New Mexico Students Shutdown Conservative Speaker in Latest Attack on Free Speech

We have another anti-free speech incident involving liberal protesters shutting down an event. Fox News pundit Tomi Lahren was cancelled at the University of New Mexico by students who refused to let others hear her remarks.  There is, however, a major (and hopeful) difference in this incident: the school is actually pledging to hold the students accountable. Some of us have called for such action for years to quell the anti-free speech movement sweeping across campuses.Groups organized on social media by posting an image which read “F**K WHITE SUPREMACY — Rally Against Tomi Lahren’s Speech at UNM — We Won’t Allow Racist Rhetoric to be Spread on Our Campus Unopposed.” The result was pandemonium as students entered the auditorium chanting “F**k Tomi Lahren” while others banged on the door. The threats led to Lahren, her father and a Turning Point USA representative having to lock themselves in a “back room” until local police arrived to support the campus cops already on scene.

The students celebrated their shutting down the free speech of others.

Fox News reported that “the University of New Mexico insists students will be held accountable for their actions” and added

“The safety of our campus community and visitors is our first priority. We are deeply disappointed in the actions of those individuals who intentionally chose to disrupt a scheduled speaker and infringed upon the rights of the speaker and those who attended the event to listen and engage, vandalized University property and unlawfully pulled a fire alarm. UNM is investigating these incidents and will hold anyone who violated the law or University policies accountable.”

If the university fulfills its promise, it will be a rare example of such accountability. Universities often mouth support for a diversity of viewpoints while not taking actions to discipline those who deny the free speech of others. That is a common pattern in schools ranging from Yale to Northwestern to Georgetown.  Blocking others from speaking is not the exercise of free speech. It is the very antithesis of free speech. Nevertheless, faculty have supported such claims. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,”  Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned).

The most chilling aspect of this story is how many on the left applaud such censorship. A prior poll shows roughly half of the public supporting not just corporate censorship but government censorship of anything deemed “misinformation.” We discussed this issue with regard to a lawsuit against SUNY. It is also discussed in my law review article, Jonathan Turley, Harm and Hegemony: The Decline of Free Speech in the United States, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.

We have seen how in universities (including state schools) this can turn into a type of “heckler’s veto” where speeches are cancelled in advance or terminated suddenly due to the disruption of protesters. The issue is not engaging in protest against such speakers, but to enter events for the purpose of preventing others from hearing such speakers. Universities create forums for the discussion of a diversity of opinions. Entering a classroom or event to prevent others from speaking is barring free speech. I would feel the same way about preventing such people from protests outside such events. However, the concern is not with outdoor events where all groups can be as loud and cantankerous as their voices will bear. Both sides have free speech rights to express. The issue on campus is the entrance into halls, or classrooms to prevent others from hearing speakers or opposing viewpoints by disputing events.

This has been an issue of contention with some academics who believe that free speech includes the right to silence others.  Berkeley has been the focus of much concern over the use of a heckler’s veto on our campuses as violent protesters have succeeded in silencing speakers, even including a few speakers like an ACLU official.  Both students and some faculty have maintained the position that they have a right to silence those with whom they disagree and even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech.  At another University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.  In the meantime, academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech.

The University of New Mexico can defend diversity of viewpoints by holding these students accountable. Those who entered the event to disrupt it (or engaged in threatening conduct) should be reprimanded, suspended or expelled depending on the gravity of their conduct. We are at a critical point in higher education where we must either fight to preserve free speech or yield to a mob-led orthodoxy on our campuses.


170 thoughts on “New Mexico Students Shutdown Conservative Speaker in Latest Attack on Free Speech”

  1. Labeling speech that is dissenting against there views as hate speech, is a fascist tactic. They are simply seeking to silence speech they don’t like. Today, they are the modern nazi party of America is these so-called-liberals. Period

    1. For your edification, they are communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs), and they prosecute the “dictatorship of the proletariat.”

      These Bolsheviks brook no opposition.

      “Sometimes – history needs a push.”

      – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

      “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

      – Lenin

      “A lie told often enough becomes the truth.”

      – Vladimir Lenin

      “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.”

      – Vladimir Lenin

      “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

      – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

  2. The Embarrassment Turley Is NOT Reporting

    Special Master Asking Questions Judge Cannon Overlooked

    Donald Trump and Federal Judge Aileen M. Cannon might end up regretting their selection of Raymond Dearie as the special master to undertake the review of classified papers retrieved from the former president’s Mar-a-Lago club. In fact, as Trump desperately attempts to delay a possible indictment, the Justice Department’s investigation into Trump seems to be gaining speed.

