In 2020, I wrote about the toppling of the monument to George Washington on the campus of George Washington University, where I teach. The university was silent on the vandalism by far left groups. Now, after George was restored, protesters have again vandalized the monument by spray painting pro-Palestinian slogans on its base. It is a continuation of property damage seen recently on Capitol Hill, including the defacing of the Columbus statue in front of Union Station as police watched. A pro-Palestinian group heralded the property damage on GW campus this week and pledged more such action until the university cuts ties with Israel.
The beheading of George in 2020 was quickly brushed aside and the university avoided direct criticism of the BLM protests, which resulted in property damage throughout the city. That included efforts to topple historic monuments.
Last May, pro-Palestinian students not only occupied our University yard, but a street was cut off for weeks and the law school effectively locked down due to the encampment. (I could not drive to my office or go into the building without special permission). The protesters at one point called for the beheading of university officials, including the university president, in a mock trial.
After the most recent vandalism with the message “disclose divest now” in red spray paint, the Student Coalition for Palestine at GWU posted on Instagram a statement supporting the action:
Last night, autonomous protestors sent a message to Provost Christopher Alan Bracey at his home, spray painting the message amplified and repeated by students, faculty, and the people of this city onto Bracey’s very own driveway: “DISCLOSE DIVEST NOW!” During the encampment earlier this spring, Provost Bracey himself violently assaulted two students. A statue of George Washington on campus was also branded with the same demand.
Let this be a message to Bracey and every administrator at this University. We will never falter from our demands. This administration has the blood of 186,000 Palestinians on their hands. The burn of pepper spray, the bruises of police brutality, and the mark of handcuffs and zipties on our comrades are forever seared into our memory and consciousness. Your crimes will follow you wherever you go. You will be confronted in your events, in your offices, at your homes. Every step you take we will be there to hold you accountable.
The students allege that Provost Chris Bracey committed assault last April when he slapped a phone out of the hands of a protester who was filming him.
The continued vandalism on our campus is often defended as free speech. It is not. As I discuss in my book “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” there is a difference between conduct and speech. I have defended the right of pro-Palestinian groups to protest on campus. However, occupying buildings or trashing property is criminal conduct that should be sanctioned or prosecuted. The problem is that the few charges brought against such actors were largely dropped.
As students return, protests are again ramping up around our campus and other schools.
As for George, the monument will have to be, again, restored. It is all being heralded as “a message to Bracey and every administrator at this University.” The question is whether officials will be equally clear and consistent in their own message that threats, property damage, and other offenses will not be tolerated on our campuses.
Jonathan: Seems your campus is again the center of student pro-Palestinian protests. Now the George Washington statute on campus has been defaced again–this time with paint. At least the protesters did not physically attack anyone, as Provost Bracey engaged in during the last protests.
Spray painting a public statute is, in my view, akin to publicly burning the American flag. In Texas v. Johnson (1989) the SC ruled 5-4 that burning the flag is protected 1st Amendment activity–“symbolic speech”. No doubt if the vandals can be identified they will be prosecuted because there was actual damage to the statute. That is the appropriate remedy, not some draconian crackdown on student protests as you called for during the pro-Palestinian protests and sit-ins this past spring.
Dennis McIcrier gives us the myopic view of a fifth grader. Good boy.
“Spray painting a public statute is, in my view, akin to publicly burning the American flag.”
And once again, Dennis proves that he is not, Hazard, or ever will be an attorney. Here, he demonstrates that he doesn’t understand the difference between criminal activity and free-speech.
Dennis: I’m not aware of any “statutes” (twice repeated by you) being spray-painted. Perhaps the vandals can purchase an entire case of paint and spray the entire statute in red, so everyone can read it and understand what is being proscribed therein. No need to struggle with visual focus in some old law book.
LOL!
thrice, not twice!
yeah, at first I thought it was a typo, but he repeated it three times.
Dennis – it is NOT your view that matters.
TX did not charge Johnson with theft. He was destroying property he owned or had permission to destroy.
The ProHamas protestors who recently pulled down an american flag and Burned it – committed a crime for which they can be prosecuted.
You can buy and burn all the american flags you want – though you do have to do so with sufficient care as to avoid arson charges.
You can behead or paint your own statute.
You can not destroy the property of others.
TX v. Johnson and US Free speech protections DO NOT extend to destroying other peoples property.
“No doubt if the vandals can be identified they will be prosecuted because there was actual damage to the statute. That is the appropriate remedy, not some draconian crackdown on student protests as you called for during the pro-Palestinian protests and sit-ins this past spring.”
There is a great deal of doubt. There were more arrests for violence at the Kavanaugh confirmation – including someone who took an axe to a senators office door. There were no prosecutions – and ultimately the axe was returned.
No one at the entire J6 even did anything as egregious as throwing molotov cocktails into an occupied police car.
And yet the two lawyers who did that in Floyd riots in NYC received 18 month suspended sentences.
The law in the US is being applied, enforced and prosecuted driven by politics – not the law.
Thjere will likely be no consequences for any of the prohamas protestors who engaged in violence or destruction of property.
I am NOT BTW for throwing the book at people who have crossed the line from legitimate – if heinous protest into violence or destruction of property.
Political protest should ALWAYS act as a mitigating factor,
At the same time there MUST be sufficient and publicly visible consequences that future protestors are mindful to avoid violence and destruction of property.
The discrepancy with the treatment of the J6 protestors is astounding. 18 months suspended jail time for attempted murder of police officers by throwing a molotov cocktail in a patrol car; 20 years imprisonment (no suspension) for a J6 protester who assaulted police. The punishment for J6 protesters is unreasonable by any standard of decency and I hope the SC will kick these sentences out as cruel and unusual.
