The large “No Kings” protests this weekend were peaceful with the exception of some hot spots in Portland near ICE facilities. There were the usual hot heads carrying guillotines and North Carolina Democrat Rep. Julie von Haefen is under fire for posting a picture of a beheaded Trump. Another protester was arrested for calling for protesters to “firebomb” ICE facilities and personnel. In another scene, children were encouraged to beat a Trump piñata. There was also an assault on a MAGA supporter. These remained happily isolated incidents. However, two school employees in Chicago drew national attention with their violent speeches and offered another test of our free speech standards.
In Chicago, elementary school teacher Lucy Martinez was shown on video mockingly making a gesture akin to being shot in the neck, mimicking how Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
The video went viral, and her school, Nathan Hale Elementary School, had to shut down its website and social media presence.
Martinez’s gesture is disgusting, and frankly, I would not want my children to be taught by such a person. However, she did not identify herself as a teacher when she made this vile statement outside of school during her own time. As such, it is, in my view, protected speech.
Then there is the controversy surrounding Wilbur Wright College Adult Education Manager Moises Bernal, who screamed to a crowd that “ICE agents gotta get shot and wiped out.” Bernal told the crowd, “You gotta grab a gun!” and “We gotta turn around the guns on this fascist system!”
In 2017, Bernal was sentenced to 12 months probation in a rare move by the court due to disruptive behavior at a hearing for Chicago police officer Jason Van Dyke who was charged with murder.
The question is whether calling for the killing of ICE officers crosses the line for an educator. After all, there are ICE officers who come to campuses in their official capacity or as students. There are also students who want to join law enforcement, including ICE.
Violent speech is admittedly a difficult area for such line drawing. Faculty have made similarly disturbing comments in the past, including “detonating white people,” abolish white people, denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer, strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives, calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also defended the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of violence. (Loomis was later made Director of Graduate Studies of History at Rhode Island).
Even school board members referring to taking faculty “to the slaughterhouse” for questioning DEI policies is considering protected speech.
However, the specificity of Bernal’s call to violence could trigger repercussions for him. If Bernal had proclaimed that people should shoot minorities or women or Jews, there would be little debate that he represented a threatening element on campus. Certainly a student who espoused such violent intentions would not be allowed on campus in most universities.
For the university, it is difficult to see how law enforcement personnel in adult education programs would feel comfortable with an administrator who is encouraging others to murder them. Indeed, most people would not feel comfortable in interacting with someone who wants to kill law enforcement personnel.
Bernal’s comments likely fall short of a criminal threat, though, in New York city, David Cox was arrested after allegedly telling a third person that he had firebombs in his car and would be carrying out an attack. That was a specific threat and alleged plan. Bernal was encouraging violence in general.
However, calling for violence at a protest can cross the line for violent speech under existing precedent. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that calling for violence is protected under the First Amendment unless there is a threat of “imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
In this case, there was no violence despite Bernal’s apparent inclinations. There was no evidence of “imminent lawless action.” As such, it is still likely protected. However, that does not mean that Wilbur Wright College, which is part of the city of Chicago college system, cannot fire or suspend him for calling for the murder of law enforcement.
There is currently no statement from Wilbur Wright College President Dr. Andrés A. Oroz.
ATS also cannot read. No one called for anyone being drawn and quartered. That’s so old world. No I think most of the requests for these educators was that they be fired.
So there fixed it for you. To quote ATS.
Just seems that the “No Kings” protestors cannot figure out the inherent contradiction of their protest. They protest a duly elected president (both by popular vote and electoral college) and a duly elected Republican Senate and House of Representatives. These elected officials are in fact proceeding with filling the promises of their campaign. How democratic can you get?
But then the modern left has always lived on emotion and contradiction. Is their next move to tear up the streets and place barricades? Kind of hard to do that when the streets are asphalt and very few bricks are lying around. (Unless supplied by Rent-A-Riot).
Hitler was elected, and look at what he turned into.
The oppression started off small, banning Jews from swimming pools, and then, over 13 years, it exploded into something much worse.
