The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit handed down a major victory for free speech this week in favor of a professor challenging his treatment by the University of Louisville. In Josephson v. Ganzel, a unanimous panel ruled for Dr. Allan Josephson who was subject to adverse actions after he publicly expressed skepticism over some treatments for youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The decision is important because it deals with qualified immunity and reaffirms liability for the denial of free speech protections.
Writing for the panel (including Senior Judge Ronald Lee Gilman and Judge Allen Griffin), Judge Andre Mathis found that university officials could not claim immunity in the denial of free speech protections for faculty.
We previously discussed this case. Josephson was a professor of psychiatry at the medial school and had success at the school after serving as the Division Chief of the Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Louisville for nearly 15 years. He has 35 years of experience in the field.
His apparent good standing at the school changed dramatically when he participated in a discussion of the treatment of childhood gender dysphoria at an event in October 2017 sponsored by a conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation. He expressed his reservations with some treatments and his public comments were reported back to his colleagues.
Dr. Josephson argued that children are not mature enough to make such major, permanent decisions and that 80-95 percent of children claiming gender dysphoria eventually accept their biological sex over time without such treatment.
Those views are widely shared by others and have been cited as the basis for states adopting bans on conversion treatments for young children.
His commentary triggered a backlash at the school, which led to a decision not to renew his contract. When sued, the school invoked the Eleventh Amendment and claimed qualified immunity. The district court correctly rejected that claim and the Sixth Circuit just affirmed that denial.
The university was seeking protection that would have insulated anti-free speech practices from liability, a dangerous prospect that could have dramatically accelerated the growing intolerance on campuses. The University of Louisville was arguing that they could punish faculty for public statements without fear of liability as state officers.
Judge Mathis and his colleagues made fast work of this insidious and dangerous claim:
Defendants argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity for two main reasons. First, they argue it was not clearly established that each Defendant’s conduct, in isolation, was an adverse action sufficient to show retaliation against a professor because of his protected speech. Second, they argue it was not clearly established that the First Amendment protected statements like those Josephson made in October 2017.
Resolving Defendants’ first argument is not complicated. Defendants argue that Josephson’s rights were not clearly established because no court had specifically addressed whether isolated actions against a professor because of his speech were adverse actions. In other words, Defendants believe they can act as they choose until there is a case on all fours. We disagree. As we have explained, “we do not require an earlier decision that is ‘directly on point.'” McElhaney v. Williams, 81 F.4th 550, 556–57 (6th Cir. 2023) (quoting Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 12 (2015)). At the same time, “‘existing precedent’ must place the contours of the right ‘beyond debate.'” Id. (quoting Mullenix, 577 U.S. at 12).
During the relevant period, it was beyond debate that “the First Amendment bar[red] retaliation for protected speech.” Crawford-El v. Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 592 (1998). By the fall of 2017, both the Supreme Court and this court had held that, absent a disruption of government operations, a public university may not retaliate against a professor for speaking on issues of social or political concern. Pickering, 391 U.S. at 574; Hardy v. Jefferson Cmty. Coll., 260 F.3d 671, 682 (6th Cir. 2001). And we had established that a retaliatory “adverse action” is one that “would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct.” Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 394. We had further established that campaigns of harassment, when considered as a whole, may amount to adverse actions. See Fritz, 592 F.3d at 724; Thaddeus-X, 175 F.3d at 398; Bloch, 156 F.3d at 678. It was also established that legitimate threats “to the nature and existence of one’s ongoing employment is of a similar character to the other recognized forms of adverse action—termination, refusal to hire, etc.—even if perpetrated by a third party who is not the employer.” Fritz, 592 F.3d at 728. We have, moreover, “repeatedly held that ‘[a]n act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper.'” Wenk v. O’Reilly, 783 F.3d 585, 595 (6th Cir. 2015) (alteration in original) (emphasis omitted) (quoting Bloch, 156 F.3d at 681–82). Thus, a reasonable university official during the relevant period would have understood that he could not lawfully terminate or threaten the economic livelihood of a professor because of his protected speech.
Defendants’ second argument does not fare much better. That is because the protected nature of Josephson’s speech was also clearly established. “To be clearly established, a legal principle must have a sufficiently clear foundation in then-existing precedent.” District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. 48, 63 (2018). The principle “must be settled law.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Settled law “means it is dictated by controlling authority or a robust consensus of cases of persuasive authority.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In the First Amendment retaliation context, “we ask whether any reasonable official would have understood that [Josephson’s] speech was protected, and thus that the official could not retaliate against him.” McElhaney, 81 F.4th at 557. The answer: It is, and has been, clearly established that public employees have a right to speak “on a matter of public concern regarding issues outside of one’s day-to-day job responsibilities, absent a showing that Pickering balancing favors the government’s particular interest in promoting efficiency or public safety.” Ashford, 89 F.4th at 975 (first citing Buddenberg v. Weisdack, 939 F.3d 732, 739–40 (6th Cir. 2019); then citing Westmoreland v. Sutherland, 662 F.3d 714, 718–19 (6th Cir. 2011)).