“The discrepancy with the treatment of the J6 protestors is astounding”
Not to mention Ashi Babbitt, who was murdered in cold blood with impunity by police officer. That is also an unjust and unwarranted punishment, is it not? No doubt, our local feminine hygiene appliance reservoir will be along shortly to claim that she fully deserved her fate.
I am not aware of anyone calling for a crackdown on student protests.
What is being called for is a crackdown on violence and destruction of property.
Personally I think the proHamas protests were great – I would like a list of those who participated so that I know who not to hire in the future.
I support the right of proHamas protestors in exactly the same way I support the first amendment rights of Nazi’s or the KKK.
And when the Nazi’s paint statutes., Behead them, engage in violence and destruction of property – they should be prosecuted – not for being Nazi’s but for the actual crimes they committed.
There is a difference, though, between burning a flag that you may own yourself, assuming you brought the flag to the demonstration, and defacing a statue that is someone else’s property.
Spray painting a public statue would be akin to burning someone else’s American flag, not your own American flag. That’s vandalism.
Well done, Denny. Once again you’ve shown us your ability to think things through.
Let’s be clear. These are not “pro-Palestinian” protesters, they are pro-Hamas. They don’t give one hoot about the well being of the Palestinian people. Their target is to destroy Israel and impose an Islamic State.
And they will be voting Democrat, just like Sammy Metamucil, because they know which side their bread is buttered on.
They are evil, not stupid. They know Trump will be worse for everyone, Palestinians included. Of course they are voting Democrat.
If they “know” that then they “know” something that’s not true. You should have said “think” instead of “know.”
Please explain to us all the specifics of how Trump will be worse for all? His tenure as President was stellar, I don’t recall having my rights infringed upon? The economy was roaring, he did spend like a drunken sailor but wars are expensive and the China flu was costly. Please elaborate on what you believe his administration will bring?
Turley– “As for George, the monument will have to be, again, restored”
+++
Perhaps sanity could be restored as well. But it does not appear likely that it will be until those in charge show just a fraction of the courage and resolution we admire in George Washington.
Afterthoughts– Also worthy of our admiration is the courage and resolution shown by President Trump who has been under assault by the deep state, media, and Democrats for years.
That by Young.
zzdoc is right on the money. I, too have wondered where on earth is the F.B.I. as well as the C.I.A? They sure were quick to go after parents who were upset at School Board meetings and Pro-life protesters outside of the murderous abortion clinics. With all of the tools at their disposal, I would hope to hear something soon before all of the college campuses are up in flames.
” where on earth is the F.B.I. ”
Are you certain that the FBI isn’t inciting the protestors through undercover operatives?
They’re still diddling themselves to Hunter’s porn videos. I have never seen anything so dysfunctional in my lifetime. Complete management replacement and total redefinition.
Dear Mr. Turley, My thanks to GEB and hullbobby for their comments. Hullbobby asked why climate change was not mentioned during the DNC? I think I may have the answer. According to the DNC’s many speakers, Mr. Trump is the biggest threat we are facing. His name was mentioned far above any other person or topic. Their hatred for him is beyond belief and colors everything they think or will do to win the election. With Mr. Kennedy’s endorsement of Mr. Trump, the DNC will have a much higher mountain to climb.
I am waiting patiently to see what level of audacious or horrific act is going to move the DOJ and FBI to unwrap not only the core of this movement but the entirety of its network and put it to bed for good. I predict that the citizenry is going to be very surprised at the identities of the faces behind those masks. To say that they constitute ‘the fifth column’ of the ‘enemies of the state’ is an understatement from where I sit, and one of them might be living in the apartment, or the house right next door. They constitute a clear and present danger to our Constitutional Republic and will be on the front lines when and if there is an attempt to destroy it.
I seem to remember an incident in Singapore with the American teen Michael Fay. He spent 12 weeks in jail and was publicly flogged (caned) for spray painting a car. I bet he never did that again.
Try this in a Mideastern country where a woman can be arrested for using lipstick and now in Afghanistan for being heard in public or going out without a face covering. If anyone is caught who is LGBTQ, they will be imprisoned and in some cases, tossed off a tall building. Rights?
We live in an inverted world. Israel has their (October 7) 911 and when they fight back, the enemy, brutal terrorists are celebrated. I am afraid we have crossed a line of debasement and insanity from which it will be difficult if not impossible to return.
Yes, it’s almost as if people actually want things to be crazy.
it is clear Democrats HATE America and ARE Fascists
At least the Nazis loved their country….Democrats are WORSE!
If fire is bad and should be stopped, then the fire department will stop it.
If war is bad and should be stopped, then why doesn’t NATO stop it?
Which war? In any case, NATO members may be involved in a conflict as individual nations. Did we miss some Article V action?
NATO countries can be injured in other financially quantifiable ways that don’t involve a physical attack.
NATO would not stop the war. They would expand it and even tempt nuclear war.
“If war is bad and should be stopped, then why doesn’t NATO stop it?”
Because NATA, to pursue your analogy, is an organization of arsonists.
“NATO” Ugh – give us the ability to edit out comments, please?
Faceinacab-obviously that would be the best and most effective action for the administration to take. Simply arresting them for property damage will only result in charges being dropped and then they are back and doing it all over again. Expulsion would be far more satisfying and likely effective since it would remove them from campus. You might have to have the campus closed to only those who have a reason to be there like students, faculty and staff and it would take some time to whittle down the miscreants until you have peace.
I would also return their tuition but place it in an escrow account from which the cost of any restoration would be deducted. It is private property so you can forbid specific people from being on the premises and take much more severe legal action if they return.
Maybe the non demonstrators and actual studying students should also launch lawsuits against the university for failure to provide a safe and collegial atmosphere consistent with advanced education. Or just simply leave the campus and go elsewhere for their education until the administration does it’s job and cleans up the mess that they have allowed to persist. But the administrators will just putter along doing nothing substantial until they have no university.
