organized, real insurrection then it would not have been so amateurish.”
Actually, many of the Proud Boys, Three Percenters, and Oath Keepers planned their actions (they’ve been charged with conspiracy), and they spoke ahead of time about taking advantage of the “normies” in the larger crowd:
UCC-1: I want to see thousands of normies burn that city to ash today
Person-2: Would be epic
UCC-1: The state is the enemy of the people
Person-2: We are the people
UCC-1: F–k yea
Person-3: God let it happen . . . I will settle with seeing them smash some pigs to dust
Person-2: F–k these commie traitors
Person-3 It’s going to happen. These normiecons have no adrenaline control . . . They are like a pack of wild dogs
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.229064/gov.uscourts.dcd.229064.111.1.pdf
Okay Anonymous, let me for the sake of argument agree that the Jan 6 rioters were prohibiting the counting of the electoral votes. Does it then follow that the interruption of speech by those with a leftist proclivity is somehow justified. Jan 6 was one big riot. The little riots stopping the right of free speech are happening throughout our highest level of law schools. The rioters at these law schools will soon fan out across our nation spreading the idea that those with opposing viewpoints should be forced to sit down and shut up. What group, the Jan 6 rioters or the rioting future Lawyers and Judges presents a greater danger to our freedom? Which of these two groups will in the long run have more influence and consequently constitute more of a danger to our way of life. These law students will be interpreting the law and hammering the gavel in the future. Your thoughts are ruled by a myopic vision of just the here and now and do not take into account the future damage that these law students will have the ability to do to us all. Correctional glasses are available.
TiT says:
“The rioters at these law schools will soon fan out across our nation spreading the idea that those with opposing viewpoints should be forced to sit down and shut up.”
Assuming for the sake of argument that you are correct, what can be done? It’s like the weather: everyone complains, but nobody does anything about it. Maybe you just have to accept it and get used to it.
After all, Conservatives were forced to accept de-segregation, the elimination of the teaching of Creationism in public schools, and the legitimization of same-sex marriages. Surely, if Conservatives can swallow all of that, they can handle a little free speech infringement.
Jan 6th happened once and the govt has thrown people into jail.While liberal mob action happens nearly everyday—without consequence, without calling the National Guard, no rule enforcement which is saved only for the conservative students and faculty. Very few cases, if any, where liberal academics are fired for speech, but it is done regularly to professors who don’t support progressive ideas or speech. Censorship and denial of free speech, is what Putin is doing, and what Hitler did. Why anyone with any sense of fairness or logic or conscience follow those examples.
I’m liberal. Universities need to do better in teaching students to allow offensive speech and to counter it effectively without blocking it (counter it with effective questions to a speaker, counter it by inviting speakers who present opposing arguments, counter it with peaceful protest outside, etc.). That said, Turley consistently cherrypicks his examples to condemn liberals while ignoring even more egregious examples on the right, such as the many states outlawing the teaching of critical race theory or related topics: https://www.chalkbeat.org/22525983/map-critical-race-theory-legislation-teaching-racism
LOL a liberal…you mean you vote for fascism…where all left leaning government, billionaires and businesses…focus on stealing, lying, cheating and canceling all that disagrees with their FAR LEFT Utopias?
Democrats want the socialism of 1930’s Germany!
Troll.
There is a big difference between classic liberals¹ and 21st century Liberals².
¹liberal: adjective 1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas. 2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
²Liberal: noun supporter of political policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
³illiberal: adjective opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior.
A liberal¹ would actively promote free speech where a 21st century Liberal² is typically an illiberal³.
Steve,
First, you’re not accurately quoting the Lexico definition that you seem to be drawing on:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/liberal
You’ve both omitted text and regrouped the text you quoted.
I am a liberal under most of Lexico’s entire definition, though I do not respect some speech (even while I support the speaker’s right to say it) and do not respect or accept certain behavior, including most illegal acts.
I reject your attempt to regroup their actual definition and your attempt to present your own (1) and (2) as if they’re disjoint sets when they clearly have a non-empty intersection. I’m in that intersection.
