“She’s a [expletive] professor!” Those four words screamed by pro-choice protesters could well sum up the issue for the State University of New York at Albany after the arrest of sociology professor Renee Overdyke. At a recent pro-life demonstration, Overdyke unplugged an electric display to prevent students from expressing their opposition to abortion. She then resisted arrest. The question, which we have previously discussed, is where the university should draw the line in the conduct of faculty in preventing free speech.
The pro-life display at the university attracted a loud counter-demonstration, which is of course fine and good. Universities are supposed to be a place for debate and both sides were exercising their free speech rights.
As students chanted “my body, my choice” and other messages, Created Equal continued their own demonstration against abortion with the help of a large electronic display. The display showed aborted fetuses to bring home what they called the “reality of abortion” and “what abortion does to preborn babies.”
That is when Professor Overdyke, 57, allegedly unplugged Created Equal’s electronic display.
Overdyke took this action despite the university distributing a pamphlet to students at the event repeating the rules for free speech behavior, including a prohibition on actions to prevent or obstruct someone else’s free speech. This message was all the more important because a conservative speaker had been shouted down two weeks earlier.
As a posted video shows, Overdyke then proceeded to resist arrest:
Professor arrested for shutting down pro-life event.
On April 19, U. of Albany sociology professor, Renee Overdyke, was arrested for shutting down our large LED screen and then resisting arrest. Her swift apprehension by police permitted Created Equal to resume the broadcast of… pic.twitter.com/SCePpybjjk
— Mark Harrington (@mharringtonlive) April 21, 2023
One student screams “she’s a [expletive] professor.” That is precisely the point. As the university was telling students that they could not obstruct the event, Overdyke is accused of doing precisely that. She sought to prevent others from being able to speak on campus.
Years ago, many of us were shocked by the conduct of University of Missouri communications professor Melissa Click who directed a mob against a student journalist covering a Black Lives Matter event. Yet, Click was hired by Gonzaga University. Since that time, we have seen a steady stream of professors joining students in shouting down, committing property damage, participating in riots, verbally attacking students, or even taking violent action in protests.
Blocking others from speaking is not the exercise of free speech. It is the very antithesis of free speech. Nevertheless, faculty have supported such claims. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned). Even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech. At University of California- Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.
As more schools have expressly declared that they will not permit such shout downs, many academics still insist that preventing others from speaking is free speech. It is an absurd and dangerous claim. It will convert our institutions into little more than shout fests where the loudest prevails. Given the dwindling number of conservative or libertarian faculty, it is a way to effectively bar opposing views from being heard on campuses. It is as easy as unplugging a display at the University of Albany.
The question is what is to be done with Professor Overdyke. In taking this action, she not only sought to silence students but directly violated the policies of the university. Free speech and free inquiry are the very touchstones of higher education. She has taken a stand against the right of others to be heard and the university has an obligation to take action to sanction this conduct.
Of course, such action has been relatively rare even when universities object to anti-free speech conduct. We recently 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. Stanford notably refused to take action against the students, though a dean did take a leave of absence.
In the meantime, Overdyke is now facing criminal charges for disturbing a lawful assembly, resisting arrest, and obstruction of governmental administration.
The criminal charges may not prove as much of a professional barrier as one might think. Feminist Studies Associate Professor Mireille Miller-Young pleaded guilty to criminally assaulting pro-life advocates on campus and was supported by faculty and honored by other schools.
Professor Overdyke has now presented Albany with a clear choice. It can confirm that faculty members are accountable to free speech rules or it can confirm that these rules are a mere pretense of principle.
Firing the professor as some have suggested will not accomplish much because she will be hired immediately by a college sympathetic to her views. The best remedy is for the school to press the charges and for the judge to sentence the professor to the following sentence: The professor can choose between one-year in jail (the typical penalty for a misdemeanor) and a $1,000 fine or she can avoid prison by writing an essay on free speech and admitting that what she did was anti-free speech. If the essay supports the constitutional definition of free speech and not some perverted interpretation, the court can accept that as sufficient to void the jail time. However, the fine remains because she resisted arrest. Also, the judge can suspend the sentence of prison on the condition that the professor’s essay is published on the school’s website. Finally, to avoid prison, the professor must consent to being on five-years’ probation during which time if there’s any repeat offenses of this nature, she goes to the slammer for the one-year that was suspended. Granted, a lot of this is voluntary and the professor can reject some or all of it in which case she goes immediately to the slammer for one-year. The seriousness of this crime should not be overlooked. What this professor did can be shown to be the first step in every despotic regime that has displaced a civilized one throughout the ages. Crane Brinton wrote that the first step in a revolution is the defection of intellectuals. Let them defect on their own times and in their own space, not in a publicly-funded college or university that, among other things, teaches and passes along to a new generation the culture of our free and democratic society.
JJc,
How about just a reprimand? It’s funny how many conservatives go for the harshest possible punishment for benign infractions. Is it that need for authoritarian control they crave so much? You know, like freedom-loving authoritarian rule or something?
She needs to see the inside of a jail cell. Not for a long time, but for some time. And consider what would likely happen to a student who did something like this?
SPO, the punishment must fit the crime, this is at a minimum a misdemeanor. There will be a fine for resisting arrest and that’s it.
Resisting arrest is punishable by 364 days in jail.
It’s often waived depending if it’s a first time offense. Then you just pay a fine.
What’s the typical punishment for walking around the capitol while white? years in jail, most in solitary…I lost track.
I am suprised that she was not charged withassaulting a police officer – which can get Serious jail time.
In my state – and most others – simple assault on a police officer is treated as agrevated assault which can result in a decade or more in prison.
Merely shoving a police officer in the course of their duties is often sufficient to charge assault.
While I do not personally agree with turning everything into a capital offense, The FACT is that this professor Could have faced serious Jail time.
I would also suggest to others – left or right, do not get into shoving matches with police. Frankly do not resist arrest – that often ends VERY BADLY.
Overall I agree with you that the punishment for a first offense of what we see here should be small – that does not mean that the risk of serious consequences are not HIGH.
When I say the punishment should be small,. that is NOT to say that this is minor. It is not. And further offenses should have more serious punishment.
What is more important is that accross the country punishment should be CERTAIN.
John B. Say, hooray! I agree as well.
Parading can get you over 2 years without a trial in some cases.
