Below is my column in The Hill on the recent disruptions of events featuring leading Democrats from President Joe Biden to Rep. Jamie Raskin. After years of supporting the censoring and blacklisting of others, these politicians are now being targeted by the very anti-free speech movement that they once fostered. Hillary Clinton last week became the latest Democrat targeted by protesters in a visit to her alma mater, Wellesley College.
Here is the column:
You are “killing people,” President Biden told social media companies a couple of years ago. He sought to shame executives into censoring more Americans. Biden has lashed out at disinformation by anti-vaxxers, “election deniers” and others. This month, those words were thrown back at Biden himself as a “genocide denier” by protesters who have labeled him “Genocide Joe” over his support for Israel.
After years of supporting censorship and blacklisting of people with opposing views, politicians and academics are finding themselves the subjects of the very anti-free speech tactics that they helped foster.
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), for example, has been a leading figure in Congress opposing efforts to curtail massive censorship programs coordinated by the Biden administration. While opposing the investigation into past federal censorship efforts, Raskin continues to push social media companies to increase the censorship and silencing of Americans. Last December, Raskin sent a letter on behalf of other Democrats on the powerful House Oversight Committee demanding even more censorship, not only on election fraud, COVID or climate change, but also on abortion.
“We are troubled by the rapid spread of abortion misinformation and disinformation on your company’s social media platform,” he wrote, “and the threat this development poses to safe abortion access in the United States.”
When journalists and even other members testified in favor of free speech, Democrats attacked them as “Putin lovers” and fellow travelers supporting “insurrectionists.”
Last week, however, the left turned on Raskin. He was giving a lecture titled “Democracy, Autocracy and the Threat to Reason in the 21st Century.” According to the Maryland Reporter, the protesters accused Raskin of being “complicit in genocide.” After efforts to resume his remarks, University of Maryland President Darryll Pines finally ended the event early.
Pines then pulled a Raskin. While mildly criticizing the students for their lack of “civility,” he defended their disruption of Raskin’s remarks as if a heckler’s veto were free speech. “What you saw play out actually was democracy and free speech and academic freedom,” he said. “From our perspective as a university, these are the difficult conversations that we should be having.”
There was, of course, no real conversation because this was not the exercise but the denial of free speech. The protesters were engaging in “deplatforming,” which is common on our campuses, where students and faculty organize to prevent others from hearing opposing views.
So, after years of Raskin encouraging the censorship of others, the mob finally came for him. The yawning response of the university was not unlike his own past response to journalists, professors and dissents who have come before his committee.
The only “difficult” aspect of this conversation is for university figures like Pines who are called upon to defend the free speech rights of speakers or faculty. They need to show the courage and principle required to uphold the free speech commitment of higher education, even at the risk of being targeted themselves. That includes the sanctioning of students who prevent others from hearing opposing views in classrooms and event forums. These students have every right to protest outside such spaces, but higher education is premised on the free exchange of ideas. There is really no further “conversation” needed, just a letter of suspension or expulsion for those who deprive others of their rights.
Deplatforming is the rage on our campuses. Universities often use it to cancel events for conservatives or controversial speakers. Often officials will sit idly by, refusing to remove protesters or deter disruptions. And that can lead to self-help measures by others.
Last week, Walter Isaacson, former CEO of CNN and the Aspen Institute, was accused of assaulting a Tulane student protester, Rory MacDonald, during an event held off campus. Isaacson, 72, who teaches at Tulane, was attending the university-sponsored event and had had enough when MacDonald became the eighth protester to stop the event. He stood up and shoved MacDonald into the hall.
MacDonald insisted that he and his fellow protesters were merely “peacefully interrupting” the event to stop others from speaking. He displayed slight scratch marks and is quoted as expressing a fear of returning to campus after the incident. Protests have been held on campus to have Isaacson fired.
I have long criticized the growing anti-free speech movement in higher education. Yet these students have been taught for years that “speech is violence” and harmful. They have also been told by figures such as Pines that silencing others is an act of free speech. Academics and deans have said that there is no free speech protection for offensive or “disingenuous” speech. In one instance, former CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek insisted that disrupting a speech on free speech is itself free speech.
