We have discussed the cancellation of federal appellate Judge Kyle Duncan by Stanford Law School students, a disgraceful attack on free speech that led to an apology from both the law school dean and the university president. However, as I discussed earlier, many faculty support such anti-free speech measures. One is Professor Jennifer Ruth, who teaches film studies at Portland State University. In a column in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Professor Ruth commends the law students for preventing Judge Duncan from being heard on campus.
The Stanford Federalist Society invited Judge Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to speak on campus. However, liberal students, including members from the National Lawyer’s Guild, decided that allowing a conservative judge to speak on campus is intolerable and set about to “deplatform” him by shouting him down.In this event, Duncan was planning to speak on the topic: “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter.” A video shows that the students prevented Duncan from speaking from the very beginning. Many called him a racist while others hurled insults like one yelling “We hope your daughters get raped.”Duncan was unable to continue and asked for an administrator to assist him.Dean Steinbach then took the stage and criticized the judge for seeking to be heard despite such objections. Steinbach, who was put on leave, recently doubled down in defending her widely criticized actions.
Professor Ruth’s support for silencing opposing viewpoints is part of a long-standing anti-free speech position. It is an extension of her book It’s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom (with Penn State Music Professor Michael Bérubé) declaring certain views as advancing “theories of white supremacy” and thus having “no intellectual legitimacy whatsoever.” Once declared as harmful, it is no longer free speech and therefore worthy of censorship or cancellation. It is that easy. Of course, Ruth ignores that some of us view her anti-free speech views as an “existential threat” to higher education. However, we would be the first to protect Professor Ruth from being cancelled on campus. Of course, that will never be necessary. Ruth is celebrated in her views and does not have to fear any retaliation or cancellation for her view that others should be silenced.
On this occasion, Ruth defended her call for cancelling Duncan by citing the Kalven Report. In 1967, the University of Chicago assembled a committee to study academic freedom and free speech that would become one of the most important projects in modern higher education. It became known as the “Kalven Committee” after its chair, the great law scholar Harry Kalven, Jr. The report contained an eloquent and profound defense of diversity of thought and expression that seems utterly abandoned by many today. It was cited by the Stanford Law Dean in her letter to the law students and stated in part:
“From time to time instances will arise in which the society, or segments of it, threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry. In such a crisis, it becomes the obligation of the university as an institution to oppose such measures and actively to defend its interests and its values.”
In the Chronicle of Higher Education, Ruth uses a report heralding the “values of free inquiry” to justify censorship of conservative viewpoints. She simply declared Judge Duncan’s views to be a threat to democracy and thus inimical to the educational mission. She says that free speech advocates miss that there is “something existential is at stake” in allowing such views to be heard. Specifically, “for some — people in the LGBTQ community who wish to marry whom they love and who seek judges with the minimum of respect for their personhood — the threat of a judge like Duncan is, very obviously, existential.”
Of course, Professor Ruth will determine what views are too harmful to be heard on campus with the rest of the self-appointed speech monitors. This ease with speech controls is due in large part to her view that “the First Amendment has no bearing on academic freedom, because the First Amendment has no relation to scholarly expertise.” Thus, as academics, we will judge what views are helpful or inimical to the academic mission. That will leave Judge Duncan silent while it would presumably leave liberal judges free to speak at Stanford.
Does professor Ruth know what “existential” means? What will cease to exist of Judge Duncan gets to speak? Is professor Ruth related to Dr. Ruth?
Another professor who needs to be get a life. The existential threat is China. They are biding their time and will strike at just the right moment when the cold civil war in the USA is at its hottest.
Mary, this country will be ruined by the lack of attention being paid to the threat of the CCP. Biden is our very own Quisling, selling us out to China for money. Quisling was a fascist who believed in the Nazis, the Rosenbergs were communists that believed in the cause, they were both traitors that deserved to be hung, but at least they believed in something. Biden is just a corrupt, greedy pig that is selling us out every day. Biden and our business people and our media fools that all bow to China.
Mary: True, but I believe the real existential threat is the doubt in oneself and one’s ability to dissect and formulate one’s own views, -instead being forced to believe that one’s values are outdated, archaic, replaced, inferior, snuffed out by Wokeness, the New Enlightenment- the New Majority (not truly a majority, but rather a coalition of true, distinct minorities all united under the big tent in order to defeat that despicable, unenlightened majority).
