We previously discussed the arrest of former Washington State University teaching assistant Patrick Mahoney and WSU research assistant Gerald Hoff for beating down engineering student Jay Sani for wearing a Trump hat. Notably, after the attack, Mahoney explained that, if you choose to wear a pro-Trump hat, “there’s gonna be a price to pay.” There is also a price for a beat down. He was just sentenced to one week in prison and a year’s probation.In the video, Sani was shown wearing a “Take America Back” hat and police say that Mahoney took him down and then “said ‘F**k you or f**k off’ to Sani before walking away.” Gerald Hoffin is also shown as participating in the attack.
Sani told the cops “Some people might find it offensive, but it’s 2025, man. It’s just a hat.”
When the officer interviewed Mahoney later, the instructor appeared unapologetic for an attack on the “ol’ boy”:
“I asked Mahoney what happened tonight. Mahoney said that he saw ‘ol’ boy’ walking around. Mahoney did not name Sani by name but said ‘I’ve seen this guy, f**king, on campus before. I know he’s like f**king Right Wing dude. He’s got a f**king, like, Make America Great Again
hat.”
The two men were charged with fourth-degree assault. Mahoney told police he had seen Sani on WSU’s campus and “knew he was a ‘right-wing dude.’” He added, “You wanna wear the hat, hey, there’s gonna be a price to pay.”
One would expect that any future teaching opportunities for Mahoney are quite limited, but many faculty members have espoused violent sentiments toward Republicans or conservatives. Some have been promoted or lionized for their positions.
Recently, California Governor Gavin Newsom declared, “I’m going to punch these sons of bitches in the mouth.” It follows other violent rhetoric from Democratic leaders. It is not surprising that people like Mahoney, even in higher education, believe that violence is the “price” that conservatives must be prepared to pay if they openly express their political views.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
I am seventy eight years old, weigh 161 pounds and I will gladly put on the gloves with Gavin at anytime and place of his choosing. Boy oh boy he’s got me shaking in my boots. I’m sure that all the union tough guys are impressed by Gavin’s pugnaciousness. However, I will act in caution for fear of him swinging his purse with a ten pound barbell inside. Me be laughing hysterically.
Campuses that do not rein in unprotected speech because of apolitical bias are overdue for reassertion of respect for the 1st Amendment.
Prior to the Covid Pandemic, respect for opposing points of view was definitely under attack at some post-secondary institutions. But covid introduced the politicization of Science, and rejection of freedom of scientific inquiry, resulting in a massive wave of disrespect for free speech in general society as well as in academia.
Cut the foreign student visas to zero. ZERO. Let the whacko schools adjust to the new economy. Maybe they will cut DEI staff before they cut the mathematics faculty. It possible.
BLM should be cheering Trump’s federalization of law enforcement in DC. In eleven days, no blacks have been murdered. If black lives matter, then that’s great news, right?
https://x.com/TONYxTWO/status/1960091297005318326
Silly goose
It’s NEVER been about saving a black life…$$$$
Under President Trump’s leadership, the U.S. State Department will work with the Department of Homeland Security to aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students, including those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields. We will also revise visa criteria to enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications from the People’s Republic of China and Hong Kong.
——- Marco Rubio, May 28,2025
Today in the Oval Office:
Trump says he’s going to allow 600,000 students from China to come to the US because he has a great relationship with President Xi and it’s very important to allow them to study here.
There are 2 possibilities:
1. Trump is demented
2. Trump has received a big payoff from China
Let’s have a vote.
Which do you think is more likely ????
Both
neither
Or Trump is striking a deal with Xi.
With rare exceptions when someone says “there are two possibilities” – that generally means there are far more and the two they thought of are wrong.
It is also possible that the state department is going to crack down on Visa’s for chinese students who are likely spying for china or working in critical areas AND Trump is going to grant visa’s to 60,000 chinese students that are not likely to be spying or studing in fields that are critical.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham grilled Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick over President Donald Trump’s “pro-Chinese student” policies on Monday, questioning how giving visas to 600,000 students from China was “putting America first.”
“Mr. Secretary, with all due respect, how is allowing 600,000 students from the communist country of China putting America first?” asked Ingraham bluntly during an interview with Lutnick on The Ingraham Angle.
Lutnick replied, “Well, the president’s point of view is that what would happen if you didn’t have those 600,000 students is that you’d empty them from the top, all the students would go up to better schools, and the bottom 15% of universities and colleges would go out of business in America. So his view is he’s taking a rational economic view, which is classic Donald Trump.”
