This week, CBS News Editor-in-Chief Bari Weiss was supposed to give the UCLA Burkle Center’s annual Daniel Pearl Memorial guest lecture on “The Future of Journalism.” It was a wonderful opportunity for students to hear from one of the impactful voices in the media. However, they will not be able to do so after a successful cancel campaign supported by faculty members. “that she believes Weiss has used the guise of free speech to attack people on the left whose opinions she does not agree with – and having her speak at a signatory lecture would legitimize these actions….To invite somebody who is working against that mission in highly powerful places just seems like anathema in the university mission.”
This statement is an example of the culture that is inculcated into students who become intolerant in college. It explains why students feel righteous in shouting down or interrupting speakers.
What is “anathema” to the academic mission is the viewpoint intolerance and orthodoxy shown by Peters and the faculty and students at UCLA. In accusing Weiss of attacking those with “opinions she does not agree with,” Peters demanded that Weiss be silenced as someone with opinions that she does not agree with.
The lack of self-awareness is a common element among many in higher education who claim to support free speech and intellectual diversity while purging universities of conservative or libertarian faculty or speakers.
The fact that UCLA would pick Peters to lead this Center speaks volumes about the culture in higher education. Peters felt complete license to speak as the Associate Director for the canceling of speakers with opposing views. Her overt intolerance was likely an advantage with other faculty members.
After years of surveys showing the purging of faculty ranks, there is no evidence that faculty members are willing to allow a diversity of opinions.
After years of viewpoint intolerance, schools like Yale have finally reached the point where there is not a single faculty member left who donates to the Republican Party or candidates.
In 2018, a faculty member who called for greater viewpoint diversity at Sarah Lawrence was the subject of threats and vandalism.
Samuel J. Abrams, a professor at Sarah Lawrence College, wrote about the problem almost ten years ago. His research showed that, while the faculty was overwhelmingly liberal, the administrators were even more so. In his survey of 900 college administrators, he found that liberal staff members outnumber conservative staff members by a 12-to-1 ratio: “A fairly liberal student body is being taught by a very liberal professoriate — and socialized by an incredibly liberal group of administrators.”
That was almost a decade ago.
This does not happen overnight or by accident. It is the result of faculty and administrators replicating their own views while effectively purging their ranks of conservatives or moderates.
Today, even liberal columnists like Ezra Klein have been subject to disruptive protests. It is rare for libertarian or conservative figures to be invited on campuses and these faculty members have succeeded in deterring others.
It is important for speakers to continue to appear on campuses despite these threats. We cannot yield to the mob.
Indeed, today I will be speaking at the University of Southern California from 12:00 pm to 1:30 pm PST at the USC Davidson Conference Center (3409 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90007). I look forward to speaking about my book “Rage and the Republic.” I will then be speaking in the evening at the California Club.
She posed a “burden”… sequester the conception. A burden, and was canceled. #HateLovesAbortion
So progresses Diversity (i.e. class-disordered ideologies) in lieu of diversity of individuals, minority of one. #HateLovesAbortion
That CA is a cesspool full of Far Left loonies is not deniable, nor even debatable. Their universities are just the shiniest turds floating on the top, and their professors are the laxative that keeps on producing more excrement.
But we all can see now that they will not be able to escape going down with the rest of those state institutions due to decades of mismanagement and good people fleeing that horrific state, leaving only the terminally-woke floaters.
Suppose one of these students- any student- graduates devoid of training to deal with conflicting ideas. Now suppose you are a party in court- either seat, Plaintiff(or government) or Defendant(or accused). Do you want the common knowledge of a jury of your peers to include willingness and ability to to entertain conflicting ideas? Both sides get a fair trial? This isn’t just an abstract civics lesson. This is where speech as practiced informs due process of law.
The Left destroys everything it touches, including academia.
People need to remember what Soviet leader khrushchev told us in the late 1950’s when he said we will have your children in a few generations (I’m paraphrasing). He meant thru indoctrination through our education system. He was correct. We have come to a tipping point in our country where civil war may be the only resolution. People need to study the the Spanish civil war of the 1930’s. Communistas against facistas. A bloody conflict that still resonates today in modern Spain. As an anthropologist, I belive the world has way too many people on our little rock. So, a good purge of a few million people would be welcome. Less people, less pollution. So climate change enthusiasts should approve.
LMAO: Do we remember Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev taking off his shoe and hammering to interrupt at the United Nations 10/12/1960?? And the modern Spain (specifically Basque and Catalonia regions) which are still living under the dictator rules of behavior enacted by Franco?
“Lies told often enough become the truth” (Credited to Lenin, widely used by Joseph Goebbels)
Aren’t we seeing this rhetoric today from the Star Chamber that ran the US Government with little or no consideration of democracy as “The Domestic Policy Council [AKA the Power Behind the Throne (or autopen) Stanford Group(Rice,Tanden, aka the Cambridge 5 legacy, Progressive Collaboration Team, Deep State Tyrants) as propagators of the Stalin Messages, Open Society Foundation, ActBlue, Arabella Advisors, Singham, Walz, Frey, . . .)
It is really very simple. Since the democrats have taken over the state of California by ranked choice voting, their positions are the only ones that can be presented. Actual state sponsored censorship in the education field as well as any city or county.
It is also interesting that the party of DEI only wants DEI as long as it fits within their social group and ideological group. Again censorship from the people that demand free speech.
Preferential voting, or ranked choice voting, or instant runoff voting, or whatever you want to call it, has nothing to do with it. It’s absolutely the fairest system by far, and if it results in a Democrat winning a race that’s only because a clear majority of the voters genuinely prefer the Democrat over any other viable candidate. No other system can say that.
So the blame for the disaster that is California rests on the voting public, not on the method by which their votes are counted.
There seems to be a vital and dire need for “Debate Clubs” (or maybe even mandatory debate classes) maybe starting in elementary school or middle school for all children – before they attend college.
Maybe in the internet age written-debate (school newspapers, etc) is even more important than oral-debate?
In written debate, it incentivizes debating the issue instead of attacking the speaker. America has a genuine crisis of young people who can’t think rationally and critically.
There is cancel-culture on both the left and the MAGA side, attempting to cancel any culture or viewpoint that they disagree with – without ever debating the actual issue. Dividing Americans against one another seems like a really bad thing.
Re: @Anonymous, 2/24/12 9:56 AM. Learning basic civil discourse.
Couldn’t agree more – look at THESE comments – largely fake news propagated through DNC Social Media dark-money funding.
There is an educational indoctrination process which started with the DOE (aka Department of Indoctrination, 1980) which has seen the failure of education – starting with the control of funding in the Public Education process which basically went to friends and family for policy, process, and syllabus creation of liberal “educators”, their leadership (86% of union fees go to political funding) and destroyed the results of measured testing of students in reading, writing, arithmetic, and science – favoring Sit Down and SHUTUP to any student who was not DEI qualified. Note: Only 42% or less of of US College freshmen are male.
Your suggestion of teaching how to think, not what to think – using a long-employed debate process (or even Roberts Rules of Order) would provide extensive value to rejuvenating innovation versus a system that does no more than “the nail that stands out gets hammered down”.
Re civil discourse. The rules of engagement for “Clubs” in renaissance which promoted innovation, actionable logic, and perhaps even part of the core of the evolution of the US Constitution, functioned under “address the issue, NOT attack the person” AKA ad hominem attack.
