We have another successful “deplatforming” of a speaker at a university this week after Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) had to be removed from an event at the University of Georgia. This follows incidents discussed this week involving student protests at Tulane and Maryland.
Rep. Collins was invited to speak on campus by the University of Georgia Turning Point USA chapter and College Republicans. His remarks, however, were drowned out by protesters screaming profanities and insults.
Collins attempted to discuss the recent death of Laken Riley, who was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant while jogging at the University of Georgia.
One student yelled “How dare you come on this campus and exploit Laken Riley’s death to push your xenophobic, fascist, racist, agenda…people are in this country legally and your f–king cops are gonna get them arrested and deported.”
Others just shouted profanities like “F**k you, you’re a b***h” or told the congressman to “take your white supremacist rhetoric elsewhere, your neo-nationalist rhetoric elsewhere.” Others attacked him for his support of Israel.
Some were led out of the event by police, but the coordinated interruptions succeeded and the congressman was reportedly escorted off campus.
Some groups like the College Democrats had called for protests but it is not clear whether these groups participated in the disruptions during the events.
Once again, this was done by students who were shown on videotape preventing opposing views from being spoken or heard on campus. The question is whether the University of Georgia will take steps to discipline the students and any groups who coordinated this effort. As discussed in a column this morning in the Hill, preventing free speech is not an act of free speech.
The argument that stopping free speech is free speech is nothing more than a twisted rationalization. Protesting outside of an event is an act of free speech. Entering an event to shout down or “deplatform” speakers is the denial of free speech. It is also the death knell for higher education in the United States.
The motto of the University of Georgia is Et docere et rerum exquirere causas, or “To teach, to serve, and to inquire into the nature of things.” That inquiry cannot occur through a filter of screaming profanities and abuse. It is good that the university had security to remove disrupters but that is not enough. These coordinated efforts often involve students who stand up in succession to keep an event from being held.
If these “deplatformings” are to end, the university has to suspend or expel those responsible for such actions. Georgia must choose whether it will stand with free inquiry and free speech or whether it will yield to this entitled mob of speech-phobic students.
The motto of the University of Georgia is Et docere et rerum exquirere causas….
There is cause for hope however when it comes to a Biden appointed Federal Judge who seeks exquirere causas.
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, with less than one year on the Federal Bench, chose to shun her political pedigree and preferred to stick to facts and the rule of law. And this from a Latina (Uruguayan), Lesbian, Federal Judge appointed by Biden. How incredibly refreshing!
Are you kidding me?’: Biden-appointed judge torches DOJ for blowing off Hunter Biden-related subpoenas from House GOP
U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee on the federal District Court in Washington, spent nearly an hour accusing Justice Department attorneys of rank hypocrisy for instructing two other lawyers in the DOJ Tax Division not to comply with the House subpoenas…..
“I think it’s quite rich you guys pursue criminal investigations and put people in jail for not showing up,” but then direct current executive branch employees to take the same approach, the judge added. “You all are making a bunch of arguments that you would never accept from any other litigant.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/05/biden-appointed-judge-torches-doj-00150884
Estovir said: “There is cause for hope however when it comes to a Biden appointed Federal Judge who seeks exquirere causas.”
For most of my adult life, I have been amused at the idea that an Article III judge’s opinions on specific matters could be accurately foretold by knowing who made the appointment, and, conversely, that a President making an appointment could assume that the opinion of a judge whom he appointed would be in agreement with his own. The Federal Judiciary is by design the most non-partisan and independent branch of government. That design is enforced by the absence of a mechanism that allows a judge to be removed because of disagreement with his or her decisions. That allowed judges to make decisions based on an honest interpretation of the law, and on their own integrity. Sadly, this independence appears to be waning, in spite of the Constitutional safeguards.
Waning? Almost gone.
The student newspaper contradicts the professor. Who is correct? The reporter who was there or the professor who was not?
“contradicts the professor” on what points? If they are points of fact (like the name of the speaker, the location or the time of the address), then they might indeed by contradictions. If, however, they are matters of opinion or interpretation, there is no further question to be considered; both or neither might disagree with the other but that is not a matter of contradiction.
Collins finished his speech. He got to say his piece. Students protested during the Q&A portion of the event. Turley claims Collins was not allowed to speak. The school reporter was there Turley was not.
Prof Turley correctly used “discussion”. Get a dictionary. 😂
Discussion is part of any Q&A
The Red and Black piece does NOT say the event finished.
Q&A means Students get to ask Questions and the speaker gets to answer.
If the speaker is not permitted to answer that is “not allowed to speak”.
Most sane people do not trust reporters.
We are unlikely to trust school reporters more.
Regardless there is video.
This may be difficult for you but most of us beleive our eyes over left wing nut words.
Collins completed his 42 min speech without interruption. He already got to express his views freely and everyone clearly heard it. Turley claims he was not allowed to speak and that’s a dishonest characterization of the facts.
Q&A is where students get to ask questions and get answers. It’s also an opportunity to express disagreement by students. That they were uncivil is irrelevant. It’s still free speech to shout down Collins. He got to state his position and those wanting to hear it were not denied that opportunity. The Q&A and ensuing protestations and disruption did not stop the speech itself. The event was essentially over after the speech. He was not prevented from answering he couldn’t get a word in because students were exercising their free speech by shouting him down. It’s not a violation of the congressman’s 1st amendment rights.
Dismissing the school reporter because his first hand account contradicts the professor who was not there and is making claims thru hearsay is a bad faith argument.
The video does not tell the whole story which is why the school reporter adds better context than the video alone. I’m willing to assume the video started when things got heated, not when the event started.