To Oliver Reeder-who must have English as a second language since he obviously cannot read it. Threats are not free speech when they are followed through, property damage is also not free speech it’s PROPERTY DAMAGE. Sort of like throwing tea in a harbor. Or shooting redcoats as they withdraw down a road from Concord or Lexington. One could say it’s rebellion, which is how the Crown interpreted the tea in harbor and shooting redcoats. And it was.
You have the right to demonstrate your support for murderous terrorists but that stops when you do damage.
Personally I would prefer suing each and every protester involved in damage and forcing payment and permanent expulsion, never to return to the campus.
Sometime things like what these protestors are threatening can get out of hand, someone does something incredibly stupid and in reaction someone else does something even more stupid and then you end up with a tragedy.
Maybe these students should read up up on Kent State where loud and boisterous demonstrations and burning of university property lead to the deployment of the national guard and some with live ammunition and then there was an explosion of gunfire and then you had 4 students dead (2 were protestors and 2 were bystanders going to class) and 9 others with varying severity of injuries. Mistakes made all around. But it still did not matter, because the dead stayed dead and some injured were permanently disabled.
Do students at GWU think they want to die for Hamas. Because it could happen.
Lawsuits against the protestors would be a waste of time. These are well organized protests, being carried out by professional agitators. These are not college students. These demonstrations have too many similarities and are “popping” up all around the country. This was the same group at NYU and Columbia, you know, the ones with matching tents. Because of course, college students in NYC have their own 4-man tents at the ready. Once you can show that these aren’t college students, but professionals, you have a clear pathway to a federal charge of domestic terrorism. These people are the pawns. They’re not interested in a 5yr federal prison sentence for knocking down a statue. What a charge like that will be bring out is who is financing these efforts. THAT’s where you drop the hammer. I have no doubt that these groups, along with all the other Antifa-types out there, are being financed by various non-profits and NGOs, who receive their funding from every leftist group in the world.
And many of these NGOs also receive federal funding, I bet ye.
They should be expelled, removed from campus and never allowed to return.
No Arab country will accept Palestinian refugees due to their historical track record of turning on their hosts. America should be considering this aspect for their student visa status.
Trivia question:
Who was the mastermind of bombing the USMC in Lebanon killing and injuring over 200 US Marines?
My guess is the vandals were hired to do this. The result ~ hatred for the Palestinians. Mission accomplished.
Based off past pro-Hamas protestors, this is their conduct. They threaten, destroy property and have even taken hostages.
Hired by whom, do you think?
I just have to ask all of the leftists that visit this site and comment all the time one question: Why was there not one mention of CLIMATE CHANGE at the convention? I thought this was the existential threat of our time, the gravest danger to our very existence, the coming end of the planet etc etc. Why not one mention?
The activity of the students is considered “speech” by the students but only through the mind of the student, which is to say, most likely an uninformed, mostly illiterate position. I know this because I saw the same behavior at Kent State years ago and then, after learning from constitutional law professors, the concepts of first amendment and the rationale behind it, this is not the normative behavior that the law was designed to protect. Yes, it may be said of the flag burner, “it’s just a flag” and shrug off the statement, but that is not criminal behavior (In many states) and not the activity contemplated by the authors of the amendment who were trying to caution people of the need to tolerate perspective and to tolerate and understand the civilized violence of the spoken word. The students seem to interpret vandalism as civilized violence and it just betrays their ignorance, due mostly to their youth and illiteracy. The parents are largely to blame in not educating their offspring on how to react to this kind of behavior which is, to the observant, to be anticipated on American campuses on occasion. The university, in admitting this students without the benefit of a policy agreement, is also partly at fault. In any case, the students remain ignorant an in the throws of the institution designed to enlighten them. Hopefully they become more sophisticated as they expose themselves to first amendment principles, but this will take time. It takes time to repair the injured and the impaired.
I don’t consider myself a leftist and watched little of the DNC but did hear climate change mentioned. Let’s see what was reported about climate change at the DNC, claiming “not one mention,” twice as you diod, seems to be incorrect.
https://www.npr.org/2024/08/22/g-s1-18635/climate-change-dnc-haaland-maxwell-frost-democrats-2024-election
Why not have a counter-demonstration where Palestinian flags are burned?
That seems to be tolerable as long as the property destroyed is that of the protestor, to of another.
Isn’t the killing of over 40,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, enough? Isn’t starving women and children and denying them food, water and medicine anough? Burning a Palestinian flag would be signaling support for this genocide–and you think that’s OK? Why does George Washington University have “ties” with Israel anyway? Has the University done anything to express outrage over the genocide Israel is inflicting on the Palestinian people or leverage whatever it can to get Israel to stop killing and starving women and children?
Israel is not killing and starving women and children.
Hamas is doing that.
Hamas launched an attack against Israel and are using women and children as human shields. This is a war, brought on by Hamas against Israel and are using women and children in their war.
I stand with Israel.
..you don’t get it, do you, Gigi.. that Israel is trying to defend itself against HAMAS hopefully for the last time..i.e., what you call the ‘killing’ and the ‘genocide’ is HAMAS’s fault, not Israel’s – HAMAS is the one doing this to its own people, simple and clear, by constantly working to destroy Israel off the face of the earth.. attacking during peace-time Oct. 7 is a good example…. so please stop your usual school-girl whining and see the Big Picture….. Israel has a right to exist and to defend itself. Period. OUTRAGE belongs to HAMAS, not to Israel.
Have HAMAS return all hostages, especially the American citizens and perhaps the Jews will give the populous some grub. Terrorists do not know gender or age.
I was once threatened with a phone call to the police just because I criticized a restaurant manager for her unfair business practices, so it’s not just the government that can be tyrannical.
ATS – you do understand that you were threatened with GOVERNMENT.