HEAR, HEAR!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Club_(dining_club)
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/18/fewer-young-men-are-in-college-especially-at-4-year-schools/
“that she believes Weiss has used the guise of free speech to attack people on the left whose opinions she does not agree with – …” -Margaret Peters
Ms. Peters didn’t feel that way about CBS during the Obama Administration, nor thru the 4 years of Donald Trump’s 1st. administration, when the (CBS-Left) Media was ripping him apart, or the Biden Admin where CBS took a pass on Joe and continued to rip apart the Trump Family Case-by-Case.
California has gone over the Edge, It’s a Blue State and they intend to keep it that way.
Be careful out there Jonathan, We don’t want you coming back from your L.A. & Simi Lecture a changed Man.
You know, Meta Sunglasses, Birkenstock Sandals and Hollywood GQ and all.
(Luna won’t want to go on walks with you anymore)
https://www.oakley.com/en-us/product/W0OW8001
https://www.birkenstock.com/us/men/sandals/
I didn’t get a chance to post this information yesterday concerning tariffs.
In April 2024, Mexico implemented temporary import tariffs ranging from 5% to 50% on 5448 tariff lines, including steel, aluminum, textiles, and wood, effective April 23, 2024, through April 2026. These measures, largely targeting non-FTA imports to protect domestic industries, also restricted the “Rule 8” exemption for sensitive. This was during the Biden administration.
More nations to come.
poorly thought thru.
Turley never lets a few inconvenient facts prevent him from throwing red meat to the MAGA mob.
He very conveniently omits this statement by Steve Lurie, UCLA’s associate vice chancellor and chief safety officer:
“The decision not to move forward with the annual Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture was made by the speaker’s team, not UCLA. The university was ready to implement a comprehensive security plan for this event, developed in coordination with campus safety and external law enforcement partners. UCLA remains committed to supporting public programming, which represents a wide range of viewpoints, with safety planning tailored to each event.”
UCLA at no time even SUGGESTED cancelling the event.
In fact the exact opposite is true.
They explicitly said that they were committed to hold the event and would take all appropriate actions with their own security as well as bringing in local law enforcements, likely at substantial additional cost.
Bari Weiss herself CANCELLED her own appearance.
The event was likely to attract significant protest, but as a “free speech advocate”, Turley should have fully supported the free speech rights of the students and faculty to protest.
Instead of condemning UCLA for something that they did not even do, he should have been voicing full throated support for the free speech rights of the students to protest.
Turley has absolutely no credibility whatsoever. He is grossly hypocritical in pandering to the extremist MAGA mob.
Any pretense that he is a “free speech ” advocate is revealed for the sadly pathetic and hypocritical joke that it really is.
Anonymous, exactly!
were you the Anonymous that you then complimented?
idk if a response from ‘anon’ with inside details of the plans is credible, or just more battlefield prep
cancel
I presume this idiotic comment is supposed to imply that the statement from Steve Lurie is somehow suspect, or that I made it up.
Here is the link to the statement that proves UCLA was 100% committed to holding the event:
https://newsroom.ucla.edu/ucla-statement-on-lecture
Actions speak louder than words.
Wondering whether the “protection” offered was equivalent to that of Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania or Kirk in Orem, Utah? Or just removing all protective services as we’ve seen in the latest DNC founded/supported government shutdown. History repeats.
Given Lurie’s past ACTIONS and history of “performance” in the LAPD, was he offering to set up the deer stands for the “Antifa” to act – e.g., “It’s Not Going to End Well for Them” — Susan Rice
UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk detailed Lurie’s nearly three decades in law enforcement, stating that his appointment aimed to ensure the respect for “the safety, rights and well-being of all Bruins.” And we all know how successful he was in pretending to be “the good of the people” while advocating and supporting anti-“hate them” crowds – especially those who hate anyone who is not a registered cult member of the progressive/woke crowd.
HistoryRepeats
You are a pathetic loser.
You are a prime example of the type of non-thinking MAGA moron drone that the hypocritical Turley constantly seeks to agitate here, solely for the purpose of boosting the sale of his stupid little books.
You are a sucker for falling for Turley’s blatant exploitation of your sad inability to form an independent rational thought.
HistoryRepeats,
There it is! Just dont provide the necessary security to get Weiss to cancel and make it look like she was being the unreasonable one. Especially in this day and age where there are those who willingly would commit acts of violence, even assassination to silence others. And then others cheer them on.
UpstateFarmer
UCLA explicitly stated that they were 100% committed to holding the event and providing the appropriate security.
Despite this assertion by UCLA, you take off on one of your typical flights of fancy in that magical MAGA wonderland of fantasy and try to imply that UCLA deliberately decided to provide insufficient security so that Weiss would be forced to cancel herself.
Let me offer an alternative scenario.
Weiss was scheduled to deliver a lecture that likely would have attracted only a few local news reports and no significant national reports. The publicity hungry MAGA friendly Bari Weiss saw an opportunity here to create a storm of controversy and publicity for herself and MAGA and Trump. All she had to do was claim that security was insufficient, and then cancel the event herself. That way she creates a controversy that garners much more attention, and nationwide publicity, far more publicity than if she gave what would probably have been a boring run of the mill speech with little publicity.
Better to cancel the speech and try to whip up a frenzy of fake outrage.
Turley and the rest of the MAGA mob are more than willing to oblige in this blatant exercise of fake outrage.
Upstate, this is another story that starts in the middle. The real question is why outside security was necessary in the first place. A public university has a duty to secure the rights and safety of everyone it invites onto its campus. That is not optional. That is its first responsibility.
The moment a speaker has to bring their own security because the university cannot or will not guarantee it, the institution is admitting it no longer controls its own environment. Rights become conditional, depending on who objects loud enough. That is institutional surrender to the mob.
OLLY,
“The real question is why outside security was necessary in the first place.”
The idea of a university unable to ensure safety and security on their own grounds is a disturbing thought. Reminds me of the videos of when Riley Gaines got assaulted and had to hide in a room for three hours. Weiss’s security team must of saw something along those lines, perhaps worse.
More hypotheticals. This commenter doesn’t know how to formulate a coherent response to a comment that makes no point.
Exactly Upstate, I run a nonprofit that conducts Vulnerability Assessments for churches and schools. Our teams include retired and current law enforcement, military personnel, including special operators, and professional security contractors.
These assessments are not theoretical. They evaluate real-world risks, access control, perimeter security, response capability, and threat environment. When a professional security team determines an environment is not secure enough for an event, that conclusion is based on objective risk analysis, not opinion.
Which brings us back to the central point. If that level of concern exists on a university campus, the issue is not the speaker’s decision. The issue is the environment itself.
Upstate, this reminds me of the question Lt. Kaffee asked Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men: if the private was never in danger, then why did he have to be transferred off the base?
Same principle here. If UCLA’s security was fully sufficient, then why was private security needed at all? And more importantly, why did Weiss’s professional security team determine the environment was not secure enough for the event to proceed? This is a public university. It should be fully capable of securing its own campus and ensuring a lawful event can proceed safely. That is its responsibility.
The moment private security becomes necessary just to hold a scheduled lecture, it means the institution cannot fully guarantee control of its own environment. And when even that is not enough, it tells you the failure occurred long before the cancellation.
Goy any facts?
OLLY
This statement wins the prize for the most ridiculous statement of the day.
