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.
There is something of Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War” rattling around in here. Know your enemy. It starts with remembering Johnathan’s references to the faculty leadership at the University of Chicago. “No safe spaces here”. How does UCLA compare? What do its student conduct rules say? How faithful is UCLA to those rules without meeting out discipline to the subject students, if they were students? Roy Singham and George Soros raise foreign money trail issues that point at funding social chaos in the USA. To be determined. Meanwhile, campuses like UCLA have a Hobson’s Choice. What if these students, if they are, or are not, turn out to be proxies akin to Hamas or Hezbollah? Is failure to discipline merely weak, or is it complicit?
I couldn’t hear what my representative was trying to say while there was rioting at the Capitol. Is this a valid grievance?
On January 6, a protest vecame a riot.
That’s funny, I couldn’t hear the responses to the lies and personal attacks from Justice Kavanaugh either?
Congress removes disruptions from the House and Senate floor.
As a kid, if I did something wrong I felt guilty and tried to cover it up. Ultimately my guilt showed through and my parents knew something was wrong. Appropriate action was taken. The guilt complex was the result of my parents and societies rules at the time. Now, it seems as though children and young adults do not care about whether it is right or wrong. If the rest of their society or group think it is right, then so be it. If the college does nothing but spout words without consequences, that that shows the lack of parenting has now reached up that far. Teaching manners and respect and right from wrong, should have been done at home. And that is the problem with a fair group of today’s parents they are not at home, lack of teaching responsibility and manners. Instead they are teaching, it is not your fault, deflect or it is the CPA’s fault. Anything so as to not be responsible and blame someone else for their lack of understanding.
rcs,
Great observation, especially about how the lack of parenting has reached not only college aged students but the faculty and administration as well. It is almost as if they were never taught about self-control, giving into their ID whenever they feel like it. Goes to show their lack of maturity as well.
So you’re calling all university and college students and employees immature, lack self-control etc., then you are stupid fool. Funny how all your comments lack insight and reflection. Sign of a uneducated mind.
Regarding your post to UpstateFarmer . . .”So you’re calling all university and college students and employees immature, lack self-control etc., then you are stupid fool. Funny how all your comments lack insight and reflection. Sign of an uneducated mind.”
I did not see anything in regard to “calling all university and college students and employees immature, lack self-control etc.”
Might I suggest your post is a mirror to what you might view of other views. While you’re at it, a look in the mirror might give you some “insight and reflection” on how you think and respond. As the old saying goes. . .”a mind is a terrible think to waste.”
I like your post, but these pampered students at universities are looking for praise and recognition for their views, and a rejection of anything with which they disagree. It’s a college level outcry just like the 1-year-old child who screams until they get their ice cream.
Turley does not agree with what the protestors have to say, but he would come out with guns a-blazing to defend their right to say it.
As long as they are severely punished first.
By disrupting and preventing others from speaking they forfeit their right to say it.
Viva La Revolución yelled the little Trust Fund Babies!!! These mindless numb nuts just want something to scream about so they can reminisce about how cutting edge they were at University! Just Deja vu Stupid Wanna-be Hippies. Probably our next political giants like AOC and Bernie!
They have no known one single day of real oppression in their lives. But then they behave like little Nazis – noisily disrupting a peaceful gathering because it doesn’t conform to their political views – while railing against the supposedly “fascist” USA for enforcing immigration laws passed by Congress.
And no, disrupting blocking someone else’s ability to speak or hear a speaker is not just exercising their own free speech rights. That is as absurd as saying that someone is just exercising their own religious exercise rights when they burn down someone else’s church or synagogue.
“Probably our next political giants like AOC and Bernie!”
Or perhaps more like these “giants”…
Mamdani, Obama Treat Preschoolers To Reading Of ‘The Communist Manifesto’
https://babylonbee.com/news/mamdani-obama-treat-preschoolers-to-reading-of-the-communist-manifesto
“Former President Barack Obama and current New York City Mayor Zorhan Mamdani delighted preschool students this week by taking turns reading passages from the Communist Manifesto. “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles,” Obama recited to the kids. “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Right, kids?””
Yes, it’s the Bee, but it is so plausible it’s frightening…
The real concern is not that the students are disrespecting the concepts of free exchange of ideas and discourse, its that as law students they are the ones to whom its defense is entrusted in the coming years.
