There is an interesting development in the controversy at Stanford Law School where U.S. Circuit Court Judge Kyle Duncan was shouted down by law students and condemned by a law school dean for discussing his conservative judicial views. Student protesters reportedly published the names of students in the Federalist Society online as part of their cancel campaign. However, Aaron Sibarium, a journalist for the Washington Free Beacon has said that a board member of the Stanford National Lawyers Guild, sent an email demanding the Free Beacon remove her name and those of other students from their reporting because it is threatening and dangerous.
Sibarium tweeted that “On Sunday, I identified board members of the Stanford National Lawyers Guild–one of the groups responsible for the posters–who in a public statement described the protest as ‘Stanford Law School at its best.’ A few hours later, the board demanded I redact their names.”
It was a highly ironic moment to be sure. However, I am more interested in another aspect of the controversy. I wrote earlier about the joint apology letter of Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez. Neither Tessier-Lavigne nor Martinez promise to hold these students accountable or to sanction Steinbach. They merely express regret that “staff members who should have enforced university policies failed to do so, and instead intervened in inappropriate ways that are not aligned with the university’s commitment to free speech.”
This latest controversy highlights the fact that the identity of some of these students (including those on videotape) who disrupted a speaker at the law school are known to the school. In this case, it was a federal appellate judge but we have seen this type of “deplatforming” at other schools. These students — and many faculty — voice a twisted view that silencing the free speech of others is a form of free speech.
A chilling poll was released by 2021 College Free Speech Rankings after questioning a huge body of 37,000 students at 159 top-ranked U.S. colleges and universities. It found that sixty-six percent of college students think shouting down a speaker to stop them from speaking is a legitimate form of free speech. Another 23 percent believe violence can be used to cancel a speech. That is roughly one out of four supporting violence.
They are getting these values from faculty members. Many schools have largely purged their ranks of conservative and libertarian faculty. This trend is supported by anti-free speech websites like Above the Law where Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” and argued that hiring a conservative professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach. He also mocked surveys showing that conservative students are fearful of speaking freely in class, dismissing these students as “just… conservatives being sad that everyone else makes fun of them.”
What is notable is that Martinez did not even pledge to hold students accountable for stopping the speech by Judge Duncan. Yet, that is still more than other law deans. When Professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech” at CUNY law school, CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself after using a controversial term in a meeting and resigned).
At the University of California, Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.
These students have been raised from elementary schools to law school in a speech phobic environment where free speech is treated as harmful. That was evident in the disgraceful Stanford event.
Now, however, they want to be able to target others while objecting to being named themselves. Much like the Yale law students who cancelled an event and then objected to campus police being present, this objection from Stanford law students illustrates the sense of privilege and exceptionalism by many in the anti-free speech movement.
Tom says the blog saddens him. What should sadden all of us is the desecration of legal education – and possibly the future of the legal profession – as evidenced by the despicable behavior of the leftist students, not only at Stanford but at other elite law schools too, like Yale and at many other schools. They degrade the value of freedom and respect and toleration for opposing views even that one disagrees with. They are unable or unwilling to make a reasoned case against such ideas, opting instead to take the low road of mob violence in place of civil discourse . . . It is nothing less than the ruination of legal education.
For someone who views such education as sacrosanct, this is on the order of Antiochus IV Epiphanes capturing Jerusalem, marching into the Jewish temple, erecting a statue of Zeus, and sacrificing a pig on the altar of incense. These mobs of leftist students are spilling pig’s blood in the temple. We will need a miracle on the scale of the one celebrated in Hanukkah to cleanse the legal education system of this abomination before it can again be used for its intended purpose.
If you take your dog to the Dog Park, and he misbehaves there, you’ll be asked to leave because your dog is insufficiently socialized to stay in that environment. Then, they may suggest you put your dog through a training program which will socialize him, after which, you and your canine companion may return to the Dog Park. We do this for our dogs, and it usually works; we should do no less for these young human law scool students. They’ll have to establish a special Head Start Remedial Socialization Training Program which the students go through before they start classes. In this program the students will be presented with guidelines for how they are expected to behave and given some opportunity to practice wth a tutor. Unless you have a better idea . . .
This blog just saddens me. The public deserves and is entitled to rely upon sound legal analysis from the legal community, especially from professors at its finest law schools. Yes, even legal experts, including distinguished professors, can disagree on legal issues. The public expects and welcomes that debate. But this blog represents something different. It is clear that Prof. Turley is not giving the public his best and most honest analysis. Note which news outlets publish his columns. Note which networks air his analysis. And then note which side he almost always comes down on. This is yet another reason to be cynical and distrustful. Can’t you do better, Prof. Turley?
Sincerely,
A past graduate of your esteemed law school
Tom,
He should have flunked you. That would have been Turley doing better. But he is kinder and more decent than I am.
Young, Tom said nothing that would indicate he went to a high quality law school and if he did he must have been part of the Avenatti crowd. It’s another flunky who wishes to feel big at someone else’s expense.
He did say he went to Professor Turley’s school but, I agree with you, if he had taken courses from Professor Turley he would have sounded much smarter.
I could tell you I went to Harvard. No, the divinity school.
See if you can grasp precisely how conservative the Constitution and Bill of Rights were, were intended to be and are. Article 1, Section 8, allows taxation for ONLY debt, defense and infrastructure, aka “…general Welfare.” The same article allows regulation of ONLY the value of money, commerce among the States to preclude bias, and land and naval Forces. The 5th Amendment provides for “absolute” private property as it provides the sole constitutional qualification of private property, “taking for public use with just compensation” – no legislative body or official has any power to reduce the absolute nature of private property.
Central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering are the opposite of the Constitution.
Liberals, progressives, democrats, socialists, RINOs, AINOs et al. are far from the American thesis of freedom through self-reliance, far from constitutional, and far from American.
There are fewer and fewer constitutional Americans each year – Karl Heinrich Marx referred to their opposites as communists.
Professor Turley does a respectable job of revealing many of the conservative aspects of the Constitution in an imperfect world full of communists who slaver over, covet and steal other people’s money.
Cheer up. There’s nothing wrong with Turley’s analysis here .. . no matter which side he’s on.
*’hold your friends close, but your enemies closer’ ~ The Godfather
moronic, twisted, and mentally deranged analysis and perspective from this “past” “graduate.” Makes me wonder, did this person actually graduate and if so, where do they practice, so I can NEVER use their legal advice.
You mean The Hill, USA Today and The Washington Post?
You beat me to it. I was about to write the same thing.
Tom – Like the students who hypocritically believe shutting down speech is supporting speech, your post is full of hypocrisy and logic fallacies. You say the public expects and welcomes debate – yet you don’t welcome Prof Turley’s debate. You also use weak ad hominem which shows your argument is certainly not worthy of any law school grad and certainly not an esteemed one. Finally, you support the rabid youth that have been taught to line up (like Mao’s Red Guard or Germany’s Youth) and do the dirty work of the the Left dismantling our country and our constitution.
YGTBSM – Turley’s analyses are spot on. He just doesn’t come down on the crazy woke side of things. Otherwise, he would be crazy too.
Note which news outlets publish his columns.
You talk the talk. But you then attack with ad hominem.
Exactly what part to the law did our host get wrong?
Maybe the other news outlets don’t want to hear what profess Turley has to say.
Tom, I agree. the blog has that Parler vibe at times.
It may at times have a “Parler vibe”, but it is one that you seem unable to ignore. Keep on posting. Your antagonists need to be reminded of what it is they are sparring for.
Hey Tom who said: “This blog just saddens me.” Having a mob shout down someone they disagree with is not debate, it is intellectual fascism and the opposite of debate. I find this blog to be a breath of fresh air when it comes to legal analysis.
-Another Tom
Nice ad hominem — yet not a single argument.
That’s your view of “sound legal analysis”?!
“Now, however, they want to be able to target others while objecting to being named themselves.” This double standard proves what we have always suspected: bullies are cowards.
A/K/A cry-bullies
Let us hear some of what Judge Duncan said and think of the idiots at Stanford who people like Dennis are defending. Those people don’t sound very smart, and Dennis hasn’t helped his argument or his status.
“When I arrived, the walls were festooned with posters denouncing me for crimes against women, gays, blacks and “trans people.” Plastered everywhere were photos of the students who had invited me and fliers declaring “You should be ASHAMED,” with the last word in large red capital letters and a horror-movie font. This didn’t seem “collegial.” Walking to the building where I would deliver my talk, I could hear loud chanting a good 50 yards away, reminiscent of a tent revival in its intensity. Some 100 students were massed outside the classroom as I entered, faces painted every color of the rainbow, waving signs and banners, jeering and stamping and howling. As I entered the classroom, one protester screamed: “We hope your daughters get raped!”…
The protesters weren’t upset by the subject of my talk—a rather dry discourse on how circuit courts interact with the Supreme Court in times of doctrinal flux. Rather, I was their target. While in practice, I represented clients and advanced arguments the protesters hate—for instance, I defended Louisiana’s traditional marriage laws. As for my judicial decisions, among the several hundred I’ve written, the protesters were especially vexed by U.S. v. Varner. A federal prisoner serving a term for attempted receipt of child pornography (and with a previous state conviction for possession of child porn) petitioned our court to order that he be called by feminine pronouns. As my opinion explained, federal courts can’t control what pronouns people use. The Stanford protesters saw it differently: My opinion had “denied a transwoman’s existence.”
From the judge himself:
My Struggle Session at Stanford Law School
A dean voices pride that students are being taught to stage tantrums rather than make a reasoned case.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/struggle-session-at-stanford-law-school-federalist-society-kyle-duncan-circuit-court-judge-steinbach-4f8da19e?mod=hp_opin_pos_4#cxrecs_s
First two paragraphs:
Stanford Law School’s website touts its “collegial culture” in which “collaboration and the open exchange of ideas are essential to life and learning.” Then there’s the culture I experienced when I visited Stanford last week. I had been invited by the student chapter of the Federalist Society to discuss the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, on which I’ve served since 2018. I’ve spoken at law schools across the country, and I was glad to accept this invitation. One of my first clerks graduated from Stanford. I have friends on the faculty. I gave a talk there a few years ago and found it a warm and engaging place, but not this time.
When I arrived, the walls were festooned with posters denouncing me for crimes against women, gays, blacks and “trans people.” Plastered everywhere were photos of the students who had invited me and fliers declaring “You should be ASHAMED,” with the last word in large red capital letters and a horror-movie font. This didn’t seem “collegial.” Walking to the building where I would deliver my talk, I could hear loud chanting a good 50 yards away, reminiscent of a tent revival in its intensity. Some 100 students were massed outside the classroom as I entered, faces painted every color of the rainbow, waving signs and banners, jeering and stamping and howling. As I entered the classroom, one protester screamed: “We hope your daughters get raped!
(I bolded the last sentence so it wouldn’t go unnoticed – this is what the students were saying to the federal judge.)
You left out the fact that the judge was also goading the protesters and acting unprofessional. He was just as much part of the problem that day. It’s the inconvenient truth that Turley left out.
I watched the video and didn’t see that. Do you have a link to the video of that so I can see the details of what he actually said to the protesters? You’ll forgive me if I don’t implicitly trust your “goading” descriptor.
The video shows only part of the whole event. Here’s a play-by-play of what happened.
https://davidlat.substack.com/p/yale-law-is-no-longer-1for-free-speech
Svelaz is correct in saying the David Lat article is a “play-by-play of what happened”, but it is not nearly what he would have you think it is. Lat may be one who might sympathize with the rancorous Stanford students, but he does provide an impartial and fairly unbiased recounting of the event. Here are just some examples:
“But here’s where things went off the rails. When the Stanford FedSoc president (an openly gay man) opened the proceedings, he was jeered between sentences. Judge Duncan then took the stage—and from the beginning of his speech, the protestors booed and heckled continually. For about ten minutes, the judge tried to give his planned remarks, but the protestors simply yelled over him, with exclamations like ‘You couldn’t get into Stanford!’ ‘You’re not welcome here, we hate you!’ ‘Why do you hate black people?!’ ‘Leave and never come back!’ ‘We hate FedSoc students, f**k them, they don’t belong here either!’ and ‘We do not respect you and you have no right to speak here! This is our jurisdiction!'”
“Throughout this heckling, Associate Dean Steinbach and the University’s student-relations representative—who were in attendance throughout the event, along with a few other administrators (five in total, per Ed Whelan)—did nothing. FedSoc members had discussed possible disruption with the student-relations rep before the event, and he said he would issue warnings to those who yelled at the speaker, but only if the yelling disrupted the flow of the event. Despite the difficulty that Judge Duncan was having in giving his remarks, plus the fact that many students were struggling to hear him, no action was taken.”
“Not getting traction trying to give a speech, Judge Duncan moved on to the question-and-answer session, and the protestors quieted down enough to ask a few questions. The questions—and answers—were generally contemptuous. As the judge put it to me, while he’s usually happy to answer questions when he speaks at law schools, the questions he received at Stanford were not asked in good faith; in his words, they were of the “how many people have you killed” or “how many times did you beat your wife last week” variety.”