Just in case there are irrational idiotic fools out there that would choose to make false claims about what I wrote based on their own bias and ignorance, here are screen shots that support exactly what I wrote.
https://stevewitherspoonhome.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/liberal-definitions-1.jpg
https://stevewitherspoonhome.files.wordpress.com/2022/03/illiberal-definition.jpg
Steve,
You haven’t identified the source of those screenshots. Identify the source, so we can see what the source actually said and whether the source is a reliable dictionary or instead is something else. I doubt that any dictionary grouped the definition in the way that you did.
I gave a direct link to Lexico, which is a free source associated with the Oxford English Dictionary. If you want, I can give you a link to the OED definition, though it may be paywalled for you.
Anonymous the ignorant wrote, “You haven’t identified the source of those screenshots. Identify the source, so we can see what the source actually said and whether the source is a reliable dictionary or instead is something else. I doubt that any dictionary grouped the definition in the way that you did.”
That sir is biased BS attacking my integrity, it’s pure unadulterated trolling!
Do a Google search for “liberal definition” and “illiberal definition”.
You sir can put your biases BS attacking my integrity straight where the sun doesn’t shine.
Hold your breath everyone, here comes the ad hominems from blithering idiots attacking the messenger(s) in…
3…
2…
1…
Steve Witherspoon,
Good grief man, anonymous just asked for the source of your definitions. You didn’t have to go on a ranting about integrity and BS. Everything that seems an insult or slight to you immediately attack with nonsensical accusations.
You read way too much into postings from anonymous.
Obviously you just used Google for your definitions. That’s all you had to cite. Geez.
Svelaz wrote, “Good grief man, anonymous just asked for the source of your definitions… Obviously you just used Google for your definitions. That’s all you had to cite.”
If that was all he had done, that’s all I would have done; however, that’s not how the facts played out.
This statement from you, “…anonymous just asked for the source of your definitions… as if that’s all he wrote, that’s actually a bald-faced lie by omission and you should have known that I would point out that self-evident fact.
I provided actual unedited screen shots as proof that what I wrote was 100% accurate and Anonymous indirectly and directly implied that I intentionally lied and that I manufactured fake screen shots. Anonymous knew exactly what he was implying and anyone with an earned high school diploma could comprehend what Anonymous was doing because it was self-evident, well maybe it wasn’t self-evident to stupid people. Anonymous’ rhetoric was calling me a liar without using those exact words, it was an intentional personal attack on my integrity and I don’t take kindly to such things. Any person with a shred of decency and integrity would have already apologized for their behavior; plus, anyone with a shred of honesty would not have tried to justify his behavior.
I wrote above, “Hold your breath everyone, here comes the ad hominems from blithering idiots attacking the messenger(s) in… 3… 2… 1…”. Thanks for providing a perfect example of what attacking the messenger looks like with your comment. You’re acting like a nice little signature significant attack dog for Anonymous by bearing your toothless gums at me, but you need to remember, I bite when I think it’s necessary.
Svelaz wrote, “You read way too much into postings from anonymous.”
Hogwash!!! You think too little and comment too much.
You really should have remembered that it’s “better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt”.
Now, how about you take your toothless attack dog routine and let it defecate on someone else’s lawn.
Have a wonderful day Svelaz.
Steve Witherspoon,
This is the statement anonymous was referring to,
“ A liberal¹ would actively promote free speech where a 21st century Liberal² is typically an illiberal³.”
He rejected that assertion based on the false premise it portrays and it is certainly a false premise.
“ wrote above, “Hold your breath everyone, here comes the ad hominems from blithering idiots attacking the messenger(s) in… 3… 2… 1…”. Thanks for providing a perfect example of what attacking the messenger looks like with your comment. You’re acting like a nice little signature significant attack dog for Anonymous by bearing your toothless gums at me, but you need to remember, I bite when I think it’s necessary.
Svelaz wrote, “You read way too much into postings from anonymous.”
Hogwash!!! You think too little and comment too much.”