You state: “A public university has a duty to secure the rights and safety of everyone it invites onto its campus”
That is EXACTLY what UCLA did. They explicitly stated that they were 100% committed to the event and were willing to provide whatever security was necessary.
The fact that Bari Weiss felt the need to bring her own security in no way whatsoever implies that the security provided by UCLA was insufficient. That is a supposition on your part, based on a completely unfounded leap of faith in the belief that the UCLA security was insufficient. That is simply a wild supposition on your part for which there is absolutely no evidence.
UCLA absolutely did not “surrender to the mob” as you falsely claim in a deliberate distortion of the facts.
They made it perfectly clear that they were absolutely committed to the event and providing the necessary security.
UCLA absolutely did not “admit it no longer controls its own environment” as you falsely claim in a deliberate distortion of the facts.
BARI WEISS WAS THE ONE WHO CANCELLED THE EVENT.
What part of that do you not understand.
Your comment is nothing more that wild supposition fueled by deliberate distortions of well established facts.
To Olly:
“ That is EXACTLY what UCLA did. They explicitly stated that they were 100% committed to the event and were willing to provide whatever security was necessary.” __Most likely from Xlax
“To invite somebody who is working against that mission in highly powerful places just seems like anathema in the university mission.” __ Margaret Peters (She is a highly influential figure at UCLA. Her leadership at the Burkle Center and roles in political science and global studies give her highly significant power over academic programming and policy discussions. She also threatened to resign if Weiss spoke.
Meyer
You appear to have mastered the art of regurgitation, the art of making a a completely pointless comment that is totally devoid of any evidence of input from your own ability to think and give voice to a rational thought.
Clearly you are totally unable to think for yourself and formulate an original thought. Basically a non-thinking follower.
The above post by you is nothing more than the regurgitation of comments made by others, completely unencumbered by anything even remotely resembling the thought process, of which you are unfortunately completely unfamiliar.
oh gawd, someone mentions regurgitation and now the clowns have to keep repeating that big word over and over and over. grow up anonymous, or at least, grow a brain.
Who else quoted Margaret Peters from the Burkle Center, the host of the speech? No one. Are you brain-dead?
“A public university has a duty to secure the rights and safety of everyone it invites onto its campus. That is not optional. That is its first responsibility.”
You’ve completely lost me. You seem to be saying “every school must be policed.” But generally when I’ve attended classes or events at public schools or universities as a student or visitor, I don’t give any more thought to security than when walking down the street. If someone’s going to assault anyone, it would be nice to have a police officer right there to take charge immediately, but that certainly isn’t my expectation, ever.
I have seen local police at events like a candidate debate, presumably because authorities had some advance notice or suspicion of potential disruption and made a management decision to deploy officers (with no guarantee that those would be necessary or sufficient).
Creekan, no. I am not saying every school must be “policed.” In fact, the opposite. In a healthy environment, security is invisible because order is normal and expected.
The issue only arises when a specific event requires extraordinary security measures, vulnerability assessments, and private security teams just to determine whether it is safe to proceed. That is not normal campus life. That is a signal that the institution no longer has full confidence in its ability to maintain ordinary order for a lawful event it scheduled itself.
Most campus events do not require private security because the baseline expectation is that the university controls its own environment. When that expectation disappears, and professional security teams determine the risk is too high even with institutional support, it tells you something fundamental has changed.
The point is not that campuses should feel like police zones. The point is that they should never feel like places where lawful events cannot proceed safely without extraordinary measures.
You’re framing this using words like “duty” and “security”, but total security can never be achieved. Events don’t make requirements, those are judgment calls by individuals. One does one’s best to control one’s own environment, but a meteor or an earthquake might strike at any moment. I really don’t understand why UCLA has any particular obligation to provide security over and above the ambient level in the city of LA.
Amen. All Turley does is shill books about “The Age of Rage” which he continues to fuel by being a partisan hack. It’s the ultimate form of disdain that he shows to his readers by NOT telling them the whole truth. He doesn’t want his readers to have the whole truth. He wants them enraged – so he can sell them more books. Brilliant marketing strategy, honestly. He’s a better huckster than lawyer.
Then why do you come back for more?
Here’s another commenter without any concept of what is an opinion piece. And no sources or citations.
There is no “quick fix” for this. Were the Administration to attempt to curb this behavior by cutting off funds, any resulting compliance would be nothing more than cynical window dressing, while they wait for a more accommodating administration. Leftists never act in good faith. It will take a generation to cure this, slowly, painfully, and with unrelenting attention, pressure, and coercive management. The institution was not captured in a day. The grip of the Leftist occupiers must be pried away, one finger at a time. And it must be continued, long after it appears tamed
Here is the Left’s rationalization:
Peters is exercising her free speech rights. With this left unstated —
To usurp Weiss’ free speech rights.
Typical Leftist: Rights for me, but not for thee. Why? Because Leftist causes are “noble;” conservative ones are ignoble.
OT but related, Judge bans college from punishing professor for criticizing DEI, ‘cultural Marxism’
“California’s Bakersfield College can require Daymon Johnson to complete DEI training required for faculty screening committees, however, Biden-nominee judge says.”
https://justthenews.com/nation/free-speech/judge-bans-college-punishing-professor-criticizing-dei-cultural-marxism?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
The correct behavior for both UCLA and Bari Weiss is to reschedule the speech. We need to demand courage from our leading institutions…courage to manage conflict constructively, and draw the line at use of militant tactics. A petition drive to silence a guest journalism speaker is just such a tactic. A UCLA student doesn’t not have to attend the speech, but they have no right to ask the U to cancel it, whether 1 student of 11,000.
pbinca
The correct behavior would be for WEISS, who cancelled her own appearance, to reschedule the event not UCLA AND Weiss.
At no time did UCLA even suggest cancellation as the statement by Steve Lurie, UCLA’s associate vice chancellor and chief safety officer proves:
“The decision not to move forward with the annual Daniel Pearl Memorial Lecture was made by the speaker’s team, not UCLA. The university was ready to implement a comprehensive security plan for this event, developed in coordination with campus safety and external law enforcement partners. UCLA remains committed to supporting public programming, which represents a wide range of viewpoints, with safety planning tailored to each event.”
UCLA was 100% committed to holding the event, but Weiss was the one who cancelled.
Your absurd comment that students had no right to ask UCLA to cancel the event reveals for the world to see that you do not believe in free speech, or the right protest, or the right to petition.
You are a pathetic, hypocritical MAGA moron.
Just out of curiosity – why would a school of journalism invite someone to speak on the topic of journalism who is not a journalist? Bari Weiss is many things, but she is not a journalist. It would be like me inviting Jonathan Turley to come speak on the topic of objective analysis.
Who would you consider to be a bona fide journalist?
When I tune into CNN, Fox News, M SNOW or any of the others, all I see are confirmation bias vendors.
“. . . she is not a journalist.”
Except of course for her *19 years* as a professional journalist.
P.S. Try making an *argument* about the topic — not a silly smear of a person’s CV.
Fun fact – writing editorials and opinions does not make you a journalist. Ask some journalists if THEY think she’s a journalist – you’ll get your answer.
Why ask them. Did you think to ask Weiss?
Just another way to say, we don’t want her here. If she has direct control over journalistic standards in a newsroom, then her viewpoint is valid, like it or not. The leader of my company , a science company, is not a scientist. But we are levels of success never seen here. But hey, don’t listen to their perspective, he’s not a scientist. Close minded liberal nonsense!
