We have another incident of a student trashing a conservative table while expressing absolute impunity to do so. The Young America’s Foundation (YAF) at Oklahoma State University had a table supporting traditional marriage when a student tossed their material and claimed the absolute right to vandalize opposing views on campus.
Notably, one of the students involved in the attacks insisted that only the government is prevented from trashing such tables and, as a private citizen, she had a right to do so.
The sense of license to do so has been drilled into these students by both educational and political figures. This is a face of rage.
The question is now what the university is going to do about it. The solution should be obvious: the student should be immediately suspended or expelled.
This type of political violence or vandalism should be anathema to an institution of higher education. This is not free speech, as the student claims. It is the denial of the exercise of free speech. The student has every right to set up her own table or protest the YAF. What she is not allowed to do is attack other students or their displays.
Per a Harvard/Harris poll taken October 1 – October 2, 56% of registered voters support deporting all illegal aliens, and a whopping 78% support deporting criminal illegal aliens. Somehow the main stream media is telling us that the American people don’t support Trumps policy on immigration. Are we surprised? They lied every day during his first term. Why should anyone be surprised now that they’re doing the same thing. The obvious conclusion is that 78% approve of what ICE is doing. The two big issues that caused Trump to win were immigration and gender confirming care. So what do the Democrats do? They double down. There are a few who say they’ve changed their tune. Don’t be fooled again.
This is a typical example of the disturbed thinking of the delusional MAGA mind.
Apparently you believe that since 78% of people support deporting illegal aliens, then that indicates 78% of people support Trump’s policies and what ICE is doing.
I can assure you that you are wrong. This is a completely false conclusion.
There is support for removing illegal aliens in general, but very little support for what ICE is doing. These are two completely separate issues.
Believe it or not Democrats favor removing aliens, but they also believe in the rule of law. They believe that such removal must follow a legal process.
Unfortunately, like most of the MAGA mob, you are completely disconnected from reality.
Democrats demonstrate repeatedly that they do not believe in the rule of law. This is as plain to see as the sun at high-noon on a clear day.
By making such a blatantly false statement, you betray yourself and your intent to decieve.
Apparently you believe that since 78% of people support deporting illegal aliens, then that indicates 78% of people support Trump’s policies and what ICE is doing.
This is the psychotic turmoil of the psychiatric patient Bolshevik Biden Marxist Mob: Supposedly, while 78% of Americans do in fact support deporting Illegal Aliens, they apparently don’t support ICE deporting those criminal Illegal Aliens.
Despite the fact that Border Patrol is constrained from operating inside the USA, beyond a 100 mile buffer around the the border of the country. The only agency tasked to operate arresting and removing criminal Illegal Aliens inside that 100 mile buffer is ICE. But supposedly, Americans don’t want ICE doing what is specifically their job. Supposedly, they want those criminal Illegal Aliens to just magically self-deport.
Believe it or not Democrats favor removing aliens, but they also believe in the rule of law.
Nope, don’t believe that. That’s just plain old Lyin’ Like A Biden.
You have to wonder how many illegal aliens and illegal aliens which repeatedly demonstrate criminal behavior were a part of those polls.
Not all is lost. More and more independent voters are voting for Republicans. They know that they are not welcome in the ranks of the Democrats any longer. The Dems still think that they’re in the majority. CNN poll says that there a minus 29. Trump approval is 8 points higher than the Democrats. Read em and weep.
Stating, “After the election last night, I can see where this is going,” on Wednesday Donald J. Trump fled to Argentina, vowing never to return.
Speaking bitterly to reporters as he departed the White House, Trump said, “You take away people’s food, throw yourself a Great Gatsby party, and tear down the White House, and this is the thanks you get.”
Trump had hoped to leave the US on the luxury 747 given him by the Emir of Qatar, but once Tuesday’s election results became clear the Arab ruler swiftly withdrew the gift.
In a tersely worded statement, the Emir declared, “Fly coach, loser.”
In Buenos Aires, Trump was greeted by an angry anti-immigrant mob.
Makes sense—a lot of his people emigrated there at the end of WW2.
WAY to many drugs.
Time for you to quit
The woman who vandalized a table because she disagrees with the message chose to act like a three year old instead of engaging in adult conversation. I guess she has limited vocabulary and / or ability to engage in a cogent debate When we were kids, we would have asked her, “Who died and left you boss?”
She acted like Boasberg with a whole lot less power. I like her belt OTOH, cute skirt.
Wait a minute here. Some anon above just told us that democrats respect the rule of law. Is destroying another’s property still illegal these days? Hmm… that anon was really smart, so the only possible conclusion is that what she did is not illegal. Right?