    Things took a turn for the worse for Trump and Cannon when the no-nonsense Dearie demanded what Cannon failed to do: make Trump say under oath whether he had “declassified” any documents. That’s a problem for Trump. If he attests to something widely believed to be false (multiple former Trump officials have said there was no outstanding order to declassify documents), he risks criminal charges for lying. If he says he didn’t declassify them, the government’s classification system is final (worsening his liability for hoarding the documents).

    Trump’s attorneys are refusing to answer Dearie’s questions about declassification for now, an astounding act of gamesmanship. Their defiance will only bring Dearie closer to the point of ruling that there is no dispute as to classification (contrary to Cannon’s assertion). Given the nature of the documents and the potential threat to national security their mishandling poses, it seems virtually impossible for Trump to sustain an executive privilege claim.

    Trump’s team is also whining that Dearie is moving expeditiously with a final report due back to Cannon no later than Nov. 30. If Trump’s advisers were betting on Dearie dragging his feet, they seemed to have miscalculated.

    Edited From:


    For the past 2 weeks Professor Turley has dismissed the many critics of Judge Cannon who feel the Trump appointee lacks critical judgement skills. Cannon, who barely met the threshold of experience for Federal Judges, never asked Trump’s legal team if the ex-president had ‘declassified’ any documents. However Raymond Dearie, the Special Master Trump selected, sprang that question yesterday and threw Trump’s legal team off-balance

    1. More From Article Above

      Dearie might be the least of Trump’s new legal travails. The New York Times reports that former White House attorney Eric Herschmann “warned [Trump] late last year that he could face legal liability if he did not return government materials he had taken with him when he left office.” Herschmann has already been called to testify before a federal grand jury. If he confirms this account, it could be “the latest evidence that Mr. Trump had been informed of the legal perils of holding onto material that is now at the heart of a Justice Department criminal investigation into his handling of the documents and the possibility that he or his aides engaged in obstruction,” the Times reported.

      1. Your sleight of hand to distract attention from the fascists controlling campuses across America today isn’t working.

      2. Yet again, so boorish.

        A “fake” special prosecutor, a counterfactually maligned “phone call” to Ukraine, two faux impeachments, the Obama Coup D’etat in America, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, and the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) are still going strong with their illicit reputational pogroms and malicious prosecutions.

        One of these days, Congress will pass a law proscribing these reprehensible, red-herring “false alarms” in the political space.

    2. All the Trump team said is just review the documents.You and the leftists propagandist are attempting to make something big out of literally nothing.
      Dearie will do his job. So what? Until a trial starts, nothing needs to be declared.

      1. You’re not paying attention (nothing new) iowan.

        Trump wants his lawyers to be able to review the classified docs. Dearie will say no, as they’re not personal records and there’s no possible privilege.

        Yes, Dearie will do his job. He already told Trump’s lawyers: “My view is: you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” The government provided “prima facie evidence” of classification, i.e., the markings. Dearie said “As far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it.”

        1. This is an entirely moot child’s game in a kindergarten sand box; a tempest in a teapot.

          At the point in time when the president conceived declassification of any or all material, that material was declassified.

          Classification and declassification of material is an exclusive function of the executive branch.

          No legislation to affect classification or declassification of material of the executive branch is possible or constitutional.

          The legislative branch has no power to usurp the power of the executive branch.

          The judicial branch has no power to usurp the power of the executive branch.

          Power of the executive branch may only be transferred to the legislative branch through amendment.

          The legislative branch may attempt to impeach a sitting president for any reason.

          Ideations of members of the legislative or judicial branches do not bear and do not prevail over the dominion of the Constitution.

            1. Please cite law.

              There is nothing in the Constitution regarding classified material.

              Classifying and declassifying material is solely a function of the executive branch.

              Classifying and declassifying material is not a function of the legislative branch.

              Classifying and declassifying material is not a function of the judicial branch.

              To reiterate:

              At the point in time when the president conceived declassification of any or all material, that material was declassified.

              No legislation to affect classification or declassification of material of the executive branch is possible or constitutional.

              The legislative branch has no power to usurp the power of the executive branch.

              The judicial branch has no power to usurp the power of the executive branch.

              Power of the executive branch may only be transferred to the legislative branch through amendment.

              The legislative branch may attempt to impeach a sitting president for any reason.

              Ideations of members of the legislative or judicial branches do not bear and do not prevail over the dominion of the Constitution.

            2. Dearie’s job is 100% ministerial, he is a secretary to Judge Cannon. He has no power to make a legal ruling. It is impossible to make Dearie any less important than he already is.

              1. “Dearie’s job is 100% ministerial, he is a secretary to Judge Cannon. He has no power to make a legal ruling. It is impossible to make Dearie any less important than he already is.”

                Iowan, since Dearie sets a narrative, he remains important no matter how the SM is accepted. The pool for SM was small because the left has been successful in their Stalinesque tactics in changing American jurisprudence. They have reversed our creed. Anyone opposing the in-power left is now guilty unless proven innocent.