“Finally, the event concluded when the heckling was so disruptive and Judge Duncan was so flustered that it could not continue. One source told me the event ended about 40 35 minutes before the scheduled end time (although a second source told me they thought it ran for a bit longer). So defenders of the SLS protest might argue that technically the judge wasn’t ‘shouted down,’ since he did get to speak for some amount of time. But it was difficult for many to hear him, and it’s a pretty sad commentary on the state of free speech in American law schools if the ability to get out a few words is the standard for acceptable events.”
“I am very interested in seeing what Stanford Law’s ‘review’ of the incident uncovers, whether it results in any policy changes (similar to those implemented at Yale Law), and whether Dean Steinbach faces any consequences for her attempt to manage the room that ‘went awry.’ So stay tuned. This is my first story about Stanford Law School, but I suspect, sadly, that it won’t be my last.”
While these examples are helpful to people who want to know the whole truth of the free speech debacle, it’s recommended that the entire article be read to the end inclusive of the letter of apology the president of Stanford and dean of the law school wrote to Judge Duncan.
+100
Also, are you saying he goaded them before flying to San Francisco? (It is clear the protesters were intent on shutting him down and menacing the FedSoc student members even before he arrived.)
Tell us when “the judge was also goading the protesters “. You can’t unless you are talking about after the fact. That makes you a liar.
If Svelaz cannot provide evidence, that will speak volumes about his veracity (or lack thereof).
Svelaz = Shirley MacLaine @ “Terms of Endearment”
https://davidlat.substack.com/p/yale-law-is-no-longer-1for-free-speech
Anonynous,
https://davidlat.substack.com/p/yale-law-is-no-longer-1for-free-speech
Engaging in both-sidesism by saying Judge Duncan was also at fault for “goading” the protesters is really pathetic. Is that article you linked to the best you can do, svelaz? Here is the part of it to which you evidently referred:
But here’s where things went off the rails. When the Stanford FedSoc president (an openly gay man) opened the proceedings, he was jeered between sentences. Judge Duncan then took the stage—and from the beginning of his speech, the protestors booed and heckled continually. For about ten minutes, the judge tried to give his planned remarks, but the protestors simply yelled over him, with exclamations like “You couldn’t get into Stanford!” “You’re not welcome here, we hate you!” “Why do you hate black people?!” “Leave and never come back!” “We hate FedSoc students, f**k them, they don’t belong here either!” and “We do not respect you and you have no right to speak here! This is our jurisdiction!”
Throughout this heckling, Associate Dean Steinbach and the University’s student-relations representative—who were in attendance throughout the event, along with a few other administrators (five in total, per Ed Whelan)—did nothing. FedSoc members had discussed possible disruption with the student-relations rep before the event, and he said he would issue warnings to those who yelled at the speaker, but only if the yelling disrupted the flow of the event. Despite the difficulty that Judge Duncan was having in giving his remarks, plus the fact that many students were struggling to hear him, no action was taken.
After around ten minutes of trying to give his remarks, Judge Duncan became angry, departed from his prepared remarks, and laced into the hecklers. He called the students “juvenile idiots” and said he couldn’t believe the “blatant disrespect” he was being shown after being invited to speak. He said that the “prisoners were now running the asylum,” which led to a loud round of boos. His pushback riled up the protesters even more.
So after being shut down for ten minutes with no end in sight – and when it was already obvious he was not going to be able to deliver his prepared remarks for which he traveled a long distance to accept an invitation – he laced into the hecklers, which “riled them up even more.” Wow, as I said, that’s pathetic if that’s all you have for your both-sides argument.
And if after the fact of at first being denied his speech and then having his character maligned Judge Duncan had not been baited into becoming “part of the “problem”, you would still excuse the torrent of abuse and invective from the prearranged hostile crowd that had zero interest in giving him a fair hearing on anything and every interest in simply preventing anyone from hearing him. The truth as you see it is far from the truth as thoughtful and rational persons see it.
Ron A. Hoffman,
He wasn’t baited. He deliberately chose to get down to their level and belittle their protesting. That is not how a federal judge should comport himself. He was indeed part of the problem.
He was baited. He should not have allowed himself to be, but he did. His transgression would not have happened but for theirs. Go ahead and hold him to a higher standard as a judge, but do not excuse those who would be judges from the same higher standard.
No Svelaz , he pushed back on them, finally someone had the guts to do it. Disrespectful little cretins could dish it out but they couldn’t take it.
Belittling people trying to silence free speech is a moral obligation.
I watched that video. He didn’t goad anyone. You just lied about a verifiable fact. You have no credibility. Not only are you no lawyer, you have zero knowledge of the law.
QUOTE OF THE DAY
With reference to the arbitrary concoction of hybrid law, and the hypothetical prosecution of a completely innocuous 17-year-old Trump/Daniels NDA – if it’s not disclosed, we don’t know what’s in it, and D— A– Alvin Bragg can’t prosecute that which is clearly and deliberately not known – the following statement was made:
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“One would say Bragg is outside of his lane, but in this case, he’s on a completely different highway.”
– Professor Turley
The rule of thumb for lawyers is to make any and all arguments you can from the evidence presented, except those that would turn you purple with embarrassment. In all the years of being a lawyer, 44+ years, and the hundreds of trials, motions, and hearings, that I’ve participated in, I never heard any lawyer, or myself, make any argument in court that would make us purple with embarrassment until I read your comment.
It reads like the tantrum of a spoiled child. It’s obvious from the reading that you’re neither a lawyer, nor so someone who understands the concept of free speech, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or what it means to live in a free society. Your right to free speech ends when you try to override my right to speak by shouting me down. That is not “free speech,” it is mob rule and censorship by the mob by trying to prevent those who came to listen to the speech from hearing it. There is no mob veto to free speech. Shouting down a speaker is not free speech. It’s censorship by the loudest mob.
If you don’t like what the speaker is going to say, don’t listen to it, don’t attend the speech. That’s what adults do, at least those adult with an education and a belief in free speech. They listen to the speaker, then afterwards during the question and answer period, ask questions that challenge the speaker and his/her speech.
Children throw tantrums and try to prevent the speaker’s speech because they believe words they disagree with are harmful and should be suppressed. Words neither hurt or do physical harm to the listener. If you can’t handle words you don’t like or the ideas the words express, then being a lawyer is the wrong profession. The listener who is “triggered by words alone” needs to grow up mentally.
As the old adage goes, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Words and the ideas they express are never harmful unless the listener is so weak of mind as to be offended by them. As the Supreme Court in United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) stated, “…the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.”
You, and those like you, who are so afraid of speech, ideas or words you don’t like, and actively try to suppress them by any means possible, are cowards.
You have no idea how courts work, how trials proceed or the rules of evidence. These “law students” who shouted down the speaker will get this ass handed to them by the trial judge the first time they try to shout down opposing counsel during their argument to the court or jury.
“If you don’t like what the speaker is going to say, don’t listen to it, don’t attend the speech. That’s what adults do, at least those adult with an education and a belief in free speech. They listen to the speaker, then afterwards during the question and answer period, ask questions that challenge the speaker and his/her speech.”
You’re right I’m not a lawyer. However, not everything runs and functions as it would in a courtroom which you seem more accustomed to. Those public events or even those in universities are not bound by the strict rules of decorum and order that you seem to think to apply or should apply everywhere else. Free speech is not a guarantee that you will be heard, period. It has never been a guarantee that anyone would be or should be heard. Outside of a courtroom that has never been the case and as a lawyer, you should know that. If you have ever seen how the British parliament operates you should know that even in official settings there’s heckling and ridicule, shouting over, and mockery. They don’t cry foul and scream “my free speech is being attacked” like some whiny conservatives that Turley seems to be using for his skewed narratives.
In this incident, it wasn’t just the students who were acting childish. It was also Judge Duncan. You left out that inconvenient fact. Duncan was stoking these students by being totally unprofessional and he kept goading these protesters proudly. You know no judge would act that way in any courtroom. You know judges are expected to act above that childish behavior.
“You, and those like you, who are so afraid of speech, ideas, or words you don’t like, and actively try to suppress them by any means possible, are cowards.”
False, it’s not fear of speech, ideas, or words we don’t like. That’s a projection of what conservatives do. Not the left. The left protests those ideas by expressing their disagreement and nonacceptance of certain ideas by being more vocal and yes being loud with those expressions and that is exactly what free speech is in its purest form. The real cowards are those who keep playing the victimhood game and crying “anti-free speech” because their ideas are being ridiculed, mocked, or not accepted even criticized. The real cowards are those who conflate criticism as attacks on free speech.
BS! The left uses mob rule, and thus the mob veto, to silence those they disagree with. You can dance around with your words, but one of the maximums in the law is you look at the actions of the party and not their words. And the actions of the “law students” at Stanford was the use of mob rule to censor and stop the Judge from speaking by shouting down the speaker.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts. I watched the video of what took place at Stanford “Law School.” The actions of the “law students” shouting the Judge down and preventing his speech were the same actions that Hitler and his Brown Shirts used to silence their opposition in Germany the early 1930s.
What the “law students” engaged in is mob rule veto. You, and they, are the equivalent of the modern day “Brown Shirts.”
Your statement, “The left protests those ideas by expressing their disagreement and nonacceptance of certain ideas by being more vocal and yes being loud with those expressions and that is exactly what free speech is in its purest form.”
This statement is a lie at worst, or an intentional misrepresentation at best of what was in the video. Either way, it’s completely false. The conclusion a judge would make after seeing the video and reading your comments, is that he/she would dismiss your statement as either having no credibility because it is a false or misleadings statement.
Free speech is the civilized exchange of ideas, not shouting down speakers you disagree with. This idea that shouting down a speaker is free speech is absurd, disingenuous, false, and completely the antithesis of free speech. It is censorship by the mob. Your ignorance is appalling.
For “law students” to do as they did in the video is proof of how little they understand free speech and the Constitution, and your supporting shows how little you understanding basic freedom.
You’re right, you’re not a lawyer, which means everything you write has no foundation in the law or the Constitution, and is pure nonsense.
Preventing a speaker from speaking by shouting him down is not “free speech” and never has been free speech and never will be free speech. If you disagree, then cite the case that says it is. This is a Constitutional Law blog site, so please show us your expertise in Constitutional Law by citing the case. I’ll wait, but I won’t hold my breath.
And no, you don’t get to say it’s your opinion. An opinion must be based on facts, and in this case the law, too. Anything else is just noise.
“you’re not a lawyer, which means everything you write has no foundation in the law or the Constitution, and is pure nonsense.”
Yeah, right, go ahead and say that in court to a pro se adversary. You sound like just a noisy stuffed shirt.
“Free speech is the civilized exchange of ideas, not shouting down speakers you disagree with. This idea that shouting down a speaker is free speech is absurd, disingenuous, false, and completely the antithesis of free speech. It is censorship by the mob. Your ignorance is appalling.”
As I pointed out before, you are overly reliant on the idea that free speech is only about civilized behavior. Ironically that is quite an elitist view. In your “outrage,” you keep forgetting that the 1st amendment is not a guarantee that it MUST be civilized, orderly, or devoid of shouting, ridicule, insults, mockery, etc, etc, etc.
Free speech is MESSY, inelegant, chaotic, and emotional. Free speech does not mean it MUST be civilized. The Jan. 6 protest was an exercise of free speech according to many conservatives on this blog. It wasn’t civilized or orderly. Right? Right?…. It is no different than what the students did at Stanford. Was it appropriate? Hell no. But it was certainly free speech. That’s a fact. No amount of excuses or whining will change that.
Your ignorance is more obvious as s a lawyer, you should be more aware of bigger and more subtle nuances regarding free speech. You demonstrate my point at the very end of your diatribe.
“And no, you don’t get to say it’s your opinion. An opinion must be based on facts, and in this case the law, too. Anything else is just noise.”
You’re doing EXACTLY what those students did, “you don’t get to say it’s your opinion”. ” Whaaaa, Whaaaaaaa you don’t have a right to opinions because you are wrong and don’t have facts”.
“This statement is a lie at worst or an intentional misrepresentation at best of what was in the video. Either way, it’s completely false. The conclusion a judge would make after seeing the video and reading your comments is that he/she would dismiss your statement as either having no credibility because it is a false or misleading statement.”
Again you show just how buried you are in your views. This is not a courtroom and will never be one. Free speech is not a guaranteed or required promise that it will be civilized or orderly. The Jan 6 protests are a shining example. You’re letting your emotions get the better of you, just like those protesters at the capitol. They were exercising free speech with violence and shouting and being idiots.
Despite your rambling on and on, preventing people from speaking is not free speech. It is mob rule. Also, since you brought it up, it’s becoming more and more apparent January 6 was a fraud put forth by, who else, the democrats.
And the more messy, inelegant, chaotic, and emotional free speech becomes the better. Wow, what a wonderful world you would have us live in.
As is the case nationally with the absent Supreme Court, the absent venue, in this case, must have enforced its own civility rules and general rules of etiquette, decency and order. Stanford is private property, only the owners of which may “claim and exercise” dominion. It should have.