While it is absolutely true that It is “not just government that can be tyranical”.
Actual tyrannny REQUIRES either the cooperation of government, the refusal of government to enforce laws, or government so weak as to be unable to preclude the large scale use of force.
In all instances Tyranny is impossible without government.
Liberty had to be fought for just to create George Washington University. It would be illuminating to sit in on one of Johnathan’s tort classes covering false imprisonment. In Texas the tort is complete when a person is prevented from going anywhere he or she has a right to go. Liberty is always going to have to be fought for. The leadership of a great seat of learning like George Washington University has to demonstrate to the demonstrators that they are not going to take their half of the road out of the middle. That means no student or person on campus is going to dictate how good university gets done by conduct beyond protected speech. How to project administration leadership? Start with an attitude that wins. The Duke of Wellington said it in his memoirs about Waterloo: “they came at us in the same old way, and we sent them along in the same old way”.
We hold Tolerance, Rights and Freedoms as holy elements in our “enlightened” society. Admirably so. Yet our desire to prove our enlightenment has dulled us to the same level of respect for Responsibility, Respect and Civility. I contend that one cannot have the former without the latter. Nor the latter without the former. We represent Justice by a set of balanced scales. The same is appropriate here. Society is entitled to expect that balance. Society is entitled to demand that balance. By allowing one side of the scale to overwhelm the other, governing principles are made moot. When that happens, we are doomed to conflict because one side or the other is relegated to submission. Only when balance is restored does society function as it should. It’s long past time to demand the balance we require as a nation. A continuation of tolerance for the intolerable is the path to societal collapse and ultimately oblivion.
When faculties encourage this type of behavior and confuse “shouting down” as free speech the end result is a societal collapse. Universities like GW have become incubators for malcontents that are infecting all of America. Many of these students are not admitted to colleges based on their educational skills but on the false premise of equity.
I am confused. The Professor objects to British courts finding individuals guilty of inciting violence and disorder, as a supposed infringement of their imaginary “natural right” to free speech, but worries – as evidenced by his referenced earlier article about calls for the guillotine at his university – that, to use his own words, “the rhetoric of these protests have displayed violent and unhinged elements.”
Oh well, an absolute right of free speech must be defended at all costs unless it stops one driving to one’s law school.
There is a distinction between speech and conduct.
Timothy McVeigh was just expressing his dislike of the government. < sarcasm
McVeigh was free to use as many words as he wished to express dislike for government or anything else.
He was not free to use violence.
Were Clinton and Reno free to murder the Davidians? McVeigh extracted his pound of flesh as revenge for what the Federal government did to those people. Horrible historical incidents all the way around. Remember McVeigh saw the first Iraq war and realized what was going on.
“Were Clinton and Reno free to murder the Davidians?”
Or the FBI to murder the Weaver family because they held the government responsible for honoring the Second Amendment to the Constitution? McVeigh had no right to kill and injure innocents. Had he successfully completed his original plan to assassinate Janet Weaver and Lon Horiuchi, he might had had some claim to moral justification. Certainly there was no way possible to bring those two murderers to justice by working within the legal system.
Jolly Ollie is having a hard time sorting that out.
“Oh well, an absolute right of free speech must be defended.”
@Oliver Reeder: You are being silly. The Professor has never said that free speech includes continuous assault and threats on another’s life or property. I don’t know where you get such foolish ideas. The lines of free speech permissibility can be blurred, which is unfortunate but a reality. However, one should not engage in such blurring; it is not a reason to protect criminal action.
I brought up a crucial British case, Bates v. Post Office, which you were surprisingly unable to comment on as a British Citizen. In this case, the British government used coercion to prevent thousands of innocent free British citizens from discussing corruption. I’m surprised you didn’t know about the case.
Your commitment to free speech is only an avenue to insult the Professor. He provided a learned opinion, and you are returning trash.
I also think he is getting tired of being walloped for his exaggerated Brit syntax, vocabulary, style. Notice today his comment lacks all those characteristics. Who will he be next week?
I will remain who I am, namely a British citizen, an Englishman, who benefitted from a good grammar school education, and who delights in reading the Professor’s learned views on US law, despairs when he fancies himself an expert on English or Scots law (very different beasts by the way). Sorry that distresses you or encourages you to fantasise that I am some Antifa, pot smoking Dem sitting in some coffee house in Manhattan, as was the amusing flight of fancy of some the other day.
And I should have added, what I will not be is an Anonymous coward.
TTFN
Why is remaining anonymous necessarily cowardly? Many of the non-Anonymous contributers use pseudonyms and those who use their real names are folks I wouldn’t know if I passed them on the street everyday. Everyone who contributes to this blog is essentially anonymous. Some of us are just too lazy to sign in.
I’m not singling you out with this question. Many have stated the Anonymous = Coward formulation. Is there some accountability issue that I’m missing? That hardly seems likely on this blog.
Remaining anonymous allows for the abdication of any responsibility from the associated behavior. Those who post as “anonymous” don’t want to be exposed to the consequences of expressing their real views and nasty nature of their behavior towards others. Thats in essence cowardly. Even those who supposedly once were “honorable” members of the armed forces. They are however free to spew whatever they want. But it tarnishes and stinks up the reputation of the institutions they once held an undying oath to respect and uphold.
I didn’t realize that the Turley blog was an institution that I once held an undying oath to respect and uphold.
What you wrote would just as well apply to those who use pseudonyms, nicknames, first names, etc.
You’ve said nothing in your response. You sound like an idiot, George Last-Name-Unknown.
You provide only your first name. That makes you anonymous.
You’re pathetic coward Svelaz.
What consequences, you nitwit?
Beahahahaha
“Why is remaining anonymous necessarily cowardly?”
“We are responsible for our own words and actions – not whatever nonsense others might do as a consequence.—John Say.”
