A Stony Brook University professor is under fire this week after she called two police officers “murderers” for shooting dead a suspect. Social Welfare professor Anna Hayward denounced the officers despite the fact that the officers suffered “serious stab wounds” from the suspects before shooting him. I understand the anger of those who have called for Hayward to be fired. The attack on the officers was unwarranted and seems part of long-standing anti-police views. However, as will come as little surprise for many on this blog, I believe that adverse actions would violate core free speech rights.In this case, Hayward asked “This was a wellness check — why didn’t they de-escalate the situation?” The answer may be that it is hard to “de-escalate the situation” when the suspect is stabbing you in the neck.
It sounds like the university will stand by Hayward’s right to speak freely on such subjects, even statements that are highly controversial. In a January 2 statement, Stony Brook correctly stressed that Hayward made her comments from her own, private, account that is “not affiliated with [the] university.”
However, there was good reason for Hayward to expect that she would be protected. There is no massive cancel campaign or protests on campus.
The support enjoyed by faculty on the 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 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. At the University of North Carolina (Wilmington) one such campaign led to a professor killing himself a few days before his final day as a professor.
I have defended faculty who have made similarly disturbing comments on the left, including “detonating white people,” abolish white people, denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island). At the University of California campus, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.
When these controversies arose, faculty rallied behind the free speech rights of the professors. That support has been far more muted or absent when conservative faculty have found themselves at the center of controversies. The recent suspension of Ilya Shapiro is a good example. Other faculty have had to go to court to defend their free speech rights. One professor was suspended for being seen at a controversial protest.
That will not be the fate of Professor Hayward. She will be correctly afforded the protection of free speech. While this may be an exercise of hope over experience, she may now have greater empathy for the faculty who are targeted by cancel campaign for expressing controversial views. While this may be an exercise of hope over experience, she may now have greater empathy for the faculty who are targeted by cancel campaigns for expressing controversial views.
So the professor has a right to her opinion and speech.
However, when she is recognized as a professor teaching at a specific university her speech is no longer viewed as being just her opinion and carries a bit more weight.
The University should have the right to censure or rebuke her for her comments. But leave it at that.
I recognize that it becomes difficult to separate yourself from work.
Were I to post something using my real name… even if I say that my statements do not reflect the views of my employer, it becomes hard to separate it.
The fact that she espouses her beliefs, ignoring the facts of the situation, she should be censured by the university or at least counseled on why her comment was inappropriate.
In other words, a re-education camp for wrongthink.
The 1st Amendment may protect her right to free speech.
But as an educator, she has a FIDUCIARY responsibility to her students, who are generally minors or extremely vulnerable young adults, to set a responsible example, and praising criminals engaged in serious, improper, criminal activity and belittling victims properly performing their jobs and enduring life threatening actions improperly is not consistent with good citizenship, regardless of her personal feeling. There is no implication or inference of a pre meditated attack except in her psychologically impaired mind.
You, me, we – we shouldn’t harbor anymore patience for the woke. Zero. We are close, but we aren’t yet at the point of Canada or Britain. This is real, and the fact that it is all being played out for corporate dollars is pretty gross. Stand up while you still can peacefully. If you are a liberal that still thinks somehow that your party is a party and not a regime – wake the eff up.
James,
I think you are right.
Just read that Hollywood took a major blow in 2022 of the tune of half a trillion dollars. Go Woke! Go Broke!
More protests against the sexualization of children.
Homeschooling numbers on the rise as more parents are taking back their right to the education of their children and not indoctrination.
School boards are getting flipped from progressive to conservative.
The silent majority on both sides of the political spectrum are rejecting wokeism.
I only hop we can stop this insane minority driven totalitarian ideology before they take it to the Mao’s Culture Revolution level.
Bill Maher has called out wokeism on multiple occasions. He recently said,
“Woke and liberal are two different things. They’re very often the f—ing opposite of each other… Freedom should be a liberal thing.”
“All my friends, at least the ones like on the coasts who are like our age… they all b—h endlessly about their f—ing woke kids.”
He added, “Again, these are liberal people. These are not people who are voting for Trump.”