“Just another way to say, we don’t want her here.”
Precisely.
That is the academic Left’s end (in this case and in every case of “academic mobbing”). Everything after that end (“oh, no — the security!”) is merely a means to satisfy that vicious desire.
Then when the hapless victim is hounded off campus, the Left pulls its ultimate projection: “He’s a coward.”
Hounded off? Weiss was the one who chose to cancel. UCLA never threatened to cancel the event or “succumbed” to the “mob” calling for the cancellation do the event.
UCLA was bending backwards to accommodate Weiss, but her security team apparently nixed the event due to “security concerns” despite the fact UCLA made ever effort to accommodate her requests.
Weiss should have went ahead with the event and proved both UCLA and the public she will not be silenced. I guess she wasn’t courageous enough, but Turley went to bat for her by insinuating UCLA “caved” to leftists demands. Which is not true.
“UCLA was bending backwards to accommodate Weiss, “
“Weiss should have went ahead with the event”
I don’t know why anyone would give an ounce of dignity to this guy X, etc. He is a stupid subhuman and deserves no politeness whatsoever.
His attitude is that Weiss should have proven her point by dying. We have already seen that story before. UCLA not only needs security but requires action from the administration to remove students who have made such tight security necessary.
S. Meyer, who said anything about dying? You’re the one jumping to conclusions without a shred of evidence.
“ UCLA not only needs security but requires action from the administration to remove students who have made such tight security necessary.”
Obviously you’re not paying attention. UCLA was offering a comprehensive security detail tailored for Weiss. They even offered the option to reschedule at another time.
The security team Weiss hired made the determination. It’s on them. Not UCLA, or the petitioners. She could have still held the event, apparently she was not courageous or brave enough to defy the petitioners objections. That is on her. Not the school or anyone else.
Weiss would have proven her point by going ahead with the event and completing it. Proving those who disagreed with UCLA allowing the event that UCLA does support free speech. But her cancelling the event gave Turley an excuse to imply the school “bowed to the mob” which is not true. Weiss bowed to her own cowardice or lack integrity to herself.
“S. Meyer, who said anything about dying? “
You. The administration did not stand up for the Weiss speech. That jeapordized her life that you are so willing to risk like the animal you are.
“Obviously you’re not paying attention. UCLA was offering a comprehensive security detail tailored for Weiss. They even offered the option to reschedule at another time.”
Has the administration of the University stepped in to reduce the threat? No. You are an animal and should be treated as one by the members on this blog.
S. Meyer, I didn’t say anything about dying.
“ The administration did not stand up for the Weiss speech. That jeapordized her life that you are so willing to risk like the animal you are.”
What the heck are you talking about? What “administration”? Who jeopardized her life? You’re not making any sense.
“ Has the administration of the University stepped in to reduce the threat?”
What threat? Who threatened what? Nobody has been threatening anything. Where are you getting this idea a threat is imminent or who is issuing it? Elaborate man.
UCLA went out of their way to try to accommodate Weiss. It’s clear from all the reporting on the issue.
The only “threat” is a petition signed by 11,000 people objecting to her event. How is that a threat?
The administration’s responsibility is to ensure safety on the campus for all, which it has not done, making things unsafe for those who wish to speak today on topics that might disagree with the left. You believe safety should only be provided for those who agree with you. We have had enough deaths and attempted assassinations to fulfill your bloodlust. Now we have to act and show you what you are by distancing ourselves from you and treat you for what you are, a stupid animal whose ideas are willing to support the deaths of others
Meyer
There is absolutely no evidence that UCLA failed to provide sufficient security. That is a conclusion based entirely on Weiss’ statement that in her opinion it was insufficient.
Why is there any reason to believe her rather than UCLA ?
Why do you choose to only believe an opinion by Weiss ?
Because you choose to believe only those with whom you agree.
And yet you falsely accuse X of believing that “safety should only be provided for those who agree with you”.
So, on the one hand it is perfectly fine for you to believe ONLY those with whom you agree, while simultaneously, and falsely, accusing others of only having considerations for whom they believe.
Do you not understand the logical inconsistency of this position.
I also note your continued use of the “animal” insult which you have recently learned from Turley’s latest little screed of a book, once more proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are a non-thinking follower who simply spouts the latest propaganda that has filled your otherwise empty mind.
‘There is absolutely no evidence that UCLA failed to provide sufficient security.”
I will start with Milo Yiannopoulos. What security did UCLA provide for similar speakers since then? One of the ways to provide such security is to sanction and dismiss students who provoke violence. That was not done. What more should we expect from a predatory, Nazi-minded animal devoid of conscience?
What exactly is your point in bringing up a previous episode that is completely irrelevant to the current situation.
Again, a rhetorical question. When cornered you always resort to deflection.
The episode with Yiannopoulos at UCLA in 2018 is of absolutely no relevance.
He had been invited by a student organization, the Bruin Republicans. The event was NOT cancelled because of security problems.
The Bruin Republicans cancelled the event “over dissension within its ranks.”. The students cancelled because of internal squabbling within their own organization over whether to hold the event.
“The decision to host Milo has polarized the leadership of the organization between those wishing to move forward with the event and those who wish to cancel it,” said the Bruin Republicans in a Wednesday post on Facebook.
They had a vote and the majority of the students themselves decided to cancel the event.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/feb/15/milo-yiannopoulos-10-things-i-hate-about-mexico-sp/
So your worthless attempt at deflection proves to a total failure.
” The event was NOT cancelled because of security problems.”
Look at the video yourself. Milo was escorted out by the police, and one could see the fire behind him.
george
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the University of California, Los Angeles, cannot allow pro-Palestinian protesters to block Jewish students from accessing classes and other parts of campus.
Dustoff, what does that have to do with the price of beans in China?
S. Meyer,
That is the cover being given to UCLA. They supposedly were going to provide security, but then Weiss’s security team deemed it insufficient. As we have seen in the past, these universities do not provide security necessary to protect even their own students from leftist violence. Rarely do they even lift a finger to investigate and rarely expel a student for violence. Even their own faculty.
Likely UCLA providing “security” was a joke and the Weiss team saw it as such.
Upstatefarmer,
Cover? Supposedly? You’re grasping as straws man.
Speculating on the basis of past events and assuming they are not going to do what they claim they will is not an argument based on facts.
You’re letting your animosity towards anything “leftist” to even consider that Weiss security team was being a tad unreasonable with their demands. The school is not obligated to meet every single demand no matter how ridiculous it may be. There are limits and clearly Weiss would not be satisfied if some demands were not met. That’s on Weiss, not the school.
Weiss can afford to provide more robust security to add to the school’s if she thought it was inadequate. The extra expense would have been hers to provide. I guess she didn’t want to spend more for her own security beyond what the school could provide.
We can always rely on Meyer to show up here with his vile insults and no actual point.
What a sadly pathetic life he must lead, when his only source of self-validation is to fling insults.
His other specialty is to twist the facts in an ad absurdum attempt to denigrate a commenter for things that were not actually said. He tries to imply that comments mean something other than what is explicitly stated, and then launches into a tirade of abusive insults.
And here, with his comment that the administration should “remove students who have made such tight security necessary”, reveals for all the world to see that he opposes the right to free speech, the right to protest, and the right to petition.