Lin,
That right there, the New Enlightenment.
“Look at how Enlightened I am! I am so Enlightened that I will accept the absurd, yet, denounce Common Sense or even basic Logic! Those Common Sense, Logic, rubes cannot see how Enlightened I am! I am SO Enlightened that I will refuse to hear what it is they have to say, to the point of using my Enlightened counter-speech to silence their speech!”
Are you not entertained?
Sounds all well and good . . . till one day their absurdity reaches levels that the Common Sense and Logic based silent majority pushes back.
It will not end well.
Vince, to the anxiety ridden zealots, everything is a threat to their survival. Listen to their screams…the world is ending.
The entire prog/left movement is Western cullture’s Shabberai Zevi movement. False prophets awaiting the utopian revelation. Hopefully it meets the same fate.
I note this lady and her film study classes and particularly the cinema of the countries she studies. If she was truly a knowledgeable film expert she would have a much wider range in her viewing habits and better able to place her studies in the context of the the wider world. Does she think that Sergei Eisenstein and Alexander Nevsky are the ultimate definition of the Russian Experience or is it Dr. Zhivago and maybe she should extend it to Germany and Lilian Riefenstahl and Power of the Will , or maybe M, or maybe All Quiet on the Western Front or the Blue Angel. Would The Good Earth or the Sand Pebbles be in her bailiwick since they were about China or does it have to be a Chinese Author and Movie Producer. She probably thinks that Birth of the Nation was the end all in American Cinema. And lastly, why the hell would any of us even care what this mental midget writes about anything much less free speech. She is nonsensical and so is her writing, especially from the hallowed halls of Portland State where obviously a coven of radicals live masquerading as academics.
Mea culpa. Should have been “The Triumph of the Will”, by Leni Riefenstahl. Producer in 1935
A professor of film , expert , apparently, on film no one ever sees or cares about, and a professor of music no one ever hears performed, commenting on matters of constitutional freedoms and law and getting serious attention?
More like Groucho and than Karl. What a country!
Good points Ben. Where is Debbie Wassermann Schultz, when you need her.
Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article and for keeping this important issue front & center. Portland Professor Ruth, like many professors in America’s colleges and universities, endorses the censorship of Conservatives. She would be right at home in Communist China or Russia.
What is more essential free speech in order to to discuss opposing views or going, la, la, la, I don’t want to hear you?
A failure to listen to opposing ideas is an admission that you do not have a valid argument. It’s similar to a defense attorney saying “no questions for this witness” and not putting a forth a rebuttal defense.
Picture the petulant toddler who sticks his fingers in his ears when he doesn’t want to hear what his parents are saying to him.
I have never heard such a poor defense of censorship in my life as was given by that “professor” of film studies, nonetheless.
Professor Svelaz compares removing vulgarities from a private site to a professor banning INVITED conservative speakers. Svelaz compares a Federal Appellate Judge speaking to a law school to some guy called Anonymous swearing in a comments section.
Raise your hand if you are sick of Svelaz’s comments. His 200 comments for every column.
Please note, or NB, I am not calling for Svelaz to be banned, but I am saying that we should all shun this Democrat operative. I admit to frustratingly reading his garbage, but I will cease doing so going forward.
See lefties, if you don’t want to hear the federal judge just don’t go to the speech just as I say shun Svelaz. Don’t go there and screech like the children you are in order to prevent others from hearing him.
Conservatives live by a novel and creative doctrine, something scientists call CHANGE THE CHANNEL.
HullBobby,
For the most part, been ignoring Svelaz, scrolling past for months now.
When she posts some of the more outrageous MSM lies, like how great the Biden economy is, then I point out reality.
Otherwise, just scroll past.
Hullbobby, your whining is hilarious as usual. Vulgarities are protected speech, and so are openly racist comments. Turely claims to be a free speech absolutist, but he would delete such comments because they are “not nice” in his blog. He doesn’t deem them worthy of being shown on this blog exactly how other professors don’t deem the speech of a judge or anyone they don’t deem worthy of listening to. Turley does exactly what he criticizes others of doing.
Turley clearly believes that free speech should be neat and tidy as long as it’s being expressed according to rules HE seems appropriate. Free speech does not require it to be neat and tidy. It’s messy, chaotic, unfair, and yes offensive and loud. Parent’s at school board meetings showed that shouting down public officials and those who wished to speak their views were indeed exercising free speech. Turley never criticized such behavior as anti-free speech, never. But when students exercise it it’s suddenly an affront to free speech everywhere. Turley is truly a massive hypocrite.