Sorry Steve, but it is quite evident that you do indeed read WAY too much into what posters say. Not only do you overreact to any perceived slights or insult you completely go off on a rant about said perceived insults and start insulting yourself.
Nobody was “attacking the messenger” here. Just pointing out a false premise. It seems you just can’t handle criticism without going off on a ranting tirade.
“Anonymous indirectly and directly implied that I intentionally lied and that I manufactured fake screen shots. ”
No, I didn’t. You apparently inferred that from what I wrote, but I did NOT imply that. My question was only about whether the source was a dictionary or something else. One can find definitions lots of places online other than dictionaries. Here’s an example in a quizlet (no I wasn’t assuming this was your source, just giving an example of a source other than a dictionary that one might could take a screenshot of if one wished): https://quizlet.com/557125153/shine-vocab-flash-cards/
“Anonymous’ rhetoric was calling me a liar without using those exact words, it was an intentional personal attack on my integrity”
Utter BS. You inferred something that I did NOT imply. That’s your fault, not mine.
Anonymous wrote, “My question was only about whether the source was a dictionary or something else.” and from below, “Questioning what the source is does not impugn *your* integrity.”
Here’s a fact for you Anonymous; if all you had done was to ask for my source then all I would have done is provide the answer to your question, but that’s not how the actual facts played out. Yes you can sit behind your computer screen and lie through your teeth denying the self-evident fact that you most certainly did imply exactly what I stated, but it’s an unethical attempt at gaslighting and a signature significant choice. Own it and learn from your mistake instead of taking your absurdly unethical denial stance. I take people for what they write, I do not infer that which has not been implied or stated; period. End of discussion on that point.
Moving on.
From your comment below.
The screen shots
The screen shots were created, using Windows 10’s great Snipping Tool, minutes before they were posted here. The text I posted in the comment was copied verbatim last year, see below.
The inclusion of the word “political” in the noun definition:
Below you mentioned that the text I posted and the screen shot were different in that the screen shot had the word political and the screen shot did not, that is surprisingly true. There is nothing scandalous going on here. I copied the text directly from that very definition and saved it verbatim on March 29, 2021 for project related to the differences between the terms I posted here and now they’ve literally changed it, this is not a good sign for a dictionary. I actually stopped using Merriam-Webster’s online Dictionary because they have been caught literally changing definitions; their motivation for changes is in question and they can no longer be trusted.
The second definition in the noun section:
All I can say about not including the #2 in the noun section definitions is that my browser window on my screen is sized in such a way that it was out of the viewable window. Again, there is nothing scandalous going on here. The text I copied verbatim back in March of 2021 simply did not have the number one in front the single line definition. That said; I disagree with their addition of line two “a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.” into the noun definition because that statement is simply not true of the noun Liberal. In my opinion, they incorrectly intertwined the definition of the adjective form of liberal into the noun form of Liberal and I’ll be sending them a message informing them about what I perceive as an error.
The superscripts
Of course the superscripts are not in the screen shots, those are a very purposeful addition, they do not change the definitions in any way, they are there to give the readers clarity of the writers intent. Again, there is nothing scandalous going on here. When clarity of intent is crucial, superscripts are sometimes necessary. As for my opinion that “A liberal¹ would actively promote free speech where a 21st century Liberal² is typically an illiberal³”, regardless of your apparent objections to how I used the words, the meaning of that sentence is very clear if the reader uses the provided superscripts to refer back to the provided definitions, clarification of that opinion was crucial; disagree if you like.
Anonymous wrote below, “It is entirely possible for someone to both be “a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare” AND
“a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.” I am both.”
So you’re basically claiming to be a classic liberal¹ and a political Liberal² but not an illiberal³. I’ve heard this claim from other Liberals over the past 20+ years but their actions have proven them wrong. If this claim of yours is true then, in the 21st century you would be a rare Liberal² bucking the political shift towards totalitarianism, you would be very rare indeed and I commend you on your stance. I too am bucking the totalitarian shift to the far left and the shift on the conservative side to blatantly unethical in-your-face political rhetoric (think Trump) of presenting and pressing forward ideas. I do not support a return of Trump or what President Biden has been doing since his inauguration and I think VP Harris is an unethical political hack with the communication skills of an ignorant valley girl, Speaker Pelosi is simply an unethical liar. Across the board, our leadership in Washington DC sucks! We need intelligent and more ethical politicians, most of the politicians we’re seeing in the 21st century are unethical, idiots, irrational fools, and political hacks.