“But why are you helping Harvard?” questioned Ingraham. “That’s just helping Harvard and UCLA, and UCal Berkeley. Y’all helping those schools. Why? They’re like, you know, basically factories of anti-American propaganda, and now they’re getting a big influx of cash because of the Chinese students. I mean, I know President Trump has always been very pro-Chinese student, I just don’t understand it for the life of me. Those are 600,000 spots that American kids won’t get.”
So Lutnick is arguing that Chinese students are needed to fill the top colleges so that American students don’t have the opportunity to go to a better college, thus allowing the bottom tier universities to survive.
Chinese students will fill the top colleges and Americans will go to the lower level schools.
Don’t care Gigi. Get a life.
Once again the Judicial Tyranny against MAGA supporters is crystal clear. Had this attack been reversed, the maximum jail time with a Hate Crime enhancement would have occurred!!!!!!!!!!!
A week in jail, a year’s probation and restitution seems like about the right punishment for the criminal acts documented in the video. Whether the punishment should be increased because of the political motivation of the assault is debatable, but I would argue no. Once you start taking those kind of considerations into account, the judge’s political predilections come into play and the sentence might be increased or decreased depending on whether the judge has sympathy for the motivation. That strikes me as a dangerous path. I think the sentencing judge did the right thing here.
It was a hate crime
It doesn’t look like it was charged as a hate crime:
“The two men were charged with fourth-degree assault.”
In any event, so what? The criminal law should punish bad acts, not bad emotions.
Should the Cincinnati beat down be charged as a hate crime and this not? One was an assault over racial profiling and one was an assault over political discourse. Should not the law be administered equally and the penalties based upon the severity?
*. The assistant prof is an authority figure. Newsom is, also. The idea is authority gives permission. In California anyone can punch a republican in the mouth. Gavin can pardon.
*. ^^^^ correction to teaching assistant
*. This is the preconditions leading to the civil war. There’s not a compromise available. The creation of sanctuary States is the same as the north or south. It’ll have to be settled via war and death of the opposition if the US is to remain whole. The little fight is the north vs south writ small.
The drawing of lines will not be contiguous.
You watch too much political TV / talk radio. Let a peaceful process roll out, as Trump and Bondi have begun to reign in Sanctuary City policies.
Also, if you draw a graphical map of sanctuary cities, they are generally surrounded by red counties. That looks nothing like North vs. South.
We resolve conflicts with debate in the public square and voting.
Civil war is for the low-info, psychopathic types who never learned the social skills of governing, negotiation and peaceful conflict resolution. Civil war champions are irresponsible, pathetic romantics and losers.
*. Smart of DJT to do that as he should.
We’ll see.
War is war, there is no glory in war, only death and destruction and despair. Anyone championing war is either a psychopath or has never been in a war zone. The only winner in war is the corporate elite that profits from the supply side, they never see the carnage, their children never participate in the carnage and they never pay for the carnage.
Prof Turley
I have no problem with your laments regarding rage rhetoric.
I am less convinced than you that it is a significant contributor to politically motivated acts of violence.
But even if you were correct – it is still free speech and the cost of losing it is greater than the cost of allowing it.
I am not concerned about the political rage rhetoric of democrats – just as I am not concerned about the rhetoric of Trump.
Great post John.
You would agree, JS, that there are limits to free speech. Would you cede to someone who perceives you as evil and their sworn enemy the unfettered right to use the public square to threaten you, your family, your livelihood? Would you cede to foreign terrorist intent on destroying the US free speech rights to proselytize to your children/ grandchildren? How about porn purveyors access to the minds of children?
Or, how about totally inauthentic, manipulative operators who are working to dupe the public, and the way they vote for political advantage? Think the 51 spies that lie. Were they just innocently exercising “free speech”?
If you believe the do, then you are saying duping the American electorate is fair game. Where does that lead?
“You would agree, JS, that there are limits to free speech. ”
Certainly – but neitehr I nore real world experience, nor the best arguments on the issue have found much speech that is beyond those limits
“Would you cede to someone who perceives you as evil and their sworn enemy the unfettered right to use the public square to threaten you, your family, your livelihood?”
Would I cede what ? The right to speak ? Certaintly they may speak and I too may speak.
You say that this person threatens my life and livelihood ? With words ?
Words are no threat.
“Would you cede to foreign terrorist intent on destroying the US free speech rights to proselytize to your children/ grandchildren?”
Entirely differennt uestion. The foreign terrorist can speak as much as they please – elsewhere.
The right to speak your mind, does not preclude others from making free choices based on your speach.
Many people voted against Trump because of his speech. Others voted for him.
I have no problem with denying a visa – which is not a right to someone who has said that they intend to destroy this country.
