Yesterday, I flagged the decision of New York University’s School of Law to cancel the planned Federalist Society event featuring conservative legal scholar Ilya Shapiro. It is only the latest example of schools scuttling or limiting speeches by conservatives and libertarians, citing the likely protests on campus. Instead of punishing those who disrupt events, NYU and other schools enable those protesters and reinforce the ideological orthodoxy in higher education.Eventually, Associate Dean Megan McDermott simply canceled the event, writing:
“After a review of the already great demands on resources and personnel (including but certainly not limited to security personnel) during the week of October 6-10, 2025, I personally made the decision that we could not host your event on campus during that week…This is not a decision based on the proposed program or speaker but rather based on an obligation to provide enhanced security generally on campus during that week as well as resource commitments we have already made across multiple buildings for public and closed events during the same period.”
However, while Shapiro’s one-hour speech is canceled, other events will continue as planned that same day, including discussions on how to reinforce the “DEI social agenda.” Many conservatives opposed that agenda, but they are not viewed as potentially disruptive.
The Federalist Society has organized an alternative event where free speech can be exercised outside of the NYU campus.
Shapiro has been the subject of prior cancel campaigns.
In the meantime, radical left faculty and figures routinely appear on campuses without interruption or added demands from administrators. Schools routinely allow for a type of “heckler’s veto” at such events in closing down speeches. In this case, they did so preemptively, citing the anticipated protests as the basis for the action. Other schools have employed the same tactic in blocking conservative speakers. It is the same rationale cited by some private groups in excluding certain participants over anticipated protests.
The solution is obvious. NYU must stand firm in protecting free speech rights on campus. If students or faculty enter events to shout down or disrupt the speakers, they should be suspended or fired. Campus police should work with local police to facilitate the arrest of trespassers and violent protesters. What they cannot do is yield to these protesters, punishing those who wish to speak or to listen to opposing views.
In the past, universities have been quick to use such rationales to close down conservative speakers. It is a passive-aggressive position where they simply throw up their hands and say that expected protesters forced them to take the action. Administrators are often neither motivated nor empathetic toward those raising opposing views. In this case, they would not allow a one-hour speech by a speaker on the anniversary of a massacre.
This decision should be condemned by faculty and alumni regardless of how they feel about Shapiro or Israel. NYU had a clear choice here: They could stand with free speech or yield to those opposed to its exercise on campus. Their decision to cancel the originally scheduled event is a disgraceful surrender to voices of intolerance and orthodoxy. They failed the most fundamental test of higher education in defending intellectual diversity and free speech.
Once again, it is the mob that prevailed in dictating what can be discussed on campus as Administrators stand in silent acquiescence.
Major media news: Bari Weiss to head up CBS news? Can it be?
https://nypost.com/2025/10/02/media/paramount-skydance-to-name-bari-weiss-editor-in-chief-of-cbs-news-sources/
Someone quoted Bob Dylan below saying you don’t need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. In a world where entropy makes things go from order to chaos and decay, from health and sanity to disease and death – IOW, always from right to left where institutions are concerned – every once in a while there is a brief interval of time in which things get better, healthier. November 5, 2024 kicked off one of them, and it continues apace, having lasted longer than I expected. (Just think of Pete Hegseth’s speech to the generals and admirals, imposing discipline where there once was a world, and department, of woke; just think of the decimation of Hezbollah starting with the pagers exploding the testicles of terrorists and the bombing of Iran’s nuclear enrichment program; just think of NATO countries agreeing to increase their defense spending; just think of the make-money-not-war tour and reception given to our illustrious POTUS by the Gulf Arab states; just think of the lamestream media’s humiliation in 2016 and 2024)
Trump’s spiritual adviser sent to prison for sexually abusing children. There seems to be a tree filled with rotten apples.
Trump says he has collected $17 trillion in tariffs from other countries.
Why can’t we use that money to fund the government and avoid the shutdown ????
That should cover us for a while.
The annual government expenditures are less than $7 trillion, so we should be good for at least 2.5 years without having to pay any taxes at all.
Where is that money, by the way?
It’s in a paper bag on the tariff shelf.
If it’s in a paper bag, Tom Homan may have made off with it already
The blog jester responding to his little schizo self again.
His parents/wife/children must be so proud of him.
17 TRILLION not from Tariffs. They are from NEW investments into the United States!! KEEP UP!
They are promises to invest in the US, not realized investments. Total vapor to stroke Trump’s ego. After slamming Hyundai, the South Koreans are pulling back all plans to invest in the US.
There’s a term for that, 50 Cent Army. Also known as the wumaos. Sometimes I wish the entire world would simply sever all data cables connecting the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation to the World Wide Web. Doing that would drastically reduce the amounts of hacking, spamming, and trolling everywhere, including here.