Perhaps you should read the student reporter’s column. It includes video of the whole thing. Mike Collins got to finish his speech. The protesters left before he was escorted out of the building.
https://www.redandblack.com/uganews/mike-collins-faces-backlash-at-uga-visit/article_f478f47e-f2cd-11ee-80c1-d7b96892e872.html
I would suppose it would depend on which commentator has the strongest fealty to truth.
George, you have a lovely nom de plume.
Jonathan: In a previous comment I discussed how DJT is already compromised–by having to go to bonding company for his $175 million bond–from a bonding company not registered in NY and owned by the king of subprime car loans. Now it appears DJT may also be compromised by a Russian. What’s that about?
The Guardian has a long article ( 4/3/24) entitled “Trump Media saved in 2022 by Russian-American under criminal investigation”. According to The Guardian in 2022 DJT was hurting for money. He couldn’t get conventional bank loans to finance the SPAC/Trump Media merger that he wanted to go public. So he turned to an entity called “ES Family Trust”, that had an account at Paxum Bank, a small bank on the island of Dominica. Paxum Bank specializes in providing financial services to the porn industry. Turns out ES Family Trust, operated by a lawyer in St. Petersburg, was controlled by Anton Postolnikov, a Russian-American who has been under criminal investigation by the FBI and DHS. It also turns out AP is the cousin of Alexsandr Smirnov, an ally Vladimir Putin. Got your interest now? And it gets even more curious. No one knows the current status of ES Family Trust. The trust’s address is listed as a residence in Hollywood, FL. But the residence was sold in late 2023.
Last month, the DOJ charged Michael Shvartsman, a close associate pf Postolnikov, with money laundering and insider trading. It appears, according to The Guardian, that MS was the person who helped facilitate the “bridge financing” for the loan to Trump Media.
What does this all mean? DJT is now in bed with some pretty unsavory people with connections to Putin. People to whom DJT now owes a lot of favors. As Sir Walter Scott put it: “Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!”
Does anyone else sense panic in Dennis’ recent regurgitations?
Biden is compromised by the chinese, the ukrainians, the iranians, the illegals, the israelis, dementia, his court appointments, his cabinet, his family, his past, his present, and his future, among other things.
Dennis, The appelate court granted a TRO against EnMoron – that means they decided it was more likely that not that Trump would win the appeal before even hearing the appeal.
As noted previously the case is on appeal – EnMoron does not have jurisdiction – two courts can not preside over the same case at the same time.
I do not doubt that EnMoron will likely continue to act lawlessly.
Regardless, This is all panic on the part of James – the case is likely to be completely tossed – by new your democrats judges on appeal. It was stupid and lawless from the start. James has had her photo op, now she is going to have to pay the piper.
As to your other idiocy
Really ?
More Russia, Russia, Russia ?
Regardless, you really expect people to buy your ludicrously stupid argument that Trump had difficulty financing an IPO that increased his networth by a factor of 3 ?
You also expect us to beleive that Two Billionaires which Forbed values as of today it about 13B can not come up with 150M in a pinch ?
I fully expect EnMoron to have a hearing, to decide something stupid and lawless that he does not have the power to do, and the apeals court to biden slap him quickly.
The actual question of the Day is how long will Judge Merchan last now that he has used the power of public office to profit his daughter.
Why is it that Democrats keep getting caught doing that ?
John Say: Thank you again for proving you know nothing about the law. Here’s my response to the points you raise:
1. The NY Appellate judge did NOT grant a “TRO”. She only lowered to the bond to $175 K. In all other respects Judge Engoron still has jurisdiction over the case–including the April 22 hearing to determine whether the bond posted by Hankey’s company is legally sufficient. So it is ridiculous for you to claim Engoron is acting “lawlessly”.
2. AG James is not “all panic”. She is questioning the sufficiency of the bond because Hankey’s bonding company is not a registered surety in NY and appears not to have “surpluses” to pay the bond amount should DJT lose his appeal. James has a duty to protect the interests of the people of NY to ensure the judgment can be enforced.
3. Have you read The Guardian article? In 2022 DJT was desperate for investors in his SPAC/ Trump Media merger. His SEC filing showed Truth Social income was about $4 million with debts of $58 million. In fact, the auditor stated there was a serious Q about the viability of the company. Based on that reality DJT couldn’t get bank loans so he turned to ES Family Trust–shady Russians with ties to Putin!
4. And it’s more spurious for you to claim Judge Merchan “used his power of public office to profit his daughter”. What is your evidence? DJT’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss early on in the case claiming Merchan was biased and lacked impartiality because of his daughter’s company’s work for Democratic candidates. Based on DJT’s motion Judge Merchan asked the NY ethics panel for an opinion. They came back and said nothing Merchan had done in the case violated ethics rules. So what happened this week? DJT’s lawyers made the same tired motion. They again offered no evidence any ruling by Judge Merchan showed any bias to benefit his daughter. If DJT’s lawyers couldn’t come up with the goods where does that leave you? Up a river without a paddle!
For a non-lawyer who pretends to be one on this blog I can tell you with experience you would be laughed out of any first year law class by both the students and the law professor!
your and gigi’s constant liking each other, copycatting other posters’ styles ( here, ‘thank you’ and numbering, and colon after name, and “I can tell” signs about first year law class and professor, are quite different from your posts in the last year, and are all things you learned on this blog. what a joke
Clownshow Nazi comment section
Please, by all means, enlighten us as to which commenters here are “Nazis” in your considered opinion…
I NEVER read your nonsense, but I can safely say that you need to be kicked off this platform, CLOWN who never uses 10 words when he can use 10,000. — anon, responding to John Say
Is that you Dave…?
