“When The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices

Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz is under fire this week after going to Twitter to defend “aggressive” protests at the homes of Supreme Court justices. Chafetz explained that such mob action should be permissible when “the mob is right.”  For many who have watched the rise of threats and intolerance on our campuses, Chafetz’s comments capture the culture of many on the left. While many were taken aback by a professor seemingly supporting mob action, it is the same “by any means necessary” justification that has been used to justify everything from packing to sacking to leaking on the Court.

While I have opposed arresting the protesters on free speech grounds, I have been an outspoken critic of the doxing and targeting of justices at their homes.

Chafetz tweeted May 8 that “The ‘protest at the Supreme Court, not at the justices’ houses’ line would be more persuasive if the Court hadn’t this week erected fencing to prevent protesters from coming anywhere near it…And before the ‘oh so you support J6 lmao!’ trolls show up: the difference is *substantive*. When the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.”

No line captures the academics supporting this age of rage better than “when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.” Presumably, Chafetz will tell us when aggressive protests are warranted and when they are not. It is the same license supporting the censorship of social media.

We have seen similar claims of license for what Nancy Pelosi called this week “righteous anger” and Mayor Lori Lightfoot called a “call to arms.”

Rage can rationalize any means of response. Elie Mystal, who writes for Above the Law and is The Nation’s justice correspondent, for example, declared on MSNBC, without any contradiction from the host, that “You don’t communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.”

Many have noted that Professor Ilya Shapiro remains suspended for a poorly worded tweet that he posted objecting to President Biden pledging to only consider Black female candidates for the next vacancy on the Court. However, Chafetz mocked the very thought that he could be punished for a tweet supporting liberal mob action. He tweeted out: “Folks can snitch tag @GeorgetownLaw all they want (I’m so sorry, public affairs folks!), they’re not going to fire me over a tweet you don’t like.” (According to news reports, Chafetz limited access to his account after that tweet).

That is very likely correct under the very logic explained by Chafetz. Reckless and even violent rhetoric is tolerated when the targets are conservatives or Republicans in academia. A conservative, libertarian, or even moderate faculty member would make no such assumption today. The common view is that any controversy involving conservative or libertarian or contrarian viewpoints will result in calls for suspension and termination. With comparably few such faculty members teaching on most faculties, the chilling effect is glacial.

The concern over consistent and uniform treatment of speech is long-standing on campuses. In past postings, I have defended faculty who have made an array of disturbing comments about “detonating white people,” denouncing policecalling for Republicans to suffer,  strangling police officerscelebrating the death of conservativescalling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also supported 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. At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.  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.

In all of these controversies, my natural default is in favor of free speech despite the offensive content of the statements. I have the same inclination in this controversy. Chafetz should not be sanctioned for his tweet any more than Shapiro. There has been rising viewpoint intolerance at Georgetown, including retaliatory measures against not just faculty but student writers.

For an academic to support the targeting of jurists and their families at their homes should be shocking but it is not. It is a manifestation of our national rage addiction. Academics are not immune. Indeed, they can rationalize and capitalize on such rage. The means of the mob are justified when “the mob is right” … and many in academia and in politics are eager to embrace the “righteous anger” of the mob.

 

403 thoughts on ““When The Mob is Right”: Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz Supports “Aggressive” Protests at the Homes of Justices”

  1. This prof will be the first to cry when the mob doesn’t align with his views

  2. These professors are all the same. Would they really say what they say without the protection of tenure?

    They hang everything on their degrees but so many are social misfits harboring a great deal of anger. Anger that their incapable of physically expressing but feel fulfilled through other’s.

    They always make snowballs for others to throw.

        1. Is that ATS acting stupid again? If it is, then it is just more of his lies and deceit. If it is another, he can tell us what he doesn’t understand.

          1. Yes, I quoted that 2 hours ago and pointed out that you have to prove that specific intent:
            https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/11/the-mob-is-right-georgetown-law-professor-calls-supports-aggressive-protests-at-the-homes-of-justices/comment-page-1/#comment-2183070

            Turley himself has noted that as long as the intent requirement isn’t met, it’s legal:
            “Under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is a federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a judge or jury with the intent to influence their decisions in pending cases, and this case remains pending. (Ironically, prosecution could be difficult if the protesters said they had no intent other than to vent anger.)”
            He later tweeted: “Many are calling for arrest of protesters at the homes of justices under a federal law. While I have condemned these protests, I believe the use of this law [1507] would be a serious blow to free speech and would be difficult to defend in the courts”

            So again: what illegal conduct? Peaceful protest outside the Justices’ homes is not illegal unless you can prove their intent beyond a reasonable doubt. I doubt you will.