Do you remember when you were in grade school, and every report card had a line on which you were graded for “citizenship?”
(citizenship” encompassed such things as politeness, manners, maturity, not talking when the teachers or others were talking, no fighting, no cheating, no interrupting, paying attention to your teacher, following rules, etc. No running with scissors, ha ha)
(1) Wouldn’t it be great if college students had such a grading component on their final grade transcript? All future employers or admissions departments for graduate schools could review their reputation on these transcripts?
Lin,
Sorry, we did not have a “citizenship” line on our report cards. But the teacher would comment on our behavior and that was just as worthy as getting a “A.”
In the past it was a given if you were hired by a company, both you and the company had expectations of doing a job and doing it well. Nowadays, companies are having issues with new hires, recent college grads and more than a few of them have stated higher education is NOT preparing their students for the real world.
The left in microcosm is best described on this site as Anonymous, the young obnoxious one (we all know who I mean), representing the whistling, screaming phones ringing students while the right is best shown by guys like Mr. Upstate Farmer (and many others) who make a point, argue an issue and reply to others on their comments. Upstate never gets nasty, rude or juvenile and it is guys like this that help the site be enjoyable.
I will say one thing for Mr. X, George, he tends to not be nasty, he makes his argument, usually AI generated, but whatever, and he is consistent. He is not obnoxious, but his contrarianism is laughable and his need to argue an opposing point of view on even 99-1 issues is embarrassing. But that is free speech. The little punk anonymous is today’s students and it is worrisome.
That’s what you think.
Hullbobby, some of my posts may have AI research included. You did not say it was incorrect or not credible. I have yet to see anyone else use a perfectly valid tool to counter my points or arguments.
So what if the majority of my posts are opposite of the majority of Turley’s or most of the commenters? It’s called having an opposing view. You seem to think that I’m supposed to offer at least once a comment agreeing with Turley or a commenter because of some unwritten rule or something.
I have on rare occasions agreed with Turley, but that doesn’t seem to be enough for you. It seems to be you think there is some sort of agreement quota I’m supposed to meet.
X- Seriously not. has it ever occurred to you that the nature of your arguments do not represent “valid” opposing views, but rather call into question your motive for posting them. You did not gain the reputation you have here by presenting “valid” and uncontroverted “opposing views.”
Anonymous, you’ve made very clear that you cannot recognize a valid argument or what an opposing view entails.
If you cannot understand my ‘motive’ for posting here you clearly are not in a position to criticize. You’re just upset that you cannot offer any of your own, but only insults and ad hominem attacks.
^^ X- exactly the type of dumb argument you fire that has given you your reputation. And for the last few days, your “in defense of Turley,” and “so and so is partially right” type of comeback to win acceptance is also failing because you started first thing this morning, par, with THREE silly criticisms of Turley. I think you are a shift worker who has too much time on his or her hands. Does your employer know how much time you spend here?
Anonymous, you keep making my point. You’re not grasping the concept of having an opposing view. Why would it be “wrong’ because it rarely post something about Turley that I agree on?
As I have said many times. Turley’s views, claims, assertions, or criticisms are all fair game. If I choose to only post criticisms, opposing views, or just plain ol’ disagreement it’s my prerogative, not anyone else’s.
Think whatever you want. It’s obvious you’re annoyed or at least have some sort of frustration by my very presence on the blog. I don’t really care. You’re here only to hurl accusations and insults instead of making reasonable arguments or offer your own point of view. I just think it’s funny how much you tend to focus on my and my posts instead of engaging in real discussions and debates substantive on the topic of Turley’s column, point of view, claim, or criticism.
No, clown, you keep making OUR point. When you start out every day with things like, “Turley is being disingenuous,” or “Turley is being hypocritical,” or “Turley forgot to mention” all we can do is laugh.
Did you think that those were not ad hominems You are so funny.
Your air of superiority belies the fact that your only opinions are in reality, opinions of others that you lifted. Just like you dismissing others’ posts as “hilarious” or “cute” and your copycatting of others’ vocabulary is a real telltale.
How about your little learned game of, “I thought you were better than that.” We are ALL better than you and your non-original pretend arguments, George.
Now grow up, OK?
Wow, your ignorance is off the charts. So sad.
truth hurts, doesn’t it?