@upstate
That’s where I think the shift away from woke is happening, personally – in society, not government. The fed may very well discover in the future that society has left IT behind, just as we have the MSM.
Social Workers And Therapists
Seems to me these officers may have cause to sue for defamation. This professor didn’t say they killed him, she said they MURDERED him.
Nope. The difference between killing and murder is pure opinion. She didn’t dispute the facts, or allege false facts; she merely characterized the agreed-upon facts in an outrageous way. Unlike Prof Turley I think she should be fired; but the first amendment does not allow her to be sued, let alone prosecuted.
The difference between killing and murder is justification, not opinion.
A justified killing lets you go home at night, and may get you a commendation.
Murder will get you 20-life in prison.
The difference is not small, and it is not a matter of opinion.
Justification is entirely a matter of opinion. There is no objective and universally-agreed-upon definition of justified homicide. Pacifists believe that there is no such thing as justified homicide; that you should allow yourself to be killed rather than raise a hand against a fellow human being. They’re entitled to that wrong opinion. Then there used to be all those people who thought it was just to kill a black man for attempting to seduce a white woman; they were entitled to that horribly wrong opinion too (though they were not entitled to act on it).
The basic rule of defamation is that it may only consist of false statements of pure fact. Conclusions, judgments, those are all opinion, and therefore cannot be actionable.
Nope.
While I often do not agree with the courts, the have spent centuries developing a calculus of what constitutes justification.
Though they way to easily find infringement on rights by government justified. They still require meeting relatively clear standards of justification to infringe.
While it is my view that the standard needs to be much higher.
We still have legal standards.
When you are dealing with murder – you are dealing with a private infringement on the right of another.
While the principles are the same, the standards are not.
As a rule in the US Juries are free to acquit for whatever reasons they please. To that extent justified homocide is a matter of opinion.
At the same time Juries are instructed as to what the law considers to be justified – and that is NOT a matter of opinion but a matter of statute.
Regardless, I will agree with you that what constitutes sufficient justification to infringe on a right, is not nearly as rigidly defined as it ought to be, that is rarely an issue that I get into much debate as those on the left think “I want to” is sufficient.
“This was a wellness check . . . ”
That right there says to me, be ready to walk into a bad situation.
“The answer may be that it is hard to “de-escalate the situation” when the suspect is stabbing you in the neck.”
Ah! And the good professor displays common sense!
Just another tale, told by another self-important idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing,
I am thinking you have to qualify as an idiot to teach in the humanities. Not figuratively. I mean like a mental age of less than three as in Dorlands. I can only judge by the results but they seem pretty overwhelming.
This kind of upside down insanity only happens because the people in charge want it to happen.
speakeasy:
Or tolerate it which is, of course, the same thing.
Wokeism, the fastest way to the bottom.
Or as IIRC GioCon and Lin said, the lowest common denominator.
Just because the perp was getting stabby, that’s no reason to shoot him.
LOL
Beam me up Scotty!
Was Ashli Babbitt “getting stabby?”
She was shot. She’s dead.
Plus the 3 other Trump supporters murdered J6 thanks Pelosi… Pelosi/McCarthy,McConnell, Schumer etc. can’t hide it anymore.
Gnite G
Damn Typos:
This thread is about nutty people who make accusations of something criminal when it hasn’t been adjudicated yet.
Not wishing to be like the Stony-Brook Professor, I’m trying to say I’m not sure what happened J6, but it seems 4 Trumps supporters died & that a Jury might should take a look at it.
BTW G;
People are getting ready to release the Facial recognition they have of all the Anti-USA govt agent/profiteers, names soon, I hear. ? We’ll see.
Typo:
Oky1 says:
January 5, 2023 at 12:36 AM
BTW G;
People are getting ready to release the Facial recognition they have of all the Anti-USA govt agent/
( Paid Provocateurs), names soon, I hear. ? We’ll see.
*****
Gnite
Thank you very much for posting this article. I’m not sure what a “social welfare professor” teaches exactly, but her “murderers” comment is no surprise. I’ve been a law enforcement officer for many years and our Democratic Governor and Democratic State Legislature championed the elimination of qualified immunity for police officers last year and now lament the fact that most police departments have soaring vacancy rates. Fortunately in our state they still consider the use of lethal force as a justifiable response to knife attacks (at least for now but who knows if that will change).