            1. Aninny:

              “Under 18 U.S.C. 1507, it is a federal crime to protest near a residence occupied by a judge or jury with the intent to influence their decisions in pending cases, and this case remains pending. (Ironically, prosecution could be difficult if the protesters said they had no intent other than to vent anger.)”
              ************************************************
              Tell us about all the times you proved intent, daddy! You must know we HAVE to take their word for their intent, right? Those protestors certainly don’t want to affect the decision; they want to do good by being mad.

              Pro Tip: Proving intent should be easy when the numbskulls are holding protest signs like “AFFIRM ROE!,””Don’t Like Me at Your House? Get out of my Uterus.” and, a personal favorite, “Your Gun has More Rights than my Vagina!” Indeed it does!

              1. None of what you quoted proves that the protesters have an “intent of influencing any judge” rather than, for example, having an intent of simply expressing their opinions in a location that’s likely to get news coverage.

                Pro tip: as a lawyer, don’t be so incompetent in arguing intent.

                1. “None of what you quoted proves that the protesters have an “intent of influencing any judge” rather than, for example, having an intent of simply expressing their opinions in a location that’s likely to get news coverage.”
                  ****************************
                  You give me those signs and vids of that perp horde holding them while screaming profanity and I’ll prove intent to any jury in Hell or above before you can figure out how to spell the word.

                  1. It’s your job to get those “signs and vids,” yet apparently you cannot find any to present here.

                    1. ATS, you say these things, but only deceptively. When one has credibility, what they say doesn’t always require proof. In this case, it is a matter of who is correct. You lie frequently and engage in deceit the rest of the time, so your credibility is very low. It is even lower because you post as a generic anonymous. Mespo has a real identity and has been an honest broker. Who should we trust? The one with a knowledge of history and current events or the other who is thin on knowledge is anonymous and lies all the time?

            2. Intent is trivial
              The open purpose of the protest is to alter the votes of justicies.

              That is intent.

              ALL protest INTENDS to change something.

              The constitutional question is whether speech can be restrict by place – that is already decided.

              The intent argument is a red herring.

              The law as written is likely unconstitutional because it bars protests outside of courthouses – to proscription of protests outside of homes is on solid ground.

              The law would be constitutional without any intent requirement.

              A law barring protests outside anyone’s home would be constitutional.

              While locking the capital to thwart protests would be unconstitutional.

  3. Chafetz is absolutely wrong. Mobs are never right no matter if they come from the right or the left. In essence participants are attempting to intimidate and influence. In fact, the mobs we are discussing are breaking federal law, and Professor Chafetz should realize that his statement could be interpreted as inciting a mob.

    Political speech is a protected right. Justice Holmes on the subject of freedom of speech stated that “you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.” Freedom of speech does not apply when the words incite violence.

    That any law professor, much less one from prestigious Georgetown would advocate that aggressive activity is permitted when the “mob is right” should be shocking. Unfortunately and sadly, given the decline in discourse and behavior it isn’t. Professor Chafetz is yet another example of law faculty disregarding civil norms and twisting the law. The end justifies the means as policy results in the continued polarization in the United States.

    It will be interesting to see the reaction or lack thereof from Georgetown’s administration, faculty, and student body.

    1. “the mobs we are discussing are breaking federal law”

      Not necessarily, no. 18 U.S. Code § 1507 addresses “Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence.” Notice that for the protest outside a Justice’s home to be illegal, it must be done “with the intent of influencing” the Justice “in the discharge of his duty.” If the person is simply voicing support for abortion rights, expressing disagreement with the draft ruling and using the protest location to get publicity for their views, that’s not illegal.

      As for “Professor Chafetz should realize that his statement could be interpreted as inciting a mob,” has anyone in these protests done anything violent? What “mob”?

      ” Justice Holmes on the subject of freedom of speech stated that “you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater.””

      No!