Seeking to “remove” students because of security concerns is precisely the logic that the Nazis used to “remove” Jews.
“Remove” those whom you feel to be at odds with your own views.
No problem whatsoever with that logic.
“We can always rely on Meyer to show up here with his vile insults and no actual point.”
That is the truth, and it is objectionable and rude for anyone to treat you politely. Your attitude towards another’s safety is abominable and stupid.
“And here, with his comment that the administration should “remove students who have made such tight security necessary”
Yes, students who threaten the safety of others should be removed. All that is needed is for the leaders who have pushed for violence, be sanctioned and removed if they don’t change their ways. You are an idiot and do not see that violence against people who don’t agree with you should not be permitted. Your animalistic behavior is clear and should not be acceptable to anyone else. You should not be treated as an honest and decent member of this blog.
“Seeking to “remove” students because of security concerns is precisely the logic that the Nazis used to “remove” Jews.”
More stupidity from a stupid person who demeans the deaths of so many, including non Jews whose numbers alone should indict anyone who supported Hitler. But your comment supports Hitler indirectly, by providing excuses for such abominable behavior. You are an animal that should never be given any sort of decency.
S. Meyer,
What students have threatened the security of the event S. Meyer? Who are these students you are referring to?
You’re making absolutely zero sense. What is it that is making you think there is a threat being issued for this event?
You are a Nazi sympathizer: “I don’t see anyone killing Jews, Catholics, and others.” “There was no danger to Weiss’s life speaking at UCLA.”
Does anyone wish to support Xlax?
S. Meyer,
“Does anyone wish to support Xlax?”
Of course not.
We have seen leftist violence on campuses before. Riley Gaines assaulted and had to hide in a room for three hours. Charlie Kirk getting assassinated, and all those people cheering it on. Jewish students getting assaulted on campus, denied access to even walk across campus. Conservatives who set up a table or display get assaulted, their property destroyed and campus security does little or nothing at all. Same with the university admin. Those who commit the violence get away free.
Could Weiss get assaulted or even assassinated? Yes. Clearly the university security was deemed inadequate by Weiss’s security team.
Funny. Seems the security question always comes up when a conservative, or in this case Weiss, is involved.
S. Meyer, again. You’re not making any sense.
Who are you attributing those quotes to? Me? How is that related to specific threats to Weiss at the event? Nobody has threatened Weiss for speaking at the UCLA. Is that all the evidence you’ve got?
My god Meyer, you are such a loathsome low level thinker, if the word thinking can even be applied to whatever process goes on between your ears.
When I drew the analogy between your demand that students should be “removed because of security concerns” and the Nazis “removal” of Jews, you came to the astoundingly stupid and absurd conclusion that I am some kind of Nazi sympathizer who demeans the death of so many, and that I supported Hitler.
What the hell is wrong with you ?
How can anyone in their right mind capable of any kind of rational thought process conclude that my analogy in any way agrees with what the Nazis did?
It is perfectly clear to any normal rational thinker that I am saying that it is deplorable to think that students should be removed when they become inconvenient. My point is that the LOGIC of such an attitude is the same LOGIC that Nazis and other repressive organizations and regimes have used to justify their deplorable actions in “removing” people or groups of people that they find inconvenient.
You are the one that appears to agree with the LOGIC that it is perfectly fine to “remove” students who become inconvenient.
The LOGIC of that thought process is exactly that of the Nazis when they decided to “remove” the inconvenient Jews.
Your pathetic attempt to demean me with your casual slurs is equally deplorable.
You are simply a reactionary, non-thinking, miserable excuse for a human being.
You brought the Nazi reference into this discussion. Yes, schools should remove students who promote violence. That is something you don’t understand, but you do understand the violence of the left. That is what you promote with your vile ideas based on a person who acts animalistically.
SM, the key point is this: a petition should have no bearing on whether the event proceeds. None. Protest is allowed. Objection is allowed. But the event still goes on. That is the standard in a free society.
The moment the speaker and host have to conduct vulnerability assessments and rely on private security to determine whether it is safe to proceed, something has already broken down. This is a university campus, not hostile territory.
The duty of the university is not merely to “offer accommodations.” Its duty is to guarantee a secure environment so lawful speech can occur regardless of opposition.
If that guarantee cannot be made with confidence, then the institution is no longer in control. And that is the real issue here.
OLLY,
“The moment the speaker and host have to conduct vulnerability assessments and rely on private security to determine whether it is safe to proceed, something has already broken down. This is a university campus, not hostile territory.”
Based on the videos of the assault on Riley Gaines, pro-Hamas/anti-Israel protests/riots, students and faculty assaulting conservatives, I would say it looks a lot more like hostile territory. And it seems the universities admins have no intention of taking back control of the campus.
And it seems the universities admins have no intention of taking back control of the campus.
Perhaps I’m being cynical, but they’ve probably done a professional threat assessment and determined the security of their position would be at risk if they decided to operate on first principles.
Operate on first principles? What?
The university operates on the principle of providing an eduction and a safe environment in which to conduct it. They are not in the business of ensuring student constitutional rights. That’s the job of government.
Olly,
“ The moment the speaker and host have to conduct vulnerability assessments and rely on private security to determine whether it is safe to proceed, something has already broken down.”
How so?
A speaker isn’t allowed to bring their own security? Is there a rule prohibiting it?
The school went to reasonable lengths to accommodate Weiss concerns about security. There is a point where it becomes unreasonable and that is likely the point of contention with the school and Weiss security team.
The institution is not obligated to provide something akin to a presidential level security. Especially for Weiss. If she feels the need for more than what the university can reasonably provide she can pay for it herself or compensate the school for the extra security she demands. I assume Weiss refused something close to the latter. That’s on her not the school.
Security guarantees are not absolute. It seems Weiss wanted something along those lines.
What never changed was the university was still open to having the event. At no point did they refuse or deny her the opportunity. Weiss is the one who chose to cancel.
Xlax will risk anyone’s life except his own. All we have to look at are the murder of Kirk, the 2-3 attempts on Trump’s life, and UCLA’s refusal to ensure a safe campus for those who do not agree with the left’s rhetoric. In more peaceful times, we saw how UCLA received Milo Yiannopoulos: violence and arson.
S. Meyer,
That is what you’re referring to? A generalization of random events as the threats Weiss faces?
Wow. Then you accuse me of something that is completely untrue. Are you blaming me for the violence of the left?
“ In more peaceful times, we saw how UCLA received Milo Yiannopoulos: violence and arson.”
You do know Milo Yiannopoulos is an admitted pedophile? Right? He was dropped like a hot potato by the right when the openly suggested it’s ok to have sex with kids.
UCLA hasn’t refused to ensure a safe campus for those who don’t agree with the left’s rhetoric. In case you haven’t been paying attention. It was Weiss who canceled the event while UCLA continued to try to accommodate her. They didn’t refuse anything.
“Wow. Then you accuse me of something that is completely untrue. Are you blaming me for the violence of the left?”
The Nazi regime required many brainless people to join the movement. Had you been there, you probably would have been one of the first to march. When they killed someone in front of your face, you would deny it ever occurred.
“You do know Milo Yiannopoulos is an admitted pedophile? Right? “
That is a lie. In the recording you are likely talking about, Milo said pedophilia was wrong. Milo was always on the edge, and sometimes his use of humor went too far.
