The slogan of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) may be “Let there be light,” but a recent Federalist Society event produced more heat than light in the law school. Students and faculty wanted to hear from James Percival, general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, on a host of issues. However, students organized to prevent others from hearing from Percival, who was drowned out by profanity and cellphones at the event.
The incident seemed a repeat of the infamous disruption of Judge Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit at Stanford Law School three years ago.
On Tuesday night, over 150 protesters gathered outside the event chanting criticisms of the Trump administration, including “No ICE, No KKK, No Fascist U.S.A.” Protests outside of events are generally protected speech. Indeed, such protests are an important element in fostering free speech values on our campuses.
The problem is that protesters also organized to disrupt the event from inside Royce Hall. Students booed Percival throughout his talk and held up profane and disgusting signs. Some had their phones constantly ringing, making it difficult for others to hear Percival. It is, of course, fine to go to the event and ask tough questions or disagree with the speaker. These students were drowning out the speaker with shouts and phones.
The law school was aware of the preparations to disrupt the event. Groups circulated posts, hung posters, and circulated online petitions that said that even allowing the general counsel to speak with students was triggering and “threatening.”
One group called By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), called for mass protests over allowing the views of the DHS to be heard on campus. A flyer declared, “UCLA must not give representatives of ICE and the Trump Administration a base to organize Trump’s campaign of racist ethnic cleansing of the U.S. and the Middle East.”
Another posting called upon students to “Stop the fascist takeover of the American federal government! Stop the Trump police state!” Other flyers portrayed the event with allowing Nazis to speak on campus.
The UCLA Latine Law Students Association said that the event endangered students, insisting that allowing Percival to speak “utterly disregards the safety of our undocumented students and minimizes the great harm and trauma that has been inflicted on our communities over the decades.”
It further maintained that:
“By giving Mr. Percival a platform, The Federalist Society and UCLA Law are legitimizing and normalizing racially discriminatory policies that are actively harming both UCLA students and our broader community.”
It is all-too-familiar rhetoric. Groups claim to be triggered or threatened by opposing views and then use those claims to justify disruption and obstruction of the speaker.
The students were clear that anyone speaking from the Trump Administration would be subject to the same disruption: “UCLA must not give representatives of ICE and the Trump Administration a base to organize Trump’s campaign of racist ethnic cleansing of the U.S. and the Middle East.”
These students find the expression of opposing views to be intolerable. Rather than engage the speaker with a substantive and civil discussion of policies and practices, they believe that spewing profanities, heckling, and drowning out a speaker are the proper way to engage those who hold different viewpoints.
I commend Mr. Percival and the Federalist Society for their willingness to expose themselves to such abuse in an effort to foster a dialogue on these important issues. Students had the opportunity to exchange viewpoints with one of the highest-ranked officials in the DHS. That was what these protesters were intent on stopping with their shouts and cellphone tactics.
What is most notable about the videotape is that the students are clearly shown and identifiable. However, the law school’s statement on the incident did not include a commitment to hold these students accountable. It merely noted that “The law school worked with the Office of Campus and Community Safety in advance to support the event and uphold the university’s commitment to the free exchange of ideas.”
If so, it utterly failed in that commitment. These tactics are expressly prohibited by the university as “so disruptive so as to effectively silence” a speaker. The fact that the speaker continued to try to speak (and was able to do so after a walkout) does not change the fact that these students succeeded in disrupting and effectively silencing the speaker during the event.
The incident is reminiscent of the earlier incident at Northwestern University, where the university condemned but did nothing about students who entered a class and forced it to be canceled over a guest speaker from ICE. It was the lack of any action, not the condemnation, that left the greatest impact on the students.
The same full-throated message was sent at Stanford, where no student was punished, and the university made everyone watch a meaningless video that was openly mocked. One year after the incident, a majority of Stanford students believed shouting down Judge Duncan was warranted.
UCLA has shown little interest in restoring viewpoint diversity on its campus. This is the university that has paid for a series of radical “resident activists” to lecture students. It appears to have made activism a central part of its educational mission.
The same week that the law school event was disrupted, the Undergraduate Students Association Council “condemned” the holding of an event featuring a hostage who survived the Oct. 7 massacre. The group declared the event as “elevating a single narrative” and obscuring “what has been widely identified by human rights advocates as a genocide in Gaza.”
In this context, the law school controversy is hardly surprising. UCLA remains a deeply intolerant environment for many speakers and students.
We will now wait to see whether the University, the Law School and Dean Michael Waterstone are willing to discipline the students who disrupted this event. This type of premeditated, overt misconduct reflects an enabling culture fostered by the faculty.
If UCLA wants more light than heat, it must start enforcing (rather than just mouthing) its commitment to the free expression of viewpoints.
The irony here is that UCLA’s own rules do most of the work. The university’s “Major Events” policy flatly states that it “will not permit a response or a protest that is so disruptive so as to effectively silence the invited speaker and prevent them from communicating with a willing audience.” Its public expression rules repeat the point in plainer English. Protest is protected until it crosses the line into disruption that drowns out an event or exceeds noise limits that interfere with campus functions.
