We previously discussed the free speech lawsuit of Portland State University Professor Bruce Gilley who was blocked from the Twitter account of the University of Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion after tweeting “All men are created equal.” The court just granted a preliminary injunction holding that there was a substantial likelihood that he would prevail on the merits against the University of Oregon.
Portland State University Professor Bruce Gilley was excluded from a Diversity Twitter page by the Communication Manager of the Division of Equity and Inclusion at the University of Oregon. (The manager is identified as “tova stabin” who the court notes “spells her name with all lowercase letters.”). Stabin has now left the school.
In Gilley v. Stabin, Judge Hernández previously offered this background:
On or about June 14, 2022, Defendant stabin, in her capacity as Communication Manager, posted a “racism interruptor” to the Division’s Twitter page, @UOEquity. The Tweet read “You can interrupt racism,” and the prompt read, “It sounded like you just said_________. Is that really what you meant?”
Plaintiff Bruce Gilley, a professor at Portland State University, responded to the Tweet the same day it was posted with the entry “all men are created equal.” Plaintiff is critical of diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”) principles, and intended his tweet to promote a colorblindness viewpoint. Plaintiff tagged @uoregon and @UOEquity in his re-tweet. Also on June 14, 2022, Defendant stabin blocked Plaintiff from the @UOEquity account. Once he was blocked, Plaintiff could no longer view, reply to, or retweet any of @UOEquity’s posts….
Plaintiff later filed a public records request with the University of Oregon to inquire about the policy VPEI uses to block Twitter users. … The University initially responded that there was no written policy and that “the staff member that administers the VPEI Twitter account and social media has the autonomy to manage the accounts and uses professional judgment when deciding to block users.” …Plaintiff also asked whether other Twitter users had been blocked from @UOEquity, and the University responded that two other users were blocked. … Plaintiff asserts that “[b]oth of the other users have expressed politically conservative viewpoints, including criticizing posts of the @UOEquity account.” Am. Compl. ¶ 70.
On June 27, 2022, Defendant stabin responded to an email from University of Oregon employee Kelly Pembleton, who was helping respond to Plaintiff’s public records request. Defendant stabin sent the following in response to Pembleton’s request for a list of the users she had blocked on @UOEquity:
“Doesn’t take real long. I’ve only ever blocked three people. Here is the list. I’m assuming the issue is this guy Bruce Gilley. He was not just being obnoxious, but bringing obnoxious people to the site some. We don’t have much following and it’s the social I pay least attention to. Here’s a screenshot of everyone I’ve ever blocked. I hardly do it (and barely know how to).”
Minutes later, Defendant stabin sent another email to Pembleton about the records request. The email reads, in pertinent part:
“Oh, I see. It is Bruce who brought it. Not surprising. He was commenting on one of the “interrupt racism” posts, as I recall talking something about the oppression of white men, if I recall. Really, they are just there to trip you up and make trouble. Ugh. I’m around at home for a quick zoom about it.’
The court previously denied the university’s motion to dismiss. The University of Oregon then continued to spend public dollars to try to defend its right to censor academics and students in this arbitrary way. Now it has lost the key fight over the preliminary injunction.
In his decision, Judge Hernández zeroed in on the guidelines allowing for the censorship of offensive or hateful speech:
“Plaintiff has shown that the two provisions of the social media guidelines he challenges create a risk of censoring speech that is protected by the First Amendment. As Plaintiff points out, speech that is “hateful,” “racist,” or “otherwise offensive” is protected by the Constitution. Pl. Br. 3 (citing Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 454 (2011); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 25 (1971); Am. Freedom Def. Initiative v. King County, 904 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th Cir. 2018)). The Court held that the @UOEquity account was a limited public forum, meaning that any restrictions on speech must be reasonable and viewpoint-neutral. Op. & Ord. 25.5 Plaintiff is correct that the provisions allowing the Communications Manager to block “hateful,” “racist,” and “otherwise offensive” speech create a risk of viewpoint discrimination because “[w]hat is offensive or hateful is often in the eye of the beholder.” Pl. Br. 4. If Plaintiff was blocked for posting “all men are created equal” because the post was viewed as hateful, racist, or otherwise offensive, such blocking would violate the Constitution. Deleting or hiding the post for that reason would also violate the Constitution.”
That is why this decision could have a lasting impact for higher education. The Oregon language is not dissimilar from many schools limiting campus speech under vague guidelines.
