We have been following the controversies surrounding professors commenting on the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump. Some of those responses have ranged from celebrations to spreading bizarre conspiracy theories. The latest controversy concerns Rutgers University Writing Program Assistant Teaching Professor Tracy Budd, who posted a Facebook message saying ”Let’s hope today’s events inspire others.” These postings raise difficult questions for universities in balancing free speech rights against statements viewed as endorsing violence.
Professor Budd is engaged in what I called “rage rhetoric” in my new book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.” Indeed, she perfectly embodies the following from the beginning of the book:
“We are living in an age of rage. It permeates every aspect of our society and politics. Rage is liberating, even addictive. It allows us to say and do things that we would ordinarily avoid, even denounce in others. Rage is often found at the farthest extreme of reason. For those who agree with the underlying message, it is righteous and passionate. For those who disagree, it is dangerous and destabilizing.”
Like many on the left, Budd mocked the assassination attempt and seemed to regret that it was not successful. She added ”They shot his wig. Sad.”
For most of us, the comments are shocking, but shock is a relative concept in an age of rage. Budd, like many, does not appear to view Trump as a human being as much as a symbol or object. He is treated as devoid of human components from feelings to family. It is easier to call for the killing of a caricature than a person.
Budd is obviously part of the radical chic in higher education discussed in my book. She has worked at the Rutgers University Writing Program for 22 years.
Conservative sites like Campus Reform have noted that her Facebook account features a poster at a protest that reads: “Capitalism will kill us all. Gender is fake. Eat garbage. Be free.”
The posting is an example of the difficult questions that arise on social media. This was a comment made outside of the campus as a private person, not as an academic.
Yet, there have been calls for Budd to be fired.
My inclination is always to err on the side of free speech in such circumstances. The university can condemn it, but punishing political speech can place a university on a slippery slope.
Moreover, Rutgers is a public university subject to the First Amendment. I do not believe that disciplinary action would be upheld under these circumstances.
Rutgers could argue that this is a call for political violence. However, Professor Budd can insist that this is mere hyperbole and bad humor.
My concern is not with allowing Budd’s hateful speech, but the lack of consistency in how universities respond to such controversies.
Many conservative or libertarian professors find themselves suspended or under investigation for controversial tweets or jokes. Conversely, it is comparably rare to see such action against those on the left who use inflammatory language including professors advocating “detonating white people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements.
The most analogous case is that of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. Yet, those extreme statements from the left are rarely subject to cancel campaigns or university actions.
Faculty and students often have little tolerance for even jokes from conservatives as they do alleged jokes by liberals like Budd.
For example, conservative North Carolina professor Dr. Mike Adams faced calls for termination for years with investigations and cancel campaigns. He repeatedly had to go to court to defend his right to continue to teach. He was then again targeted after an inflammatory tweet. He was done. Under pressure from the university, he agreed to resign with a settlement. Four years ago this month, Adams went home just days before his final day as a professor. He then committed suicide.
What are often portrayed as harmless jokes from the left are treated as threats from the right. That is the long reality of rage rhetoric; it is either righteous or dangerous depending on your perspective.
But we are the violent and unhinged people they say. I am just waiting for today in DC with Netanyahu. These Tricks Wish Death on Trump and All of His Supporters and We are Not the Violent Ones. https://tinyurl.com/43zmsesy
Tracy Budd may soon comment on the hiring of DEI Secret Service agents…or not
🤣
ATV driver found dead after elderly man is struck while putting up Trump sign
“The 80-year-old victim was struck by an ATV in his yard, and a 22-year-old who later reported being involved in an ATV incident was found dead by suicide, officials said.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/atv-driver-found-dead-elderly-man-struck-putting-trump-sign-rcna163364
He struck an 80 year old man, from behind with an ATV, over a Trump sign.
The 80 year old has a “brain bleed,” and is in critical condition.
Why not?
He is a “convicted felon” and an “existential threat to our democracy”
The ends justify the means
If a person wishes death on another person for any reason that person has a mental disorder and needs psychological help or
I think that we need to remind ourselves that only inflammatory speech that “is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action” is prohibited/not protected, starting with Brandenburg and its clarifying progeny. (full quote: “[T]he constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to….”) To my knowledge, this is still the guiding tenet under SCOTUS,
Notwithstanding, I invite everyone here to read up on discussions regarding the perceived threat of cleverly-concocted “stochastic terrorism.” If nothing else, look up its definition: STOCHASTIC TERRORISM.
Lin,
Thank you for that thoughtful comment.
That would describe the Rutgers professor to a T.
yeah, in today’s world, how easy it is to substitute “scholastic” for “stochastic.”
Q: How many Trumps does it take to screw in a light bulb?