Double dip:
Ok: we now have some on the left literally saying maybe it’s time we start overturning elections – this is it. We have the non-left, whomever they may be (Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, or whomever), and the globalist regime known as ‘the left’. The election results today should concern everyone. Vote in the midterms like your life depends on it, because it probably does.
The person that kicked over the table might be in Congress one day, or heaven forbid, sitting on a bench, and i know that to some that sounds ludicrous, but really, it isn’t.
I hate the stupid wordpress filter!!! Let me try again!
A Real Mamdani-Brook!!!
Or, “Halal! Is Anybody in there???”
There once was a dude named Mamdani,
A Socialist, who dressed in Armani!
The son of a b—h,
Planned to steal from the rich,
And then flush them all down the johnny!
Nice!
Thank you, OldMan!!!
@Squeeky
Sigh. We are all tired of this, go away. You are not fooling anyone.
Do you know how hard it is to rhyme with “Mamdani”??? I had to work my buns off on that one.
Squeeky – try rhyming with “orange juice.” Who remembers H.R. Pufnstuf?
From Grok: Afghani, Amani, Armani, Azerbaijani, Bahrani, Bonnie, Cipriani, Connie, Fulani, Giuliani, Guarani, Hindustani, Irani, Johnny, Omani, Pakistani, pastrami, Rani, Romani, salami, Satriani, swami, Tawny, Tehrani, tsunami.
But it was tough even for Grok.
Cheers!
Thanks! Hindustani might work, because I think his parents were from India or somewhere like that.
Hindu-Nuffin???
Or, Caste-Aways???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a guy named Mamdani!
A product of two Hindustani.
He cried for the poor,
“We should all give them more!”
While he prissed around dressed in Armani!
Not great, but my first try:
There once was a guy named Mamdani
Who set out to confirm he was brawny
But the dumbbells it seemed
Were too heavy, he screamed
And he turned out to be rather scrawny
Kansas Elder,
he’s a poet
but he don’t know ir!
I like it! Especially the last line! Cheers!
Good job!
Clever:)
Hi, Squeeky! Glad you are back.
The people that do the violence sure are UGLY!!
What is political violence?
If they are free fliers, does taking them all constitute violence? Maybe you can say it was littering, but I’m not seeing anything violent? “Prove me wrong?” Can someone give me an OK case where a violent crime was committed for similar behavior?
If they are free fliers, does taking them all constitute violence? Maybe you can say it was littering, but I’m not seeing anything violent?
So you watched the video, where she took literally all of the fliers and threw them away, then used her arm to clear the table of all its contents, and you claim it was merely littering?
Look, she didn’t physically assault another person, true. But to imply her actions amounted only to littering, and to suggest in any way that she was merely doing what the other students invited her to do (take a free flier), is unreasonable.
Can someone give me an OK case where a violent crime was committed for similar behavior?
First, the article doesn’t say it was violence; it uses the phrase “violence or vandalism.” It was clearly vandalism of some sort. Second, the article never claimed it was a criminal offense, but rather, that it was “anathema to an institution of higher education.” So you are cleverly evading those descriptive terms by pretending the article says something it doesn’t say.
Consider: if a liberal group, such as a pro-choice student group, had a table, and a pro-life conservative did exactly what this student did, would you be singing the same tune, going out of your way to defend the pro-life student, to the point of even distorting what the article says? As a pro-life conservative, I certainly would never defend such an action by a fellow pro-life conservative. But yet liberals like you fall all over yourself to avoid suggesting there was anything wrong with what she did, to the point of willfully misreading the article you’re responding to.
IT LITERALLY SAYS “THIS TYPE OF VIOLENCE”… what are you talking about?
“or vandalism”
If I say something is violence or vandalism, then that’s a true statement even if it’s just vandalism. I imagine the professor said “violence or vandalism” rather than just “vandalism” because he is grouping this in with a whole slew of other campus incidents, some of which did include violence. You can read his many, many past articles on these other incidents. You’re trying to use a strained reading to suggest the professor is saying something he’s not. Please remember that we’re not all as strident as you, and we read for comprehension.
PS. You don’t make yourself sound any more reasonable with all caps. That’s childish.
What is childish is not knowing the elements of OK’s vandalism laws and then claiming this is clearly vandalism.
And I didn’t say it was merely littering.
I just don’t think you can say what she did is “political violence or vandalism.”
It clearly is NOT vandalism because vandalism is a specific crime with elements (malicious mischief or malicious injury to property) that this act does not meet. When you put out a free flyer to the public, a reasonable person would view such act as giving implied consent to another to pick the flyer up.