Because those who post anonymously don’t want to be responsible for their own words. Free speech means being responsible for your words. Responsibility is something republicans seems to be allergic to.
Jan 6 DOJ persecutions, persecution of DJT in civil and criminal courts along with the numerous accounts of weaponization of our government institutions makes posting under a real identity stupid.
Responsible to who, nitwit?
No one here knows who you are and few care.
Olliver Reeder may be your actual name or a nom de plume – it does not matter.
As to your claims – it is clear your education was garbage – if that was the product of an actual british grammar school that is damning to the british education system.
You are clearly ignorant of the distinction between speech and conduct – that is unless as is often true of those on the left you are merely being deliberately deceptive.
American law is – despite recent attacks from within and without by the left the pinnacle of an evolving legal tradition that starts with Moses.
That legal tradition not only passes through english and scotts law – but those are among the most critical influences on american law. The concept of self government if not born with the Magna Carte is most dramatically influenced by it.
I would further note that not only is american law the natural progression of preceding british law, but british law did not stop with the american revolution, it continued to evolve, and was until very recently heavily influenced by american law.
Aside from a vestigial monarchy of little more than ceremonial significance britian has almost become america since the revolution – not the other way arround.
I am not seeing much attack on you as some Manhattan Dem – though the distinction between that and a modern british liberal is miniscule. Or claiming you are antifa, or whatever other nonsense is cooking in your febrile brain.
You are being criticized for basmally poor logic, and though and a lack of knowledge of thought that was heavily influenced by both western developments in england and the scottish enlightenment.
Absolutely more recently england and scottland have regressed
And those here are lamenting that such great countries that once lead the advance of individual liberty in the world have experienced such moral and intellectual decline.
At least my education taught me to use initial capitalisation for proper nouns.
You miss my point entirely. Under English and Scots law, speech is an aspect of conduct. Surely, as some of your less intemperate countrymen above have observed, defacing a monument cannot be justified as “freedom of speech” but criminal conduct? Where I despair of the Professor’s ill informed sniping at British cases (see below for examples of where he has rebroadcast misinformed media coverage re “Kung Fu Fighting” and “Leprechaun” cases) is that the supposed speech represented unacceptable conduct in that it threatened or incited violence. Furthermore, really did incite violence, not in the overexcited misrepresentation by the Democrats of Mr Trump’s speech on 6th January. Maybe the cases would not have been prosecuted, or not resulted in convictions, in a US court. But I am sorry, I defend to the hilt the right of British society to temper in a sensible manner “freedom of speech” with a forceful prosecution of when that speech blurs into unacceptable conduct.
In this country, a majority of people probably think that the police have become too soft in handling left wing protests that get out of hand. The reason Starmer made a fool of himself was in denouncing (as he rightly should) the riots that followed the Southport murders, but rejecting the notion that there was two tier policing, with unacceptable, criminal behaviour by right wing groups meeting the full force of the law, but pro Hamas extremists and Just Stop Oil extremists being policed much more lightly. It is notable that when the latter extremists have ended up in court, despite police shilly-shallying, they have met very little sympathy from judges and magistrates, who are not so prone to “wokeness”.
I hope that the criminals at George Washington University similarly feel the full force of the law being brought upon them for their conduct and are not allowed to hide behind some “freedom of speech” defence. George may have been a slave owner and a traitor to the British Crown, from whom he had held an officer’s commission, but that was a long time ago and his memory deserves to be protected against this sort of stupidity for the sake of your great country.
” the supposed speech represented unacceptable conduct in that it threatened or incited violence.”
@Oliver Reeder: Anything can threaten violence. You must understand the distinction between acts of violence and free speech and that the answer to speech you dislike is more speech, not violence.
If the only offence that speech causes is offence, but nought worse, then yes, speech in reply might be the correct response. When the speech threatens or incites violence, under British law it is criminal conduct and judged accordingly. Maybe not in the USA. As I repeatedly have said, by all means defend and justify your laws, your Constitution. But please, please, do not try to project them onto other democracies, assuming that your laws and principles are superior. They might be the right laws and Constitution for the USA, they are not the right laws and Constitution for everyone.
from one Englishman to another, your use of the word “nought” is incorrect, belying the fact that it is natural on your part.
An actual Englishman knows that it is customarily pronounced “nowt” but still spelled “nought” in this context, as opposed to the numeral “nought” which rhymes with “thought”… You have obviously never ventured into Yorkshire.
I do not disagree, freedom is not for everyone. As example, Iraq was not capable of having a democracy, their cultural heritage is governance by a supreme strongman, akin to Libya. Sheiks, Kings and Queens, war lords, Mullahs. The ME populations are a mix of various ethnic groups with often different religious backgrounds. Thousands of years of warring and hatred. Barbarism at its finest, why does America think we need to “fix” their countries? Easy, they have something we want, oil, rare minerals, strategic trade.
“If the only offence that speech causes is offence, but nought worse, then yes, speech in reply might be the correct response.”
“Might be” is not correct. You are demonstrating an anti-speech rhetoric.
from one Englishman to another, NO ONE is talking about pronunciation of nought. My very specific, explicit sentence to you focused quite exclusively on your USe of it, as pertaining to grammar and sentence construction. Brummie faking York.
If you were taught Oxford spelling, you should have typed “capitalization”.
Oxford spelling is not universally held to be correct here. There is an argument that says that Z is preferable to S because it it reflects Greek etymology, whilst S reflects rather the influence of French via the Norman conquest. As it happens, I am a Classicist, but because I learned to spell long before I learned to read ancient Greek, I have always preferred S to Z in those cases where the issue arises.
At least we have never allowed Noah Webster to butcher the language 🙂
We have seen British law in action of late- orbits distortion. Not much to be proud if either. We have a common enemy. Let’s address that.
British citizen or British subject?