                By nature of this authoritarian creation by the left, the SM’s pool dwindled so that, by in large, the best Trump can hope for is a neutral or slightly leftist SM.

  3. “The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  4. “[The safety of a republic depends] essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment, on a uniformity of principles and habits, on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice, and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education and family.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

  5. “—- illegal aliens.”

    – American Founders

    As the Supreme Court acted 50 years retroactively to strike down the eminently unconstitutional Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court must now act 150 years retroactively to strike down every egregious and manifestly unconstitutional act of Abraham Lincoln and his Marxist successors.

    The immigration law of the American Founders, the Naturalization Act of 1802, was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863, requiring the compassionate repatriation of the illegal aliens created by Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation.

    In a society of laws, the laws must be strictly adhered to.

    It was grossly incoherent, counterintuitive, illegal and unconstitutional for Lincoln to site a standing army of foreign, illegal aliens on American soil; it remains unconstitutional to this day.

    Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations, they meant it)

    United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…

    1. Looks like this…

      Anonymous says:
      September 20, 2022 at 9:50 AM
      As usual, I laugh out loud at a Turley article on free speech knowing what a fan he is of outright censorship and shadow banning here on his blog comment section. Let’s just say Turley’s true interest in free speech basically reaches as far as taking the topic on when deemed appropriate to deflect from issues turning on trump and the right. I’d always hoped Turley wouldn’t be so craven, always looking for the place where he’d be sending secret SOS signals to readers in his push piece op eds here on the blog signaling he was somehow contractually forced to say what he’s been saying — but the truth is he’s actually a forerunner of the ‘censor while demanding free speech’ movement.

      Truthfully, he has to live with knowing what he’s doing, and that can’t be an easy pill to swallow. Wasn’t something he looked forward to way back in his law school days no doubt, but it’s here where his career as a legal spokesman for what eventually become Trumpism has been deposited.

      This post will be censored when the moderator gets to work during PST hours most likely.

      UpstateFarmer says:
      September 20, 2022 at 9:59 AM
      What is it that you post that gets you censored all the time?

      Jonathan says:
      September 20, 2022 at 10:28 AM
      There’s no reason for that comment to be censored. If it’s censored, then it shows that JT isn’t living up to his own free speech ideals.

        1. “Oops.”

          – SW

          If readers discovered an error, they likely understand the nature of this no-edit site. If not, no one’s the wiser. It’s all good. No harm. No foul. No problem. As they say, no worries.

          …he said, apropos of nothing.

      1. The only exceptions I am aware of are; Squeeky, who used to post the most insulting race-baiting blather I’ve heard since the 1950s; and profanity. Both have been banned.

      2. Darren, can you please explain to us why the Anonymous comment was removed. We don’t understand. Thanks.

        1. Concerned Citizen asked, “Darren, can you please explain to us why the Anonymous comment was removed. We don’t understand.”

          My guess is that it was a previous banned commenter that was trying to sneak under the moderation radar. I’ve had that happen on my blog too.

            1. Johnathan, let us see if you get censored under this name and icon. We all get censored at one time or another because WP isn’t mistake-proof. I hope you do not get censored regularly. I will keep an eye out because you have raised my curiosity.

              I think this blog should have a mild degree of censorship, and I don’t think any who reply should make personal attacks against Turley, who doesn’t have the time to respond. Criticize his ideas all you wish, but restrain from the personal attacks.

    2. Ah! But he was EB.
      IIRC he has made some questionable posts in the past of the deserving censorship kind.
      The kind of thing that should not be encouraged and that person persona non grata.
      I do not think his posts were as innocent and clean as he claims.
      There have been many posters here on the blog posting against others, made Trump Russian collusion claims, and post things totally unrelated to the article the professor written.

        1. Jonathan, there are limits. So far you have stayed within those limits and have not been censored. In a sane world censorship doesn’t need to exist. Those that cannot act reasonably cause censorship to be applied to all.

  6. Jonathan, you missed the primary point. It is hate speech to call conservatives, Republicans, and Trump supporters racists. They are demonstrably and obviously not racists. To want to maintain our country’s sovereignty like every country in world does is not racist. After all, that’s what Democrats like Obama and Biden have said they want. Point of the article should have been that college leftists used hate speech to justify not allowing speech that opposes their childish viewpoints.

  7. New Mexico? I would have expected NO less from a democratic dominion. UNM’s Administrators, Educators, and Students are the latest comers to Woke’s current trends. Be it: lacking in social grace, denial of others right to speak, conceit of thought, or any litany of other Fascist/Socialist ideas. Woke lives in a fantasy world (“The corn over there seems better than ours”) that there are better paths forward; wanting first to dispose of our republic’s constitution and laws, replacing with Woke’s dogma of false righteousness, and socialist and fascist notions.