A local women who lead a protest against a police shooting in 2020 that resulted in the windows of the police station being broken, and a dumpster being set alight, she is now serving 5-7, according to the court -= because the protest did not have a permit and therefore was illegal she had an affirmative duty to stop the protesters from breaking windows and starting the dumpster fire.
“because the protest did not have a permit and therefore was illegal she had an affirmative duty to stop the protesters from breaking windows and starting the dumpster fire.”
Interesting, did you know that the march towards the Capitol was not on the permit for the protest at the rally? Based on your point of view. The Jan 6 rioters/insurrectionists were legally obligated to stop those from breaking windows and assaulting police officers. Right? Because unbeknownst to most folks the permit for the rally specifically prohibited marching in the streets or going outside of the rally. Clearly they violated the terms of the permit, sooooooo were they all required to tell the others to stop? Perhaps?
“did you know that the march towards the Capitol was not on the permit for the protest at the rally?”
False the permits are publicly available. There are multiple permits, and atleast one includes going from the Rally at the Elipse to the Capitol.
While you are actually wrong, it would not matter – are you so stupid to claim that having a permit to protest at the capitol does not allow you to get from wherever you are too the capitol ?
“Based on your point of view.”
Not my point of view. I disagree with the local case. I fully expect the conviction to be overturned on appeal – just as those of J6 protestors.
“The Jan 6 rioters/insurrectionists were legally obligated to stop those from breaking windows and assaulting police officers. Right?”
First, the LOCAL court was WRONG. I thought I made that clear.
But even if they were not – the protests at the capitol were permitted – there were 6 different permits for capitol protests.
As such even the bogus local court argument that the leaders of an illegal parade were responsible for the criminal acts of those in the parade would not apply on J6.
That said – if they did, they would be unconstitutional.
“Because unbeknownst to most folks the permit for the rally specifically prohibited marching in the streets or going outside of the rally.”
Not only BS but quite stupid. Permits are SHALL ISSUE – government can not refuse to issue a permit.
Nor can they impose condictions on a permit that would abridge protestors rights.
A permit can require you to clean up after yourself.
It CAN NOT prohibit you from engaging in other constitutionally protected activity outside the scope of the permit.
“The chief of the Capitol Police and its top intelligence officer personally approved permits for six demonstrations to be held on Jan. 6, 2021” Buzzfeed.
There are 6 separate permits here.
I would note that the boilerplate language includes the right to observe but not interfere with the activities inside the capitol.
Separately atleast on of the applications notes that the organizers will setup at 8am, go to the rally at 9am and then return to the Capitol – do you think they were going to beam themselvs to the Capitol from the Rally ?
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21059849/leopold-capitol-police-protest-permits-january-6-common-law-release.pdf
You are echoing a FALSE claim made primarily by Plasket.
And as I mentioned before – a STUPID claim.
“Clearly they violated the terms of the permit”
hey did not. Further AGAIN permits are MUST ISSUE. Government can not put conditions on a permit that restrict first amendment rights. This was litigated long ago.
“sooooooo were they all required to tell the others to stop? Perhaps?”
Nope.
AGAIN, you are under the mistaken impression I think my local courts acted correctly.
They did not, and should lose on appeal. Probably immediately.
The ONLY time that someone has a duty to stop others from committing a crime, is when you are part of a conspiracy to commit a crime.
The best example is the Felony Murder Rule. If you conspire with others to rob a bank – with everyone agreeing that no one will be killed. And ONE co-conspirator murders someone – all are guilty of murder.
Or if you conspire to commit a crime – but back out part way – you have an obligation to stop the others from commiting that crime.
That is only true if you agreed to commit a crime and then changed your mind.
You are innocent if you agree to commit a crime – and NO ONE goes through with it.
You are innocent if you agree to commit a crime, back out and act to stop the commission of the crime – even if your action is unsuccessful.
But you are guilty if you agree to commit a crime, change your mind and do nothing, and the crime takes place.
You can also be convicted of criminal conspiracy, if you agree to commit a crime AND a single act in furtherance of that crime is performed and then the police arrest everyone.
But not if you agree to commit a crime, and are arrested before anyone takes a step to move forward with teh crime.
I often provide you details of how the law works.
Those details are based on caselaw derived from logic and experience.
They do not come from nowhere.
The legislator can not as an example get together and decide that merely agreeing to commit a crime constitutes conspriracy.
Details matter – but the details do not come from thin air. Nor usually the pronouncement of legislators.
The details were not created. they were discovered – usually by the courts.
I would strongly suspect that she already has.
Svelaz: I’m not for punishing this person but for righting the wrong and the best way I see that happening is for the person herself to admit her wrongdoing, express remorse for it, and not repeat any of it for a period of five years. That’s very little to ask, given what she did and her resisting arrest. I agree with your inference that these are difficult issues to solve but, as a Chinese proverb says, the solution lies within the problem itself. That solution is for the professor to admit her mistakes, apologize to the world, and promise not to repeat them. If she cannot bring herself to do this, then she can choose prison. As the kids in the street say, don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time!
JJC, I also agree that she should be given the opportunity to admit her wrong and apologize or at least as a first time offense be reprimanded. But many on this blog go for the immediate and extreme punishment first. That has occurred a lot recently with republican dominated state legislatures doling out sever and extreme punishment for the mere act of criticizing the majority or engaging in protest, an exercise of free speech itself. Tennessee and Montana are the most glaring examples. It seems Republicans are getting comfortable meting out extreme punishments in order to “send a message”. I’m still wondering why Turley hasn’t addressed the Montana issue.
Pure stupidity. Resisting arrest is a benign infraction.
To Svalez, lawlessness by the left is always a benign infraction for the good of the people. What a wonderful Stalinist he makes. He has the words and lacks the brains. That is what despots love.
Anonymous, resisting arrest is a benign infraction. Anything they feel was “resistance” they can justify as a chargeable offense. It’s oftentimes a misdemeanor if it’s a first time offense.
S. Meyer, you sure are obsessed with labeling everything “Stalinist”. I bet you consider a badly cooked steak Stalinist too.
“Anything they feel was “resistance” they can justify as a chargeable offense.”
The stupidity continues. Resisting arrest generally involves force and can include an assault on a police officer, no matter how minor. That is not minor. Along with assaulting a police officer, it is also an “assault” on the law.
“I bet you consider a badly cooked steak Stalinist too.”
It is Stalinist when you steal steak from another using the force of the state. You are an idiot.
Confession through projection.