Did you listen to Margaret Peters from the center hosting the speech? She said she would resign if Weiss were permitted to do it virtually.
X
I think the reality here is as follows:
Weiss was scheduled to deliver a lecture that likely would have attracted only a few local news reports, and no significant national reports. The publicity hungry, MAGA friendly, Bari Weiss saw an opportunity here to create a storm of controversy and publicity for herself, and MAGA, and Trump. All she had to do was claim that security was insufficient, and then cancel the event herself. That way she creates a controversy that garners much more attention, and nationwide publicity, far more publicity than if she gave what would probably have been a boring speech with little publicity.
Better to cancel the speech and try to whip up a frenzy of fake outrage.
Turley and the rest of the MAGA mob are more than willing to oblige in this blatant exercise of fake outrage.
A perfect example of the “rage” that Turley is eager to condemn when it suits him, and to embrace when when it fits the ideology that he tries to sell in his stupid little books.
The very definition of hypocrisy.
Anonymous, your opinion does provide a rational explanation. Turley, despite detesting rage rhetoric, relies on rage baiting to keep book sales going. He learned that manufacturing rage is easy and profitable.
” He learned that manufacturing rage is easy and profitable.”
It is amazing, you continue to surpass your stupidity. If you don’t like the book, quote what the book says and discuss it. I read most of the book and am waiting to finish the rest. In the book, Turley talks about the animalistic behavior of the Jacobins. Yes, that is disturbing but true and a warning for all those sensible people not to let that happen here. You are not one of those sensible people. You are part of the crowd that is willing to take a knife, cut out the heart of another, and pass it on. You are an animal and should be given no quarter. You should be treated like one by all the members on this blog. Treating you politely is impolite to the rest.
SM, so you are reading Turley’s stupid little propagandist MAGA screeds.
You quote Turley by saying “Turley talks about the animalistic behavior of the Jacobins.”
I find it fascinating that this is the precise insult that you chose to use no less than 3 times when you attacked X by referring to him as subhuman and an animal.
By the use of these insults, you simply prove that you are totally incapable of formulating any kind of independent thought. You simply parrot the ideas you get from your fellow MAGA morons.
All you know is what you learn from Turley and the MAGA mob. Your mind is a void that is filled with the nonsensical gibberish that you absorb from reading Turley’s propaganda and following the lead of online conspiracy theorists.
You are a pathetic follower who is totally incapable of anything even remotely resembling a coherent, independent thought.
All you know is how to hurl childish, preschool level insults, that are entirely consistent with the level of intellectual development that you display here on a daily basis.
“You quote Turley by saying”
You A$$. I didn’t quote Turley. Go pinch a bottle of booze from someone who cannot defend themselves.
Your verbatim comment above was “In the book, Turley talks about the animalistic behavior of the Jacobins.”
If you somehow believe that this statement is not quoting Turley, then that simply proves absolutely, unequivocally, and beyond any shadow of doubt, that you are completely and utterly insane, and living in a fantasy world of delusion and profound mental illness.
Consequently, we are perfectly entitled to consider all the comments you make here in the light that you are confined in an institution for your own protection, where the attendants let you use a computer to keep you occupied so they do not have to deal with your psychotic breaks from reality with accompanied violent outbursts and tantrums that would require electroconvulsive therapy to terminate.
“If you somehow believe that this statement is not quoting Turley,”
It isn’t. I am telling you in my words what Turley said. Since you state I am quoting, provide the sentence in the paragraph from Turley’s book, plus the page number and Chapter. Now you can runaway like you always do.
S. Meyer,
“ I am telling you in my words what Turley said. Since you state I am quoting, provide the sentence in the paragraph from Turley’s book, plus the page number and Chapter. Now you can runaway like you always do.”
You just admitted to quoting Turley while denying you quoted Turley.
Meyer
Your comment at 1:30pm is absolute unequivocal proof of your insanity.
If you tell me what Turley said, then you are quoting Turley.
To think otherwise is to simply confirm that there is something terribly wrong with your ability to think in any way that can be considered normal.
Now run away before the attendants come to get you for your daily electroconvulsive treatment.
“You just admitted to quoting Turley”
No, I didn’t. I paraphrased Turley. Do you know the difference between paraphrasing and quoting? It seems you lack the ability to understand the difference.
S. Meyer,
Rather interesting is it not? All these claims about MAGA rage, the good professor is making bundles of money off of. If you skip all the anonymous comments, like 90% of the rest are reasonable, logical, interesting, or common sense. They complain how PT is shilling for MAGA when he points out the stupid and crazy things the Democrats say or do. And as you point out, in PT book he points out the “animalistic behavior of the Jacobins.” Absolutely it should be a warning to us for it not to happen here. Yet we have crazy far-leftists who resemble the Jacobins with their lawlessness like open borders, defending criminals and demonizing the victims, enabling fraud, waste and abuse.
Rage?
No.
Concern?
Yes.
” Yet we have crazy far-leftists who resemble the Jacobins with their lawlessness “
Upstate, you are entirely correct. George Svelaz X doesn’t even know the difference between paraphrasing and quoting. He has limited intelligence. He should not be treated politely because he encourages violence by the left and has no concern for human life if that life disagrees with his philosophy.
I want to let you know that something happened to my account yesterday. It is no longer operative, and I had to change things. If necessary, I will change things even more. I don’t know if it is from WordPress or something else down the line. It suddenly cut off after my postings.
george
Survey Data: According to FIRE’s “College Free Speech Rankings,” UCLA students rank among the lowest in the nation for “Tolerance for Conservative Speakers”. Surveys have indicated that a significant portion of surveyed students believe certain conservative viewpoints should not be permitted on campus.
Incidents of Disruption: Protests and demonstrations at UCLA have occasionally led to the shutdown of conservative or controversial speakers.
Free Expression Debate: In recent years, debates surrounding campus speech have intensified, with some arguing that activists at UCLA are targeting conservative expression and seeking to punish speech that offends them.
Jewish Student Access: In 2024, a federal judge ruled that UCLA could not allow protesters to block Jewish students from accessing parts of the campus, highlighting a, conflict over free speech versus, student access, following complaints that the university was not adequately managing campus safety.
So?
Are students required to tolerate conservative speakers?
If they don’t believe certain conservative viewpoints shouldn’t be allowed that is their prerogative, right? Just like you would like for others like me to be restricted from this blog or whine why I am allowed to post here?
“ Protests and demonstrations at UCLA have occasionally led to the shutdown of conservative or controversial speakers.”
So it occasionally happens, so what? Students are allowed to protest the inclusion of speakers they don’t believe should be allowed to voice their opinion. Nothing illegal or unconstitutional about that. Most of the time those speakers end up speaking their views anyway.
“ Jewish Student Access: In 2024, a federal judge ruled that UCLA could not allow protesters to block Jewish students from accessing parts of the campus, highlighting a, conflict over free speech versus, student access, following complaints that the university was not adequately managing campus safety.”
Again, what does that have to do with the price of beans in China?
Your posts indicate you have a need for a good lecture on objective analysis and Professor Turley would be an ideal instructor.
She is a journalist, has proven herself a journalist, and is accepted as a journalist. Is that enough to satisfy your stupidity?
She seems to be a journalist with poor conviction.