I have always thought it odd that Svelaz disparages the professor for not allowing racist posts on his blog. If Svelaz is one who does not appreciate racist commentary it’s impossible to understand why he thinks Turley should.
Ron A. Hoffman, you miss the point. Turley does not approve of racist commentary on his blog despite the fact that it’s often just a different point of view from the perspective of those who spew such rhetoric. Turley is constantly chastising other professors for wanting to censor others for their points of view because the see them as offensive and disgusting or simply wrong. Turley clearly does not like openly racists commentary to appear on his blog so he chooses to censor it while claiming to be a free speech absolutist. You don’t think that is hypocritical?
The only reason I can think of why Turley would delete openly racist comments is because he finds them offensive dispute the fact that while it is offensive it is still a different point of view and clearly protected speech under the constitution. It’s not about whether would Turley appreciate racist commentary or not. It’s about his of criticizing other professors who don’t appreciate speech that they find offensive. Why shouldn’t they have the same privilege Turley enjoys. Censoring commentary he doesn’t like.
One can uphold the Constitution’s right of free speech as something that constrains governments and their agencies and still censor offensive racist comments from their private non-governmental blog. No, I don’t think it hypocritical. You will not be successful arguing that Turley is a hypocrite so long as you equate offensive racist speech as being on a par with restrained and rational conservative and civil libertarian speech. Those who are offended by the latter are not insulted and outraged nearly the same as those by the former.
Turley is a professor at a university chastising other professors for censorship of views they don’t like while censoring views he doesn’t like. It’s hypocritical.
Turley claims to be a free speech absolutist. Meaning he shouldn’t be censoring openly racist comments in his blog.
Svelaz openly supports racist behavior.
Perhaps he does. Anyway, it seems he certainly supports it on Turley’s blog at least. And why not? It would give him one more reason to disparage Turley as a racist who gives voice to other racists. For sure, Svelaz and his ilk would love to have that one as a weapon to further satisfy their malcontent.
I have no idea what you mean by a “free speech absolutist.” Absolutism is a political theory holding that all power should be vested in one ruler or other authority. An absolutist then is that one person or other authority. Perhaps what you really mean is that Turley is not so all in with free speech to the extent he would countenance racist comments on his blog. For that you would be right, but then most persons (including hopefully yourself) would credit Turley for his blogs TOS. One suspects those “other professors” you reference would surely support Turley’s position against racist commentary as well.
“It’s about his of criticizing other professors who don’t appreciate speech that they find offensive.”
How many times are you going to flog that same ad hominem fallacy?
Doctor to patient: Smoking is bad for you, and here are the *arguments* . . .
Patient sees doctor smoking in the parking lot.
What affect does that “hypocrisy” have on the doctor’s *arguments*?
None.
“[Ruth] simply declared Judge Duncan’s views to be a threat to democracy and thus inimical to the educational mission.” (JT)
Liberal academics became pro-censorship, fascist academics some 30 years ago. Ruth, among countless others, is a progeny of the execrable Stanley Fish (long a professor at Duke University).
It was Fish’s book, _There’s No Such Thing as Free Speech: And It’s a Good Thing, Too_, that provided the intellectual foundation for today’s pipsqueak tyrants.
I wonder if these pipsqueak tyrants even know the definition of democracy. They sure claim pretty much anything and anyone right of Karl Marx is a threat to democracy.
“. . . if these pipsqueak tyrants even know the definition of democracy.”
Of course not.
They use the word for a smear campaign, as in: Trump’s a threat to democracy.
And for fear campaign, as in: Fear free speech. It’s a threat to democracy.
The Left has no ideas, arguments, evidence. It has only fear, smears, and fallacies.
Sam: You are correct. The four biggest and overly invoked dog-whistle triggers for the 21st century:
“a threat to our democracy”
“no one is above the law”
“that is racist”
“white supremacy”
How is “no one is above the law” a dog whistle trigger? What exactly would it be implying other than it’s literal meaning?
Are you implying some are above the law? Should be?
by the abuse of that phrase
#5: “systemic racism”
The real threat to democracy is people like professor Ruth.