A coordinated campaign of boos, profanity, and ringing phones aimed at making the speaker inaudible inside the venue is exactly the sort of conduct these policies were written to address. The fact that Percival eventually finished his prepared remarks after a walkout does not cure the violation. The standard is not “was the evening eventually over.” The standard is whether protesters tried to effectively silence the speaker during the event, and here they plainly did.
That is why the “they were just using their free speech” line misses the law by a country mile. On a public campus, the First Amendment protects both the right to protest and the right of invited speakers to address a willing audience, which necessarily includes the audience’s right to listen. There is no constitutional “right” to a heckler’s veto where the loudest faction gets to decide which speakers can be heard on university property, and UCLA’s own time, place, and manner rules are supposed to prevent exactly that.
Enforcing those neutral anti‑disruption rules is not “state rage” or viewpoint censorship. It is the bare minimum required of a public law school that claims to care about free expression. When people describe organized efforts to shout down and sabotage an event as if that were the moral equivalent of asking sharp questions in a Q and A, they are not defending free speech. They are defending a power move that, if normalized, will make sure no one hears anything that has not been pre‑cleared by the angriest crowd in the room.
There is no irony with UCLA’s rules. Its just you dumping a heap of nonsensical verbiage. You obviously have never interacted with humans.
“You obviously have never interacted with humans.”
Interacting with a lame bot like you would obviously not qualify…
In this case the speaker was able to give the talk.:
OLLY,
Another great comment!!
In a civil society what you describe, people are allowed to speak, others are allowed to listen and there is an exchange of ideas or debate.
That is not what is happening on college campuses today as witnessed by the behavior of these uncivil, disrespectful, students and allowed by the college administration.
Well said, and I agree with you Upstate. I would add one piece that James put his finger on, which is the psychology behind this behavior. The heckler’s veto is just the tool.
You do not get law students trying to shut down a speaker unless something deeper is going on inside. This is not confidence in your own arguments. It is an inability to tolerate other people hearing ideas you do not control. That is fragility dressed up as moral courage. If we never call out that mindset, we are just arguing about the latest weapon of choice for people who cannot live in a free society without trying to silence it.
Olly, so law students wishing to express their opposition in an obnoxious or loud disruptive manner is not free speech?
Nobody is required to tolerate someone else’s views or opinions. Conservatives constantly express an intolerance for things like DEI, CRT, and woke ideas and they actively seek to silence it. But they are also expressing their opposition to those ideas, right?
Olly,
“The standard is not “was the evening eventually over.” The standard is whether protesters tried to effectively silence the speaker during the event, and here they plainly did.”
No they didn’t. The speaker still got to finish his speech. The protesters did not manage to stop the event or prevent him from finishing. They were loud, BUT were they so loud that it broke their 85 decibel standard? We don’t know. Seriously how loud can a phone be? Certainly not 85 decibels. Most popular models, like the iPhone or Samsung Galaxy series, average between 76 and 81 dB. It’s all about technicalities.
It’s a ‘power move’ that is technically within the rules. That’s the problem. The school can’t say they broke the rules if they were right up to the limit.
“The irony here is that UCLA’s own rules do most of the work. ”
OLLY, you are entirely correct as usual. GSX doesn’t live up to UCLA’s rules that are written in black and white. He quotes portions and paraphrases the rest incorrectly not recognizing that the university acts as a neutral referee. I do not criticize him for using AI since he doesn’t already have the knowledge available. I criticize him for not looking deeper, so he can find a way out of the phoney mess he creates.
SM, I see it a little differently. The issue is not that he “uses AI” or lacks knowledge and needs help. The issue is that AI will reflect the principles of the user, it will not create them. If you come in with a serious commitment to the First Amendment and UCLA’s own neutral‑referee role, you can use AI to sharpen that. If you come in with a standing order to argue the opposite of Turley and most of the commenters, it will happily manufacture contrarian takes and half‑read paraphrases to match.
So I do not think he is cherry picking by accident or looking for a way out of a mess. The mess is the point. Once your goal is to be the permanent 5 percent against whatever Turley and the text actually say, you are going to misread UCLA’s policy, muddy the neutral‑referee duty, and dress up a heckler’s veto as “free speech.” That is not a research problem. That is a values problem.
” The issue is that AI will reflect the principles of the user,”
You are correct, OLLY, but AI must be accurate about the rules governing the student community and the law. AI, in part, is a victim of numbers, dates, and other things. For GSX’s purposes, it uses the MSM, and it quickly searches for an answer. It doesn’t always know how to decipher opinion from fact or recognize that the numbers and the preloaded material are on the political left. With medical information, though good, it can be dangerous because it doesn’t know how to interpret different studies based on their dates and falls into the numbers trap as well.
GSX is using AI dishonestly, and that, in addition to its leftist views, it skews responses away from neutrality, eventually causing the results to err. If one pushes hard enough, as I said before, AI can hallucinate in part using the human’s poor logic to produce poor results.
You and I share common values, the truth. That is something GSX needs to learn.
SM, I agree with you on the bottom line, but I would tighten a couple of the assumptions. AI absolutely has to be checked against the actual rules and the law. It is not going to reliably separate opinion from fact on its own, and it can be skewed by the sources it leans on or by old or one sided material. But that skew is not automatic. The user has a lot of control. You can tell an AI what sources to prioritize, you can tell it to stick to primary materials like the text of UCLA’s policies or Supreme Court decisions, and you can force it to distinguish between black letter rules and editorial spin.