It can no doubt be difficult to determine if speech is public or private. See DeCrane, 12 F.4th at 599 (“[W]e have recognized that it can be ‘challenging’ to distinguish public from private speech.” (citation omitted)). Even so, by 2012, “[w]e had held that employees speak as private citizens (not public employees) at least when they speak on their own initiative to those outside their chains of command and when their speech was not part of their official or de facto duties.” Id. at 599–600 (citing Handy-Clay v. City of Memphis, 695 F.3d 531, 542–43 (6th Cir. 2012)). “Would this ‘firmly established’ rule have ‘immediately’ alerted a reasonable person No. 23-5293 Josephson v. Ganzel, et al. Page 22 that” Josephson spoke in his private capacity? See id. at 600 (quoting Wesby, 583 U.S. at 64). We think so.
Defendants also argue that Josephson’s Heritage Foundation panel remarks were a part of his official duties. Even if that were the case, it was clearly established that such speech is protected. See Meriwether, 992 F.3d at 505; Hardy, 260 F.3d at 680; Bonnell v. Lorenzo, 241 F.3d 800, 823 (6th Cir. 2001) (“[A] professor’s rights to academic freedom and freedom of expression are paramount in the academic setting.”).
After a recent blow to academic freedom and free speech by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, this is a heartening opinion. It is particularly important because, as I have previously written in columns and my new book, public universities will be key to any effort to restore free speech values to higher education.
Higher education has already plunged in trust among citizens under the current administrators and faculty at our colleges and universities. They are destroying the very institutions that sustain them.
Public universities can be a strong line of defense for free speech, offering students not just free speech environments but the direct protection of the First Amendment. Not surprisingly, the annual survey of free speech on campuses tends to have public universities at the top of the list of the most protective institutions with a few private standouts.
As shown by the University of Louisville’s medical faculty, administrators and faculty are not necessarily any more inclined to protect diversity of thought at public universities. However, the applicability of the First Amendment subjects them to greater accountability in the courts. In this case, the University of Louisville was seeking to reduce that accountability.
I have written about how taxpayers and legislators can exercise their own power to demand more diversified and tolerant environments at these schools. In the meantime, faculty and students can turn to state schools for greater protections for speech and more diverse environments. This case will help in that effort.
Here is the opinion: Josephson v. Ganzel
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He is the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage” (Simon & Schuster).
Jonathan: Did you see that yesterday DJT played the coward and said he will not participate in a second debate with Kamala Harris? Not unexpected. DJT is big on talk, but when he knows he is on the losing end he invariably folds. In a statement DJT said “pretty much everything was discussed and you want to get on with your business”. On with his “business”?! DJT only has one “business” these days–running for President! DJT even suggested Harris didn’t want a second debate. Not true. Harris challenged DJT to a second debate: “Two nights ago, Donald Trump and I had our first debate, and I believe we owe it to the voters to have another debate”. When a boxer gets knocked down four times in the first round there is no reason to go on. That’s DJT’s problem. Harris had DJT on the ropes all night in the first debate.
And as usual DJT always blames others for his failures. Fox host Neil Cavuto declared on Wednesday that DJT
“decisively lost” the debate. DJT was quick to respond: “”Neil Cavuto, Fox’s Lowest Rated Anchor, is one of WORST on Television. I actually prefer the losers at CNN and MSDNC”. Bizarre that DJT would attack Fox that’s line up of hosts have consistently supported the former president. As usual, DJT always blames the messenger for bad news!
DJT should have thrown in the white towel after the first 30″. That’s because he showed on policy, substance, style, temperament, age, coherence and truthfulness, he is not qualified to be President again!
PS: The latest post-debate polls show DJT trailing Harris nationwide. Reuters/Ipsos shows Harris ahead 47% to 42%. This is echoed in other national polls.
Dennis, before the debate you said that Trump was afraid to debate Harris. Trump agreed to go into the lions den to debate Harris. One problem with Trump is that he doesn’t realize how viscous the lions are. After he agreed to the debate you shut your mouth about him being afraid to debate but here you are back with the same Trump is a chicken argument. This is a Jr. High School argument from a man who refuses to grow up. I consider it to be a good thing that you present the arguments of the left from a viewpoint of the juvenile mind. Thanks for commenting.
It would be reasonable for any rational person to decline a debate which is predictably rigged.
Dum Dum Dennis believes polls that total 89%
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha
Georgia judge tosses two criminal counts against Trump in Fani Willis case
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/georgia-judge-tosses-two-criminal-counts-against-trump-fani-willis-case?utm_source=breaking&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Jonathan: Did you see that yesterday DJT played the coward and said he will not participate in a second debate with Kamala Harris?
Jonathan, did you notice that your dear friend Baghdad Bob Dennis McIntyre has now gone from “Trump is afraid to show up to debate President Biden”, to “The debate moderators did not give president Biden a fair debate”, to “Trump is afraid to show up to debate Vice President Harris”, to now “Trump is a coward because he will not participate in a second debate against Kamala Harris on an adversarial propaganda network with adversarial tag team moderators”.
And Jonathan! Dennis wants to assure you that you Must Not Believe Your Lying Eyes – this was the most professional, impartially moderated presidential debate ever!
The moderators (one of who has confessed that Harris and her are loyal sorority sisters) did not have to “fact check” Harris even ONCE. After all, as Dennis will assure you, Harris didn’t tell a single lie the entire debate. Nor filibuster to avoid answering a single time – even that first question of “Are Americans better off under Bidenomics than they were under Trump”?