      He wrote “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.” It’s totally legally to yell fire in a theater if that’s true!

      1. “”with the intent of influencing””

        ATS, are you now building a lie that you will deny later on? It is clear that much of the action is coordinated and focused on the Supreme Court’s presumptive decision ending Roe. Justice Alito is in danger, and those that might be innocent of the above intent are acting as cover for those that might actually try and kill a Supreme Court justice. Fortunately, Alito moved to a secret location. That he had to move demonstrates that people are trying to influence the judge’s decisions. That is illegal.

        The police should be removing all protestors from the area of the SC justice homes.

        As an aside, see 2000 Mules. Your last defense of left-wing criminality was very poor.

        1. I saw the protestors on the news. Mostly women holding signs and chanting boring slogans. If Alioto is so fearful of these gals that he had to move to a “secret location,” he needs a buy a testosterone patch. Total wus.

          1. Tin, that is BS and you know it. You have let your prejudices get ahead of your intellect. Think about Scalise at the ball field and then tell us Alito is not in danger.

          2. “if abortions aren’t safe you aren’t either”

            Boring slogan ?

  4. Meantime … Back on the Domestic War Front

    Spygate Judge Tries To Protect Hillary Clinton In Latest Pre-Trial Rulings
    https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/09/spygate-judge-tries-to-protect-hillary-clinton-in-latest-pre-trial-rulings/

    New DOJ Notes Reveal FBI Panic After Trump Tweeted He Knew He Was Being Spied On
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/new-doj-notes-reveal-fbi-panic-after-trump-tweeted-he-knew-he-was-being-spied-on_4455950.html?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge

  5. If one cannot stand up to truth and win on debate and fresh ideas then they will resort to censorship, tyranny and violence

    We are witnessing an outright attack on this nation. To “build back better” one must destroy what exists.

    Meanwhile, inflation is out of control, the southern border is a disaster, fuel prices are the highest ever, human trafficking is on the rise, and evidence is growing (including the laptop) of the “Big Guy’s” connection to graft and ill gotten gain, spying on a presidential candidate and too many things to list, none of which are good.

    Is this just a big fire bomb distraction to divert people’s attention away from the real misery caused as direct result of the President and his handlers? He is incompetent and weak. His weakness is on display for all the world to witness, including our enemies. Who is really at the helm?

    1. You think the eventual SCOTUS ruling in Dobbs — and the leak of the February draft — are just “a big fire bomb distraction”??

      Yep, women should be totally happy with having abortion rights taken away, there’s nothing for them to be angry about or protest.

  6. If Turley weren’t so interested in feeding the “age of rage” he often complains about, he would have written Chafetz, seeking clarification of “some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified” to find out which “aggressive tactics” are allowed and which aren’t.

    Given the frequency with which Turley touts his support for free speech, it’s striking that he’s not advocating for the protesters’ speech rights. As long as they’re peaceful, and as long as they don’t break 18 U.S. Code § 1507, protesters are free to protest outside Justices’ homes. People regularly protest outside the homes of members of Congress. Here’s Schumer’s response, for example:

    Reporter: “Are you comfortable with the protests that we saw outside the homes of Supreme Court justices over the weekend?”
    Schumer: “If protests are peaceful, yes. My house — there’s protests three, four times a week outside my house. The American way to peacefully protest is OK. … As long as they are peaceful, that’s OK with me.”
    video here: https://twitter.com/Newsweek/status/1524124187207643141

    As for comparing Chafetz and Ilya Shapiro, Turley should know better: Chafetz is tenured and Shapiro isn’t, and that often impacts how universities respond.

    1. it’s striking that he’s not advocating for the protesters’ speech rights

      That is just a lie.

      Turley consistently advocates for protests, and following the rule of law. The law is clear that protesting in front of Federal Judges homes is against the law.
      The question then becomes, are avid leftists people that respect the rule of law? Law Professor Chafetz, clearly does not respect the rule of law.

      1. Where in this column is Turley advocating for the protesters’ speech rights?

        “The law is clear that protesting in front of Federal Judges homes is against the law.”

        There is no law with a blanket restriction against “protesting in front of Federal Judges homes.”
        Read the actual text, with attention to the “intent” requirement: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1507
        Most of the time, “protesting in front of Federal Judges homes” is legal. It’s only illegal when the intent requirement is met, or if it breaks some other law (e.g., becomes violent).