The Supreme Court adjudicates and enjoys the power of Judicial Review, under which it may strike down all acts of the executive and judicial branches. Had it done so in 1860 and onward, no communist American welfare state would exist today, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s valiant effort regarding Lincoln’s wholly unconstitutional suspension of habeas corpus notwithstanding. Had secession, which is not prohibited, been found fully constitutional, which it is, the entire “Reign of Terror” of Lincoln and his successors would have been nipped in the bud and never made it past its status as simply a bad, illicit, illegal and unconstitutional concept.
Due to the complete absence and dereliction of the Supreme Court since 1860, the Justices of which swore an oath to support the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution, America has stopped “…secur[ing] the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” and, in lieu, assures compliance with unconstitutional, communist central planning, control of the means of production (i.e. unconstitutional regulation), redistribution of wealth and social engineering, aka “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” and “the dictatorship of the proletariat.”
Lincoln’s communistic hallucinations/aberrations never stood a chance against the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
“…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
All the anti free speech advocates will loose their principles when President DeSantis is the man identifing hate groups and jailing fringe speakers.
Trump / DeSantis 2024!
Iowan2. so you’re saying DeSantis is going to be jailing fringe speakers? Isn’t that what dictators do? Conservatives and Trump supporters sure love the idea of being under a dictatorship and big government.
so you’re saying DeSantis is going to be jailing fringe speakers
Just pointing out, the party in power does the defining.
Biden says parents at school board meetings are domestic terrorists, and starts spying on them. So President Trump can put 100 FBI agents tracking the NYT, and another 100 on NBC. “suggesting what to censor.
You are blind to the rules you endorse/.
Iowanw2, you’re saying you will support government infringement of free speech because your party will be in power. That’s how the right likes to operate. As long as they get to be in power, everything the left does the right can do, because they will have the power of defining.
If you really believe in free speech, then you have to put up with somebody else’s BS.
I don’t know what Iowanw2 is saying, but I am saying that I am 100% OK with a future Republican administration playing by the rules you Democrats set, and making you all lie in the bed you are making. Having trampled all over our rights you should be estopped from complaining when your rights are trampled, and you are dealt as you have dealt. If you then come begging for a reset to the old rules, we can agree on that, to take effect NEXT term, not immediately; and that offer should only be available until the result of the next election can be predicted.
There is a regular poster here who loves to cut and paste.
Svelaz and but just very few others would have their readers believe that all is perfectly well with free speech in America. It abounds everywhere in everything and is honored and cherished the same by everyone. The only thing that might remotely inhibit self-expression is the concern of being “mocked”, “ridiculed”, “dismissed” and “unaccepted” for it. While self-censorship is a conscious choice generally and regrettably driven by fear, it is nevertheless always repulsive for the principle of free speech. So long as the left clearly shows itself as a mob not to abide by it so just as equally and steadfastly should the right.
The Judge who was to speak and the members of Stanford’s Federalist Society who invited him were denied their rights not because they self-censored out of fear of being mocked, ridiculed, dismissed and unaccepted, but were instead forcefully quieted by the disorder and confusion spewed by an organized mob. Make no mistake. Mob behavior is what censored the event; not any of those who were in attendance to courteously hear a speech and partake in a respectful Q&A afterwards.
Ron A. Hoffman, the problem lies with Turley leaving out facts that provide better context about what went on at Stanford. He accuses above the law editor Joe Patrice of being anti-free speech because he is pointing out Turley’s deliberate omissions that serve the purpose of making a false narrative. Joe Patrice provided the actual context of this event and he provides far more detail than Turley does because he is not trying to deceive his readers.
“The whole point of the manufactured “campus cancel culture crisis” is to make protesters look unruly and fringe speakers appear reasonable by comparison. A hate group shows up on campus, you take some disingenuously edited clips of the protest while the representative of a recognized hate group sits on stage and plays the patient victim. Rinse and repeat.
But Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the Fifth Circuit decided to challenge this foundational assumption when he rolled into Stanford Law School last week. Judge Duncan dispensed with playing the respectable victim and went full wrestling heel, channeling his inner Ric Flair and preening for the crowd about how much they hate him because he’s beautiful — or in this case, because he’s life-tenured and doesn’t have to care about their rights. He successfully feasted on the crowd’s disdain, but can you really make the case that you’re getting canceled when you’re the one launching into calling students things like “appalling idiot” while they ask questions you refuse to answer?
…In another video shown in this thread, the judge’s refusal to respond to the question borders on willfully obtuse. The questioner gets increasingly — but understandably — frustrated as Judge Duncan stonewalls like an obnoxious deponent. It’s an exercise in trying the patience of the audience. If students got testy, treating their honest questions like an episode of Boiling Points deserves a lot of the blame.
Until now, the blueprint for these folks requires whining that the protesters would be satisfied if they would simply “engage” and “ask questions.” The speaker has to keep up the conceit that speaking into a microphone from a stage for an hour and then listening to a 15-second question amounts to balanced discourse. When critics choose to protest rather than ask questions, it’s because YOU are smart and THEY are scared.
…Apparently, Judge Duncan understood the play call at one point during the festivities based on insights gathered in David Lat’s deep dive into the incident.
At one point during the Q&A, Judge Duncan said, “You are all law students. You are supposed to have reasoned debate and hear the other side, not yell at those who disagree.”
Alas, in a case of “be careful what you troll for,” the Stanford students actually did ask questions and it turns out Judge Duncan is not nearly clever enough to actually handle those questions.
[The judge] lost his cool almost immediately. He started heckling back and attacking student protestors…. Someone accused him of taking away voting rights from Black folks in a southern state. He asked the student to cite a case. While she was looking up the case, he berated her, “Cite a case. Cite a case. Cite a case. You can’t even cite a case. You really expect this to work in court” [not exact quotes, but something along these lines]. When she eventually cited the one she was referring to, he said something along the lines of, “Was I even on that panel?” When she told him he was, he just moved right along with his tirade.
He can’t remember the cases he’s decided? Along with the video above, these accounts describe a guy who came in completely unprepared for even the mildest of questions. To borrow from the judge: “You really expect this to work in court?”
Perhaps he thought his conduct would be enough to keep the audience stirred up and prevent any questions. It would comport with someone who, as one of Lat’s witnesses put it, came in “looking more like a YouTuber storming the Capitol.”
While I think the administration should have handled it differently, my main takeaway is that I have never seen a grown man—let alone a federal judge—comport himself so poorly.
From the moment Judge Duncan arrived on campus, he seemed to be looking for a fight. He walked into the law school filming protestors on his phone, looking more like a YouTuber storming the Capitol, than a federal judge coming to speak.
Lat managed to get a response from Judge Duncan, who remained defiant in the face of his own clownish antics, explicitly noting, “Did I speak sharply to some of the students? I did. Do I feel sorry about it? I don’t.”
Hilarious.
Judge Duncan had an opportunity to inoculate himself against the damning quotes and video clips by just saying “and I regret that my emotions got the better of me at a couple of points,” implying that his actions were outliers and any clips of rowdy student behavior was the norm. It’s the benefit of being the powerful figure in the story that he has a lifeline to recharacterize the whole event that a student wouldn’t.
And then he didn’t take that lifeline!
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/03/kyle-duncan-stanford-law-school/
You have offered us insights (albeit they are entirely from David Lat’s substack article) into the whole of what happened at Stanford University on March 9, 2023. Unfortunately, you choose to highlight only that which is arguably unfavorable to Judge Duncan. The worst that can be said of Duncan is in the words of David Lat that “in the midst of a torrent of abuse and invective from a hostile crowd that had zero interest in giving him a fair hearing on anything” the Judge failed to resist a human temptation to reciprocate in kind.
Regrettably, you choose to nonchalantly dismiss “what went on at Stanford” without fully appreciating that what actually was supposed to go on at Stanford didn’t. Had the Judge been allowed his prepared speech to be given without the discourteous disruptions that immediately began and just as immediately so abruptly ended it and a formally organized and adroitly monitored Q&A afterwards that would have been handled respectfully with all participants counseled and admonished to remain respectful, you may well have gotten what you wanted out of it. As it is you align yourself wholly and resolutely in concert with the intolerant antagonists and gained nothing from it. You have my condolences. It is not easy to defend what it is you’re feverishly trying to defend.
I agree with Dennis McIntyre, and assume you might too, that it would have been appropriate “in interests of fairness and free speech” to have heard what the Judge had to say that in the words of Stanford DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach was to be so “abhorrent”, “harmful” and “literally denies the humanity of people.”
“I agree with Dennis McIntyre, and assume you might too, that it would have been appropriate “in interests of fairness and free speech” to have heard what the Judge had to say that in the words of Stanford DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach was to be so “abhorrent”, “harmful” and “literally denies the humanity of people.”
I too agree with McIntyre, however, that still doesn’t excuse the fact that the judge is just as responsible. He’s expected to be above the fray and he failed at that. Turley didn’t mention that because his goal is to paint the event as an anti-free speech agenda of the left. Clearly, there’s more to it than his simplistic and partisan baiting for his conservative readers.
Every person in pursuit of a career in the law is to be expected to be above the fray. Now, say that about the disrupters as much as you have said it about the judge.
Here’s a play-by-play of the whole incident which gives much more clarity than Turley’s skewed narrative.
https://davidlat.substack.com/p/yale-law-is-no-longer-1for-free-speech
This part is particularly important,
“After the event, Stanford FedSoc members asked Dean Steinbach for her thoughts. She asserted that nothing the protestors had done violated the Stanford disruption policy and that the event had been “exactly what the freedom of speech was meant to look like—messy.” She said that if Judge Duncan had wanted to give his remarks, he should have just kept reading them, and she claimed that he was disrespectful to the attendees.
And is there a case for that? I have readers and sources on both sides of the aisle, I believe in presenting both sides of controversies, and I’ll now quote from a source who was critical of how Judge Duncan conducted himself:
While I think the administration should have handled it differently, my main takeaway is that I have never seen a grown man—let alone a federal judge—comport himself so poorly.
From the moment Judge Duncan arrived on campus, he seemed to be looking for a fight. He walked into the law school filming protestors on his phone, looking more like a YouTuber storming the Capitol, than a federal judge coming to speak.
Judge Duncan, whom I offered the opportunity to respond to these allegations, did not deny this claim: “Did I try to record video? Damn right I did. I wanted to make a record.”
Back to my source:
He was heckled pretty relentlessly, but I truly can’t have imagined a worse reaction. He could have had a moral victory if he’d stayed on message, kept his cool, and delivered his prepared remarks. He even had a heads-up that the event was likely to be disrupted, so I would have thought that he would have had time to prepare himself to stay composed.
Judge Duncan told me that while he was warned about possible protest, what he encountered far exceeded his expectations, as well as anything he has ever encountered at any of the many law schools he has spoken at. He also shared with me that he had received assurances from the SLS administration—through Professor Michael McConnell, the prominent conservative legal scholar and former Tenth Circuit judge, who served as intermediary—that while there might be protesters, they would not be disruptive. So Judge Duncan was definitely (and understandably) caught off guard by what transpired yesterday.
Back to Judge Duncan’s critic:
[The judge] lost his cool almost immediately. He started heckling back and attacking student protestors…. Someone accused him of taking away voting rights from Black folks in a southern state. He asked the student to cite a case. While she was looking up the case, he berated her, “Cite a case. Cite a case. Cite a case. You can’t even cite a case. You really expect this to work in court” [not exact quotes, but something along these lines]. When she eventually cited the one she was referring to, he said something along the lines of, “Was I even on that panel?” When she told him he was, he just moved right along with his tirade.
Judge Duncan said the case didn’t ring a bell for him because he couldn’t recall any opinion of his that was about disenfranchising Black voters. He told me that after the talk, he looked up the case cited by the questioner—and found he actually dissented.
I ended up leaving before the end of the event, but from what I heard, during the Q&A, one student shared that she’d been raped in college and asked a pointed question. His response was something along the lines of, “Nice story.” Someone asked him a question about this decision denying a pro se motion to use the petitioner’s preferred pronouns, basically saying, “In court we are supposed to show respect for judges and co-counsel, even if you couldn’t force other judges to use the litigant’s pronouns, couldn’t you have shown that person some respect and addressed them how they wished to be addressed?” Duncan’s response: “Read the opinion. Next question.”
Here is the author’s take away which is much more honest and much more accurate than Turley’s.
“After the event, Stanford FedSoc members asked Dean Steinbach for her thoughts. She asserted that nothing the protestors had done violated the Stanford disruption policy and that the event had been “exactly what the freedom of speech was meant to look like—messy.” She said that if Judge Duncan had wanted to give his remarks, he should have just kept reading them, and she claimed that he was disrespectful to the attendees.
And is there a case for that? I have readers and sources on both sides of the aisle, I believe in presenting both sides of controversies, and I’ll now quote from a source who was critical of how Judge Duncan conducted himself:
While I think the administration should have handled it differently, my main takeaway is that I have never seen a grown man—let alone a federal judge—comport himself so poorly.
From the moment Judge Duncan arrived on campus, he seemed to be looking for a fight. He walked into the law school filming protestors on his phone, looking more like a YouTuber storming the Capitol, than a federal judge coming to speak.