I’ve said what I came to say, I’m walking away from this conversation.
“you most certainly did imply exactly what I stated. … I do not infer that which has not been implied or stated; period”
No, Steve, you inferred it, but I did not imply it.
As for the differences among your quote, the Google result, and the screenshot, I didn’t suggest (and didn’t assume) that there was anything “scandalous.”
“they’ve literally changed it, this is not a good sign for a dictionary”
Dictionaries change definitions as the meanings change over time and they learn more about the current use. As they noted, “This dictionary is regularly updated with evidence from one of the world’s largest lexical research programmes.”
“I disagree with their addition of line two ‘a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.’ into the noun definition because that statement is simply not true of the noun Liberal.”
Again: they are not defining “Liberal” with a capital L. They are defining the noun “liberal” with a lowercase l. The second of the two sets of Google definitions (the one you see when you click on ““translations and more definitions”) makes that explicit. So does the Oxford English Dictionary definition — different from the free online Oxford Languages definition. I’m not going to copy the entire OED definition here, but I’ll outline it and quote some relevant entries:
adjective:
1a
b
c
d
2
3a
b
c
4a
b
c
5. Politics
a. Supporting or advocating individual rights, civil liberties, and political and social reform tending towards individual freedom or democracy with little state intervention. …
b. Frequently with capital initial. Designating any of various political parties advocating individual rights and freedoms; of, belonging to, or characteristic of such a party, esp. (in various countries) the Liberal Party or (in Britain) the Liberal Democrats. …
c. Economics
noun
1.
2.
3. Politics. Chiefly with capital initial. A person advocating political and social reform tending towards individual freedom or democracy; a member or supporter of the Liberal Party. See sense A. 5.
a. In continental Europe and elsewhere. … [elaboration and examples]
b. In Britain. In later use also: a member of the Liberal Democrats. … [elaboration and examples]
4a
b
Compounds …
“In my opinion, they incorrectly intertwined the definition of the adjective form of liberal into the noun form of Liberal ”
Again: the meaning of the noun “liberal” is not limited to the capitalized “Liberal.”
Also, the meaning of “Liberal” isn’t limited to your preferred interpretation.
“As for my opinion that “A liberal¹ would actively promote free speech where a 21st century Liberal² is typically an illiberal³”, regardless of your apparent objections to how I used the words, the meaning of that sentence is very clear if the reader uses the provided superscripts to refer back to the provided definitions.”
Except that the superscript 1 refers back to the adjective definition, not the noun definition, whereas you’re using the noun “A liberal¹ …” My sense is that you want to contrast two nouns, “A liberal” and “A Liberal,” but you don’t want to use their noun definitions for both nouns. Also, you capitalized *their* noun definition that you used for the superscript 2, when *their* noun definition was not capitalized (see your screenshot).
I’m not responding with ad hominem Steve, so I hope you’re breathing normally and didn’t pass out from holding your breath on my account.
I said “Identify the source, so we can see what the source actually said and whether the source is a reliable dictionary or instead is something else. I doubt that any dictionary grouped the definition in the way that you did.” Questioning what the source is does not impugn *your* integrity.
You’ve identified your source as what’s shown on a Google result page, noting that those results are associated with Oxford Languages. Lexico — the page I initially referred you to — is ALSO associated with Oxford Languages.
I did what you suggested: I googled liberal definition.
The initial results show the following (and for simplicity’s sake, I am omitting the “similar” and “opposite” words that are not part of the definition per se):
lib·er·al
/ˈlib(ə)rəl/
adjective
1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.
2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
noun
1. a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
One is also given the option of clicking for “translations an more definitions.” If you do that, the results are:
adjective
1. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.