A: One. He just holds up the bulb and the world revolves around him.
Jealous?
How many Benson’s does it take to form a profound thought?
Evidently, more than one.
“I was a Sniper in the Seal Teams, Colonel, and this is just obvious…”
“Are you surprised that a lot of Americans think there might be more to this story?”
https://x.com/liz_churchill10/status/1815849833577808198
Don’t blame Kamala Harris.
Parasites are programmed within their DNA to feed relentlessly on their hosts until the end.
You gave your freedom and your country away to Karl Marx and his fellow traveler, “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.
Indeed, reprehensible slavery had lost favor, was “withering on the vine” in the Western world, and the long-suffering slaves deserved safe and compassionate repatriation.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“They consider…that it fell to…Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through the…RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD. [B]”
– Letter From Karl Marx To Abraham Lincoln, 1865
https://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm
I agree that this is protected speech. One thing that must be pointed out–the left’s rage speech usually far more unhinged than that of the right. Take an example–there was a big to do when some student said something to the effect of “Congratulations to George Floyd for a drug free year.” That’s provocative, but not anything else.
She is calling for the murder of Trump, and that is “protected speech”, you “agree”.
You people have banana mash for brains.
That is protected speech and constitutes the crime of conspiring to homicide.
Self-incrimination is legal.
Yes, it’s protected speech. No, it does not constitute the crime of conspiracy to murder, or any other crime. Conspiracy requires at least two people to agree to commit a crime. This woman has not done that. What she has done is advocate that someone ought to commit a crime, and that is 100% protected speech and cannot be criminalized under any circumstances.
Nor can a government school discipline an employee, let alone fire them, for advocating any action, including a violent crime, up to and including the president’s assassination and the government’s forcible overthrow.
Keep singing your tune, loud and proud. You leftist hot war is almost unavoidable. It will make me feel better to know I did not harm an innocent.
dana590: I like the words on your posted logo (-but for the potential for its misuse/mis-justification; I take yours at face value).
LOL — Yet ANOTHER commercial for Turley’s DUMB “book” dressed up like a news article.
There are websites that dress up ads for anti-COVID medication as though they are breaking “news” about COVID, but if you look closely at the homepage, the links to those articles say (in small lettering) “Promotion” or a similar note to designate that the article isn’t something that someone looking for actual NEWS needs to pay attention to.
But Turley doesn’t bother giving readers any notice that he’s writing about some topic as an excuse to peddle his “book.” That’s how little respect Turley AND HIS HIRED TROLLS have for readers.
See Svelaz. Like i said, only you, Ralph and the booger eating lawn boy.
Why is this implied verbal threat not a prosecutable crime? In light of the assassination attempt, her statement seems to be a credible threat of harm to Trump.
It is a prosecutable crime, but those who agree with it are in control of the wheels of justice.
“Intent to Threaten Harm
Criminal threats are made with the intent of placing someone in fear of injury or death. It doesn’t matter if the defendant intends to carry out the threat. Also, many states don’t require proof that a victim actually experienced fear or terror. Rather, it’s the intent of the person making the threat to place another in fear that typically matters.”
“Federal Penalties for Criminal Threats This federal offense carries up to 5 years in federal prison. (18 U.S.C. § 875.)”
We can judge this by imagining the reaction if Biden said what the criminal professor said.
It would not be condoned as free speech.
It is not a prosecutable crime, because it is not a threat. This is black-letter law, undisputed by anyone.
A threat doesn’t require the defendant to have actually intended to carry it out. Nor does it require the target to have actually experienced fear. But it does have to be an actual, literal threat. The defendant must have actually, literally, threatened to commit the crime. The professor would have had to actually say that she, personally, would attempt to kill Mr. Trump. And she didn’t say that.
In addition, it has to be a credible threat, one that an ordinary person, on hearing it, would believe to be intended seriously and literally. The defendant doesn’t have to have actually had such an intention, nor need she have the means to carry it out, but it must be such that an ordinary person would believe that the defendant had such an intention, and also the means to carry it out.
In this case neither of these key conditions are present. There was no threat, and an ordinary person would not understand it as a credible threat. Therefore there is no crime, and the first amendment forbids any government entity from punishing it in any way.
Kamala has learned nothing and the “turn down the rhetoric” was certainly short lived.
She is out spewing how there is a “convicted felon” running around trying to “take over out democracy”.
Any good American who believes that should be attempting to eliminate him.
She is a vile human being.
Her CV is unassailable:
– Boinked Willy Brown For Ten Years
Seriously JT? SHE CALLED FOR THE ASSISANATION OF PRESIDENT TRUMP. ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO TRY! But then again we have Muslim leaders, in the US, calling for death to the Jews and over throwing our Republic and no one os arrested.