Dave’s not here man.
…shout[ing] down or “deplatform[ing]” speakers is the denial of free speech. — JT
It’s not just Scotland outlawing “hate” speech, or children at US universities shouting down speakers…
Combating “Hate”: The Trojan Horse For Precrime by Conor Gallagher via Naked Capitalism and Zerohedge
The 2021 federal COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act began to dole out money to states to help them respond to hate incidents. Oregon now has its Bias Response Hotline to track “bias incidents.”
In December of 2022, New York launched its Hate and Bias Prevention Unit. Maryland, too, has its system – its hate incidents examples include “offensive jokes” and “malicious complaints of smell or noise.”
Maryland also has its Emmett Till Alert System that sends out three levels of alerts for specific acts of hate. For now, they only go to black lawmakers, civil rights activists, the media and other approved outlets, but expansion to the general populace is under consideration.
California vs. Hate, a multilingual statewide hotline and website that encourages people to report all acts of “hate,” is coming up on its one-year anniversary, reportedly receiving a mere 823 calls from 79% of California’s 58 counties during its first nine months of operation. It looks like the program is rolling out even more social media graphics in a bid to get more reports…
…
There’s also the issue of who is providing the definitions for hate that go beyond the laws already on the books for hate crimes. The California Senate Public Safety Committee analysis stated the following about the CA vs. Hate program:
A hate incident is an action or behavior motivated by hate but legally protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression. [Emphasis added]
That leads to the question of why the state is encouraging people to report and is collecting information on legally protected “behavior.” And where does the expanded definition come from? The committee stated the following:
Define hate incidents with language provided by the Anti-Defamation League. [Emphasis added]
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is a non-governmental organization based in the US, whose stated mission is “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people, and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.”
But there’s a little more to it than that. In May 2022, Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL, announced that, “Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.” He also labeled groups that want equal rights for Palestinians in Israel as “extremists” and likened Israel critics to white supremacists…
…
Maybe this isn’t an organization that should be defining hate for US governments… [Emphasis in original]
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/combating-hate-trojan-horse-precrime
As I’ve commented previously, this is a whole of US government effort with deep roots.
Shutting down someone else’s ability to speak is no more “free speech” than burning down someone’s church is “freedom of religion.”
Much more research and inquiries need to be made into Felix Adler and his impact on Reform Judaism and its effects on our universities in general. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Adler_(professor)
Correction. Private individuals but at a public university. 1A infringement applies.
It does not. Students are not university employees. 1st amendment infringement does not apply. That’s why university presidents do not punish students. They are essentially paying customers.
“It does not.”
1A certainly does apply.
Those university administrators are government employees. By their inaction, the aided and abetted the violation of a civil right (1A).
More importantly: Where on earth did some get the bogus idea that private individuals cannot violate rights? If you trespass, that’s a violation of my right to property. If you hold a gun to my head and threaten: stay silent — that’s a violation of my right to free speech.
…and the communist public “Putsch” continues unabated.
The communist welfare state issues five-year plans, seizes control of private property, redistributes wealth, and socially engineers (affirmative action, forced busing, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.), while Commissar “Goofy Gavin” Newcom sets wages, Comrade Bernie Sanders sets drug prices, and General Secretary and Dear Leader Joke Buydone forces free American manufacturers to produce and free American consumers to purchase electric vehicles.
I don’t suppose anyone has noticed there is a Constitution and Bill of Rights, and these communist apparatchiks have no power, authority, or legal basis to carry out any of these unconstitutional actions.
It was a mere three years between the Boston Tea Party and the Declaration of Independence:
December 16, 1773 to July 4, 1776.
What the —- are actual Americans waiting for?
___________________________________________________
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, 1776
_________________________________________
“It’s time to stop talkin’ and start chalkin’.”
– Chick Hearn, Lakers Sportscaster
The University of Georgia should consult with Judge Scott McAfee, given his ruling against free speech this week. Judge McAfee, to his eternal disgrace, just ruled against Donald Trump’s First Amendment claim in the Fani Willis persecution that he had a constitutional right to protest apparent fraud in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election voting. First Amendment rights don’t always prevail (no shouting fire in a crowded theater) . Because the final outcome in Georgia declared that Biden was the legitimate winner, Trump’s protests constituted the crime of fraud; therefore the Willis case is allowed to proceed to put Trump and his 18 co-defendants (including his attorneys) in jail . Jail is where the deplatforming protesters belong, and Trump and his people belong on the campaign trail telling the world how Willis, Wade, McAfee, and several other state officials stomp all over the First Amendment in Georgia when it comes to conservatives, but use it to allow leftist protesters to stomp all over the words of those they disagree with.
Buz S.
Do not read so much into McAffee’s ruling. It is NOT so broad is it is represented.
McAfee essentially – and probably correctly ruled that protected speech CAN be evidence of a crime when it is part of other overtly criminal actions, and that because AT THIS TIME he MUST presume the actions in the indictment are all proven – from the perspective of dismissing the case, he can not do so – RIGHT NOW.
The ruling by Judge Cannon in FL against Trump’s PRA dismissal is similar.
Neither McAffee nor Cannon issued a final ruling. Both challenges can be raised again later.
I think that Cannon’s ruling was weaker – the FL case should die on PRA/constitutional grounds, there are no relevent facts that would alter that.
At the same time Cannon has made it crystal clear to Smith that the PRA is a gigantic boulder that he is going to have to move out of the way to get to a jury.
I think McAfee should have done what he did on the prior dismissal of counts and dismissed any counts that the indictment provides no evidence except protected speech. But that would not have dismissed the entire case.
BTW “shouting fire in a crowded theater” IS actually constitutional protected speech.