* (in a political context) favoring policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
* Theology
regarding many traditional beliefs as dispensable, invalidated by modern thought, or liable to change.
2. relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
3. relating to a Liberal party or (in the UK) the Liberal Democrat Party.
4. given, used, or occurring in generous amounts.
* (of a person) giving generously.
“Sam was too liberal with the wine”
5. (of education) concerned with broadening a person’s general knowledge and experience, rather than with technical or professional training.
6. (especially of an interpretation of a law) broadly construed or understood; not strictly literal or exact.
noun
1. a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.
2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.
3. a supporter or member of a Liberal party or (in the UK) the Liberal Democrat Party.
This longer definition is more or less identical to the definition on the Lexico page I cited earlier (the differences are in the “similar” and “opposite” words, the inclusion or exclusion of sample sentences, etc.). If you read the Oxford English Dictionary definitions (unabridged), you’ll find an even longer set of definitions, as well as other information, such as when various meanings first appeared.
What I see is that:
a) You used the shorter of the two sets of Google/Oxford Languages definitions.
b) Either Oxford Languages changed their definition since you created your screenshot (after all, the page you just quoted notes “This dictionary is regularly updated with evidence from one of the world’s largest lexical research programmes”), or you omitted the second noun definition when you created the screenshot. I suspect that it’s the latter, since your screenshot shows the number 1, and there is no reason for Oxford Languages / Google to include a number unless there is more than one definition. If that’s true, I make no guess as to whether the omission was accidental or purposeful.
c) In the one noun definition you gave in your 10:53 AM comment, you included a modifier — “political” — that is not in your screenshot and also is not in the online version: you wrote “supporter of political policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.”
d) You added superscripts to “¹liberal: adjective” and “²Liberal: noun” that are not in your screenshot and not online. Then when you claimed “A liberal¹ would actively promote free speech where a 21st century Liberal² is typically an illiberal³,” you were using “A liberal¹” — a noun, not an adjective — yet referring back to “¹liberal: adjective.” I reject the distinction you’re drawing that “A liberal” is associated with the adjective definitions and a “Liberal” is associated with the first noun definition. In fact, if you look at the longer Google results, you’ll see that Oxford Languages separates out Liberal with a capital L as having a definition that does not match your claim. It is entirely possible for someone to both be “a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare” AND
“a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.” I am both.
Precisely why the term “Leftist totalitarian” is a much better description of today’s ‘pseudo liberals’!
Just call them what they are: racists and fascists.
Steve Witherspoon,
“ ³illiberal: adjective opposed to liberal principles; restricting freedom of thought or behavior.”
Interesting. “restricting freedom of thought or behavior”.
Isn’t that what could conservatives are currently legislating in republican states?
These bans on critical race theories, books supporting LGBTQ lifestyles, criminalizing medical care for trans children or young adults are all about restricting freedom of though or behavior.
Why aren’t conservatives being called out as illiberal by libertarians? It seems classical liberals should be just as outraged by such actions from conservatives based on the definition you posted.
Critical Race Theory is faulty and extremely base in it’s condemnation of Caucasians. It is actually RACIST because instead of teaching about History it is trying to manipulate people in current society to “make up” for the mistakes made by others in the past. That cannot be done effectively nor properly. There are just too many factors. CRT is just BAD BAD.
This is not different.
No free soeech concerns exist when it comes to states deciding what its public school teachers teach.
Ejercito says:
“No free soeech concerns exist when it comes to states deciding what its public school teachers teach.”
Tell that to Galileo.
No doubt you have no problem with Tennessee’s Butler Act, which said “That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the Story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.” That act led to the prosecution of John Scopes in the so-called Scopes Monkey Trial.
Anonymous – the State won that trial. 🙂
Duh.
And it took decades for SCOTUS to rule a similar statute in AR unconstitutional.
Anonymous, some states are indeed disallowing the teaching of critical race theory. They are disallowing the teaching of critical race theory to ten year olds. Once again you leave out pertinent information. When your teaching critical race theory to children what you are actually doing is teaching critical race indoctrination. A prominent figure in history wanted to control the education of the children and said that it would only take one generation to complete his mission. His name was Adolf.