No wonder they didn’t fact check her – you don’t have to fact check a candidate whose every word they utter is nothing but the truth!
I agree with Dennis! I know you’re surprised, but still:
Trump should agree to debate Harris on Newsmax – with Sean Hannity and Mark Levin as the moderators. Dennis will certainly degree that Harris will REALLY kick Trump’s ass in that one, just as she did on Trump hating ABC with Harris’s sorority sister moderating!
BTW Jonathan… as a matter of national security, are you as relieved as your good friend Dennis to hear Vice President Commander In Chief Harris inform you during the debate that there are no troops in harms way in combat zones since she ignored her generals, State Department, and the NATO commanders to desert Americans and Afghans by surrendering that country to Hajji terrorists?
And no American troops have died while on her Vice President Commander In Chief Watch! Isn’t that good news!
Certainly not in Afghanistan, Syria, anti-terrorist operations in Middle East seas, etc. Won’t be any terrorist missiles courtesy of Iran killing American troops in American bases overseas – despite Harris being The Last One In The Room deciding to allow Iran to run free again, lifting sanctions, enriching Hajji terrorism again.
It has to be true, Jonathan: neither of the moderators fact checked Harris when she made that pronouncement during the debate.
Nothing but Joy And Sunny Days Ahead from another four years of Biden/Harris, as soon as Harris delivers Obama’s Fourth Term!
5….4….3…2…1…Trump.
Sing to Henry the VIII (Herman’s Hermits) in handed the words for you. 🙂
“Second verse, same as the first….I”m obsessed with Trump I Am, Obsessed with Donald Trump I Am, I Am. He was the President once before now he’s running for another four. Now every Democrat is his enemy, enemy! Enemies are all around. I’m his enemy forevermore I Am , his enemy forever more.
Second verse, same as the first…..
should say, “I changed the words just for you.”
Lil Flyin’ Bow Wow, what were your MOS, Awards, Theater, and Campaign?
Culinary Specialist 92G?
Elvis the draft dodger loves to question the valor of those who served, sitting at his keyboard in Colorado, safe from getting his nose bloodied.
So that’s it, cook?
Wait, did “Lil Flyin’ Bow Wow” say “stolen valor?”
Answer the question: What were your MOS, Awards, Theater, and Campaign?
Answer the question: What were your MOS, Awards, Theater, and Campaign?
And yours are?
“Anonymous”… Is that you, Woke Sergeant Major Stolen Valor Tampon Tim Walz, who qualified “expert” on the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle prior to heading off to combat?
The Minnesota National Guard said it did not know whether Walz disclosed his arrest and guilty plea, something that could have resulted in dishonorable discharge
https://justthenews.com/accountability/political-ethics/national-guard-does-not-know-if-walz-disclosed-dui-arrest-former
PROOFREADER: I believe it’s Judge Richard Allen Griffin, not Allen Griffeth. At least I wasn’t able to find any Judge Griffeth on the 6th circuit.
You should enjoy this win while you can. If Harris is elected she will appoint like minded judges and your freedom will be a thing of the past. Trump spoke about what’s happening in Springfield Ohio. If you really want to know about what’s happening in Springfield please read the following. The part about Springfield is about half way through the article. https://sashastone.substack.com/p/trumps-surprising-secret-weapon-sympathy. Kamala doesn’t want you to know.
Not so fast ny friend. We will have the Senate. Kamala is going to tread water for 4 years.
Vice President Walz may indeed preside over a split Senate and he will have the opportunity to cast the deciding vote just like Kamala Harris did as Vice President. Whistling past the grave yard won’t help. My recommendation would be to continue to point out the agenda of the left and their attempt to limit your freedom of speech. One thing that you can count on for sure is that just like they did with Twitter, YouTube and Facebook they will continue to limit what you can say. Something’s happening here. Paranoia strikes deep. Step out of line and they’ll put you away. So leave your resistance far behind.
I agree with all that, except the Senate will be at least 51-49. Its a done deal. There will be no tie breaking vote.
Kamalala is going to be flushed down the toilet and will be a zit in the history books of this great Nation. She will be known as the candidate that never received one vote, the female candidate that rode her vagina into California politics, the Marxist tool of the greatest fraud BHO ever perpetrated (HRC) on the American people.
* there’s no history here…just theft and murder.
Traveler: I thought you were better than slut-shaming. And lose that old Marxist meme.
Except that the left has increasingly been willing to ignore the constitution and the law as president and just do whatever they please.
Mnay opf tghe problems we have today are caused either by failure to enforce the laws we already have because those on the left do not like those – such as with immigration.
Or manufactuiring new law out of thin air – as we have seen with democrats mnauling election integrity – often with the aide of left wing courts that deliberately can not read existing law or constitution.
It’s AI being used by thieves
* wins? You cheats and installed. The USA would never allow such a corrupt mail system
I’ll regard this as more proof that Friday the 13th is not unlucky!
Respectfully, I see this as a major major win. And hopefully (more wishfully), a rising trend.
A personal insight: To my recollection, I have argued before the Sixth Circuit only once. At the time (early 2000s), it was perceived to be on the rise to replace the Ninth Circuit (liberal West Coast California, Oregon, Washington, etc. ) as a highly-reversed circuit. It began to tamp down its ideological bent over the last decade or so. And two of the three justices here (this was not en banc) were appointed by Biden and Clinton, respectively.