    Though Hugh MacDiarmid was a Communism, a Fascist, and unquestioningly a Socialist his words in “A Drunk Man Looks at the Thistle” (Written in Scottish borough) may be appropriate to today’s struggles between a Republic with Freedoms and the Tyranny of Woke.

    “I’ll ha’e nae hauf-way hoose, but aye be whaur
    Extremes meet—it’s the only way I ken
    To dodge the curst conceit o’ bein’ richt
    That damns the vast majority o’ men.

    I’ll bury nae heid like an ostrich’s,
    Nor yet believe my een and naething else.
    My senses may advise me, but I’ll be
    Mysel’ nae matter what they tell’s…”

    Quote from:

  8. The Nazis have taken over our campuses. Nazis and Bolsheviks are the only ones to stop free speech.

    1. You think the people who run religious colleges around the country, who tend not to invite LGBTQ speakers in the first place, are Nazis and Bolsheviks?

        1. Which is entirely irrelevant to whether someone considers them “Nazis and Bolsheviks” because they “stop free speech.”

          People’s opinions about who are “Nazis and Bolsheviks” is separate from what people have a First Amendment right to do. Neo-Nazis have free speech rights, for example, but that doesn’t stop us from identifying them as Neo-Nazis.

        1. Here’s a related example:
          “A longtime professor at Oklahoma Christian University was fired after he brought in an openly gay man to speak to one of his classes, according to his attorney.”

          Here’s another:
          “A group of Seattle Pacific University (SPU) faculty and students are suing the Christian college after its board of trustees refused to remove a policy barring people in same-sex relationships from working full-time jobs at SPU.”

    2. Are you out of your ——- mind?!!!

      “Crazy Abe” Lincoln illicitly, illegally and unconstitutionally imposed martial law and suspended habeas corpus, aside from unconstitutionally denying fully constitutional secession, a right the Founders availed themselves of with respect to Great Britain, commencing an unconstitutional war and confiscating private property.

      He threw his opponents in prison, smashed the opposition’s printing presses and conducted the heinous total war of Sherman’s March to the Sea, totally destroying ranches, farms, orchards, cities, industries and people.

      Lincoln was as bad or worse that Stalin and Hitler.

      Chief Justice Taney opposed the criminal of high office, Lincoln, but Taney was overmatched and overcome.

      “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department.”

      “I can see no ground whatever for supposing that the President in any emergency or in any state of things can authorize the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or arrest a citizen except in aid of the judicial power.”

      “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome.”

      – Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, May 28, 1861

  9. Five words say it all: “Fox News pundit Tomi Lahren ” She’s a joke. Fox is a joke, and both are an insult to the intelligence of the NM student body. Turley applauds the university for claiming it will “hold accountable” students who shut down her bottle blondie BS. Tell us, Turley, WHO holds you, Fox or the dumbbell liar Tomi accountable? These students were holding her accountable for her lies and racist rhetoric and that of Fox media, and IMHO, that’s protected speech. Shutting down a “pundit” for a media outlet that peddles lies and hate is as American as it gets. Tomi Lahren doesn’t belong on a college campus–on the stage of a strip club, maybe, but not on a college campus.

    Here’s your problem, Turley: you operate on the presumption that the alternate-fact universe of alt-right media should be treated as if it is valid–that there’s some right to lie, to constantly hold a presidential candidate who lost an election in the spotlight, broadcasting his lies and rhetoric and to downplay the fact that he started an insurrection to try to keep power against the will of the American people. No previous President has ever refused to concede gracefully after losing nor to shut up and go away, nor continued to hold rallies to air his grievances and bask in the glory of his adoring fans, many of which are Q Anon, the Proud Boys, White Supremacists, the 3 percenters and Oath Keepers, all of which are racist hate groups, which is antithetical to the values of every college I am aware of. The students were protesting what she and Fox stand for, and that’s appropriate. The mistake was scheduling her to speak in the first place.

    1. There is no such thing as an invalid opinion, and it certainly not the place for anyone to prevent someone from speaking, no matter what their position. Anything else you had to say was just noise and unworthy of response.