You are aware AI will hallucinate and tell lies right?
Of course I am aware. I am also aware that I can cross check results and exercise skepticism when something seems off.
Here’s the crazy part. There are a LOT of people who cannot tell when AI is used and when it’s genuine original thought. Those who use AI a lot like I do, do notice the difference. Whether that’s with images or commentary. That’s where reading comprehension skills become important. If you don’t have that skill down pat you wont’ be able to tell the difference.
I also know of Elon’s Grok “glitch” when it pointed out that the majority of content on “X” was racist. Even though it was true. Elon demanded Grok’s algorithm be “finessed” to be more ‘truthful’.
Make no mistake AI will be as ubiquitous as google. And those who don’t learn how to use it or recognize it’s subtle differences are going to be stuck in a state of ignorance and cluelessness.
you are clearly not the person to be preaching about reading comprehension skills.
Who do you think you are anyway? When you said you came here to educate others I burst out laughing.I see why people really laugh at you. Hey, by the way, when you get called out, you disappear. Weren’t you asked to show and point out where you had mentioned Schengen as you claimed? Instead you disappeared, georgie.
Anonymous, called out? Hardly. Unlike most here I don’t spend all day arguing. We do have lives outside of this blog.
What’s your excuse? All you do is complain and whine and offer nothing of substance. Not a single thing. You keep making it obvious that you have no idea what reading comprehension is. You will get it eventually. Or not.
Perhaps, or those that rely upon it will become useless AI reliant dolts.
GSX Svelaz, what I do note is that I provided you with answers and instead of thinking or using AI you ran away.
Examples:
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/04/22/the-disbarment-of-john-eastman-the-california-bar-bags-a-trump-lawyer-and-leaves-troubling-questions/comment-page-1/#comment-2628954
https://jonathanturley.org/2026/04/23/more-heat-than-light-ucla-law-school-students-disrupt-federalist-event/comment-page-1/#comment-2628990
There were many more but the blog only takes two. I will repeat the first one here, since it covers the points you rerfuse to deal with in depth.
1. What were the so-called falsehoods?
2. What is the proof that they were falsehoods?
3. If by chance, something was proven false, did they prove Eastman knew it?
4. If Eastman didn’t know it, there is no guilt.
5.If by chance you believe he knew something was a lie, prove it.
6.Why was Eastman not permitted to call his witnesses?
7.One of the witnesses was John Yoo an eminent professor of Constitutional Law (the subject at hand)
8.What was Yoo prepared to say?
9.How do you expect Eastman to answer the charges if you deny his extraordinarily accomplished legal witnesses?
10.Can you adequately respond to each of these questions? No. You lose.
X, George, the point isn’t that most of your posts are the opposite, THEY ALL ARE THE OPPOSITE end it happens even when the point being made by Turley is that A=A and B=B. You will argue nonsensically against anything and everything that Turley and 95% of people agree with while 5% don’t. You are ALWAYS the 5% and as I said before it would help your credibility to agree when it is obvious the right point of view.
Notice I gave you a few compliments on your lack of aggressiveness, lack of incivility and the fact that you do (try to) make an argument. But it just gets silly when you say things like “it’s free speech to yell down a speaker” or even to defend it. It is silly.
Hullbobby, you’ve got X pegged. You can almost see the workflow. Copy someone’s comment, drop it into an AI prompt, “give me an argument against this,” then paste the output back here as if it were some hard‑won insight.
That is why it is so boringly predictable. Whatever the point is, he will be on the other side of it, even when the issue is as simple as A=A and B=B. There is no endpoint, because there is no goal beyond staying in permanent opposition. It can go on forever, and it adds nothing. Once you see that, it is a lot easier to stop treating it like a real back and forth.
Olly, that’s the point of having an opposing view. Even if I do use AI to support my argument or pick apart someone else’s it still does not make it wrong or factually incorrect because it relies on a multitude of sources and helps create a better argument. That’s the beauty of it. Anyone can do that including those who support
Turley’s views and create their own arguments. It also allows you to learn something new and even find out that you had it wrong and I think that is what may be the biggest obstacle for those who would want to use AI to counter-argue. Finding out your preconceptions were wrong or slightly off.