It is self evident that anything that Democrats can gain control of is weaponized int he most extreme way against conservatives.
Hillery gets away with stealing 70,000 government documents, atleast 3000 of which are classified, several hundred of which are highly classified, all of which are accessible on the internet, and likely were accessed by hostile foreign powers – and according to you – there is nothing to see, The FBI does not raid Clinton – She is allowed to have here lawyer – who is complicit in the crime sort out what documents belong to the government and which do not.
There are no warrants no subpeona’s Clinton Perjures herself in depositions, and there is no consequence at all.
Trump takes presidential Documents to MAL – which according to current Caselaw – JW v NARA he is legally entitled do.
Classified or not, and Biden goes to every length possible to prosecute LEGAL acts by Trump.
NARA is weaponized, FBI is Weaponized, DOJ is Weaponiazed. The Courts are Weaponized,
Subpeonas are issued, FBI raids are conducted.
Manafort contacts someone not on anyone’s Witness list to see if that person will act as a witness for him, and Manafort ends up with Bail revoked in Solitary confinement. Meanwhile Hunter Biden is publicly threatening Identified Witenesses of the House and lefties claim there is no “there there”
Chansley is escorted through the capital by the CP acts politely throughout, and ends up with a 4 year jail sentence.
While TN reps aid violent protestors at the TN capital, shutdown the legislature and the left goes balistic at unsucessful attemps to expell them.
“Hillery gets away with stealing 70,000 government documents, atleast 3000 of which are classified,…”
She didn’t steal 70,000 documents. What BS are you peddling now? She was still Secretary of State when she had those documents in the server. Plus the Secretary of State is not bound by the presidential record act. Trump was bound by the PRA and he willfully refused to turn over documents that were not his to keep. Keeping those documents after he left office certainly was not legal. There’s already evidence that he willfully concealed documents from authorities and from NARA which constitutes theft. That case is certain to get him charged and found guilty. Even Turley acknowledges that case is a big problem for Trump.
Nothing was “weaponized”, Trump simply broke the law and he got caught lying about having turned over everything he was supposed to turn over. Biden and Pence immediately did exactly what they were supposed to do when they found out they also had classified documents. Trump is the only one who resisted and refused to cooperate and follow the law.
Svelaz – the Clinton server was illegal, and therefore every document on it was also illegal. It does not matter that she was SOS at the time. Further, by putting classified documents on an unsafe server (a fact which Comey emphasized), she breached her duty to carefully handle those documents. As for Trump, it is not true that he “willfully refused to turn over documents” to NARA. In fact, he sent them 15 boxes of documents. But he also raised claims of privilege as to other documents. Nothing in the PRA prevents, or can prevent, a President from raising his Constitutional claims of privilege. But there is one President who has refused to turn over Presidential Records to NARA. His name is Barack Obama. He refused to turn over ANY PR’s to NARA, asserting that he could simply digitize the documents and send the images to the NARA. NARA meekly agreed to this demand, and no one in Washington DC seems to care.
“She didn’t steal 70,000 documents.”
Yup.
There were 70K emails on her bathroom basement email server – most of which were official business of the US govenrment – not person.
“What BS are you peddling now?”
Just the facts.
“She was still Secretary of State when she had those documents in the server.”
Yup, The Sec State can not remove original documents – from government control, and she can not remove classified documents under any circumstances.
“Plus the Secretary of State is not bound by the presidential record act. ”
Correct – She is bound by the Federal Records Act.
“Trump was bound by the PRA”
Correct – we have been through that over and over. I would tell you to READ the holding in JW v NARA – but you have proven you can not read, do not know what a holding is. And can spin yes into no.
“and he willfully refused to turn over documents”
Yup.
“that were not his to keep.”
Nope.
“Keeping those documents after he left office certainly was not legal.”
Of course it was.
“There’s already evidence that he willfully concealed documents from authorities and from NARA which constitutes theft.”
Nope, just about every word you right is incorrect.
Case 1:10-cv-01834-ABJ
“The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s
claim is not redressable.
NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as “Presidential records,”
NARA does not have the tapes in question,
and NARA lacks any right, duty, or means to seize control of them.
In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the
Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty, to do, the case must be dismissed.”
“That case is certain to get him charged and found guilty.”
Have Fun.
“Even Turley acknowledges that case is a big problem for Trump.”
I fund it amazing that you find hidde3n between the lines support from Turley – whenever you are not bashing him as a Fox Thral.
“Nothing was “weaponized”, ”
there are none so blind as those who will not see
“Trump simply broke the law”
Then the DOJ could have gone to court years ago and charged that.
DOJ/NARA have done everything in their power to AVOID the courts.
So far the only time this has been in court is because TRUMP forced it into court.
There is a Reason NARA neer tried to claim these documents are their property – because they are not, and NARA knows it.
There is a reason that DOJ did not.
There is a reasont hat DOJ fought Trump’s civil case to the apeals court – because Like ABJ Cannon would have found – as the law requires that all the documents were Trump’s property – classified or not.
And she would have been correct on the law.
You keep trying to use the PRA – but ABJ – and prior judges made it clear – if the President does not have the power to decide what is and is not a presidential record, then the PRA is unconstitutional.
I would note that we already know that even the Trump biased FBI thought this was overkill.
Regardless, it is unlikely there will be any charge – it would have to be prosecuted in FL.
It almost certainly would be assigned to Cannon, and you will not get a DC jury.
In otherwords – the law and constitution would be followed and you would be SOL.
It is also unlikely that Smith will try to do something in DC – because there are just too many Biden problems there.
Further, Trump is well insulated by attornies.
Your engaged in more wishful thinking.
“and he got caught lying about having turned over everything he was supposed to turn over.”
A subpeona is NOT a demand for posession. It is a demand for access – those are not the same.
You still do not get that.
Trump’s right to posess all of these documents has NEVER been litigated – the 11th Appeals court short circuited that.
They fixated on the warrant and ignored the fact that the issue being litigated was OWNERSHIP.
“Biden and Pence immediately did exactly what they were supposed to do when they found out they also had classified documents.”
False, Keep up with the Facts. Biden moved classified documents multiple times. They were NEVER in a secure location – Trump’s always were. We now Know that the classified documents were discovered in May 2022 – long before the Trump raid.
That some classified documents were sent to Boston. And that Biden posessed classified documents from his time in the Senate – which is not possible inadvertantly.
