Last week, many of us initially celebrated the reinstatement of the Center for the Constitution Director Ilya Shapiro as a belated but important victory for free speech and academic freedom. Then we all read the rationale from Law Dean William Treanor, who adopted a technicality that not only avoided a full endorsement of Shapiro’s rights but left a menacing uncertainty as to his (and any other conservative’s) future protections at Georgetown University Law School. Shapiro has elected to leave Georgetown to take a position with the Manhattan Institute given the lack of support for his right to speak freely at the law school. Unfortunately, most schools want to avoid litigation (and the controversy) over terminating dissenting faculty. The preference is to make life on faculties so hostile or intolerable that faculty will simply resign.
Shapiro is under fire for his opposition to the pledge by President Joe Biden to limit consideration for the next Supreme Court nominee to a black female. Shapiro sent out a horrendously badly worded tweet that supported a liberal Indian-American jurist as opposed to a “lesser black woman.” He later removed the tweet and repeatedly apologized. He explained that he was referring to lesser qualifications vis-a-vis his preferred nominee, Sri Srinivasan, a liberal judge on the D.C. Circuit.
Georgetown faculty has supported the effort to fire Shapiro, including my former colleague Paul Butler who wrote a condemning op-ed in the Washington Post. Some faculty insisted that Shapiro is a raving racist who actually believes that, while supporting other minorities for the Court, African American women are unqualified as a group from sitting on the Court. That has been presented as more plausible than a poorly worded tweet.
Many of us have encouraged Georgetown to resist such calls in support of free speech and academic freedom protections. However, the school kept Shapiro suspended for months and offered little public support for his rights. As we have seen at other schools, those faculty who were not actively seeking his termination were conspicuously silent over his rights and treatment.
Then came the reinstatement. As Shapiro noted in his resignation letter, Dean Treanor “cleared me on a jurisdictional technicality, but the IDEAA Report—and your own statements to the Law Center community—implicitly repealed Georgetown’s vaunted Speech and Expression Policy and set me up for discipline the next time I transgress progressive orthodoxy.” Indeed, it is not clear why this took months if the law school is saying that he was not subject to the school’s standards at the time of his tweet.
The Dean, however, added the menacing statement that if Shapiro “were to make another, similar or more serious remark as a Georgetown employee, a hostile environment based on race, gender, and sex likely would be created.”
This was not the response given at the university to an earlier professor who suggested castrating Republicans or other racially or politically controversial comments from faculty.We recently discussed the different treatment given liberal and conservative speakers at Boston University after students passed a resolution calling a conservative speaker a danger to their safety. They further declared that “intentionally incendiary speech and rhetoric” is unprotected by free speech principles. Yet, Boston University Professor Saida Grundy the same week made incendiary comments to justify criminal acts, including looting, as racial justice. Grundy has a history of racial statements against white students and faculty. As I noted, both speakers should be protected by the same free speech values.
The support enjoyed by faculty on the far left is in sharp contrast to the treatment given faculty with moderate, conservative or libertarian views. Anyone who raises such dissenting views is immediately set upon by a mob demanding their investigation or termination. This includes blocking academics from speaking on campuses like a recent Classics professor due to their political views. Conservatives and libertarians understand that they have no cushion or protection in any controversy, even if it involves a single, later deleted tweet.
One such campaign led to a truly tragic outcome with criminology professor Mike Adams at the University of North Carolina (Wilmington). Adams was a conservative faculty member with controversial writings who had to go to court to stop prior efforts to remove him. He then tweeted a condemnation of North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper for his pandemic rules, tweeting that he had dined with six men at a six-seat table and “felt like a free man who was not living in the slave state of North Carolina” before adding: “Massa Cooper, let my people go.” It was a stupid and offensive tweet. However, we have seen extreme comments on the left — including calls to gas or kill or torture conservatives — be tolerated or even celebrated at universities.
Celebrities, faculty and students demanded that Adams be fired. After weeks of public pummeling, Adams relented and took a settlement to resign. He then killed himself a few days before his final day as a professor.
Like many schools, Georgetown cannot continue the pretense of protecting free speech and academic freedom when it is actively creating a hostile workplace for those with conservative, libertarian or dissenting views. The double standard is evident in schools across the country. Liberal faculty can expect full-throated and unqualified support for their free speech while conservatives understand that they have no margin for controversy or error.
Kunstler says:
“If a person wants to hold the view and express that the election was rigged, they should be able to say that. People can criticize or disagree and even prove that it is false.”
I agree of course.
“too late to filed an action based on “laches” which is a legal concept that means a plaintiff waited too long to assert his rights.”
I am a lawyer. I know what laches is.
“You can disagree and criticize, but once people are fired or suspended from their jobs, and blacklisted and doxxed that is punishment of speaking freely, not criticism.”
I do believe that bad people should be punished with social consequences: a dirty look, a refusal to shake a hand, a cold shoulder, etc. All free speech. As far as losing one’s job, that strictly depends upon the terms of one’s contract with the company or institution. Firing a person is not an act of free speech. A person is fired because they have breached their obligations under a contract. People can’t censor. Only governments can. People discriminate against bad speech as they should by shaming, shunning and ostracizing speakers they find hateful.
Interesting opinion but not the law.
I think 18 USC 1507 is an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment and at the very least inconsistent with the broader principles of free speech that JT routinely discusses here.
Reasonable time, place and manner regulations of speech are consistent with the 1st Amendment. It is reasonable to prevent demonstrations outside the homes of justices. This is especially so when the intent is to influence a decision.
I think the intent to influence a decision language makes it worse from a first amendment and free speech perspective. It look those that support peace are OK to protest there but not people who are pro-choice.
Those who support right to life cannot go in front of a justices home and try to influence their decision no more than someone who is pro-choice can.
Creation of a nuisance; Disturbance of the peace.
Regulate rights? Or not?
Remember, the BoR. are a firewall, protecting the People from the Government, that is quick to “regulate”…………..for the good of the people. IF the government was inherently altruistic, the people would not need the BoR.
So no, you should not accept ‘regulation’ in the name of safety. I’m willing to go all in on that basis. Anyone else?
bill of rights is
Olly exclaims:
“That’s what law enforcement does, they arrest people for “alleged” violations of the law.”
Unless you are abwhiny elitist like Peter Navarro. Then, law enforcement is accused of acting like a police state.
In Peter Navarro’s case law enforcement acted exactly like a police state. They could have done what is normally done, call him or his lawyer and ask him to come in. Barring that they could have arrested him, but like they do in the most repressive police states they made sure to arrest him where the most people were around and not only put on handcuffs but leg irons as well.
Jeff, you don’t understand why that isn’t the way in this country because you are an elitist who only believes in satisfying his crudest needs at the expense of civility.
Remember the CNN reporter who was at Roger Stone’s residence in advance of the FBI ‘raid’ and arrest —- the spectacle was not necessary in the pursuit of justice — same with Navarro. Let’s not forget Ruby Ridge, where the Government wanted to raid the residence and in trying to do so, was met with gunfire, and people died — and then there’s the ATF at the Branch Davidian compound outside of Waco, Texas — and Mr. Koresh and his followers had guns and ammo and made a go of defending their turf against the raid —
and how far back do you want to go — Eliot Ness versus Al Capone?
Thank you Richard. We have to deal with know-nothing low life on this blog like Jeff who openly states “the masses are the asses.” Without mommy and daddy he would be part of the masses. Right now he lives in an expensive area but his home is a barn.
It is not elitist to demand equal treatment under the law. It is a police state when you don’t get it.
Olly,
I was hoping you would reply. Yours is quick and to the point unlike Meyer’s ham-fisted attempt. I ignore him just like Turley ignores all of us.
Anyone who publicly displays flagrant contempt for the law deserves to suffer a humiliating arrest. You get respect only if you show respect. Turley acknowledges that Navarro has got a big mouth. He brought this upon himself.
Unlike Trumpists, Turley has NEVER raised the perception of a “police state” to smear the government. Only people who hate this country do.
Unlike Trumpists, Turley has NEVER raised the perception of a “police state” to smear the government. Only people who hate this country do.