Judge Duncan, whom I offered the opportunity to respond to these allegations, did not deny this claim: “Did I try to record video? Damn right I did. I wanted to make a record.”
Back to my source:
He was heckled pretty relentlessly, but I truly can’t have imagined a worse reaction. He could have had a moral victory if he’d stayed on message, kept his cool, and delivered his prepared remarks. He even had a heads-up that the event was likely to be disrupted, so I would have thought that he would have had time to prepare himself to stay composed.
Judge Duncan told me that while he was warned about possible protest, what he encountered far exceeded his expectations, as well as anything he has ever encountered at any of the many law schools he has spoken at. He also shared with me that he had received assurances from the SLS administration—through Professor Michael McConnell, the prominent conservative legal scholar and former Tenth Circuit judge, who served as intermediary—that while there might be protesters, they would not be disruptive. So Judge Duncan was definitely (and understandably) caught off guard by what transpired yesterday.
Back to Judge Duncan’s critic:
[The judge] lost his cool almost immediately. He started heckling back and attacking student protestors…. Someone accused him of taking away voting rights from Black folks in a southern state. He asked the student to cite a case. While she was looking up the case, he berated her, “Cite a case. Cite a case. Cite a case. You can’t even cite a case. You really expect this to work in court” [not exact quotes, but something along these lines]. When she eventually cited the one she was referring to, he said something along the lines of, “Was I even on that panel?” When she told him he was, he just moved right along with his tirade.
Judge Duncan said the case didn’t ring a bell for him because he couldn’t recall any opinion of his that was about disenfranchising Black voters. He told me that after the talk, he looked up the case cited by the questioner—and found he actually dissented.
I ended up leaving before the end of the event, but from what I heard, during the Q&A, one student shared that she’d been raped in college and asked a pointed question. His response was something along the lines of, “Nice story.” Someone asked him a question about this decision denying a pro se motion to use the petitioner’s preferred pronouns, basically saying, “In court, we are supposed to show respect for judges and co-counsel, even if you couldn’t force other judges to use the litigant’s pronouns, couldn’t you have shown that person some respect and addressed them how they wished to be addressed?” Duncan’s response: “Read the opinion. Next question.”
The article is very thorough and contains many updates. It shows that BOTH the protesting students AND Judge Duncan were behaving like children. The SLS administrator was the only adult in the room.
“After the event, Stanford FedSoc members asked Dean Steinbach for her thoughts. She asserted that nothing the protestors had done violated the Stanford disruption policy and that the event had been “exactly what the freedom of speech was meant to look like—messy.”
That is a LIE, and you know it. It has been explained to you before.
It is an OBVIOUS lie.
If Students disrupt a teacher in a class such that they can not teach and other students can not here – that is NOT free speech.
It is disorderly conduct,
You keep making these stupid arguments all the time.
Free speech is NOT anarchy.
It is NOT the absence of rules.
There are many many things the protestors Could have legitimately done.
What they did was NOT one of those.
You fortunately are not a college administrator.
Steinbach is. She should know better.
That she either does and does not care or does not is a reason to Fire her.
“That is a LIE, and you know it. It has been explained to you before.
It is an OBVIOUS lie.
If Students disrupt a teacher in a class such that they can not teach and other students can not here – that is NOT free speech.
It is disorderly conduct,
You keep making these stupid arguments all the time.”
No, it’s not. Because you keep using these false equivalencies as examples.
A classroom is not the same environment as a public speaking event. A teacher in a class is there for the purpose of teaching to those who WANT to hear the teacher. A classroom is not open to the public and anyone can come in and disrupt the class. It’s disrupting a class. It’s not a public speaking event open to anyone. You keep making these really stupid comparisons that involve entirely different things and try to conflate them as the same thing. That only shows that you have no real argument and you don’t know what you are talking about.
“Free speech is NOT anarchy.”
No, it’s not. But it’s also not orderly which is what you keep failing to understand.
“It is NOT the absence of rules.
There are many many things the protestors Could have legitimately done.
What they did was NOT one of those.”
It’s an absence of order which is not guaranteed by the idea of free speech. Of course, there are many things the protesters could have legitimately done, but that doesn’t mean they are not allowed to make stupid decisions. Judge Duncan also could have chosen to do many things differently that would have de-escalated the situation but he chose not to and as a federal judge he had a greater responsibility than the protesters.
Steinbach was the only adult in the room. The judge and the students were the ones antagonizing each other.
Are you really this stupid ?
A teacher in a classroom is almost EXACTLY the same as a speaker at a public even.
Both are invited – often paid., Both are Teaching. Both have audiences that are voluntarily there – though MORE SO for guest speakers.
To the extent that there are more or less rights in one context than the other – there is more problems disrupting a speaker than a teacher.
If you do not want to hear a speaker – do not come to the event.
“It’s an absence of order which is not guaranteed by the idea of free speech”
False.
The difference between anarchism and libertarianism is that libertarians accept that
liberty does not exist in the absence of some order.
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”
“The judge and the students were the ones antagonizing each other.”
Correct, the judge was the invited guest, the ALG students were uninvited trespasser.
Anarchism is not a position that you get to pick and choose from as suits you.
You are free to make anarchist arguments,
But you can expect to be challanged as an anarchist if you do,
And as a moron if you try to pretend that you are anarchist – but only in the exact context of Judge Duncan’s speech at SLS.
Not elsehwere, Not in the classroom. not at the Capitol.
I would also suggest that if you want to make anarchist arguments (or those of any other ideology) you should actually know something about that ideology before going off blindly.
You could try starting here.
https://c4ss.org/content/10462
Or start with this.
http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
You should atleast be familiar with the position you are arguing
Here is Stanford Magazine writing in 2019 about the law and their own rules and court decisions regarding those rules.
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/what-the-law-says-about-campus-free-speech
John, that article is doing what you always do, conflate two entirely different concepts to mean the same thing. The 1st amendment is NOT a guarantee that a speaker will be heard. School policies are not laws as in state laws or federal laws. They are policies that people are expected to follow but are often enforced by mere reprimand or stern rebuke.
This is what was said in the apology letter,
“The law school advised students who announced that they planned to protest the event of university standards and policies on freedom of speech, including the specific university policy prohibiting disruption of a public event. It is a violation of the disruption policy to “prevent the effective carrying out” of a “public event.” Heckling and other forms of interruption that prevent a speaker from making or completing a presentation are inconsistent with the policy. Consistent with our practice, protesting students are provided alternative spaces to voice their opinions freely. While students in the room may do things such as quietly hold signs or ask pointed questions during question and answer periods, they may not do so in a way that disrupts the event or prevents the speaker from delivering their remarks.
In the past few years, we have had a number of events with controversial speakers proceed without incident. Other than someone who hoped to create a meltdown for the cameras to capture, no one can be happy about what happened yesterday. In this instance, tempers flared along multiple dimensions. In such situations, an optimal outcome involves de-escalation that allows the speaker to proceed and for counter-speech to occur in an alternative location or in ways that are non-disruptive. However well-intentioned, attempts at managing the room in this instance went awry. The way this event unfolded was not aligned with our institutional commitment to freedom of speech.
The school is reviewing what transpired and will work to ensure protocols are in place so that disruptions of this nature do not occur again, and is committed to the conduct of events on terms that are consistent with the disruption policy and the principles of free speech and critical inquiry they support. Freedom of speech is a bedrock principle for the law school, the university, and a democratic society, and we can and must do better to ensure that it continues even in polarized times.
Sincerely,
Jenny Martinez”
This is the take away from students,
“It’s one of the best I’ve seen from her. I think it gives very ‘adult in the room’ energy to a situation where Judge Duncan, Dean Steinbach, and the protesters were not acting like adults. And it’s a much better and sharper defense of free speech principles than we got from her after the FedSoc satire incident in 2021.”
“that article is doing what you always do, conflate two entirely different concepts to mean the same thing.”
Nope.
“The 1st amendment is NOT a guarantee that a speaker will be heard. ”
Correct, it guarantees that those who wish to hear can.
“School policies are not laws as in state laws or federal laws.”
Correct, they are BINDING Contracts between schools and students.
“They are policies that people are expected to follow but are often enforced by mere reprimand or stern rebuke.”
They are contracts between students and the school, specifying the contractual rights of each.
YOU are the one fixated on Twitter TOS – Like Terms of Service these are a CONTRACT.
In this instance the Students who wished to hear Judge Duncan have a breach of contract claim against the University.
They were deprived of both a constitutional right and a right guaranteed by the School.
I would note that FIRE has been litigating claims like these all the time.
They UNIVERSALLY Win.
This is not even a close issue.
With respect to your quote – it is a start. It is not sufficient. At a minimum those responsible must be identified.
With respect to the response that there is some balance here – there is not.
Students who came to hear Judge Duncan had the right to hear what he had to say.
Judge Duncan did not abridge that right – the unruly protestors did.
Even your letter of apology does not reference Duncan, nor does it anywhere say that there was some failure on the part of the event itself.
Stanford can rescind its free speech policy – though it can not do so retroactively and it has generally been found that students who entered while a policy was in effect are entitled to the rights and benefits of that policy until the leave.
This BTW also applies to Twitter Terms of Service – a point you constantly ignore.
A “policy” is a contract. It can not be unilaterally changed
Regardless, the ONLY issue here is the violation of the first amendment, by ALG/SLS students, and the failure of Stanford administrators to properly respond.
The correct response at the time from Steinbach was to tell students disrupting the event that if they did not stop – campus police would remove them, they could be charged with disorderly conduct, and they could be expelled.
Stanford FAILED to do so. Federalist Students therefore have a cause of action against SLS.
The SLS administrator was the biggest child in the room.
The students should be disciplined.
Possibilities range from publishing the names of all disruptive students to expulsion.
Judge Duncan and other judges should insist that Absent at the very least identifying disruptive students,
They will not grant clerkship’s to SLS students.
I believe that Chief Justice Roberts likely has the power to direct ALL Federal courts to refuse to accept as clerks students that have violated the first amendment rights of others, and to refuse to accept applications from Law schools that will not identify and punish disruptive students.
Identify is the MINIMUM consequence for students.
Steinbach should be fired for refusing to enforce Stanfords code.
“The SLS administrator was the biggest child in the room.
The students should be disciplined.
Possibilities range from publishing the names of all disruptive students to expulsion.”
No. The SLS administrator was not the biggest child in the room. It was the Judge. The one who is expected to be above the fray. He failed to even meet the most basic expectations as a judge in handling that situation. A federal judge.
You are wanting to punish students for exercising their free speech rights because they were being loud and obnoxious by suggesting expulsion. Saying all disruptive students should be expelled is literally anti-free speech.
“The SLS administrator was not the biggest child in the room.”
Of course she was.
There is not even an argument here.
She had a Duty to enforce the Stanford speech code – not try to manufacture a new one from thin air.
“It was the Judge.”
Did Judge Duncan assault some one ?
Did he violate the law ?
If he did not – he has no responsibility.
“You are wanting to punish students for exercising their free speech rights because they were being loud and obnoxious by suggesting expulsion.”
Vilating the rights of others is not first amendment protected speech.
You Steinbach, and Partice have lost that idiotic anarchist argument.
Put it to bed.
You just look stupid raising it.
“Saying all disruptive students should be expelled is literally anti-free speech.”
No it is law enforcement. And it is ENFORCEMENT of the free speech provision of the constitution.
One of the CLUES that your arguments are garbage is when they recursively descend to anarchy.
You say that the disruptors did not violate free speech.
But then you say responses to the disruptors do ?
Could Judge Duncan have brought in a giant bullhorn and given his speach at 120db causing everyones ears to bleed and lose their hearing.
Could protestors respond with an even bigger bullhorn, and on and on.
The legitimate excercise of a right does not infringe on an actual right of others.
The disrupters infringed on Judge Duncans rights and those who came to hear him.
The Fault is all theirs. There excercise of Speech was NOT First amendment protected speech – any more than Child Porn is.
Lawlessness has consequences.
I do not personally beleive expulsion is appropriate for first offenders – though that is a close call – as this is not just a college – this is one of the top law schools in the country. Their is a reasonable expectation that students understood the first amendment and the law,
and do not need and are not entitled to a warning.
Regardless the disruptors MUST be identified. And should the bar, federal judges or law firms choose not to hire them over this – that is their problem. Misconduct has consequences. Violating the rights of others has consequences.
I would suggest an optional alternate punishment. In MANY places – such as my state we have ARD for minor first time offences.
This is some kind of punishment – sometimes community service, or boot camp, in leiu of jail, with those successfully completing it having their record expunged. But you can not get ARD without pleading guilty, and if you elect ARD and do not successfully complete it the original sentence is imposed and the offense is never expunged.
I would suggest that the disruptions who do not want expelled can choose 100 hours of community Service with FIRE defending free speech cases against universities.
I suspect even Judge Duncan would be happy with that.
However Steinbach must be fired.
Failure to follow the school policy would be bad enough manufacturing new policy on the spot is over the top.
Regardless she had an absolute duty to the students, the school, defined by the policy. She does not have an excuse of ignorance.