I would also note that Biden’s secretary has also testified that the VP docs could not have been inadvertant either – that shee packed the VP docs and there were no classified docs. That mans Biden PERSONALLY removed these docs.
The VP does not have broad rights to declassify.
The VP does not have broad rights to posses government records
You keep trying to play this “inadvertant” game – Like clinton “accidentally” took 70,000 government documnets in violation of the FRA.
I would suggest boning up on the difference between the PRA and the FRA – The FRA covers documents outside the whitehouse.
It is unequivocal – those Belong to the Government. PERIOD. The PRA applies only to Presidential Documents.
And the decision as to what is personal or presidential is at the sole discretion of the then president – otherwise the PRA is unconstitutional.
JW v NARA does not address this – but other cases do. Bush order the destruction of NSA records – but the courts blocked him using the FRA. Bush tried to claim that under the PRA he could do so. But the court pointed out that the PRA did not apply to Documents created by and at the NSA. But the FRA did. And congress CAN regulate federal agencies that Congress created.
“Trump is the only one who resisted and refused to cooperate”
Partly correct – it is now Clear that Biden has been hiding things for atleast 15 years.
“and follow the law”
Incorrect – Trump is the only one who followed the law.
Why are you rehashing arguments you lost badly ?
The Court will grant the motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) because plaintiff’s
claim is not redressable. NARA does not have the authority to designate materials as
“Presidential records,” NARA does not have the tapes in question, and NARA lacks any right,
duty, or means to seize control of them. In other words, there has been no showing that a remedy
would be available to redress plaintiff’s alleged injury even if the Court agreed with plaintiff’s
characterization of the materials. Since plaintiff is completely unable to identify anything the
Court could order the agency to do that the agency has any power, much less, a mandatory duty,
to do, the case must be dismissed.
Confession through projection.
You seem to think none of us read the news ?
https://www.yahoo.com/video/pro-life-activist-arrested-swat-171717669.html
https://www.rebelnews.com/daughter_of_parent_arrested_at_virginia_school_board_meeting_allegedly_raped_prior_to_incident
JJC,
A well thought out, and sensible solution.
And I dont think it would fly. The professor is clearly not able or willing to take responsibility for her actions.
Like a six year old.
Upstate: You may be correct and that this professor is so committed that she throws away her career and freedom to stand up for stupidity. It’s entirely possible. On the other hand, a couple of nights in a prison environment is often enough to reignite someone’s personal self-interest. Forcing one to see the light doesn’t guarantee that they will see the light, only that they will feel the heat if they do not. 🙂
Exactly, Upstate Farmer. Too many spend their whole lives in Academia, from school to college to faculty. As a result, they never grow up. The grown-ups are always the enemy. The big scary outside world must be kept away. They can do anything they want, because they’re the “f***ing professors”.
@John Say; …. with the support of both an energetic as well as apathetic Democrat electorate. The ‘Left’ call THEIR opposition Nazis???
Most Progressives act like that….6 year olds.
No 4 year olds.
No 6 year olds
Violating the free expression rights of others–particularly in a university–is a very serious offense, and the University of Albany would not be acting inappropriately if it decided to fire Professor Overdyke. I would be inclined to impose an alternative (but still) serious punishment, such as suspension without pay for a semester. But in this case it is clear that a serious punishment is warranted. It is imperative that the university demonstrate how serious it is about enforcing rules that protect the rights of students, faculty, and staff to engage in free expression. Brazen violations of those rules should be met with strong sanctions.
I am confident that those who are defending Professor Overdyke would be apoplectic had a faculty member or student taken an analogous action against a liberal group of students exercising their free expression rights. Free expression rights should be protected, regardless of the content of that expression.
“Violating the free expression rights of others–particularly in a university–is a very serious offense,…”
Not it’s not. It’s not even an offense if it involves private individuals. It’s annoying behavior for sure. But not a “serious offense”. It’s at a minimum a small misdemeanor of unplugging the LED sign. Resisting arrest is an entirely different matter and that is still a misdemeanor.
“I would be inclined to impose an alternative (but still) serious punishment, such as suspension without pay for a semester. But in this case it is clear that a serious punishment is warranted. It is imperative that the university demonstrate how serious it is about enforcing rules that protect the rights of students, faculty, and staff to engage in free expression.”
Nope. This continues with the theme of conservatives wanting to dole out severe punishment for mild infractions and supposed “serious” violations that really aren’t.
I bet that wouldn’t be the case for the legislators in Montana who deliberately and knowingly violated a democratic representative’s 1st amendment right to free speech becasue they didn’t like the criticism she was lobbing at them. That was actually a serious and real violation of her free speech rights. The 1st amendment explicitly states that government is prohibited from infringing on ANYONE’s right to free speech.
Would you be suggesting the same extreme and draconian punishments for those Republican legislators who did violate her 1st amendment rights? I’m confident that there will be more excuses not to dole out the kinds of punishments being prescribed by conservatives when it comes to real violations of the 1st amendment. Turley is strangely quiet about that. It’s not a shocking surprise and that is and should be a concern to those who support him and his love of free speech.
@Svelaz: You certainly habit to tailor your facts to suit your fashion. Montana’s censure was for cause relative to the civility of conduct expected and demanded of members of their legislature. The same expectation was for the Albany faculty in the matter if free speech. How the university will proceed remains to be seen, though your agendas serve to tolerate if not outright condone such. If you’re under the impression that those who read you don’t fact check your prolific, highly partisan and biased diatribes, think again. You’re not all that!
ZZDoc,
“Montana’s censure was for cause relative to the civility of conduct expected and demanded of members of their legislature.”
It wasn’t “for cause”. It was because they were offended by her stating that “they would have blood on their hands” by passing the legislation they were debating. To forcibly silence her by using rules of decorum as a pretext is still violating her free speech rights. The constitution does NOT make exemptions for legislators to silence another for merely criticizing proposed legislation. Especially forbidding her from engaging in debates and discussions for the rest of the session. It’s quite clear that the conservatives, more specifically the religious zealots, want to shut her up and don’t believe she has a right criticize them. Those republicans have been using the rules of decorum as an excuse to violate free speech rights. There is a legitimate problem that has to be addressed when legislators an silence another with impunity regardless of what the constitution says. The constitution says the legislature has the right and power to discipline members as they see fit, BUT that does not mean they can infringe on their right of free speech. The constitution IS the supreme law of the land and that basic right cannot be infringed, even by state legislatures because they have a right to discipline members as they see fit. They can remove her from committees and admonish her, or issue a specific censure. That does not mean they are allowed to prevent her from doing her job. They are effectively robbing her district of their duly elected representative’s ability to represent them. That is NOT the intent of the constitution’s granted powers to police itself. This is a case that needs to be resolved in court.