So you watch that video and you want to rely on the technical elements of the criminal offense of vandalism? She completely destroyed their table the way it was set up, even if she didn’t actually tear up each individual flier. She grabbed them threw them all away with expletives, then used her arm to completely wipe everything off their table.
Your objection that “it doesn’t technically meet the elements of the criminal offense of vandalism as defined under the Oklahoma Criminal Code, therefore the professor’s article is lying” . . . makes you sound silly and childish. I doubt you would be singing the same tune if the conservative pro-life student did the same thing to a liberal pro-choice student group.
At this point you’re just sea-lioning so I won’t be responding to any more comments from you of a similar nature.
Sorry. My bad for thinking this was a legal blog. How dare I think about the law that applies to an accusation made by the good professor.
ATS – you left wing nuts are idiots.
The human race has spent 150,000 years resolving all of this – and you want to relitigate it all and start over.
Our system of law and justice has been evolving since Ogg the cave man.
It is not perfect – but it is actually pretty good.
It is rooted in the premise that humans have free will – therefore violations of the free will of a person are nearly always wrong.
That is why slavery is wrong. that is why murder is wrong.
“What is political violence?”
Does not matter. What matters is what is violence.
The initiation of force by one person against another is nearly always a violation of their free will – a violation of their rights, and a crime.
Political violence is violence where politics is the motive.
You can put any adjective you want in front of violence – it is still violence and only rarely justified.
Racial violence – is wrong.
Sexual violence – is wrong.
Gender violence – is wrong.
Violence in self defense is nearly always right. Though even then it must be proportionate AND it must be a response to ACTUAL violence or the credible threat of actual violence.
The lefts common misuse of the word violence is the evidence of the perfidity of the left.
Words are NEVER violence. You are NEVER justified in using actual violence to defend yourself against words.
“If they are free fliers, does taking them all constitute violence?”
Always. The value of property only matters with respect to the seriousness of the offence.
Taking anything that is not yours and not offered to you is THEFT.
The flyers were not valueless – it cost money time and effort to produce them.
YAF owned them – there offer of them “free” Was not unconditional.
You were not free to come round the table and take an entire box which might have cost $100 or more to produce and run off with it.
Is that not obvious too you ?
The same is true of smaller numbers on a table. You may take one or two – or even as many as YAF allowed you to – the flyers were THEIR property. They do not become YOUR property to do with as you please until you take one or more and YAF does not object.
You are not free to take them all and destroy them – any more than you are free to go to costco when they are giving away free samples and just walk away with a tray.
But then left wing nuts are idiots.
The fliers were not unconditionally free anymore than samples as costco are unconditionally free.
” Maybe you can say it was littering,”
It was, but that is just the lessor offense.
“but I’m not seeing anything violent?”
Taking by force without permission is violence.
When flyers are laid out for “free” – the offer is one for you and maybe one for a friend.
Regardless, the offer is contingent on YAF having the oportunity to object and chosing not to.
Anything else is theft – just like stealing a tray of samples at Costco.
“Prove me wrong?”
I did.
“Can someone give me an OK case where a violent crime was committed for similar behavior?”
I did.
In fact violent crimes of a similar nature are committed all the time.
And people are arrested, and convicted of them.
Is this the equivalent of murder ? no.
It is a relatively small crime and the violence is relatively small.
But that does not alter the FACT that it is a crime.
In most areas of law – in this case criminal law – we have lessor and greater offenses.
Every assault is not attempted murder. But just because a particular act of violence is small does not mean that we do not prosecute people for anything short of murder.
WE KNOW from history and human behavior that if you do not punish small bad acts with small punishments that you will get larger bad acts.
A recent local case one party in a couple who came here because our Drug REhabs are affordable and good, left rehab, got high and bashed someones face in and stole their stuff. He ran from the scene the cops chased and arrested him.
He asked his public defender what was going on – because in NYC and Conneticutt where he is from the police will not chase you for minor bad acts. He thought that was the same here, that it was the law that law enforcement could not chase you for small acts of violence.
Now he is facing years in jail for multiple offenses. He has been convicted of agrevated assault – which is a serious felony. PWID – basically drug dealing because he was in posession of drugs that the law considers to be more than for personal consumption. Fleeing a crime scene, resisting arrest. He is not eligable for ARD (basically rehab in leiu of incarceration) because you can not get that for violent offenses.
He is now seeking compasionate release – claiming to be Trans, and because he is the primary care giver for his wife who has some disability.
The courts here DO NOT CARE – those are things he should have thought of before committing a violent crime.