She is not a student, there is a much higher expectation from her.
She must be removed PERIOD
She can seek out a new posiiton in a college without a free speech policy.
The biggest Mob cases were handled by Giuliani – Don’t you Hate him now ?
Regardless, These are NOT the actual people who have EVER handled anything consequential EVER.
These are people with a long bad track record for political prosecutions many of which have been over turned.
We are all aware how polittically corrupt the NY AG’s are.
Do you really think anyone cares ?
So you really think anyone beleives this nonsense ?
We have a president actually raking in Millions from the CCP, and your fixated on political garbage in New York ?
What’s the difference between raking in millions from the CCP and raking in billions from Saudi Arabian princes? Neither is illegal. The president wasn’t raking in millions from the Chinese. you have no proof of that claim. Hunter Biden was perfectly allowed to make millions from the Chinese if he had the ability to. Just as Jared Kushner had the ability to rake in millions or even billions from Saudi Arabia.
“Kellyanne Conway, former senior counselor to former President Donald Trump said Trump’s son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner raked in billions of dollars while serving in the administration.
Conway sparred with fellow Fox News contributor Juan Williams on Thursday’s edition of The Story.
Earlier in the day, the House Oversight Committee released a memo stating that relatives of President Joe Biden received $1.3 million between 2015 and 2017 from an associate with ties to China when Biden was vice president and shortly after. Biden’s son, daughter-in-law, brother, and an unidentified member of the family received payments.
…Williams then invoked Kushner, the scion of a real estate tycoon who served as a Trump White House adviser, along with his wife and president’s daughter Ivanka Trump.
“Why don’t you look into things like Jared Kushner getting $2 billion directly from the Saudis after former President Trump bragged about protecting the Saudi prince?” Williams asked, referring to Trump going easy on Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman after U.S. intelligence implicated him in the murder of a Washington Post columnist. ”
“Kellyanne, is that a fair question about Jared Kushner?” asked MacCallum.
Incredibly, Conway conceded that Kushner profited off Trump’s presidency to the tune of billions.
“Well, Jared, of course, is the only person I think who has benefitted in the billions – with a ‘B’ – from the Trump presidency. That’s for sure,” she replied. “But look, I think whataboutism isn’t gonna work here.”
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/kellyanne-conway-says-jared-kushner-reaped-billions-while-working-in-trump-white-house-with-her-thats-for-sure/
In essence, let’s ignore what happened during the Trump administration because it was only in the BILLIONS, Hunter Biden is a more serious problem.
“What’s the difference between raking in millions from the CCP and raking in billions from Saudi Arabian princes?”
There are TWO massive Trivially explainable differences.
Kushner did NOT receive Billions for Saudi’s.
He received NOTHING.
Billions were placed in his care and he was then PAID a small fee for profitably investing them.
Kushner was paid for trading value for value as a private citizen. Except morons like you EVERYONE Knows what Kushner was paid for.
He was paid to profitably invest Saudi Money in real estate. If he failed to do so – he would not be paid.
No one Knows What the Biden clan was paid for. But we actually know – From the payments, from the emails on the laptop and from court documents that the payments were for services provided while Joe Biden was Still vice president.
We Know WHAT the Bidens were paid.
But NOT what they provided in return.
In fact there is not a legal exchange of value for value anywhere to be seen.
Hunter did not sell Golf Games, or dinner, or lodging, or profitable private investment.
“There are TWO massive Trivially explainable differences.
Kushner did NOT receive Billions for Saudi’s.
He received NOTHING.
BS.
“Jared Kushner’s new private equity firm got $2 billion from Saudi Arabia because maybe that’s how you can cash in when your experience is slender but your father-in-law may wind up back in the White House. It’s also possible that you can get billions for a firm with no track record because the White House did favors for the Saudis when your father-in-law still occupied the Oval Office.”
…”During his White House years, Kushner personally cultivated close ties with Prince Mohammed, offering him advice on how to handle fallout from Khashoggi’s murder. The two men communicated with each other outside of formal government channels, using the text messaging platform WhatsApp to stay in touch. The relationship set off alarms among career national security staff members, but it apparently never cooled. A panel that vets how the Saudi sovereign wealth fund invests its money raised concerns about backing Kushner’s new venture, Affinity Partners, according to the New York Times. It was overruled by the fund’s board — which Prince Mohammed sits on.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-04-11/how-did-jared-kushner-get-2-billion-from-the-saudis?leadSource=uverify%20wall
Oops. Jared Kushner DID receive billions from the Saudi’s $2 billion. Billions were placed in his care, in his private equity firm which has little investment experience. Seems sketchy. Do you know who else has sketchy deals? Hunter Biden also has had money sent to his companies. Of course, we both know they are both legal and perfectly normal. Both are the same kind of transactions involving foreign governments and companies.
“No one Knows What the Biden clan was paid for. But we actually know – From the payments, from the emails on the laptop, and from court documents that the payments were for services provided while Joe Biden was Still vice president.”
What services are those John? Nobody has been able to articulate exactly what they mean by these services or what they have done. What seems to be driving you crazy is not knowing what they were paid for, because…what? It’s illegal? No proof. Suspicious? That’s not illegal. You don’t have a right to know what Hunter Biden was paid for. He is a private individual and you know full well that’s an infringement on their 4th Amendment rights.
Jared Kushner was being paid “in kind” for his advice for helping the Saudis deal with the murder of Kashoggi and making favorable recommendations to his father-in-law. It sounds just like Hunter Biden’s suspicious work. The only difference is that Kushner got billions for his services and Hunter got mere millions.
As you note – Kushners firm received 3B to invest.
If I drop my car off at a garage to be serviced – does it become the garages car ?
Did they “give it to me” ?
The 3B is NOT Kushner’s money.
On demand he MUST return it to the Saudi’s.
He can do as he pleases with it.
He has a contractual and fiduciary duty to use his skills as a real estate investor to invest the SAUDI’s money for them.
If he does that well – he gets paid for doing so.
Is the money in your 401K yours – or did you give it to your financial advisor ?
Is the money you deposit in the bank yours or is it your banks ?
Stop making Stupid arguments.
The entirety of the Kushner deal was PUBLIC and above board.
You KNOW about it because the deal was PUBLICLY announced.
People do not PUBLICLY announce bribes.
Biden laundered money Through his compaines to himself.
There is a reason the Biden “deal” is not public, why the Biden’s have hidden it.
The Biden’s are not investing millions for Ho and getting a share of the profits.
Ho bought Biden’s influence as VP.
He bought what was never Joe Biden’s to sell.
The Biden’s hid this because it is corrupt, illegal and immoral.
Laundering it through shell companies changes nothing.
The money the Saudi’s put in Kuschner’s care is invested in realestate Owned by the Saudi’s.
The Money Ho paid to the Biden’s is in their pockets.
I have no doubt Kuschner cultivated relationships as a senior WH advisor.
I would note that many of those relaitonships predate Kushners government service.
It is not illegal to further grow friendship while working for government – without pay I might add.
In fact it is to be encouraged.
Kushner’s ability to negotiate the Abraham accords STARTED with his PRIOR relations with many of these mideast leaders.
And it was enhanced because he grew those relationships.
We have the first consequential and the largest ever mideast peace deal because the leaders of these countries Trusted Kushner.
I also have no doubt that The saudi’s chose Kushner to invest their money because of the relationship they had formed – one that started BEFORE Kushner was in govenrment and grew while he was in government.
Regardless, No one – not Ho, Not the Saudi’s think that Kushner is the same as Hunter.
Kushner is an honest business person that is trusted with Billions of other peoples money.
Hunter is a scofflaw, and reckless drug addict – who according to documents from many who dealt with him was the biggest flaw/liability in their deals. Hunter was the reckless drug addict that unfortunately functioned as the gateway to gaining VP Biden’s influence.
If I pay you for a hamburger, that is not the same as if I pay you to murder an enemy.
They are OBVIOUSLY not the same.
Free exchange is an exchange of value for value.
We Know What those dealing with the Trumps get.
Dinner, hotel rooms, condo’s. profitable investments.
What is it that people are getting by paying the Biden’s millions ?
“What services are those John? Nobody has been able to articulate exactly what they mean by these services or what they have done. ”
That is correct – what is it that the Biden’s did for Millions of dollars ?
As you say “no one knows.”
When I buy a hamburger – there is no secret what I got for my money.
There is no secret what the Saudi’s are getting from Kushner – profitable real estate investment.
For all we know Hunter has been selling classified Docs to the Chinese.
All private dealings are not broadcast to the public.
At the same time there is rarely the slightest doubt.
Real Estate moguls sell real estate.
Fast food resturants sell fast food.
I can assure you that the government will be able to get a search warrant for your financial records, if you receive gobs of money from someone with no evidence.
I would suggest you might wish to read Atlas Shrugged. Rand does an excellent job of dividing up various groups of people who are paid by others.
The catagory that Hunter Biden falls into is “Moochers” – those who sell government influence.
“You don’t have a right to know what Hunter Biden was paid for.”
Correct. But I have an absolute right to know that VP Joe Biden was not selling out his country.
You keep pretending this is about Hunter Biden. it is not.
He is just the coke addicted face of Biden syndicate corruption.
I wish the 4th amendment extended as far as you claim. But it does not.
The Biden cash was traced by SAR’s that the federal government requires
From the Chinese through shell companies and to the Biden family members themselves.
Where is STOPS.
it does not go to buy condo’s or burgers, or get invested in real estate or stocks.
It is being invested – in the Biden family and it is being paid for the value that the Biden family can deliver.
And the only aparent value that is is VP Joe Biden.
There is not a Biden with skills worth millions.
Even if there was – there is not a Biden being paid for those skills.
No Biden is building bridges in China.
“Jared Kushner was being paid “in kind” for his advice for helping the Saudis deal with the murder of Kashoggi”
While not True – if it was it would be legal. Are the Saudi’s not free to pay for PR firms ?
Regardless, that is Obviously not true – because Kushner is NOT doing press releases to fix the Suadi’s image,
or hiring others to do those press releases.
Kushner is openly and publicly investing Billions of Saudi money in real estate for them.
He will profit from those investments – if he preforms well.
It is likely that he would not have gotten those investments but for his prior relations,
and but for earning the trust of the Saudis and others in mideastern governments.
The american Way is to get better future oportunites because you have done well with past smaller ones.
Fortune 500 CEOs are chosen from people who have been incredibly successful in lessor businesses.
That is not corruption.
What has anyone in the Biden family been successful at ?
“The president wasn’t raking in millions from the Chinese.”
Joe Biden is worth 100M. He did not make that from a Senators salary.
10% for the Big guy was part of this deal.
For 2 years we were told this deal did not actually happen.
Only the FACT is that it DID. The receipts are now available.
“Hunter Biden was perfectly allowed to make millions from the Chinese if he had the ability to.”
He was – what was that ability – smoking Crack ? What is it that makes Hunter Worth Millions ?
“Just as Jared Kushner had the ability to rake in millions or even billions from Saudi Arabia.”
Kushner has made Billions on his own. The Saudi’s placed Billions under his management – they did not pay him Billions – the Billions are not now and never will be Jared Kushners.
If he invested wisely and made substantial profits for the Saudi’s he would get a share of the profits.
The Trump’s are well paid. And we all know EXACTLY what they have been paid for.
And it is NOT selling out the country.
Hunter Biden can not say the same.
Nor can you with a straight face.
“Joe Biden is worth 100M. He did not make that from a Senators salary.
10% for the Big guy was part of this deal.
For 2 years we were told this deal did not actually happen.
Only the FACT is that it DID. The receipts are now available.”
LOL! You’re hilarious. You can’t even keep your deals straight. No wonder you are so agitated about Joe Biden making money that he shouldn’t be making it despite the fact that it’s not illegal to make money.
So what if president Biden’s net worth increased? Plenty of congressmen and senators increase their net worth by millions when they are in office. Often by easy loopholes and insider trading.
““Hunter Biden was perfectly allowed to make millions from the Chinese if he had the ability to.”
He was – what was that ability – smoking Crack ? What is it that makes Hunter Worth Millions ?
“Just as Jared Kushner had the ability to rake in millions or even billions from Saudi Arabia.”
Kushner has made Billions on his own.”
Hunter Biden made his money the same way Jared Kushner did. By benefiting from his father’s name. Both are inexperienced and nothing says they have to have any to make those amounts. It’s not illegal to not know anything and make millions or billions. Sounds like you’re jealous. The Saudis gave Jared’s private equity firm which had little experience in investing $2 Billion. That doesn’t sound like a wise investment, more like a “thank you” investment. Which is perfectly legal just like the Hunter Biden case.
“The Trump’s are well paid. And we all know EXACTLY what they have been paid for.
And it is NOT selling out the country.
Hunter Biden can not say the same. ”
Why shouldn’t Hunter Biden not be allowed to be well-paid? We don’t have to know why he was paid. He’s a private citizen. There’s no legal requirement for him to say what was he paid for. All you have is pure speculation fueled by animosity toward the Biden family because you want them to be criminals. While ignoring the real criminals that you defend on a daily basis.
It is not illegal to make money investing in real estate.