It is pretty amazing that the goto example of speech that is not protected – is actually protected.
Saying – “I will pay you $100K to kill John Doe” is NOT protected protected speech
BTW “shouting fire in a crowded theater” IS actually constitutional protected speech
Can you back that up? I’d like to see on what basis you say that. If it were protected by the First Amendment, then any disorderly conduct prosecution would be prohibited. As far as I’m aware, that is not the law. But I’ll change my mind if you can cite a Supreme Court case that disallows a disorderly conduct prosecution in those circumstances.
Incidentally, you didn’t specify, but I’m assuming (a) the theater is crowded, and (b) the person who shouts “Fire!” is not a stage actor playing a part. For a stage actor, or with an empty theater, there is no danger that public disorder will result.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/shouting-fire-crowded-theater-speech-regulation/621151/
The famous reference to “shouting fire in a crowded theater is from Holmes in the Schenck v. United States and is ALWAYS misquoted.
In Schenck – the Court unanimously upheld a conviction under the Espionage Act for distributing flyers opposed
to the draft.
Do you beleive that the courts today would do the same ?
Regardless Justice Holmes wrote “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”
“shouting Fire in a crowded theater” appears almost never since in majority opinions. It most frequently appears in dissents against decisions increasing first amendment protections.
You raised disorderly conduct. People almost never get arrested for disorderly conduct absent ACTUAL conduct.
If you FALSELY shouted fire in a crowded theater and there was no ensuing panic – you would not likely be charged.
Regardless, in most cases disorderly conduct is about CONDUCT not speech – and even in those rare instances it involves speech – it usually – as in this UGA event it involves sustained speech that not only intends but succeeds in disruption.
To my knowledge though the “shouting fire in a crowded theater” analogy is the single most commonly refered to aphorism from any supreme court decision ever, it has actually NEVER been tested in court – particularly the supreme court.
Why ? Because almost concurrent with Holmes expression the US and much of the world electrified.
As a result Real fires in crowded theaters became extremely rare, and the ability of dubious individuals to cause panic by “shouting fire in a crowded theater” disappeared. Hence the analogy as used today means something entirely different than it did in 1919.
Worse too, the analogy comes from Two court decisions that SCOTUS CLEARLY got WRONG,
The first predating Schenck was the Debb’s decision, where a similar phrase appears in a lower court opinion.
The current standard for unprotected speech – from 1969 case Brandenburg v. Ohio is
“directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
https://www.thefire.org/news/reminder-about-shouting-fire-crowded-theater
Shortly after Schenck Holmes reversed course and in Abrams in dissent he anticipated Brandeis in Whitney v California and most modern free speech jurisprudence with
“The ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas—that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution.”
I do not mean to specifically criticise you.
After a century of pushback against various forms of censorship, the progressive left which was instrumnetal in expanding free speech has become even more oppressive than the late 19th early 20th century censors that drove that pushback,
A decade or two ago no one would be trying to defend censoring people for misgendering, even holocaust denial, or actual experts providing correct information on Covid that is at odds with low expertise public health officials.
Today Scotland is ready to jail you for causing a man attired as a woman emotional distress even when said in the privacy of your home. As the Authors of the Babylon Bee have noted – almost everything that put out as ridiculous parody soon enough becomes real.
Many of us worry the US is not far behind – certainly if those on the left have their way.
We have left lunatics arguing that thousands of peaceful J6 protestors must be jailed for years for Wrong Think, yet shouting down speakers at UGA is protected free speech.
Very very few – and I am not sure even Turley correctly understand that Free speech is absolutely critical.
Many on the right “joke” that he 2nd Amendment is for when the first does not work. But that is NOT actually a joke.
As John Stuart Mill noted – the absence of dissent makes it impossible for us to know what is true and what is not.
The offensive voices in free speech function much like canaries in the coal mine or short sellers on the stock market.
WE accurately measure our own strength and safety by the relatively low frequency of dissent.
Right after Paulson restricted short selling in 2008 – the stock market crashed.
Without short sellers the market was no longer able to gauge the scale of the problem and they assumed it was worse than it actually was.
The absence of dissent in the USSR was instrumental in undermining trust in government.
If you want people to disbeleive government on something such as Covid, you would find it hard to do so more effectively than to silence all criticism.
One of the reasons that I post, that I specifically “attack” left wing posters is because I WANT those who are most likely to disagree with me to make their best arguments – the realities strength or weakness of their arguments is the most effective way I have of judging the merits of my own.
Humans have an incredible capacity to rationalize. this is why it is very hard for us to critique our own work or those who agree with us. Intellect inside a bubble will NOT get you to the truth. You need dissent.
\
And you can not have that without free speech.
And meaningful free speech requires that Re. Collins is allowed to speak, and that dissenters can made ORDERLY counter arguments, and Collins can then respond.
Wouldn’t you believe that the framers would have left it up to the People to decide as to what is acceptable in the form of protest? I was called a troll, a scum bag, insinuated to be a Nazi and a fascist on here for disagreeing with a post over burning the flag and kneeling for the anthem. Read Jeffersons quote on the construct, he alludes to this. The framers put their faith in the citizenry, not in trying the words. For as we are living it, a lawyer will twist the meaning of Is to suit his arguments where we now see even a SCJ can no longer define a woman.
I think quite clearly the Framers did NOT leave it up to the people to decide what protest would or would not be allowed. That is the whole point of enshrining the protections in the Const, to prevent the majority from determining who could speak and what could be said.