Oops! It took all of 10 seconds to search the archives to prove you utterly incompetent and worthy of being dragged out of your elitist Marin county bubble to be publicly shamed. Based on your obviously false declaration, you’ve now, in Clapper-like fashion, unwittingly targeted Jonathan Turley as someone who hates this country.
https://jonathanturley.org/2012/01/15/10-reasons-the-u-s-is-no-longer-the-land-of-the-free/
The response of the White House and congressional allies to the disclosure of a massive surveillance program of all calls by all Verizon customers is eerily reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick’s 1964 movie “Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Various leaders like Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., assured citizens that there is nothing to fear in having the government collect all of your calls, including details like their duration, location, time and your associations. [Turley’s words] Call it the sequel: “Dr. Obamalove or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love a Police State.” Our leaders are assuring us that such databanks will help them protect us from others, but who will protect us from our protectors?
https://jonathanturley.org/2013/06/11/dr-obamalove-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-a-police-state/
Or you can look up “Police State America” a post submitted on this blog by Mike Spindell, a Guest Blogger of Jonathan Turley
Olly,
First, I applaud you for researching the archives which is more than most Trumpists do. When one searches, “police state,” there are no hits of articles by Turley using that phrase. None.
Second, Turley I’m sure would be the first to tell you that guest bloggers speak for themselves.
Third, the comments you quote from Turley are hardly tantamount to a “police state” as those words are employed by Trumpists to conjure images of a Gestapo. Case in point:
“GOP Rep. Mo Brooks compared the January 6 committee to the Gestapo and called it ‘KGB-like’”
https://www.businessinsider.com/mo-brooks-compared-january-6-committee-to-the-gestapo-kgb-2021-9
Nice try though, but another swing and a miss.
When one searches, “police state,” there are no hits of articles by Turley using that phrase. None.
I’d suggest you put down the shovel, but it’s way too much fun watching you dig your own credibility grave.
I cited a pre-Trumpian era post, written by Turley, with the link and quote, from Turley and you insist it doesn’t exist. It’s in the effing title you twit.
“Dr. Obamalove or How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love a Police State.”
In the immortal words of that legal genius, Vincent Gambini; I got no more use for this guy.
When I search “police state,” I only get hits of articles by Spindell. This is not the first time my searches do not jive with others! I thought the BOLD text was your handiwork, not Turley’s. My mistake.
My point still by stands. It’s obvious that Turley was parodying the Kubrick movie title with the words “police state.” It is not like Turley to employ Trumpist rhetoric. He never calls investigations “witch-hunts” or “hoaxes.” He never crosses that line.
If Turley actually believed that this government was a veritable police state, you would expect that he would also be inclined to claim that there was a “Deep State.” He never has, and he never will, not even in jest as was the case here with “police state.”
I have promised heretofore that if Turley ever uses the words “Deep State” to describe the U.S., I will never comment on this blog again. That’s how sure I am that he is a NeverTrumper.
You seem to be waiting around for JT to point to an org. chart to show you where the “deep state” exists. Maybe you need a What’s My Line? episode with someone in the deep state trying to hide his identity from the panelists. Putting in “Deep State” in the search box reveals 23 posts where JT references the “deep state.” In reviewing just a few of them, he describes evidence of government action that would support those alleging the deep state exists.
Here JT is one:
Previously undisclosed documents in the case of former national security adviser Michael Flynn offer us a chilling blueprint on how top FBI officials not only sought to entrap the former White House aide but sought to do so on such blatantly unconstitutional and manufactured grounds.
These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy.
https://jonathanturley.org/2020/05/03/the-flynn-case-should-be-dismissed-in-the-name-of-justice/
And more:
Thus, as Trump campaigned against the “deep state,” FBI officials hid their investigation deeper inside the state. FISA was not designed as a convenient alternative for the FBI and the Justice Department to avoid political costs or scrutiny.
https://jonathanturley.org/2018/05/22/with-new-referral-to-the-inspector-general-the-fbi-finds-itself-caught-in-a-crossfire-hurricane/
Oh, but do stick around.
Olly,
In the first example you cite, Turley says:
“For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy.”
Turley is clearly differentiating himself from “those who have long seen a concerted effort,” that is, Trumpists. He further distances himself from conspiracy theorists by wryly stating, “the fragments will be read like the Dead Sea Scrolls…” The Dead Sea Scrolls are open to vast interpretation because they are woefully incomplete and just scraps in many areas. They are anything but a “smoking gun” except to a conspiracist. The fact that Turley saw fit to place quotation marks around *deep state conspiracy* is another indication that he does not take the Deep State seriously.
The second example is no different than the first. Turley stated that “as Trump campaigned” as opposed to him. The fact that Turley does accuse the FBI of hiding “their investigation deeper inside the state” does not make for a Deep State. Again, Turley places quotation marks around *Deep State* to clearly indicate that he doesn’t accept that paranoia.
I have always acknowledged that Turley *flirts* with Trumpists in order to appeal to them. Admittedly, he gets chalk on the tips of his shoes, but he resists going full Trumpist. He has to be mindful of his academic credibility. He always maintains plausible deniability. He will NEVER subscribe to a belief in a Deep State like Trumpists do.
All I can say is WOW. You spin like a master. You should get a job as WH press secretary.
Wen,
Why do you think Turley puts quotation marks around Deep State?
Do you?
Turley is very shrewd. He places quotations around Deep State for an unmistakable reason:
“Scare quotes”
“Scare quotes are a pair of quotation marks put around a word or phrase to indicate that a writer believes a term is inappropriate, wants to use a term ironically, or wants to call attention to a word/phrase for a certain reason.”
“The “ferocious” guard dog happily played with the children. (The writer is using the word ferocious ironically.)”
“The pirate captain’s “mercy” involved throwing prisoners overboard. (The writer thinks the word mercy doesn’t fit with what is being described.)”
https://www.thesaurus.com/e/grammar/use-quotation-marks/
I rest my case.
🤔😃 Wen Bars graciously awarded you the title of master of spin. I have far more experience with you and the only thing you have mastered is staying out of Natacha’s Crazy Town. Otherwise, your latest schtick as a self-appointed interpreter of Turley is an embarrassing and failed effort to acquire some credibility.
Clearly JT uses the quotation marks around deep state to isolate it as a noun. And in both of those posts, he is describing how the actions of government would support the belief that a deep state exits.
Olly,
It’s too bad we can’t ask him. My guess is that Turley does not want to be pinned down exactly where he stands. Not unlike a politician, he wants to maintain a foot in both camps….
It’s too bad we can’t ask him.
Why? Because you would simply take his word for it? The deep state exists not unlike a 1000 piece puzzle exists in a picture-less box. Every time someone cites a deep state example, it’s like pulling one piece out of the box. Turley has done that in the posts I cited and in others. As a one off, they look like nothing. For every example cited, there’s an army within the deep state at the ready to gaslight everyone and make it disappear. When the incidents fail to accumulate, then the claim of conspiracy theory holds water. But when the deep state incidents pile up faster than their army can act, the puzzle suddenly begins to takes form. The Trump era exposed the entire picture and that broke the progressive movement for both parties, but mostly the Democrats. They are not even trying to hide it anymore. And the gaslighting is now nonstop.
You don’t need to ask Turley anything. The puzzle pieces are out of the box, just waiting for people with the intellectual curiosity to put it all together.
This a great essay by Mike Lofgren that everyone should take the time to read.
https://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/
Olly,
Your refusal to explain WHY Turley puts Deep State in quotation marks proves that you have no explanation other than mine.
“Your refusal to explain WHY Turley puts Deep State in quotation marks proves that you have no explanation other than mine.”
The quotation marks were explained. You are a damn liar.
Unlike you, I don’t pretend to have mind-melded with Jonathan Turley. Perhaps he has a wandering pinky finger. Perhaps he likes to bring extra attention to the term. Perhaps he does it to put you in vapor lock. Perhaps he does it to generate 50 more comments than the thread deserved. Why he does it is irrelevant. It’s the evidence he cites that enhances the theory of a “”””””””deep state.””””””” Evidence by the way that you lack the critical-thinking skills to analyze.
Now either honor your commitment to leave the blog, or stay and continue to be the same dishonorable and irredeemably discredited hack that have proven to be.