There are many many ways it is not illegal to make money.
It is illegal to make money killing people.
It is illegal to make money selling drugs.
It is illegal to make money robbing banks.
It is illegal to make money selling government influence.
Insider trading is illegal.
Regardless I can assure you that if you hold a job as a McD’s burger flipper,
and you are putting 100,000 into the bank each month – law enforcement is going to investigate how you make your money.
Svelaz defending Hunter Biden’s graft and Joe Biden’s lies is sickening.
Jared Kushner was a successful businessman before his father-in-law was President. Hunter Biden has always been a cocaine adled loser, kicked out of the navy (after his father got him in) one month in, after TWICE failing a drug test.
Hunter is an absolutely horrible face for Democrats – and really makes everything that those on the left say look egregiously hypocritical.
While Svelaz outright lies constantly – Kushner was not paid billions for anything. He was given the responsibility to direct the investment of Billions – for which he will be paid well – Millions IF he is successful.
So Svelaz is LYING about the amount – he has been corrected repeated. The Claim Kushner received billions as just the same as saying Biden is peing paid Trillions – because he administers the Federal Budget. It is not Biden’s money. It is not Kushner’s money.
Given a choice I would far prefer Kushner managing Trillions to Biden.
Regardless, we know what Kushner is getting paid for – the same thing as most of the rest of us.
All free exchange is value for value.
We know the value Kushner is delivering – the profitable investment of Suadi Billions.
We do not know what Hunter is being paid for.
But in the end this is NOT about Hunter or Jared. If it was Hunter would have been jailed so long ago – he would be out already.
The fundamental question is Was the Vice president of the United States bought and paid for ?
We do not have the answer to that question – though we have lots of troubling evidence.
We may may not get a satisfactory answer to that question – but we must look for one.
Svelaz may ultimately prove correct – no crime was committed.
That is the standard for prosecution.
It is NOT the standard for investigation. impeachment or election.
What aboutism is not going to work – as Conway pointed out.
Because these are not equivalent.
Or even close.
Trading value for value is legal – Except where that Value is the public trust.
Did Hunter Biden invest millions for China into real estate ?
Kushner made Billions in US Real Estate – if I had Billions to invest in Realestate Kushner is who I would hire to do so.
Kusher was not paid Billions by the Saudi’s. He was given Billions to invest – the same way Banks invest depositors money.
I think Silicon Valley Bank wishes that Jared Kushner had been investing their money right now.
That alone should explain the difference.
What is the Value that China got from Hunter ?
And Why was this deal hidden and passed through myriads of Shell corporations.
Further this deal and the money started in 2015 – While Joe was Vice President.
Oops.
Kushner’s deal with the Saudi’s was announced at a press conference.
Kushner and the Saudi’s are proud to be working together
They are not hidding what they are doing from everyone.
They are not triggering hundreds of Suspicious activity reports.
“What aboutism is not going to work – as Conway pointed out.
Because these are not equivalent.
Or even close. ”
You’re just saying that because you don’t want to admit that they are indeed the same. You sure make a lot of excuses that also apply to Hunter Biden.
“Did Hunter Biden invest millions for China into real estate ?”
Was he required to? Why would that be illegal or criminal?
“What is the Value that China got from Hunter ?”
The same value that Saudi Arabia got from Jared. Favorable recommendations. Nothing illegal about that. It’s protected free speech activity.
“Further this deal and the money started in 2015 – While Joe was Vice President.
Oops.”
So? Why would that prevent Hunter Biden from making deals? As a private citizen, he has every right to. You seem upset or agitated at the fact that you cannot prove anything more than just saying Hunter Biden made money and shared some of it with family. Nothing illegal in that. You just want it to be criminal because you are upset that Trump is being treated unfairly. After all, he’s doing the same things. You want to be petty and vindictive.
Svelaz – In response to John Say, you state: “ ‘What is the Value that China got from Hunter ?’ The same value that Saudi Arabia got from Jared. Favorable recommendations. Nothing illegal about that. It’s protected free speech activity.” Joe Biden is not very bright but he knows that the last person in the world whose recommendations he would accept would be those of Hunter Biden – except perhaps as to crack cocaine. I am going to guess you cannot name a single recommendation of Hunter that was ever accepted by Joe or anyone else. What China got from funneling payments through Hunter was access to Joe, and favorable decisions from Joe, who was the ultimate beneficiary of the payments.
edwardmahl,
Interestingly, you can’t differentiate between rhetorical and figurative statements.
“What China got from funneling payments through Hunter was access to Joe, and favorable decisions from Joe, who was the ultimate beneficiary of the payments.”
What favorable decisions would that be? Can you name any? What proof do you have that Joe Biden got paid for it? That seems to be the problem with all those Joe Biden-nattering nabobs of negativity. They just can’t seem to provide any proof for anything regarding their claims.
Svelaz – yes, I can. He shut down the ongoing investigation into the origins of COVID when he took office.
What did the chinese get ?
That is what the investigations you are panning are all about.
Your arguments are bizzare and self contradictory.
When Trump is involved – you claim his actions are illegal because he is paying for, or being paid for something that is illegal – despite the fact that all evidence is that he is paying for or being paid for things that are perfectly legal.
Trump seells hotel rooms – but you expect us all to beleive that in reality without evidence he is being paid for influence.
Convesrsely The Biden’s are being paid millions for we know not what. But according to you we are barred from even speculating that the might be paid for something illegal. According to you we are not allowed to investigate.
You see as suspicious and requiring deep investigation acts that are overtly legal.
Yet have no curiosity at all regarding acts that are not even overt.
We are expected to count golf balls at MAL to make sure Trump has not overcharged the SS,
yet the Biden’s can receive millions from people already jailed for crimes, and no one is allowed to ask questions.
You want to name a favorable decisions – Joe Biden realeased oil to be sold from the SPR – allegedly to lower US gasoline prices.
The SPR can only be used to benefit the US by law.
Yet, Hunter Biden was empowered to broker selling SPR oil to China.
Hunter is making money Twice on the same influence peddling
Both going in and coming out.
Trump briefly offered MAL as a place to Host the G20 – at lower prices than other bidders.
Until he was told that would be a conflict and backed off.
When you and your family are being paid millions by China.
Selling SPR oil to China is a conflict.
Borkering it through Hunter is a conflict.
The State Department while Biden was VP wrote the VP’s office repeatedly telling them that Joe Biden could not have a role in affairs in Ukraine or Eastern Europe or China if Hunter Biden was doing business in those places – that it was a conflict of interests, and that it violated government ethical laws.
That either Hunter had to cease his dealings where Joe was acting as VP, or Joe had to reliquish his role in those domains.
Kushner did NOT invest Saudi money while he was a WH advisor negotiating in the mideast.
No Svelaz – apples are not oranges no matter how many times you try to say they are.
This is YOUR standard form of argument.
“Making money is legal, therefore murder for hire is legal”
“Living is legal, therefore Hunter is legal”
Logic is not your forte
Here’s a case that seems to have it all in the current environment: https://heavy.com/news/2019/03/james-shirvell/
Stanford admissions administrator, former Yale track captain, stabs girlfriend multiple times while on LSD at their home in San Francisco, charged with attempted murder, no case resolution reported, now “Mystic man”, free as a bird.
If someone disrupts a lawfull assembly then arrest them for Disturbing a Public Meeting.
https://law.justia.com/codes/california/2022/code-pen/part-1/title-11/section-403/
Someone disrupts the meeting by shouting and stopping the course of the meeting tell them to leave. If they don’t and continue to disrupt then there is PC for arrest. It’s that simple. If the campus police actually enforced this law these disruptions would stop eventually.
In theory, Stanford PD could arrest a disruptor, but the Santa Clara County D.A. would just let them go.
Here’s another classic case — Women’s March organizer and San Jose City Council candidate Jenny Higgins kills a pedestrian while on Xanax, on her way to a doctor’s appointment to re-up her Xanax prescription. The old white male was unloading Christmas lights from the trunk of his legally-parked car when she smashed into him from behind at 35 mph. She never spent a day in jail and received 19% of the vote in a three-way contest.
Here she is before the fatality as a typical space cadet:
https://www.sanjoseinside.com/the-fly/san-jose-council-candidates-stolen-car-allegedly-used-in-gang-related-drive-by/
“I feel terrible that someone may have been harmed,” she adds, “but I’m motivated to make sure this doesn’t happen again.”
And here she is today, a celebrated non-profit CEO:
https://sanjosespotlight.com/a-very-dark-place-silicon-valley-leader-opens-up-about-fatal-crash/
“There are no words in the English language to explain the tragedy and the pain of knowing that your actions caused so much pain to a family. Sorry isn’t even a word that comes close.”
Those words would be so much easier to take if she’d just been released from three years in prison for DUI manslaughter.
The heckling at Stanford did not violate their policies. Many protesters did leave when the dean spoke, but the dean wasn’t going to stop those who chose to stay. She had a point about free speech. It’s messy. Shutting down the protesters would be infringing on THEIR free speech rights. Free speech isn’t about letting someone speak and having everyone else shut up. It also means having to deal with the possibility of hecklers, shouting, and ridicule, even disruption. Is it rude, obnoxious, or childish? Of course, it is! But that is not anti-free speech. It’s the whole point of free speech. It’s messy and often raucous and if it ends up with someone not being able to speak they can always go somewhere else where they WANT to be heard.
The whole point of booking these controversial speakers at these schools is to provoke these kinds of reactions and then use that to claim these schools are against free speech. It’s a BS tactic only meant to be used as a means to push the narrative that the left is anti-free speech.
When was the last time a very controversial liberal or leftist speaker was invited to speak at a conservative school? Does anyone have any examples?
When a distinguished professional is invited to attend a college campus or any other event, they should be treated with respect. It doesn’t matter what side they are on. When there is a question and answer period, there should also be respectful but fact based debate, much like a court of law should be conducted. He is a sitting judge not a media personality who makes their living by creating controversy.
One of the best lectures I have ever heard was when former President Clinton came to a very conservative university to speak in the heart of one of the most conservative places on earth. He received an icy cool reception but a respectful audience and by the end of the lecture, he received a standing ovation. I did not vote for him and I disagreed with some of his policies but I think he was one of the most intelligent and gifted Presidents we have ever had.
Great victories of policy have often been solved by peaceful protests on the part of protesters such as those conducted by Dr. King. The same was true with Mahatma Gandhi and his followers. The protestors may have suffered but by their steadfast peaceful methods and means prevailed. One of my friends and I have completely opposite points of view but they do not mind if the disagreement exists unless that person has formed their opinion (s) in a.vacuum or is simply following what someone else tells them to say or think. That is why respectful debate and clear and transparent information made available to every person. They should and must have the facts. But why the shutdown of information from the government, schools, media, publishing companies, search engines, etc. What are they afraid of?
To me, this is the essence of what Professor Turley is trying to convey–allow freedom of information, freedom of speech and freedom of mind. Tyrants and acolytes of totalitarianism despise freedom of speech and transparency. How else can they employ cult tactics to indoctrinate their followers? I make no distinction between political parties. This goes far beyond patrician politics. Some of these so called “protestors” are activists who are not there to hear another point of view or another idea.
“The heckling at Stanford did not violate their policies.”
In svelaz world it is not necescary for a claim to have any relation to the truth.
Heckling violates Stanfords code of conduct, its free speech code and California Law.
“Many protesters did leave when the dean spoke”
They should have left or been quite BEFORE the dean arrived.
But those who left should receive less severe punishment.
“but the dean wasn’t going to stop those who chose to stay.”
One of the reasons she should be fired.
“She had a point about free speech.”
Nope.
“It’s messy.”
It is – but this is not an example of legitimate messiness.
Messy means that you are NOT free to silence speech you do not like.
“Shutting down the protesters would be infringing on THEIR free speech rights.”
Nope.
Thi sis a long settled issue of first amendment law.
And a stupid argument that only left wing nuts would try to make.
“Free speech isn’t about letting someone speak and having everyone else shut up.”
It is about many things – what happened at stanford is not one of those.
“It also means having to deal with the possibility of hecklers, shouting, and ridicule, even disruption”
Nope. Hecklers and disruptions are routinely removed from events like this – charge and jailed.
“Is it rude, obnoxious, or childish? Of course, it is! But that is not anti-free speech.”
Silencing others, prohibiting speakers from speaking is anti-speech.
It also violates the first amendment.
You are constantly making this argument – that one persons freedom to do something is not infringed by another persons use of force to prevent them from excercising their rights. That claim is false.
“It’s the whole point of free speech.”
Nope.
A major aspect of the right to free speech – and included in that right is the right of those who wish to HEAR what a speaker has to say.
You are free to protest a speaker – so long as your protest does not silence that speaker. So long as those who MIGHT wish to hear do not lose their right or oportunity to do so.
You have the right to NOT hear – and you can leave to acheive that.
But you do not have the right to infringe on anothers right to hear.
“It’s messy and often raucous and if it ends up with someone not being able to speak they can always go somewhere else where they WANT to be heard.”
Judge Duncan DID go where he wanted to be heard. He went to an event sponsored by the Federalists society at Stanford were he was the invited speaker.