Notably, we have discussed how these schools have been losing in federal courts in their effort to maintain censorship systems. Yet, administrators continue undeterred in pursuing these policies with the support of their faculty.
Oregon has long been known for radical viewpoints in academia. I previously criticized the school policy to monitor student speech on social media and off campus as part of its speech regulations.
The school previously gave special recognition to University of California (Santa Barbara) Professor Mireille Miller-Young who criminally assaulted pro-life advocates on the campus of the University of California at Santa Barbara. At Oregon, she was honored as a featured speaker at the University of Oregon’s Department of Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Studies. Part of its “black feminist speaker series,” Miller-Young’s work was highlighted by the College of Arts and Sciences and the Department of English to show “the radical potential of black feminism in the work that we do on campus and in our everyday lives.”
It is unlikely that the legislature will object to this expensive fight to preserve the right to censor speech. The state itself has moved aggressively against free speech rights of doctors and others in areas like abortion. However, the people of Oregon should consider the use of their tax dollars to seek to limit the “indispensable right” of free speech and to give figures like stabin such discretion over what speech to allow on campus.
Jonathan: Apparently, Professor Gilley believes ONLY MEN are deserving of equality. Woman, especially women of color, are not part of Gilley’s “equality” equation. No wonder he opposes PSU’s DEI policies and would probably abolish them if he had the power.
Gilley is no stranger to controversy. He has said that PSU faculty who work on racial or social justice issues are the “new racists”. For the REAL racists like Gilley “DEI” is the new n-word. In 2017 Gilley submitted “The Case for Colonialism” to the Third World Quarterly in which he argued that colonialism–especially in Africa–was a net economic benefit, even though 10 million died in the pursuit of that colonial agenda. Gilley wrote: “Maybe the Belgians should come back”. Gilley also delivered a talk to a far-right white nationalist party in Germany–saying that Germans should take pride in their colonial past. He also defended slavery in the US claiming it was the “good fortune” for African people to be enslaved by the British empire.
In 2021 the PSU-American Association of University Professors issued a statement (3/11/2010) on behalf of its 1,200 members: “…we do not have the power to cancel or censor Gilley”…but “we would be remiss to not acknowledge the overwhelming consensus among our colleagues who are experts in history and political science that Gilley’s research is not merely unpopular but rather discredited”.
Gilley is clearly the out liar. His calling for the recolonization of Black and Brown countries shows he is a racist of the first order and a minority of one on the PSU campus. But I say Gilley should not be censored. Let his views be exposed to the cold light of day so everyone can see he is providing intellectual cover for racism and White nationalism!
“even though 10 million died in the pursuit of that colonial agenda.” Please cite your source.
I agree that Gilley’s views as you describe them are abhorrent. But as the court points out, the First Amendment protects hateful and obnoxious speech, with very limited exceptions such as speech that threatens imminent violence.
“I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now.” Judy Collins.
These offer more elucidation, and obviously you can draw from them as you are free to do:
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/the_case_for_colonialism
https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/35/1/the-case-for-colonialism-a-response-to-my-critics
It seems Trump is against free speech too.
“Trump called for those who burn or damage the American flag to receive a “one-year jail sentence.”
“People will say, ‘Oh it’s unconstitutional.’ Those are stupid people, those are stupid people who say that,” Trump said. “We have to work in Congress to get a one-year jail sentence. When they’re allowed to stomp on the flag and put lighter fluid on the flag and set it afire, when you’re allowed to do that, you get a one-year jail sentence and you’ll never see it again.”
Trump wants to jail those who wish to express their dissatisfaction with the government by burning a U.S. flag which has been deemed protected free speech. Mmmm….it’s offensive and controversial, but free speech nonetheless.
I suggest that flag burning is not speech (as the Supreme Court has ruled), but if it is, it should fall under the concept of “fighting words”, and should be left to the public, not the state, to resolve.
The Supreme Court has indeed ruled flag burning IS protected free speech. It’s can be attributed to political speech during protests.
George tried telling just one part of the story, not the ENTIRE story: The Supreme Court has indeed ruled flag burning IS protected free speech.
SCOTUS has never ruled that you’re protected when you drag down flags that belong to other people to vandalize and destroy. Which is exactly what was done yesterday when the Soviet Democrats’ New Hitler Youth Movement pulled down flags that were the property of others to burn while they replaced them with hajji Arab terrorists’ flags. They didn’t bring their own American flags to burn – they burned the property of other people.