It involves not only silencing her, but denying an entire district their representation and voters in that district absolutely have the right to sue and have the court right the constitutional violation. The separation of powers issue should not matter when the constitution is clearly being violated. Remember, the three branches are supposed to be a check on each other. Not just keep a hands-off approach when one clearly is violating the rules.
“But not a “serious offense”. It’s at a minimum a small misdemeanor of unplugging the LED sign. “
Let’s unplug Svelaz’s right to post and see what Svelaz has to say.
S. Meyer, you’re for censorship? I wouldn’t be surprised given your obsession with Stalin. Maybe your obsession with Stalin is just a projection of what you really want, be like Stalin. It certainly fits. You secretly love dictators. S. Meyer, you rascal, you. 😉
“S. Meyer, you’re for censorship?”
Absolutely correct. I will censor your activities at a public school where you are promoting foul language, grooming, and your WE HO activities. If you were present within the walls of a business of mine, I would censor you and throw you out. There is nothing wrong with protecting civility within the walls of something I own and preventing your type of actions, especially those involving children.
” Maybe your obsession with Stalin”
No. I believe in the Constitution and DOI. They are things you should read, but that requires more intellect than you have
Violating someone’s civil rights is a federal Crime. This is typically ow the federal government piggybacks itself into prosecuting state crimes, often unconstitutionally violating double jeopardy.
While the punishment for a first offense of this nature should not be draconian, lets not pretend it can not be.
J6 Defendants have faced serious charges for walking peacefully through he capitol.
Pro-Life protestors have faced serious charges for protecting their children from beligerant abortion workers.
And the DOJ felt it was necescary to compound this by sending a SWAT team to his home to arrest a non-violent protestor accused of a non-violent crime.
You are not going to win if the issue is a comparison of the treatment of the right and left or pro-life vs. pro-choice protestors.
“Violating someone’s civil rights is a federal Crime.”
Not if it involves private citizens silencing another. The 1st amendment cannot be violated by private individuals or groups because the 1st amendment does NOT prohibit private individuals or groups from infringing free speech. Therefore there can be no civil rights violation. The only way to can be deemed a violation is if government or a public official such as a police officer is involved.
“J6 Defendants have faced serious charges for walking peacefully through he capitol.”
False. J6 rioters have faced serious charges of assault, destruction of property, and weapons charges. Those merely walking around were charged with unlawful trespassing which in itself is not as serious as the others. They were still charged as they should be.
“Pro-Life protestors have faced serious charges for protecting their children from beligerant abortion workers.”
Nope. They have faced serious charges of assault on abortion workers, harassment, death threats, setting fire to clinics, and violating legally established buffer zones.
“And the DOJ felt it was necescary to compound this by sending a SWAT team to his home to arrest a non-violent protestor accused of a non-violent crime.”
Its’ easy to leave out the full context of those incidents and to pretend that they were as innocent as you like to portray them is to be dishonest with the facts.
Just a few minutes ago the proud boys leader was just found guilty of sedition by a jury. That’s along with two other proud boys members.
“”Violating someone’s civil rights is a federal Crime.”
Not if it involves private citizens silencing another. ”
Bzzt Wrong.
“The 1st amendment cannot be violated by private individuals or groups”
Correct.
Free speech, civil rights, and the first amendment are each different though overlapping.
“Therefore there can be no civil rights violation.”
False
” The only way to can be deemed a violation is if government or a public official such as a police officer is involved.”
Correct ONLY with respect tot he first amendment.
““J6 Defendants have faced serious charges for walking peacefully through he capitol.”
“False.”
True
“J6 rioters have faced serious charges of assault, destruction of property, and weapons charges.”
All 3 of them.
“Those merely walking around were charged with unlawful trespassing which in itself is not as serious as the others. They were still charged as they should be.”
False and false. You can not tresspass on the Capitol while Congress is in session – if Congress closes the capitol while in session they have violated peoples first amendment rights to petition government.
Further, Covid lockdowns DO NOT create a tresspass violation.
You can not make an otherwise legal act into a crime through public health policies.
You can tell when Democrats are weaponizing law enforceme3nt – because they are doing things that have never been done before.
Can you name an instance in which people have been charged with tresspass for entering the capitol while congress was in sesssion ?
The right to petition government means that Government is not constitutionally permitted to HIDE from the people using public health as an excuse.
Either send congress home or open the capitol.
If you deny the people oversight of government then the government itself is illegitimate.
“Pro-Life protestors have faced serious charges for protecting their children from beligerant abortion workers.”
“Nope. They have faced serious charges of assault on abortion workers, harassment, death threats, setting fire to clinics, and violating legally established buffer zones.”
Nope. Please familiarize yourself with the FACTS. There has not been a single assault by a pro-life protestor in years.
In the specific case a clinic volunteer harrassed a protestors son, and the protestor separated the pro-choice volunteer from his son.
The local police found no crime. The local DA found no crime. The State AG found no crime.
The Fed’s sent in a SWAT team claiming (falsely) a FACE act violation.
I have no idea what you think “harrassment” is – there is no crime of “harrassment”. Can you identify a crime ?
Death threats are common place – there are way too many nut jobs on all side – or just plain nuts.
As a Rule death threats are STILL protected speech. There is an excellent recent supreme court cause on this.
Regardless, today there are far more death threats against prolifers than prochoice.
There have been innumerable recent fires ….. At ProLife Clincs. There have been none at Abortion Clinics.
Eric Rudolf was nuts and he has been in jail for over a decade.
Repeatedly you said that sidewalks were free speech zones and you claimed that protestors could protest on sidewalks in front of supreme court justices homes – despite laws that claimed otherwise.
NOW you are claiming that you can’t protest on the sidewalks in front of abortion clinics.
Make up you mind ?
But to HELP you.
The law can prevent protest on private property – even on right of ways on private property – such as sidewalks.
The law CAN NOT prevent protests on PUBLIC PROPERTY or on private property providing a public accomodation.
The “Buffer Zone” laws can not restrict protests. All they can do is prevent protestors from blocking access.