Well, that’s a bit wonky. My response was meant for this post: https://jonathanturley.org/2025/10/02/nyu-law-school-cancels-conservative-speaker-on-anniversary-of-hamas-massacre/comment-page-3/#comment-2560745
Except what you said isn’t true at all, idiot. Hyundai isn’t pulling back their investment into the US. They’re simply delaying their planned investment.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn5q7d72q5vo
So unless you have any citations proving otherwise, you’re simply lying through your crooked, rotting teeth.
“Once again, it is the mob that prevailed in dictating what can be discussed on campus as Administrators stand in silent acquiescence.” Based on your abortive response to the “postcard opinion” of a couple of days ago, you seem to believe the President should do the dictating.
As a matter of fact, dum dum.
1. INA Section 237(a)(4)(C): This provision states that an alien is deportable if the Secretary of State has “reasonable ground to believe [their] presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.
2. Bouarfa v. Mayorkas (2024)
The Supreme Court ruled that federal courts do not have the authority to review discretionary decisions made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to revoke an already-approved visa petition.
The Court’s unanimous decision confirmed that visa petition revocations, as a discretionary act by DHS, are insulated from judicial review, even in cases where the initial denial of a petition could be challenged.
“potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”
What precisely are those consequences and how seriously adverse could they be?
What exactly are the consequences and how seriously adverse could they be?
This is the classic mob rule of a democracy our founders knew and thus founded our Republic to ensure our Independence from.
Lawyers are to blaime.
Watch this 30 second clip from the administrative offices of NYU:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/J0SHPo_Cr_Q
I just can’t get enough of “White Liberal News”
John Say,
Thank you for bringing that to my attention. It was not just funny, but dang funny! And sooo very true!! I will bookmark that!
I’m glad other posters have more to say, for me – why are parents even bothering anymore? If you are learning remedial math at an Ivy League and the rest is indoctrination, what the hey are you wasting your money on? And what do you think your kids that fit this mold will ever hope to accomplish in life? Too much to be said about this in a comment, but I now question the sanity/intelligence of any parent pumping their hard earned dollars into any of this, anymore. Why? What’s the point, when outcomes are so clear? If your kids are just going to move back home anyway, why not investigate this to a greater degree? Clearly the money you spent was lit on fire.
James, the “remedial math at an Ivy League” is courses that are normally done in advanced placement in high school.
The only people pumping money into an Ivy League school are those unable to decide between the red and the silver Bentley so they buy both.
OT
From a sales and marketing perspective, this is level 10 on a scale of 1 through 10, top notch “paint the picture” sales messaging. It is also phenomenal trolling
As a Latino, I approve of these Hakeem Jeffries sombrero memes. More por favor!
🤠
“Look guys, there’s no way to sugarcoat it. Nobody likes Democrats anymore. We have no voters left because of all of our woke trans bulls***. Not even Black people want to vote for us anymore. Even Latinos hate us! So we need new voters and if we give all these illegal aliens free healthcare, we might be able to get ’em on our side so they can vote for us. They can’t even speak English, so they won’t realize we’re just a bunch of woke pieces of sh**. You know? At least for a while, until they learn English and they realize they hate us, too.”
Estovir,
Good one!! 🙂
Estovir, get some coffins ready.
Give credit where it’s due. Outlaw,Ramón was a consistently accurate shot…..But………
Looks like a great effort from a high schooler with a copy of After Effects.
Hamas wins again in an American university.
disgraceful
Were a Hamas advocate to schedule a speech at NYU Law School to discuss historic genocide and colonization by Jews would there be equal requirements and a similar outcome? No academic “fatwa” would be issued, no “MAGA mob” would organize, threats against the university would not pour in. At least Democratic leadership in Colorado both shut down speech by Israeli families of hostages, while also primarying 2 or 3 vocal pro-Hamas legislators out of their party in 2024. Still, they claim Republican legislators are simultaneously Anti-Semitic and Islamophobic. NYU can certainly deny Shapiro the opportunity to speak for any reason including fear of an undereducated, racist, rightwing mob attacking security and staff (or other more likely groups) upset by his presence. Others in the Free Speech marketplace are able to advertise that they will invite the jilted “conservative speaker” and heap verbal mud upon both NYU and those behind the security risks as a stark contrast.
NYU is private property, communist, but private.
_____________________________________________________
“[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”
– James Madison
_____________________
Is NYU communist?
AI Overview
While it is inaccurate to call New York University (NYU) a communist institution, the school is considered to be left-leaning, and specific activities and figures associated with it may be the source of this misconception.
Points to consider:
Progressive reputation: NYU is located in New York City, an urban center with a reputation for liberalism. Many of its schools, including the law school, are characterized as “very liberal” by students.
Radical history archives: The Tamiment Library and Robert F. Wagner Labor Archives at NYU house one of the oldest collections on radical organizing in the United States.
In 2007, the Communist Party USA donated its historical archives to NYU.
A 2016 forum at NYU explored the role of communists in the Civil Rights Movement, with speakers discussing figures like W. E. B. Du Bois.