Olly,
I really had hoped that you were not in the same league as John B. Say, Iowan2, guy ventner, or, worst of all, S.Meyer. There are so few Trumpists on this blog with whom I can hold a rational coherent conversation.
The fact that you have to strain so implausibly to explain away Turley’s deliberate use of scare marks when referring to the Deep State demonstrates that you are being intellectually dishonest. You are so afraid of being proven wrong that you won’t even concede that my explanation is possible if not probable.
Instead you ridiculously attack me for having Vulcan powers. There is no shame for your acting like a juvenile because we don’t know who you are. Your anonymity provides you impunity. You would never repeat what you are saying to me if I could look you in the eye. You would give me a wink to let me know you were pulling my leg.
In the fullness of time, it may come to pass that Turley will be asked and will explain why he places quotation marks around Deep State. Perhaps he would explain were he emailed. Be that as it may, liars such as yourself will deny the truth no matter what he says just like you STILL believe the election was stolen despite the fact Turley positively doesn’t.
Mini-Spock,
I really had hoped that you were not in the same league as John B. Say, Iowan2, guy ventner, or, worst of all, S.Meyer.
And I hope I am.
You would never repeat what you are saying to me if I could look you in the eye.
Oh, I would absolutely look you right in the eye and say it to your face. No winking, no leg-pulling.
Olly,
You claim that you hope that you are in their league. You say that publicly. I want to hear you say it privately! As we will learn from these Jan 6 hearings, what Trumpists say privately is 180 degrees contrary to what they say publicly. Sadly, you are no different.
The bottom line- if ever Turley denies that he believes in a so-called Deep State as that notion is bandied about by Trumpists, will you be man enough to give me credit? I have promised that if he *unequivocally* accepts that paranoid notion, I will spare all of you my further presence.
Trumpists may not like what they wish for though, for there will be one less NeverTrumper here to serve as a punching bag for them to voice their deep down resentments and vent their long held grievances.
Only nut jobs are paying any attention to the hearings.
Even your argument – wow, people say different things in private.
Given almost two years for the Partisian J6 committee to find someone to say somethingthat they find interesting – is it a surprise that they have ?
But speech is not a crime. Views that you do not like are not crimes.
Very little of what occured on J6 was a crime and the most serious crimes were the murder of two protestors.
Where is that investigation ?
More recently – though not from the J6 committee, we learned that Trump authorized 10,000 NG troops to protect the capital over a week in advance.
” or, worst of all, S.Meyer. “
Jeff, the next time you say something so nice about me would you please put it in capital letters so it stands out better. Occasionally I have been complimented but this is the best compliment of all. Thank you.
Now that you have accomplished, what no one else has, would you place a few supperlative flattering adjectives in front of my name. I’m jealous of how you fawn over Professor Turley. One day we have to meet. Perhaps in the park down the street. It should have nice breezes.
Jeff, the next time you say something so nice about me would you please put it in capital letters so it stands out better.
I recommend using quotation marks instead. It will really make it pop. 😉
🙂
Turley wants JS to know that he doesn’t keep either foot in any camp even though he is policy-wise on the left. When it comes to the Constitution, he is firmly on the side of the Constitution.
That, as Olly has said, is very distressing to the left. The left can’t intimidate him to become their toy, though I wonder if they have restrained him somewhat or if he was always of such cautious nature that he pemits his speech to lag behind what is in his mind.
“Otherwise, your latest schtick as a self-appointed interpreter of Turley is an embarrassing and failed effort to acquire some credibility.”
Olly Jeff’s schtick is a lot of things including ignorant, but you hit the key word, “embarrassing”. It should be embarrassing for Jeff, but it doesn’t seem to be. I guess embarrassment has been with him his whole life.
“These new documents further undermine the view of both the legitimacy and motivations of those investigations under former FBI director James Comey. For all of those who have long seen a concerted effort within the Justice Department to target the Trump administration, the fragments will read like a Dead Sea Scrolls version of a “deep state” conspiracy.”
This sentence using the term deep state shows that attacks against Trump were unwarranted and a deep state conspiracy existed. The deep state is in quotes because it is not a clearly defined term. As usual, Jeff was totally wrong, but at least he says he agrees with Turley recognizing that the deep state includes the FBI. The deep state acted wrongfully.
I think the following quote more firmly indicates what Turley was trying to say: ” Thus, as Trump campaigned against the “deep state,” FBI officials hid their investigation deeper inside the state. “
Deeper inside the *deep state*. while the FBI was lying.
What Turley is saying in both these statements demonstrates how wrong Jeff is in his interpretation. Jeff being wrong is something to be expected.
Jeff:
You said, “I have promised heretofore that if Turley ever uses the words “Deep State” to describe the U.S., I will never comment on this blog again. That’s how sure I am that he is a NeverTrumper.”
Jonathan Turley used the words “deep state.”
Good luck and best wishes on your future endeavors. There will be a goodbye party for you in the digital break room.
Take care.
Karen,
No one who genuinely accuses the FBI and DOJ of being a Deep State places quotation marks around those words.
You know damn well that I mean when Turley states Deep State WITHOUT putting those words in quotation marks to suggest that he does not believe it.
You are a damn liar to suggest otherwise.
“No one who genuinely accuses the FBI and DOJ of being a Deep State places quotation marks around those words.”
Turley did and his quotations are easily found. You are a damn liar to make that statement.
“I have always acknowledged that Turley *flirts* with Trumpists in order to appeal to them.”
Take note how you used the quotation marks around the word, flirts. You couldn’t avoid proving Olly correct.
Now that we all understand the context of the deep state, you were going to leave, but you didn’t. You are a damn liar.
I live in Washington State. Is the Deep State the one just off our coast?
Was that legal genius Vincent Gambini or Jerry Gallo or Jerry Callo?
Best cross ever: Magic grits!
😎
Currentsitguy says:
“We know every single last person inside the Beltway is more crooked than a country mile. It comes with the territory. Every single last one of them will lie, cheat, steal or do anything necessary because for them it’s a game and the goal is to win at any cost. There are no exceptions so accusing someone of that is the ultimate statement of the obvious. Anyone who says otherwise is either also a liar or is delusional.”
Thankfully, the vast majority of people don’t think like you. One of the most admirable things about Turley is his presumption that people act in good faith. He never calls someone a “liar.” Instead, he will say that so and so made a demonstrably false statement. He rarely accuses that person of deliberately doing so.
To this day, Turley seemingly supposes that Trump may have genuinely believed the election was stolen. The reason Fox News does not wish to broadcast the Jan 6 hearings to its broader audience is because the testimony will likely prove that Trump had EVERY reason to believe he had lost. There even might be evidence that he KNEW there was no fraud but wanted to claim there was to get fake state electors to replace the actual ones.
Turley will have to face the fact that Trump and his lawyers acted in bad faith. They were deliberately perpetuating a fraud on the country.
That is what this hearing is all about.
“ALWAYS FOLLOWED BY A DICTATORSHIP”
“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
“The average age of the world’ greatest civilizations from the beginning of history has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage.”
– Henning W. Prentis
________________
“When…the people are invested with the supreme authority…they discover a multitude of wants… to satisfy these exigencies recourse must be had to the coffers of the state.”
– Alexis deTocqueville
_________________
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
“…the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_______________________________________
“The lunatics have taken charge of the asylum.”
– Richard A. Rowland
“I want to tell you Gorsuch; I want to tell you Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
When does HE go on trial for inciting violence??
A Pro-Abort group or ANTIFA types likely helped the alleged terrorist from California. The Left have been firing bombing and / or vandalizing Pro-Life centers these past few weeks: Amherst, NY, Hollywood, FL, etc
Pro-life pregnancy centers and churches are being firebombed, attacked and vandalized as the Supreme Court prepares to rule on the future of legalized abortion in America. Police in Amherst, New York, are investigating a fire that gutted a CompassCare pregnancy center Tuesday in what leaders of the pro-life organization decried as a politically motivated attack, one that comes less than a month after a similar May 8 arson attempt at a Right to Life center in Keizer, Oregon. In other incidents, vandals have sprayed blood-red paint and posted graffiti threats on the walls of pro-life pregnancy centers in the District of Columbia, Washington state, Maryland, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Texas since the leak last month of a draft majority opinion that would overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationally.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/8/churches-pro-life-centers-attacked-supreme-court-a/
The Left have been extremely violent and active on this issue including now planning on assassinating a SCOTUS Justice.