Even schools that purportedly forbid such interruptions rarely punish students who engage in them. For example, students disrupted a Northwestern class due to a guest speaker from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (after the class had heard from an undocumented immigrant). The university let the protesters into the room after they promised not to disrupt the class. They proceeded to stop the class and then gave interviews to the media proudly disclosing their names and celebrating the cancellation. Northwestern did nothing beyond express “disappointment.”
At Stanford, law students prevented a federal judge from speaking. When the judge asked for law school officials present to intervene, former Stanford DEI Dean Tirien Steinbach stepped forward and attacked the conservative judge for triggering the students by sharing his views. After a national outcry, Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Law School Dean Jenny Martinez issued a joint apology that notably did not include punishment for a single student.
These schools are enablers of the anti-free speech movement as much as figures like Raskin.
For years, academics supported such mobs or remained silent as their colleagues were cancelled or fired. Now they are suddenly discovering the value of free speech as the mob comes for them.
Censorship and blacklisting create an insatiable appetite. While Democrats fostered such efforts to silence conservatives and dissenters on vaccines, climate change, abortion, transgenderism and other issues, they now find themselves pursued by the very mobs that they once led. Just two years ago, Biden was celebrated for denouncing social media executives as “killers” for allowing free speech. Now he, Raskin, and others are accused of killing others with “Zionist disinformation.”
It is an epiphany that often comes too late. During the French Revolution, journalist Jacques Mallet du Pan remarked that “like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children.”
Jonathan Turley is the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at the George Washington University Law School.
Many have wondered that the fascist faction now in control of out federal administration is not worried that their dismantling of the rule of law in aid of their short-term objectives will not become most difficult to reverse — that they will not be able to get the toothpaste back in the tube. A lack of concern might come be coming from some combination of (1) their lack of sophistication, (2) the singular importance of their short-term objective — the overthrow of the U.S. government and/or (3) one of their long term objectives is, in fact, that the people of the United States never regain their previous level of civilization.
From listening to any of them and observing their actions, it is quite apparent that you have hit the nail on the head – they are, for the most part, ill-educated, lacking in philosophical/moral depth and are not restrained by any real moral code of behavior (most are atheists). We know all that and yet the right can’t seem to get its act together to fight the most lethal disruption to this nation EVER. Why is that? I would think answering that question would be far more profitable than just rehashing all the ills of the other side yet I see little momentum in the general population to save themselves. Are so many of us glutted on food, media and other forms of self-indulgence to even notice the approaching collapse? I am certain that middle class America will be stunned when the actual “fundamental transformation” finally is installed and there is no way back short of a revolution – but we are so out of shape and lethargic I am wondering if it is too late.
IIRC, Robespierre met the same fate as the French monarchy – a date with the Guillotine. Now it seems like the leftists are getting the taste of their own.
You just hate to see it
Jonathan: Speaking of “disruptions of events” did you see the article in the LA Times today by Timothy Ryback, the author of “Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power”. It illustrates the parallel between Hitler’s rise to power and DJT’s attempt to get back in power–using “disruptive” tactics like attacking judges, prosecutors and family members.
In his opinion piece in the Times, Ryback explains that in 1924 Hitler was charged and convicted of treason for leading the armed insurrection against the Weimar Republic. Ryback says: “During his monthlong trial in March 2024…Hitler railed against Germany’s democratic leaders. He chastised his judges. He threatened his prosecutors. He insisted that it was not he who had committed treason against the state but the Weimar Republic’s political establishment who had betrayed the German people”. See any parallels with what DJT is doing in his criminal and civil cases?
According to Ryback, during the next decade Hitler was in the courts many times but “he invariably emerged politically stronger”. When Hitler lost the 1933 presidential election “he went to the court to have the results annulled amid claims of voter fraud and irregularities by state officials”. Hitler lost his claims because the judge found no election fraud. See any parallels with DJT’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election?
Ryback ends his opinion piece with this warning: “History does not repeat itself, as the saying goes, but historical events can rhyme. The alarm-changing couplet of Hitler’s and Trump’s courtroom appearances, two demagogues–separated by a century–exploiting their constitutionally guaranteed rights of free speech and due process in an effort to undermine democratic processes and structures, should serve as a sobering warning as we approach an election to determine who will be running the next government of the United States”.