      1. So, Nazi anti-Semitic sentiments, White Supremacist rants, misogynistic insults, xenophobic rhetoric and the like, are “valid”, and people who understand that these things are immoral and anti-American should just stand by and do nothing about it? What would have happened if more Germans had spoken out against Hitler before he rose to power, back when he was just a loudmouth malcontent who had done time in prison and mental institutions and who had been homeless? He would never have risen to power, that’s what. He eventually took over all German media at the time–newspapers and radio, to stop any push-back. But, before he got that powerful, he could have been stopped. Germans did not hate their Jewish neighbors, doctors, shopkeepers, college professors or musicians until Hitler convinced them that the humiliating German defeat in WW I was the fault of Jews. After Hitler got his storm troopers, opposing him meant imprisonment or summary execution. We have inklings of something analogous to that happening in the US right now–Q Anon, the Proud Boys, the 3 percenters, and the Oath Keepers, who attend Trump rallies and raise their Cult 45 finger symbols when their special theme song is played. Trump is stupid, dangerous and hungry for power. He believes that he has an army of supporters who will fight for him and has hinted that if he is indicted, there will be violence. What do the Republicans do?–nada. Anyone who isn’t alarmed by Trump is delusional or blind. How can anyone seriously question that democracy is at risk when you have a losing presidential candidate who lies about his “landslide victory” being stolen, who refuses to concede, who tried to bully the VP into refusing to accept the certified votes, who tried to bully state election officials into awarding him votes he didn’t get, who, as a last resort, started an insurrection to try to prevent the election winner from taking office, who stole TS/SCI documents, who holds rallies to air his grievances, and who just won’t shut up, go away, and allow the lawfully-elected President carry out the mandate of the American people.

        You may not recall that Tomi Lahren has said that her goal is to make headlines. She literally stands for nothing: she has wavered on abortion–first being pro-choice, then anti-abortion–the same for womens’ rights, racism–the whole gamut of controversies–she’s back and forth. Anything to get in front of that camera and to try to make a name for herself. She’s just a dumb bottle blondie who craves attention, who works for a media outlet that spreads lies and panders to election deniers and those who fall for the culture war rhetoric that is tearing America apart. She doesn’t belong on a college campus.

        1. The 1st Amendment applies to ALL, even those you or I find vile, no exceptions, no excuses. Anyone who tries to stop that needs to spend a decade or two in a 4×8 cell, if they’re lucky.

          This is doubly so on publicly funded campuses.

          There is nothing else need be said on the subject.

          1. For what I hope is the last time–the First Amendment prevents government, state or federal, or agency thereof, from preventing speech. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO COLLEGE STUDENTS.It was students who shouted her down, not the university. As to your suggestion, jailing students for objecting to a moron like Lahren and her employer WOULD BE a violation of the First Amendment because it would be the government prosecuting them..

            1. Natacha wrote, “For what I hope is the last time–the First Amendment prevents government, state or federal, or agency thereof, from preventing speech. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO COLLEGE STUDENTS. It was students who shouted her down, not the university. As to your suggestion, jailing students for objecting to a moron like Lahren and her employer WOULD BE a violation of the First Amendment because it would be the government prosecuting them..”

              Spoken like a true anti-American pro mob rule Marxist totalitarian.

            2. Shutting down speech is NOT speech. Period.

              Any institution that receives government funds of any kind is obligated to protect the speech rights of EVERYONE on campus.

              And yes, preventing the exercise of Constitutional Rights is the most serious crime you can commit. No mercy, no quarter.

    2. Shutting down a “pundit” for a media outlet that peddles lies and hate is as American-Marxist as it gets.

      Because that’s what knuckle-draggers have to do when they don’t have a factual and coherent argument.

    3. So free speech is only available to those that you agree with. That see it your way. That your tribal affiliate approves of. All others, according to your standard should be disallowed, silenced by officialdom and mobs. Citizens seeking to hear an opinion in a forum they choose are to be defined. You will tell them what they can and cannot hear and how they will hear it.

      The irony that your comment was allowed to be posted by an author that no doubt disagrees with you is completely lost on you. Then again that would require a base level of self awareness which you tirade illustrates a lack of.

    4. Do you have any idea the credentials of these speakers you claim are ‘bottle blondie’? Your ignorance and sexism are like a bad billboard.

    5. You did not give a single example supporting your statements against Turley. Instead you changed the topic.

    6. Why the long-winded screed, Natacha? Simply say, “I’m a Communazi and ONLY OUR views must be heard.”

      See, it’s short, simple, and straight-to-the-point.

    7. Your viewpoint screams, “I can’t defend my position, so I must prevent any rebuttal.” You are poster-boy cancel culture.

    8. So you are the arbiter of truth? The deception continuously presented by your ilk and NEVER challenged by like minded media sources makes you completely unqualified to enter the discourse. Typical of your outrage is the personal attack on the messengers and hyperbolic accusations on the motivations of those who debate the legitimacy of claims of election integrity, those who stand against federal overreach and those who support conservative policies. Colleges have been corrupted by a fascistic movement to silence any dissent or exposure of its Marxist indoctrination. You are part of the problem.

    9. Natacha wrote, “These students were holding [Tomi Lahren] accountable for her lies and racist rhetoric…”

      So Natacha, let’s see if you can back up your rhetoric with some actual facts.

      Please quote Tomi Lahren’s lies and racist rhetoric that earned her the ire of the social justice warriors, present her actual words.