I know the law firm of Dinsmore (representing UL defendants here ) to be a highly-reputable firm with good attorneys and good arguments. For Dinsmore to lose an appeal is noteworthy.
Finally, and personally, I clearly and unequivocally side with Professor Josephson’s framing of the issue on gender dysphoria and the ever-expanding need to throttle the throttling of fleshed-out discussions or alternative views thereof.
(judges not justices)
The arguments made by the defendants were poor. We have seen this in Many 1A cases.
Fire as an example routinely wins 1A cases. I am noit sure they have ever lost – certainly they have never lost at the final apeal.
I do not know if Dinsmore is reputable. Nor do I know if they are willing to argue losing points because that is what their clients want.
Regardless, I do not fault any lawyer for what they argue. The fault would have been if they told their clients that they stood a snowballs chance of winning.
The proper solution to this problem is to get government out of the business of education.
But even there – this would still be a losing case.
It would be hard to argue that a private employer can fire you for speech outside of work that is not strongly tied to your job and to their image.
* In honor of truth, this must be an alternate universe and the USA isn’t in it at all. The vocabulary of oligarchs, elites, existential and other is laughable. The idea that UL and speech is an issue is laughable. The covid shut down is absolutely impossible. The USA wouldn’t shut down commerce during a nuclear war!
Your deep State has to be a foreign entity and that the USA would even consider kamala Harris as a president is a Martian idea. It’s all AI bunk. Good luck with this latest story and transgenderism and children. Sure
Adieu
It does sometimes feel like we a(woke) in an alternate universe.
How does the least popular VP in history fail up to be POTUS?
There is only one way ANY of this could be happening. 35% of the country identifies as conservative. 30% of the country identidifes as liberal. 35% of the country identifies as moderate (with 58% of those leaning conservative).
Yet, 90% of the “mainstream media” is liberal, from the executives to the “reporters”, and they admit their bias.
Just imagine what it would be like if this were not true.
They ARE the enemy of the 35% in the middle.
* ITS AI BS FOR THEFT AND MURDER. SPIT IN ITS FACE
The sorry ass ABC debate “moderators” tried to defend their despicable actions yesterday. They claim they decided to “correct” Trump because when he debated Biden, false statements he made were left “hanging out there”. Its like the NFL referees during the 70’s saying “well, the Raiders committed too many uncalled penalties last week, so all the calls this week will be against them, NONE on the Chiefs”.
The problem is, Biden told MORE LIES than Trump. Biden spewed 16 lies in the first 6 minutes. The very first thing out of his mouth was a lie. He only slowed down lying because he forgot how to talk.
I will say this. Trump has some serious MORONS surrounding him still. How in the sam hill could you ink a debate deal with ABC, especially with those two sycophants, and NOT insist that the rules include NO so called “fact checking” by the moderators? If a goddam moderator wants to debate, get a petition and get your name on the ballot.
So they left 25 lies by Kamala “hanging out there”. And now the undecided voters get to base their decision on 25 lies and 2 false “fact checks”. Yea, thats democracy.
Great comment DDC!!!
DDC,
People are saying Harris played Trump. What I saw was clearly biased moderators who favored Harris to help her in the debate. Trump was debating three people, not just Harris. The fact they would only fact checked Trump and not Harris also displays their bias. The whole thing was rigged. Former Clinton advisor Mike Penn recently said, “I think a review of all their internal texts and emails really should be done […] to find out to what extent they were planning on, in effect, you know, fact-checking just one candidate and in effect, rigging the outcome of this debate.”
We all know about the 25 lies told by Harris. MSM is going to give her coverage.
Stop enabling the Left wing MSM. Stop making appearances on their “shows”. Stop recognizing them as viable venues to showcase your platforms. Stop any and all business relationships with the MSM. They’re already dying as it is, laying off in droves, losing millions of dollars yearly, so making appearances on their slanted circus propaganda only gives them a lifeline. All Republicans, Libertarians and Independents should cancel any debates, interviews, appearances with the MSM. No mas
Estovir,
Great plan! Today former AG Bill Barr penned a column for The Free Press.
https://www.thefp.com/p/bill-barr-mob-rule-and-moral-bankruptcy-at-columbia
Thanks for the link. Yes, it’s the lowest.
Upstate,
She did play Trump. Phillipe Reines is a despicable human piece of trash, but he is smart. He knew EXACTLY which lies would trigger Trump. The issue is that the moderators ALLOWED it. They allowed her to not answer a single question, and just point her bony finger at Trump and lie all night.
Again, I wonder about how much is Trump’s ego, and how much is STUPID people around him. I am sure they prepped him for the true things Kamala might say to goad him, but they seemed completely unprepared for the outrageous LIES she was willing to spew, not because she thought voters would believe her, just to provoke him.
And the prep was simple…
Charlottesville hoax….”Ms Harris, no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it won’t make it true.” And move on.
2025 hoax….”Ms Harris, no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it won’t make it true.” And move on.
Trump rally nonsense…”Ms Harris, no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it won’t make it true.” And move on. Maybe add, “you are bussing people to your rallies”.
Trump supports abortion ban…”Ms Harris, I can speak for myself, I don’t need you to. And no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it won’t make it true.”