        1. “There is no law with a blanket restriction against “protesting in front of Federal Judges homes.”

          “blanket restriction” That phrase is added in an attempt to deceive. The present actions of the protestors in front of the justices homes are illegal. No “blanket restriction” has nothing to do with the unlawful activities taking place.

          1. S. Meyer, your reading comprehension skills are atrocious.

            “There is no law with a blanket restriction against “protesting in front of Federal Judges homes.”

            Pay attention, what that says is that there is no law that has full restrictions against protesting. It’s legal to protest in front of federal judges homes.

            The only way they would be illegal is if it involves violence, obstruction, and intent to influence a CURRENT administration of justice. The government would have to prove intent, prove there was violence or obstruction. None of those have been part of those protests. They are being done on public sidewalks. It’s Constitutionally protected speech.

            What they exactly are the unlawful activities? Spell them out S. Meyer.

            1. Svelaz, as usual, you missed the boat. We have freedoms, but they are not unlimited. ATS tried to be deceptive, but you have problems with short and easy sentences, so no one expects you to understand nuance.

          2. I have decimated leftist arguments that there is not intent in these protests,

            That said – it is beneficial for the right to allow them to continue.

            These protests make those on the left look bad.

            This is like the cry bully taylor lorenz.

            The left pummels people at their homes.
            engages in arson.
            Invades and disrupts churches

            The right petitions the government at the capital.

  7. Was this professor on Kyle Rittenhouse’s defense team? He has a good grasp of how the people should be defending themselves.

  8. On a positive note.
    We have a leftist Georgetown law Professor explaining clearly that the 2cnd amendment exist to protect the people from the Government.

    At least that debate has been put to rest.

    The good Prof is advocating the right take up those 4 million arms, and demonstrate that might makes right.

      1. That you missed his reference is not surprising. Chafetz did say it required the tiniest bit of American history, to ‘get’. You keep self identifying.

        “There’s an irony—one that only people who know the tiniest bit about American history will get — about people who revere the 18th century founders making points like this.”

          1. I got his actual point, which was not about the 2nd Amendment
            Nope revolting against the rule of Great Brittan was accomplished with out guns.

            The good Professor is talking about the violence needed (yes gun violence) to address the wrongs propagated against the people, and throwing off the yolk of tyrannical rule.

            But for the fact, the leaked document only seeks to empower the citizens, by returning decisions to representative govt ,the good prof gets the analogy woefully wrong.

            1. “revolting against the rule of Great Brittan was accomplished with out guns.”

              It wasn’t. But is WAS accomplished without the 2nd Amendment, which did not yet exist.

              “The good Professor is talking about the violence needed …”

              You’re assuming that. I think he was noting — in response to Dan McLaughlin’s statement “never be the guy making excuses for angry mobs” — that the Founders sometimes argued in favor of angry mobs protesting. You focus on the violence of the war while ignoring the largely peaceful protests that came first, such as dumping tea into the Boston Harbor without harming the ships’ crews.

              Had England acceded to the angry but justified demands by the colonialists, the Revolutionary War might not have occurred.

              1. I should have edited that further before posting it. Clearly the Boston Tea Party did physical damage, and one might consider that violence. My point was that the Sons of Liberty did not harm the crews and weren’t using guns to carry out their protest, and there’s no reason to assume that Chafetz was talking about violence towards people or about the 2nd Amendment, which in any evident did not yet exist.

              2. It wasn’t. But is WAS accomplished without the 2nd Amendment, which did not yet exist.

                This is the first laugh out loud thing you have ever posted,

                You some how believing the right did not exist until the Constitution was ratified.
                This is so very ignorant and uninformed and explains in detail why you get almost everything WRONG

                ‘…were endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights….’

                You are looking through a quarter inch hole drilled in a 2X4, and you believe you are seeing the entire baseball field.

                1. You either can’t read the words on the page in front of you or are once again deflecting because you’re wrong (I’ll vote for the latter).

                  We’ve been discussing the 2nd AMENDMENT (you: “We have a leftist Georgetown law Professor explaining clearly that the 2cnd amendment …”), not earlier rights to bear arms.