These are not the same thing.
““And the DOJ felt it was necescary to compound this by sending a SWAT team to his home to arrest a non-violent protestor accused of a non-violent crime.”
Its’ easy to leave out the full context of those incidents and to pretend that they were as innocent as you like to portray them is to be dishonest with the facts.”
It is – and you have done so. The clinic volunteer got into the face of a protestors son,. the protestor got betweent he volunteer and his son. The volunteer tried to get the police., the local DA and the State AG to charge the protestor – all refused.
But Biden’s DOJ butted in where they did not belong, and sent a SWAT team to arrest a non-violent protestor, for a non-crime, where even the alleged FACE Act violation was NON-Violent, and which will with certainty be dissmissed.
We have REPEATEDLY seen those on the Left use Gestapo Night and Fog – shock and awe, policing to intimidate political opponents.
“Just a few minutes ago the proud boys leader was just found guilty of sedition by a jury. That’s along with two other proud boys members.”
Those of you on the left are so stupid that you are actually proud of corrupting the courts.
Elsewhere we have GiGi ranting in Terror because Republicans are going to “take vengance” should they regain power.
And why shouldn’t they ? Why should’t republicans treat democrats exactly as Democrats have done ?
The proud boys Trial was a travesty. While the Judge was incredibly biased and thwarted proper cross examination of witnesses – and we are seeing the Same in the Trump case in NY – actually even more egregiously.
The most damning thing in the PB case is NOT the bad conduct of the Judge – it is that i case as titled in favor of the prosecution as possible there was ZERO evidence of wrong doing. One or two of the defendents confessed to entering the capitol – the others were not present at the J6 protest. One confessed to smoking inside the capitol. That was the extent of any meaningful evidence.
Prosecution witnesses said there was no plan – legal or otherwise, no conspiracy – legal or otherwise.
No attempt to interfere with government. No expectation that the protest would be successful.
No weaponry at all.
I would suggest looking into the Sedition Trial of Arron Burr. Burr raised an actual army – but was still acquitted.
Or look at the Whiskey Rebellion.
Our Founders were not so intent on using the courts to punish their political enemies as you are.
And int he rare instances they tried – the courts refused to go along with this political nonsense.
Burr took up Arms – and was acquitted. The members of the whiskey rebellion did too – and the few that were convicted were other pardoned or had their convictions overturned.
And you are so stupid that you think a bunks of people in Viking helmets are engaged in sedition ?
All you have don’e is prove that you have further corrupted our institutions.
Do you understand that you are getting nowhere in the courts ? That your victories are losses – because all they do is prove how Corrupt the left is ?
If preventing others from speaking is free speech, then the Stasi and KGB are world champions of the free speech movement. What these professors and students are doing is just a ‘nicer way’ of doing what the secret police in every dictatorship do to those who have a different opinion.
I think this event is hysterical. And she ended up on the ground. That’s even better. Broke the university rules and resisting arrest, better and better. Please we must know the eventual result of this. I would have to disagree with Lin, however. I went to a liberal arts college in the late 1960’s and I found very few professors worthy of praise or even emulating. Most were a…….s and other expletive’s. Frankly “my body, my choice” did not play well at my draft board and draft physical, also in the 1960’s. My sense of these professors is that they end up teaching sheltered kids from high school starting in the 17-19 range, often with no concept of the real world. Wonder what would happen if 4 years of work was required before college. I think students, seasoned by some real-world work and experience, might prove to be better foils for these arrogant “professors”. Teaching 17-18 yr olds, in most cases, is not that intellectually challenging. I found teaching those in the later 20’s and early 30’s far more productive, challenging and fun.
“Wonder what would happen if 4 years of work was required before college.”
Look at Israel which does something similar. Look at their technology sector, the number of Nobel Prizes. Look inside your phone and your navigation systems, Look all over. Israeli technology is part of their maturity and education.
The book Start-Up Nation by Singer is a wonderful read and shows the rest of the world what is possible. In 2000 Intel was crashing, and Israeli technology helped save them. The Israeli team’s actions were contrarian.
Svelaz, the radical Democrat operative who comments 200 times on each issue, has the first of his coming 200 comments which states that shouting down speakers is free speech, that the heckler’s veto is fine and that Turley is actually against free speech?????
Svelaz has never gotten it right because in order to get it right he would have to acknowledge when his Democrat overlords have done something wrong, and he cannot do that. Hunter caught in a myriad of crimes, “there are no crimes”. Joe caught in obvious corrupt practices, “there is nothing wrong with selling influence”. Professors attacking students protest displays, “hey, that’s free speech”. Riley Gaines being attacked on campus, “that’s the price of freedom”. Students screaming at a Federal judge, “well he is a jerk”.
This is my favorite site, the comments section is my favorite comments section, but two people, Svelaz and one particular “Anonymous” are doing their best to ruin it. My guess is that they want to turn it into a freak show like what happened with the comments section of The Hill, which canceled the section, and therefore silence the site.
Hullboby, a hecklers veto is NOT what you think it is. A lot of people don’t know what a hecklers veto is. Even Turley doesn’t know what a heckler’s veto is and that is concerning. You should really look it up and educate yourself on what a heckler’s veto actually is.
It’s a good thing that your whining is a form of free speech and you are certainly able to practice it with gusto. Good for you.
“Svelaz has never gotten it right because in order to get it right he would have to acknowledge when his Democrat overlords have done something wrong, and he cannot do that. Hunter caught in a myriad of crimes, “there are no crimes”. Joe caught in obvious corrupt practices, “there is nothing wrong with selling influence”. Professors attacking students protest displays, “hey, that’s free speech”. Riley Gaines being attacked on campus, “that’s the price of freedom”. Students screaming at a Federal judge, “well he is a jerk”.
It’s pretty obvious that you don’t get how complicated the issue of free speech really is. Your need to keep it simple and as black and white as possible runs into problems, often because it’s not as simple as you want it to be. The majority of experts on free speech know this.
“This is my favorite site, the comments section is my favorite comments section, but two people, Svelaz and one particular “Anonymous” are doing their best to ruin it.”