There is validity to the concerns that people have.
“Hitler was elected, and look at what he turned into.”
BBBBUUUTTTT…. MUH TRUMP/KINGS/HITLER!!!!!!
It’s a short step from art student to mass murdering Marxist fascist. Hitler started out as an art student – a meaningless and pennyless life choice even back then. Look at what that art student turned into.
Jezzzzzzzzzzzz Give it a break you loser. Prez Trump is not Hitler,even if you think it.
Hitlers resentment of the Jews started long before his election, it goes back to the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.
“Hitler was elected” is a perfect example of how uneducated liberals truly are.
HullBobby,
The Hitler and Nazis accusations go to show exactly how unhinged these people are. As they continue to wallow in their TDS, their hate and rage becomes more and more evident. They actually believe their own delusions. Some are getting to the point where they are in fact ready and willing to commit violence.
Actor Robert DeNiero recent went on a TDS induced ranting on MSNBC,
Robert De Niro on MSNBC: Rural Americans support Trump because they “don’t get the truth” from their media. Translation: If you don’t watch CNN, you’re too dumb to vote. This is coastal elitism at its finest—and why Trump keeps winning flyover country.
— Matthew Newgarden (@a_newgarden) October 19, 2025
Here would be a good place to insert a brief description of what projection is.
*. There is a duty to employ the law without racism. He’s following the as president.
Ordinary people disregard laws. OJ would have gotten a mistrial if jurors followed the law. If he’d been convicted he’d have gotten off on appeal for errors. MO,
Plain and Ordinary juror
GEB,
Good point.
While they are entitled to free speech, I agree with the good professor, I would not want these people teaching my children or anywhere near them. Just like I would not want a pedo anywhere near any child.
Their propensity for violence is very disturbing. These are the kind of people whom I would not put past to actually commit acts of violence.
Wielding liberal license and entertaining abortive ideation is a progressive path and slope. Nanking, indeed.
What do you have when 100 lawyers are buried up to their necks in sand?
Not enough sand.
The opening description by Turley of the ‘no kings’ events reminds me of a now infamous quote from a reporter with a backdrop of arson fires behind him, mostly peaceful protests…….. Why do we as a society (especially the media) condone / excuse the violence of the left?
Teachers calls for / celebration of violence. The problem here is we give these individuals 8 hrs a day of mind shaping access to our children, and schools have long ago gone from teaching the 3 Rs and life skills, homemaking and shop, to being radical indoctrination centers…..
Our tolerance of the intolerant, clinically insane, hate filled, violent left is leading to our destruction. Make intolerance great again.
Here’s hoping that these folks mocking Kirk getting shot in the neck, actually get shot in the neck! #FreeSpeech
The free speech advocate would prefer that you not express yourself in certain ways.
I think that can be said of every human being on earth. The difference is that the professor recognizes legal protections for speech he would prefer did not happen, and chooses to support such protections over his own emotions. Unlike the “Joe Biden” administration who had an entire deep-state program of pressuring social media companies – and embedding agents in them – to censor speech they disliked.
HAHAHAHA. Kill the ICE, but Peaceful protest.
The left has lost their minds.
gdonaldallen wrote: “You can’t yell “Fire” in a theater. That’s forbidden speech. ”
The comments section of this blog is replete with ignorant fools attempting to assert a totally absent degree of knowledge and competence. The Brandenburg case cited by Prof. Turley is the very one that finally gave the lie to that spurious claim. That phrase originated as an example in the SCOTUS decision for Schenck v. United States, that was written by Oliver Wendell Holmes (whom in my considered opinion, was clearly out of his depth on the Court, and should probably have stuck with writing amusing poetry). One year later, Holmes would write a dissenting opinion in Abrams v. United States, essentially refuting the bogus analogy he had made. 50 years after that, the standard was finally definitively qualified in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the case cited by Prof. Turley.
