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.
Ok here we go again. My position on this foolishness has not changed since post high school. Keep it simple.
College is a Privilege. You are Not forced to attend. You ask to be admitted and spend thousands of dollars to be there if you are
accepted. These are institutions of higher learning. Anything you do as students or staff that disrupts the process should result in immediate probation and expulsion if it happens a 2nd time. That would seriously reduce or end these protests. Read and sign papers saying you know about this policy and accept it as a part of the admission process.
Max Coll, in 2003, led a movement in New Mexico to secede from the United States, principally driven by his strong opposition to our invasion of Iraq in that year.
19 years later, these ‘protesters’ are the derivative of Coll’s efforts, in a different venue — shouting down those they don’t like.
Max Coll’s calls for secession went unheeded and unheard by most: these current protests are getting far more ‘press’ coverage than Max ever got.
Yesterday, I wrote about the Kent State killings in May of 1970 — THAT event got more press coverage than anything else at the time — and Neil Young wrote a smashing hit song about it which still pays his rent!
Any views on the William Barr piece in the Atlantic. This is upsetting and I’m getting intestinal distress.
Please explain the difference between phony propaganda media by an overly paid political hack to achieve an endpoint and media baloney by a third rate comedian?
Take me to the time machine and what is the difference between government documents in an unsecure location and a diary. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot
Upstate Farmer and those negatively impacted by ATS:
Historically on the blog, people complained because of deleted responses. I was not the only one to notice, but I did note that most of these deleted responses came in response to ATS. I learned that if one posted under a banned address, their responses were deleted from the blog.
There were obvious upticks when ATS said something that ticked a lot of people off. He did the same to me, so I watched and noted what he was doing and when. Sometimes, when the heat was on, I think ATS was spiteful to those with whom he disagreed, so he planted a response he knew would be replied to by many, and his and theirs would likely be deleted. That is spitefulness.
I tested to see if I could predict when ATS would use an address where the probablility of deletion was high. Sure enough, ATS’s response and my own were deleted. I predicted this on the blog, and it proved correct. I posted the address where this occurred before, but I don’t have it readily available.
Since then, I have made many posts responding to ATS where I say self-deleted or something similar because ATS writes replies meant to create disharmony. That address is deleted, much like his initial statement and your response. Handily ATS was able to recapture it from web files archived, likely because he is trying to prove his case. Not all blog responses are archived unless someone requests things to be saved. I think he is playing his usual games presently.
Of course, WordPress can delete comments with certain words or by accident, as has happened to all of us, but none of them exists in the pattern seen with ATS. As you recognize, EB had some posts deleted, likely because of his frequent use of four-letter words. There too, everything below his post was deleted as well. Others were banned, but I don’t think they are spiteful in the fashion of ATS.
A new icon and character have arisen, Jonathan, Who is trying to explain what is happening. ATS has used many icons and names. He has been caught on those as well. I guess, like the other phony names, Jonathan is ATS as well. He is deceitful, a liar, and spiteful.
Take note, under the anonymous icon, ATS has been called Anonymous the Stupid and ATN. Some have their special names for him. Naming him provides the ability to look at his patterns and history.
Students are being brainwashed to behave like Brown Shirts. They have no respect for the free speech of others, and attack the character of people with no regard for truth. They want everyone to care passionately about their opinions, and hang on their every word, yet they use the threat of violence to prevent others from having the right to speak.
Little Fascists.
OffTopic: Is Czar Putin going to give up?
OnTopic, sort of: I used to walk through the UNM campus on my way to and from 2nd half of 6th grade. In those days of yore it was the edge of the city on the NE side.
When are the loons in society asked where they learned their lunacy?
And then the lunatic Imperators are thoroughly punished.
Apparently, a “Civility Rule” does not exist in New Mexico or anywhere else in the dependent, parasitic and insolent “third world.”
Would that denizens were required to “earn” their fortunes of their own capacity and dint, reverence would pay substantial dividends.
Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs), being deluged by “free stuff,” are not compelled to any semblance of deference or esteem given that they are independently wealthy with counterfeit status and other people’s money.
“We have another anti-free speech incident involving liberal protesters shutting down an event. ”
**************************
Liberal? Like Alan Dershowitz is liberal? Let’s call a spade a spade. These are Brownshirt Biden “voters” enraged by Red Joey’s speech calling MAGA conservatives enemies of the state. Old Joe best be careful where he sows, whirlwinds are unpredictable and aren’t particularly political.