Just as I am under no obligation in your first hypothetical to allow my sworn enemy into my home.
” How about porn purveyors access to the minds of children?” Children and the feeble have always been a special case.
Regardless, porn purveys can peddle their good – just not to children.
There are lots of restrictions we place on children that we can not impose on adults.
This is an imperfect solution – but it is the best we have.
“Or, how about totally inauthentic, manipulative operators who are working to dupe the public, and the way they vote for political advantage? ”
Again free to speak as they please.
“Think the 51 spies that lie. Were they just innocently exercising “free speech”?”
What has innocence got to do with it ? I do not care what their motivations are.
We do not punish people for legal acts with bad motives – that is somehting the left tries to do.
Regardless they have lost their security clearances. That is an appropriate conseuence.
Speech has conseuences – good speech improves your credibility and your oportunities. Bad speech damages your credibility and reduces your choices.
I have never said speech has no conseuences – only that Government can not restrict speech, and with ery few exceptions govenrment can not impose conseuences. And even those exceptions the conseuences can NOT involve the loss of any rights. There is no right to a security clearance. There is no right to a VISA.
“If you believe the do, then you are saying duping the American electorate is fair game. Where does that lead?”
You do not seem to grasp the difference between allowing someone to speak and beleiving what they say.
The democratic party is in very serious policial trouble today. Because of the many many lies they have told over the past decade. When you try to dupe the american electorate you will eventually get caught. And the electorate will punish you.
As Lincoln purportedly said – you can not fool all the people all the time.
As Geobels said – the big lie can only be sustained with the never ending force of government behind it.
I am not worried about free speech – even bad speech.
I respect SOME limits – but significantly less than Turley or today’s courts – and Turley and the courts allow far more than most posters here – especially those on the left.
If you wish to understand the importance of free speech – even bad speech
Here is a start.
https://heterodoxacademy.org/resources/all-minus-one/
*. AND does AI have freedom of speech?
No, it doesn’t.
One is violent and one is not. Almost all political violence is perpetrated by the left and is against people on the right. One day the right is going to have had enough. If and when this happens the left will no longer exist.
Through revenge political violence? You started by making a moral distinction between left and right, then shifted to saying that distinction might not last long, or even matter much.
The professor does not say the rage rhetoric should be prosecuted. He seems to say people should avoid rage rhetoric. Even though this is a legal blog, the professor is making a moral argument rather than a legal one. I agree with him. Political leaders should avoid trying to incite their followers to acts of violence.
The “honor system” does not sway the most hard-a$$, radicalized, and psychopathic operators in the public square. Turley is correct that prosecution is NOT the correct response to rage rhetoric.
But, that doesn’t rule out lawsuits. The fact that defamation law exists under our 1st Amendment speaks volumes. Using outright falsehoods to dupe the public can be legally challeneged — just not by D.As and U.S. Attys. Some system of public frauds lawsuits with fast court processes might just work to deter the most outrageous, manipulative infowarriors. Under that system, juries of 12 average Americans decide fact from falsehood, and levy a proportionate $ judgment.
That could have the right deterrent effect on those for whom the honor system is a green light to cheat.
Why are we having a discussion with respect to the ideological motives of this actions ?
Mahoney and Hoff engaged in criminal assault. That is all that we need to know, and they should be punished accordingly without respect for the ideologies involved.
The law is supposed to be blind to the status of the victim. It is a crime to punch Nazi’s just as it is a crime to punch nuns.
*. Very true. Blind justice
*. I’ve wondered this point in some way in the Epstein case. 5 million per victim is the running sum. Quite an incentive to concoct some story if possible. The juveniles used on the street by low life pimps get nothing in a civil suit. It’s a jackpot if you know any wealthy person?
In such a case it’s not the crime but the money. 20 years for a 17 year old and 22 year old is excessive if compared to the streets? Add the death sentence in Epstein’s case. Maxwell maybe a year but 20?
Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger is also a Neocon who publicly quipped that the US could take down Russia in three days.
Ex Republican Congressman thankfully.
The left in general and the Democrats in particular are now fully nihilist. That is, they reject any facts which clash with the leftist ideology and all human values, honesty, competence, integrity, excellence, beauty, etc., as such. What’s left to fill their psyche? Hatred of the good and of anyone who disagrees with them in the slightest. The left/Democrats are now archetypal examples of ‘Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.’ (said to be attributed to a Isaac Asimov – a character in his Foundation Trilogy.) I am hopeful that enough of the decent people who still cling to the left will realize this and move away from the bitter angry, and therefore useless and stupid, left/Democrats.