You should not be surprised to know that the crime rate here is about 1/2 that of the places that he came from.
Again human nature – if you allow small crimes – you get more bigger ones.
John Say –
Is that not obvious too you?
It is obvious to everyone with a brain. Perhaps not to our low-IQ anonymous troll . . . or perhaps it is and she doesn’t care because she is paid to say stupid stuff just to get a reaction.
The gist of the article is that the liberal student’s actions are inconsistent with higher education. Anyone reading for comprehension would understand that as the takeaway, and not that the professor is holding forth on the technical elements of various crimes, as if this were a criminal law class in law school.
Then again, it is just so difficult to get good quality liberal commenters here. They never fail to be utterly foolish. If I were on a liberal law professor’s blog, and that professor wrote about a conservative student doing the same thing, it would never in a million years occur to me to try and justify the student’s actions, which are so obviously wrong. Yet, we cannot even get one single liberal commenter here to engage in a reasonable discussion in which this particular student’s actions are conceded to be wrong. Instead all we get is garbage like that spewed by our anonymous low-IQ troll. As I’ve said before, that appears to be our unique curse as conservatives: while we have many worthy allies, what we lack is even more important: worthy adversaries.
“Taking by force without permission is violence.” Okay, and the response to someone committing violence should be…? Obviously lethal force is not justified. How about non-lethal force? Pepper spray? Rubber bullets? Tackle and zip-tie? People who commit violence without consequence will not stop committing violence, so what is the appropriate consequence to committing violence?
Most of those of you on the left try to pretend that crime is somehow a political issue.
It is not.
We can discuss exactly how we should punish crime – BUT there is only one “one size fits all” approach that is not a disaster.
I would be happy to discuss alternative approaches – but we KNOW those are luxuries affordable only by a productive affluent society and only work in some cases.
Regardless, if you ignore crime – you get more crime. If you do not punish crime in an effective way – you get more crime.
If this student is not punished in some sufficent way – you will get more of this – by her, and by others.
You will get it attacking YAF – but you will also get it attacking groups you favor.
Ignoring this will not lead directly to anarchy and violence, but it will be a small step in that direction.
Those of you on the left have this bizarre victim ideology – that seems to boil down to – WE get to chose who the victims are and then award them with status.
In this case – you are favoring a violent student – not her actual victims.
That is fine – but if you think you can construct a functioning society that way – your crazy.
I recall older black women Begging people to stop looting and arson during the BLM riots.
These people may not understand all the technical details of what periodic riots and looting and arson make commercial activity go elsewhere.
But they KNOW that it took decades to get places like Target to take the risk and move into their communities
And when they leave – something will take their place – something far more expensive.
The central business district in Portland is nearly abandoned. Not only are most of the store fronts closed, but the commercial offices that they rely on are gone too. People do not want to live or work in places that are constantly rioting. Where laws are not enforced.
They go elsewhere. Increasing P_ortland has attreacted more and more homeless and drug addicts and has less and less resources to deal with them – because when businesses go – taxes go too.
You can not remake society however you please and expect that it will work.
You want ot quibble and pretend that maybe you can game the law.
You can’t – but lets assume that you can.
The law exists to protect people if people – unfortunatley not people YOU care about – do not feel safe – they go where they do.
And they bring their businesses and taxes with them and they leave where they left poorer and worse off.
That is not left/right.
It is just reality.
The common understanding in this case is that visitors are free to take one, but not to just throw on the ground. Taking many or all and then tossing them into the air is clearly stepping over the line. No one is suggesting that this is a felony. But it does need to be punished because respect for free speech and respecting others is part of the university experience.
You know, I hate to be a pane, but there is the whole “broken windows” aspect to this harridan’s behavior. Today, it is knocking over flyers, and tomorrow, it is tossing Mazel Tov cocktails!
Or perhaps Mazel Tov mocktails if her gender studies degree doesn’t lead to a lucrative career.
P.S. I see what you did there (pane).
X says As a private citizen, she can use her speech to drown out another’s. Heckling is perfectly legal and is often employed as a way to interrupt or disrupt another speaker’s message. There is no law prohibiting this behavior.
Mad King George: There are multiple laws prohibiting her from vandalizing other peoples’ physical property with what you define as her completely legal Democrat Free Speech. You claim every day to be a Confederate Constitutional Expert – but your Internet Law Degree expertise obviously doesn’t recognize that your fellow Democrats’ criminal behavior is not protected free speech.
You’ll never be able to arise above the mental handicaps you operate under due to your undeveloped prefrontal cortex.
You could try making a few dollars from suing the unionized public school system for failing to provide you with an adequate public school education and leaving you unable to deal with facts and basic Civics.