Now we know from Ivana Trump that her husband read the speeches of Hitler. DJT has always admired authoritarian leaders and learned valuable lessons from Hitler’s experience in Germany. If you lose an election claim “election fraud”. File lawsuits and if that fails engage in armed insurrection. If you are charged with criminal offenses attack the judges, prosecutors and family members–“disruptive” tactics with false claims the whole justice system is “corrupt”. DJT now says he doesn’t mind if Judge Merchan puts him in jail for violating the gag order. He wants to play the “victim” that he thinks will appeal to his base of MAGA supporters.
All of this is part of DJT’s game plan–taken right out of Hitler’s playbook. If he is convicted in the election interference/Stormy Daniels case and goes to prison he will declare he was put there by “deranged” and “crooked” prosecutors and a judge. He thinks he can run from prison as a “martyr” and that will appeal to his supporters. I doubt most voters will want to vote for a “convicted felon”.
@Dennis
Blah, blah, blah *spits venom an possibly provides links to propaganda* blah, blah, blah.
Dennis with another daily ‘Confirmation Bias’ off-topic ineffective monkey wrench attempt
-Cat
Hey, Denise,
I did not vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020.
But I am voting for him this year.
Even if he is in jail.
UpstateFarmer: Hey, hayheed! You say you didn’t vote for DJT in either 2016 or 2020. What makes the difference this year? His positions on the issues are the same as in 2020. The difference this year is that DJT is running on a record of (1) being judged by a jury of being a “rapist”; (2) found liable for systematic business fraud; (3) facing 91 criminal charges over trying to violently overturn an election; and (4) going to trial on April 15 for both election interference and hush money payments payments to a porn star–sex with Stormy Daniel when DJT had a wife at home with a newborn.
Based on that record you will still vote for DJT–even if he is in prison? Remarkable! If the GOP candidate was anyone but DJT would you vote for him? That says a lot about the mindless allegiance to DJT we see on this blog!
Ryback ends his opinion piece with this warning . . . .
An opinion article about an opinion of a second person is the very definition of mindless twaddle.
Iowan2: Almost every day DJT posts on his Truth Social. Right? His posts criticizing Judge Merchan and his daughter are his “opinions”. Right? Last Wednesday DJT posted links from another website by Laura Loomer who also criticized Merchan and his daughter Loren and the Justice’s wife Lara. Right so far? By definition isn’t that “an opinion of a second person”? DJT does that all the time. He attacks judges, prosecutors and family members and then provides links to others on Truth Social who voice the same views. I would put DJT’s posts and his links also just “mindless twaddle”?
Now you might not like what Timothy Ryback said in his opinion piece in the Times. Ryback is a historian. Taught at Harvard and is currently director of the Historical Justice and Reconciliation in the Hague. He has written many books about Hitler and his rise to power. Have you read one of his books or his opinion piece in the Times? If you haven’t I would put your posts on this blog as just more “mindless twaddle” by someone who knows nothing on the subject!
Res ipsa loquitur
Remember we used to say that if you were not a democrat when you were young, you had no soul. If you were still a democrat as you grew older then you had no brain. I think we can eliminate the 1st part and just go with the 2nd part now.
“I am malicious because I am miserable.” (Frankenstein’s Monster)
The modern American Academy is devolving into incubators of future totalitarians. These institutions for the most part have been taken over by cultural Marxists who were groomed by the 1960s mentors. Although It is good to see cowards like HRC get a taste of what her ilk has enabled over the past two decades, this is going to end very badly, when the true proletariat wake up to the fact that these little fascists intend to take away all their rights and govern without consent. I would not mind one bit to see someone like Jaimie Raskin receive the Che Guevara treatment from the peasants he so despises.
It’s very concerning that free speech is so maligned and misunderstood by Biden, university administrators, and Democrats, sh but I repeat myself.
I doubt these university administrators ever heard of the concept of the heckler’s veto and their duty to stop it.
It is not and never was misunderstood. It was seen only as an obstacle in their quest for power. Do not think them stupid, call them what they are, craven megalomaniacs and their horde of indoctrinated tools, almost exactly what mohammed created when he started islam. They are very much alike, islamic jihadist and prog/left tools – both led by persons seeking dominion over the world.