Schenck v. United States: Defining the limits of free speech
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/schenck-v-united-states-defining-the-limits-of-free-speech
” In Brandenburg v. Ohio, a 1969 case dealing with free speech, the Court finally replaced it with the “imminent lawless action” test. This new test stated that the state could only limit speech that incites imminent unlawful action. This standard is still applied by the Court today to free speech cases involving the advocacy of violence.”
Do wish you’d finish high school.
That is certainly a well-considered and erudite refutation of the fundamental flaws in your post that I identified and documented. You are a hopeless moron and an irredeemable fool.
Can’t yell fire in a crowded theater means an alarm cannot be pulled when there isn’t an emergency. It references the little boy who cried wolf?
Some representative pulled a fire alarm to open a door. He wasn’t reelected. It’s dangerous behavior to yourself and others. Alarms are preceded by announcements of this is a test. If not there’s an emergency. Otherwise it’s a lie or deception.
These people engaging in violent speech are lying if they don’t mean what they’re saying. They may be overwhelmed using hyperbole and require a psych evaluation.
Brandenburg was a very long time ago. Today, we take you at your word.
Brandenburg was a very long time ago.
1788 was even longer ago. If Brandenburg is no longer good law because it’s old, then a fortiori the entire constitution must have expired long ago. Wasn’t it Ezra Klein who said it was “over a hundred years old” so it should be ignored?
“Can’t yell fire in a crowded theater means an alarm cannot be pulled when there isn’t an emergency. It references the little boy who cried wolf? ”
What tripe. It refers to speech. Pulling a fire alarm is an action, not speech, and any analogy made for it to speech it would be stretched completely beyond credibility. I assume you have case precedent to cite for “the boy who cried ‘wolf'”? Funny, I always thought that was one a Aesop’s fables, intended, like the others, as instructive story examples of good and bad behavior. Of course, there is lamentably no lack of horses’ patoots who would just love to criminalize anything and everything that they regard as bad behavior.
Nice try
What’s the difference between a lawyer and a catfish?
One is a slimy, cold-blooded scum-sucking bottom feeder.
The other is a fish.
“If Bernal had proclaimed that people should shoot minorities or women or Jews, there would be little debate…”. Professor Turley- two thoughts…first is Jews are a minority…and secondly from what I have seen on campus and at some protests, wanting to kill Jews/Zionsists seems to be perfectly acceptable to a large percentage of the progressive left….
“. . . elementary school teacher [?!] Lucy Martinez was shown on video mockingly making a gesture . . .” (JT)
There’s an old proverb (Spanish?): Take what you want and pay for it.
Her payment should include firing and ostracism.
That proverb is not spanish, you wrote it in American English.
What do lawyers and sperm have in common?
One in 3,000,000 has a chance of becoming a human being.
You should stick to adoption.
When Oblowhole came to office there were reportedly 20M illegals in our country. I believe that number stayed fairly steady and was a result of GWB at the bequest of the Chamber of Commerce to maintain a construction force to supply the National Home Building conglomerates. I believe it fluctuated upwards some but seemed to hover with the public display of a limited deportation. Here comes Trump first term, he tries to plug the leaks at the border however the Cartels and politicians made it impossible to turn the tide. The count seemed to grow with another 10M in as the economy slowed the housing market slowed however a great push was taking place building massive apartment complexes and entire new Cities in some areas. Thousands of apartments for whom you ask? Next up Biden, an open border with another 10M illegals across our borders and a totalitarian lockdown due to a virus outbreak now determined enhanced and coming from China.
A reasonable person would ask themselves who’s profiting and why are these idiots so upset with our own government enforcing our own laws? This truly is a turning point for our nation, let’s pray we hold the course of sovereignty, justice and freedom.
Please understand 20 M illegals cannot commit the crime of treason against the United States as the significant point. Only citizens can commit treason, anon.
The idiocy is truly mind destroying.
There are no people more violent and intolerant than leftwing fascists, and there was plenty of fascism on display during these protests.
leftwing fascists you say. Think J6, thousands of rightwing fascists descended on DC and tried to kill democracy.
Not even close. But keep lying to yourself.
Speaking of democracy, Trump won. Now shut up and color. . .