  9. The lunacy is that was a paper written by one Judge. No one else signed on to it and I wouldn’t be so sure that Alito is going to get his way. Rather he may be worried that when the vote comes, his view will not prevail. More digging into the track records of the Justices is needed to get a clearer picture or maybe just wait until it is actually voted on by the entire Court. Seems to me to be yet another diversion so that we have no time to talk about inflation never mind the lack of baby formula, the people crossing our southern border and then the war in Ukraine. Anything to keep people discombobulated. It’s election time coming around the corner.

    1. No, the draft was written by Alioto and signed by Alioto, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. That’s five of the nine justices, so it will be adopted unless one of the above changes his/ her vote on the final document. And Constitutional rights are more important than inflation. People can offset inflation by changing their spending habits. Buying your morning coffee at McD’s instead of Starbucks will save you around $100 per month; opting to eat out less often; foregoing purchases of things you want but don’t need, etc. can save quite a lot of money.

      1. No, this draft was NOT signed by anyone else. In fact, it looks like the draft was copied before it had even been circulated, since no one else’s name was checked at the top.

        A vote on the case determines who assigns the writing of the opinion, but that doesn’t imply that those in the majority have signed onto the draft opinion. The written opinion can change as it goes through drafts, and Justices can also change their minds in response to drafts. Only the final opinions are signed by someone other than the author.

        1. Anonymous, the draft HAS the other justices names stating they concur with the opinion. It’s literally on the document. They all signed on to acknowledge they agree with Alito’s opinion.

          1. Svelaz,

            No, it absolutely does not. Look again, and you’ll see that it says “To …,” and then it lists all 8 of the other Justices, regardless of whether or not they agree with him. The drafts always get circulated to everyone.

          2. You are both right and wrong.

            SCOTUS meets – they have a straw vote. Based on the results justices are assigned the task of writing the opinion, and can choose to write concurances or dissents.

            Drafts are circuitated. The DRAFTS do not inherently reflect the position of those who voted with the opinion writer.
            It often takes many votes, many drafts and sometimes justices switching positions to reach the final opinion.

            We know that 5 justices voted to overturn Rowe. We know which 5. We do not know if they will sign Alito’s draft,
            Or if they will change their mind.

            All we know is that 5 justices voted to overturn Rowe in February and that Aliton was assigned the task of writing the majority opinion.
            And the draft is what he wrote in February.

      2. “Constitutional rights are more important than inflation”

        You sound like someone who doesn’t drive much.

        1. Take Alioto’s advice: move to a different state if you don’t like your local laws, prices and/or taxes. See, he fixed it for you!

          1. Plan on it, retiring to Wyoming. As it is right now I drive the 20 miles to go from PA to Ohio to do most of my shopping because I refuse to give Gov Herr Wolfe one thin dime of tax money. Gas is almost a full dollar cheaper there, Beer, liquor and wine almost 1/3 less. NOT. ONE. PENNY. Harrisburg is INSANE and I can’t want to see them all packing in November. I hope every last one of them dies of a lingering and painful disease.

      3. “People can offset inflation by changing their spending habits. Buying your morning coffee at McD’s instead of Starbucks will save you around $100 per month; opting to eat out less often; foregoing purchases of things you want but don’t need, etc. can save quite a lot of money.”

        During the Carter administration many seniors on fixed incomes lost around half their money. They went from affluent to living on a shoe string.

  10. Cheftz is so typical of the Leftist elitist clique – Ivy League, Oxford and then a cushy post where he’s paid for spouting stupid. Anxious for fame he feels entitled to, he posts a knuckle-dragging take on mob violence: Rule of Law be damned; violence is great if my folks do it. Here’s hoping for a Road to Damascus revelation for this snob. Hopefully, he’ll survive it – or not.

    1. No doubt you also consider Turley to be part of that “Leftist elitist clique … where he’s paid for spouting stupid.”

      1. Aninny:

        “No doubt you also consider Turley to be part of that “Leftist elitist clique … where he’s paid for spouting stupid.”
        ***********************************
        Sure, that’s right. Actually, Turley is what the Left should be – principled. This Chafetz is anything but.

        1. Mespo, I’ve been told that in the early days of the French Revolution the aristocracy were toasting the peasants that were rioting in the streets. Buy the time the aristocracy realized that the peasants were rioting because of them, it was too late. Out rolled the guilotine. What was going on in the streets was completely over the heads of the aristocrats.