I would disagree, I believe their intent was allowing the citizenry to determine the acceptable limits of protest. That’s not prohibiting protest it’s simply setting limits as to how one protests. The framers would never have envisioned the level our society has degraded to., before Vietnam there was nothing like what we see today. It is now anarchy, looting, burning, and murder in the name of protest.
Thomas Jefferson said:
On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what the meaning may be squeezed out of text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,….
_______________________________________________________________________
Congress shall make no law abridging the shouting of “fire!”
Congress shall not deny constitutional rights and freedoms.
The American thesis is Freedom and Self-Reliance.
Congress shall discover a workaround or accommodation.
Buz S said: ” First Amendment rights don’t always prevail (no shouting fire in a crowded theater)”
I’ll give you another, much more appropriate quote:
“What ‘everyone knows’ is almost always wrong.” – Robert Heinlein
The oft-cited exception you mention is a canard. It is from a SCOTUS opinion in a 1919 case “U.S. v. Schenck” written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who would have been well-advised to stick to penning doggerel for an occupation (e.g., “The Wonderful One Hoss Shay”) The decision in that case was ultimately overturned; Holmes’ opinion was discredited, and ultimately disavowed by Holmes himself.
It’s Time to Stop Using the ‘Fire in a Crowded Theater’ Quote
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/
Why would you expect rational dialog among students and lecturers when the mud slinging between Biden and Trump is common place. Our higher learning institutions have become mired in mud. Their only focus is to maximize income for the institution and the controllers.
This has been going on since I was in college in the 70’s. Leftists have been shouting down or worst
Q. Is the Inception & Underlying Impetus of the Collegiate-Uprisings the dawn of the coming Anti-War Movement on Campuses across the U.S. ?
Q. Was EDI (Equity, Diversity and Inclusion) a manufactured* ‘Social Movent’?
(* By; Liberal-Faculty, Media, Government, Political-Party)
Q. At what point (when) will the level of Advocacy reach that of a ‘Social-Movement’?
Q. Does the ‘Advocacy’ meet (fit) the EDI hypothesis?
(is it: legitimate or a double-standard)
-TRA
boooooring
OT
SUMMARY DEPORTATION
is as valid, legitimate, licit, legal, and constitutional as
PREPOSTEROUS, FRAUDULENT, AND UTTERLY MENDACIOUS “ASYLUM” CLAIMS MADE BY ACTIONABLE CRIMINAL ILLEGAL ALIEN INVADERS.
SUMMARY DEPORTATION IS LONG PAST DUE.
Jonathan: So on to other important news this week. It definitely was a “bad day at black rock” for DJT and his criminal and civil cases: Here’s a summary:
–Judge Merchan denied all of DJT’s attempts to dismiss or delay the trial set to begin on April 15. Merchan imposed a new gag order on DJT to prohibit him from continuing to attack the judge’s daughter. Two hours later DJT violated the gag order. We’ll see how the judge reacts. Maybe some jail time for DJT? DJT’ attorneys even tried to get Merchan to admit into evidence a documentary about Stormy Daniel’s life (currently featured on Peacock). Merchan shot down that request ruling the documentary was irrelevant to the case.
–Then in the criminal case over DJT’s illegal retention of top secret docs Judge Cannon finally made a ruling. She ruled against DJT that the PRA gave him the right to label the docs his “personal property”. Maybe DJT is having second thoughts about Cannon being a “fine judge”?
–In the Fulton County RICO criminal case Judge McAfee ruled against DJT that his attempt to overturn the 2020 election was protected 1st amendment speech: “The defense has not presented, nor is the court able to find any authority that the conduct alleged is protected political speech”. That’s consistent with the ruling Judge Chutkan made early on in her case.
–In the NY civil fraud case Judge Engoron is holding a hearing on 4/22 in response the AG James challenge of the $175 million bond posted by Don Hankey’s bonding company. If Engoron finds the bond is defective because it does not comply NY law, and DJT is unable to cure the bond or acquire another one, we could see James finally start seizing DJT’s assets.
Now I know. It’s a bitter pill for some on this blog to swallow–that DJT might be held accountable. They have claimed for months that DJT is the “victim” of a Biden controlled “Communist-Soviet style-deep state fascist conspiracy” to prevent DJT from being re-elected. Never mind that Biden has no control over state prosecutions–like the ones in NY and Fulton County. All that is lost on the followers of conspiracy theories.
“FAKE NEWS HERE”
Direct and mortal enemy of the American thesis of Freedom and Self-Reliance, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, actual Americans, and America, and communist brainwashing, propagandizing, and indoctrinating dependent parasite who is, incidentally, terrified of freedom and longs for the forcible imposition of the Communist Manifesto and the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” including, but not limited to, central planning, control of the means of production, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering here.
I’ll see your punka$$ in jail before Trump
“Jonathan: So on to other [un]important news this week”
Judge Merchan committed a domestic version of the same public corruption crime that Joe Biden committed with his Gag order.
He has used public power to financially benefit his family.
I am sure Merchan is furious with Trump – who is putting himself in exactly the same position as JK Rowling and daring someone in power to come after her – with the added advantage for Trump that Judge Merchan doing so would amplify the scale of the public corruption crime he has already committed.
Regardless – keep this idiocy up. I highly doubt that Merchan will Jail Trump. I doubt he will even hold him in contempt or try to fine him. Any effort to retaliate against Trump for speaking the Truth about Loren Merchan – who is not a witness, and not a juror, and IS personally profiting from the fact that this trial has even taken place AND any possibility that Trump is convicted would not only pretty much force Merchan’s recusal, it would also amplify the possibility that he faces disbarment, and even possible criminal prosecution.
But Hey – Go for it.
No McAfee did not Rule against Trump’s first amendment claim.