This explains why you don’t get it. This IS a free speech site run by a supposed “free speech absolutist”. Free speech doesn’t mean it will only adhere to YOUR preferences. Which is why you are constantly complaining and whining. The free flow of ideas includes ideas that YOU will find annoying, offensive, obnoxious, wrong, and yes, even mockery and ridicule of YOUR views and ideas will be part of it. We “ruin” your experience because you only want it run in a way is more comfortable and acceptable to YOU. The reality has always been that it doesn’t work that way if you are really in support of free speech. The Hill shut down it’s comments section because any forum that truly allows free speech as a free speech absolutist would quickly finds out how fast it can get out of hand. What many don’t realize is that they don’t have to provide these forums or comment sections. It’s a pain to maintain and moderating them is a never ending task because, strictly enforcing the rules earns you scorn and accusations of censorship no matter how balanced you try to be. I’m sure Darren is familiar with that problem.
So quit your whining and enjoy the fact that you can STILL post YOUR own offensive and obnoxious complaints about others being annoying. I don’t complain about your posts and your whining. I enjoy mocking them for what they are, whiny posts that serve no other purpose than to show how whiny you are. Ain’t free speech wonderful?
Svelaz, I learned about free speech in LAW SCHOOL, where did you learn about it?
BTW, Svelaz is quickly getting close to his 200 comments for this issue. The guy that screams that Turley is a fascist comments 200 times regarding every column????
Hullbobby, you didn’t go to law school. It’s obvious. If you really did you would have explained to us what a hecklers veto is. It’s something 1st year law students learn.
Did you finish school or just did a “stint” for a semester or two?
Plus lying already? “The guy that screams that Turley is a fascist comments 200 times regarding every column????”
When did I call Turley a fascist? You know you’re still whining, right?
Svelaz, unlike you I did go to law school, I did graduate and I did pass the bar on my first and only time taking it No you just keep on lecturing all of us law grads because you stayed at a Holliday Inn once.
When asked if the school would punish her for committing a criminal offense they referred the question to noted professor Angela Davis. Those of us old enough understand this reference.
She should be fired, of course. Is this question really that difficult?
She’s not entitled to a pass. If she is charged for a criminal offense, it all depends on her contract with the college.
From what I recall, those who engage in civil disobedience must be willing to suffer the consequences of their actions (after all, Socrates drank hemlock). If not, you’re just a vandal
“As more schools have expressly declared that they will not permit such shouts downs, many academics still insist that preventing others from speaking is free speech. It is an absurd and dangerous claim.”
No, it’s not absurd. It’s a legitimate form of free speech. The reason why is because the 1st amendment’s protection against infringement on free speech specifically and only addresses the prohibition against government. Not private individuals. That means students protesters, and even journalists. Turley doesn’t like that because he infers the constitution’s protections against the infringement of free speech should extend to private individuals. Clearly the constitution does not prohibit shout downs, or ‘louder’ speech drowning out another. It does not even prescribe how free speech should be exercised either which I think is Turley’s insistence, despite no evidence that it is required by the constitution that civility and order take precedence. That’s not really true. As a free speech absolutist Turley should theoretically be supporting private individuals shouting down others as a from of free speech.
A good example is what parents were doing a few years ago at school board meetings. During the masking controversies at schools parents and right leaning agitators such as the Proud Boys were constantly shouting down board members or those speaking in support of masking. Those meetings were often shut down because of the deliberate shouting down of other speakers including board members. Turley said nothing. Some on the blog completely supported the right of those parents to shout over other speakers and often supporters the behavior of those shouting down board members. The hypocrisy couldn’t be more clear.
Heckling is also a form of free speech and when it gets bad enough it prevents a speaker from continuing to speak. It’s not against the 1st amendment to heckle someone down. Comedians deal with it all the time and the demonstrate exactly how it should be handled by mocking the heckler back and only when it does become a problem is the heckler is asked to leave. Because it’s a private event by private businesses they can censor hecklers and kick them out. At a university it’s a different story due to the fact that as a publicly funded entity they cannot censor hecklers or punish them for it. Technically they shouldn’t be able to. It’s supposed to be left up to the students how resolve the issue. Only when violence is involved should the university be able to shut down hecklers or protesters.
Another example of shouting down is free speech is when Marjorie Taylor Greene got shouted down at a protest in New York when she showed up to suppot Trump at his indictment hearing. She took the risk and she chose to exercise her free speech right to speak against what she believed is a travesty. She promptly got shouted down and ‘ran off’ by the mob who was also exercising their free speech right to shout her down.
Clearly there are nuances when it comes to using shout downs and defining them as free speech. Turley is not an authority on setting limits of what constitutes free speech. He declares himself to be a “free speech absolutist” meaning he should be allowing even the most offensive speech on his blog. Cursing, openly racist comments, etc. Yet he clearly will censor openly racist comments from his blog because he doesn’t like it. As a free speech absolutist it shouldn’t matter whether he likes it or not he shouldn’t be deleting or censoring openly racist comments. His stance on free speech is muddled and contradictory and most importantly hypocritical.
When is Turley going to address the real attacks on free speech at republican dominated legislatures. Republicans in Montana have forbidden a member, Rep. Zephyr, from being able to debate and speak against bills on the floor merely for criticizing Republicans passing anti-trans bills. They took offense at her description of what she though was wrong. They literally violated her free speech rights by using violations of rules of decorum as a pretext. It’s obvious they are intent on keeping her silent. Where is Turley’s shock and dismay at such blatant attack on free speech? His hypocrisy is getting louder every day.
🤡
Nonsense
@Svelaz: Yes, rules of decorum. A set of behaviors of which a society moving rapidly into chaos is wont to divest itself of. An action which you are ever quick to support and defend in so many of your responses.
Svelaz says: “The 1st amendment’s protection against infringement on free speech specifically and only addresses the prohibition against government. Not private individuals.”
But when “private individuals” are also employed agents of government entities who then infringe upon the right of free speech while in the course of their agency, such persons are no longer acting in their private capacity and instead fully within their public (government) capacity. It is why the University at Albany, as a state university of New York and thus an entity of government, has stated its commitment to free speech.
Here it stands – It can do no other:
https://www.albany.edu/president/our-commitment-free-expression-and-each-other
Ron A. Hoffman,
“But when “private individuals” are also employed agents of government entities who then infringe upon the right of free speech while in the course of their agency, such persons are no longer acting in their private capacity and instead fully within their public (government) capacity. ”
That’s partly true. That still doesn’t change the fact that shouting down a speaker even as a student can still be construed as an exercise of free speech and not a violation of one’s right to free speech. Like I’ve said. Free speech issues are more complicated than people realize. It’s not as simple as many think it is.