All states “control the education of the children” in public schools via teaching standards, so unless you’re going to call all state boards of ed Hitlerian, drop the hyperbole.
No, CRT is not “critical race indoctrination.”
Either way, it’s still relevant that Turley never devotes a column to this, which was my point that you ignored.
Anonymous says:
“Turley consistently cherrypicks his examples to condemn liberals while ignoring even more egregious examples on the right”
Turley has fostered a narrative, and he is sticking with it. Were he to acknowledge Conservatives doing the same to Leftist speech, it would undermine his argument. Until Turley faces questions which challenge his thesis, I won’t accept it. We need to watch him defend his argument in a serious debate with one of his peers. I don’t mean going on Hannity to be lobbed softball questions. I mean a 2 hour debate with a Constitutional scholar who opposes his selective cherry-picking.
You could write one. Steve Vladeck for example (https://law.utexas.edu/faculty/stephen-i-vladeck). He’s been on the receiving end of Turley’s misrepresentation: https://twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1402702646088249344
I’ll be interested to read Turley’s law review article which has yet to be published. I’ll also be curious to see if there will be published responses to it in forthcoming issues as is not untypical.
Despite his obvious NeverTrumper status, the unmistakable fact that Turley’s “blog family” is festering with Trumpists and Q-Anon followers cannot be a source of pride for him. We can only imagine how he would be able to account for that unenviable fact!
Lefties have adopted the tactics of the Brown Shirts.
Ugly people.
People? Not sure about that.
Monument warns:
“Lefties have adopted the tactics of the Brown Shirts.”
The Trumpist Black Shirts (“Hang Mike Pence!”) accusing Leftists of being Brown Shirts.
How ironic.
These kids are NOT WELL. Period. They are *unstable*. And we will probably have to do a tabula rasa with education to fix things, it’s all just too entangled at this point. There is no way people of this mentality will be able to function productively as adults in society, anywhere on earth, as things stand.
At some point in this current chaos we must admit that a great portion of our public school effluence must be deemed unredeemable in any attempt to coax them into functioning in some semblance of normative Western civilization. Then the problem arises just what to do with millions of spoiled, mis-educated savages and how to process/control them as they live out their miserable lives at our expense, no doubt.
Alma wonders:
“Then the problem arises just what to do with millions of spoiled, mis-educated savages and how to process/control them as they live out their miserable lives at our expense”?
Hmmm. What we need is some sort of final solution….
Yale needs to back their policy!!!
These students are literally abusing their free speech rights to intentionally infringe upon the free speech rights of others. Their rights end when they use those rights to intentionally infringe upon the rights of others. These students should be held legally accountable for intentionally infringing on the rights of others.
Rights come with responsibilities.
You say that you want them “held legally accountable.” What state or federal law do you believe they’ve broken and can be charged with breaking?
I doubt that you can name one.
Disorderly conduct.
Trespass.
Etc
I doubt that they committed trespass according to CT law:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2002/rpt/2002-r-0365.htm
They’re Yale students at an event open to students, and I didn’t hear any Yale administrator ask them to leave.
I also doubt that they could be charged with disorderly conduct without a complaint from Yale.
Attempting to deny the speaker’s ‘right to free speech’. Can you read? Are you daft?
Yeah, he is.
I asked “What state or federal law do you believe they’ve broken.” You haven’t cited any CT or federal law. Can you cite one — you know, an actual statute that they could be charged with violating?
Anonymous – clearly they are guilty of Disturbing the Peace
I doubt it. Here’s CT law on that:
https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-181
Anonymous – I think (1) tumultuous behavior works.
I doubt it. It says “when applied to speech, parameters of the violent, threatening or tumultuous behavior prohibited by section are consistent with “fighting words.””
The legal meaning of “fighting words”: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fighting_words
I doubt their speech would meet that standard.
Anonymous – tell you what. We arrest the whole bunch and try them before a jury of their peers.
Proof postive children should be rarely seen and never heard although a Yale Llp lock might be useful.