      1. Surprise, surprise, surprise!!!

        Another lying internet troll lacking any integrity, Natacha, parrots BS partisan propaganda without any supporting evidence to back up the claims.

        Who could have predicted this turn of events?

        I directly challenged Natacha to backup her claims with actual evidence, as in Tomi Lahren’s actual words, that Lahren has been spewing lies and racist rhetoric and what happens, Natacha ignores the request and heads for the hills with her tail tucked tightly between the cheeks of her hairy arse because she can’t provide any evidence to support her claim. How do I know Natacha did this, because Natacha has replied to another one of my comments 29 minutes after I posted this request for supporting evidence and it appears that she has abandoned discourse in this thread, if Natacha had an ounce of integrity she would have provided something for evidence, but here we sit.

        Typical behavior of a hit-n-run internet troll.

    10. “The mistake was scheduling her to speak in the first place.”

      Says who? You? Who made you head of rules and regulations? and why are you so intimidated at what she may have to say?? and on top of that if somebody doesn’t want to listen to her then don’t go and listen. You see how easy that works? it’s obvious that conservatives are more open minded than you people on the left. You don’t see us trying to shut down speech but you and your ilk are.

    11. If I’m still alive, I look forward to the day when your speech is declared wrong think and you are jailed or executed. Bolsheviks eat their own.

      Tolerance of everything becomes intolerance of intolerance. Turley is on the mark. Higher Ed is going the wrong direction and setting up future generations for destruction.

  10. The problem I see is that the college allowed this happen in the first place! It’s not like the college didn’t know that something like this was very likely, to the point of dead certainty, going to happen, they enabled it to happen because they didn’t actively do anything to actually prevent the intentional infringement of free speech. The ends justifies the means to these immoral people but I’m sure to save face they might levee some miniscule punishment to a couple of the students but you can be certain that it will be something that won’t negatively deter this from happening again.

    This is one of the most prominent tactics of the political left in the 21st century and they will not do anything to actually deter their ability to continue this intentional abuse in the future.

    How does society put a stop to this abusive and immoral behavior?

  11. The political left and their social justice warriors have effectively weaponized THEIR free speech and intimidation tactics on college campuses and elsewhere to INTENTIONALLY infringe upon the free speech rights of those they disagree with. These tactics are immoral abuse of individual rights, these people are the non-violent (most of the time) equivalent to totalitarian political terrorists, yes terrorists.

  12. In the current academic climate, Krauss said, “Most faculty try and keep their heads down and do their own work. They’re not really thinking about these [DEI] issues…Most people are supportive of the words diversity and inclusion. Equity, I don’t think people understand…I think most faculty don’t think deeply enough about it. And, as long as they can stay under the radar, they don’t worry about it.”

    Until the mob comes for them.

    University administrators need to not keep their head’s down, but to stand up against the mob…or get out.

    1. “Equity” is the diametric opposite of “Equality”. I oppose Equity at all times in all circumstances and I am not afraid to openly say so.

  13. “The more brazen groups used the resulting atmosphere of denunciations and threats to act on their antisemitic sentiments. They also carried out grudges against students and instructors. The National Socialist German Student League directly targeted Jewish students and the remaining Jewish faculty members. The Student League’s actions took many different forms. Paramilitary student groups often interrupted lectures, provoked skirmishes, and physically intimidated Jewish students in actions tolerated by university administrations and encouraged by the Nazi Party.” []

  14. Jonathan: Ho hum. Another “free speech” controversy –this time at UNM. Oh, yes, we must “fight tp preserve free speech or yield to a mob-led orthodoxy on our campuses”. You are beginning to sound more like Trump on Jan. 6. A few anecdotal cases don’t prove there is an existential threat to free expression on most university campuses. So let’s move on to some really important news.

    Judge Dearle, the Special Master appointed to review all the docs seized by the FBI, is meeting today with the DOJ and Trump’s lawyers on an expedited schedule. Dearle wants Oct. 7 as the deadline for labeling all the docs. And he wants Trump’s lawyers to specify which docs they claim are “declassified”. Hold on, say Trump’s lawyers. They don’t want to move that fast: “We suggest that all of the deadlines can be extended to allow for a more realistic and complete assessment of the areas of disagreement”. More delay is what they want. Then Trump’s lawyers object to any doc being labeled as “declassified” even though Trump continues to claim everything he took was “declassified”. Trump’s legal team says such designations should be reserved at the time of any trial. But Judge Dearle is basically saying: “Ok, let’s see your proof any doc was ‘declassified’ so I can properly segregate that material”. In all their filings Trump’s lawyers have never claimed any doc was “declassified” so now they are between a rock and a hard place. Put up or shut up! They are now having second thought about agreeing to Dearle’s appointment and apparently are going to appeal to Judge Cannon because Dearle is not on the same page. Delay, obfuscate and appeal. That’s the strategy.