That is why I keep coming back to values. GSX is not being “forced left” by the tool. He is using the tool to amplify the position he already wants, which is to defend a heckler’s veto and muddy UCLA’s neutral referee role. AI can hallucinate if you push it hard enough in a bad direction, but the direction comes from the human. You and I are trying to use it to make sense of the law and the policies as they are written. He is using it to manufacture permanent opposition. The problem is not that AI is hiding the truth from him. The problem is that he is not actually looking for it.
SM, I asked AI to analyze X’s comment above. I asked it as if I was X “to analyze what I wrote to see how it aligns with constitutional principles. What would you say to me?” Someone arguing with constitutional principles would naturally be concerned with that. This is how AI can be a useful tool. But in the hands of someone without those principles wouldn’t be interested in the following answer. Here is what AI said:
Looked at against actual First Amendment and campus free‑speech principles, your comment has a few serious problems.
You’re using the wrong “standard.”
You treat the key question as: “Did the event end and did the speaker finish?” If yes, you say there was no real problem. Constitutionally and under UCLA’s own rules, that is not the standard. The concern is whether the speaker can communicate with a willing audience without being effectively silenced by a hostile crowd. UCLA’s policy literally says protests cannot be “so disruptive as to silence the invited speaker from communicating with a willing audience,” and PEN America’s campus principles say protesters must not be allowed to “shut down, shout down, or otherwise obstruct” speech so others cannot hear it. The fact that the speaker eventually got through a prepared text does not erase a period of effective silencing.
You collapse disruption into a single technical rule.
You focus almost entirely on the 85 dB amplified‑sound limit and phone volume, as if staying under that number automatically keeps everything “within the rules.” UCLA’s public expression policy does set an 85 dB cap for amplification, but it also bars noise that “disrupt[s] campus activities and operations” and, in the event rules, bars protests that “silence the invited speaker.” The heckler’s veto analysis in First Amendment commentary is the same: a problem exists when the crowd’s conduct materially interferes with the audience’s ability to hear, not only when some specific decibel threshold is crossed.
You treat a heckler’s veto as a clever “power move.”
By describing this as “a ‘power move’ that is technically within the rules,” you are implicitly approving a tactic that mainstream First Amendment doctrine and campus speech guidelines explicitly reject. California State University’s heckler‑veto guidance, for example, points to noise and disruption that drown out a speaker as contrary to First Amendment values, even if no one literally shuts off the mic. PEN America has said bluntly that the heckler’s veto “has no place” in interrupting campus speakers. Framing that as a smart exploitation of “technicalities” is the opposite of aligning with those principles.
You’re relying on “we don’t know” in a one‑sided way.
You argue that, because we don’t have a decibel reading, we can’t say the protesters crossed a line. But you’re willing to infer from that same lack of measurement that they must be “within the rules” and the university “can’t say they broke the rules.” That is logically inconsistent. If the facts are uncertain, you can’t use that uncertainty only to exonerate the disruptive side while dismissing the clear text of the policies that define disruption more broadly.
If you really want your position to line up with constitutional principles, you’d need to adjust in two ways:
Separate protest from a heckler’s veto: defend the right to protest outside and even inside, but draw the same line UCLA and the major free‑speech organizations do at behavior that effectively prevents others from hearing the speaker.
Stop treating “the speaker eventually finished” and “no one proved it was over 85 dB” as a safe harbor. The First Amendment analysis is about whether the university makes good‑faith efforts to prevent the audience’s rights from being overridden by those who are least willing to listen.
Right now, your comment is not reflecting those principles. It’s reflecting a prior commitment to defending the protesters and then looking for narrow technical hooks to support that result.
Anyone who would stifle free speech is afraid of the truth. Nearly anyone who is afraid of the truth has a damned good reason for that fear. There are only two possible rational reactions to such conduct: if time allows, analyze the reasons that those who would suppress that speech fear it; otherwise summarily dismiss them, along with their opinions and positions. Unfortunately, rational thinking is a skill long lost (abandoned might be more accurate) for large segments of our society.
“Anyone who would stifle free speech is afraid of the truth.” And you a factual basis for that? God told you so?
What if they’re obviously lying? Like in the case of Trump and the Iran war?
Even if you think that’s true, it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t listen to that side of it. It doesn’t give you the right to stifle it. These students are mischaracterizing the entire illegal alien issue. It’s not racial cleansing. It’s cleansing of illegal status. They’re not undocumented they’re illegal. They should feel threatened if they’re illegal. If you break the law, you should feel threatened when law-enforcement comes to find you. I don’t know why you would expect otherwise.
Enjoy Ano
Finally, on July 29, 2025, UCLA agreed to a court judgment and settlement requiring it to pay over $6 million and subjecting it to a permanent court order forbidding it from excluding Jews from campus.
The Dems gave up debate and civility because their policies are indefensible. Better to stifle opposing views than to allow them to be heard. The lack of accountability leads to more extreme behavior and ultimately violence.
Don,
“Anyone who would stifle free speech is afraid of the truth.”