Trump against IVF…”Ms Harris, I can speak for myself, I don’t need you to. And no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it won’t make it true.”
Bloodbath hoax….”Ms Harris, no matter how many times you repeat a lie, it won’t make it true.” And move on.
And each time you see “And move on” above, I would have said, “and I yield the rest of my time to Ms Harris, so she can answer the question you asked her”.
And his closing statement should have been this, ALREADY prepared. What Harris did was TOTALLY predictable. What else could she do? Defend her policies??? LMAO.
“Ms Harris, we came here tonight because the people of America wanted to hear from you. They wanted to know who/what you planned to be/do as President. I was the 45th President of the United States. Americans are old enough to remember who I am and what I will do for them. They didn’t need you to stand here all night and regurgitate your rehearsed lies about me. The only thing they found out about you is that you are a liar and as Vice President, you blame everything on someone or something else.”
I think Trump’s close was fine – and not that much different from what you have offered.
DDC – while I agree with your analysis – and I think we should do debates differently.
I think overall the debate went Well for Trump.
While Harris proved that she could memorize canned answers to aeasily anticipatable questions, she did not tell voters anything consequential on her position on any important issues.
The big deal regarding Harris is NOT that she will not sit for an interview, or take challenging questions.
It is that she will not allow voters to know where she stands.
We expect interviews to pry that out of her.
We expect debates to pry that out.
Not spraying out word salads or starging blankly or kackling hysterically – is still not telling voters what you ACTUALLY stand for and intend to do.
Harris still has a razor thin advantage in RCP poll of Polls, but she is behing in the no tossups EC, and betting odds .
Further we KNOW the polls had a 4pt D bias in 2016 and 2020. We do not know if that has been corrected.
If Not = Harris is going to lose badly.
Polls at this time in 2020 had Biden at +7 and in 2016 Clinton at +4.
Have the major polls corrected their errors ? I think not.
If they have this is a horse race with Trump ahead by a hair.
If not it it a Trump blowout.
Regardless, the evidence is pretty strong that we know where Harris’s ceiling is, and it is NOT high enough to win.
As to the debate itself.
Sure with fair moderators, Harris could have been taken out.
Sure Trump could have done better.
But the debate did not hurt Trump, and it did not help Harris.
Are there issues with the moderators – absolutely. But despite trying I do not think they actually hurt Trump or helped Harris.
But they did Hurt ABC.
You can fact check others all you want, if people do not trust you it is meaningless.
My understanding is that post debate polls have Harris winning the debate YET Trump winning on each of the issues and to the extent that the debate changed votes it Change undecideds to Trump.
If that holds correct, then Trump will take that kind of Loss every day.
I will say this. Trump has some serious MORONS surrounding him still.
DDC, I see you’ve hijacked Dennis McIntyre’s position for being the first every day to go off topic. But I’m good with that, as the news this morning is full of mainstream media celebrating this as the most professionally conducted political debate ever.
I agree with you that there have to be more than a few syncopatic, self-serving culls within Trump’s campaign. Whether it’s the ones that tell him the language that gets his hard core voters jumping up in down in the stadium seats is more important than focusing his speech on the undecided/impartial voters. Or the ones telling him he crushed both the moderators and Harris in that debate in the eyes of those undecided voters. I still think the jury is out on how much impact if any the debate had on the critical undecided voters, but Trump definitely did not walk away with a win.
But Trump owns much of the outcome of that debate – It reminded me of back when he was president and Jim Decosta could bait him and get him off what he should have been doing: telling Americans what his administration was accomplishing with Wuhan Flu.
Did he believe willingly going for the openings they kept putting in front of him, he would then surprise them by turning it on them? It is always easy after a game or debate or a gunfight to say “this is what I would have done”.
Trump said ahead of the debate that they were going to be dishonest. That means trump should have known they would try to make the entire debate about him, while doing as much to keep the focus off Harris, her record, and what she will be doing if she gains control of the government. Instead of making each response as much as possible about her and the record that she owns, he became defensive and explanatory towards the litany of “do you still beat your wife” questions. He can do better, as he did with Biden, and he should have done better.
The magnitude of moderator open partisanship surprised even me – they made Candy Crawley in 2012 look like a rank amateur at rigging a debate.
No questions of how America is better with 20+ million Illegal Aliens here by invitation of her and Biden during the 2020 campaign?
Before the anniversary of 9/11, moderators had no questions to Harris asking why they’re still empowering and enriching Iran while they’re funding attacks on Americans?
No fact check for Harris when she repeated the Biden lie that no American troops were in danger?
No fact check for Harris claiming no American troops have died on her watch?
No fact check for Harris for the lie that no state allows killing newborn babies who survive botched abortions by withholding medical care until they die – instead a false check lie directed at Trump that states like her VP pick’s state don’t do that.
Four “fact check” lies directed at Trump – ZERO fact checks directed at her despite her litany of lie after lie.
Six interruptions of Trump with “we have to move on” while he was making a point – ZERO interruptions of Harris, especially while she went on long filibusters rather than answering the question she was asked.
You would hope that Trump will buckle down to making the campaign about Harris, her history, and the record of her administration. No more letting them select the battles, the subjects, and willingly fighting with them under their rules.
Harris has nothing but lying and hiding to run on. If Trump can successfully drag her history in office and what she’s been responsible for as Biden’s “last one in the room”, that exposure will kill her communist dreams and career like sunlight kills vampires.