          1. Independent Bob:

            “Mespo, I’ve been told that in the early days of the French Revolution the aristocracy were toasting the peasants that were rioting in the streets. Buy the time the aristocracy realized that the peasants were rioting because of them, it was too late. Out rolled the guilotine. What was going on in the streets was completely over the heads of the aristocrats.”
            *********************************
            Oh, you’re so right. Over their heads is a great way to put it. The clueless aristocracy actually supported the Tennis Court Oath. One noted astronomer and Mayor of Paris, Jean-Sylvain Bailly, led the thing demanding that the King admit the rabble into the National Assembly. The rabble won but Bailly lost. For his trouble and giving a tepid defense to deposed Queen Marie Antionette, he was guillotined on Nov. 12, 1793.

            True to his station in life he is reputed to have had this “light-hearted” exchange with an onlooker on the frigid day of his execution:

            “Tu trembles, Bailly?” (“Do you tremble, Bailly?”), The Mayor responded, “Oui, mais c’est seulement de froid” (“Yes, but it is only the cold”).

            Arrogance of the woke aristocracy of his day personified. Who hopes history is a circle? ME!!!!

  11. All the left have is lies and violence.

    Debating issues in Congress, is a loser for the left.

    “The Government” is lying and saying far right groups are the number 1 threat to America. Yet, it is always the left that devolves into mayhem, and murder.

  12. Speaking of ugly people, Q-Anon/Trumpist calling himself “FJB” posted this violent threat directed at me:

    “You pedocrats like to pretend the one sided media democrat control over media was all integrity and honesty until fox came along. Fox was the answer to the pedophile democrats stranglehold on all media which of course pedocrats used to spread propaganda, just like today, it with no pushback. You and those like you need to be shot in the head at close range with a large caliber revolver.”

    14 hours later, it has yet to be removed by Darren….

    Turley has the chutzpah to complain about rage when he won’t even bother to clean up his own act. Won’t somebody notify Turley that Darren is failing at his job?

    1. “Won’t somebody notify Turley that Darren is failing at his job?”
      ****************************
      You can “run, tell mommy” yourself, JS.

      1. It’s called the “civility rule,” Mespo. I know you could not care less, but Turley claims to care about decency.

        1. “It’s called the “civility rule,” Mespo. I know you could not care less, but Turley claims to care about decency.”
          *****************************
          I know. I helped draft it. The point is: why are you enlisting us in your problem? Why should we “notify Turley?” Isn’t that on you or do you feel the need to draft us into your sandbox dispute?

        2. Jeff,
          Violence or threats in any shape or form should NEVER be made or tolerated. I agree with you and am sorry someone did this to you.

          Free speech is vital but civility and decency must be the rule.

    2. There is a fair amount of ugly rhetoric and childish taunting on this blog, which is unfortunate, but it’s not Darren’s job to police incivility and immaturity on a blog dedicated to free expression. The comment which you believe was directed at you was not something anyone would accept as literally true. Labeling people as QAnon or Trumpists or pedocrats and all the unusual is just overblown political rhetoric and is often a placeholder for people who sling insults because that can’t (or are too lazy) to form coherent opinions. And it’s not a threat because nobody knows where you are or whether the name you choose to display is even real.

      1. TIN,

        Turley’s “civility and decorum policy”:

        “Yet, we have had a few people who simply want to foul the cyber footpath with personal name-calling, insults, and threatening or violent language. We will delete personal threats and openly racist comments. If such posters will not conform to our basic rules (which should not be difficult for any adult person in society), they will have to move on.”

        I’m sure Turley would appreciate if you did your homework before coming to class.

    3. Jeff,

      I sometimes report threats to Turley. If you report that comment, it will be deleted. But neither Turley nor Darren generally police the comments unless people report them, whether it be a threat or simply copyright infringement, which also occurs here when people copy articles from elsewhere exceeding the amount allowed as fair use.

      1. Thanks for the information Anonymous. I thought it was Darren’s responsibility to police this blog. I was contacted once by him for something I said; I don’t believe that my comment was reported to him. Is his email even published? So, I presume that he does monitor this blog. What does Darren do otherwise?