Very true. Is that why Donald Trump is always calling for revoking broadcast licenses of those who mock him or criticize him? Because he sure seems to spend a lot of energy trying to stifle free speech of those he does not like.
You know there is really no point in putting up with these types of disturbances. You could deal with it technologically.
An alternative would be to speak in a studio and livestream on the campus internet and intranet, 5G or WiFi and have questions texted to the monitors of the forum who then present the questions to the speaker. Puts distance between the speakers and the Brownshirts. You could pick it up on any smartphone or iPad. I’m sure everyone has the required electronics.
GEB,
Not a bad idea.
However, I would not put it past the snowflakes to then try to physically assault the speaker at the studio. Kinda like how the leftists attacked Riley Gaines and she had to barricade herself and with security in a room for three hours.
That is the kind of people we are dealing with. Unhinged animals.
Do you have facts to prove that obvious lie?
Riley Gaines ‘ambushed and physically hit’ after Saving Women’s Sports speech at San Francisco State
“Gaines’ footage — as well as other clips shared on social media — show security and university staff blocking the angry mob from following the distressed guest speaker as she’s taken to a safe room at 8:30 p.m.”
https://nypost.com/2023/04/07/riley-gaines-ambushed-and-hit-after-womens-sports-speech-at-sfsu/
Riley Gaines ‘ambushed and physically hit’ after Saving Women’s Sports speech at San Francisco State
“Riley Gaines was barricaded in a room on the 3rd floor of a university building for nearly three hours after the protests began”
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/riley-gaines-ambushed-physically-hit-after-saving-womens-sports-speech-san-francisco-state
Once again, I lay out my trap knowing full well the annony will take the bait. The sad part is, it is ever so easy.
Its called ‘public forum’ for a reason and sponsored by a state institution. So restricting a student or person who doesn’t have access via a smartphone or computer etc.; to only those with such devices, attendance is restricted, i.e, that is a hindrance of free speech. Right? Try harder.
Imagine that. The oh, so, tolerant, inclusive leftists having an emotional meltdown if someone speaks at a college. Want to protest outside. Great. Exercise your 1stA right. But to prevent others from wanting to hear what the person has to say? That makes them the fascists they claim they are fighting against.
Hey! I got an idea! Why not raise money and give it to actual racists like the SPLC does? Or better yet, antifa who tries to actually kill people!
So you’re saying only rightists are inclusive? You and your cohorts here have a melt down here whenever you’re called out for your lies and threats?
What lies? What threats?
Haven’t courts held that Freedom of Speech includes the freedom to listen?
The hecklers are attacking the free speech richts of the speakers and those who wish to hear what they have to say.
If the university will not insist on a certain level of decorum then eventually it will come to blows. The hecklers will well deserve it when their victims beat the snot out of them. Better the university explains to the morons that freedom of speech does not include harassment.
As for decorum, if the so-called adults here don’t show any, why should college kids?
The phrase Freedom of speech is not capitalized. Go back to grammar school.
Yet YOU are here expressing just that.
Expressing what?
Oh, forget Dustoff, he’s still in grammar school.
Uh, I can capitalize, hyphenate, and mangle the language in any manner I choose, Speech Nazi.
OldFish,
Correct. A person should have the Freedom of Speech to listen to someone they want to hear. In a civil society, those who oppose the speaker would respectfully allow those who want to hear the speaker to listen. But that is not what we have here. What we have are a bunch of fascists who cannot tolerate any opposing view to their own to be heard. They are the exact opposite of the Freedom of Speech, and anti-Constitutional.
Perhaps Harmeet Dhillon will get the DoJ to bring a civil rights action against university administrators for tolerating the deprivation of rights.
“deprivation of rights.” Question please: Whose rights?
The speakers and their audience.
The hecklers are the bad guys here
It is a legitimate point of view but I think she has plenty of bigger fish to gut
In fairness to Turley let me make an argument that would be more of a compromise.
As a public university, UCLA is legally required by the First Amendment to protect an environment for free speech. However, this “protection” does not mean the school acts as a referee to ensure every speaker is treated politely; rather, it means the university must follow two main legal obligations
1. UCLA cannot ban a speaker or punish a student just because their ideas are offensive, unpopular, or controversial.
2. While UCLA must protect the right to speak, it is also required to maintain the “safe and orderly operation of the campus”. To balance this, the school uses Time, Place, and Manner (TPM) policies.
UCLA policy states that protests cannot be “so disruptive so as to effectively silence” an invited speaker.
The school draws a line at behavior that physically interferes with university functions, such as blocking doors, using excessive amplified sound (over 85 decibels), or creating “undue interference” with an event.
These rules are very specific. Something Turley doesn’t mention.
If protesters prevent an event from proceeding after being warned, campus officials are to escort them out or subject them to arrest to protect the speaker’s right to communicate with their audience.
Obviously these students didn’t go beyond what the rules call out as excessive.
UCLA does not “enforce” free speech by making sure everyone listens quietly; it enforces an environment where the speaker has the opportunity to be heard and dissenters have the opportunity to protest, as long as neither side physically stops the other from exercising their rights. That’s a distinction Turley ‘conveniently’ overlooks.