Hitler was democratically elected, too.
Failed history class? He was installed as chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg.
“Hitler was democratically elected, too.”
Hitler was a failed art student, exactly like you.
And he was appointed – just like the DEI Hire Border Czar was appointed to run for president, not elected at a party leadership convention.
Failed art student, failed appointed party leader. Look at how that turned out both for fascist Germany and today’s police state fascist DNC.
leftwing fascists you say. Think J6, thousands of rightwing fascists descended on DC and tried to kill democracy.
Why choose that as your starting point for fascism? Think J1, earlier, and the hundreds of fascists bent on trying to murder Trump.
AT THE WHITE HOUSE DOOR 50 Secret Service agents injured in White House riots as Donald Trump is taken to ‘terror attack’ bunker
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11752998/trump-secure-bunker-friday-george-floyd-protests-white-house/
Thousands in the Senate you say? Were you born January 1 of that year. Or does the Democrat Borg demand that fascism only began that day? Definitely NOT six months earlier when both they, Harris, and Biden cheered on the Democrats street terrorists’ two day assault on the White House as they attempted to kill Trump for the first time.
Any thoughts/excuses/re-definition of fascism for that attack before J6 caused you to claim you suddenly realized fascism existed and what the definition is?
leftwing fascists you say. Think J6, thousands of rightwing fascists descended on DC and tried to kill democracy.
No, they didn’t.
“However, calling for violence against liberals at the Turley blog comment section, can cross the line for violent speech under existing precedent.’
Fixed it. You’re welcome.
LAME AS USUAL ANON! YOU’RE WELCOME!
Someone woke-up (LOL) on the wrong side of the bed.
What would humanity do without your laser sharp insight?
It stands to reason that if a person doesn’t know the difference between a man or a woman, they also cannot distinguish between a king and a President of the United States.
There is, apparently, no lack of individuals who are not right in the head.
Wow! What a great analogous statement. You must be brillcreme or sumthin.
So sez Mr. 1959.
Shut up and put your pantyhose on, your tofu is ready.
“Wow! What a great analogous statement. You must be brillcreme or sumthin.”
Wow!… Wally; socks still too tight? You should take them off a few times at night each month to get some better blood circulation to your brain.
I’m trying to remember if you’ve ever made a coherent thought or rational argument or rebuttal in your years of floundering around here…
Nope. I can’t. You drop a one line load reminiscent of a pigeon on a statue, and then mindlessly amble away.
Well done Wally!
And you’re an anthropologist?
LOL.. Love it EM. right on point
E.M.
Well said. And one of those people is sitting on the SC bench.
Exactly. She would not answer the question.
“In another scene, children were encouraged to beat a Trump piñata.” In another scene (Turley blog), children (aka conservatives) were encouraged to beat a liberal piñata. There fixed it.
People, attack this comment. Destroy anon. Finally!
What does a liberal pinata look like? And where is it that here on the good professor’s blog we are “beating” liberals?
How is calling for the murder of ICE official protected free speech??? ICE officials are enforcing laws passed by Congress. Interfering with their ability to do their jobs presents a danger for the officials, and for victims of illegal aliens who have committed additional crimes and who apparently have more rights than their victims.
Calling for murder of ice official … its really a question of whether its prosecutable and convincing a jury, in that jurisdiction.. Leftist judges etc.
Also, I believe Trump & Co. are hoping for agents to get killed, then unleash the …. its possible.
Liar… But when it comes to the violent left. We are not surprised.
No, it’s not a question of whether you can convince a jury. A competent judge would not allow it through to the jury, because all “mere advocacy” is protected speech.
Hmm a competent judge…
Suze,
What you are describing is what most sane and normal people call common sense. A trait that seems to be lacking for leftists. I mean, they think a person can wake up one morning and be of the opposite sex, or even a cat. They think pornography in elementary school libraries is okay. They call for the murder of ICE agents. They celebrate the death, rape, or kidnapping of Jews. They celebrate the death of Charlie Kirk. These people are not well.