Controversial figures: Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek, who has taught at NYU, identifies as a “communist in a qualified sense” and is a high-profile figure associated with the university.
Student activism: Like many universities, NYU has a history of student activism and protest, including recent encampments and demonstrations in support of Palestinian rights. Some of these protests have been organized by left-leaning or anti-capitalist groups. However, such movements do not reflect the university’s official position or its entire student body.
Not a communist institution: While NYU tolerates and archives information related to communist and other left-wing movements, this does not mean the university is itself a communist organization.
The idea that NYU is communist likely stems from its reputation for left-leaning politics and its preservation of historical materials related to radical political movements.
“NYU is private property, communist, but private.”
The federal government gave NYU well over $700 million dollars in federal taxpayer money. So much for being a special, protected private entity.
Anyone using AI because they’re unable to post without it is as credible as using Wikipedia.
Meanwhile, another AI platform (clearly not the one you cribbed from) says NYU receives federal funding. When you’re taking federal government taxpayer funding, you can’t claim to be private.
Anything else?
Congress has no power to tax for or fund NYU et al.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Article 1, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;….
The singular and most embarrassing American failure is the continued permitting of the Democratic Party, in all it’s Kluxxer/Communist forms to continue to exist. When sufficient Kluxxers/Communists like George/X can be summoned from the weeds to elect a Democrat president, they resort in putting disgusting fellow communists like Sotomayor and Jackson on the Supreme Court.
And once there, their poisonous presence and influence is blamed on the entire Supreme Court.
The vile DNC should have been banned as America’s first domestic terrorist group to complete the FAFO that was The War To Continue Slavery.
“Gave” is doing a lot of work there. If the money is for research then that is not “gave” but invest.
There was a good article on Flopping Aces yesterday, about where the college violence got started. Excerpt, and link below:
The Violent Spawn of the Greatest Generation: How the Baby Boomers Poisoned America
While there were many catalysts that resulted in violence being seen as a “legitimate” form of political discourse, one stands out: Columbia University, 1968. That year, a combination of black and anti-war activists took over a building on the campus of New York’s premier university. They demanded that Columbia cancel a proposed nearby gymnasium that was claimed to be racist and end its relationship with a Department of Defense-affiliated think tank.
The NYPD eventually ejected the activists after a series of violent clashes. In a sane world, every one of those students would have been expelled, barred from campus, and sued for damages. But that’s not what happened.
No, the administration acquiesced to virtually every demand, and there were very few consequences. Suddenly, on TVs across America, activists were learning the lesson that violent takeovers can yield good results with minimal consequences, if any, even at one of the nation’s leading universities. The message having been received, it was suddenly gloves off for activists across the country. Yale, Howard, Brown, and others followed. The next year saw more of the same at Harvard and U Penn, too.
These students, these radicals, including terrorists, did not reflect most American people’s opinion. In that year’s election, the Democrat candidate, who was far more acceptable to the American people than the left’s activist wing, could still secure only 13 states and 42% of the popular vote. Four years later, Nixon would be reelected by a 49 to 1 Electoral College landslide. Not only that, but between 1968 and 1988, Democrats would win only one out of 6 elections and would lose 49 states twice.
In 1968 and many years after, the radicals in the Democrat party wouldn’t reflect majority opinion, but the die was cast. The lesson was learned: Violence wins. And so it grew.
https://floppingaces.net/2025/09/30/baby-boomers-or-thereabout-the-violent-spawn-of-the-greatest-generation/
Bob Dylan wrote… “You Don’t Need A Weatherman, to Know which way the Wind Blows” which spawned the radical chic college “Resistance” group, “The Weathermen” in Ann Arbor, MI, along with Students For a Democratic Society (SDS), was spot on then.. AND he’s SPOT-ON now! It ain’t hard to see which way the winds blowin’. There are MANY reasons why it’s all come full-circle now, but History is, if not repeating, than it is certainly rhyming….
“After a review of the already great demands on resources and personnel (including but certainly not limited to security personnel) during the week of October 6-10, 2025, I personally made the decision that we could not host your event on campus during that week . . .” (NYU Dean McDermott)
According to NYU (and its shills) the university, long a hotbed of pro-Hamas protests, did *not* anticipate protests and the need for heightened security — for an event on the day that those protestors cherish.
Anyone here that gullible?
P.S. Why didn’t NYU cancel some of the other events, and shift their security to Shapiro’s talk?
P.P.S. I’ve seen this scam from Leftist academics countless times. It’s called “administrative canceling.” An administrator waits until *after* a deadline passes to inform you that there’s “a problem.” And oh, by the way, now it’s too late to fix the problem.
I’ve been looking for any sign with the phrase “Support Hamas” on it, or any other phrase involving Hamas.
Perhaps Trump can use AI to create a fake video with that contact.
“I’ve been looking for any sign with the phrase “Support Hamas” on it . . .”
It’s right next to the Antifa sign that reads: “Support violence and tyranny.”
From the river to the sea says “i support hamas, dum dum.