    1. Don’t care. Aside from being OT, this is at best a side show compared designed to distract attention away from the suppression of fundamental rights being discussed here. Absolutely no one outside the Beltway gives a hoot one way or the other.

    2. In short order, McIntyre dismisses the publicized instances of numerous and wide-ranging intolerance for free speech demonstrated regularly by those born and bred lefties. The so-called institutions of “higher learning” instill such intolerance to an even greater degree. So … instead … he moves on to an unrelated anti-Trump lecture; that’s what lefties must do when they have no facts to support their position on the subject under discussion.

      1. Iowan2
        And why does it really matter that Trump had any classified documents, if there was no threat of capture by foreign agents? After their terms in office, Truman and Eisenhower had classified documents for years under their own care, but no one has suggested that they were “reckless” in holding them. The onlyi issue is how “Presidential records” (once determined) should be surrendered to NARA, and that it is a purely civil matter.

        1. It matters because Trump got a subpoena to return all of the government’s documents, including all of the documents with classified marking, so if he kept some of these documents, he was acting unlawfully.

      2. iowan2: It doesn’t make a difference. Whether “declassified” or not Trumped violated federal law by taking anything back to Mar-a-Lago. The problem is that Judge Cannon, who is taking Trump’s side, believes Trump may have a “possessory interest” in even the top secret docs–that Trump has some sort of “executive privilege” he can assert over the material he unlawfully took. The charge of Judge Dearle is to segregate all the docs–those few that may be covered by the attorney-client privilege and the ones Trump claims he “declassified”. Judge Dearle wants Trump’s lawyers to designate which docs come under this category. There is no evidence Trump ever declassified anything. Trump’s lawyers are dragging their feet because in their filings they never could offer any evidence of which docs might be deemed “declassified” or covered by some “executive privilege”. That’s Judge Dearle’s job when he makes his final report to Judge Cannon in November. The DOJ has appealed Judge Cannon’s ruling to the 11th Circuit so the whole question may become moot.

        1. She does not merely beleive
          He likely does
          And in fact likely has ownership
          Prior to 1/21/2021 trump can not illegally transfer wh documents to MAL
          Unless he broke in to wh on 21st
          There is nothing illegal about Posessio

        2. If you do not wish to be called a liar
          Then do not make blatantly false statements

          There is absolutely no doubt that trump declassified massive numbers of documents
          Do I really need to list all that evidence ?

          There is a question as to whether THESE documents are declassified

          You can believe as you wish
          In a civil case with government seeking recovery the burden of proof is on trump
          But in a criminal case it is DOJ that must prove the documents are still classified

          1. “ There is absolutely no doubt that trump declassified massive numbers of documents
            Do I really need to list all that evidence ?

            There is a question as to whether THESE documents are declassified”

            So list the evidence. Trump’s lawyers will have to show proof much sooner than you think. Dearie will automatically rule in DOJ’s favor if they don’t.

            Trump lied and his lawyers were put in a seriously bad position.

            I have said it before, Trump shooting his mouth off is what gets him in trouble. Here he is demonstrating a perfect example.

            Trump didn’t declassify anything. Otherwise his lawyers could have provided at a minimum some sort of proof. It’s pretty obvious Trump is lying.

          2. John B. Say,

            If there is absolutely no doubts Trump declassified all of those documents then a simple test should clear it up.

            If all are declassified, Trump’s lawyers shouldn’t need a security clearance to review them. But so far they haven’t said they are declassified in court so they can’t review them without a security clearance. If they are asking for time to get clearance then that would be an admission that the documents are NOT declassified.

            As of right now the classified documents are NOT declassified. Trump’s team will have to show specifically which ones are declassified and how they were declassified and who participated in the declassification process to prove they were indeed declassified.

            The simplest explanation however is that Trump is just lying.

            1. “As of right now the classified documents are NOT declassified. ”
              As of right now the documents are MARKED classified.

              You do not seem to grasp that whether they are or are not declassified is a FACT.
              Whether YOU or others KNOW their classification status is NOT.

              “Trump’s team will have to show specifically which ones are declassified”
              Nope, it is near certain they are ALL classified or ALL declassified.

              There appears to be discussion with Dearle over their classification status.
              And Trump’s lawyers appear to be looking to establish that these are not classified.

              That is surprising. It is favorable to Trump – though I am also surprised that Trump is pushing declassification at this early stage. Trump is the defendant, He is in control of what defenses he presents and when. Nearly always the defense waits until after the prosecution has presented their case from committing to specific arguments and defenses.
              It is always risky to make a claim early.

              The fact that Dearle is willing to address this, this early and the fact that Trump’s lawyers are also doing so suggests hey have a great deal of confidence in their case.

              “The simplest explanation however is that Trump is just lying.”