That SCOTUS decision did not protect Enrique Tarrio, who the FBI arrested, indicted, and convicted of aiding in the burning of a Black Liars & Marxists flag, his conviction resulting in a five month prison sentence.
How many months in prison should the members of the New Hitler Youth Movement get for burning flags belonging to other Americans who weren’t members of Black Liars & Marxists and/or the New Hitler Youth Movement?
Or does the SCOTUS decision you mentioned protect them but not Enrique Tarrio?
Free speech implies a dissent. What is the redress for flag burning? A one year jail sentence could be. I can’t think of one. A long speech about the good of the USA with fiery torches blazing? I’d actually require a fireman’s presence at any free speech burning. A church could be set ablaze or a KKK cross. Burning is a visual call to gather from a distance.
Demonstrations are now art forms. Joe biden paper sculpture etc set on fire at a demonstration is free speech or should I say free expression. Express yourself…
it should fall under the concept of “fighting words”, and should be left to the public, not the state, to resolve.
Now that’s a heart warming thought – resolved with recreational pugilism!
Black Liars & Marxists from Spokane were brought to our city in Montana by our local culls at the height of their 540 Mostly Peaceful Riots And Insurrection to show Montana how the big city communist black racists conducted business.
They walked up to the flag pole in the city park (also our war memorial to locals who died in wars overseas). Took a look at the assortment of local miners, ranchers, and loggers standing there beside the flag pole, some in parts of their old military uniforms, and decided the locals weren’t worth wasting their time to give BLM lessons to.
There are a lot of places in America where the communists and racists of Black Liars & Marxists and Antifa give a very wide berth to. Recreational pugilism loses it’s appeal when it doesn’t look like it’s going to be a 10-1 affair, and the locals are happy to accommodate any desire they have to test their ground and pound street cred.
These are also places where if you bring your favorite Molotov Cocktail, you’re probably going to discover the person you attempt to serve it to will assume you just brought your flaming drink to a gun fight..
It’s the business of the fire department. That same burning spills over into property such as churches, destruction of monuments by graffiti and toppling etc. Freedom of speech and press can be reconsidered. The watts riots were freedom of speech? It depends upon a declaration of war? A written or spoken declaration of war?
George posted: “It seems Trump is against free speech too. “Trump called for those who burn or damage the American flag to receive a “one-year jail sentence.”
I just might agree. And it wouldn’t be hard; unlike Soviet Democrats I have no problem posting my disagreements with Trump or any other Republican (a character trait Soviet Democrats are proud they do not have).
That agreement is conditional. As long as Trump isn’t talking about the violent thugs who vandalized and burned OTHER PEOPLES’ FLAGS. How are you so sure he isn’t talking about the Soviet Democrats’ insurrectionists and New Hitler Youth Movement of the last two days that pulled down flags belonging to other citizens in Union Square to destroy and vandalize?
They didn’t burn their own flags George, they destroyed property belonging to others. Does that make any difference to you? No – of course it doesn’t.
Should these Soviet Democrat street thugs and New Hitler Youth Movement get exactly the same legal treatment of somebody who defaces an Alphabet Sex colored sidewalk by leaving tire marks on it? How about five months in prison like Enrique Tarrio, who was arrested and charged by the FBI on charges he aided the burning of a BLM banner in 2020?
And should the New Hitler Youth Movement rioters who got into the Capitol Buildings attempting to disrupt the official proceeding of guest speaker Benjamin Netanyahu… no word yet that the FBI has hit them with any kind of charges similar to those they laid against J6 people charged for trespassing because they were on the Senate lawn taking selfies on January 6th.
Some destructive free speech is legal – other destructive free speech isn’t? Some trespassing in the capital is a felony instead of free speech – while other trespassing by anti-Semitic New Hitler Youth Movement is just free speech?
What glaring inconsistencies! And you have tunnel vision that looks like an oil and gas line.
The players:
“Tova Stabin is an Ashkenazi lesbian feminist from a working-class family. She’s a writer, activist, educator and librarian….Born and raised in Brooklyn in a multi-generational family with conservative Jews on one side and secular communists on the other, she now lives in Oregon with her partner (and now spouse) of thirty years. [The two lesbians] are the proud parents of a son who is a professional ballet dancer.” https://www.myjewishlearning.com/author/tova-stabin/ro
Professor Mireille Miller-Young is Associate Professor of Feminist Studies at the University of California, focusing on race, gender, and sexuality. She is author of A Taste for Brown Sugar: Black Women in Pornography and also co-editor of The Feminist Porn Book: The Politics of Producing Pleasure. (@drmireille) on Instagram: “Sex Scholar, Leader of Thoughts, HBIC, Smut Curator, Associate Professor of Feminist Studies, UC Santa Barbara.”