‘Old Anonymous Dog’
starts out with “GOTCHA! You’re off-topic!”
then proceeds to write a long OT comment, himself.
But he’s “good with that”
which sounds like something Dennis would say.
Signed, Elitist Screen Name.
starts out with “GOTCHA! You’re off-topic!” then proceeds to write a long OT comment, himself.
How dare he say he’s fine with co-opting Dennis and then expand on an off topic he approve of!
And WORSE! Join in pointing out how corrupt the debate and Dennis are!
Dripping Anonymous Karen vaginas all the way around!
Midol Moment in isle nine!
OAD
The loser in the debate was ABC.
Outside the left no one thinks they came off well.
Other than that could Trump have done better – sure.
Could harris have done worse – sure.
But Harris did not help herself and Trump did not hurt himself.
Trump did not get a knockout – as he did with Biden in June.
Many people said the bar for Harris was low and she managed to get over it.
But I do not think that is true.
The debate was almost meaningless regarding Trump.
Everyone knows what they are getting with Trump. No one really needs 45 minutes of Trump to make up their mind about voting.
The real focus of undecideds was Harris – not Trump. She needed to prove that she could be trusted as president – and she did not accomplish that.
I have problems with those telling Trump what he should do. Trump does NOT need to talk about the issues – We KNOW where he stands on the issues. Trump does not have anything to prove. We KNOW what we are getting.
The debate was about Harris, the election is about Harris.
Platitudes are not going to cut it.
It is NOT just that she needs to stake out positions – voters can cope with candidates that do not match them perfectly on positions.
She says her values have not changed – but no one knows what those values are.
We learn about her values, her principles, how much we can trust her. But having HER tell us what those are.
Biden got away with a substance free campaign – because people KNEW or thought they KNEW joe Biden from a long track record.
If Harris is counting on people judging her by her record – she is toast.
She was the farthest left in the senate, she was VP in an administration that most see as a failure,
she had a poor records as CA AG and as SF DA.
Regardless, people want to hear from HER who she is. What she stands for.
She has not done that.
John Say: Trump does NOT need to talk about the issues – We KNOW where he stands on the issues.
You are very wrong on that. Unless by “We”, you are including all the undecided/independent voters in the critical swing states. Particularly the group regularly referred to as “suburban moms”, however accurate that term is.
As just one example, the Democrats have successfully made federal abortion legislation a campaign issue again because the Republicans have been unable or unwilling to kill that after the Dobbs decision clearly saying the federal government is out of the abortion legislation business – it’s up to the states and their voters to make those laws. The reason the Democrats are pushing so hard on abortion after that while lying their asses off that Trump would ban abortion is because fear sells. And if voters fear Trump more than they think there’s nothing to fear about Harris, she just might be pretty incompetent, those are the votes they’re trying to win talking abortion.
Ditto the claims he will take their health care, their social security, etc.
Trump needs to talk about the issues A LOT. More time directing his time at the independent/undecided voters – the red hatted stadium rally crowds have already given him their vote. And do so while pointing at his record over the four years and contrast it to Harris’s record and what she’s promising to do.
It is not the job of debate moderators to fact check the debators during the debate.
That can be done by pundits AFTER the debate.
But even if the moderators beleive it is their job – then it is their responsibility to fact check BOTH candidates.
Anything else is putting your thumbs on the scales.
It is also interesting that so many of the ABC “fact checks” have proven FALSE after the debate.
The media has major problems “fact checking” trump.
They confuse opinion with fact.
Nearly everything any politician says is in the strictest sense logical Error.
And the same was true of the “moderators”
As an example – the FBI does say that Crime is down.
Does that means that if Trump says there is a problem with increasing violent crime – he is wrong ?
First – whether it is FBI or other government reports – these are getting increasingly untrustworthy under democrats.
I do not trust the FBI crime statistics anymore than I trust the notoriously bad Biden/Harris jobs numbers.
Regardless, saying the FBI says Crime is down is NOT an appropriate fact check for Trump’s claims about crime.
There is an increase in violent and non violent crime in big cites, as well as even small towns that have large numbers of illegal immigrants.
Despite the claims of moderators – it is a FACT that illegal immigrants are stealing animals and eating them. It is not clear how LARGE a problem that is, but it has really occured.
It is Wrong for a debate moderate to Fact check a debator with a claim that is not DIRECTLY on point to what the debator claimed.
FBI crime statistics – aside from being untrustworthy DO NOT directly refute Trump’s claims. All the moderator was doing was making a false equivalence.
Which is another reason that Moderators should stay out of fact checking.
Frankly I see little need for moderators at presidential debates.
The parties can agree on the questions ahead of the debate,
and all you need is someone to call time.
Let the debators fact check each other.
John Say,
Just FYI, DOJ releases 2023 crime statistics, Trump campaign fact checks ABC
“The Trump campaign highlighted the figures in the Justice Department’s “National Crime Victimization Survey,” which was released on Thursday. The survey found that violent crime was up 37% from 2020 to 2023, rape is up 42%, robbery is up 63%, and stranger violence is up 61%.”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/elections/trump-campaign-fact-checks-abc-crime-statistics-presidential-debate
“Frankly I see little need for moderators at presidential debates.”