I will assume you are the same stupid person to whom I previously responded. If she is a journalist with poor conviction, that means she is a journalist confirming your stupidity above. But even this comment is stupid. Though I don’t agree with a lot of her ideology, I stand up and say she is brilliant and a tremendous journalist. She is the type of person who can honestly represent the left.
Protest is a right. Intimidation is not.
Some commenter here is trying to shift the story to who technically canceled the event. That misses the point entirely. The real question is why it needed to be canceled in the first place.
When a university cannot guarantee basic security for a scheduled lecture because of threatened disruption, that is not a victory for free speech. It is an admission that mob pressure can dictate which voices are heard.
The moment institutions retreat from lawful speech because disruption is threatened, they incentivize more disruption. The tactic works, so it spreads.
A free society draws a clear line: you may protest all you want, but you do not get to veto the rights of others through intimidation. The duty of the institution is to maintain order so liberty can exist. Without that, faction replaces freedom.
OLLY,
“. . . faction replaces freedom.”
Correct.
And leftists have no problem with using intimidation. How many times has the good professor pointed out to all the different times lefitsts use violence to intimidate others? They justify it by claiming they are fighting . . . something. And for the most part, colleges and universities administration and faculty allow it to happen. Would anyone really be surprised if someone attempted to assassinate Weiss?
It is a failure at many levels. Could be from parenting. Public education. And of course these so-called institutions of higher learning.
And MAGA commenters here have no problem with using intimidation and censorship.
Why aren’t you simping for hullbooy?
Where have I used intimidation on the good professor’s blog? Where have I called for censorship?
Upstate, you’re right, but we’re still missing the most important point. The duty of that school, the first duty of any institution, is to first secure the rights of the people. That’s not optional. That’s the whole reason its existence is even possible
.
The fact that Weiss needed her own security detail, and then had to cancel because the school could not or would not provide adequate security, is a total system failure. This isn’t just a free speech issue. This is a failure to secure rights, period.
If an institution cannot secure the rights of the people under its care, then its entire purpose collapses.
Margaret Peters is UCLA’s chief Brown Shirt barking orders to the student masses most of whom, dutifully obey. This is the tail wagging the dog Olly. Unbelievable this is happening across America’s colleges and universities but they have created Hitler Youth 2.0. Greg
Greg, I tend to look at these events as symptoms of something deeper. The real issue is not one administrator or one protest. It is institutions losing the will or ability to carry out their first duty, to secure the rights of the people under their care. When that foundation weakens, everything else becomes negotiable. And that is when freedom stops being assumed and starts depending on who applies the most pressure.
“When that foundation weakens, everything else becomes negotiable. “
Another important point.
Olly,
“ The fact that Weiss needed her own security detail, and then had to cancel because the school could not or would not provide adequate security, is a total system failure. This isn’t just a free speech issue. This is a failure to secure rights, period.”
It wasn’t a failure to provide security. The school was willing AND able to accommodate security for Weiss. It seems the security team for Weiss was either demanding over the top requirements or was not happy with the school’s idea of security. What did NOT change was the school was still open to holding the event. They were even willing to coordinate a reschedule of the event. How is that a failure?
Weiss made the decision to cancel. Not the school. The school is not obligated to go beyond what is considered adequate for security. If Weiss wanted more she could pay for it herself.
Her right to speak at the school was never denied. Weiss should have overridden her security team’s decision to cancel the event.
The primary duty of a school is not to act as a mini-government, but to educate. An institution’s “reason for existence” is defined by its mission statement and the service it provides. Does UCLA’s mission statement declare their duty is to protect their rights?
For a school to function, it must maintain an environment conducive to learning, which often requires the limitation of certain rights. Do you disagree?
The “first duty” is actually safety and order. Without a controlled environment, the right to an education cannot be exercised. This is why schools can legally limit speech (to prevent bullying), movement (to ensure attendance), and privacy (for safety searches). Rights are not absolute in a specialized environment.
Governments are created to secure rights; schools are sub-agencies created by the state or private entities to perform a specific task. While public schools must respect constitutional rights, those rights are often “circumscribed” by the school’s specific educational mission (as seen in U.S. Supreme Court cases like Hazelwood or Morse).
Suggesting Weiss should have overruled her security team is absurd. Security professionals are not decorative. Their entire job is to assess risk and determine whether conditions are secure enough for the event to proceed. When they say the environment is not secure, that is the professional judgment that matters.
You also contradict yourself. You say the school’s first duty is safety and order. Exactly. Safety and order so lawful events can occur. Not safety and order used as an excuse for why they cannot. This is a public university. It is part of the state. Its obligation is not just to “offer something.” Its obligation is to maintain an environment where lawful speech can occur safely and normally.
The fact that a scheduled speaker’s professional security team determined the environment was not secure enough to proceed tells you everything you need to know. Rights do not exist on paper. They exist where institutions have the will and ability to secure them.
OLLY,
“Suggesting Weiss should have overruled her security team is absurd.”
Absolutely correct.
Based on what we have seen of past violence being committed on college campuses, the threat of real violence to include an attempted assassination is not outside the realm of real possibility.
As someone pointed out, what security measures/assurances did the university and the Weiss security team differ? Based off of past inactions taken by colleges or universities, very little was done to ensure a safe campus environment.
Olly,
“ Suggesting Weiss should have overruled her security team is absurd. Security professionals are not decorative.”
Why? Weiss hired them and she can refuse their advice if she chooses to. Their job is to asses risks. It’s up to the employer to determine if that risk is worth taking in the end. Right?
“ You also contradict yourself. You say the school’s first duty is safety and order. Exactly. Safety and order so lawful events can occur. Not safety and order used as an excuse for why they cannot. This is a public university. It is part of the state. Its obligation is not just to “offer something.” Its obligation is to maintain an environment where lawful speech can occur safely and normally.”
It’s not a contradiction. Schools first duty is education. Safety and order is a close secondary. Its obligation has to be reasonable and within their means. They don’t get the ability to call up the National guard to provide extra robust security because they are part of the state. Right?
They are obligated to provide a safe and secure environment with reasonable means where lawful speech can occur. Reasonableness is the key word here. Not over-the-top expectations.
“Why? Weiss hired them and she can refuse their advice if she chooses to. Their job is to asses risks. It’s up to the employer to determine if that risk is worth taking in the end. Right?”
Weiss is a journalist, not a security expert. Her life is at stake, and we have already seen what can occur at universities when people, encouraging violence, are left to remain. You pretend her life is not at risk. You do not deal with what the university can do, but doesn’t. You are not serious about your ideas. You are looking for the death or injury of other people in order to censor any type of talk against the left. I call you Nazi-minded, but I could just as well call you Stalinesque.
Why should a Nazi-minded, Stalinesque person get any courtesy on a normal blog?
If you think that this god-forsaken, miserable excuse for a blog infested with lunatic MAGA morons is a “normal blog”, then that is simply self-identification by you and the obvious reason why you think it is “normal”.
Olly, the University was perfectly willing to accommodate Weiss’s security concerns. At no time did they say they were not able to. It was Weiss’s security team who made the decision, apparently determining those efforts were not enough. Nobody knows exactly what the security team was asking for.
The “mob” was people signing a petition. That is not intimidation in any form. It’s an objection which is also perfectly civil free speech action. Nobody was threatening violence or calling for it. The only “threat” reported was a resignation of a professor.