But the speaker couldn’t be heard as they screamed and had their phones going off. Why the heck would you try tp defend this? You really do have a problem and the problem is that you think it is cute to try to come up with some lame defense of the indefensible.
You really do have a problem and the problem is that you think it is cute to try to force speech rules when you violate them non-stop.
The did not violate UCLAs speech rules. That’s the point. Those students while technically were being disruptive they did not stop the speaker from speaking. Their rules state that it’s deemed disruptive if they managed to force the speaker from speaking or continuing the event. That did not happen.
Why the heck would you try to defend this? A liberal troll, that is who.
All things liberal good, all thing conservative bad, all things in the also bad.
The point is not about defending them. It’s about the facts. While some in the audience may not have been able to hear what he said. It did not stop the speaker from saying what he wanted to say. The rules laid out by the school specifically point out that it does not consider what the hecklers did excessive enough to warrant some sort of punishment because the speaker was not technically silenced.
I’m not denying that the behavior was uncalled for or disruptive. Legally speaking, under their rules, it did not constitute a direct violation because the speaker was not silenced by those actions.
Because that’s what a lawyer would argue. Turley, being a lawyer, should know that.
You’re upset about the fact that those students are getting away with it without some sort of extreme punishment. UCLA’s rules were not technically violated.
“It’s about the facts.”
Not for you.
For you, per usual, it’s about throwing sand in people’s eyes, in order to rationalize the Left’s barbaric behavior.
Any semi-awake person on this blog could have written your comments before you did.
Sam, you haven’t refuted my argument with your own facts.
Fact is the students did not break the school’s rules which specifically state what they consider excessive disruption.
Imagine people defending the “heckler’s veto.”
Liberal bunk. These people are just intolerant of ideas other than what they already believe. They are a threat to society.
These are suppose to be law students, people that debate our laws and there application. Will shouting people down in court work? No, the judge will put them in jail for contempt. They will then learn a lesson, be tolerant, stop and listen to the other sides arguments, and then respond in a calm and proper manner.
Well duh, they are law students who also know that technicalities matter. If the school chose to punish them the school would have to prove that they broke the rules. Those rules are very specific and the students knew exactly how far to go without technically breaking the rules. Is it fair? No. But they did stay within the rules.
GSX, here is the rule:
“Undue interference with the ability of an event speaker/presenter to deliver, or the audience to receive, a speaker/presenter’s message.”
You lose.
S. Meyer,
Well said. If I were in the audience and could not hear what the speaker was saying due to those who did not want him or her the ability to deliver or for me to receive the message clearly, then they were not within the rules.
“UCLA must not give representatives . . .”
Fine.
Then the Federal government should erect an economic blockade of UCLA.
An economic blockage to hinder free speech on a public university campus? You sure?
I think you misread my comment.
No more Federal money until the UCLA administration stops those fascists from usurping others’ right to speak.
At UCLA, the rules explicitly state that while students have a right to protest, the university will not permit behavior that is “so disruptive so as to effectively silence” a speaker. Obviously the speaker in question was not silenced. He finished his speech despite the attempt to disrupt him. That’s why the university even if it wanted to could not punish the students as Turley wants them to.
If the majority of Americans agree with you then Benjamin Franklin was correct
They tried and tried to silence an invited speaker until they either tired or knew they were going to get in trouble. So is it ok to shout and scream down a speaker for 1 hour? 2 hours? 3 hours? How long do you countenance this denial of a basic right? How many students wanting to hear the speaker left after the first hour? Do you care about their rights at all?
Geez man, don’t side with young fascist idiots, it makes you look like an idiot. Not that you aren’t fine doing that on your own.
HullBobby,
Correct. What we have here are not civil, respectful, citizens of others and their 1stA right to hear a speaker. What we have are uncivil, disrespectful, anti-Freedom of Speech intolerant fascists. They cannot and will not debate as their ideas and view points cannot stand up to scrutiny or real debate. Charlie Kirk proved that. And for it, they killed him. That is the so-called tolerant left for you.
Excuse, are you delusional or what? You for example and your troll buddies here are hardly the perfection of civil or respectful. As for debating, never saw you debate anything issue here, you acquiesce to the likes of crazy Olly like a child and kiss his and hullbobbys a$$’s.
So let’s debate that? Or are you gonna cry now like a little girl?
Mary, your cogent and thoughtful rebuttal shows how valid your point about others not making a good argument really is. I hope your ex-husband is still paying your alimony.
Hullbobby, they sure tried. But according to UCLA’s own rules it was not enough to categorize their disruption as ‘excessive’. This is a law school and they KNOW specifics matter.
I get that you don’t like that they are ‘getting away with it’ but those students, likely law students, knew how far to push this without technically breaking the school’s rules. It’s annoying, and frustrating, I get that. But….this is how it would be presented in court if it ever went to court. The court would have to ask if the rules were indeed violated and based on the facts, they were not.
Similarly it would be OK for ppl to fire guns at other ppl, so long as no bullets actually struck them. The law does noi punish attempts rhst are ultimately unsuccessful, right?
“the speaker in question was not silenced. “ “He finished his speech despite the attempt to disrupt him. ”
There are such things and a right to speak and a right to be heard. If for half the speech the speaker could not be heard, then the speaker was silenced for half the speech. Such disruption is a punishable offense, per the conduct codes within UCLA.