Skyraider17,
I have a few LEO friends.
It was bad enough prior to the whole de-fund the police thing, but I cannot imagine what it is like now.
Reading about how many of these cities that did de-fund are seeing soaring crime rates.
Stay safe to you and your fellow LEOs.
Ok, Professor Turley, just about anything is OK except yelling “Fire” in a theater. Almost all of us here — the ones that come here to read your analysis of interesting but different legal issues and not the ones who will digress to Trump or whatever — agree. Let’s stop beating this dead horse (the carcasses are piling up around you)
Dennis, the “carcasses are piling up…” because so many of you leftists are pulling these kind of stunts with absolutley no repercussions.
Huh.
What’s leftist about my comment. (And I’m usually called a right winger but in fact I’m a purely non partisan centrist)
What’s a stunt? The fact is that the Professor has written a dozen or more legal analyses about free speech in the last month and ignored many more more interesting legal issues (more interesting because I am aware of no one that is against free speech).
The dozen repetitive blog posts about free speech and the scores of repetitive blog posts about Hunter Biden are the dead carcasses being beaten. Should I have said dead horses?
For something no one is against,
There certainly has been massive efforts to censor speech – and often in a very big way.
The twitter files exposed undeniably what most of us already suspected – though not on the scale found.
That the left, media, democrats, social media, DNC, Biden campaign and myriads of govenrment agencies rigged the 2020 (and 2022) elections by censoring speech that would have been harmful to democrats.
Turley thinks that is a big deal.
I think that is a big deal.
That makes the US look like a tin pot dictatorship, like a banana republic,
That is a very big deal.
But worse still – the liars, cheaters, censors, got what they wanted.
They have power.
The can continue to do as the please, to harm the country to disregard whatever thy want.
Because to a very large extent they control what people can hear.
That is not america.
We had he left ranting this past election about the threat to democracy.
The threat to democracy IS THE LEFT.
That is a big deal.
And I am glad Turley is focused on that.
Dead horses make excellent carpaccio, I’m not surprised the Professor keeps good supply, tasty and nutritious.
Let’s stop beating this dead horse (the carcasses are piling up around you).
If JT, Musk, F.I.R.E. and others stopped, it wouldn’t be long before other bodies began piling up.
If JT is boring you by defending this most important right, then you are on the wrong blog.
You’re wrong that “you can’t yell fire in a crowed theater.” The often used statement, which was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in U.S. v Schenck, 249 U.S. 47, was dictum by Holmes.
U.S. v. Schenck had nothing to do with fires or theaters or false statements. Instead, the Court was deciding whether Charles Schenck, the Secretary of the Socialist Party of America, could be convicted under the Espionage Act for writing and distributing a pamphlet that expressed his opposition to the draft during World War I.
The pamphlets did not call for violence. It did not even call for civil disobedience.
Dictum cannot be cited as authority.
In 1969, the Supreme Court’s decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444, effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.” Brandenburg v. Ohio effectively overturned Schenck and any authority the case still carried. There, the Court held that “inflammatory speech–and even speech advocating violence by members of the Ku Klux Klan–is protected under the First Amendment, unless the speech.”
Thus, unless the speech is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action…including even speech advocating violence,” is protected speech under the 1st Amendment.
Simply saying you cannot “say fire in a crowed theater” is another misquote, generally by those who want to limit free speech of those they oppose.
The same can be said of “hate speech.”
In June 2017, the Supreme Court affirmed in a unanimous decision on Matal v. Tam 582 U.S. ___ (2017) that the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. The issue was about government prohibiting the registration of trademarks that are “racially disparaging”. Justice Samuel Alito wrote:
“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate”. United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).”
Justice Anthony Kennedy also wrote:
“A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.
Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed that there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment.
The problem is that too many want to ban speech they don’t like by saying it’s the same as “yelling fire in a theater” or calling it “hate speech,” thus controlling what can and cannot be said by those they oppose.
If you don’t like the “speech” you’re hearing or reading, don’t listen to it or stop reading it. That’s what adults do. At least that’s the way Con Law was taught when I went to law school in 73-76.