Free palestine says “i support hamas” dum dum
Why should law school students, arguably learning to practice law, have the opportunity to listen to or meet with or talk with a legal scholar? when they can be subjected to a presentation about a political agenda like DEI? Does that sad excuse for a law school dean think law school students need not deal with facts like the October 7 “incidents” in Israel? God help how they will practice law: all politics and no facts! – signed 1969 JD (when law schools taught law and graduated lawyers – rather than displaying the staff’s politics about which we had no clue)
Tennants – I can commiserate. I went to law school mid-career in the 90s, and fortunately I went to one of the few law schools that did not have a left-wing faculty; some professors were actually conservative. Shutting down the speech of anyone would never have been tolerated. Ad hominem arguments were severely criticized by the faculty. Factually based arguments, closely reasoned, logical, legal not political – that was the only way to interact with the faculty or get good grades. Perhaps I was spoiled by how good I had it. Now I see what is happening on elite law school campuses and it is quite horrifying how poorly the students are being taught.
A protest is speech. When it spills over into impeding people’s free movent by blocking walkways and roads, threats, intimidation, and vandalism it is no longer speech.
Surrounded by threatening maniacs on a public roadway I will switch to 4WD, they get one verbal warning, and one long honk of the horn.
To add even further context, the reason why Shapiro could not change the date of his speech is because on that same day he was scheduled to host a 7-hour symposium that same day per NYU’s calendar of events.
Clearly he could not change the date of his one hour speech because of his obligation hosting a the symposium.
The timing of the event is still the direct responsibility of the Federalist Society, not the school. They are also responsible for making sure there are no scheduling conflicts. What they did not anticipate is the possibility of campus protests on the 2nd anniversary of the Oct 7. massacre and increased security needs when the school did have other events scheduled that day.
This wasn’t some nefarios attempt at cancelling Shapiro because he is conservative. It’s just a scheduling conflict and availability of security resources to accomodate everyone on that date. Professor Turley doesn’t mention the fact that the school apologized to Shapiro and FEDSOC for the inconvenience. He also didn’t make an effort to point out the school was willing to accomodate Shapiro as best they could. But Shapiro and FedSoc were already crying foul and were insinuating an ulterior motive.
Here’s the kicker, Shapiro will still hold his FedSoc speech off campus with some judges joining in. Nothing stopped Shapiro’s speech. He still gets to hold it and people are still free to attend.
X
No-one is buying the BS. They could have let him speak.
NYU accepts fedeal funds – therefore they are obligated to nearly the same first amendment requirements as Government.
If they offer the oportunity to speak to one campus group, they must offer it to all – under the same conditions.
If they allow any group to hold an event on Oct 7 they must allow all any other campus group to do so.
Security is NYU’s business – not the Groups. Regardless they can not make use security as an excuse to censor an event on the basis of the content of that event.
You talk about “context” – but the context literally makes NYU’s violation WORSE.
I doubt you know a think about Shapiro’s schedule – But that is irrelevant.
Regardless, this is not about Shapiro – I would note that Ilya Shapiro is a libertarian legal scholar NOT a conservative one.
Shapiro’s legal credentials are possibly more impressive than Turley’s.
“The timing of the event is still the direct responsibility of the Federalist Society, not the school. ”
The school is obligated to provide as similar public forum to any campus group as it does to any other.
As Turley noted there are other events on the Date requested – NYU can preclude all groups from events on Oct 7, but it can not preclude SOME groups.
Scheduling is a joint responsibility. As you note – speakers have their own commitments that limit when they are available. But the university also has commitments and does not have infinite space for events.
The university can make those spaces available on any content neutral basis – though first come first served is normal. I can refuse a date because all usable spaces are booked. It can not due so on a content basis.
“What they did not anticipate is the possibility of campus protests on the 2nd anniversary of the Oct 7. massacre and increased security needs when the school did have other events scheduled that day.”
Of course they did – and that is irrelevant.
It is the most controversial speakers and the most controversial moments that are the MOST protected by the first amendment.
Would you bar zenkyoto from an event on August 6 ?
or the FDNY on 9/11 ?
No it is not just a scheduling conflict – first amendment law bars using faux content neutral claims to restrict speech.
“This wasn’t some nefarios attempt at cancelling Shapiro because he is conservative. ”
Of course there was – Try to get a conservative group scheduled at any campus.
When Milo Yanopolis tried to speak at UCB years ago – left wing nuts did MILLIONS of dollars of damage setting fire to a building.
Later Ben Shapiro spoke at UCB – but it took a court order from the 9th circuit to force UCB to allow the event.
One of the common tactics as is being used at NYU is to throw up road blocks and cancel and force the conservative to either go to court or give up. Often they give up, more often left wing nut courts delay things enough that the issue becomes moot.
NYU can censor free speech to its hearts content – if it does not take federal money.
I will note that a FEW of the education staff that were fired over Charlie Kirk remarks have been reinstated.