No, it’s wholly true. And free speech issues are not complicated. Those who think they are only want them to be so that they can argue for restrictions that serve the agenda of an illiberal democracy.
Again, under-educated Svelaz attempts to instruct the rest of us.
We need an unjust war or something of equal magnitude for the college students to protest and really “experience” the 1960s and early 1970s. University life is just not the same without an actual cause or a Kent State incident…..or not.
What we are witnessing are practiced hypocrites who are lead by the nose by the robber barons of Silicon Valley and the glitter rich activists billionaire who control information manipulate the narrative and who (putting themselves and their cronies aside) are pushing Marxists ideology on the masses.
It is time for the masses to wake up from this drunken stupor and think for themselves. It’s time to grow up.
@E.M.
Bravo. Nothing more need be said. Wake the eff up, people.
Please keep us informed of the outcome. This is surely something the news media will not cover.
progressive clowns performing
In a venue of intellectuals (their claim, not mine) they lack the intellectual heft, and communication tools, to support their position, is such a way as to change the hearts and minds of those that disagree.
Is it any wonder violent crime is running rampant.
iowan2: Yours is an excellent comment worthy of more thought as to solution/resolution. Thank you.
(I assume you meant, “in such a way.”)
Iowan2, I wouldn’t call this a venue of intellectuals. There are no intellectuals here. This is just a forum for back benchers.
The college.
Iowan2,
I was tracking you.
@Svelaz: Backbenchers? At least you speak truth with respect to yourself. As for the rest you merely opine!
For some it’s more like a forum for people without actual lives.
When you throw taxpayer money at a business (which is what these so-called institutions of higher learning are), you can expect massive waste and corruption. And that is what we have received. It is time to recognize that our “investment” in college education has become a massive failure and cut our losses.
The rabid screams of the students are being taught by the rabid illiberal professors. If they all love abortion so much, why don’t they want to see it first hand? Afraid of science?
Here’s the clump of cells at 8 weeks. Living, moving, identifiably human.
https://twitter.com/LiveAction/status/1650266829204475904
If they see the image linked above, then they will have to admit to themselves that abortion is, in fact, killing a developing human life. Those with a conscious would then reject the “abortion on demand” culture promoted by Democrats. And those who have already had an abortion, without appreciating they are killing a developing human life, will be racked with guilt for the rest of their life knowing they killed their own child.
EVERYTHING Democrats claim to believe is built on lies. All of it.
Men are not, and never will be, women.
Abortion is not “women’s health”.
Despite an imperceptible warming over the past 150 years, there is no climate crisis.
Words are not violence.
Illegal invaders are not undocumented immigrants.
And on and on and on. Lies all the way down. Satanic.
The open question…
What has the University done about this?
Is the Professor still employed (under contract) or has the University decided not to renew her contract?
Note: This isn’t about stifling their ability to have free speech and voice their ideas… but that she clearly and blatantly ignored the Universities rules and violated a student’s group practicing their free speech.
-G
G, it’s notable that the very first thing conservatives on this blog or those who who often agree with Turley’s take on the events think about, is the doling out the most extreme punishment possible. It’s not a ‘reprimand’ or some other form of ‘corrective’ discipline. The first thing they want is the harshest possible punishment, fire the professor. What if the professor was tenured?
It’s like demanding 10 years in prison for someone who broke the speed limit by 10 mph.
A lot of posters here usually demand the harshest possible punishment for students who heckle or shout down a speaker. Often demanding that those students be expelled from the school for exercising THEIR free speech rights. I do agree that private individuals, students, are exercising free speech when they are shouting down a speaker. Is it rude? Certainly, no question. Is it uncivil? Absolutely. Are they unconstitutional or illegal? No. They are just annoying and obnoxious. But the constitution does not require any speech to be civil, orderly, respectful, inoffensive, or polite. It protests all forms, with the exception of speech that incites violence and harm to others. If it’s critical, mocking, offensive, rude, obnoxious, overly racist, and yes even shouty and loud heckling, all constitute free speech.
Silly Svelaz ,
I’m an independent and a centrist.
You have the evidence on video where she crossed the line and interfered with the student’s event.
This was clearly against the rules of the university and regardless of the content of the event, her actions were a violation of the University’s code of conduct.
That is an established fact.
Resisting arrest is also an established fact. The video has been made public.
Regardless of what she is eventually charged with in a court of law… the University has the requirement to take action. In fact they must because the lack of action would send the wrong message.
So again. I ask you… when will the University hold disciplinary hearings on her actions?
The most likely outcome is if not an outright and immediate termination, it would be a refusal to renew her contract.
-G
This scene only seems disconcerting if one attributes the status of “professor” to be significant. That status has long been degraded by a combination of a lax educational system engaging in incestuous promotional tactics. Without that title, Overdyke is nothing more than a lowbrow and intolerant thug exercising her right to be arrested for criminal stupidity.
Ex-Dem: Agree. When I went to school, professors were admired as role models, capable of engaging in intelligent discourse and discussion of multiple sides/views/opinions–and then encouraging us individually to logically weigh those diverse opinions as to which were more sustainable than others. I truthfully do not recall any teacher or professor imposing his/her opinions on the rest of us–or even revealing them.
–Now all that is bypassed for shouting, shutting down, mob rule, property destruction, physical attacks…and professors as active participants.
Lin,
“–Now all that is bypassed for shouting, shutting down, mob rule, property destruction, physical attacks…and professors as active participants.”
Clear signs and symptoms of a degrading society.
“Professor Overdyke has now presented the University of Albany with a clear choice. It can confirm that faculty members are accountable to free speech rules or it can confirm that these rules are a mere pretense of principle.”
************************************
Once you understand that the academie is utterly, perhaps irretrievably, corrupt, you’ll know the outcome of this one. My only question is the cause. It’s a multiple choice situation:
a. stupidity
b. cowardice
c. demonic evil
d. all of the above.
Pro tip: with these choices “d” is usually a safe bet.
time to end all federal aid to colleges, cities and states…let them fund themselves and THEIR FAILURE
College aid is basically backing fascism
That video was immensely satisfying.
And edifying, too, as stereotype affirmations. Why are all the death-cult libs hagard, middle-aged, bellicose harpies with bad fashion sense?
@Mike
While I agree that its good to know that these actions won’t be tolerated, its not really satisfying.
What would be satisfying is where you don’t have a Professor getting arrested in the first place.
-g