“These people are not well” … my point exactly. 5150 for psych and citizenship evaluation. Non citizens cannot commit treason and are reasonably assumed to be foreign agents of their government.
How is calling for the murder of ICE official protected free speech???
Calling for anyone’s murder is free speech. That’s the law, and that’s the constitution. “Mere advocacy” is absolutely protected, no matter what. Only actual incitement is not protected, and that is narrowly defined to mean whipping up a mob to go out and commit a crime immediately, without stopping to think about it and make their own decisions.
Merely calmly explaining to an audience why they ought to commit a crime, and then letting them make up their own minds about it, is not incitement. Nor is whipping up a crowd’s emotions, but with no prospect of them actually going out and immediately acting on it. Also, that result must be both subjectively intended and objectively likely.
“Calling for anyone’s murder is free speech. That’s the law, and that’s the constitution. “Mere advocacy” is absolutely protected, no matter what.”
Umm… Maybe you should had read the news this morning. 🙃
“Trump-pardoned Jan. 6 rioter arrested for allegedly threatening to kill Jeffries” – Politico
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/10/21/jan-6-rioter-charged-hakeem-jeffries-00616481
Read what you just wrote. Threatening. Not advocating, but threatening.
All advocacy is protected speech. Threats are not protected, but it has to be an actual threat. Not “Someone should”, but “I will”. And it must be credible. It must be such that an ordinary person, on hearing the threat, would believe that the person making it had both the intent and the means to carry it out. It doesn’t matter whether he actually DOES have both, but it must be that an ordinary person would THINK he does. Otherwise it’s not a true threat, and it’s protected speech.
You misunderstood what I meant. It’s the hypocrisy, the double standards that I was pointing out. 🙃
Let’s see. You can’t yell “Fire” in a theater. That’s forbidden speech. But you can yell, “Get a gun and shoot ICE officers.” That’s protected speech? Needing help here.
Laws, it turns out, are akin to rubber bands. The same law can be stretched for some and snap back for others. Perhaps Goodyear should endow a law school and make it official.
That is not “forbidden speech”. It’s speech not protected under the 1st amendment. You can yell “fire” in a crowded theatre, but there will be consequences such as getting fined or possbily jail, depending on what happens after.
They’re two different types of speech. One is an alarm and the other is a command.
^^^ a false alarm, a lie, deception.
The command to do violence is a lie? I don’t think so. It’s a 5150. Happiness at a person’s death indicates an imbalance in zoloft or lithium balance. Drug test these people for Pete’s sake.
Holmes’s infamous analogy from “falsely crying fire in a theater” was terrible law when he wrote it, and the Supreme Court has thoroughly rejected and discredited it. No analogy from falsely raising an alarm to any other kind of speech is valid.
Saying “people ought to get guns and shoot ICE officers” is absolutely protected speech. As is “someone ought to shoot the president”. As is “If they draft me and put a gun in my hand I’ll use it to shoot the president.
Yelling “Get a gun and shoot” someone (it doesn’t matter whom) might not be protected, depending on the circumstances. If it’s objectively likely that someone hearing you would imminently go fetch a gun, find an ICE officer, and shoot them, and you subjectively intended that to happen, then your speech is not protected. If any of those three elements (intention, likelihood, and imminence) are missing, it’s protected speech.
How many ICE officers must first be shot before it’s a likelihood that LEOs will be shot? How many times must DJT be shot or attempted assassinations before it’s likely including death threats and the need for heavy security?
Absurd
It doesn’t matter how many have been shot. Each alleged incitement must be judged on its own. It’s only incitement if THAT SPEAKER intended his audience to act on it immediately, and it was likely that they would. If any one of those three elements is missing, it’s not incitement but “mere advocacy” and it’s protected.
In the 1960s assassination was in the air, and yet it was protected speech to say “If they draft me and put a gun in my hand I will shoot the president”.
I disagree regarding Bernal’s comments. Professor Turley cites the standard in Brandenburg, “which is a threat to imminent action and IS LIKELY TO INCITE OR PRODUCE SUCH ACTION”. How can you say for sure that it won’t incite or produce such action when you are telling a wound up group (I could have said mob) to shoot law enforcement officers? There is a pile of hay around you and this clown is holding a match, do you feel comfortable with him holding it?