Most education accepts govenrment funds and is also constrained by the first amendment.
While govenrment CAN censor over speech. There must be sufficient link between the speech and the job.
I.E. Govenrment can not fire you for speech outside of work on non-work related forums, or if your speech truly is not protected by the first amendment. A government employee who posts on a personal facebook account and does not as an example threaten violence, can not be fired for that speech.
But your private employer can fire you. A college that takes money from the govenrment can not.
“the school apologized to Shapiro and FEDSOC for the inconvenience.”
There is no “if you apologize you can violate the first amendment exception.
“But Shapiro and FedSoc were already crying foul”
Of course they were – NYU could not prevent FedSoc from having Shapiro on Oct 7. So long as they allowed other groups to hold events that day. PERIOD.
Decisions that involve the first amendment must ACTUALLY be content neutral.
“Shapiro will still hold his FedSoc speech off campus with some judges joining in. Nothing stopped Shapiro’s speech. He still gets to hold it and people are still free to attend.”
Correct – that is NOT the issue.
The only issue here is Did NYU violate the first amendment – the answer is unequivocally YES.
John Say,
“If they allow any group to hold an event on Oct 7 they must allow all any other campus group to do so.
Security is NYU’s business – not the Groups. Regardless they can not make use security as an excuse to censor an event on the basis of the content of that event.”
They were going to allow Shapiro to hold his speech on campus. The only sticking point was he was inflexible on the date. Because Professor Turley didn’t mention or didn’t know that Shapiro was scheduled to host a 7-hour symposium at NYU the same day.
Yes, security is NYU’s business and they were pretty short on resources for that week due to a multitude of events and the expected protests that would accompany the 2nd anniversary of of the Oct. 7 massacre.
“If they offer the oportunity to speak to one campus group, they must offer it to all – under the same conditions.
If they allow any group to hold an event on Oct 7 they must allow all any other campus group to do so.”
Ordinarily that would be correct, BUT that is not an absolute requirement either. NYU still reserves the right to request changes or cancel events due to security concerns and the availability of resources to accommodate all events safely.
Shapiro was already going to host another event that was obviously was planned before the FedSoc event. There were other events planned for that week. None of that means that protests would happen only on Oct. 7. They could go on for a few days.
The organizers for Shapiro’s one hour speech agreed to move the event to another location where there would be less risk of protesters disturbing it and a different day would have allowed more resources to be assigned to the event.
This whole thing is nothing more than a scheduling conflict being exploited for the purpose of accusing the school of being biased against a conservative speaker.
“ You talk about “context” – but the context literally makes NYU’s violation WORSE.“
No it doesn’t. You want it to be worse so you can justify your flawed argument.
“I doubt you know a think about Shapiro’s schedule – But that is irrelevant.
Regardless, this is not about Shapiro – I would note that Ilya Shapiro is a libertarian legal scholar NOT a conservative one.”
Turley charaterizes Shapiro as a conservative.
I know about Shapiro’s schedule because it’s reported by the Free Beacon article which is more detailed than Turley’s
“The law school claimed that it could not accommodate Shapiro, an outspoken Zionist and critic of diversity programs, for an hour-long lunch talk on October 7. But it is slated to host a seven-hour symposium on “social entrepreneurship, impact investing, and sustainable development” that same day.”
https://freebeacon.com/campus/nyu-axes-federalist-society-event-scheduled-for-oct-7-citing-security-concerns/
NYU went out of it’s way to try to accommodate Shapiro. They even offered a different campus location to address the security issue, but they date was a problem and because of Shapiro’s committment to the other event that was not possible.
“But Shapiro and FedSoc were already crying foul”
Of course they were – NYU could not prevent FedSoc from having Shapiro on Oct 7. So long as they allowed other groups to hold events that day. PERIOD.”
Wrong again. NYU could prevent FedSoc form holding its event due to security issues and lack of available resources. Just because other groups already secured the resources, and their locations before Shapiro and the expected protests does not mean NYU is still obligated accommodate the FedSoc event. They didn’t deny Shapiro’s speaking engagement because of it’s content or because he is a conservative, I mean a libertarian. They cancelled it because Shapiro’s inflexibility on the date and the lack of adequate resorces to ensure the safety of the event. It had nothing to to do with speech.
We don’t know if other events were already planned long before Shapiro’s and they secured campus resources before FedSoc did.
This whole Shapiro bruhuaha is nothing more than an attempt to use a scheduling inconvenience as a pretext to show how liberal schools are anti-free speech.
Shapiro still gets to speak off campus. NYU was more than willing to acommodate him. It was Shapiro who would not budge on the date. Just one day. He could have had his event without a problem if he chose to have it the next day when more security resources would have been available.
Given the heightened awareness of security of events after Charlie KIrk, the school is well within it’s right to prioritize safety over a scheduling inconvenience.
The douche known as X misses the bigger question of:
Why do conservative speakers need so much more security than liberal speakers?
Who are the rabid dogs, George?