Citizens have rights, subjects have privileges. You seem to be making a subject’s argument that speaking freely is not a right (natural or otherwise) but a revokable privilege granted by a ruler of some sort.
And while we’re at it, where does the power to grant privileges come from? Divine Right of Kings? The barrel of a gun? Strange women lying in ponds disturbing swotds?
Both. I hold British citizenship, and am a loyal subject of His Majesty. And professionally I have been a Crown Servant, civilian and military.
The point is that in British society, freedom of speech is a principle, but not an absolute right. It can be tempered, when Parliament so enacts, by consideration of the need for a peaceful and ordered society. Speech is an aspect of conduct, not a separate concept. Freedom of speech is not limited lightly, and moves to do so are often subject to a great deal of public scrutiny. We are not perfect, but then no society, no country, even ones with written Constitutions, are perfect.
Where did you serve exactly and what was your function?
I think you are a liar.
You want to know about Bates? Said behaviour by the Post Office (and failure by successive Governments of all persuasions to rein in the Post Office) has led to a judicial inquiry, a special law passed by Parliament to absolve the victimised and prosecuted Sub Post Masters and Mistresses, a great deal of humiliation for past Ministers in public hearings where they have been exposed as fools or knaves, a knighthood for the good Alan Bates, and a huge question mark placed over the right of all large parts of the establishment to exercise quite old rights of bringing prosecutions. The possibility remains of senior management at the Post Office facing their own criminal charges. The live coverage of the inquiry has been a staple for British news networks for several months.
Yes, a terrible set of wrongful convictions, but ones that are now belatedly being put right with the full weight of the law and, finally, the establishment.
I am not returning trash. I am simply observing that the British cases that the Professor quotes are not being prosecuted because they were unwanted speech, but because under British law they were criminal conduct. Just as painting a slogan on a statue is not free speech, but criminal conduct. To draw some distinction between the content of the graffito as protected content, and the modality of its communication as wanton vandalism is simply trite. It is still a crime. Similarly, to incite criminality and violence, under British law, is a crime, which gains no protection because it was communicated via social media.
“You want to know about Bates? Said behaviour by the Post Office ”
@Oliver Reeder: No! Why would I want to know about Bates from you when I already know the story? If interested, I could research it deeply instead of a superficial glance.
“The possibility remains of senior management at the Post Office facing their own criminal charges.”
The gravity of the situation cannot be overstated. To my knowledge, no one was charged; indeed, multiple people were responsible. Vast amounts of money disappeared, and that money was taken from innocent people, destroying their lives, not to mention the deaths directly related to this scandal.
When I mentioned the Bates case, it was in response to your superficial statements about UK and US law, as well as your accusations against Professor Turley. I wanted to clarify that in the Bates case, free speech was denied to those accused of a crime they never committed. The judicial system, which you hold in high regard, failed to function, resulting in around 4,000 people being denied their free speech rights when charged with a crime. This was a significant stain on the country and the judicial system you consider superior to the US.
“The live coverage of the inquiry has been a staple for British news networks for several months.”
I am glad you had the time to look it up and take notice, but the crime of the British government and judicial system lasted around 20 years.
“I am not returning trash. I am simply observing that the British cases that the Professor quotes are not being prosecuted because they were unwanted speech, but because under British law they were criminal conduct.”
These cases are not about free speech, but about the legal boundaries of speech in the UK.
Your comments criticizing Turley are, at best, awkward. However, his complaint includes British law, that makes speech criminal. He has a case, and that is why I brought up Bates.
I believe it would be beneficial for you to pay closer attention to Turley’s comments.
The Horizon scandal had absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. It had absolutely nothing to do with people being denied free speech. If you think that, you are utterly ignorant of the scandal. It was wholly to do with the Post Office having the right to bring criminal charges in its own name, and withholding massive amounts of evidence that favoured the defence. You say that no charges have as yet been brought against the management, lawyers and investigators who were responsible for this conduct at the Post Office. I would remind you that there is still a judicial inquiry in full swing, and that criminal charges may yet be brought. The matter is far from closed.
No judicial system is without flaws. At least in this case, a huge miscarriage of justice has been recognised and is being put right. My one criticism of the judicial inquiry is that I do not think it is scrutinising properly the conduct of the judges and magistrates who arguably should in turn have been more questioning of the Post Office evidence, now known to have been seriously tainted, that was being presented.
“The Horizon scandal had absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.”
Look again. A government institution prevented the exchange of information through coercion preventing the exchange of information. This dealt with a government institution. The justice system did nothing for 20 years, but they did incarcerate innocent people. This action involved thousands of people, and almost one thousand were convicted.
” It was wholly to do with the Post Office having the right to bring criminal charges in its own name, and withholding massive amounts of evidence that favoured the defence.”
The Post Office, a key player in the British bureaucracy, silenced its members, denying them the truth and the chance to defend themselves adequately.
Someone in a higher position was committing thievery unless you could tell us where the money went.
” I would remind you that there is still a judicial inquiry in full swing, and that criminal charges may yet be brought. The matter is far from closed.”
This case continues after 20 years while many innocents remain in jail, yet no one has been held responsible.
Tell that to the almost a thousand people who were convicted and the others who lost their homes and all the money they saved.
I won’t deal with the rest of what you said because it was justification without justification.
Oh for pity’s sake. It is moronic in the extreme to paint the Horizon scandal as anything to do with free speech. Furthermore, I am unaware of any of the victims still being in prison; believe me, if that were the case, it would be shouted from the rooftops here.
For the love of all that is holy, stop spouting utter cobblers about something of which you clearly know very little and are distorting just to fit an extreme narrative of “freedom of speech denied”. It is an appalling miscarriage of justice, and is now fully recognised as an appalling miscarriage of justice, which is why steps are being taken to rectify the situation. People are very much being held responsible, with humiliating cross examination, live on television, at the judicial inquiry. Charges have not yet been preferred, but the inquiry does not mean that they may not subsequently be preferred.