              The simplest explanation is they are declassified.
              Completely indpendent of Trump’s claim that there is a standing order,
              It is a FACT that if Trump as president removed them from a secure setting to an insecure one, they are declassified.
              This is true of every president.

              Further you KNOW it is true. Trump took classified intelligence regarding terrorists, and gave it to the Russians in the Oval shortly after taking office. The story made the news at the time.

              That is how it works. Classified on minute, Not the next.

              If the president takes a bunch of classified binders and deliberately leaves them on Pennsylvania avenue – they are declassified.

              There is no formal process that applies to the president.

        3. Who knew that no president ever left office without taking materials he wanted for memoir, further study, library, trophy, etc? How did Trump become the first ever to be raided for doing something every president has been expected to do?

          As to declassification, answer the rhetorical question, “who does the top authority report to?” Short of legal removal of a president’s powers, he remains at par or above the other constitutionally empowered bodies. THAT MEANS his de-classification by any means can’t be questioned until he is convicted of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.

          In case you missed it, the president doesn’t answer to congress nor court until proven guilty.

          1. “ THAT MEANS his de-classification by any means can’t be questioned until he is convicted of treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.”

            He still has to show proof. Agencies that created those classified documents HAVE to be notified that they were declassified so they can put it in the record so people aren’t prosecuted for disseminating the information.

            Trump is just lying.

            By the way Biden could have reclassified all of those documents too. No need to question it either, right? Trump didn’t have to be informed that they were reclassified without any records either, right?

        4. Trump’s lawyers are doing their job
          They can attempt to address whether documents are classified now or later
          If they choose not to do so now
          Dearle will assume for his purposes they are classified
          That is not a conclusion
          Merely a means of proceding

          The fact that dearle asked is favorable to trump
          It is essentially an offer to decide that issue first
          A decision in favor of trump would be devastating in all ways

          But the standard dearle would have to use is the least favorable to trump
          And a decision against trump now though not binding would be unlikely to be reversed later

          Trump’s lawyers will delay decisions
          It would be malpractice for them to do otherwise
          But trump can direct them to ask dearle to decide now
          I do not honestly think dearle can legally decide now
          Whether these are classified is a question of fact not of law
          But judges are not going to listen to me

          1. Dearie will decide to treat them as classified. They have classified markings, and he has not been presented with any evidence that they’re not classified, despite Trump having had the opportunity to do so.

            Dearie: “My view is: you can’t have your cake and eat it too.”

        5. Trump’s lawyers are dragging their feet because in their filings they never could offer any evidence of which docs might be deemed “declassified” or covered by some “executive privilege”

          Until there is a charge, all of the speculation is meaningless. And exactly what evidence is going to be required. Other than the attestation of the Past President?

      3. As a start, only people with an appropriate security clearance are allowed access to classified documents.

        Can Trump’s lawyers view these documents or can’t they? Depends on whether the documents are classified and whether the lawyers can get an appropriate security clearance. Kise, for example, is registered under FARA and not likely to get a security clearance.

      4. Turley: “The court’s request for support of the declassification was highly predictable and the absence of support at this stage is a striking.”

    3. Dennis, in case it’s of interest, here’s Adam Klasfeld’s (of Law and Crime News) thread from Judge Dearie’s meeting today with Trump’s and DOJ’s lawyers:

      Big from Dearie:

      He presses Trump’s lawyers on what he’s supposed to do. The government provided “prima facie evidence” of classification, ie, the markings.

      “As far as I’m concerned, that’s the end of it.”

      To be clear, in saying “that’s the end of it,” Dearie wasn’t issuing a ruling. He’s pressing Trusty on why that shouldn’t end his calculation.

      More here:

  15. May 4, 1970
    Kent State in Ohio
    The Ohio National guard was activated by the Governor to ‘control’ protesters.
    Four protesters were shot and killed by Guardsmen that day.

    One immediate aftermath of the shootings was that coast to coast, those who would protest now knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were putting their lives on the line when going into the streets to protest.

    To call it a ‘chilling effect’ would be an understatement.

    1. The obvious difference is back then students were trying to exercise free speech, today they are trying to silence it.

  16. Universities used to be bastions of free speech. Sad direction of the nation that defending free speech is more newsworthy than the support of suppressing it.

    1. Well the hippies and the homosexuals took over the universities and colleges. And now we have exorbitant tuition prices and God forbid you say something that these “light in the loafer” types and trans weirdos dont like. This is still America and I can say whatever I want. Most conservatives have forgotten this or are afraid of expressing it. Just because you dont like it, doesnt mean I cant say it.

  17. Since it seems campuses, their police, local authorities, and the Feds are unwilling to protect the free speech rights of speakers, it is high time speakers employ their own security force to ensure their speaking engagements are undisrupted.

Comments are closed.