They apologized? Well, OK then everything is fine. Please.
Here’s a question, Suppose a civil rights org wants to host a Juneteenth event in Harlem. The govt says could you do it on a different day in Staten island? How do you suppose that would go over?
X says: “To add even further context…”
To add the most important context: when GeorgeX isn’t lying, deflecting and denying, he isn’t even trying…
And GeorgeX does try to give it the very best he is capable of every day. It isn’t much… but he tries.
Great news. Our MS-13 gang banger is on his way out of America,
____________________________________
An immigration judge denied Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s motion to reopen his deportation case, dealing a major blow to the alleged MS-13 gangbanger’s bid to remain in the U.S.
With all of the money Democrats have spent in defending this guy, they could have used that money to fund the US Govt and keep it open.
You know the Govt Shutdown is officially blamed as the Schumer Shutdown when the Legacy Media believe Republicans should negotiate with AOC instead of Schumer
🤡
Nancy Pelosi snaps at reporter after being asked whether GOP should negotiate shutdown with AOC
https://www.foxnews.com/media/nancy-pelosi-snaps-reporter-after-being-asked-whether-gop-should-negotiate-shutdown-aoc
I her Eswatini is nice this time of year.
You can be sure he’s not in MS-13 because ICE hasn’t caught or deported anyone in MS-13. Maids, cooks, farm workers – people who are known not to have guns – they are caught and deported, but not violent street gang members. When the government in Mexico tried that the Mexican drug gangs put bombs under the cars of prosecutors and judges.
This is how Professor Turley is being disingenuous with this story.
“The Federalist Society yielded to some demands, but the school then went ahead and cancelled the event anyway, according to FIRE and other sources.”
There were no “demands” at all. NYU asked the Federalist Society if they would be willing to change the date due to the potentially disruptive protests because the event would be on Oct. 7. The protests were not about Shapiro’s speech. The protests were expected despite Shapiro’s speech because it’s the second anniversary of the Israeli massascre. Students are expected to protest anyway regardless of Shapiro being there or not and that is the point. Professor Turley is insinuating Shapiro’s speech is the target of the protests because he is a conservative. That does not seem to be the case.
NYU also offered a different place on campus where Shapiro could do his speech AND meet the security issues on that day and the Federalist Society organizers agreed. But, Shapiro could only do the speech on Oct 7. That still posed a problem because security staff would be spread pretty thin with the expected protests and other scheduled events. None of that suggest they cancelled the speech because he’s a conservative.
The idea that this was a heckler’s veto does not seem to be supported by the evidennce because the school is giving the organizers options to continue with the the speech. The date is one issue that cannot be changed because Shapiro has other engagements that cannot be changed. That’s just a scheduling conflict. Not because he’s conservative.
The school went to great lenghts to try to accomodate Shapiro, but Shapiro was adamant that he could not do the speech at a different date.
Claiming the school was engaging in a heckler’s veto seems unreasonable since on the date of the event protesting and disruptions are highly probable. It’s a matter of NYU to be able to provide security on a date where resources will be spread pretty thin. Shapiro, being who he is decided to throw a fit and use the situation to gain sympathy because he’s conservative and his speech cannot be held at the time he wants. He’s the one being inflexible, not the school.
Professor Turley is mischaracterizing this to further his false narrative that conservatives are being singled out for cancellation because they are conservative. That is not true. He’s using a real scheduling conflict and NYU’s inability to meet security needs on that date to paint this as another “intolerant” school.
This article contains the full emails used to explain the situation to the organizers and Shapiro. It provides better context and clarity than Turley’s take.
https://freebeacon.com/campus/nyu-axes-federalist-society-event-scheduled-for-oct-7-citing-security-concerns/
The link provided only confirms Prof Turley’s description of events.
It does not. It provides more context and detail the Professor conveniently left out. His narrative differs quite a bit from the Free Beacon’s more comprehensive reporting.
The professor has been known to take a few liberties with the facts to support a misleading narrative from time to time. So it shouldn’t be surprising that he left out a few key details.
x
George has been known to take a few liberties with the facts
__________________________
If that ain’t the tryth
Yes, context and detail that is further damning to your argument.
You seem to be under the illusion that FedSoc and Turley must PROVE that NYU discriminated against them on the bases of being conservative.
They do NOT.
All that is required is that NYU did not provide FedSoc with a forum for first amendment activies on the same basis that it did other campus groups.
Content neutral does NOT mean you can not discriminate against conservatives.
It means you MUST provide the same access to EVERYONE.
John Say,
“You seem to be under the illusion that FedSoc and Turley must PROVE that NYU discriminated against them on the bases of being conservative.”
Wrong again, that is not what I’m alluding to. That is your flawed take on it.
“All that is required is that NYU did not provide FedSoc with a forum for first amendment activies on the same basis that it did other campus groups.”
FedSoc did have a forum. They even agreed to a location change. The only problem was the date.