What he ruled was that Whether this prosecution is barred by the 1st amendment is based on further facts and evidence that are not yet on the record. He has ALLOWED Willis – presuming that the case remains toto use Trump’s protected speech IF she can provide actual evidence of a related crime.
I beleive that McAffee actually got this right AT THIS STAGE.
Trump will have the oportunity to appeal, as well as the oportunity to raise the issue again – at various points during the trial – including demanding a directed verdict dismissing some or all of the case if Willis is unable to provide Evidence beyond protected speech or a crime.
“–Then in the criminal case over DJT’s illegal retention of top secret docs Judge Cannon finally made a ruling. She ruled against DJT that the PRA gave him the right to label the docs his “personal property”. Maybe DJT is having second thoughts about Cannon being a “fine judge”?”
Also FALSE. I beleive that Cannon erred. But the error is relatively small. Cannon’s rulling was that Summary judgement can only be granted when the parties – Smith and Trump are in agreement on relavant FACTS.
That at this time there is not sufficient agreement on the facts of this case to dismiss the case on PRA grounds.
Unlikely YOUR claim – Trump is STILL free to raise this issue AGAIN later when relevant facts are more solidly established.
Further as is clear from the potential Jury instructions that Cannon has offered – the PRA issue is fully alive.
And that has Jack Smith absolutely livid – and Cannon has told him to POUND SAND and to appeal if he has a problem with that.
Cannon’s ruling regarding Smith is the perfect Mirror of the Trump ruling.
She told Trump that she could not dismiss on PRA grounds AT THIS TIME,
and she told Smith that she could not rule the PRA out as a determinative issue in this case AT THIS TIME.
So the PRA remains the sword of damoclese hanging over Jack Smith’s head.
Smith can appeal this to the 11th circuit – But Cannon’s ruling – contra left wing nuts is actually quite sound.
She did NOT rule on Jury instructions at this time, she merely asked the parties to start discussing them – and she did so in a way that made it clear that Smith is NOT the one who will decide what Jury instructions are.
To appeal Smith is going to have to claim that she WRONGLY decided the PRA issue against him, and that she decided FINAL jury instructions prematurely. Neither of those are True. Further if he does appeal – Smith brings the PRA issue front and center at a higher court. Whatever the 11th cir ct of appeal decides will get appealed to SCOTUS which is likely to confirm Judge ABJ’s 2012 decision – that Presidents can do as they please and the courts do not even have jurisdiction.
I would note that ONE of Cannon’s hypothetical jury instructions – which is at odds with the JW V. NARA decision, is still openly hostile to Sack Smith. That instruction incorrectly allows the courts and specifically a jury to decide what is an is not presidential vs. personal. Cannon is pointing out that there are atleast 3 legal positions.
Judge ABJ’s JW V NARA position – that the PRA is binding law, that it allows the president to determine what is a personal record and what is a presidential record, but that the part of the PRA that specifies the criteria for a personal vs presidential record is unconstitutional – because Congress can not tell the president how to excercise an Article II exclusively presidential power.
Jack Smith’s position – which is that the Espionage Act Trump’s the PRA AND that the constitutionals delegation of National Security powers exclusively to the president does NOT preclude congress from making the presidents excercise of national security powers illegal.
And a third position which is that The PRA is constitutional exactly as written, and therefore the courts and juries get to decide whether the presidents choices complied with the PRA.
There are likely intermediate possibilities. It is frankly highly unlikely that SCOTUS will not find BOTH of the later two positions unconstitutional – which would throw out this case entirely.
But you are free to engage in wishful thinking.
Regardless. Judge Cannon has provided Smith the Means to Appeal – which if he does will guarantee this goes in front of the supreme court. It will also guarantee this case is not decided before the election.
Smith’s alternative is to continue with the PRA sword of damoclese continuing to hang over his head.
I NEVER read your nonsense, but I can safely say that you need to be kicked off this platform, CLOWN who never uses 10 words when he can use 10,000.
“–In the NY civil fraud case Judge Engoron is holding a hearing on 4/22”
The case is on appeal – Judge EnMoron has no jurisdiction.
It is a foundational principle of US law that two courts can not have jurisdiction over the same case at the same time.
This is why the DC case is on hold and will remain on hold until the Supreme court decides the immunity issue.
But Judge EnMoron has not had any problems disregarding fundimental law or the appeals courts before.
So we can expect a stupid ruling from him.
If he wishes to piss of the appeals courts further and behave more lawlessly – you go for it.
Regardless, you idiots on the left are unbelievably stupid.
I can point out all the legal problems you have – this case has crashed and burned in so many ways.
It is my Guess that the appeals courts are going to slow walk all of Trump’s NY appeals until after the election – to avoid making the lawfully correct decisions they ultimately must make until after the election, but my bet is that the Carrol and EnMoron case are tossed entirely.
The most likely death of the Carrol case is that the State Legislature can not constitutionally open a 1 year only exception to the statute of limitations. That would constitute a bill of attainder.
There are so many ways to get rid of the EnMoron case
There are several MAJOR issues.
1). NY has court system for consumer protection cases – Judge EnMoron never had Jurisdiction.
2). If he did have Jurisdiction NY constitution assures a right to a jury trial for any cases with more than diminimus awards.
3). Judge EnMoron has ignored appelate direction to apply the statute of limitations
There are other major issues.
Regardless, the most fundimental issue here – ignoring that the appeals court is already pissed with EnMoron for ignoring prior orders, is that the appeals courts Blinked in response to the threat EnMoron’s judgement presented to the solvency of NY itself.
Whetehr you like it or not – so far the NY Appelate courts have protected you left wing nuts from your own stupidity.