Professor Bruce Gilley is professor of political science and director of the PhD program in Public Affairs and Policy at Portland State University. He is the founder and president of the Oregon Association of Scholars. His research centers on democracy, legitimacy, climate change, and global politics, and he is a specialist on the comparative politics of China and Asia.Bruce “His research centers on democracy, legitimacy, climate change, and global politics, and he is a specialist on the comparative politics of China and Asia.” https://www.pdx.edu/political-science/profile/bruce-gilley
Gleen from this what you may/might
(The above words are not m own. Here is a corrected link: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/eli-talks/from-the-back-of-the-room-the-jewish-working-class/
Apology)
Ever get the feeling that you’re living in a Star Trek episode?
The gaslighting never stops. Now they’re trying to tell you that Harris was never put in charge of solving the crises at the border. There may be some here who don’t know that Axios is a far left magazine. https://www.axios.com/2021/03/24/biden-harris-border-crisis. It’s all part of the plan to gaslight you and then censor you if you complain. How could any person with even one drop of morality think like this?
Morality? They’re “resetting” morality. Emile Durkheim explained how to reset most any norm in human behavior, sociology. Just fyi
It’s not surprising that these battles are being waged in academia. The old saying about academic wars being so fierce because the stakes are so low has never been more spot on. These people are constantly in competition with one another over a limited supply of money, perks and power. Power struggles among the powerless are particularly vicious.
The MARXIST state of Oregon, run by Left Wing Radical DEMS, no wonder the communities bordering Idaho etc want to leave Oregon and merge with the FREE STATE of Idaho.
Biden Says He Is Stepping Away To Spend More Time Sniffing Family
https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-resigns-to-spend-more-time-sniffing-friends-and-family
Speaking of “censorship systems” is professor Turley aware that his own blog has a “censorship system” in place?
He censors openly racist comments which are indeed protected speech. It’s really rich to say schools should not be censoring speech they deem racist or hateful when his own policy censors racist speech.
DEI does indeed go over broad in when it comes to moderating content. I don’t agree with over broad attempts to moderate obnoxious comments. But as it is with everything else there are limits.
What professor Turley is not showing is Bruce Gilley is known for promoting controversial views supporting the idea of colonialism. He has had his book calling for a return to colonialism cancelled twice. The controversy involved his view that there were upsides to the idea of colonialism. That in itself is not a bad thing. He is entitled to express his views absolutely. However as with all things on free speech there are also consequences. He is not being censored, but ostracized. He is still able to publish is views and express them. What he is experiencing is blowback from expressing them and getting roundly criticized for them. That’s par for the course in a free speech society.
Turley has a bad habit of leaving out pertinent facts and telling half truths to portray organizations and individuals with a false characterization or misleading narrative. The irony of criticizing someone else for censoring protected speech while having a policy censoring protected speech undermines his credibility. Cognitive dissonance perhaps?
Pig latin unworthy of a response
LOL — says the moron posting a response.
Jonathan Turley is not a government agency. Private citizens do not have to allow inappropriate speech on their web sites. Yet, he is allowing George’s mischaracterizations to remain. Hmmm.
Bingo!
It doesn’t matter if Turley is a private citizen. He’s always advocating private organizations should be adhering to the principles of the 1st amendment, meaning they should also abstain from censorship and allow offensive and controversial views be expressed. It’s hypocritical to be criticizing an organization for censoring speech that he considers censorable on his own blog. Openly racist comments ARE protected speech. According to his own principle he shouldn’t be censoring such comments.
George, if they’re not published, how do you know Turley is censoring “openly racist comments” — unless you’re the one trying to post them?
It’s the fact that the policy exists that poses a problem for Turley’s argument. He’s often critical of other private organizations such as facebook and twitter for doing exactly what he’s allowed to do on the blog. That sort of hypocrisy undermines his arguments and challenges his credibility as a champion of free speech. It’s fair to point out his hypocrisy.
“That sort of hypocrisy undermines his arguments . . .”
Only if you embrace ad hominem attacks. Which you do. Daily.
Criticism is fair game. Turley, by expressing his views and opinions opens him up for criticism and ridicule. All consequences of free speech.