To wit, per WSJ and Yahoo:
Nicholas John Roske, 26 years old, of Simi Valley, Calif., was allegedly carrying a pistol with two magazines and ammunition, a knife, pepper spray, zip ties and various household tools at the time he was arrested, according to the Justice Department. Federal agents spotted Mr. Roske at 1:05 a.m., dressed in black clothing and carrying a backpack and a suitcase as he got out of a taxi in front of Justice Kavanaugh’s house, the Justice Department said. He told the 911 call taker he came from California to “kill a specific United States Supreme Court justice,” the court records contend.
No one gets to travel on an airplane with a pistol, never mind a 26 yo. Yet he told 911 dispatch he came from CA to kill a SCOTUS Justice.
How he did he fly from CA to MD with all of that gear? If he purchased these upon arrival in MD from CA, how does a recent college grad with meager means afford a flight from CA to MD? or buy the above gear upon arriving in MD? These cost thousands of dollars unless there is another story here. Recall the Left wing shooter who almost killed Congressman Scalise.
During an interview with an FBI agent, Roske allegedly said he was upset about the leaked Supreme Court draft opinion expected to overturn Roe v. Wade and the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas
how is it possible a guy of this age decided to fly almost 3000 miles to kill a Justice over a matter that has no bearing on him whatsoever, e.g. abortion and Uvalde shootings?
What did his parents know? What do his telephone records reflect as to communications he had from CA up until turning himself in “upon seeing police outside of Justice Kavanaugh’s home?
How did he get Kavanaugh’s home address? The doxing incident was justified and defended by Kamala Harris and the Democrats. AG Merrick Garland did nothing.
The Left, the Democrats, the Attorney General, and especially Schumer and Sotomayor’s incendiary rhetoric have some bearing on all of this
Had it been a right wing nut threatening to kill a Liberal Justice, Nancy Pelosi or the President of Planned Parenthood, we would be seeing and hearing breathless news alerts from yesterday til November, along with the usual “threat to US Democracy”
Per Yahoo:
He was dressed in black clothing and carrying a backpack and a suitcase, an arrest affidavit states. He looked at the US Marshals and then walked away from the justice’s property. About 50 minutes later, Montgomery County Police Department officers responded to a call from Mr Roske saying he was considering harming himself and the judge, according to the affidavit.
Dressed in black is a tell for ANTIFA. Recall the 2020 ANTIFA BLM Domestic Terrorists in how they dressed and their access to weapons and gear to inflict damage on others. Calling 911 after seeing the US Marshalls was his escape plan. He was methodical. Who gave him all of these tools?
Since most Americans have no faith in the DOJ, FBI, Merrick Garland nor Biden’s handlers, how this all unfolds will be instructive.
Free Speech?
“Killer Joe” spoke at the White House.
As every law administrator and faculty member (should) know the Constitution is the foundation of our legal system. Preserving the Republic requires free speech is required. The exchange of ideas and viewpoints are teachable moments, and spawns civil debate. For law students expressing and debating viewpoint prepares one for legal argument in a court of law. If you can not debate no amount of book learning will result in success in practice.
As Justice Holmes said, you can not yell fire in a crowded theater. One may view speech as hurtful or problematic. However, more problematic is restricting venues, shouting down or threatening violence toward a speaker. Broad based censorship where whole points of view are silenced whether it is expressed in traditional or mainstream media or on a platform such as Twitter is a violation of protected speech. What is more concerning is the idea that “big brother” is monitoring that speech whether it is the government or AI is un-American.
The presumption that a person or group’s views are the only acceptable one does not only imply a weak argument, it is reminiscent of Germany in the 1930s or the Soviet Union, and even in the Peoples Republic of China. Orwell did not write 1984 as a blueprint. Rather it is a warning.
“As every law administrator and faculty member (should) know the Constitution is the foundation of our legal system.”
– williamdowney5
_____________
Alternatively, if you’re Abraham Lincoln with an infinitesimal 38.9% “mandate,” or the next iteration, you void and nullify the Constitution, impose martial law, suspend habeas corpus against the direct decision of Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney, seize total power, deny constitutional secession, commence an unconstitutional war, refuse to enforce immigration law, wield unconstitutional dictatorship and legislate by a “March to the Sea” and brutal military force of arms, as you take direction from none other than Karl Marx himself and redouble your efforts toward “…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world…” through “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
Abraham Lincoln willfully and deliberately violated fundamental law, “fundamentally transformed” America and viciously took America off of its Constitution and Bill of Rights as a brutal despot. Lincoln taught Americans to ignore and violate the law. If it worked for Lincoln, it will work for all Americans and for the next strongman, right? Shall we bury our heads in the sand and act as if Lincoln’s exponentially criminal “Reign of Terror” never happened?
There’s not much of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution left, is there? The Supreme Court reversed itself on the grand legal lie of abortion; it should reverse and repeal America back to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, retroactively enforcing immigration law as it proceeds.
Exactly which laws must we obey?
Only those communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) enjoy?
“Conservative thought” is a oxymoron, a self-contained contradiction, when referring to modern-day so-called conservatives. Hardly Edmund Burke…
I wrote that.
What examples of “Conservative thought” do you consider an oxymoron? This is an opportunity for you to prove your “Liberal thought” is not itself an oxymoron, not just some juvenile, attention-seeking declaration, but actual thought for a discussion that actually improves communication.
The “Conservative thought” of the Founders/Framers in the uninfringed 2nd Amendment, the absolute right to private property, “in exclusion of every other individual…,” and the Article 1, Section 8, severe limitation on the power of Congress to tax ONLY for “…general Welfare…” (i.e. infrastructure), omitting and thereby excluding taxation for individual welfare, specific welfare, particular welfare, favor or charity (i.e. the welfare state).
___________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
OT
As I predicted would happen when the Alito draft opinion first appeared, an assassination attempt has materialised against a Justice, Brett Kavanaugh. Killing one of the five supporting the Alito opinion serves the interests of the left in two ways: it eliminates the majority in favour of overturning Roe/Casey; and it allows Biden to appoint another Justice, putting the Court in play, given Roberts’ political jurisprudence. Killing two would give the left a majority. This is where we are today.
Two things should now happen:
1. The Court should complete its work on Dobbs and release the opinion promptly; and
2. DOJ should start arresting protestors outside the Justices’ houses under 18 USC 1507.
But they won’t because THOSE protesters are protected under this DOJ.
“ DOJ should start arresting protestors outside the Justices’ houses under 18 USC 1507.”
They can’t be arrested under that statute. The government cannot prove the protesters are influencing the justices to change their mind.
They can’t be arrested under that statute. The government cannot prove the protesters are influencing the justices to change their mind.
Of course they can arrest them. That’s what law enforcement does, they arrest people for “alleged” violations of the law. The burden will then be on the government to prove their case.
Just listening to what the protesters are saying shows probable cause to arrest for seeking to influence a decision. Search warrants giving access to electronic communications would no doubt show further evidence of intent. If these were NRA supporters outside Justices’ houses protesting a liberal court about to overrule Heller they would be arrested in a split second.
I agree Daniel. And contrary to Svelaz’s comment, they don’t have to prove the protestors are influencing, but that they had intent to influence.
Olly,
“ I agree Daniel. And contrary to Svelaz’s comment, they don’t have to prove the protestors are influencing, but that they had intent to influence.”
Yes they do. According to the law it is a requirement to prove intent. Intent is extremely difficult to prove. Mere rhetoric is not enough to arrest someone. That’s why most protesters in front of justices homes are not being arrested.
Yes they do. According to the law it is a requirement to prove intent.
No $hit. That’s what I said: they don’t have to prove the protestors are influencing, but that they had intent to influence.
According to the law it is a requirement to prove intent.
That’s the purpose of the trial. Genius.