Is it even possible to have a ‘reasonable’ conversation with Raskin?
-Cat
Not likely, Even if he could, he doesn’t care. Discussion in good faith ain’t him, or so many others.
So much fun to watch their creation turn on them!
Pines and other university presidents who allow left wing students to shout-down speakers don’t need courage. The issue is they basically agree with the protesters. Pines (and other presidents) don’t need courage — they need to be replaced.
A few more of the episodes by the radical left and they might have their own SA moment. The SA (brownshirts) of 1934 in Germany had become a threat to Hitler’s power and image and up to 500-1000 (est.) people were eliminated in the Night of the Long Knives. Some because the military regarded them as a threat, some because they wanted Hitler to fulfill his socialist promises, as well as opportunists settling scores. They only question is, will the powers that be in the Democratic Party endorse a fake coup to use as an excuse to take out the ultra radicals and some conservatives with them, in order to consolidate power. Nothing like a failed coup or fake one to really install you in permanent power.
I suspect that’s why the Jan 6 members were so intent on calling 1/6/2021 an “insurrection”. They pushed that theme as far as they could but they simply did not have enough of a grip on power or the media to push us over the edge.
If the neo-anti-Zionists become a problem for Ruskin and friends, that just proves that free speech is too dangerous and must be repressed.
I repeat what I wrote regarding the article specifically on the Raskin interruption: smells like gander sauce to me. I am thoroughly enjoying the turnabout aspect of these developments, at least for now. Hopefully the geese get as much pleasure from it as I do. IMO, Turley is showing an unfortunate tendency toward becoming a humorless pedant.
The whole “massive censorship apparatus” and “anti-free speech agenda” argument is getting tedious.
This isn’t about censorship. It’s about protesting and challenging others by heckling, and shouting down speakers. Despite the professor believes it is not free speech it is indeed free speech.
He’s arguing for civility. He argues that free speech is only free if it’s civil. That’s not the case. The disruptions and denial of others from speaking is NOT illegal or a breach of free speech rights. Private actors (protesters) are not bound by the prohibitions of the 1st amendment. The right to be heard is also not a right enumerated anywhere. Nobody has a right to demand a compliant and obedient audience.
Professor Turley offers a solution that does exactly what he is against, censorship and punishment for exercising free speech. He calls for the expulsion or suspension of students who violate civil decorum and disrupt someone else’s speech. That is a form of censorship itself. He supports giving out the harshest punishment for students who exercise their free speech rights. Nothing says free speech must be civil or measured in tone. Nothing says it can’t be vulgar, rude, or even racist.
Protesters who choose to protest outside a venue still get threatened with expulsion and suspension as has happened with students protesting in support of Palestinians.
Enforcing civility rules is often used as a pretext for censorship. That has been the case in Tennessee with some of their legislators. They use the threat of enforcing civility to censor free speech.
The Supreme Court seems poised to rule in favor of the Biden administration on the ability to point out to social media certain information is inaccurate and ask to review it against their TOS. Thats not censorship.
@George
Not at all, George; that argument is in its infancy and growing into a legitimate movement as more wake up, and no, the courts are not on the precipice of allowing the Biden administration to wantonly censor. Cast your net a little wider.
“More wake up”, you mean they are going woke?
It’s not censorship. The government has a right to speak. The majority of the justices made the point that government is not prohibited from engaging in persuasion. The 1st amendment prohibits the government from retaliating and threatening punishment to stop an individual or organization from expressing their views or publishing content. It does not prohibit government from engaging in persuasion.
The states suing the government could not show how the government threatened social media to withhold certain information or censor content. What stood out in the arguments is that social media had the final say on what to allow or not. Social media companies are allowed to agree with a government suggestion or warning. That’s not evidence of coercion. The majority of the time social media companies ignored or refused government persuasion and suggestion. Did government retaliate? Did they punish the companies ? The plaintiffs did not show evidence of coercion or threats.
Government is always trying to persuade media to change a story or omit certain information because they believe it’s erroneous. Justices who once worked for an administration pointed out that it was a daily occurrence and that it is still up to media to decide, not government.