Why? She is no different than Turley. Turley will delete openly racist comments which are certainly a different point of view. Still he has stated he will delete such comments. That’’s censorship. He claims in his civility rule that he doesn’t censor based on different points of view, misinformation, or disinformation. But he does censor based on openly racist comments. He believes such comments are not worthy of being protected speech on his blog. Keep in mind that Turley is also a professor who claims to be a free speech absolutist. A free speech absolutist would not be deleting openly racist comments. They may be offensive and disgusting but they are still protected speech. That’s why Turley’s position is highly hypocritical. He chastises other professors for doing what he does in his own blog.
Two otherwise unemployable individuals, one an employee of ‘The Sanctuary City for Paedophiles’ the other a Loony Tunes historian, both overpaid and sheltered from life, speaking on any substantive issue?
“Diversity” is racism.
“Equity” is discrimination.
“Inclusion” is religious persecution.
Marxists always redefine words, and they did with DEI too. DEI is poison.
@liz_wheeler
“It is an extension of her book It’s Not Free Speech: Race, Democracy, and the Future of Academic Freedom (with Penn State Music Professor Michael Bérubé) declaring certain views as advancing “theories of white supremacy” and thus lacking any “colonialism and theories of white supremacy” must be re-evaluated as those topics have “no intellectual legitimacy whatsoever.” Once declared as harmful, it is no longer free speech and worthy of censorship or cancellation.”
Here’s the problem with Turley’s criticism of these so called anti-free speech advocates. Turley exercises the very thing he is criticizing. The biggest and most ironic example is his clear and unapologetic policy of censoring openly racist comments on his blog. It’s all there in his civility policy. He will delete such comments and has shown that he has no tolerance for openly racist comments on the blog. He’s essentially declaring that such speech is worthy or censorship despite the fact that it’s a different point of view and yes, very offensive, but it’s still protected speech. This hypocrisy clearly denudes Turley’s credibility as an advocate of free speech and his claim of being a free speech absolutist. If he were truly what he claims to be he wouldn’t have such a policy of censoring openly racist comments no matter how offensive they are. Because they are still a different point of view. It’s a point of view that advances racial supremacy over another and clearly he chooses to censor it.
Those shouting down Judge Duncan are exercising their free speech rights as well. Turley has this very narrow and quaint idea that free speech is only worthy when it’s civil. It’s not. Nothing says free speech must be exercised in a civil or orderly manner in order to be worthy of protecting. It wasn’t too long ago when parent’s at school board meetings were being defended because they were shouting down school board officials and other speakers in public meetings. They were certainly exercising their free speech rights. They were opposed to someone else’s point of view. It is no different than what these students did and Turley at the time never once criticized those parents as being anti-free speech. He didn’t because it didn’t’ involve conservative speakers being shouted down , but government officials. Judge Duncan is a government official.
Collin Kaepernick, was “shouted down” when he peacefully knelt down as a form of protest against police brutality. Turley didn’t seem to defend his free speech rights. Instead he criticized the manner and place where he chose to do it. Conservatives love free speech as long as they get to dictate how everyone else should be able to exercise it while complaining that those who choose to exercise it as they see fit are “anti-free speech” because they are not comporting to their chosen manner and place.
A Democrat operative would say.
Hullbobby, I’m not a democrat, I’m registered as a republican. Went to CPAC this year. Unfortunately it was very underwhelming to say the least.
Everyone please notice: Svelaz says, “I’m not a democrat, I’m registered as a republican.”
Notice that he does NOT say “I’m not a democrat, I am a republican.”
See the difference?
One thing Svelaz is not–an “influencer.”
I have long considered, and stated, that I believe Svelaz acts like a paid plant and pulse-reader. He spends waaaaaaay toooooo muuuuch 9to5 attempting to discredit others (Prof. Turley, commenters) with righteous indignation:
“The ‘indignant’ person has for once the satisfaction of despising and treating a creature as ‘inferior,’ coupled with the feeling of his own superiority and rightness.”
― Erich Fromm
Lin,
Interesting point.
Then again, the assertion of her being registered as a republican is highly questionable.
Upstate: I would have thought nothing of it, except that this is not the first time he has used this “wording” of his political affiliation, -which is what raised my antennae so to speak.
My personal assessment of him is not disparaging; indeed, he brings value to this blog by making others define/refine/confirm what we believe, irrespective of partisanship.
Lin,
That is a good and valid point (re: define/refine/confirm what we believe).