“ Just listening to what the protesters are saying shows probable cause to arrest for seeking to influence a decision.”
Nope. Speech itself is not enough for probable cause. Their speech has to show intent. Mere rhetoric is not grounds for a probable cause arrest.
Your understanding of the legal system is obvious poor.
If what you’re suggesting is good enough reason. Trump could have been arrested for inciting a riot just for his speech. That’s a according to your reasoning.
Trump was not protesting in front of a Justice’s home. For Trump to have been convicted, he would have had explicitly to advocate violence the occurrence of which was imminent. See Brandenberg. He did not advocate violence.
18 USC 1507 requires activity outside the residence of a judge and an intent to influence a decision. There is probable cause for that.
“ 18 USC 1507 requires activity outside the residence of a judge and an intent to influence a decision. There is probable cause for that.”
What’s your evidence?
Probable Cause
Definition
Probable cause is a requirement found in the Fourth Amendment that must usually be met before police make an arrest, conduct a search, or receive a warrant. Courts usually find probable cause when there is a reasonable basis for believing that a crime may have been committed (for an arrest) or when evidence of the crime is present in the place to be searched (for a search). Under exigent circumstances, probable cause can also justify a warrantless search or seizure. Persons arrested without a warrant are required to be brought before a competent authority shortly after the arrest for a prompt judicial determination of probable cause.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/probable_cause
Probable cause is present when the police officer has a reasonable belief in the guilt of the suspect based on the facts and information prior to the arrest. For instance, a warrantless arrest may be legitimate in situations where a police officer has a probable belief that a suspect has either committed a crime or is a threat to the public security.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment
Evidence? TBD typically w/in 48 hours after
“ Of course they can arrest them. That’s what law enforcement does, they arrest people for “alleged” violations of the law.”
No they can’t. Simply protesting is not enough to arrest under that statute. In order to arrest them law enforcement must first have probable cause to do so.
You can’t arrest them and THEN try to prove why they should have been.
No they can’t. Simply protesting is not enough to arrest under that statute. In order to arrest them law enforcement must first have probable cause to do so.
You can’t arrest them and THEN try to prove why they should have been.
Bwahahahaha! Dozens of Jan.6th, 2021 protesters are for some reason unavailable to comment.
Dozens of Jan 6 protesters were arrested due to providing their own evidence against themselves. They took selfies while committing a crime.
Like trespassing, vandalism, and assault.
If they stayed behind the barriers and remained outside the Capitol then they wouldn’t have been able to be arrested for merely protesting.
Simply protesting is not enough to arrest under that statute.
That’s why they have arraignment hearings.
Yes…they can and should be arrested, indicted, and tried.
They should be held in solitary confinement exactly as are the Jan 6th defendants.
If the government cannot prove its case in Court to either a Virginia or Maryland Federal Jury….the go free.
In the meanwhile…the government is enforcing Federal Law, protecting the Nine Justices, and telling the citizens there are ample peaceful AND lawful ways and locations to protest.
WoW—That isn’t correct. Many crimes require that a certain intent must be present. For hundreds of years juries have found intent based on merely facts without a confession of intent from the defendant. That is how every intentional murder case is conducted if the the defendant has pled not guilty and wants a trial. MensRea is usually proved through the facts and testimony. You do not have to prove that you can read a defendants mind. You can indict someone and you don’t need to meet a high threshold. A fair jury would not buy a defense that they weren’t trying to influence a judge. The opinion isn’t even out yet. Why are you demonstrating in front of a Justice’s home if you are not. Trying to influence the opinion is clear. Ask protestors why are they there? Did they not like the result in the draft opinion? Do you want Roe to not be overturned? Did you carry signs saying “protect abortion” protect the “right of women to choose.” What was the point of those sign? Were you just wanting to know that the Justice knew your opinion? Why? Do you typically protest over things you don’t want changed. Do you want the draft opinion to become law? Answer would be “no”. To do prevent from becoming law you need certain justices to change their opinion, correct?” You know that is what you need to do-change minds. When you demonstrated with signs and chants, however, you’re telling me that the only place you demonstrated where suddenly you were not trying to persuade a change in the justice’s position is when you were in front of a justice’s home. What were the reason for protesting in front of a justices home. So you wanted Roe to remain, you want the draft opinion not to be the opinion of court, the only way to reach your goal is to have some justices to change their minds, correct? You went only to the home of justice’s who you want to change their opinion, correct. But you are saying that while there with signs and chants you were in no way trying to persuade or intimidate a justice into changing their opinion? Then explain why you protested at that location even though you didn’t want the justice to change his or her mind. If you didn’t want them to change their mind, why go there. That will get you to a jury and I didn’t in the space of one comment. If jury is fair they will convict. Proving the element of intent is necessary for many crimes. Juries have for 200 years figuring out intent of a person by that facts and circumstances. For instance not every Intentional murder verdict was based on the confession of intent by the defendant.
“ Why are you demonstrating in front of a Justice’s home if you are not. Trying to influence the opinion is clear. Ask protestors why are they there?”
Protesting is not influencing. Protesting is expressing an objection. That’s protected under the 1st amendment. They are there because they object to the justice’s opinion. It’s perfectly legal to protest on a public sidewalk in front of a justice’s home.
. Protesting is expressing an objection
Protesting is protected because in the language surrounding the creation of the ammendment, was to protect the people from the govt as the people ‘sought redress of their grievances.’
REDRESS is the intent.
I wouldn’t be so sure about that.
How is this even possible? The Left continually assert that only “vast right wing conspiracy types” are violent.
/ sarc
This is a gift to Republicans. This event also foils Pelosi’s Jan 6 circus via televised TV
“The suspect was taken to a local police station after he was arrested at about 1:50 a.m., the court spokesperson said. He was carrying an unspecified weapon and burglary tools…”
Translation: he was planning on entering the home with his tools and kill Kavanaugh and his family. This is the face of abortion and Democrats
Shapiro’s tweet was not “badly worded.” Anyone able to read and having some sense of objectivity would know that he was comparing his preferred judge who is of Indian descent to this particular black woman, who in Shapiro’s opinion was less well qualified. He characterised her as a black woman because that is how Biden limited his options for the nomination, wrongly in Shapiro’s view. Obviously, since Shapiro considered his preferred judge to be the very best candidate, any other, black or white, male or female, or whatever other category you wish to place a potential candidate into, would have been “lesser.”
The outrage here at the words used is entirely performative. No one could have felt seriously threatened or offended by the choice of words, since what they meant was clear. The objection is not to the chosen words — that is a pretext; it is to the political view behind the words: that appointments, and by implication all admissions, hiring, promotion and dismissal decisions, should be merit-based not race/sex-based.
There were two ways to disagree with Shapiro:
1. Argue that race and sex should be absolute criteria in these cases, and that it is proper to exclude anyone who does not fall into the correct intersectional category; or
2. Argue on the merits that Biden’s candidate was the best, and better than Shapiro’s.
But it is easier and more effective to pretend to misunderstand the words Shapiro used and then to attack him as an insensitive racist/sexist.
It is very shabby.
Seems to me, someone went to Justice Kavanaugh home with the intent of influencing his position in a most extreme way.
Reading MSM try to downplay the incident is disturbing.
“2. DOJ should start arresting protestors outside the Justices’ houses under 18 USC 1507.”
________________________________________________________________________
The Deep Deep State handlers of the DOJ sent them out, you fool!
…the likes of George Soros et al.
The Dean, however, added the menacing statement that if Shapiro “were to make another, similar or more serious remark as a Georgetown employee, a hostile environment based on race, gender, and sex likely would be created.”
Georgetown U. isn’t the only agency stamping out hostile environments. Twitter has ruled that the Journal of American Medical Association has peddling misinformation re: vaccines and children. Fun times!
https://twitter.com/safety/unsafe_link_warning?unsafe_link=https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2792524
Warning: this link may be unsafe
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2792524
The link you are trying to access has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially spammy or unsafe, in accordance with Twitter’s URL Policy. This link could fall into any of the below categories:
malicious links that could steal personal information or harm electronic devices
spammy links that mislead people or disrupt their experience
violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm
certain categories of content that, if posted directly on Twitter, are a violation of the Twitter Rules
Back to previous page
Ignore this warning and continue
Each day that goes by, we see more speech restrictions in the educational system, corporate world, and media, both traditional and social. They target anything that is not the “party line,” be that related to therapeutics during the Covid 19 pandemic, realities of human biology, the climate, etcetera.