        1. Jeff,

          I’ve never seen an email address for Darren, and I don’t know the boundaries for what he does/doesn’t do. I know that if someone is new to the blog and posts a comment with more than 2 links — which causes comments to be rejected — he’ll break some of the links so that it will post, and he’ll post a brief comment to the person to let them know about the 2 link limit. I think he monitors people who’ve been banned (e.g., by setting the system to reject comments from certain email addresses). But I don’t have the impression that he generally reads comments or even that there’s a way to alert him to an issue other than by emailing Turley’s address. In my experience, emailing Turley only has an impact if I include the URL for the comment itself, not just a remark about it or a link to the page.

          1. Anonymous,

            Thanks for the information. Occasionally, Darren will post a snarky comment or 2. So, it is debatable how much he monitors this forum.

            I won’t bother writing Turley. It’s not my place to police his rules. If he has a laissez-faire attitude, c’est la vie.

            I’ll catch up to Turley one of these days. Maybe at a book signing or maybe in a C-Span call-in show. Turley has to expose himself to live public criticism at some point.

            I’m still awaiting the publication of his law review article. That should be very interesting compared to his paid polemical writing.

          2. “I think he monitors people who’ve been banned (e.g., by setting the system to reject comments from certain email addresses).”

            That sounds about right. You used that knowledge in a spiteful way against fellow blog members who wrote long replies. Here is my post with more information available at the surrounding posts and possibly the web archive.

            I expect the following comments to be deleted.
            Anonymous the Stupid #1 “You’re obsessed with anonymous commenters. Seek psych help.”
            Pretend ATS friend #1 “He certainly is.”

            https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/10/the-vaccine-mandates-the-supreme-court-considers-a-trip-to-major-questions-land/comment-page-1/#comment-2150023

            Excerpts from the following posts:

            “Guess what Anonymous the Stupid, both your comments were deleted as I predicted. Your reply, “Inflammatory bs by S. Meyer.” was also deleted.”

            “more comments that were deleted as well.

            #1 “I’m feeling no pain at all.”

            It must be the drugs or alcohol.

            #2 “I’m feeling no pain at all.”

            I am waiting for leftists like you to fry each other like they did in the French Revolution.

            #3 “Gotta run, pal.”

            Could it be that Anonymous the Stupid has learned something?

            (Note, it seems #3 hasn’t yet been deleted.)”

            “3 more nonsensical posts by Anonymous the Stupid already deleted and one more below probably waiting for deletion.”

            ATS knew his post and those who replied to him would be deleted. He was spiteful. After I disclosed what he was doing, that nonsense stopped. He is not a decent fellow

  13. Protests are a waste of time. The right has always tried to restrict rights & the hard right SCOTUS isn’t going to change.

    1. Speaking up for your rights in public is not a waste of time. I don’t expect it to change the Court’s opinion, but that doesn’t make it a waste.

      1. Speaking up for your rights in public is not a waste of time.

        Why? voicing an opinion will not influence the court.

        1. You believe that the sole thing of value is influencing the court?!? Wow. How sad. We live in a representative democracy, where the power ultimately resides in the consent of the governed, and arguably, the minds of fellow voters are the most important tthing to influence.

          1. the minds of fellow voters are the most important tthing to influence.

            You have spent days telling us the voters can’t, must not, have a voice in abortion.

            1. I haven’t. You either have me confused with a different anonymous commenter or you’re misremembering what I actually said.

  14. The fences are meant to prevent violent, destructive conduct by protestors, in this case those who support the continuation of Roe v. Wade, and secondarily clashes between them and those who favor reversal. The fences actually keep protestors from areas where it is illegal to protest, because the Supreme Court plaza is what the U.S. Court of Appeals calls a “non-public forum” where demonstrating, picketing and parading are prohibited. Protests and demonstrations are permitted on the sidewalks of the streets the Court abuts. Chafetz should know this.

    1. Protests and demonstrations are permitted on the sidewalks of the streets the Court abuts. Chafetz should know this.
      He knows. But leftist are forced to lie to make their argument ‘sound’ right. It is all about the narrative. Lies are often required to craft and spread the narrative. Once the narrative is set, the media can get behind the narrative and spread it far and wide the low information Democrat voters.

  15. Turley said it all in this excellent column, except for one thing.

    The lefties are mostly ugly people.