You have to address this based on the universities codes of conduct. Unless you do, you lose.
Intolerant leftwing fascists should be expelled if they cannot respect diverse viewpoints. If they cannot bear to sit through a discussion because their little snowflake ears can’t take it, they shouldn’t be in law school at all.
Do you respect diverse viewpoints? Obviously not, considering that comment.
You don’t have to respect diverse viewpoints, you merely have to tolerate and accept them for what you believe they are. Especially when they go against everything that history has shown over and over as failure, economically disastrous and/or results in an overall degradation to our society.
Turley strongly believes that the best way to fight “bad speech” is with more speech, not by banning it. He’s always made this point perfectly clear.
On his own blog, he has a Civility Rule where he deletes comments he finds “vile,” “insulting,” or “obnoxious”. He claims this isn’t censorship, but many say he is doing exactly what he tells colleges not to do: using their power to silence “unpleasant” voices.
He often says that if people can just shout over a speaker, then free speech is essentially dead. But the Supreme Court has ruled that speech serves its “high purpose” when it “induces a condition of unrest” or “stirs people to anger”. By calling for students to be “docile,” Turley is going against the idea that loud, angry protest is a core part of American free speech.
When it comes to free speech a delicate and often complex balance is hard to achieve. Turley should know this, but when his preferred view of what free speech is supposed to be is not adhered to it’s an automatic call for punishment.
STFU you imbecile
That’s cute. You got an argument somewhere?
George you posted 2,334 words this morning, is that a form of diarrhea?
Yes, his argument is that you, and one particular Anonymous, are trying to pull of a writing version of the heckler’s veto. You have no issue with young fascists screaming down a speaker but maybe if we banned you from here for the first hour or the first three hours (kind of like our version of the heckler’s veto) but then let you comment after that? Is that ok since you eventually did get to speak? That is basically your newest lame argument.
HullBobby,
Oh, they cannot tolerate any kind of Freedom of Speech. They have to try to shut anyone down with their moronic anti-1stA comments all the while screaming,
“I have the right to be heard!!!!!”
Yeah. And I have their right to ignore you and walk away.
Yeah. And I have their right to ignore you and walk away…. and we;\’re still waiting for you to walk away.
Upstate, really? I guarantee you that is you or Hullbobby had the ability to block me you would. That would be because of your intolerance, right? Apparently YOU do not tolerate freedom of speech. How ironic.
Hullbobby, if this was your blog? Sure. You could ban me completely. But unfortunately it’s not. If It was my blog, I wouldn’t ban you. I’m not as intolerant as y you.
Hullbobby, what? What heckler’s veto? Have I prevented you from posting? Speaking your mind? You clearly don’t know how a ‘heckler’s veto’ works.
And yet here you are.
Question X. How do you know as a fact that “Turley strongly believes …”? He didn’t use those words, directly or indirectly, so how is it you know that as a fact?
Its obvious you are a fool with a bad case of attention deficit disorder and very poor comprehension skills; you waste hours in an effort trying to distort his words for the sake of… what exactly? Nothing personal, but if there ever was a fool on the website, you are it. Get a life.
Michael, I base my interpretation on his long-standing track record and his consistent legal arguments over the years. We can disagree on how to read his stance, but the insults don’t really change the facts of what he’s written.
Jonathan Turley’s position is often contradictory because he calls for strict discipline against student protesters while also claiming to be a “free speech purist” who believes the government should never regulate “rage.”
He calls people like suffragist Charlotte Anita Whitney “heroes” because they were “unreasonable people who refused to shut up”.
But when students at UCLA or Stanford use that same “unreasonable” energy to shout or heckle a speaker, he stops calling it heroic and instead labels it a “conduct violation” that deserves punishment.
In his book Turley warns that the biggest threat to freedom is “state rage”—which is when the government uses its power to punish people for their speech. He argues that the government should not use “rage” as an excuse to arrest people or limit their rights.
At the same time, he supports laws that would have the government withhold funding from schools that don’t protect free speech his way. This is a form of “state rage” where the government uses its power to force schools to follow his rules.
X’s position is always contradictory because he calls Turley a liar. Funny, the things liars say?
I didn’t call Turley a liar. I just pointed out his position of often contradictory.
So what’s the point of pointing out “often contradictory” positions?
If you can’t get the point, then the problem is you.
State Turley’s contradictions with actual examples and links.
If you can’t do that, you lose.
This blog is what X has instead of a life.
“But when students at UCLA or Stanford . . .”
Why do you keep evading the words and motivations of those fascists-in-training?
“UCLA must not give representatives of ICE and the Trump Administration a base . . .”
(That was a rhetorical question.)
There is a big difference between speech and preventing speech. Nothing contradictory about that.
Poor george
In the wake of the terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, anti-Jewish protests emerged on college campuses nationwide. At UCLA, activists first set up an encampment in the heart of campus where they enforced a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” segregating Jewish students and faculty and preventing them from going to their classes, accessing the library, or participating in routine campus social life. Meanwhile, UCLA’s administration ordered police to stand down and step aside and even assigned security officers to keep those who would not agree to disavow Israel’s right to exist away from the area. Those same activists continued to set up encampments and occupy buildings, and the antisemitic chaos continued on campus in the 2024-25 academic year.