You are salivating at the prospect of James padlocking Trump tower – not understanding that such action would both make Trump’s election near certain and risk putting NYC and NY State into a financial death spiral.
You do not seem to grasp that sometimes the the gods punish us by giving us what we ask for.
All that makes it seem you have no legal background but listen to lots of emotional rants on CNN. I predict these maniacs will soon realize they are actively assuring Trumps re-election and begin back peddling very hard soon. But when Trump emerges through the most intensive lawfare operation in the history of the world, he will be more popular than Rocky Balboa! The extreme left is setting Trump up for the greatest come back of all time and he’s going to play it like a symphony! I would like to hear a legitimate legal analysis from the left, if there are lawyers discussing these things please list some. For anyone that wants the truth of what’s going on, check out “Robert Gouveia Esq.”, or “Viva Frei”, or “Robert Barnes” to name a few actual lawyers doing real legal analysis.
With respect to your stupid argument that “Biden has no control over states”.
Then the GA election interference case MUST be dismissed – because President Trump has no control over the states.
Of course there are other problems – such as that a former WhiteHouse lawyer has been moving from Case to case in the efforts to “Get Trump”, and we have a growing body of interactions between the WH and DOJ/Smith/Willis/Wade/James/…
Not to mention that Both Wapo and NYT have been regularly reporting Biden’s fits of wrath and threats that DOJ, Bragg, James, Willis are not doing enough to “Get Trump”
When you tell your pretorian guard “Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest” – you end up with responsibility when that occurs.
Finally – it really does not matter – this is not about the lawless conduct of Joe Biden.
This is about the lawless conduct of the far left and the complicity of the left in that conduct.
People are not stupid – they know a vendetta when they see one.
YOUR OWN remarks make it clear – you do not understand the US or the US constitution.
In the US the role of government is to go prosecute violations of the law – NOT to go after people looking for violations of the law.
Since 2015 – those of you on the left have followed the advice of Levanti Beria – “Show me the man and I will find you the crime”
For 8 years you have hounded Trump constantly making up new legal theories and bizzare legal claims – and you have failed to come up with anything.
Ordinary people KNOW the objective is to “Get Trump” not to enforce the law – and that when you weaponize the law to go after a person YOU are the criminal.
It does not matter whether Biden’s is directing this, or the same Cabal that when after Trump in his first term or than rigged the 2020 election is running this, or even if a collection of prosecutors, Judges and Juries in the tiny by most vociferously antiTrump parts of the country are doing so without coordination.
This is all still a reflection of YOUR lawlessness.
So PLEASE – padlock Trump’s property, and Jail him for Contempt.
Channel Putin and make Trump into American’s Navalny.
Very well said!
Respectfully, I disagree with your use of the word “protester.” These are mindless, radicalized thugs. They have nothing to protest. They do what they are told and their objective is to disrupt fair minded people from having a conversation. These would be the first in line at the Jonestown Kool-Aide stand.
@E.M.
They are, and the irony is they think they are doing it in the name of ’empathy’, which they could never define and have likely never actually experienced due to their narcissism.
They don’t understand that actions have consequences and that empathy can most certainly coexist with meting them out; modern, younger people are largely toddlers who think cognitive dissonance is a disease that can only be cured with medication, screaming, safe spaces, propaganda and strong arming, voting blue, and only going to work two half-days a week, and that in their pajamas. 🙄🙄
Its more and more impossible to take seriously with every new crop of babied babies less mature than kindergartners 30 years ago, and it isn’t getting better.
Forget the mythical ‘real world’ that is supposed to be magically downloaded into their brains at 18 and straighten them out. Get off your lazy duff and *parent* your kids, because we ain’t gonna, it isn’t our responsibility. We will be happy to fire them because their presence is a hindrance, though, and with inflation, there are plenty of older folks who’ll take their spot.
james: “they think they are doing it in the name of ’empathy’, which they could never define…”
lin: they probably couldn’t spell it either.
Ah, think back to your youthful, college years!
(Me– a little sniff of pot, skinny-dipping in the ocean at night, driving on I-75 at night, in a convertible with all lights off, –so we could see the full moon (’til HiPatrol in the median caught us). What idiots we were.
We ALL thought we knew so much; were so much smarter than others. We can never go back.
“Ah, Youth! ..the glamour….the fire of it, more dazzling than the flames of the burning ship, throwing a magic light on the wide earth, leaping audaciously to the sky, …presently to be quenched by time, more cruel, more pitiless, more bitter than the sea – and like the flames of the burning ship surrounded by impenetrable night…”
So glad that most of us “grew up” and wised up and do something good with our lives.
(quote from Joseph Conrad, “Youth.”)
Lin,
Yeah, I can recall some of the youthful bliss of ignorance, vanity, and thinking we knew how the world worked.
Then we got out into the real world and discovered what the term “cash flow,” meant.
hello Upstate: burst out laughing just before I sign off here, thanks!
Lin – sounds like a healthy adolescence and young adulthood. The same cannot be said of deranged disruptors who shout down a speaker with faces contorted by demonic rage.
Hello NotsoOld: As stupid as we were, and all the stupid stuff we did, we would NEVER have disrupted a speaker or professor, –or talked back to one. (Maybe the same for you?)
It’s like the young students today clamor for attention, notoriety, visibility, recognition–for all the wrong reasons.
Oldman, I remember the good old days. When we wanted to impress people in class, we tried to act intelligently. Today, too many students want to impress by sounding dumb.
I noted a few of those students in the video couldn’t speak. They had to read what someone else wrote for them.
lin said: “So glad that most of us “grew up” and wised up and do something good with our lives.”