When you’re right, you’re right. I never thought I’d live long enough to see the day, but here it is.
Turley isn’t the one doing the censoring. That’s his puppy, Darren — at least that’s one of his names.
Speaking of DEI, as predicted Republicans are stupidly attacking vice president Harris using racist rhetoric suggesting she is only there because she’s from a different ethnicity. Given the racism prevalent on the right it is not a surprise.
Speaker Johnson is calling on fellow republicans to quit doing that because it’s making the party look bad. Apparently the GOP is having trouble finding ways to attack the new candidate for president and the only way they know how is to go the racism and misogyny route. It seems republicans were really not expecting Biden to quit. Even the polls show Trump may be underestimating his chances of getting elected.
George hoped to retcon history: rewrite the fact Harris was named Vice President wasn’t another one of Biden’s lifelong racist moments:
Speaking of DEI, as predicted Republicans are stupidly attacking vice president Harris using racist rhetoric suggesting she is only there because she’s from a different ethnicity.
George is about as good a liar as Biden’s official liar, Cringe Jean-Pierre – another cringe DEI hire. Let’s have a few blasts from the Biden-Harris past to help George’s memory:
Former Vice President Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, told MSNBC on Monday that four Black women are on his shortlist for vice president. He did not share the names of people he was vetting. People rumored to be considered for Biden’s vice-presidential pick include Sen. Kamala Harris of California, Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms of Atlanta, Rep. Val Demings of Florida, Rep. Karen Bass of California, the former national security adviser Susan Rice, and the former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams.
Now if that isn’t a long short list of black Americans, what is? George: who was on Biden’s shortlist that was Asian, Middle Eastern, Jewish (the horror!), Native Indian, Indian, etc? Maybe white? You self-identify of being incredibly informed on who Biden was considering.
The answer is, nobody. Only blacks. What’s amusing about his racism is he picked the least appealing and most incompetent black woman on that short list: Kamala Harris
Joe Biden’s racism went even further than that attempting to appease his racist street thugs in Black Liars & Marxists. From the March 15, 2020 DNC primary debate:
“I commit that if I’m elected President and I have an opportunity to appoint someone to the courts, I’ll appoint the first black woman to the Court,” said Vice President Biden
Tell everyone one more time that it is “racist rhetoric” when Republicans point out that Kamela Harris is VP because she won the racist lottery of Americans who had to be black – AND BIRTHING PERSONS – to qualify.
George, Biden has a record that stinks, his racism and his party’s support for his racism. His racist choice of Harris stinks, the stink of Biden is now on Harris, and Harris arrived reeking of the stench of her record before being picked.
And George, you have the stench of a racist cull that defends racism and Soviet Democrat racists while accusing others of being racists. You stink more than Biden and Harris do.
People that NEVER stop yammering about “free speech” should really have a LOT more respect for it than Turley has. There’s more censorship here than in a Mormon skin flick.
“Speaking of ‘censorship systems’ is professor Turley aware that his own blog has a ‘censorship system’ in place?”
Turley has no clue what goes on here, and he couldn’t care less. He’s about as involved with this website as Joetard is involved with preparing the words that he reads off the teleprompter.
That’s the sad part. He’s completely oblivious of the fact that his own blog has a “censorship system” in place. It undermines his arguments and credibility as a “champion of free speech.” It makes him look like a complete hypocrite.
Where is the link to your blog?
Small wonder why there are so few conservative faculty in universities. This a such a stellar example of the open mindedness of the left wing/ progressive in our present society. The defendant Stabin is so condescending and arrogant in the description of the plaintiff it was almost like hearing Obama’s statement about people “clutching at their guns and bibles” or Hillary Clinton talking about the “Deplorables” in America.
Used to, so many of the upper crust of society were actual leaders of the nation and were placing their lives, fortunes and sacred honor at risk as a result of their leadership. That is so rare anymore. Mostly they risk their stock options, 401K limits, mansion fire insurance and such but not their lives. And certainly not the lives of their children and grandchildren. If you look at the political leadership though WW2, Korea, Viet Nam, many were there on the battlefield or their children were but that seems so rare anymore. They literally have no skin in the game and because of that, what we hold so sacred and necessary to the nation, has no meaning to many of them.
I never served in the military but my father was career army and spent spent 20 yrs in the service and 2 wars, World War 2 and Korea and was in the thickest fighting of the Hurtgen Forest, Battle of the Bulge (6 months in the hospital from that little encounter) and the 5 years later the Pusan Perimeter. I knew what it cost him. His concept of freedom of speech was that it was absolutely sacred and the first and greatest freedom we had. He also felt his service was a sacred trust. I don’t see that much any more in many of our political leaders , especially in one particular political party.