Minds become mush because we are beyond the “what can we do” “widespread” issue.
Even if they don’t say it out loud, the propaganda machine has many tens of millions agreeing with it.
Just like “protected speech” has reached the point of replacing the white European natives of the USA with any other color of human from across the globe, on purpose, with the intent the white people have no nation of their own. Hatred and genocide of whites is now “protected free speech” while saying “It’s okay to be white” is a prosecutable criminal offense.
So of course it all depends on whom it is you are calling to be murdered. In other words, it’s not about free speech at all.
Yes, she did call for that, and that is protected speech. The law is very very clear on this: ALL advocacy is protected. In the USA we have the absolute right to advocate literally anything we like, including the president’s assassination (let alone that of a mere candidate), the violent overthrow of the republic, and the resumption of the Holocaust or of slavery. That’s what makes America great, and worth defending. If we became like Europe or Canada, where people can be arrested for such speech, then our republic would deserve to be overthrown.
How many educated morons does it take to fill collegiate educators’ positions (like the light bulb question)? Seems almost daily you’ll hear about another delusional college educator making a foolish statement or introducing some dogmatic rule. These privileged over educated, near sighted fools have sowed dissent and are producing mental doppelgangers by the slew [meaning many] but it could also include a different or additional meaning [to turn on an axis; in that I mean our founding documents and the law there under}, preaching that their failures are successes to be marveled. The doppelgangers run about spewing their learned bias taught by the near-sighted educated morons. Under educated individuals may be defined as Functional illiterates, having the capacity to learn but never taught, so what to call overeducated literates who carry blind allegiances, (I’ll leave that to others)?
George W,
Great comment!
Umm, cult?
Upstate
Looking at the meaning of Cult, I think you’ve struck pay dirt, defined by American Heritage Dictionary as a noun: “A religion (democratic socialism {my words}) or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian charismatic leader” (The Democrat Party). Cult also uncovers other synonyms: faction, disciples, zealots, sect, or the truest meaning devotion. Like most Cults the lemmings are undeterred and march towards the preverbal cliff, blinded by a deceit of Nirvana beyond, where Rosemary and Lilacs share their aroma.
George W,
Excellent comment! And spot on!
The jews suddenly gained insight into limiting campus free speech very recently, so recently many here have already forgotten how they handled it, as in total condemnation and a demand for removal, at any cost.
Now their boomer brains have reset already, and it’s time to play footsie again, donning their angelic parade banners.
When the pogrom comes they will wonder where the sunshine went, unable to comprehend their participation, yet bearing the already worn down scars they acquired over many years of being a punching bag.
It isn’t that hard of a call, in my opinion. If the speaker’s employer decides that this speech harms their institution’s reputation, they can and should take disciplinary action. The specifics of that action are entirely up to the institution. Anyone connected to the institution can and should weigh in on that decision.
Other than that, no one else has suffered any harm. Words are just words, they don’t cause any harm of themselves. The problem with “yelling fire in a crowded theater” isn’t with the word, “fire”. The problem is inciting a stampede in which people get physically hurt. Absent any actual harm, there is no cause for action.
Except for the fact these calls have in fact been acted upon. What really needs to happen is for the people calling for these types of acts to get a sample going their way
Yet somehow Professors that call for the murder of conservatives had no influence on the man who tried to assassinate Donald Trump. It’s also a threat of the murder of any conservative student sitting in her classroom. You step out of line we’ll take you away along with the members of your family. Socialism was evil in Russia and it’s evil in America today. Retaliation is not the answer but more speech is if it’s allowed to exist.
You’re a balllless joke. A eunuch under command.
You admit they call for your murder and then you say more free speech is the answer, only if it is allowed.
Conformity=100%
Infirmity= also 100%
You want to take any of that back, specifically the last sentence ?
Dear Mr. Turley, so, what’s the problem with removing this professor? It is a call for violence against Mr. Trump, nothing less. This person needs to be shown the door.
Anonymous, I guess you missed when the Mayor of New York held a ceremony thanking Trump for all the things he did for the city. You must have also missed all the photo opportunities that various politicians had with Trump. As is your usual want your knowledge of history has never been your strong suit.
What does that have to do with consequences for calling for the murder of Trump on the tail of bullet to his face ?
For anyone doing business with trump, or to have seen his grift in NY, to know trump was to hate him. Shocking he wasn’t killed 30 yrs ago. So people hoping for his death sooner than later isn’t unusual.
I take particular umbrage at/with the notion that professors–or anyone employed to teach our youth–have free rein to imbue their students with their own political garbage, with no opposing viewpoint, and with impunity under the cloak of “free speech.”
I agree that they cannot or should not be punished. BUT, educational institutions must be prepared to COUNTER this speech by presenting to students an opposing view from a guest speaker, or having same DEBATE the professor in the presence of students.