. . . she can use her speech to drown out another’s.
I realize you’re quoting someone else, but I have a question on that line of thought. If that is true, then do people’s private property rights given them the freedom to use their matches and lighter fluid (their property) to burn down another person’s house?
Or suppose the person’s religion commands them to destroy other religions’ places of worship. Does their religious freedom under 1A give them the freedom to destroy those places of worship?
Or if they are in the media, does the freedom of the press under 1A given them the freedom to defame other media outlets without any risk of civil liability for defamation?
Aren’t the flyers being offered to the public? Is a student taking the offer really a violation of private property rights?
I believe you’re the same person who commented above. I answered you above.
You can take one or two, not the whole pile.
The freedom of the press has nothing to do with “the media”. People in the news industry have the exact same rights as anyone else, and no more.
The freedoms of speech and of the press are collectively known as the freedom of expression. They are the right to say and to publish whatever you like, with a very few exceptions. The difference between them is the same as that between slander and libel, both of which are defamation.
Speech is not a physical act. Using a match and lighter fluid to set fire to property is. Those are two different things.
You can shout down a speaker in public. It would not be a violation of the speaker’s 1st amendment rights. The government cannot shout down the speaker, but the private citizen can.
Inciting violence is not protected speech. One religion calling for the destruction of another’s place of worship is inciting violence against another. That is not protected under the 1st amendment. Yelling, heckling, and shouting down a speaker is.
ask yourself why these people are against your free speech
Somehow your freedom bothers them. Now their freedom bothers me. arrest this idiot!
Ano
This is how the left wing thinks. What they do is richest, but for anyone of the right. That’s WAR!
Professor Turley still continues avoiding addressing the Democrats using Attorney General Merrick Garland, FBI Director Wray, and Garland’s Special Council, the SCOTUS-discredited Jack Smith to deprive over 430 Republican Senators, Congressmen, former Attorney Generals, journalists, and public figures of their First Amendment Free Speech rights by color of law.
Not even a column to assure us this wasn’t a deprivation of First Amendment Free Speech rights. Maybe a bit icky…. but nothing worse than that!
Is there continuum of Washington DC Democrat Lawyer corruption and dishonesty to rank these Washington DC Bar Association Democrat lawyers on?
And would any of those Democrat lawyers get special favorable placement if that Democrat Lawyer sold his himself and his Constitutional expertise as being the most prominent defender of First Amendment Free Speech?
Is there an email address from someone to write to at OSU deploring this conduct and encouraging prompt discipline?
Where are all the videos of conservative students trashing the tables of liberal organizations? They don’t exist. There really is a difference in civility and sanity between conservative and liberal students. Any both-sidesism the left tries to use is a flat-out lie.
It’s madness (largely generational madness, and some of us saw it coming, but that is a separate conversation). I don’t know another word to describe it at this point. I guarantee you the likes of Mamdani and AOC will at least *attempt* to hold higher office, up to and including POTUS, and plenty of people will vote for them. The time to wake up is right the heck now.
Back in the day, anyone did that they would have had the pleasure of tasting the sidewalk. These days everyone seems to want the higher ups to handle even the most minute of disputes when they could effectively be handled on the spot. Just saying.
Way off topic!
soviet breadline, many pictures on Google if you need evidence:
Have friends who grew up in privileged status and lived in Moscow at the time, (now US Citizens) they are concerned for America’s future. This is what the left desires of our great nation. In the left’s dreams, Communism has the smell of Lilac’s in Spring.
“In the left’s dreams, Communism has the smell of Lilac’s in Spring.”
And the reality of the stench of carbolic acid in Petrograd.
Home girl was just circulating flyers for the Christian boy. I’ll allow it.
Turley offers no solutions.
I will, suspension or expulsion
Professor Turley had offered the actions of the law in order to change the direction on many an occasion. Just because some use violence a civil society does not act the same in kind. They must still be given their rights, and a trial resulting in their removal from society. Otherwise we are no different from those who trample the rights of others. Oh whoa is me nothing will never be done weeps Eeyore.
Get some grit.
Who said I wanted violence?
Rubbish. like the lady you are only listening to your own voice….
She’s an intolerant fascist. No two ways about it.
It’s not a she, it’s a he.
In general, PT, your blog is trolled by AI. People with faults and flaws in traits programmed AI and AI also has errors. It’s learning from people in prisons and jails using the net.
If it were true that an AG was elected who said someone’s children should die then that is a moral error and the conclusion is its AI. It’s creepy, disgusting and leads to despair.
Turning it off.