You are utterly ignorant of the situation, and would be laughed at if you tried arguing your position in conversation over here. Or possibly pitied for being so foolish.
“Oh for pity’s sake. It is moronic in the extreme to paint the Horizon scandal as anything to do with free speech. Furthermore, I am unaware of any of the victims still being in prison; believe me, if that were the case, it would be shouted from the rooftops here.”
@Oliver Reeder: I may have to review the case since I ceased following it almost a year ago. It took courts years to overturn nearly 100 cases while the convicted remained incarcerated.
There were many more convictions, and probably some were guilty because they stole. However, how can you separate the innocent from the guilty to make you so sure that none of the innocent remain in jail? (” I am unaware of any of the victims still being in prison; believe me…”)
Maybe you feel that way because you are not an innocent person in jail. Some can be assumed guilty of theft. How do you separate the guilty from the innocent, and how can you be so sure of yourself? The answer is that you are not in jail, so it is easy for you to say.
I brought this 20-year case of abuse of honest citizens for two reasons. You compared two judicial systems, puffing your chest out while erroneously and superficially concluding that Britain’s system was better. I disagree that you could draw such a conclusion, and the thousands of citizens working for the post office who were accused will likely agree with me. I also brought it up because free speech is essential, and those innocent persons had their free speech abridged by the government’s coercive actions and the lies from the Post Office.
People were accused of wrongdoing, and until they got together as a group, nothing would have been done. It appears the judicial system failed as one after another, an innocent person was incarcerated, lost their homes, their bank accounts and in several cases, their lives.
“something of which you clearly know very little and are distorting just to fit…”
I know much more than you suggest. Instead of fumbling around, tell me which facts of mine are wrong. Tell me which British bureaucrats were jailed after 20 years. Tell me where the money went. You accuse me of knowing little, so go ahead and inform me what the correct answers are instead of calling me “utterly ignorant of the situation” and “foolish.”
Oliver, what you accomplished is making yourself look foolish.
The flaw in European law, and british law – that the left is striving to implant in US law is the nonsense that speech itself is broadly conduct.
In the US right now we have two idiotic instances of lawfare against Trump – with courts concluding Trump engaged in Fraud – yet Fraud is a property crime – a determination that the US legal system inherited from Britian.
An IMPORTANT one. Why ? Because requiring ACTUAL HARM – rather than hurt feelings precludes ALL the actual idiocy we see coming from the left today – in the US, in the UK and in the EU.
The US constraints on third party liability – come from British law.
We are responsible for our own words and actions – not whatever nonsense others might do as a consequence.
The egregious british cases that manage to get featured on this blog are either speech cases or they are cases of conduct that Can not legitimately be criminalized.
Again the western legal tradition – though strong elements go back as far as moses and hamurabi, dictate that to be a crime REQUIRES the use of force, the clear threat of force, or fraud.
One of the ignorant fallacies of the left is that you can make anything you want into a crime.
I would separately note that the Brits charging people with things that are obviously not crimes and then subsequently letting them go is itself proof of lawlessness.
aIf he continues it RFK jr. will almost certainly win his ballot access case in NYS. A victory AFTER the election is phyric.
The lawless abuse of government power by democrats will have still not only occured but been successful.
Every single one of the Trump cases in the US has always from the start been a dead bang loser.
But it will take years to overturn all of them. In the meantime the damage is done.
In the US policing in particular is still intrinsically conservative. Outside of small parts of the FBI it is extremely hard to weaponize the police politically. The political abuse of the US law enforcement system occurs primarily at the level of prosecutors.
That does not appear to be true in the UK. We hear of police on the streets arresting people for “thought crime”.
But then Orwells novel 1984 was set in Great Britain.
Excellent!
Oliver Reed, you will have to excuse John Say’s poor understanding of U.S law.
“In the US right now we have two idiotic instances of lawfare against Trump – with courts concluding Trump engaged in Fraud – yet Fraud is a property crime – a determination that the US legal system inherited from Britian.”
He often conflates federal law to be state law because he thinks any federal law supersedes state law. That’s not the case. Fraud has different definitions under STATE law. Trump was charged with falsifying business records which is a crime in NY state. He was charged by NY state not the federal government. Every state has a particular view on what they consider to be criminal fraudulent conduct. John say erroneously believes federal law, because it’s federal, supersedes any definition of “fraud” of state law. That’s not how it works here.
Trump was found guilty under NY state law regarding falsification of business records. John Say erroneously believes federal courts will intervene because somehow they have jurisdiction over internal state matters. He never explains how that can occur.
“But then Orwells novel 1984 was set in Great Britain.”
Oh dear. If you had actually read 1984, then you would know that the UK had become Airstrip One, a province of the merged United States and British Empire, known as Oceania. Therefore 1984 was as much set in the USA as it was in Britain, because Orwell conceived of them as a single fictional polity.
1984 was a tract warning against all forms of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. Which was why Orwell, who in his idealistic youth had fought with the Communist aligned Republicans against the Fascist aligned Nationalists in Spain, rendered the British government good service in the war against National Socialist Germany and its satellites, then did even better work with the Information Research Department in waging propaganda against Communism post war.
You really must try harder, dear boy.
The use of the qualifiers “supposed infringement” and “imaginary rights referring to free speech may be a subtle clue to how Oliver feels about the free speech rights of others. However, equating denying access to others with whom you disagree, and defacing public property to calling somebody a leprechaun or singing Kung fu fighting in a bar means you are either a troll or mentally deficicient.
The man who was fined under Scots law, was not fined simply for calling his ex girlfriend’s new partner a leprechaun, but for the violent and threatening message of which “leprechaun” was just one small part. Of course, the media focused on the leprechaun bit, not the threats of assault. Puts a slightly different spin on it all, does it not?