Just because other groups had already secured their events does not mean FedSoc’s event was going to be guaranteed the same guarantee. The events are scheduled on a rolling basis and that is a huge factor when it comes to security resources when they are already spread thin because of the expected protests and disturbances.
You have this absolutist view that ignores the fact that there are limitations. You see them as deliberate subs and don’t buy the argument that there are not enoug resources to accommodate Shapiro’s event because the liberal faculty “has it in for conservatives”. That is just basic paranoia.
To the extent the details matter – they make things worse.
NYU may not deny any campus group engaged in first amendment activity the use of space unless it denies ALL campus groups.
John Say,
“NYU may not deny any campus group engaged in first amendment activity the use of space unless it denies ALL campus groups.”
NYU did not deny FedSoc the use of space. They offered a different space and FedSoc agreed. The only sticking issue was the date.
The Supreme Court has ruled that it is constitutional to limit speech by time, space, and manner. NYU seems to have adhered to that, but Shapiro was not flexible on the date. Security resourses were not available to ensure safety due to the protests. That is a reasonable justification for cancelling Shapiro’s event. They tried to accommodate it as best they could. It was just Shapiro’s inflexibility that caused the cancellation. Not because NYU discriminated against him.
Anonymous 12:09 pm. I agree. The free beacon supports Turley’s explanation but is longer and more explanatory. The Federalists students faced varying statements by administrators and the statements for the same administrators also started to change. It was definitely a shifting target. It is strongly suggestive of anti-Semitic and/or anti Israel behavior. Sure seems to be a target rich environment for a DOJ or White House investigation . Would love to see some depositions collected.
GEB, no it wasn’t. The varying explanations are due to the fact that one administrator was not aware of the issue in more detail than another. That doesn’t change the fact that NYU still made every effort to accomodate the FedSoc event. The only sticking point was Shapiro’s schedule. He was already committed to hosting another NYU event, a 7 hour symposium on the same day.
This was just a scheduling conflict that FedSoc and Shapiro and they took advantage of the situation to portray the school as being discriminatory towards conservatives.
You keep trying to pretend there is some “the dog ate my homework” clause in the first amendment.
There is not.
“:one administrator was not aware …”
Whether true or not is an “excuse for violating the first amendment
It is an attempt to mitigate. it does not change the fact there was a violation.
If even one campus group is allowed an Event on Oct 7, then no other campus group can be denied an event.
John Say, not pretending anything. The Beacon’s article clearly laid it out for those who have reading comprehension skills.
NYU did not violate the 1st amendment. There was no violation at all.
“If even one campus group is allowed an Event on Oct 7, then no other campus group can be denied an event.”
You’re terribly confused about how this works. Everything in that statement has a caveat and you’re ignoring it purely because of ideological stubborness and ignorance. Details matter.
Security, especially after the Charlie Kirk assassination takes priority. Common sense would dictate that. Groups wishing to hold events on campus are taken care of on a rolling basis according to school administrators. It means, very likely the other events were either planned and secured resources before FedSoc did and they applied for their event when security resources were already spread very thin. NYU does not have an unlimited number of resources to ensure security is available for every event and keep an eye on protesters expected because of the anniversary of the Oct. 7 occurring that week.
It seems your confusion stems from the flawed idea that because everyone else is having an event at the time FedSoc should too. No exceptions. That is not how it works. NYU offered multiple options for FedSoc to hold their event. They agreed to a different location. As I repeat once again. Shapiro’s inflexibility on changing the date is the problem. It’s Shapiro who forced NYU to ultimately cancel the event because they could not acommodate it that day. They could have any other day that week. It was Shapiro’s inability to make it work because he was also scheduled to host another event at NYU the same day.
What is interesting is the ‘speech’ was only going to be an hour long and they were going to give away his latest book. It sounds more like a book signing than a speaking event. A marketing event likely. How do you drum up business? Create a stink about the school cancelling you and because your’re conservative to sell his book talking about schools censoring conservatives and cancel culture. That is far more likely the reason for all the hubub.
Once again George fails to answer the question of why conservative speakers need so much more security.
*. What’s the best way to make them understand Jewish people aren’t denigrated, harassed, intimidated, coerced, harmed, impeded in any way in the US?
The universities are responsible for non-expulsion.
No accredation of any school that allows, encourages , otherwise…
NYU is discredited
Nearly every time a left wing nut provides a link to a source one of two things is true.
Either that source completely contradicts them,
Or the source is vague about the actual facts, and is instead a left wing narative by the reporter.
The most common of these is when a reporter – rather than quoting someone tells you their opinion of what was said.
These errors are so common it is rarely worth the trouble to check left wing nut citations.
They NEVER actually support the claims made.
Whenever John Say makes an assertion one of two things is true.
He simply made it up.
Or he heard it from the voices in his head.
He NEVER, EVER provides any proof or factual support for his absurd assertions.
Instead he relies on a belief that because he comments under a user name, that is actually fake, he has absolute credibility.