I know it has confirmed my belief that leftist wokeism is the greatest threat to America, and vote for whomever the GOP candidate is in 2024.
Thank you for that insightful comment.
Upstate: thanks for reading my comment, and please know that I read every one of your comments whenever I visit this site. And I trust that we may respectfully disagree with each other at times, without a diminution of respect for the person, a respect which is gained over time. If you disagree with me, I know it is genuine, and I would be forced to think about what you disagree with. Certain others, I would just dismiss…
Lin,
There are certain people’s comments whom I go out of my way to read, yours being one of them.
With your experience as a lawyer, I have learned more than a few things.
I do not expect you to agree with me on everything as that would not be realistic but at least we can disagree with respect.
I have had more than a few very interesting conversation here on the good professor’s blog.
Now, if you will excuse me, I have to feed a lamb and change it’s diaper.
-Cheers!
Lin, how is that different than the myriad of posts by John B. Say? This is a free speech forum and obviously I can post as many criticisms of Turley as I want as long as I want. Anyone on the blog can do that. Hullbobby is annoyed by the fact that I post millions of times according to his obsessive need to keep track.
Ironically I’m just following Turley’s advice. The only way to counter bad speech is with MORE speech. Hullbobby and others don’t seem to like the ‘more’ part. Yet, Turley is the one who encourages it.
Svelaz: I do not question your right to criticize the Professor, as often as you want.
I merely question your reason for doing so. thanks
Lin, why should I have to explain a reasoning? Nobody is required to explain their motives for criticizing or supporting Turley’s positions.
“why should I have to explain a reasoning?”
You need to explain because you have no credibility and have to build it up for sane and intelligent people to listen to you. Unfortunately, you lack critical thinking skills as well.
I question his intelligence and his arguments.
I doubt you are a plant – if you are your bosses are not getting what they paid for.
What is the difference between us ? Oh so many things.
Lets start with the fact that I will defend YOUR free speech to the hilt.
While you repeatedly make it clear – the only free speech you care about is your own.
Other differences – you make constant errors.
You do not correct, instead you repeat them over and over – as if repetition will make them true.
You are correct the means to counter bad speech is more speech.
Unfortunately it is not more bad speech.
Regardless, while many complain about your abysmally poor posts,
No one is trying to censor you.
Just exercising their free speech in noting some of your problems.
The response to bad speech is more speech
and your posts require extensive responses.
“Lets start with the fact that I will defend YOUR free speech to the hilt.
While you repeatedly make it clear – the only free speech you care about is your own.”
I support free speech just the same as you. You assume I only care about my own free speech, but that is true of everyone else, not just me. Conservative demonstrate this all the time.
“You are correct the means to counter bad speech is more speech.
Unfortunately it is not more bad speech”
Nothing says it hast be good speech all the time. Which is what I have been pointing out this whole time. It’s not simply just “more free speech”. Its’ not limited to just that option. Free speech also involves demonstrating and unfortunately in involves violent speech and expression. The Jan 6 insurrectionists proved that and you supported that. Parents at school board meetings used shouting down and disrupting meetings as a means to express their views. That is also free speech. You supported that.
Free speech does not mean only speech that is civil, orderly, or reasonable. It’s also about being louder, obnoxious, unreasonable, offensive, and vulgar. The 1st amendment protects that just as it protects the civil, tidy discourse Turley cites. Our own history is rife with examples of free speech being exercised by using violence, offending rhetoric, or ideas. Like supporting slavery, child labor, public lynchings, racism, etc. It’s rarely been as civil as Turley and others want to make it out of be.
“Regardless, while many complain about your abysmally poor posts,
No one is trying to censor you.”
The same can be said about you, however there is one distinction. Unlike others here I don’t wish I could censor or ban you from posting. Hullbobby and a few others clearly want to. Because it’s their first reaction to my posts. The want to, but they “respect” the fact that they shouldn’t.
FYI, you make errors all the time as well. Nobody is immune from making errors. Even as numerous as yours.
“I support free speech just the same as you. ”
ROFL
“You assume I only care about my own free speech, but that is true of everyone else, not just me. Conservative demonstrate this all the time.”
I do not assume anything.
No everyone does not only care about their own free speech.
I have on numerous occasions fought for the free speech of people and groups that are repugnant.
Many of us have.
Again I am not a republican – nor a conservative.
But I am sufficiently connected to reality to grasp that YOU are the greater threat.