I don’t say you have to serve in the military but you have to really understand the cost that some of our people bear so that we can have our freedoms and give the respect that is due.
Defendant Stabin needs some re-education so that she will understand that people have died so that Prof. Gilley would have the right to speak his mind.
GEB,
Military service is why I like Tulsi Gabbard and J. D. Vance. They know what it is like to wear the uniform, raise their right hand and take the oath.
Just like John McCain, John Kerry, and Benedict Arnold.
You shouldn’t try so hard to be stupid. Just let it happen naturally.
Anonymous 8:43 am – All are created equal and I still hold with that in spite of your 3 examples. It does not mean that I endorse everything they do. And they have to accept the consequences of the actions they take as we all do. Even those that serve in the military can go astray but all in all over the years I have found those in the military have a better concept of the cost of our freedoms and willing to defend the concept. Not all. There are seldom absolutes when dealing with people. Even you can understand that concept.
Anonymous You shouldn’t try so hard to be stupid. Just let it happen naturally.
Speaking of people who put in overtime shifts being stupid while it’s a natural event as their two brain cells have each other in a head lock… tell everybody why you have an IQ no higher than your glove size, and you can’t figure out how to have a username to go with your posts?
You don’t have to hide Anonymously in the shadows, quivering in fear that you might hurt yourself trying to create a username. It’s really not that hard if you get those two brain cells of yours to let go of each other.
Signed,
Old Airborne Dog
You’ve done it, Turley. Usually a person has to go to a professional wrestling match to find this many fools in one place.
Here is a good argument for a return of the Great Depression: the money wasted by public educational authorities would be the first thing to go.
edwardmahl,
Some good news is more and more companies are firing their DEI employees as they see no value in them. No kidding!
Microsoft was the latest.
Millions of progressive leftists with useless degrees, like Stabin, are going to return to their baristas careers.
Why (small letters)?
It’s always the same with the democrats/left they know what they’re doing is wrong they do it anyway. If you don’t like it, dig in your pockets sue to correct but in the meantime they have their way.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but the “left” and “right” are mirror images of each other, and they always will be as long as fools subscribe to dualistic notions.
To put it in the simplest terms possible: Look for the Star Trek episode titled Let That Be Your Last Battlefield.
No they are not.
Trekkies and progressives are caught up delusional, emotional thoughts. If you were to work in the rational world, you would be able to understand the difference.
“[b]oth of the other users have expressed politically conservative viewpoints, including criticizing posts of the @UOEquity account.”
Ah! There it is. If you express politically conservative viewpoints, critical of DEI or in this case, the UOEquity then it is okay for them to censor you.
Fortunately the judge smacked them down.
so when do Republicans START Punishing Fascist Demcorats?
Time to END Federal Aid to cities, states, non-profits and colleges
Lets see if Democrats can fund their fascist state…THEMSELVES
Hopefully this trend favoring free speech will continue in the federal courts . This shows why judicial appointments matter.
“However, the people of Oregon should consider the use of their tax dollars to seek the limit the ‘indispensable right’ of free speech and to give figures like stabin such discretion over what speech to allow on campus.”
At least nobody appears to limiting anyone’s right post typos that they were too lazy to spellcheck or shamelessly plug their book week after week after week, and thereby insult their readers’ taste and intelligence.
” . . . to limiting anyone’s right post typos that they were too lazy to spellcheck . . . ”
Self awareness?
It’s called demonstrating what I was talking about, fool.
God, where does Turley dig up you MORONS?
Just a tip, insults diminish your arguments. Here is an example if I wanted to insult someone without calling someone names,,
“God, where does Turley dig up you MORONS?”. Where did he find you?
“fool…MORONS,” more demonstrating.
Might I offer a simple solution to the issues you raise in your comment. Start your own blog and/or stop reading this one. Problem solved.
Seems easy enough.
I think AA may be a better first step for them. He/She/It have classic symptoms.
Dude(s), Get over it.
Aaaah!
The party of inclusivity and tolerance….
Calling all idiots, place you comment now!
why do Democrats Hate America? You don’t believe people are created equal and we SHOULD have censorship?
“Calling all idiots, place you comment now!”
Self awareness?
Calling all idiots, place you comment now
Looks like one has already spoken