Oh, yes. When I was 19. I participated in an anti-Vietnam War Moratorum March. I still think LBJ’s prosecution of that War was an anathema, and that, in concept, the March was a valid protest. However, some of us were unnecessarily vile and provocative. I had an older compact car painted in psychedelic style with day-glow poster paints, and it had several truly obnoxious slogans painted on it. There was a middle-aged local realtor who took such umbrage to one (or more) of the slogans that he made a concerted effort to use his Lincoln Continental to run me and my little compact car off the road after the march was over. I’ve not cited that incident out of pride, but I think that our mistakes play at least as important a part in who and what we ultimately become as our successes, and I’m reasonably happy with the current result (although much room for improvement remains).
Jonathan: If we accept your take over GOP Mike Colllins appearance at U of G he was “shut down” by a “mob of speech phobic students” to “keep an event from being held”.
According to the “Red & Black”, a student campus publication that covered the event, they portray Collin’s speech quite differently. Photos from inside the classroom show about a dozen students asking Qs and arguing with Collins. According to R&B Collins completed his 42 min. speech: “Despite numerous spoken altercations, Collins continued his speech on his immigration policy and took questions from the audience. Demonstrators continued expressing their opinions during this time before following the same fate of being forced to leave”. Outside the event the R&B posted a photo of about a half dozen students peacefully protesting.
So contrary to your portrayal Collins was not prevented from completing his speech. But you say it is “good that the university had security to remove the disruptors but that is not enough”. You demand they be suspended or expelled. You seem to think peaceful but vocal protestors are not entitled to their own “free speech” rights. I think the 1st Amendment and the courts would find otherwise!
Dennis,
First Red and Black only confirms SOME of what you claim.
It is Unclear whether the disruptions precluded Collins from completing the event.
It is clear that the disruptions inside the event lasted for over 20minutes – during which time those who came to actually hear what Collins had to say had THEIR rights abridged.
Non of those protesting asked questions on topic. They were all fixated on issues that Collins was neither speaking about, nor had any control over. Collin’s noted that – as did Red and Black in quotes you did not cite.
The protests were peaceful – mostly do to the fact that TP requested campus police presence – not imagining that they would have to remove dozens of protestors from the event.
Regardless, YOU are advocating multi year prison sentences for protestors at the US capitol on J6th who were more peaceful and less disruptive.
Those of you on the left would have no standards but for double standards.
I do NOT support expelling those who staged this protest, who were non-violent.
I do support reasonable disciplinary action – such as a public apology and requiring them to take and pass a class on constitutional law. That used to be a requirement for graduation in the University of Georgia system.
I would further note that most conservative speakers, and particularly Turning Point Speakers deal with this all the time.
Speakers like Owens, Shapiro, Kirk, Walsh, deliberately structure their events to allow time for questions and prioritize questions from those with conflicting perspectives.
In return they expect the body of the speech to proceed uninterrupted, and those asking questions to ask their question not filibuster, and to allow the speaker to answer.
I think that is a reasonable model for acceptable behavior – regardless of the ideology of the speaker or protesters – don’t you ?
Had Congress announced ahead of time that protesters would be allowed to march through the capitol PEACEFULLY, that individually or as a group some time would be allotted for protesters to “petition government”, and that otherwise anyone shouting or otherwise disrupting the proceeding would be removed and charged with disorderly conduct – I think all of us – at least all of us not on the loony left, would be fine.
The courts have routinely found that you CAN NOT disrupt an event.
That you can protest outside, but that within the event you must behave orderly.
That if you are not a scheduled speaker or that if you are not invited to ask questions, that you are obligated to be silent INSIDE the event. That even if you are given an opportunity to ask questions that is NOT the same is giving you a platform to take over the event. That you must respectful ask a question that is germane to the topic of the speech.
I would like to see that at events – both right and left.
Many “right wing” speakers have a well known reputation for doing exactly that. Prioritizing questions from those with opposing views.
That is the acceptable model for public events.
If you want to rant without constraint – you do so OUTSIDE the event.
It you want to ask an actual question on topic and listen to an answer – reasonable accomodation for that should be made.
“You seem to think peaceful but vocal protesters are not entitled to their own “free speech” rights”
Actually that is what YOU think, as you intently seek to jail thousands of peaceful but vocal J6 protestors.
Or is there some free speech exception for them that I have not heard ?
“I think the 1st Amendment and the courts would find otherwise!”
And yet as you noted – Judge McAfee is not protecting Trump’s first amendment rights – nor is Judge Chutkan.
And DC judges have punished thousands of peaceful J6 protesters for free speech.
If you are going to make a free speech argument – atleast attempt to be consistent.
You could say it’s as if we’re living in an ‘age of rage’.
Dealing with the ‘thorns’ of these protests leads to questions:
Where are the roots? What are the healthiest ways to deal with them?
Why are ‘good’ people feeling they should act out so badly?
Why are we being steered to pick a side on every single thing these days, from politics to soda pop,
instead of working more and more on finding ways to work together? The ‘United’ states, eh?
-Cat
where is SHOUTING PEOPLE DOWN in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Perhaps we should have thought of this when we allowed the dems to create (what many consider to be unconstitutional) hate speech legislation. End that egregious abuse of legislative power first and them proceed.
harassment isn’t speech
You can’t SHOUT PEOPLE DOWN…that isn’t FREE SPEECH…it is a CRIME.
We need to ARREST THESE PEOPLE!
Now, find yourself a prosecuting officer in any blue urban center who will do this. Until we fumigate the entire nation of this insidious concept or progressivism, we will achieve nothing in the way of change. We have allowed the progs to gain to much control of governments, media and education to effect a change through the courts.