“Nothing says it hast be good speech all the time.”
Correct.
“Which is what I have been pointing out this whole time.”
Nope.
“It’s not simply just “more free speech”.”
That is where we start. If you continue to censor – it is not unfortunately where it ends.
“Free speech also involves demonstrating and unfortunately in involves violent speech and expression.”
Those of you on the left mangle words.
When you say the speech of others is “violent” – that merely means you do not like it.
There is an actual standard for what is protected and what is not.
Speech that explicitly and credibly calls for immediate violence is not protected.
“The Jan 6 insurrectionists”
We are way past that. There was no J6 insurrection.
“you supported that.”
I supported their right to protest – again as I said previously – I have supported people that I do not agree with.
Aparently that is a difficult concept for you to understand.
I have also repeatedly pointed about as a FACT, that when government does not do its job securing – rather then infringing rights – that the people are entitled to overthrow the government.
That remark is NOT about “free speech”. The Declaration of Independence – our founding document can be summed up in a short sentence.
Tyranny can be legitimately opposed with violence.
That is not a statement about free speech.
It has little to do with free speech – beyond that silencing free speech is one form of tyranny.
That is NOT what occured on J6. But it IS what You and democrats are justifiably fearful of – and you SHOULD be.
“Parents at school board meetings used shouting down and disrupting meetings as a means to express their views.”
Not what happened. But then you make things up all the time.
A school Board meeting is a public forum. It is conducted according to rules – some of which are defined by the constitution – i.e School boards can not do whatever they please, and they can not alter the rules to disfavor speakers they do not wish to hear from.
They created a public forum for speaking – and they MUST allow speech – even speech they do not like at that time.
What those on the left did at Stanford was actual disruption.
No one at school board meetings prevented the meeting from occuring, or the SB from speaking during the Majority of these meetings.
But Public SB meetings MUST include time for questioning or even challenging the SB, and the SB sought to thwart that.
Conversely Stanford Students prevented a Federal Judge – an invited speaker from speaking. There is not requirement that those opposed at such events be given time to speak AT THAT EVENT – but it is the NORM for Conservative speakers to devote ALOT of time to Q&A After they have spoken.
Stanford students did not wait for their oportunity to Speak.
SB protestors DID and were silenced.
You have no idea about the real world.
And you are constantly trying to paint idiotic false equivalences.
Let me repeat again “The maximum of individual liberty consistent with public order”.
Your freedom of speech does NOT include the right to silence others.
If you beleive it \does – then you are after anarchy – not democracy.
“That is also free speech. You supported that.”
I absolutely supported the right of J6 protestors to protest.
Thwarting their right to protest is what resulting in violence.
I support the Right of BLM protestors to protests.
Not to steal from Stores, or burn down buildings or beat people up.
I support their right to March to Police stations – or more consequentially to the seat of county or state government.
To enter the public buildings were Government is acting – to “petition governmet” to make their demands know to those leading the government.
I do not agree with their claims – but they are completely free to make those claims.
I do not believe that clashes with police who are maintaining order – NOT stifling protests are legitimate.
Regardless violence against private parties is NOT justified.
Nowhere in the declarion of independence does it say that if government infringes on your rights you can burn down walmart.
As I have pointed out TO YOU. There is a point of govenrment tyrany in which Violence against government is justified.
The BLM protests did not meed that standard. No one was stopping their protests. Only their violence – which was almost entirely NOT at Government.
Conversely – We already KNOW we were fed Hogwash by Democrats and the media regarding J6.
We do not with certainty know the whole truth.
But we know Some of it.
There was no violence against private parties at J6. No arson, no looting of walmart.
The overwhelming majority of protesters engaged in NO VIOLENCE AT ALL.
There is an open question regarding those who were violent – as tro whether they initiated violence or whether the CP did.
And there is evidence thus far that the worst violence was initiated by the CP – not the protestors.
Right now the Right is making a huge deal over the number of Federal Agents involved – There were atleast 8 within the Proud Boys and possibly as many as 20.
That is relevant regarding “entrapment”. It is also relevant because the proud boys are entitled to have the testimony of those agents AS AGENTS.
The proad boys – save one, were not involved in any violence, and the govenrment has provided no evidence that there was planned violence.
The entire thesis of the Government, the left and YOU – is that protest against an election whose outcome you do not like is illegal.
That is poppycock.