This blog needs just one comment like yours everyday.
Well done Maj.
Maj229
Thank you for your exemplary and courageous service. I never saw camo in Vietnam; olive drab fatigues described the haute couture we wore. I never saw a major outside of the wire in the Army, on regular patrol or bushmaster; I saw a “top” insanely sleep walking in front of an ambush position one night and a colonel once who dropped in on his personal “Loach” for a quick pep talk. Don’t recall any sunglasses that dark; I reckon most men wanted a clear view of the —-s trying to kill them. Never saw any officer humping ’60 belts for the gun crew. Our line passed an “old man,” 20 something, captain and company commander, kneeling on the side of the trail being offered water for heat exhaustion, I guess. I never saw a soldier with that heavy flak vest and a full combat load. How hot was it in that flak vest where you were stationed – was that Khe Sanh or the Citadel in Hue on Tet? Vietnam was a great time, wasn’t it.
That is because it’s not a picture from Vietnam, but from 29 Palms in SoCal ( or as we like to call it ‘29 Stumps’) where I was the RSO (Range Safety Officer for my company’s live fire) in 1987.
I joined the Marines at 17 before I graduated high school in 1966. Six months later I arrived in South Vietnam in December 1966 as an infantry replacement (0311 – Rifleman). The day after arriving in Country I boarded a C-130 for a flight to Khe Sanh where I joined Delta Company 1st Bn 3rd Marines. They were rebuilding the Company’s machine gun section, so instead of joining a rifle platoon, I was placed in a machine gun squad (0331 – Machine gunner). I would participate in 22 combat operations in 1967, all but one of those operations taking place between the end of April 1967 to December 1967.
After I EAS (End Active Service) in 1969 I went to college, law school, and then went back into the Marine Reserves, joining Golf Company 2nd Bn 23rd Maines, 4th MarDiv, which is the Marine Reserve Division where I received a direct commission.
In 1966-67 Marines didn’t have camouflage jungle utilities, just olive drab, but in 1987, we did, thus the picture of me at 29 Palms at the machine gun range. My Platoon Sergeant was the NCOIC (He was at Hue City and a machine gunner with Alpha Company 1st Bn 1st Marines and wounded twice there) and took the picture. We were in between squads, and since we had an abundance of gun ammo, the two old machine gunners, decided to run through several belts (100 rounds to a belt) of gun ammo, just so we could maintain our skills.
I’ve been a lawyer for over 45 years.
Maj229: Respectfully, I believe Brandenburg (1969) only overruled the “clear and present danger” criterion outlined in Schenck. You also omitted the word, “falsely” from “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”
Indeed, it is the important “falsely” part of that phrase that has been used by many courts STILL using that phrase in their opinions, -to show that context needed to be included in considering whether an actor’s speech, along with intent (to incite/create panic or imminent danger) was to be protected.
(You are correct that it was dictum, written by Holmes, who actually wrote the Court’s opinion, I think?
But in Brandenburg, I think Justice Douglas ‘s concurrence again referred to the “falsely shouting fire” analogy. AND
Here are a few examples of SCOTUS cases, POST-Brandenburg (1969), in which justices still cited the “shouting fire” analogy:
NAACP v. Claiborne (1982):
“It is clear that ‘fighting words’ – those that provoke immediate violence – are not protected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 . Similarly, words that create an immediate panic are not entitled to constitutional protection. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 . 70”
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)
“While a ban on shouting fire can be a core exercise of the State’s police power to protect the public safety, and can thus meet even our stringent standards for regulation of speech, adding the unrelated condition alters the purpose to one which, while it may be legitimate, is inadequate to sustain the ban.”
_And I believe one of our current Justices made reference to it in a case, but I don’t remember name of case or justice, no time to look it up.
The citations you provided are preposterous. It is not clear at all that any speech may be abridged. In fact, the 1st Amendment says that speech shall not be abridged. The way I learned to read the English language in elementary school, that means that speech shall not be abridged.