The man who was arrested for playing “Kung Fu Fighting” in an Isle of Wight bar, which offended a gentleman of Chinese ethnicity, was arrested not because of playing the song, but because when the gentleman of Chinese ethnicity complained, he was supposedly subjected to racist abuse. So, the question was not the song being played, but what was said in the confrontation afterwards. In the event, the chap who was arrested was not charged once the police concluded their investigation. So, again, an incident wholly misrepresented in the media, whose reporting has sadly then been taken at face value by the Professor without bothering to check the actual facts.
The question for the court in the first incident, and for the police (who decided not to charge) in the second, was the combination of speech and conduct. One case the threats of assault, not the use of the term “leprechaun” led to a fine being imposed, in the other, the supposed abusive exchange, subsequent to but not involving a silly song, led to no charges being preferred.
Sorry that attention to detail is in your eyes the mark of a mentally deficient (note spelling) troll.
The natural right to free speech is not imaginary. It requires force to preclude people from speaking.
It is clear that you are poorly educated – you are making arguments that have been rebutted long ago – often centuries ago.
One of the problems with the lefts efforts to erase history is that It presumes that EVERYTHING about the past hundred, or thousand years of thought, analysis, and conclusions can just be discarded.
History is the slow iterative development process of humanity – gradually improving and getting it right.
Incitement to violence is a very specific thing – again we have spent thousands of years establishing exactly what constitutes speech that constitutes conduct. Historically getting that wrong – overbroad constraints on speech result in societal DECLINE not its advancement.
There are a long list of reasons why every form of statism, every form of socialism, every attempt at communism has dramatically underperformed free markets. But all of them orbit FREEDOM. The less free a society is the slower the rate of improvement in standard of living – quality of life. Free speech is the most important freedom that is REQUIRED for prosperity.
Regardless Actual incitement to violence REQUIRES an explicit call to violence. It requires that call is for immediate violence,
and it requires that the probability of violence resulting must be near certain.
Those are deliberately extremely difficult criteria to meet.
“from the river to the sea” is with certainty a “call to violence” – it is not prosecutable incitement to violence – nor should it be.
Your hurt feelings do not constitute speech that is conduct by others. Your emotional response to someone else’s speech is YOUR problem.
Even absolute free speech – does not preclude someone from driving to law school.
Only CONDUCT impedes driving to law school.
I have never seen a statute damaged by words.
I have never seen a car blocked by words.
The quality of thought of those of you on the left is incredibly poor.
It is as if you had been educated by morons without the benefit of the knowledge we have spent thousands of years discovering.
Or even the knowledge that ordinaryless educated people who have to actually work for a living learn from the simple necescity of keeping themselves and their families alive and thriving.
You also appear oblivious to the FACT that there is a world of difference between criticizing the free speech of others,
and prohibiting the speech of others.
Those on the left are free to speak their minds about whatever issues they wish.
They can call for disclosure and divestment. They can chant “from the river to the sea”
All the bad speech of the left is GOOD for all of us – it shows us who they are and what they value and what they would do given power. It assists us in making wise choices.
Just as those on the left are free to say whatever they please – those offended by what the left says are free to criticise what is said.
I know this is hard for you to grasp – but actual criticism – as opposed to shouting down speech you do not like, it also free speech.
I have yet to hear Turley call for silencing those on the left – even when their speech openly advocates even celebrates violence.
Few if any here are calling for the arrest and imprisonment of those on the left FOR THEIR SPEECH.
Many all calling for their punishment FOR THEIR CONDUCT.
Well, here they would be prosecuted for both as indivisible concepts. I hope they are prosecuted. I also hope Turley stops misrepresenting British cases where the core issues are actually rather similar.
“. . . their imaginary “natural right” to free speech . . .”
The Queen’s subject asserts — as he exercises that “imaginary” right in our country, on JT’s blog.
Sam, there are no Queen’s subjects.
Thank you for noticing. I will forgive the gentleman, since for those of us who were born and raised during Her Majesty’s reign still have to think hard on occasion; no disrespect to His Majesty, but remembering to change the words of the National Anthem, for example, can catch one out.
Who gives a rats behind whether it’s king or queen? Maybe you guys need a gender neutral word for it, you misogynist pigs.
Either way, it’s the dumbest concept man has ever “constructed”
We do have a gender neutral term. The Crown. Also, the Monarch.
Why do you call us misogynist pigs? At least we have had female monarchs, female Prime Ministers. How many female Presidents have you racked up yet? (Please do not take that as an endorsement of Ms Harris, the office to which she aspires is too important to be entrusted to the likes of her simply to make a point about equality.)
where in iraq did you serve, when were you there and what did you do?
-Waters
We do have a gender neutral term. The Crown. Or the Monarch.
Why do you think we are misogynist pigs? We have at least had female Monarchs, going back five hundred years. We have had female Prime Ministers. How many female Presidents have there been. (Please do not take that as endorsement of the appalling Ms Harris, though. The office to which she aspires is far too important to be entrusted to someone like her just for the sake of scoring a point in the equality stakes. Thank god you dodged HRC…)
Sorry for the double post – the first went AWOL.
“Sam, there are no Queen’s subjects.”
Seriously. Get a clue.
“Queen’s subject” is (now) a derogatory description (aka “royal subject”) that has been used for *centuries*. Anyone who believes that rights are granted, are permissions from the government — is a “subject,” not an independent citizen.
If the civil authorities won’t deal with this kind of campus crime, there’s a very simple solution. Expel every student involved. Do that consistently and this would cease in short order.
90 days in jail for vandalism would do the trick. Vandalism is not “free speech”
6 months HARD Labor would be a BETTER punishment! And you sleep outside in any weather in your sleeping bag…good enough for THEIR homeless!