This was THEIR Even, They reserved the space.
Technically protestors had NO right to be there at all.
They were asked to leave they could be charged with defiant tresspass.
“The whole point of booking these controversial speakers at these schools is to provoke these kinds of reactions and then use that to claim these schools are against free speech.”
Not true and also irrelevant.
This is a long decided issue. You can not prevent someone from speaking because they have chosen your venue deliberately to offend you.
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/rights-protesters/skokie-case-how-i-came-represent-free-speech-rights-nazis
“It’s a BS tactic only meant to be used as a means to push the narrative that the left is anti-free speech.”
While your claim is false, that is irrelevant.
If it was a tactic – it succeeded admirably.
The narrative was not “pushed” it was PROVEN.
“When was the last time a very controversial liberal or leftist speaker was invited to speak at a conservative school? Does anyone have any examples?”
It is very hard to find reporting on campus events that have NOT had violent protests. People do not report “nothing happened”.
But we have other examples.
As is noted here CONSTALNTLY – Turley and actual liberal is a frequent guest on Fox. And he does not always say what Fox wishes.
Congressional republicans have asked Turley to testify many times.
Several Fox shows have frequent guests as well as hosts that are on the left.
Russell Brand has been on Gutfield and on Carlson.
Thank you, Darren. I agree. I would normally go for suspension or expulsion, but since Stanford has refused to take action, the only option left is to make it a police matter. That is up to the Federalist Society and Judge Duncan, but I would seriously consider pressing charges.
Stanford has a leadership problem. It would be kinder and gentler for the students to be firm with them, but the police can and probably will be called someday. The stunt will be repeated.
Diogenes
The same principle applies to other areas as well. One town in the county was having a problem with youth racing and having very loud open pipe exhaust systems which resulted in noise complaints and disruptions late at night. So we suggested they start pulling over every vehicle that had defective or illegally modified mufflers or straight pipes and at first give warnings but with the promise that in three weeks tickets would be issued. Night shift did emphasis patrols for exhaust violations and pulled all of them over. By the time the three week mark arrived only a handful of tickets were actually issued as word travelled about the change in enforcement. In the end the compliance was so complete the muffler shops reported being booked full and the two parts stores were running low on stock of quieter mufflers. The traffic noise level had dropped markedly…So much so that people were talking about it in daily conversation. The amount of racing also went down greatly, I suspected because to a limited degree the loud pipes were used to invite or challenge others to race but moreso it was the halo effect the noise enforcement generated.
Another example was an arrest warrant campaign. We started seeing a trend that had grown over the years were people, especially in the South part of the county would regularly fail to appear in court or skip paying their fines/showing up for sentencing. There were about a hundred oustanding arrest warrants for that area. So when there were no calls pending we started showing up at the homes of those having arrest warrants and taking them to jail. Over about a month or two we went through all the ones that we could serve and then kept a daily watch on what came out of the courts that week. As soon as an arrest warrant appeared in the computer system we contacted them and put them in jail. If they were not home, we printed up a Wanted Poster of sorts that the CAD system generated and taped it to their front door with an invitation for them to contact the court immediately to save themselves the inconvenience of being picked up. Believe it or not the wanted poster was 95% successful in motivating them to get their legal problems straightened out with the courts. Once again, word got out that if you FTA or skip out on a court hearing the county was going to show up and away you would go. The new warrants dropped to only a few per week.
Another problem was too many unlicensed drivers on the roads. So we towed every car driven by an unlicensed driver. Soon, most everyone got their licenses in order.
As I said before, it is the same problem and solution. Accutely bad behavior that needs to be adjusted with certainty and definate follow through. I’m not saying everyone in the county needs to be pinched for every chippy violation out there. But you can’t allow people to constantly get away with bad behavior that effects everyone.
Darren, your experience demonstrates that broken-windows theory is correct. These bright but badly-misled college scofflaws would learn even faster.
Darren,
Well said!
Too late kiddos. Next time think before you act
NEW ADVENTURES OF THE UNITED STATES OF TIN-HORN BARACK OBAMA’S THIRD WORLD BANANA REPUBLIC AND LONELY HEARTS CLUB
OH, SUZY Q! OH, SUZY Q! OH, SUZY Q, BABY I LOVE YOU, SUZY Q!
Alvin L. Bragg, Manhattan DA (i.e. d— a—), recently signaled to Donald J. Trump’s lawyers that he could face criminal charges, seventeen years post facto, for his role in a private Non-Disclosure Agreement payment to Stephanie Gregory Clifford as His Highness, Alvin “The Delusional” Bragg and Dear Leader, creates a brand new, hybrid non-crime after the statute of limitations has run.
Mike Nifong, an expert in malicious prosecution, appears to have relocated to Manhattan.
_______________________________________________________________________
Michael Byron Nifong (born September 14, 1950) is an American former attorney and convicted criminal.[2] He served as the district attorney for Durham County, North Carolina until he was removed, disbarred, and jailed following court findings concerning his conduct in the Duke lacrosse case, primarily his conspiring with the DNA lab director to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence that could have acquitted the defendants.[3]
– Wiki
_____
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin
___________
You couldn’t.
Imagine, the Israelite slaves were out of Egypt before the ink was dry on their release papers, but then they had the self esteem, capacity, acumen and gumption sufficient to the task.
Actually, shouting a speaker down constitutes a mob.
Jonathan: Speaking of the Trumpster, yesterday I posted a comment about Jair Bolsonaro, the former Brazilian president, who is facing a demand by a court in Brazil that he return gifts he received during his presidency. The NY Times is now reporting (3/17/23) that Trump is facing a similar claim from the Dems on the House Oversight Committee. They say Trump failed to follow the law in how he handled official gifts. No big surprise. The government (NARA) can’t account for the following gifts to Trump: a $3,000 driver and a $450 putter given to him by Shinzo Abe, a box decorated with silver patterns given to Jared Kushner–among more than 100 gifts missing valued at more than $250,000. Not exactly chump change.
So what do Bolsonaro and the Trumpster have in common? They are both KLEPTOCRATS–people who use their power to steal their country’s property! Again, no big surprise.
For the first two years of the Biden Administration, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee did nothing but cash their paychecks — and now we hear from them? By the way, the IRS can’t account for millions of paper-filed tax returns from 2020-2022 so why would we expect NARA to not be able to account for some gifts to a former President.
Trump is obligated to pay for or return Presidential gifts, as is every president.
Is Biden returning the Millions given to him and his family when he was President ?
And Who in the world trusts NARA over anything ?
“Is Biden returning the Millions given to him and his family when he was President ?”
Hunter Biden is not the president.
“And Who in the world trusts NARA over anything?”
The world trusts NARA more. It’s Trump who can’t be trusted since he has been lying about classified documents, voter fraud, and his net worth and his lawyers are being sanctioned for lying in court about it. The question should be, who in the world should trust Trump over anything?
“Hunter Biden is not the president.”
Joe was. Do you honestly thing ANYONE gave millions to a crackhead for his expertise.
We even have some communications where the people Giving Hunter Money make it clear – they
are very concerned that giving money to a dope fiend is likely to NOT get them what they want or end well.
“The world trusts NARA more.”
ROFL
” It’s Trump who can’t be trusted since he has been lying about classified documents,”
You have proof of that – I have not seen any yet.
I know of Documents that are Claimed to be classified.
But not proven.
Biden has however lied about classified documents as has Pence.
Trump might have – but we do not know.
“voter fraud,”
Again do you have proof of that ?
I have not seen proof.
Where outside of Maricopa county – where they did find likely fraud, and Antrim and windham counties where they found significant error, has anyone done a complete hand count ?
Who has investigated Trump claims – actually investigated ?
“and his net worth”
What is your net worth ?
Do you know ?
“his lawyers are being sanctioned for lying in court about it.”
More weaponization of government.
The Biden’s have lied all over the place.
DOJ has been caught repatedly lying in J6 and other cases – no sanctions.
Why are we to trust sources that are clearly biased ?
And clearly willing to apply the law disparately ?
You are constantly ranting about the DVS lawsuit.
You think hillariously that is a winner – yet Trump’s defamation suit against clinton and others was dismissed – despite Far more actual evidence.
“The question should be, who in the world should trust Trump over anything?”
75M voters.
Today – 5% more than Trust Biden.
$250,000 isn’t that about how much Chinese spies gave to Beau Biden’s Wife ?
Lulu is not somebody you should really want to be proposing as a saint.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-56326389
Here is Lulu as president attacking Brasil’s central Bank for fighting inflation.
https://www.ft.com/content/011951a9-9db2-4834-87d9-f97df82b38c5
Just to be clear there are TWO issues.
First is the Independence of Brasil’s central bank.
The second is how bad Lulu is on economic policy.
But then Joe Biden is our President.
We are in the midst of Bank Failures – that Biden is bailing out.
Where is that bailout money coming from ?
Aside from all the other problems such as moral hazard with those bailouts.
Biden is speeding up the moment at which the debt ceiling is hit,
As well as further fueling US inflation. That is what happens when you create money out of thin air.
After some initial success efforts to bring down inflation have stalled,
The Fed was expected to announce another rate hike – possibly larger than previous hikes.
Now there is speculation they will not – because of weakness in banks.
Lets be clear – higher interest rates will slow the economy. That is precisely what the Fed is trying to do.
That is how you bring down inflation. Once the inflation rate is down – natural growth will arisse on its own.
But rising interest rates are a hardship – on people, on businesses.
Weak businesses WILL FAIL. We may not like that, but it is actually the goal
Bail them out and you are fighting against yourself.
You make the country weaker, you leave inflation stronger, AND you have high interest rates.
Bail outs cost money.
That money must come from taxes – eventually no matter what.
But in the short term it can come from borrowing
or printing money
Both are inflationary.
So Lulu is down in Brasil screwing Brazilians,
And Biden is in the US screwing us.
And your fixated on Trump and Bolsinaro ?
The more stories like this I read, the more I am convinced of the accuracy of the scientific theory that most brains don’t begin to mature until at least age 25.
(oh oh.
Please comfort me and tell me that the apex is not reached until maybe 60 or so? If it is a reverse-digit at 52, I am in deep kimchi.)
I got baaad news. Once a man, twice a child. That’s true even of some presidents 😉
(oh oh.
again.
yesterday I bought some chocolate milk. For me.)
“This trend is supported by anti-free speech websites like Above the Law where Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” and argued that hiring a conservative professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach. He also mocked surveys showing that conservative students are fearful of speaking freely in class, dismissing these students as “just… conservatives being sad that everyone else makes fun of them.”
Joe Patrice was not wrong. It’s Turley who is deliberately mischaracterizing the whole event. He leaves out key details and tells half truths that create this false narrative about free speech being under attack. For example when he talks about Joe Patrice mocking conservative students because they went to their professors complaining about being made fun of. Turley left out an important detail that showed why Joe Patrice was mocking those conservative students and why he was right. They were also law students. Conservative students studying to become lawyers running to their professors because everyone was making fun of them. If you are training to become a lawyer you will be expected to be able stand before a judge and argue a case no matter how ridiculous your argument may be. It will be your job. Are these conservative law students going to be complaining to judges or law firms that they are being forced to self censor because they are being mocked for their stupid ideas or arguments? These are lawyers choosing to self censor because they are afraid of their ideas being ridiculed. That’s what Joe Patrice was pointing out and Turley deliberately left out that important detail. Mocking conservative law students because they expressed stupid ideas, which by the way is exercising free speech, is not attacking free speech.
They got to express their ideas freely. Nobody stopped or prevented them from expressing those ideas. What ‘forced’ them to self censor is fear of being made fun of because their conservative ideas were simply deemed stupid by others. What Turley is calling an attack on free speech is the mockery and ridicule of someone else’s ideas. That’s not an attack on free speech. That’s a consequence of exercising free speech. If Turley or these conservative law students are having trouble recognizing that particular distinction they shouldn’t be allowed to hold the title of law professor or be called lawyers.
However I don’t think that’s really the case. Turley and conservative law students are purposely crying victimhood and claiming free speech is under attack because their real complaint is not an inability to exercise free speech it’s a complaint about their ideas being mocked, ridiculed, dismissed, and unaccepted by others. They are complaining that others don’t accept their ideas. Those are not attacks on free speech. They got to express their ideas freely like everyone else. They are complaining about the unsavory consequences of exercising free speech. They want free speech free from consequences and responsibility.
Svelaz the non-lawyer tells us how to become good lawyers.
“Conservative students studying to become lawyers running to their professors because everyone was making fun of them. If you are training to become a lawyer you will be expected to be able stand before a judge and argue a case no matter how ridiculous your argument may be.” Ditto liberal students who worry about their names being published. Cry me a river.
stock73, is exactly right, the liberal students deserve that criticism just as anyone else should for being hypocritical.
No one is complaining because you are making fun of them.
They are complaining because you will actually silence them. With Force if necescary.
Because if they speak Left wing nuts will make false accusations and then attempt – sometimes successfully to drive them out of college.
As we see constantly left wing nuts are Cry Bullies.
Most conservative speakers when they are actually allowed to speak on Campus, allocate time for questions.