Moderators should not exist. Treat the debate like a chess game with a time clock turning over, signaling the end of one candidate’s turn and starting the other’s. Let that time clock also turn the microphones on and off, where the more time used for one statement, the less time remains for another. Let the candidates propose the questions, with a word limit placed in each candidate’s bucket, drawn randomly, and read by a machine. Set the time limit for each speaker and let the last word be for whoever has time left on the clock.
Turley, your motives are completely transparent. You stand up for, and represent the space for rightist thought and speech to enter the ‘town square’ at the same time as seeking to marginalize and discount and even silence any sentiment and speech directed in response.
And what exactly has he done to “marginalize and discount and even silence” your speech which is “directed in response”? Lucky for you, he not only provides a blog for anyone and everyone to voice their opinion, he also doesn’t censure based on whether their opinion makes any sense.
I was regularly censored here on this blog for at least two years. My comments were routinely pulled down when the moderator checked in.
My colorful comment to you was taken down just now. Stop your whining.
Your IP was banned because you repeatedly engaged in ad hom, in violation of the civility rules. You then chose to use starbucks public Wifi to get around the ban, so your despicable posts were removed one by one.
You think you are clever by addressing “Turls” to spew your hateful rhetoric and insult the readers of this blog who disagree with you, but you aren’t. You admitted on more than one occassion that your only purpose for posting was to provoke a certain response and to disrupt the conversation.
This mornings comment was vintage Lawn Boy. Absent any substance and pure provocateur. A pathetic life, to be sure.
Is there a point in there somewhere, or just ad hom?
“Is there a point in there somewhere, or just ad hom?”
Strange, the clear point is that you are absolutely wrong. Clearly the professor accepts any viewpoint on here.
Obviously, your postmodern tendencies to retool meaning to your own designs is in effect here. “Right to free speech” does not mean your desire not to hear someone else’s speech is a free speech right. It is not. We are not yet in a total postmodern universe, so your “want” is not a “right.” Respecting your feelings is not a “right.”
Is that plain enough for you?
“Is that plain enough for you?”
You responded to the wrong person, dum dum. My comment @ 10:33 was directed at the stooge who originally posted. Lawn Boy is his name. You can refer to him as such.
Is that plain enough?
Turley, your motives are completely transparent.
And ABC’s David Muir joins us, fresh off his masterfully conducted election debate. Once again, completely transparent to all who are watching at what he is doing.
The endless court battles that moves the pendulum from one extreme to the other only confirms the fact that what we lack is a cohesive culture with an agreed upon moral core. Until we can achieve this there will continue to be these complaints/claims vs the counter complaints/claims. We are 2 distinct cultures trying, unsuccessfully, to reside within one piece of real estate. Eventually, and demographically, one side will prevail – which will it be? Just ask the russians, the chinese, the north koreans and those many poor suckers in central and south America.
Dont forget the Vietnamese, the British, the Germans, and the Italians.
As the old brits are finally beginning to comprehend the disastrous cultural effects of .ass immigration of vastly distinct and unassimilated cultures.
The fascist conformism we see the University of Louisville attempting in this case reminds me of the McCarthyism of the early 1950s. We know that phenomena burned itself out with overreaches, and led to the next decade exploding with non-conformist acceptance and free-thinking, some of those overreaches. I’m wondering if that pattern will repeat. The thing that’s different now is that it’s the liberal-left, not the conservative-right, erecting fear-based conformity and authoritarianism.
Democrats prosecuted so-called “McCarthyism”. Before that it happened under FDR, before that under Palmerism during Wilson’s administration. It may have had ideological roots, but it did have a political leverage motive a la DEI, CRT, BLM, etc.
Far too many are unaware of the progressive and fascist nature of the Wilson agenda. That started this ball rolling here by ensconcing progressives throughout our government and universities. McCarthy was correct but he was a terrible messenger.
pbinca, the difference between Joe McCarthy in the 1950s and today’s attacks on free speech is that the media was (is) against anti-communism when the USSR was a threat because they wanted to harm America and the media is in favor of far left radicalism of today when it helps the CCP destroy America. It is ALWAYS about harming ourselves.
Hullbobby-
Unfortunately, you are right. The media is in favor of far left radicalism and isn’t reluctant to lie on its behalf. Fortunately, alternative media is beginning to eclipse it. Megyn Kelly’s podcast drew more views than the combined three letter networks recently and hers isn’t the only one.
As for McCarthy his biggest sin wasn’t his rough style; it was his being right. From today’s perspective, though, I suspect he may have underestimated the extent of penetration of radicals in Hollywood and government.
Young,
With alternative media now dominating MSM, MSM and the DNC are getting desperate as their power to influence Americans is waning. We see through their leftist bias and are simply switching them off and going to alternative media.
The Powers That Be are in control of most of the media.
They’re not desperate, or scared, as you keep claiming.
Even much of the ‘alternative’ media operates with bias.
I find a parallel in how the Democrats acted in 1938 -1955 investigating communists and the way Democrats are acting today.
As you say, McCarthy was right, though he was not the best person to push his views. He never placed a name before his committee, claiming the person to be a communist when that person wasn’t. (He initially refused to release names) The committee was blamed for calling people communists who weren’t. The most famous one was Annie Moss, one of the most frequent names under discussion. It was said she wasn’t a communist in books and, I think, in the movie Good Night and Good Luck (Edward R Murrow Vs. McCarthy). Moss was a communist, and that is documented in the FBI files. One can’t associate her with McCarthy (though she is because that correct claim was made in the House years before McCarthy. No one has been able to bring up one name released by McCarthy, who wasn’t a communist.