Even if Trump and protestors were PROVEABLY WRONG AT T HE TIME, they are still free to excercise their first amendment rights.
BLM was wrong about their protests, The Nazi’s were wrong to march through Skokie and wrong in their ideology – they are still free to pitch it.
There is no exception to the first amendment for hate speech or wrong speech.
Nor is demanding that congress refuse to certify the election, or demanding that congress coronate Trump president for life outside the protection of the first amendment.
Make all the video public and we can prosecute ONLY those who initiated violence or destroyed property – and that would include members of the CP.
I further noted that Pelosi was REQUIRED to allow these protests.
The Duty to keep them from becoming Violent was witht he Government.
I do not personally beleive the NG was needed.
What was necescary was to NOT thwart the right of protestors to protest.
There is ample evidence at this time that All or nearly all of them wanted nothing more than to march through the capital making there demands heard.
And the overwhelming majority mad Kavanaugh protestors or BLM look like Anarchists.
Even chainsley was let into the senate chambers and prayed for and with police officers.
There is no equivalence between J6 and the ACTUAL and Unjustifed violence of the left.
“Notice that he does NOT say “I’m not a democrat, I am a republican.”
Lin, that is a helpful distinction. Without facts, Svelaz is forced to fabricate. I believe him when he said he was a Republican because Svelaz might have joined the party to disrupt it while leaning on that one-time event to continue to claim he is a someone, a Republican.
However, his claim to be at CPAC is far-fetched. That costs money, and Svelaz is short of cash, being the dimmest bulb wherever he works. He wishes the subject matter to be about him. That is partly why he posts his inaccurate and ludicrous responses even while being laughed at. Half the time, I think he doesn’t know what he is saying.
Your legal training shows through.
“However, his claim to be at CPAC is far-fetched. That costs money, and Svelaz is short of cash, being the dimmest bulb wherever he works.”
S. Meyer, you have absolutely no clue how much money I have. Saying stupid things like that just make you look dumber than the person you are trying to insult. It’s embarrassing to watch, really.
Svelaz, unless you inherited money, robbed a bank or won the lottery, your earnings would reflect your value, near nothing. CPAC is far too expensive for one of your means.
If you think I am mistaken, prove it.
S. Meyer,
“. . . Svelaz might have joined the party to disrupt it while leaning on that one-time event to continue to claim he is a someone, a Republican.”
That would be a very psy-ops maneuver so much as it also crossed my mind when I read Lin’s response.
I do not believe it either.
I mean good lord, look at all the government intervention, influence in social media that has been exposed by the Twitter Files. I am sure the Costco Chicken would cluck that is a conspiracy theory . . . yet how many once conspiracy theories have proven fact?
Lin, I’ve never claimed to be a democrat either.
Lin you’re absolutely right. Svelaz statement is pure obscuration. An old axiom of equity is to “look at substance rather than form.”
The substance of all of Svelaz writing is supporting, validating, pushing current Dem/lib/progressive talking points, and couched in their “1984” new speak. If George Orwell were to write the book today, it would be retitled “2023.”
So you have this same opinion regaerding shouting down same-sex weddings?
If you’re referring to shouting down those who support same-sex weddings. Yes I do. The risk falls on those who are shouting down those speaking. They bear the consequences of exercising their free speech rights. Such as being ridiculed, condemned, ostracized, etc. You always have the option to exercise speech somewhere else and still be able to express your views.
You’re laughably wrong. The Stanford children didn’t wait until they were invited to comment at the end of the judge’s presentation and share their opposing views. The judge was invited to speak by a student group and he was prevented from speaking by intolerant opponents of free speech (aka dangerous, un-American radicals). There is absolutely no parallel with Turley’s blog having a standing policy re: insults/civility and people who choose to violate the policy having their contributions removed. You’re stretching things far beyond reasonable if you’re trying to claim that the judge violated anything simply by trying to speak (the claim was that his past speech had “caused harm”). We’re not talking about the lefties having a recording of the judge’s presentation removed from a website after the fact due to objection. He was never allowed to express his views. You’ve outed yourself as a fascist. Silencing the opposition is not the same thing as exercising free speech. Silencing the opposition is the antithesis of free speech.