The case looks certain that it will side with the Biden administration.
No the government does NOT have a right to speak. Further this argument that censorship is speech is illogical idiocy.
The entire purpose of govenrment is to prevent the disordered state of chaos where everyone has the right to do anything and therefore no one actually has the right to do anything.
The purpose of government is to use just sufficient force that the execercise of one persons rights does NOT preclude that of another.
Turley says he is a free speech absolutist. That does not mean he is just an anarchist who wants a world where everyone shouts down everyone else and so nothing is ever heard.
The first amendment REQUIRES that government must be completely neutral regarding the content of speech. It does not means that it can not impose order on the process.
Anyone can speak at a public forumn and they can say most anything they wish.
But NOT all at the same time.
If you want colleges to have absolute freedom to pick and choose who can speak, then you must make them truly private – you must end all government funding.
Otherwise the rules for speakers and events must be content neutral.
Raskin is no less free to speak than Richards spensor – or no more.
Anyone who disrupts an event is subject to disciplinary action – including being prosecuted for disorderly conduct.
Most speakers – at least those on the right, provide an opportunity for Q&A, and they prioritize the Questions of opponents. Those asking questions get to present their question – uninterrupted by the rest of the audience – and then the speaker gets the opportunity to respond.
These constraints are due to the nature of speaking forums.
On the internet there are no physical constraints – so anyone can say anything they want.
What they can not do is censor others.
Put differently there are DIFFERENT rules that constitute content neutrality depending on the Physical properties of the forum.
Limitless forums such as the internet where people can not actually be silenced by the speech of others allow for no censorship beyond that very limited content that is determined to be illegal.
Actual incitement to violence as well as child pornography.
The government does have a right to speak. What do you have to support your conclusion that it does not? What constitutional clause or article can you cite to support it?
I see nothing prohibiting government from exercising a right to speak or engage in persuasive speech.
I’m not arguing that censorship is free speech. I am saying that heckling and shouting down a speaker is indeed free speech. When it’s between two private individuals or a public official and a protester in a classroom it’s certainly free speech. Shutting down a speaker by heckling, protesting, or shouting is not a violation of a speaker’s free speech rights. A speaker can choose to stand their ground and continue despite the disruptions or they can choose to stop. The decision is always up to the speaker.
Now, to be clear I am not saying those who engage in shout downs, heckling, or protestations in a classroom should be free from consequences. The only remedy for things like that should only be removal from the event or classroom. To expel or suspend a student for exercising their free speech to voice disagreement and challenge a speaker would be government retaliation or punishment for exercising free speech. It would be censorship by expulsion or suspension. Just sufficient force, as you astutely pointed, would be simple removal from the event. Not the harshest punishment that most critics of student protests want.
The professor applies free speech rights in the context of a civility rule, not how it’s spelled out in the constitution. He makes the argument that speakers have a right to be heard as part of their first amendment rights. Thats not true. Nobody has a right to a compliant audience, there’s an expectation but that is not a guarantee that it will be.
Q&A events are expected to be orderly, but nothing guarantees it and nobody is obligated to adhere to the rules if choose not to. Because oftentimes civility rules are used as pretext to censor or prevent unwanted inquires or challenges.
The government does have a right to speak. What do you have to support your conclusion
The govt is formed to secure rights. Not excerise them
The proper question is one of Power.
@George
No. I am implying they are doing the opposite. I do not know you but you appear to be someone that thinks students today even touch civics withe their tiniest finger in school – they do not. Cast a wider net; it’s all well and good to talk about leftist echo chambers, but they exist full on in the other viewpoints, too. This is 2024. It would really be advantageous to learn about that; not in terms of scrapping foundations, but in terms of actually knowing what is going on around you. Your personal neighborhood is probably (likely, almost guaranteed) not telling you all you need to know, and in modern times, that is not going to cut it in terms of being informed. That bubble is not going to help in a big, big country, where the majority of the population resides in big, big blue states and urban centers where people could give a toss and don’t even know about the kinds of things we discuss. this is not the 70s, 80s, 90s, or even early oughts; what is happening now requires a unique response to what is actually happening now. And it’s now or never, so it would behoove one to catch up.