Such speech restrictions pose a grave risk to the advancement of human knowledge. No one may have a monopoly on the truth, but that does not mean that there is not an objective reality. Engaging in an argument means acknowledging that we may learn from one another and improve our understanding of reality by the application of logical reasoning, that is, non-fallacious arguments.
That is why debates among opposite interpretations of reality are so important and freedom of speech needs to be protected if we hope to advance our knowledge at all.
https://lawliberty.org/what-freedom-can-tolerate/
Hey Olly don’t you just love open minded liberals.
“. . . a hostile environment based on race, gender, and sex likely would be created.”
And what exactly is a “hostile environment?” What words, arguments, actions cause a “hostile environment?”
For the target of such a charge, it is impossible to know in advance. The claim “hostile environment” is completely dependent on someone’s *emotional* response. Suppose I make an argument defending America. Then someone at the university claims that he feels “threatened, unwelcome” — like he’s living in a “hostile environment.” I’m screwed. There is no room for debate, rational discussion, persuasion. His emotions are judge, jury, and executioner.
This “hostile environment” insanity is a prime example of how academia elevates emotions over reason. It is no longer “the life of the *mind*.” It is the life of ugly, envy-driven emotionalism.
The Democrat Party is the Party of Fascism that use every lever…legal, illegal, government, legal system or business…to drive an agenda of total domination.
They don’t care about your freedoms, the rule of law, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etcs, fairness, your reasons… They have NO MORAL Code or Love of Country and their fellow citizens!
They want POWER to GET MONEY! That is it!
University is where conflicting views are discussed and challenged…The 1st Amendment has allowed such exchange in an open forum however presently it seems one side no longer has interest in allowing such exchange…
Perhaps a review of the 2 Amendment would be of benefit as well…
There is tension between the two policies, one in favor of free speech and the other prohibiting creating a hostile learning environment for “racial” minorities. I don’t know how this tension can be resolved. When the tension is between competing ideas, I am an absolute free speech advocate. When it involves immutable characteristics like race and ethnicity, resolving the conflict in policies is difficult.
The tension between the two policies can be mostly resolved by people growing a thicker skin and not becoming offended by every silly or stupid comment made by others. That of course means that officials at schools and universities should also adopt a modicum of common sense which seems to be in short supply these days. Officials should not endorse or promote an environment where every verbal insult or offense is met with capital punishment. It does seem to appear that life-long cocooning in an insulated academic environment is indeed detrimental to rationality, common sense and an awareness of real world environment.
I agree.
Everyone feels the environment is hostile. It is certainly hostile to conservative thought. My children in college are constantly self-censoring bc the environment is hostile. So the argument of hostile environment needs to be applied equally. Liberals can make a hostile environment for conservatives. If we bring attention to that fact, maybe some will come to their senses and realize any words or anyone can create a hostile environment. Trying to erase hostile environments needs to be applied equally, or we should bring back academic freedom and free speech on college campuses.
“Everyone feels the environment is hostile.”
If you want to experience a truly hostile environment, sit across the desk from a university “diversity” officer. Or in a faculty lounge. Or through a faculty meeting “debating” curricula changes and admissions policies. Or through an academic kangaroo court.
Turley candidly admits:
“Shapiro sent out a horrendously badly worded tweet that supported a liberal Indian-American jurist as opposed to a “lesser black woman.”
Yet not a single Trumpist here will voice his agreement with Turley’s opinion that Shapiro’s tweet was “horrendously bad worded.”
Turley is not like you Trumpists.
I voted straight Republican in 2020, a first for me, and that included voting to re-elect President Trump, for whom I did not vote in 2016 (Gary Johnson was my sad pick that year, as the least of evils)
Trump’s successful policies in office, which produced a booming economy, levels of minority employment previously unseen in this nation, and small-business greation gains most greatly among minority women, won me over. I also tend to sympathize with anyone as embattled as he was by the vast political establishment on both sides – Democrats and RINOs. Up to and including genuinely seditious efforts by unelected governmental agents to undermine his governance.
And yet, though “horrendously badly worded” is very poor construction, I agree that Professor Shapiro’s tweet was horrendously worded. Nonetheless, I had no difficulty discerning what he meant.
But then, I am 64 years old, had parents who taught me to think, and have much better reading comprehension than the average PhD. candidate today, despite (or because of) having very limited college credits.
Ellen,
Good for you for agreeing with Turley. Let’s see how many more Trumpists agree with him.
So what if Trumpists don’t agree if it was badly worded. That has no relevance to Turley’s point, he just wants to make clear he didn’t agree either the guys wording bc he wants to be non-partisan, but clearly that is not what this piece is about. So if no Trumpist agrees it is badly worded, or all agree it is badly worded, what difference does it make?what is your point. They will all stand for free speech. Why are you hung up on wether people agree that it was badly worded? Turley thought so, but he still supports free speech on campuses and among factuality and students and the right to badly word their thoughts. Do you think badly worded speech should be censored? If so by whom?
Kunstler asks:
“Do you think badly worded speech should be censored? If so by whom?”
I do not believe in *censorship* by the government. I believe in *discrimination* of bad speech by the private sector. By discriminating against bad speech, we will have less of it. Good speech is one way we discriminate good from bad. Other ways are shaming, shunning and boycotting.
“ Do you think badly worded speech should be censored? If so by whom?”
No, however that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be immune from the consequences of what that badly worded speech brought. Criticism, blowback, or demands to censor. All are consequences of exercising badly worded speech.
No, however that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be immune from the consequences of what that badly worded speech brought.
This sounds like the logic of every racist and misogynist uses to discriminate. Subjective undefinable terms.
Do you believe being suspended from your job, or losing your job, are consequences or punishment? Being professionally and financially punished is not counter-speech it is just punishment bc someone doesn’t like what another said. If you think it’s ok to fire someone then you do not believe in free speech. The fact that you mention censorship is ok means you do not believe in free speech. These punishments act as chilling and prior restraints to free speech. That is the same as espousing a belief that free speech does not exist.
Jeff, what Turley is not mentioning in his free speech columns is the importance of responsibility and consequences of exercising it. Turley acknowledges the tweet was horrendously stupid, but he ignores the basic fact that the 1st amendment is not a protection from the consequences of exercising it.
Conservatives don’t get this. They continually mischaracterize criticism as censorship when they fail to recognize that criticism is a consequence of exercising their free speech rights.
Conservatives and libertarians in academia make some pretty offensive statements and issue controversial opinions. It’s true that they shouldn’t be punished for it, but that’s not to say they should be immune from the consequences which include criticism and yes demands for punishment. It’s often students who demand punishment and ironically the demand for punishment is also free speech. What matters is acting on it.
None of the speakers Turley mentions were forbidden from speaking. They did express their views. It’s the consequences that from exercising their right that he is complaining about.
“Conservatives don’t get this. They…..” blah, blah, blah. That’s BS. The guy was fired. That’s not criticism. And that’s the path liberals are choosing on a regular basis. Apparently it’s liberals who don’t get it.
“ That’s BS. The guy was fired. ”
No, he was suspended. You still don’t get it. Exercising free speech is not without consequences and the first amendment does NOT protect anyone from the consequences of exercising it. Therefore there’s a certain responsibility that is being ignored.
Suspension is punishment and persecution, it is not criticism or consequence in this case. The courts have long said, certain consequences establish chilling and prior restraint.
So people who value free speech know the difference between punishment, persecution, the effect of restraining free speech by imposing sanctions, and criticism or disagreement. Speech is not free when those who disagree can take away your livelihood and the livelihood of their family and then blacklisted in their profession as if it were the McCarthy era.
Speech is free “but it has consequences” is a tired line, and it actually means speech really isn’t free if consequences exceed criticism and peaceful protest, counter argument, or even name calling. Firing, suspending, cutting pay, job demotion, doxxing and general persecution of the speaker or the speaker’s family are not and should not be considered just consequences. The intent of those actions is prior restraint censorship and punishment.