Speech must be filtered through every brain in the audience. Caveat emptor. It is not the speech that commences a brawl, it is the defective cognitive process of the listener. It is not the speech that commits insurrection, it is people who decide, of their own devices and volition, to commit insurrection. It is not the people in the building who hear the word fire but the people who fail to make a rational decision on the validity of the speaker, his words and the actual existence of a threat. Take everything you hear with a grain of salt. Sticks and stones may break my bones but names (i.e. speech) will never [actually] hurt me.
Chris Rock was assaulted and battered and he took no action against the criminal perpetrator; are you saying he should have, he must have? Is there any court that has any power to arbitrarily and spontaneously amend the Constitution? That one disagrees with law and fundamental law does not void and abrogate the law and Constitution.
Geez! What the —- did the Framers write all that fundamental law for, if only to be ignored?
This is nuts talk.
The Constitution is not a suggestion.
People must adapt to the outcomes of freedom.
Freedom does not adapt to people, dictatorship does.
Are you taking dictator lessons?
_________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Sigh. No, the first amendment does not say that speech must not be abridged. It says that the government must not abridge the freedom of speech. There is no freedom to defame someone, or to defraud them, or to threaten them, so laws against defamation, fraud, and true threats don’t abridge that freedom.
Likewise the second amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But not all restrictions on weapons infringe that right. That’s why Bruen says that to discover whether a particualr restriction infringes the right one must examine how that or similar restrictions were regarded back when the right was well-understood and taken for granted. If we can show the same people who adopted the 2A had no problem with a particular restriction, that is strong evidence that it doesn’t infringe the right.
No, you can defame anyone you want. If you are being slandered or libeled you can file a lawsuit for damages, but what you won’t get is a restraining order preventing the publishing or speaking of the defamatory words, because that is a prior restraint, which the Court will not grant. The Court will tell you that your remedy is in seeking damages in your slander or libel action.
Maj, that is not true. First of all, once a claim has been adjudicated as defamatory you absolutely can get a restraining order preventing anyone from repeating it. Second, there is criminal defamation. And of course fraud and making true threats will land you in prison.
But the point is that if the first amendment said that speech must not be abridged, as George claims, then there could be no laws against defamation, and no legal action for them. The reason this is not so is because it is only the freedom of speech that may not be abridged, and these laws don’t abridge it.
John B Say, the second amendment says “shall not be infringed”. Not “…unless justified”. The reason certain restrictions are constitutional is because the thing that must not be infringed is the right, and those restrictions don’t infringe it. How are we to know which things don’t infringe the right? That’s what Bruen addresses, and says look for evidence of how people regarded the restriction you want, back when they took the RKBA seriously. If they didn’t object to your proposed restriction, then they must have thought it wasn’t an infringement.
Sorry, the standard is not “does not infringe” – even by your own remarks.
There is no constitutional power to infringe – a little.
I have specifically not gone deeply into what “justified” means. Except that the norm by FAR is that infringement is not justified.
The courts have spent 2 centuries developing their own calculus of what constitutes Justified – and in many instances they far too easily conclude that infringement is justified.
But mostly I have not dealt much with what constitutes justified infringement here – because those on the left do not care.
They do not accept that they are not free to infringe on rights without restriction.
If you wish to discuss what the courts consider “justified” – we can have that discussion.
Though for the most part the courts far to easily conclude that something is not a right, or that it is a right but has little protection.
The constitution is not ultimately biblical truth.
It is just the best we have done so far.
The issue of whether a judge can grant a plaintiff’s injunction against a defendant’s defamation is way more nuanced than a simple yes or no.
https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/libelinj.pdf
Professor Volokh creates a framework for assessing the many different ways in which an injunction against libel (which leads to the potential for criminal punishment for criminal contempt) can be crafted and evaluates the First Amendment concerns associated with each. He also looks at alternative punishments, including criminal libel.
Defendant D says P cheated D in business and P thinks D is lying. What can P do?
1. Criminal Libel: All statements found by jury to be libelous beyond a reasonable doubt. (Note: only a handful of states still have a criminal libel law, which may explain the difference of opinion above).
2. Catchall Injunction: All statements by D about P found by jury at contempt trial to be libelous beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Specific Preliminary Injunction: Specific statements by D about P found by judge to probably be libelous.