  16. “Professor Chafetz, I have a question: Why the hell do we even have laws if people like you are “teaching?” Save the tuition; just grab a torch and a pitchfork.

  17. Isn’t it interesting that as long as the protests are anti choice they are just fine. They can be at the homes of abortions providers, at their churches. The protests can involve following women seeking those services to their homes, threatening them as they enter the clinics, threatening those who work in this clinics, fire bombing them, shooting and killing them…..no problem. But if a pro choice protest happens…..the right wing clutches it’s pearls and screams…..no. The Supreme Court approved of protests in front of the homes of providers and supporters of a woman’s right to choose. I guess free speach only goes so far…just the opinions with which you agree and only the protests that support those opinions all the way to attacks on the Capital to over turn an election.

    1. Justice Holmes,

      In his thehill.com article referenced above, Turley stated:

      “Many Democrats also supported sweeping bans on protests near abortion clinics, like a law in Massachusetts that was struck down unanimously in McCullen v. Coakley in 2014. In a concurrence joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas, then-Justice Antonin Scalia declared that “Protecting people from speech they do not want to hear is not a function that the First Amendment allows the government to undertake in the public streets and sidewalks.”

      “The same is true for the public streets and sidewalks near the homes of justices.
      These protests are worthy of condemnation, not criminalization. Just because something is legal does not make it right. Fortunately, for these protesters, the people inside the homes they are targeting will likely protect them from prosecution — because the court will likely follow the lead of Oscar Wilde who said, “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.”
      ——————

      Turley is clearly insinuating a moral equivalence between the asinine behavior of the anti-abortionists picketing at planned parenthood clinics and the pro-abortionists picketing in front of the homes of the Justices. BOTH are legal, but BOTH are worthy of moral condemnation for their intimidation and invasion of privacy.

      I happen to agree with Turley, but I doubt one Trumpist here will agree that anti-abortion protesters screaming at pregnant women entering clinics are making asses of themselves.

      1. Jeff, I am not a Trumpist. But for what it’s worth, this Conservative agrees with you.

  18. What is going on with Georgetown?! What are they teaching and encouraging people to do over there?! Mobs, attacks on free speech, neuroweapons…what the heck?!

    1. Last year an older white female professor at Georgetown Law was having what she thought was a private conversation with another professor over Zoom. She was expressing concern that year after year, the black law students virtually always ranked near the bottom of the class. She was troubled by this and discussing what could be done to help them. Apparently a student surreptitiously recorded the conversation and released it. Black students (of course) denounced her as racist, and the Georgetown Law president immediately fell in lockstep and denounced her concerns as “appalling” and “abhorrent.” She was fired. A younger, more politically attuned professor at Georgetown Law would know that she’s supposed to pretend that all students are equal in their academic abilities. She would certainly never express to anyone that students admitted under affirmative action, with objectively lower academic credentials, would not perform as well as the regular students. Such is the Orwellian world we’ve created in this country.

      1. Jeff,
        I think you overestimate the extent to which that nasty bit of Wilde’s personal life is widely known. I knew he had been prosecuted for homosexuality but nothing beyond that. The Picture of Dorian Gray was a true story, then, in some ways for him.

        I generally try to avoid the personal information of most authors, artists, and musicians, preferring instead to focus on their craft. I feel like I’m some sort of voyeur to learn too much about their personal lives and struggles. I read very few biographies and watch even fewer bio-pics.

        1. Prairie,

          That’s very commendable. I tend to agree with you not to judge an artist’s peccadillos. I was being sardonic in pointing out the fact that Turley was quoting a known pederast in Wilde. I am a fan of his plays.

          1. Jeff,
            “not to judge an artist’s peccadillos.”
            I might judge them if it becomes widely known. I wouldn’t describe pedophilia as a “peccadillo”.

            “I was being sardonic in pointing out the fact that Turley was quoting a known pederast in Wilde.”

            I pointed out that this issue of Wilde’s was not widely known.

            Maybe it is an apt quote anyhow since Wilde was apparently.

    2. Throughout their history, Jesuits have tended to be a big part of the left wing of the Catholic Church. The current Pope is a Jesuit and that explains many of his left leaning remarks. They consider themselves an Army and now they are behaving like one. This, too, shall pass.

Leave a Reply