When leftist tactics are allowed, chaos ensues.
It has always been true that eventually a liar will become so helplessly enmeshed in his own web of deceit that it will ensnare him. If we only had a broad spectrum of the press who were of an honorable nature, this vast network of fiction created by the progs would be exposed for the grand scheme it is.
I see nothing in your story suggesting an epiphany on Raskin’s, Biden’s, or Hilary Clinton’s part. Has there been one?
leeotis said: “I see nothing in your story suggesting an epiphany on Raskin’s, Biden’s, or Hilary Clinton’s part. Has there been one?”
An epiphany such as you specilate about would require some degree of self-consciousness on the part of the person experiencing same. Those schizophrenic, misanthropic ass-hats don’t have the smallest vestige of that quality.
You said it so much better than I did lol…
“an epiphany on Raskin’s, Biden’s, or Hilary Clinton’s part” You must be the world’s most ardent optimist lol. Delusion is not only found among the gender-confused, but it is the main component of each and every prog heart. We would have as much success in turning these progs as any psychiatrist would have in turning the mind of a serial killer. It is baked in them at this point.
I was just responding to this in Prof. Turkey’s piece: “It is an epiphany that often comes too late.”. Also the headline about Democrats”crying foul” re being disrupted. I saw no indication in the story of either happening at all.
You allude to the solution. Simply permit protests outside the premises where the lecture, speech, or discussion is taking place. Any disruption inside the venue will subject the person or persons involved to expulsion from the venue in the first instance and expulsion from the university if the disruption is repeated. There should be no appeal of expulsion from the university afforded violators of this policy. That’s essentially what happened at The University of Chicago in the Fall of 1968. Those protestors who refused to vacate university buildings after being ordered to do so were summarily expelled.
But then the media would echo these protester’s calls for their “free speech” rights. Why is it that no ordinary American can anything untoward without being slapped with Hate Speech violations but islamic jihadists in Michigan can openly call for the death of America and Israel but not one accusation of hate speech is proclaimed? Just whom does the law protect with this (soon to be shown unconstitutional hate speech -democratic- legislation)?
This all sorts itself out in the end.
If everything is hate speech – nothing is hate speech.
If everything is racist nothing is racist.
Two Decades ago I would be deeply hurt by being called racist, homophobe, nazi, ….
Now it is a typical monday.
If anything it means I have touched a nerve.
Getting people to look at the contradictions in their positions is a worthwhile accomplishment.
@whimsicalmama
We have to nip the problem in the bud and colleges aren’t the bud. These kids are showing ip already twee, fragile, and susceptible. That came from their upbringings. Until we address modern parenting and the influence of modern factors, zero will change. It will only get worse. Nobody has the guts, just as they didn’t have the guts 15 years ago to address social media. Someone needs to plainly tell these parents they do a terrible job, their kids are a disaster, and no, it is not someone else’s responsibility to fix it.
Good luck with that; even among conservatives, whose kids seem to be the most babied of all, bristle at the mere thought. Nevertheless. . . .
Ugh. Sorry for the bad grammar. End of the day.
While your suggestions are valid – it is NOT necescary for you and I to decide rigidly what the rules should be.
It is merely necessary to decide that government rules on speech much be content neutral and govenrment restrictions on speech must meet a very high bar for necessity.
What you have suggested has been common practice in the past.
We should default to the presumption that what was valid in the past is acceptable today.
But that does not mean we MUST confine protests to outside.
What we MUST do is protect the speakers right to speak and to conduct the event orderly.
When chaos ensures everyone has equal rights, because no one really has any rights.
time to END Federal Aid to Colleges! Let Democrats try funding their FASCISTS out of their own pocket!
Correct. Myriads of constitutional problems go away when you extract Government.
Colleges are free to censor students and speakers as they wish – absent government funding.
Ultimately the market sorts things out when government does not tip the scales.
aren’t anarchists and fascists so 1920’s and 30’s European Fascist….Well I guess given Democrats are fighting their 2nd Civil War Against America in 160 years…shouldn’t be surprised
Time to jail Democrats by the 1000’s….harassment, intimidation, violence aren’t FREE SPEECH! Remember Hitler was appointed Chancellor by Hindenburg Mr Establishment!