4. Specific Permanent Injunction: Specific statements by D about P found by judge at trial to be libelous by a preponderance of the evidence.
5. Hybrid Permanent Injunction: Specific statements by D about P found by judge at trial to be libelous by a preponderance of the evidence and then found by jury at contempt trial to be libelous beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. Hybrid Preliminary Injunction: Specific statements by D about P found by judge, based on abbreviated hearing, to probably be libelous and then found by jury at contempt trial to be libelous beyond a reasonable doubt.
He argues, quite correctly in my mind, that (1) and (2) are constitutional but likely too broad as a policy matter; (3) and (4) are unconstitutional; and (5) and (6) are constitutional and advisable as a policy matter.
For (5), P would get a permanent injunction against D saying, “You may not libelously say that P has cheated you in business, or you will be prosecuted for criminal contempt.”
For (5), P would get a preliminary injunction against D saying the same thing. (6) affords P the quick action that P may need to protect against libel.
The benefit of the hybrid injunction is that it doesn’t purport to authoritatively decide that a particular statement is libelous, but leaves the matter to the jury in any future criminal contempt prosecution. Of course, from P’s perspective, this lack of specificity opens the door to ambiguity.
Mostly you are correct – except for form.
Neither Bruin nor any other court decision says that some government infringement on a right is NOT an infringement.
What the court determines is whether the infringement is justified.
It is still infringement. Not being able to own machine guns infringes on your 2nd amendment rights.
SCOTUS has thus far found that infringement justified.
Was there an actual case?
What specifically are you looking for ?
Regardless google is your friend.
Myriads of online resouces exist, both free and for pay.
But I found several years ago that I could do almost as well as Westlaw with Google for free.
George, it is difficult to agree with your strict textual interpretation, “that means that speech shall not be abridged.”
If Madison [he wrote a draft of amendment 1] believed in your understanding of abridgment, why did he support the prosecution of Loyalists exercising their speech rights and burning their pamphlets during the Revolutionary War?
When discussing Amendment 1, he warned against discussing all thoughts that could arise which would hinder the passage of this amendment.
The purpose behind our republican form of government was for the people to prevail over the government with the ability to make laws protecting their own interests.
Maj229 says:
You’re wrong that “you can’t yell fire in a crowed theater.” The often used statement, which was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in U.S. v Schenck, 249 U.S. 47, was dictum by Holmes…….
Lin says:
Maj229: Respectfully, I believe Brandenburg (1969) only overruled the “clear and present danger” criterion outlined in Schenck. You also omitted the word, “falsely” from “falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater.”…..
Wow. Such a treat for 2 intelligent attorneys without malice to discuss legal issues pertinent to our public discourse. The exchange by Maj229 and Lin, and hopefully more like them in the future, stands head and shoulders above the common sniping we see today.
Please do more of these
Ok, that’s your interpretation. I disagree, but I appreciate your comments. I’ve been following this blog for some time, but rarely make a comment, preferring to read Prof Turley’s comments. As a lawyer, I find the level of animosity in the comments disturbing. I never have a problem with opposing counsel making a vigorous argument as long as counsel is arguing the law and facts. But when the arguments become emotional and laced with personal insults, I find it unprofessional and childish. That’s not what I was taught nor how I practiced law.
Falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater would not be a crime.
but it probably is a tort,
and the manager can ban you for life.
And anyone hurt can probably sue you.
The first amendment bans torts that abridge the freedom of speech too.
Cites ?
“ACTS CONTRARY TO THE MANIFEST TENOR”
Tell me where the Constitution fits into your legal meanderings.
Alexander Hamilton was a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from New York.
His perspective is clear headed.
_________________________
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
Good info. The Professors point of view on what you wrote would be interesting
Thank you.
Turley is correct, her right to free speech should be unfettered, but not the ramifications of that speech. My real concern is how so many unhinged and fanatical prog/left adherents have been given access to our universities and are dispelling such irrational and ill conceived notions to young minds. If anything, perhaps the board of governors and others responsible for hiring these misguided people should be the ones fired for malpractice and malfeasance.