You will need to ask the Weiss security team why they chose to cancel. They did not cite a specific reason even after the university pointed out they made every effort to accommodate her concerns. They even offered to coordinate a reschedule of the event to accommodate any concerns.
“ A free society draws a clear line: you may protest all you want, but you do not get to veto the rights of others through intimidation.”
Where was the intimidation?
Do you believe a petition calling for the cancellation of the event intimidation?
Petitions ARE also exercises of free speech and people signing on to one IS a form of objection to another’s speech which is the most civil way to object. Objecting to another’s speech or point of view is not intimidation. You disagree?
Turley obviously neglected to point out to his readers that petitions are also exercises of free speech. Objecting to someone speaking is a valid exercise of free speech. It’s not an infringement of another’s right in any form. The denial occurs only when the speech or event is deliberately interrupted or forced to cancel midway because of heckling and denying the speaker any chance to defend their right. Weiss still had the freedom to go ahead with the speaking event and UCLA clearly stated they were willing to accommodate her. It was Weiss, her security team, who chose to cancel. Not the mob or the school. A ‘mob’ is allowed to protest (object) civilly through a petition. Which is exactly what they did. But Turley characterized it as a mob who denied Weiss the opportunity to speak which is NOT true.
This is exactly what I mean by the story starting in the middle. You are focused on who made the final cancellation decision, while ignoring why a professional security team determined the environment was not secure enough to proceed. Security teams do not cancel events casually. Their entire job is risk assessment.
Also, the issue is not whether petitions are free speech. Of course they are. The issue is whether the institution can guarantee a secure environment for lawful speech to occur regardless of opposition. That is its duty.
If a university must rely on the speaker’s private security to determine whether conditions are safe, then the institution has already failed in its primary responsibility. Rights cannot depend on private risk tolerance. They must be secured by the institution itself. When that responsibility shifts away from the institution, rights become conditional. And when rights become conditional, the institution has surrendered control of its own environment.
“If a university must rely on the speaker’s private security to determine whether conditions are safe, then the institution has already failed in its primary responsibility. Rights cannot depend on private risk tolerance. They must be secured by the institution itself. When that responsibility shifts away from the institution, rights become conditional. And when rights become conditional, the institution has surrendered control of its own environment.”
Olly, you are batting 100%
No he’s not. I guarantee you barely understood what he said.
Then tell us what you think he said, and don’t run away.
Meyer
Yet more regurgitation of the comments of others.
You should seriously consider the idea of formulating an original thought and giving voice to it here, rather simply regurgitating the thoughts of others.
I jest of course. We all know that you are a non-thinking follower completely incapable of rational, independent thought.
Your mind is a void of GIGO. The input is the garbage you get from Turley and the MAGA cult and the output is simply regurgitation of that garbage.
Regurgitation is all you know, and all you are capable of.
OLLY,
The inmates are running the asylum.
That has always been the case on this worthless blog, or should I say asylum for the inmates like you.
Self-awareness and acceptance are the first step to recovery and escaping from this asylum
Olly,
“ Security teams do not cancel events casually. Their entire job is risk assessment.”
They did with this one. Also hired security teams can be overzealous in their assessments.
What you are not noticing is the university never rescinded or suggested Weiss cancel her speech. Turley implied they did because a “mob” signed a petition. Come on.
Nothing shows the university was relying on the speakers private security team. They were perfectly willing to accommodate any security needs…within reason. I’m sure you are aware that sometimes these private security outfits go overboard in their assessments, right? Because none are perfect or consistent in their assessments. You can go from one private security team to another and they may have differing assessments. Depending on how much you’re paying them. No?
“ Rights cannot depend on private risk tolerance. They must be secured by the institution itself.”
Nope. Rights always have risks associated with them. Exercising free speech does not mean you are protected from the consequences of exercising it. Even private risk assessments don’t guarantee immunity from the consequences.
The institution can guarantee safety and security within reason. They are not obligated to act as enforcer of people’s rights because rights CAN be limited by the institution.
“What you are not noticing is the university never rescinded or suggested Weiss cancel her speech.”
The Burkle Center was the host of the event. Margaret Peters, who is the associate director of the Burkle Center, said she would resign from her position if Weiss were permitted to give the lecture virtually.
A dope is trying to pass judgement on what is a reasonable threat to another person’s life.
“Protest is a right. Intimidation is not.”
Excellent perspective.
This has been said before, they will eat their own and it’s happening.
What do you know people are getting sick and tired of all the lies anybody associated with trump spews. Here is some news to chew on…
Then, on January 7, 2026, RVK Jr told a CBS News reporter that children might be “better off” if they didn’t get an influenza vaccine. His war against the influenza vaccine for children has been successful—289 children died last year from influenza and another 60 have died in January 2026. Virtually all were unvaccinated.
Thank you MAHA/MAGA, more dead kids.
Similarly, RFK Jr. has waged a war on COVID vaccines. In 2021, when COVID vaccines were first available for children, RFK Jr. claimed that they were “the deadliest vaccines ever made.” In May 2025, three months after being sworn in as Secretary of HHS, RFK Jr. said that he was no longer recommending COVID vaccines for healthy children. RFK Jr.’s plan to discourage COVID vaccinations in children has also been successful. During this past year, roughly 7,000 children were hospitalized with COVID. About 20 percent of those hospitalized were admitted to the intensive care unit, half were previously healthy, virtually all were unvaccinated, and 152 died, most less than four years of age.
Thank you MAHA/MAGA – Way more dead kids. You must be so proud.
Former NYPD officer claims system released Laken Riley killer after child endangerment arrest
“The former New York law enforcement officer, who now works as a police officer in Palm Beach, Florida, made the comment during a White House event for families whose loved ones were victims of violent crimes by illegal migrants.”
https://justthenews.com/government/white-house/former-nypd-officer-claims-democrats-released-laken-riley-killer-after
Thank you Biden admin!! Way more dead Americans at the hands of Biden’s illegals. You must be so proud.
Vaccines are treatments that produce sterilizing immunity. The Covid jabs are vaxxxines with forward-looking collateral damage and mandates.
Those who oppose the free exchange of ideas realize that their ideas cannot be defended. They live in abject fear of the opposition.
I oppose it, no abject fear here.
Is that why trump is waging war on anybody that opposes him?
When a person in power or an organization is unwilling to hear another point of view, it demonstrates a deep fear of truth. If such a person or an entity were doing the right things and basing their actions on firm ground, they would have nothing to hide and would, quite frankly, welcome another point of view.
But this is not the case with propaganda and gaslighting.
E.M.
Great comment!!!
That is why Charlie Kirk was assassinated. That is why Weiss was canceled. They could not have her speak as she would expose their fear of the truth. Their viewpoints fail when exposed to the truth.
Kirk spoke facts to truth about sims in the trans spectrum (e.g. homos), and was aborted as a “burden”. This was an ethical Choice under the Pro-Choice religion in secular cults.
E.M.
That’s surely correct, as far as it goes. The obstructionists being discussed would have at least some credibility if the could manage to internalize and follow the the Hinlicky Rule:
“You shall not criticize the position of another…until you can state that position with such accuracy, completeness and sympathy, that the opponent himself declares, ‘Yes, I could not have said it better myself!’ Then, and only then, may you criticize. For then you are engaging a real alternative and advancing a real argument. Otherwise you shed only heat, not light.”
Yeah. Right. I get it. Like that is ever going to happen.
-g