Suspended…fired….whatever….he was being punished. You said…”It’s true that they shouldn’t be punished for it…” Like I said, this is the path liberals are choosing on a regular basis. In this case, the responsibility that was being ignored was done so by liberals….again. Don’t they have a responsibility in protecting speech? They can criticize him all day but they consistently decide to cross the line.
Criticizing speech is not the same as persecuting the speaker.
Svelaz,
I agree 100%. There is nothing in the Constitution which prohibits discrimination of speech. Only that government can’t abridge it. No one has a Constitutional right to be heard except in a court of law or free from civil repercussions for what comes out of their mouths outside of one.
Your understanding of Constitutional law is flawed. The Constitution granted powers of federal government, it did not confer on us what individual rights we were receiving from the government. There is no right to free Speech in the Constitution, but the Constitution is not a grant of certain enumerated rights given to individuals. So naturally nothing in the Constitution grants you a right of free speech. So the colonial and nation’s societal history is where free speech comes from. Your statement is not supported by the fact that the Constitution did not give us free speech. Hamilton in the Federalist papers said at first he was against the Bill of Rights bc he thought there would be people who erroneously believe that the Bill of Rights could be mis-construed and people would believe we only had individual rights as given to us by the constitution. He took it essentially everyone has these rights, such as free speech naturally and nothing in the constitution said that right was taken away, so Hamilton believed the Bill of rights would confuse people. The constitution only grants rights and restrictions on government, it does not speak about granting individual rights. However, to get the Const ratified, some states said that they need assurances that the govt acknowledge that were specific rights that could not be abridged. However, there is no relevant Constitutional grounds to support an argument that the Constitution did not give of free speech in civil settings. If Hamilton were alive he could use your comment to say “see, I told you we shouldn’t have had a Bill of Rights, this person believes we only have societal free speech if the Constitution granted it to us.” Hamilton would say that this misunderstands what the Constitution does.”
The Constitution is not there to define and “give” the rights of individuals, instead it is a restrictive document that says what government can or cannot due. That is why the Bill of rights is written from the point of view of limitations on the government power over individuals.
Kunstler,
I agree with you 110%. My comments to Svelaz do not contradict what you say here. I don’t believe the Bill of Rights grants rights. They serve to constrain the government.
“Turley is not like you Trumpists.”
Yes, and he is also not like you retards.
Silberman, you’re an ass. As a trumpet, I agree it was poorly worded. You however as an idiot have no peers.
Canuck Sailor,
Ok. Fair enough. That’s 2 Trumpists who agree with Turley that the tweet was horrendous.
When one can not post for hire as Biden did (the announcement of a black female for the Court) how is the President allowed such an action?
Lea,
I don’t follow you.
Lea is talking about the whole controversy of Biden saying his appointment would be a black woman. That is discriminatory and blatantly so. That means discrimination based on sex, nationality, or race. By saying that he meant he would not consider a Latino, Indian-American, no indigenous Americans, no white or Asian people. That is the same as saying my Supreme Court nominee will be a white male. Blatant racist policy. Excuses many people from consideration due to their skin color or heritage or sex. That is what we are trying to get away from it. Saying he will nominate a pro choice person on the other hand is not discriminatory if you don’t attach race and sex to it.
Yes Lea I agree and so did some legal scholars.
Mr. Silberman if you please. The question here is whether a “horrendously worded” tweet justifies the firing of a academician and whether a University like GT applies the same standards to all members of the University. Given the two examples provided by Shapiro in his WSJ commentary, clearly that is not the case. Progressives like you are so blinded by your leftist ideology you happily go along with totalitarian thugs who will one day not only go after the Shapiros of the world but the Silbermans as well. Go read about what Stalin did to people with names like Silberman.
“ Mr. Silberman if you please. The question here is whether a “horrendously worded” tweet justifies the firing of a academician and whether a University like GT applies the same standards to all members of the University.”
He was suspended, not fired.
A distinction without a difference because he was warned that another incident would result in further discipline. The double standard charge remains. Princeton did the same to Professor Katz, excpet they outright fired him. Dispicable
“ A distinction without a difference because he was warned that another incident would result in further discipline.”
There IS a difference. Getting fired means losing employment completely. Getting suspended means you’re still employed. His suspension was being removed. He chose voluntarily to end his employment.
Being Suspended and fired are two entirely different things.
AlanK,
Of course, the same Civility Rule should be applied equally. It’s just that Trumpists and Republicans are more uncivil. Turley no doubt takes down more uncivil comments on this blog from Trumpists than Leftists.
You say:
“Go read about what Stalin did to people with names like Silberman.”
I have heard about this man Stalin. Wasn’t he from the government? Have I been suggesting that uncivil people should be sent to Siberia?
Our parents were right- they washed out the mouths of their kids with soap when they said bad words. We must do the same with grown-ups.
obviously Jeff you don’t know many “Tumpists”. A vast majority would agree with Turley’s analysis of the tweet in question but most of us are also intelligent enough to know what was meant by the tweet and not stoop to persecution of someone who apologized and later explained what he meant.
Richard,
Not true. I get a belly full of rabid Trumpism/Q-Anon on this blog. I’m just glad that I run into Trumpists in the virtual world and not in the real one.
Ok. You make 3 Trumpists who have agreed with Turley that the tweet was horrendous. Not a majority much less a vast one. Would that it were so.
If only a vast majority of Trumpists were like Turley. What a wonderful world this would be!
“You make 3 Trumpists who have agreed “
What Jeff cannot understand is that the wording of the tweet is what is in question. The wording made the mental midgets, like Jeff, get overly upset even though actual threats of violence against the right are acceptable forms of speech from the left.
What was the Tweet? “Objectively best pick for Biden is Sri Srinivasan, who is solid prog & v smart,” So far, there is nothing wrong. Shapiro thinks Sri is a better candidate. “Even has identity politics benefit of being first Asian (Indian) American.” Nothing wrong with this either. Why can’t we have an Asian who is supposedly smart and progressive? “But alas doesn’t fit into latest intersectionality hierarchy” That is true. Asians are discriminated against even as a minority. That is horrendous. He now states that he feels Sri was a better intellectual pick than Jackson, ” so we’ll get lesser black woman. Thank heaven for small favors?” Jackson was chosen because she was black not because she was smarter than Sri or more progressive. Sri as an Asian didn’t count because people like those highly critical of Shapiro are racists themselves, unless they realize that the wording, not the intent was poorly written.
What should be criticized was Biden’s statement of how he would pick the next Supreme Court Justice. He impugned the intelligence of Jackson with that statement. He created a situation where everyone should be critical of Biden’s words. Yes, Biden’s words were horrendous both in their placement and their meaning. We should all be offended by Biden’s words.
Was Shapiro’s words poorly placed. Yes, but everything he said was absolutely true.
Now Jeff can add me to the list and have 4 Trump supporters saying it was horrendously worded, but everything Shaprio said was true.
Conceptually we have a right and a left. Turley is on the left, so any leftist policies will likely not be acceptable to those on the right. However, the right likes Turley because he understands the rule of law.
On the other hand the left is hot and cold about Turley because they do not understand the rule of law. Leftists are self-serving, so if one doesn’t agree with them that person is hated until he does. That is how Jeff functions. It’s all about Jeff’s feelings without any concern for anyone else.
S. Meyer That is right. That is similar to what professor’s like Dershowitz have stated publicly about liberal professors like Larry Tribe. He picks out his partisan position and then will say anything to justify his partisanship.
I would also say that there are many Republican voters who are civil libertarians. Meaning they are conservative, but their conservatism includes a strong conviction that the Bill of Rights should be protected. It is conservatives, even Trumpists who are defending free speech principles, The 2d Am, the 5th Am, the 4th Am, and also trying to make the government follow the rules meant to protect individuals from abuse of the FISA Courts and The Patriot Act.
Turley has demonstrated that he’s a hypocrite when it comes to the law.
Many academics have pointed this out about Turley lately.
He’s leans right most of the time.