Typical lunatic progressive. Some of these people are so stupid that they don’t even realize that edged weapons can kill just like firearms can kill. People within 18-20 feet can be upon you and stabbing you before you can even draw and fire your firearm, if you have one. The only way to react faster is with a cocked and loaded firearm already out of its holster. More people are killed each year by stabbing than “assault rifles”, consistently. She apparently let loose with her mouth rather than researching her subject. Not an uncommon finding in the recent academic world.
GEB,
I have to wonder if professor Hayward would felt the same way about police attempting to deescalate the situation, had it been her on this Portland train platform with a 25-year old man, chewing off her ear, part of her face and part of her scalp to the point parts of the skull was visible: https://nypost.com/2023/01/04/elderly-man-has-part-of-his-face-ear-chewed-off-in-attack/
Of course this mentally unstable white woman should be allowed to voice her opinion. In fact, it is imperative that she does and more so that she is heard and that her malignancy is understood.
The fact that a person like this is chosen to lead young people is a symptom of a sick society. The fact that many others share her opinion or refuse to challenge or laugh at her into reexamining her farcical dogma shows how wide and deep the malignancy goes.
This woman is a clown needing attention and unable, apparently, to acquire it except through the appeal to the lowest hanging fruit in society. Is she lazy, fearful, unprepared for rigorous debate, bought-off, or what – it doesn’t matter the result are the same. This is typical of many many other “educated,” but emotionally unstable middle-class white women that are convinced they are right because they are doing what a segment of society has told them to think and say, without rigorously challenging it – they hate confrontation, unless they believe they have the bully position, so they always take the bully position.
Here is a snippet about another such bully white girl, Alena Buyx (per eugyppius): She has no real idea of what went wrong these past few years, though increasingly she can’t deny that something did go wrong, because every day the broader social consensus to which she is in thrall tilts a little more against the excesses of the (situation). As a Head Girl, though, she believes deeply that conformity is pro-social. Agreeing with everyone makes her feel good deep down inside. In her mind, she’s been doing the right thing all along.
This is why she needs to be heard and not silenced. Their sicknesses need to be shown and understood, before the correct course of action is taken (which is exactly what these women do not do).
Neil Babacon– I agree. The only question raised in my mind is how this truly ignorant lunatic got hired by any institution of higher education. Based on this fact alone, New York State University- Stony Brook should be scratched off anyone’s list of possible schools to attend. And, the list has grown quite large because this type of nonsensical hiring of “professors” seems more the norm than the exception.
honestlawyermostly,
I have wondering what is the criteria these institutions use in the hiring process.
As the good professor has noted in the past, there is a very small minority of conservatives in academia nowadays. Someone had to make the determination of who to hire and who not to hire.
I have no legal credentials so my opinions are untutored. I do not think the Stonybrook professor will learn a darn thing when she beats back the attacks, which she certainly will. She’s of the left. On a university faculty, that means seriously left. These people are radicals with different standards based on who is involved, be it in re. to shootings, rioting, admissions and qualifications, and of course freedom of speech. They will never take any principled stand on anything that gets in the way of their revolution.
The kneejerk cop hatred on the left gets loonier and loonier. You have to question, not only the judgment, but also the sanity of people who always stick up for the criminals. Society is allowing the least rational people to get the most attention. I guess the old saying is right: Empty vessels make the most noise (aka: those with the least knowledge and least talent are the ones who speak the loudest and the most).
time to end all federal aid and loans to colleges. Also tax all non-profits where anyone gets $100k+ including colleges and hospitals. Too much failure and fat there!
Prof. Turley says, “While this may be an exercise of hope over experience, she may now have greater empathy for the faculty who are targeted by cancel campaign for expressing controversial views.”
That’s a noble thought, but the chances of Prof. Hayward getting the point of free speech are remote. Her takeaway on free speech will almost certainly be that anything said that comports with her views is protected speech. But speech from others that does not comport should be punished.
In our new country of Doublestandardstan we always, ALWAYS, have schools “standing by the professor” when the professor makes some libelous, slanderous, vicious, racist, sexist or fascist comment…from the left side of an issue. There is never a call to “stand by the professor” when they are “caught” doing something so egregious as wearing a particular hat, or saying something as outlandish as a male athlete shouldn’t be competing with females as well as changing with them in a locker room.