Anti-Jewish protests? You must be seriously confused. They were protesting the Israeli government’s actions against the Palestinians in Gaza.
FYI Israel, like any other country does not have the right to exist.
You clearly have issues with reality.
“Anti-Jewish protests? You must be seriously confused.”
Dustoff said: “At UCLA, activists first set up an encampment in the heart of campus where they enforced a “Jew Exclusion Zone,” segregating Jewish students and faculty and preventing them from going to their classes, accessing the library, or participating in routine campus social life.”
GSX, why don’t you respond to Dustoff’s comment? If you can’t, you lose.
“At the same time, he supports laws that would have the government withhold funding from schools that don’t protect free speech his way. “
What is Professor Turley’s way?
Good morning all! We offer up more Ragebait for your perusal. Take no prisoners. Death to MAGA!
If you look, you will see the only ones raging are the leftists. They are the ones screaming profanities, disrupting a civic discussion that others want to hear. They are the uncivil ones. They are the fascists.
MAGA was a thing long before Trump came along and made it a nifty campaign slogan. MAGA will be around long after Trump is gone. And it will be around long after you are gone too.
Ah, our very own whistling, screaming obnoxious heckler awakens.
Death to MAGA!
you’re such a feeble creature.
Everyone should understand that Anonymous (and his/her friends) mean what they say.
We don’t need extremes of either — that is the point! When you think, you listen first, read, and grow mentally. We have human robots shaping up to do the bidding of the one-minded masters. This won’t fair well except when they live in like-minded enclaves. Funny – that sounds like mental slavery! I thought we grew past this – sadly not it seems. not.
“they live in like-minded enclaves. …” Like this blog? Death to MAGA!
Turley’s argument doesn’t quite add up. It’s ironic that he wants to punish students for using their free speech, which is the very thing he says he wants to protect. He also confuses “heckling” with “disruption.” The students were loud and rude, but the speaker still finished his talk. If they had truly disrupted the event, it would have been canceled. Turley acts like being mean is the same thing as stopping the event, but it isn’t.
One major thing Turley gets wrong is how free speech works at a school like UCLA. The First Amendment does not mean the school has a “police force” that makes sure everyone gets to speak perfectly. Instead, it means the school must not interfere with people’s rights. Schools do not “enforce” a right to be heard; they just have to make sure the government (the school) doesn’t stop people from speaking. Turley is asking UCLA to step in and be a “speech referee,” but the law actually tells schools to stay out of it as much as possible.
He also seems to forget about fairness. Usually, Turley says students should have a fair trial before being punished. But here, he wants UCLA to punish them right away without a real investigation.
Finally, schools have to follow the law and be fair to everyone. They can’t just punish students because they don’t like who they are protesting. If the school only punished people for protesting a Trump official, they could get in legal trouble for being biased. Turley says he wants “diversity,” but it sounds like he just wants the school to force students to be quiet.
Doesn’t add up you say? That’s because you can’t count George. It “seems” you used a bunch of lies in that screed.
What are the lies?
The lies you ask? All of it George. Prove me wrong.
You gotta be specific James.
You have to respond GSX before asking others for specifics, otherwise you lose.
1.”the speaker still finished” Despite that, they violated the rules of the campus.
2.” tells schools to stay out” Wrong, legally the school has to be a neutral referee.
You are wrong. You lose.
S. Meyer, that made no sense. None at all.
You don’t know what their rules say what constitutes a disruption. Tell us what their rules say S. Meyer.
GSX, of course it makes no sense to you because I am basing my reply on the student conduct rules and the law. If your lack of understanding is not intended to deflect, you can ask me what you don’t understand, and then I will respond. Then, you can take the information to AI and ask if my comment makes sense. I suggest you narrow the lens of your AI, so it doesn’t hallucinate.
Take note I have responded to you many times providing many more comments. I await your answers, whether directly from you or from you paraphrasing AI. Answer the other questions and you will become more informed. In the end, you will see that I like the law and neutrality when dealing with the law, and you might change how you deal with these situations.
Got a point X? Or is it your morning constitutional? It sure does smell like it.
If you did not get the point it’s because you are not smart enough to get it. I can’t help you with that.
If you did not make a point it’s because you are not smart enough to make one George.
“He wants to punish students for using their free speech”. Your lame false premise is that screaming down a speaker IS free speech but sorry, we aren’t as lame as you and we don’t buy it.
The Right to Free Speech doesn’t include the disruption and interference of others while they are expressing theirs. This is at a law school for Gods sake and some of these students are future lawyers. What does that reflect about the school as this is a basic fundamental principle of our Constitutional rights. They have been indoctrinated by the left by people that think like X to believe that restricting free speech, other than their own is acceptable. It’s not and the more they attempt to thwart it the stronger it becomes and the greater the risk of a violent retaliation.
HullBobby,
Well said.
What of the rights of the people who wanted to hear the speaker? Are they just expected to sit there, quietly and respectfully while their Freedom of Speech rights are being crushed by the uncivil, disrespectful fascists?