As far as being fired that is an easy call. Leaving aside that Bernal has been arrested for anti-police action before, his actions here means he has to be let go. At the least.
Even Turley dances around the fact that this guy could not say shoot women, gays, trans folks, Jews, blacks or any other group…so why should he be able to say it about law enforcement officers?
Fire him and fire him now.
As for the calorie challenged loser with the gun to the neck poses it is a closer call but I wouldn’t want my child in her class if I was a cop. Or anyone else for that matter. Fire her too. Hey, we didn’t make the rules, they did.
What nonsense. Go back to bed. And stay there.
As a retired teacher, I understand that teachers have a unique responsibility to transmit social norms to our students. Calling for the killing of anyone is morally abhorrent. Were I, as a conservative teacher to publicly call for the killing of a left wing agitator I should be fired.
We have before us a blog full of so called conservatives, aka blood thirsty lynch mob, demanding lefties be drawn and quartered. Yet Turley considers that free speech.
What’s wrong with drawing people and giving them shelter? Artistic talents should be encouraged.
No offense, but you’re either delusional or a liar.
Exactly
A third choice is cruel and unusual.
Prove it. All the hate comes from the left, since 1969.
Wikipedia has an article about Christian terrorism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
When Wikipedia is your source, CNN must have suspended operations for the day.
WIKI
You must be kidding it’s an open site even the co-founder has said it’s not reliable.
Try harder.
DustOff,
He Co-Founded Wikipedia, Now He Says The Site Needs A Radical Change
“Even now, people are still sort of waking up to the reality that Wikipedia does, on many pages … act as essentially propaganda,”
— Larry Sanger, co-founder of Wikipedia
https://www.theepochtimes.com/article/he-co-founded-wikipedia-now-he-says-the-site-needs-a-radical-change-5928595?utm_source=partner&utm_campaign=ZeroHedge
“We have before us a blog full of so called conservatives, aka blood thirsty lynch mob, demanding lefties be drawn and quartered.”
Projection:
Channeling one’s actions onto others typically refers to the psychological concept of projection, where an emotionally disturbed individual unconsciously or deliberately attributes their own thoughts, feelings, and anti-social or criminal behaviors onto someone else. This is an internal defense mechanism which allows a person to avoid confronting their own behavior and guilt by seeing them as the thoughts and actions of someone else who they despise and hate instead.
“We have before us a blog full of so called conservatives, aka blood thirsty lynch mob, demanding lefties be drawn and quartered.”
Hitler started out as a failed art student who liked to draw people. When he failed at his liberal dreams… look how he turned out!
“As a retired teacher, I understand that teachers have a unique responsibility to transmit social norms to our students.”
As a parent, I expect them to restrict any transmission of social norms to the narrowest definition for the community that they are serving in, a definition that is not going to put what they transmit in conflict with those of that community in general. As a parent, I’ll look after transmitting what I expect my children to have a social norms within our family, extended family, neighbors, and community.
The primary purpose of schools and teaching is to teach children skills and factual information to best prepare them for standalone adult lives on the first day after they complete grade school. Part of the reason that US education is mediocre at its best is because our unionized public school teachers have chosen to be replacement parents, taking class time to attempt to teach what parents should be responsible for.
Great rebuttal.
It’s the gladiator and mob thumbs up, thumbs down. Ceasar gets the final say. Mangione heard the call, Robinson also.
How can you say for sure that it won’t incite or produce such action
You don’t have to say for sure. Brandenburg requires that it be likely to produce such an action, not merely possible. If it’s possible but not likely, then it’s not incitement. Also if it’s likely, but that wasn’t your intent, it’s not incitement. And if it’s both intended and likely to produce action, but at a later time, it’s not incitement.
How about reckless and negligent.
There’s no such thing. Unless it fits the definition of incitement it’s protected speech and Congress CAN’T make a law against it.