TjGrey, nope. Turley is doing exactly what he criticizes others do doing. Students shouting down the judge are exercising their free speech. Nothing says free speech must be orderly, tidy, or civil. Turley is criticizing these students because they are exercising their right of free speech in an unruly and disrespectful manner. They clearly oppose the views of the judge and the have every right to express that opposition by being loud, disruptive and chaotic. It’s no different than those parents who shouted down public officials at school board meetings and were being intentionally disruptive. Turley never criticized them as being anti-free speech.
Turley calls himself a free speech absolutist and that he’s also a professor who limits speech on his blog, specifically openly racist comments which are expressions of a different point of view. Turley’s whole free speech argument is that the only counter to “bad speech” is more “good speech” instead of censorship. Openly racists comments are “bad speech” according to Turley. Instead of following his own philosophy he chooses to censor when it comes to openly racist comments. He shouldn’t be deleting the comments, instead he should allow others to counter that with more “good speech”. That’s why Turley is such a hypocrite when it comes to free speech arguments.
“The judge was invited to speak by a student group and he was prevented from speaking by intolerant opponents of free speech (aka dangerous, un-American radicals).”
They are not intolerant opponents of free speech. They are intolerant opponents of his points of view. If they choose to express that opposition by shouting him down they have just as much right to do so as the judge attempting to speak. Free speech doesn’t mean you have to shut up so someone else can speak. Free speech is not a right to be heard. It’s not a crime to be rude, obnoxious, or belligerent. They do have consequences, but those are risks borne out by those choosing to be that way. The student group deliberately chose to invite the judge knowing there would be great opposition to him speaking at the campus. It deliberate so that they can claim to be victims of “tyrants against free speech”.
The judge also was at fault for not being above the fray by mocking and goading the students and being unprofessional in his conduct. Turley conveniently leaves that out.
“Turley is doing exactly what he criticizes others do doing. Students shouting down the judge are exercising their free speech.”
Wrong, Svela. You lack the mental capacity to understand the significant and legal differences. You are the south side or a Jack-ass moving north.
S. Meyer, it’s notable you have nothing to offer besides insults.
I corrected what you said as I generally do. The insults are to emphasize your stupidity since your underlying arguments mostly involve insult to individuals or groups and lies. Accept the insults as you would bold text. They highlight what you do wrong.
“They clearly oppose the views of the judge and the have every right to express that opposition by being loud, disruptive and chaotic.”
If they “oppose” the judges views, why not let him state his views then state why they oppose his views? If their logic is sound they may actually win some converts. Preventing the judge from stating his views strongly suggest they do not have good logic for opposing his views.
“If they “oppose” the judges views, why not let him state his views then state why they oppose his views?”
Because the judge has already expressed his views elsewhere. That’s why they oppose his views. They are already well known. The goal of the protest is to silence him by exercising THEIR free speech rights to heckle, shout down, and disrupt the speech. That does not mean it’s right or proper. I don’t condone it, but I do recognize that what they did was indeed free speech. It’s no different than those parents who disrupted and shouted down school officials at school board meetings just two years ago. Those parents’ behaved no different than these students, and nobody criticized them as being anti-free speech tyrants. The outrage for that kind of behavior is very selective when it comes to conservatives and it shows when Turley argues about students “silencing” these speakers just as those parents silenced school officials. That doesn’t make them good role models does it?
has no relation to scholarly expertise.
What is “it” that makes something a product of scholarly expertise?
To me it is arriving at a conclusion after successfully defending a scholarly position in the public arena of ideas. You would think a person an expert in “film studies” would understand.
iowan2: Your sentence is excellent: “To me it is arriving at a conclusion after successfully defending a scholarly position in the public arena of ideas.”
The Woke mindset in action: “Someone holds a different opinion from mine – I’m going to die!”
You gave this nutcase professor, a larger platform than she deserves
It is important to remember that throughout human history, most people with authority have not supported or allowed free speech. America has been exceptional for our freedom of speech, upholding this right is an extraordinarily enlightened position. Prof Ruth is just your normal unenlightened petty tyrant.
From Ruth’s bio: Jennifer Ruth teaches core courses in film history, theory and interpretation as well as topics courses on sinophone cinema, global art film, and the cinemas of China, Eastern Europe, and Russia.
Apparently, her views on the ‘silencing of opposing views’ has a basis in her areas of ‘expertise’; China, Eastern Europe and Rsussia.
Film studies at Portland State. Ok.
Rico: (I smile in appreciation. I had the same thought…)
Progressive clowns are entertainers, they are not smart.