Hypocrites have a hard time figuring out where their faults lie. You are one of them. Turley believes in the rule of law. That means equal treatment for all. That is why you call him a hypocrite. He is from the left side of the aisle and is asking for equal treatment under the law for the right.
Now that the left has intimidated most academics, their version of the rule of law has changed to the rule of law is good only for those standing lock-step with the left.
You don’t believe in the rule of law or even fair debate. That is why you remain anonymous. That way you can be the biggest hypocrite of all, and according to you no one can prove differently.
“He’s leans right most of the time.”
Which in reality means: He is a principled defender of the Constitution and of the law. That he does not start with a desire, then mangle the law to satisfy that desire.
This is why the radical Left detests Turley. He won’t allow them to use his brain or his reputation as a means to their ends.
He is a principled defender of the Constitution and of the law. That he does not start with a desire, then mangle the law to satisfy that desire.
That is absolutely true Sam. I’ve been on this blog for roughly 10 years and JT hasn’t changed one bit. It’s narcissistic to see JT moving left to right in the same way it was believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. He’s not the one on the move.
I’m not a Trumpist whatever that means, I’m a conservative. Shapiro’s Tweet is “horrendously bad worded but is protected speech.
We should wonder how loud the screams would rise if conservatives applied the same rule against the progressives.
William says:
“We should wonder how loud the screams would rise if conservatives applied the same rule against the progressives.”
You scream, we scream, we all scream!
As long as the government keeps its hands off the screamer, and everyone is free to walk out of earshot of the screamer or scream back, everything is as it should be.
I don’t understand your point. The point is “horrendously bad worded” speech by liberals is backed by the school, but then used as a weapon against conservatives. I’ll take Turkey’s word for it that it was badly worded, but that does not change anything with regard to his point. “Horrendously bad worded” ideas should not be considered any differently than a “perfectly worded” idea. The problem is that any idea should be allowed to be expressed within academia.
Additionally anyone who pays attention knows Turley did not like Trump’s policies and never voted or donated to Trump. I believe that is in the Congressional Record from House impeachment testimony. Turley leans left, (maybe even a progressive, I don’t know, but he does not let that blind him to injustice or unfairness. I am a libertarian who votes 3d party unless there is a decent conservative Republican, which meant I did not vote for Trump. However I have to say that Biden is the worst president since WW2 and if there were recall votes for Presidents, I would vote for recall and special election.
Kunstler,
If you believe that the election was stolen, then you are a lying Trumpist. What do you believe?
You say:
“The problem is that any idea should be allowed to be expressed within academia.”
Any idea is allowed to be expressed by an academic, but other academics are allowed to tell that person what they think of his or her ideas. No problem.
“If you believe that the election was stolen, then you are a lying Trumpist. “
Kunstler, you are correct. The election was stolen, but why would a fool like Jeff know it. He waits until Turley tells him what is legally correct. Then Jeff either insults Turley or says, ‘see, Turley agrees with me.’ He could very easily see 2000 Mules and decide for himself. Maybe his mommy needs to see the documentary and tell him what to think.
In common parlance persons of that nature are known as idiots.
If a person wants to hold the view and express that the election was rigged, they should be able to say that. People can criticize or disagree and even prove that it is false. My own belief is that fraud did not affect the outcome; however, like Dershowitz I believe the Supreme Court in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania got it wrong on the issue in those cases which did not really involve fraud, but involved whether election officials could change rules about absentee and mail in ballots being counted, when only the legislature could decide that. The courts disagreed. In Wis they didn’t even address the issue, they dismissed the case because of laches bc the suit wasn’t filed until 9 days after the election. This was after dismissing Trump’s case filed before the election bc of what election officials were doing without the legislature’s consent, as being brought too early bc the election hadn’t happened yet. Wisconsin Supreme Court decide 4-3 that waiting 9 days after the election (when counting was still going on in Wisconsin) was too late to filed an action based on “laches” which is a legal concept that means a plaintiff waited too long to assert his rights. Most cases of laches involved decades worth of delay not 9 days. Read the case, especially the dissent. That is my view and I should be able to say that. You can disagree and criticize, but once people are fired or suspended from their jobs, and blacklisted and doxxed that is punishment of speaking freely, not criticism. It chills speech and becomes akin to a prior restraint on speech. If I know I could be fired for expressing my view, then I don’t speak. That IS censorship. Courts have recognized this concept in many cases. Criticism and refuting an argument is fine, but to punish me and deprive me of my livelihood does not fall into the realm of free speech. I believe you have the right to express your opinion. I can disagree with your position, but causing you to lose your job because you disagree with me is not what I want to have happen to you. I believe you have the right to criticize me, but your criticism shouldn’t be grounds for depriving you of your job. That is not consequence, that is punishment.
So I agree with your last sentences, unless you believe that people who disagree with a person’s speech should be punished by loss of job, cut in pay, demotion from their employment provision, intimidation, threats—that is not just consequences to what you say, it is punishment—a big difference. Exactly what do you believe? Do you believe firing a person is free speech by those who fire the person or those who demand he be fired or do you believe that exceeds what societal free speech should be like? Do you believe you should be able to censor what one says?
If you want to know my position on the election the dissent in this 4-3 Wisconsin Supreme Court decision explains it. Some states such as Wisconsin mishandled the counting of votes. That is different from “widespread fraud.” Here is a pdf of the case. The dissent starts around page 34 of the pdf, not page 34 of the opinion.
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395
As to PA I believe that Act 77 violates the PA Constitution. The Act changed mail in voting rules ahead of the 2020 election to make them easier to cast. Dershowitz believes the same. The argument is that to change mail in voting rules it must be done by amending the PA state constitution. A legislative act is not enough and is therefore unconstitutional. The initial trial court struck down Act 77 and said that changes require an amendment to the PA Constitution. The case, I believe has been argued before the PA Supreme Court and we are waiting on a decision, although I don’t remember for sure if the case has been argued, I could be wrong. So I do not believe there was widespread fraud, instead I look at the cases in Wis and PA that are not about fraud, but are about what ballots can legally be counted. I do not agree with the dissent in the Wisconsin Case, and I believe that the current court decision by the PA court is correct, Act 77 violated the PA Constitution so there are votes that should not have been cancelled. Whether the case in Wisconsin had turned out like the dissent believed and if the Supreme Court of PA does strike down Act 77, I don’t know if it would change the outcome or not. I have not studied it. So forget widespread fraud, IF the election was stolen, it was stolen by democratic state judges in interpreting the law, not by widespread fraud.
Do you believe my opinion should be censored? Do you believe I should lose my job because I cite these facts and the give my opinion. I didn’t vote for Trump, however I am not blinded by partisanship, as a lawyer I look at the legal arguments and agree or disagree and give my opinion.
Kunstler says:
“So I do not believe there was widespread fraud, instead I look at the cases in Wis and PA that are not about fraud, but are about what ballots can legally be counted.”
Fine. If it is a good faith allegation, by all means litigate it. I’m relieved you don’t believe the election was stolen by massive voter fraud. You can count on one hand those of us on this blog who believe as you and I do. The vast majority here believe the Big Lie.
“as a lawyer I look at the legal arguments and agree or disagree and give my opinion.”
That’s the way it should be. Unfortunately, there were several Trumpist lawyers who were held in contempt by some judges for perpetuating a fraud on their courts. Their allegations of voter fraud were made in such bad faith that the judges referred them for disbarment proceedings and held them liable for sanctions.
There is a difference honest lawyers like you and Turley and those Trumpists being sued for defamation and sanctions.
Turley candidly admits:…
retard
Pavlovian response.
I’d like to feel bad for Shapiro but given his radical bent, I’ll just enjoy the last scene when monster turns on one of its creators.
Lefties are laying the groundwork for a conservative backlash.
Conservatives have endured with little pushback (other than appeals to fairness).
But we are getting angrier, which may lead to payback.
Lefties are setting the stage for a ruinous cycle of destruction.
It would damage the country.
Backlash? LOL. You have a government DOJ, FBI, Education…which are 100% driven by political agenda…to assume total power of Democrats…regardless of laws or rights!
This is deeply disturbing. The universities should be championing free speech! This is a huge black mark against Georgetown and any other person or institution who doesn’t step forward and speak up!