Further they ask those in the audience to allow questions from the LEFT first.
And respectfully answer those questions.
Once again Svelaz – you do not live in the real world.
“Others don’t accept their ideas”
If by others, you mean a bunch of Neimann Marxists, you’d be correct. If you mean anyone sane and rational who doesn’t have a hardon for central authoritarianism, you’d be way way off the mark.
The reason the left has to shout down these “ideas” isn’t because people don’t accept them, it because they do.
The reason the left has to pretend these ideas are unpopular is because the idiots in their ranks are very impressed by what is popular and want others to be too.
The one thing the left cannot do is allow other ideas to be freely discussed and debated, because then their ideas would be mocked and laughed out of any arena.
They always project.
Neil Bobacon,
“The reason the left has to shout down these “ideas” isn’t because people don’t accept them, it because they do.
The reason the left has to pretend these ideas are unpopular is because the idiots in their ranks are very impressed by what is popular and want others to be too.
The one thing the left cannot do is allow other ideas to be freely discussed and debated, because then their ideas would be mocked and laughed out of any arena.
They always project.”
They shout down those ideas because free speech allows them to. It’s what free speech is. They can express their disagreement by shouting down someone else. It’s certainly rude and obnoxious, but free speech nevertheless.
It’s the right who cannot handle being ridiculed, criticized, or called out for expressing stupid ideas. They are exercising their free speech when they express those stupid ideas or views and they are not immune from the consequences which they believe should be immune. The right freely discusses their views all the time without disruption. They also freely debate their views with those they disagree which sometimes end up in shouting matches or talking over each other. If they can’t handle being mocked or ridiculed, even heckled that is just par for the course in the free speech arena.
Svelaz:
In your response to Neil Bobacon, you are profoundly wrong when you say:
“They shout down those ideas because free speech allows them to. It’s what free speech is. They can express their disagreement by shouting down someone else. It’s certainly rude and obnoxious, but free speech nevertheless.”
That’s not at all what free speech is. I would refer you to an essay written in 1939 by the American journalist Walter Lippmann, entitled “The Indispensable Opposition.” It is as relevant now as it was then. And without trying to oversimplify Lippmann’s argument, the nub of it is that speech involves both speaker and listener. Or, as Lippmann puts it: “. . . while the right to talk may be the beginning of freedom, the necessity of listening is what makes the right important.”
You can easily find the essay online. Give it a look.
Nobody is forced to listen against their will, but shouting someone down is not free speech, it’s the opposite of free speech, it’s the suppression of speech. Anyone who maintains that free speech includes the “right” to shout someone else down is either stupid or evil.
Please learn free speech law.
You are Full of Schiff.
Kleindienst v. Mandel (1972), United States Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall observed that “[t]he freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; they are two sides of the same coin.” Justice Marshall was defending the right of American social science professors to hear the speech of Belgian academic Ernest E. Mandel, who been scheduled to appear at several academic conferences in the United States. Mandel had written books about Marxist economic theory and described himself as a “revolutionary Marxist.” Those views were not widely popular in the late 60s and early 70s, and were a statutorily sanctioned reason to deny someone admission to the United States, so Mandel was told he could not enter the country.
You are not free to disrupt a speaker such that others are unable to hear them.
Your rights – including speech NEVER include the right to use FORCE to prevent another from exercising their rights.
There is no right to silence other.
There is no right to deny people access to the speach of another.
This applies to Judge Duncan.
It also apples to the government censorship of the internet.
Even if those speakers the FBI sought to censor on Twitter and elsewhere were WRONG – which they were not.
Government may not censor people who are Wrong.
Government may not censor people who are hateful.
Government may not censor by proxy.
When censorship occurs you violate not just the rights of the speaker – but of any who would hear them.
The reason the left cannot formally debate ideas and must revert to tantrums is because their ideas suck and they know it and everyone else knows it. If they had good ideas, they could simply present them and they would be accepted, like the right does.
The left is not funny and does not have moral authority or a rational plan going forward. So they only have one trick, “get uppity.” Pretend it has a common enemy and form alliances around that. Muslim brotherhood origination BS.
This Federal Judge is a big deal, because he has autonomy, he cannot be cancelled. In fact, everyone should be able to speak out and maintain their autonomy as he has with similar protection from cancel culture (because that is also considered free speech, unless you try it against the left).
But you and the others on the left want to threaten, intimidate, and silence opposing voices because you have nothing good to offer and in your heart are simply modern bolsheviks. Perhaps you yourself have a relative, comrade.
I suppose just people will have to deal with these flare-ups from the heirs of the bolsheviks, like they have for centuries. But it is clear who is sleeping with them…cowards, of course.
“Joe Patrice was not wrong.”
ROFL.
“We are not censoring conservatives.
But if we are that is OK, because we think they are bad people,
Proof is not required”
This is typical of YOUR arguments all the time – whatever you want to do is justified – Because YOU think it is justified.
You think you are justified to do bad things to those you think are bad people.
That is the same thing Hitler told the Germans about the Jews.
A wise person would understand that what Patrice is saying is dangerous, and unconstitutional.
And as I look arround and see everything continuing to get worse, I ask again – who is it that is selling nonsense like Geocentrism ?
Any instant I expect a post for Gigi telling us all that unemployment is down, gas prices are down, inflation is down, no one is dying from Covid,
Wages are up, food prices are down. The banks are all fine, The economy is not weak. There is no war in Ukraine – and if there was one – there is no risk of global nuclear war. There is nothing wrong with taking Millions from Chinese spies.
And “Orange Man Bad!”
Heil Biden!!
Heil Biden!!
john Say,
“We are not censoring conservatives.
But if we are that is OK, because we think they are bad people,
Proof is not required”
Typical John, goes right to mischaracterizing what I said in order to deflect from what I actually said.
“This is typical of YOUR arguments all the time – whatever you want to do is justified – Because YOU think it is justified.
You think you are justified to do bad things to those you think are bad people.”
False. I posted arguments made by others that do point out a lot of what Turley and you often leave out. It’s not always because it’s justified. It’s because you keep missing the overall point. There are genuine justifications despite the fact that they are not what the majority would prefer, those justifications still have merit. They are not bad things. They are rude, messy, obnoxious, and yes disruptive. But they are not necessarily bad things. Most are just natural consequences of exercising free speech. These nuances are often lost to those like you who often see things in literal terms. The Dean at SLS made a valid point.
” She asserted that nothing the protestors had done violated the Stanford disruption policy and that the event had been “exactly what the freedom of speech was meant to look like—messy.” She said that if Judge Duncan had wanted to give his remarks, he should have just kept reading them, and she claimed that he was disrespectful to the attendees.”
Duncan is just as guilty as the students who were heckling him because he was escalating the situation by being disrespectful and childish with his answers to the protesters. He came down to their level and as a federal judge, he should have known better. What was telling is that the judge was not being apologetic about his own behavior. He was almost giddy about how he managed to rile up the protesters. The dean saw that. She saw it as a consequence of what the judge was doing and she was not going to stop it. The judge lost any semblance of respect once he engaged in chiding and taunting the students who were protesting.
“A wise person would understand that what Patrice is saying is dangerous, and unconstitutional.
And as I look arround and see everything continuing to get worse, I ask again – who is it that is selling nonsense like Geocentrism ?”
John, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. Nothing Joe Patrice said is unconstitutional or dangerous. You are far from being wise. You often have serious comprehension problems and fail to grasp context and nuance and then go on long-winded rants about leftist evil that make as much sense as S. Meyer’s arguments. Stop being such a drama queen.
If I have mischaracterized you – then tell us all what it is you ACTUALLY believe.
Because as always your language is unclear and changes with each application.
I do not believe I have mischaracterized you.
The evidence of your own remarks – Strained interpretations of everything to victimize your enemies
and strained interpretations of everything to acquit even glorify your friends.
You are not consistent on anything.
I have not seen any evidence that you have any principles.
And your values shift with the wind.
YOu post false and fallacious nonsense.
You seem to think that making an argument means making things up.
There is a reason that what you post has been left out by others.
It is illogical inconsistent nonsense.
Constantly harping that down is up or up is down
does not add anything.
You are the only person “missing the point”
You say you provide points by others that have been left out.
Yet so much of what you introduce is self contradictory nonsense,
frequently lies.
Stuff that even a half way intelligent 8 year old would grasp makes no sense.
Yet over and over you keep dragging in garbage from wherever it is that has repeatedly lied to you.
I have no idea how it is possible for you to live in this alternate reality full of massive contradictions.
One of the points I dwell on is trust.
One of the requirements to thrive as a human is learning not to trust those who constantly lie to you.
Something you can not do.
The Dean at SLS did NOT make a “valid point” she spew nonsense that was discredited hundred of years ago.
There is not an “argument” in here remarks that is worth anything but derision.
She spewed garbage that even YOU do not accept – if we change the context. such that it is those on the left being shutdown.
Constantly jumping in and saying – but I can convert lead into gold. is not introducing context.
Is not introducing arguments that others have not considered.
It is spraying nonsense.
I would strongly suggest that you read 1984 – because your in there.
Each day parroting the nonsense of the left, despite the fact that it is totally at odds to whatever it is you were parroting yesterday or the day before.
I am going to address this idiotic claim of yours echoed by Steinbach once again.
How is it that you expect a world in which the exercise of free speech means nothing more than everyone shouting each other down to actually work ?
Should congress dispense with rules altogether and just have members shout at each other all day ?
How do you expect in that pandemonium that anyone will be able to hear themselves – much less what others have to say.
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”
As SCOTUS has constantly noted – BECAUSE without it free speech is meaningless.
Free speech ALWAYS includes the right of those who wish to hear what is said.
SCOTUS has properly taken this as far as assuring that if someone wants to hear from a particular speaker,
Others are NOT free to impede them from bring that speaker to speak.
SLS is a LAW SCHOOL – The Dean and Law Students are expected to understand FUNJDIMENTALS of Free speech.
Both as a matter of underlying principles, and as a matter of law.
You are repeatedly telling us all that J6 was an “insurrection” – despite the increasing evidence that thousands of people protested peacefully – they were not even shouting and chanting as they went through the capitol.
While it is OK in Svelaz world to Shout down an event at SLS because “free speech is messy”
Which is it ?
If as you claim ALG students at SLS are free to shout down Judge Duncan, to prevent the event from occurring.
Then J6 protestors are free to invade the house chamber and prevent congress from voting.
On issue after issue – your arguments are nonsense and illogical
Your arguments if applied result concurrently in anarchy and totalitarianism.
So we are clear – neither J6 protestors, not ALG/SLS students are free to:
destroy property.
Steal,
Prevent Congress from voting or Judge Duncan from speaking.
Both are free to protest the event – loudly from the OUTSIDE, and quietly from the inside.
“Nothing Joe Patrice said is unconstitutional or dangerous.”
Except that it is.
And it obviously is.
Further his claims – and yours are all OBVIOUSLY instances of ONE TIME ONLY arguments.
They apply to Judge Duncan’s speech. But they do not apply to the certification of the election at the capitol.
Left wing nut protestors are free to cause anarchy – but those you disagree with are not even free to enter the room.
Nor do you or Patrice ever consider that the right to free speech – includes the right of those who wish to hear what is being said.
You cite Patrice,
You cite Steinbach.
People making idiotic argument that here proven obvious error hundreds of years ago.
And even a moron can quickly grasp can not work.
There is no right that involves infringing on another right.
That is true not merely as a matter of principle.
But of OBVIOUS logic.
Society. can not function if we are as society as government constantly having to evaluate each and every circumstance to determine in this particular instance how do politics and other rights weigh against each other.
Judge Duncan was free to make his speech to an audience that wished to hear him – even if he was a nazi advocating genocide
And SLS was primarily Jewish holocaust survivors.
This is not a close call. Partice and Steinbach’s arguments are constitutional garbage, they are not context or a valid view point.
They like you are Free to raise them – and the rest of us are free to point out that you are a moron for doing so.
Further – Stealthiness, Patrice and SLS students are free to act on their idiotic views but not free to evade the consequences of their actions.
Svelaz – You say: “Turley and conservative law students are purposely crying victimhood and claiming free speech is under attack because their real complaint is not an inability to exercise free speech it’s a complaint about their ideas being mocked, ridiculed, dismissed, and unaccepted by others.” This sentence has no relation to reality. According to a student at the speech about cryto currency and guns, it was impossible to hear Judge Duncan because of the shouting by the left-wing mob. See Megyn Kelly Show, March 13, 2023, “Mayhem at Stanford Law School as Students Protest Judge, with Law Student Tim Rosenberger”, https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=NHMNGeyXM3s However you and Joe Patrice try to picture it, the mob was trying to SILENCE Judge Duncan, and thereby deny the audience the right to hear him. That is what you and other leftists are shamefully defending.
Edward – In another comment he claimed free speech includes the right to suppress other people’s speech, i.e., shout them down. That tells you he misunderstands the issue at a fundamental level.
If a university invites someone to speak and then makes it impossible for those who want to hear the speaker to do so – somebody is being an ass. Perhaps the small round opening in the ass.