This inculcation of one-sided viewpoints–by persons ostensibly cloaked with authority, knowledge, and elevated position, –is something we were warned about decades ago.
Lin,
The problem is, if a student were to attempt to voice an opposing view in the class room, that professor would tell them to shut up, throw them out, or flunk them.
And I agree, there should be a opposing speaker, or a debate, but as we have seen leftists cannot and will not allow for any other point of view to be heard but theirs.
They are the fascists.
Hello Upstate: I really don’t think that students are thrown out or told to shut up (short of disruptive conduct/speech), but they very well could suffer a lower grade.
I’m sure many educational institutions welcome anonymous student complaints; student recordings of objectionable lectures/presentations/comments; lecture audits, etc.
BUT the issue for me is: how are institutions addressing these issues?
As has been discussed by the good professor and other commenters, when school administration and HIRING of staff is monopolized by like-minded persons, “education” goes out the door, and indoctrination settles in.
(didn’t you tell us that your own daughter went through this? or am I confusing you with another?)
Lin,
Howdy!
Yes, that was my daughter who had to take a DEI class as a graduation requirement.
And, in that same class, when my daughter presented a “conservative” point of view, the professor told her, her opinion was not valid. It was a “shut up,” moment to the point the whole class knew it. Then the professor realized what she had just did. She later apologized to my daughter, but one on one. Not in front of the class.
Can you factually prove any of what you just claimed. Sorry/Not sorry arguments or rebuttals that can only be described as purely fictional fairy tales and fantasy do not good arguments or rebuttals make.
You are a loser.
You always have been.
Own it.
I have far more better credibility than you do.
Own it.
I own you.
🙂
Upstate, I laugh at the anonymous below who doubts your credibility when he has zero. They always want proof, but they jump into the sewer when it comes to the truth.
S. Meyer,
Yes, good sir.
That actually happened. My daughter had to take a DEI class for graduation. Even the good professor has pointed this fact out in previous columns. We all know it. We all see it.
Yet, our loser annoy, Dennis and Gigi continue to fail.
How marvelous!
I don’t know if this posted because I am getting crazy messages.
Upstate, I laugh at the anonymous below who doubts your credibility when he has zero. They always want proof, but they jump into the sewer when it comes to the truth.
Farmer Up There: … what she had just *done*.
Tch, tch.
Hey David
How do those boogers taste?
Let’s not forget the targetted hammering of the conservative professor led to his suicide. The college power structure is not immune from charges of manslaughter.
Thank you Mr. Turley for bringing his death to light.
It brings to mind the idea of “consent”. The power structure within a college between teachers and students is not equal. The student body cannot give consent because it. It’s abusive.
Lin, you do know they already to that, right? Yes professors do have free rein to imbue their expertise onto students. Remember it’s the students who CHOSE to enroll on these classes. They can also CHOSE not to accept the ideas presented to them in class.
Professors are the ones with more experience and knowledge than the students which is the whole point of getting an education. To impart that knowledge. Students all over the country pay to get this. Even conservative students. It’s not like religious schools where discussing an opposing view is considered sacrilege. Right? Now schools in Texas and. Oklahoma students will be able to question and offer opposing views in biblical teachings without having to worry about being ostracized in some way.
How to make certain your physical enemies win and you eventually take hard core body damage, and at that point, have no out or justice.
“I agree that they cannot or should not be punished.”
There we have it, the perfectly modern “parent” who refuses to discipline their child.
While you people pretend to have morals and unbreakable standards, the innocent around you are trampled into bankruptcy and the prisons. I think your minds are mush, and you love perching on your fake halos.
That works absolutely until it comes to jews or Israel, then suddenly you find a threat that cannot be tolerated under any conditions.
Shakdi: I regret that you may have misread my comment. I read you comments all the time, and agree with many of them.
But today, I merely say that if we believe in Constitutionally-designated SCOTUS as being the arbiter in defining what is and what is not actionable “incitement,” -then the professor’s comments would be protected. That does not mean that I agree with, approve, or even consider her worthy of visibility with her Facebook post.
But I do not agree to silence her. Indeed, know your enemies is the adage I live by. Thanks for your comment.
This is clearly a call for violence. I hate censorship but we’ve all agreed that calling for violence against a person or group of people is not allowable speech. A former president was shot at, his supporter was killed, and two others seriously injured. Any suggestion that the event inspire others is a call to action.
It’s a call to war. Give me liberty or give me [your] death. I suppose everyone thought Patrick Henry was speaking of his own death? It does call out Ms Cheadle’s words about the attempting assassination being a complete failure. Yes, it was Ms Cheadle. Trump is still living?