Even the statement, “Have you no shame,” directed against McCarthy, was wrong yet seems to be used by the left against the right. If one reads the Senate records of the discussion, one will find McCarthy resisting releasing names until Welch provoked him. Then he released a name: Fischer, who was a lawyer in Welch’s office and a member of a communist organization. Even that release wasn’t new, for it had been released by the news media weeks before. Welch then removed Fischer.
There’s much about that era that’s often misunderstood. However, one thing remains clear-the left has a tendency to politicize issues, even at the risk of compromising national security. It’s imperative for everyone to recognize how the presence of communists in the government was acknowledged as early as 1938, well before McCarthy’s tenure from 1950 to 1955. Learning from history is critical to realizing what is happening in today’s environment.
The institutional capture of Academia by the noxious Left was accomplished over many decades with little to no resistance. It will take generations to undo. Hopefully this is one of the first steps, and it is a good one.
This is a Wonderful Decision and precisely because it is constitutionally correct and because the substance of Professor Josephson’s statement to the Heritage Event is factually correct and has been established by “decades” of medical study and valid publications. The only way these non scientific statements on Gender Dysphoria Disorder and other scientific messes, that have been brewed up in the last few years, is to use suppression of speech in their armamentarium. These outright lies that have been perpetuated and only stand up when people with the real and actual knowledge are suppressed, muzzled or fired. Hence the war on free speech. When you know your position is a lie, the only way it can perpetuate it is if the side of reason and open discussion is outright prohibited from speaking or intimated or worse.
Unfortunately this is not a new event in Medicine. There was always a push to get “on the bandwagon or get left behind”. Especially if your University Medical Center has invested heavily in Gender Affirmation Care, Or Bone Marrow Transplants for solid Tumors (1980-2000) , and Coronary Bypass Operations by the boatload before there was any real delineation of benefit or in what degree.
The replacement of sex: male and female, with gender (e.g. sexual orientation): masculine and feminine,
has both profit and leverage (e.g. “=” or political congruence of the transgender spectrum) motives. Then there is albinophobic (i.e. Rainbow rhetoric and symbols) progress celebrated in parades. #HateLovesAbortion
Apparently, vocational-technical education in high school is an increasingly popular curriculum among kids who in the recent past would (along with their parents) have harbored ambitions only for a college education and degree. That phenomenon may offer some hope of at least one effective counter to the woke malfeasance currently rampant at both levels of education:
Vo-Tech Education Is Taking Off, and It’s Not Your Dad’s Shop Class Anymore
https://www.theepochtimes.com/opinion/vo-tech-education-is-taking-off-and-its-not-your-dads-shop-class-anymore-5722955
The way to curb the Left Woke policies of the Woke Universities to go after their $$$$$$, they hate it. Time for the Left Woke Universities to be held accountable for their radical anti-free speech polices,
“His commentary triggered a backlash at the school, which led to a decision not to renew his contract.” (JT)
Those academics are fascists to the core. If you dissent, if you refuse to bow in submission — they have their means of “persuasion.”
Please, though, do tell us (you Apologists) how this is just a “single, obscure” case — among countless others at prominent universities.
If you want to know where the culture’s descent to fascism comes from, look at the universities (especially the top-ranked ones).
“Orange man bad” appearing in three, two,…
J
. . . .” he is a pariah in the [woke] academic community.”
I fixed it for you. Fortunately, in every academic community there are outliers, like yourself professor, who are silently increasing in numbers. To those, he is a hero.
The Left’s ongoing war on free speech is all of a piece with their NeoMarxist PC intolerance of speech not toeing their ideological line. This holding to an ideological ‘totalizing metanarrative’ is a relic of modernity, which was taken down effectively by the post-modern deconstruction of said narratives by Jacques Derrida et al. The best one can do with such narratives is outlined by such pragmatic post-modernists as Richard Rorty, where “ ‘truth’ is a compliment we pay to statements with which we happen to agree.” This ‘truth is relative’ folds in nicely with freedom of speech, recognizing differing viewpoints will result in differing narratives, resulting in a much richer tapestry of narratives adorning the intellectual landscape – a result which should be encouraged by all intellectuals enjoying a richer, vibrant intellectual life.
I first happened to come along the name Jacques Derrida when being forced to study legal deconstruction in the early 90s and it is hard to fathom how far this insanity has come in our legal, literary and journalistic studies.
“. . . Jacques Derrida when being forced to study . . .”
Those assignments always amused me, because their basic premise is: A text means whatever you feel it means. So, accepting their premise: My “study” can conclude whatever I feel. Who are they to claim that my interpretation is wrong?
“This ‘truth is relative’ folds in nicely with freedom of speech . . .”
Please tell me you’re joking.
Postmodernists (such as Fish and Rorty) are *the* academic enemies of free speech.
Their view is *not*: May the best, most rational argument win. They reject reason and rationality.
Their view is: May the loudest mob win.
Huzzah! Of course, UL will now try to pay him off and he is a pariah in the academic community. Alas for “higher” education