He seems to think that he has some form of Papal Infallibility.
Truly a sign of a sever psychiatric disorder.
Still engaged in the same idiotic ranting.
If you beleive something I have asserted is false – go look it up.
If you can prove it is false – DO SO and I will correct myself.
Conversely – you are posting as anonymous – you START with LESS THAN ZERO credibility.
You do so BY CHOICE.
And YOUR choices come with consequences.
Post anonymously – or don’t – I do not care.
But do not post anonymously and stupidly demand respect. credibility, or the right to demand proof of others.
You made your choice – live with the consequences.
John Say the Stupid
In another comment you said it it not necessary to rebut what I say, and that it is easier to just ignore me.
Then why don’t you just ignore me ????
Instead you continue to rant incoherently and obsessively at length in multiple comments trying to rebut me.
This is very disturbed and obsessive behavior.
I invite you to completely ignore me.
Please do so at your earliest convenience and cease your absurd, irrational diatribes.
But of course you can’t ignore me, because of your obsessive-compulsive disorder.
You also state: “You made your choice – live with the consequences.”
What exactly are the consequences that I have to live with ??
Perhaps you mean I just have to live with your obsessive, incoherent ranting.
That is certainly a very tiresome consequence, but not something that will keep me up at night.
ATS – AGAIN it is trivial to be right ALL THE TIME.
ANYONE can do it, no matter how stupid you are.
All that is required is only to say things after you have verified they are correct.
As should be clear – I am not that careful about my puncutation, spelling, grammar when I post here.
But I AM careful about the factual claims I make.
I am very rarely wrong – not because I am a genius, not because of some skill I have that is not available to everyone else.
But because I check my facts before asserting them.
That is not papal infalibility – it is available to EVERYONE.
But few of you on the left bother to verify anything before posting.
Are you deliberately trying to make yourself into a fool ?
X cited a freebeacon story that contradicted all his arguments.
Again something the left commonly does.
Amen! That is why I stopped going down their rabbit holes.
Yeah !!
It really sucks when you are confronted with the truth, so just ignore them.
X – there are NUMEROUS federal court cases on the issue of security with respect to the first amendment and campuses.
This is a long ago decided issue – a College that is subject to the first amendment – that is all colleges that accept government funding, can not use security concerns as a reason for restricting a person or groups first amendment rights. Nor can it burden the group with additional security costs.
NYU can deny FedSoc the use of campus facilities on Oct 7 for security reasons ONLY if they deny ALL GROUPS the use of the campus on that day.
NYU must provide facilities for first amendment activities to Campus groups on a content neutral basis.
It can not impose constraints or costs on one group it does not on others.
You really are clueless
BTW NYU’s Free Speech rating by FIRE is 250th out of just barely over 250 Colleges and Universities
There are only a few colleges in the country with a WORSE rating. They have an F rating and a score of 48/100
Changing the date is a demand – BTW NYU canceled after FedSoc agreed to change the date.
“The protests were not about Shapiro’s speech.”
Not relevant – BYU can cancel ALL events on Oct 7. It can not cancel only some.
It allowed other events on Oct 7.
That is not content neutral – therefore it is a violation of the first amendment.
“Professor Turley is insinuating Shapiro’s speech is the target of the protests because he is a conservative. ”
No he is not – NYU is. Also Shapiro is Jewish.
I know this is beyond you – but if you are subject to the first amendment you can not have criteria for One group you do not have for ALL.
Every campus groups MUST have the same access to campus facilities ESPECIALLY when engaging in first amendment protected activities.
While not specific to colleges and universities – the landmark case is National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie.
You can not deny a public forum to one group that you allow to others.
As Turley noted – there is a DEI event ocurring at NYU on Oct 7. NYU can not therefore use security or the date or potential protests to deny SOME groups and NOT others.
X says: “This is how Professor Turley is being disingenuous with this story. ”
This is how GeorgeX always presents his stories to give us his take, straight from the Democrat Borg: lying, deflecting, and denying.
Even Biden would be embarrassed to be so transparent as GeorgeX is in his daily attempted deceit and dishonesty. Biden at least attempted to make his BullSchiff somewhat plausible.
Here is another arena in which the “both sides” canard is exposed. You don’t find a threat of violent protests against liberal speakers, nor are liberal speakers canceled.
First and foremost, I would not describe the murdering, raping, and kidnapping of innocent people as just a number of “incidents in Gaza.” That is like calling 9-11 an “incident in Manhattan.”
In fact it’s stupider than that. The rapes, murders, and kidnappings happened in Israel. It’s like calling 9-11 an “incident in Afghanistan.” Shows the very, very low-IQ of the NYU staff member involved.
Sort of like the “Marco Polo” bridge “incident” in Beijing in 1937 that was probably the real starting point for WW2.
Jokes on you – not a single hijacker was from Afghanistan.
Revisionist history…
It was planned and carried out from Afghanistan. But regardless . . . you kinda missed the point there, bub.