No one seems to see the larger picture these days. The goal of these groups overall is not really to voice discontent with the content of the presentations, the goal is to anger or disrupt whoever is in authority to press back, and the harder the better. Then the protestors can shout “See, they’re Nazis” “… etc. The book “Games People Play” addresses this cycle beautifully. It only escalates unless the responding target group can move to an adult voice and discuss the situation calmly. The group is obviously well trained to prevent that, so there are only 2 options, press back hard, which gets really ugly, or ignore the behavior . Either option only leads to escalation. There is no winning on the conservative side in this kind of mob situation.
No sees the bigger picture? Goal is to disrupt? No shit Sherlock.
Well it seems like law schools are training one-minded lawyers. How can anyone hire a lawyer to represent them when they only think one way. When I hire a lawyers I want them to listen to my case and give me advice from varying points of view AND the law. There was an article quite a while ago by a business man who said — ‘Why I don’t hire Ivy League grads’. His reason is that they can’t think out of the box! And in business, technology and most of life — you have to think creatively to survive. This goes on in all professional — understand the basics and then THINK! UCLA and many schools are training the new moron class. Better to buy a robot!
Nothing will change until these disruptors are expelled.
Just because someone has an opinion, they should be expelled?
Yup! And shot.
That is not the point – they should be expelled when they don’t follow the decorum of the school and act out like bad-tempered babes infringing on the rights of their invited guests. Maybe they should get a job before law school to see how the real world works. Pull this in most business and you are GONE.
Isn’t how one behaves important? It has become perfectly normal, expected & accepted to behave in the most vile manner! This baffles me! There is something radically wrong when “bad” behavior becomes the norm! Accepting this behavior is simply rewarding & encouraging this thug like behavior!
Isn’t how one behaves important? True that. Take for example the retirees here, they insult and threaten each other all day long, but that’s okay when so-called adults do it, but kids, need a good wacking eh?
Please take your srtawman somewhere else
Struck a nerve eh? Seems you mindless geriatrics love to criticize, but when its directed at them they whine like children. That about right?
James, wow was that dumb.
HullBobby,
Funny they claim we are throwing around insults and threats when it is they who are doing so.
HB
That didn’t sound like James…
@James
Again, this is not me. And no, most of us are not retirees. I wish.
Where have anyone other than the annonys insult and threaten others?
I seem to recall one annony declaring “Death to MAGA!”
When they disrupt an event by their actions as described they should be escorted out and prohibited to attend further on campus events such as this. They are infringing on the rights of all those at the event that were interested in what the Speaker had to say.
I am wondering if a savvy student could identify the people involved in the disruption and file a civil rights lawsuit naming them, a school project so to speak to use the law for what it is intended to protect.
This is just the beginning of problems for the next five decades. The activist students become activist lawyers. Cool but… Activist lawyers don’t know much law, having learned to just make up the law. So… Activist lawyers become activist judges because that’s the only way to make a living. This implies the pinnacle of the judicial system becomes populated by activist judges, who are quite willing to make any ruling to advance their cause, legal or not.
You have no idea what will happen tomorrow, let alone 5 decades. 5 decades ago no one foresaw Trump. 5 decades ago no one saw the internet or telephones the size of sandwich. Lay off the drugs Don.
Anon
Tomorrow the sun shall rise.
Tomorrow X will unleash a multitude of contradictory dissertations of BS on this site.
30 years ago DJT was considered a likely Presidential candidate.
Six decades ago we were thinking of one day when a phone would have a camera with the capacity to see the other person.
Six decades ago we were developing transistors leading to microchips.
So you see, you’re wrong on every count and this closed mindedness to the realities of the past and future could be a very defining factor in your present perception of the world we live in.
“the pinnacle of the judicial system becomes populated by activist judges, who are quite willing to make any ruling to advance their cause, legal or not.”
I’d wager that not too long after that, activist judges begin to sport cranial perforations…
California is a lost cause. The UCLA campus is beautiful, but the university itself has become an ugly reminder of the Fruits of Intolerance. I lived in Los Angeles in the late 1960s, where I worked in the aerospace industry. My late wife attended UCLA, and we lived less than two miles from the campus. We didn’t know it then, but it was the peak of the age of California as the Golden State. The fools are now reaping what they sowed. The best way to assure yourself that you’re never wrong is to never listen to anyone with an opposing opinion or a verifiable fact that contradicts your belief in facts. Once beautiful California is now ugly. I don’t think it can be turned around. I think it’s over.
Jack
Have you ever seen the UCSD campus. Or their library.
Have you?
Yes.
No. But if I weren’t so old, I think I would relocate to San Diego. At least in the recent past, for me, San Diego has appeared to be a more beautiful place to live than Los Angeles ever was.
I was born a raised in San Diego.
The beaches are great, but the place has become so $$$$.
Many people coming here can’t afford a home.
La Jolla Cove is a great place to live, But it is expensive too,
I went to Longfellow School.
You lack imagination. The current craziness will end with a conservative youth rebellion. It’s already taking shape.
I hope you’ll recognize change in the direction you want as it occurs — instead of clinging tightly to past grievances.
Re: “California is a lost cause..” They went to California with flowers in their hair. They’ve lost their hair. The flowers long ago wilted and gone. What’s left? What they’ve shown us!!