Many use Google the old fashioned way and that’s just fine. Looking up articles and sources and forming argument is a lot of work for some. But with the advent of AI it makes it a LOT easier and in the process you get to learn more. We could keep in mind that even Turley uses AI, albeit in a more limited way, by using the Grammarly app. It also uses AI to help clean up an article or make an argument more fluent. Have you noticed that he doesn’t have typos and grammar errors anymore?
I encourage people to learn how to use AI and how to use it effectively. Because it not only helps anyone learn more about issues they argue, but it also gives you the ability to drive a point across more effectively.
OLLY,
Exactly!!!
Just scroll past.
Upstate, you know, I joked in the past that we could have “Opposite Day” here. Pick a Thursday, take whatever the constitutionally principled position is, and then write the exact opposite and we’d have half the comments already drafted. I’m more convinced than ever that this is basically what’s happening now, just with AI doing the heavy lifting. Once you see that pattern, the only sane move is what you said. Make your case, then scroll past the Opposite Day script.
Olly, honest question do you believe that using AI is unfair? Why or why not?
Well Hullbobby, geez. If the majority of my posts are counters to Turley’s arguments it’s more likely that I don’t agree with his arguments or points of view and offer my rebuttal or refutation.
You’re absolutely right that I will argue against anything 95% of those here, because most of those here are just parroting what Turley says and agree reflexively.
As I have said I do on occasion, very rarely, find myself agreeing with Turley. But that is when the same 95% of the posters is usually disagree with him. Technically Turley and I would be having an opposing view against those 95% of posters.
“ You are ALWAYS the 5% and as I said before it would help your credibility to agree when it is obvious the right point of view.”
But the “right point of view” would depend if I do see it as the right point of view. You seem to have this idea that what YOU consider a correct point of view from Turley should automatically elicit a similar response from me because I ‘should’ also “see” he is correct. That’s not how things work Hullbobby, I have my own thoughts and view independent of Turley which obviously are not going to be 100% or eve 50% in alignment with his. That is the whole point of an opposing view.
I appreciate your compliments and acknowledgment of my consistency in being polite and maintaining my position.
It may be silly that I opine that free speech to yell down a speaker and defend it. Because it’s MY view. It’s the whole point of an opposing view and expressing it. If you disagree then argue against it using facts or your own logical arguments instead of hurling insults. I would have no problem with that. If we end up in an impasse and you don’t succeed or we don’t agree at all then that’s where we end up and move on.
I have not seen you disagree with Turley or argue why or how he is wrong. I could say the same about you. Why don’t you disagree with Turley more often and make it known? Likely for the same reason I disagree the majority of the time, because the majority of the time Turley makes arguments or claims that I disagree or have an opposing view. It’s a simple as that.
Hullbobby, X has now confirmed exactly what we suspected. His idea of an “opposing view” is to feed other people’s comments into AI and let it crank out a rebuttal, then paste that back in here as if it were some hard‑earned insight. The problem is not that AI exists. Used well, it can help check facts or clean up writing. The problem is when someone uses it as a reflexive contrarian machine, assumes whatever it spits out must be “better” and “more factual” because it gestures at “sources,” and never does the work of testing any of it against the law, the doctrine, or the founding principles Turley is actually drawing on about things like the heckler’s veto.
Put that together with the rest of what he has admitted. He says most of his posts are counters to Turley. He says he will almost always be in the 5 percent against whatever 95 percent of the commenters and Turley are saying. He says he is comfortable defending the heckler’s veto as “free speech” even when the First Amendment tradition and every serious free speech group treat shouting down a speaker as unprotected conduct. Now he proudly tells you AI helps him do all of this faster. That is not independent judgment. That is a self‑described contrarian who has outsourced his arguments to a bot. In plain English, he is an absolute fraud in these threads. No original thought, just an attention‑seeking, AI‑assisted echo of whatever the opposite of Turley happens to be that day.
And if you really want to be cynical about it, I would not even rule out the possibility that this is partly by design. For all we know, “X” could be somebody like Darren running a house contrarian account whose job is to keep a permanent 5 percent in opposition and keep the beehive stirred up. AI makes it easy to mass‑produce “on brand” rebuttals on demand, and nothing drives clicks like a fight. In that light, what better way to drive home Turley’s principled work than to engineer “robust debate” through exactly this strategy. Spin up an AI‑assisted persona that always pokes at Turley’s arguments, let readers line up to dismantle it, and you end up rehearsing and reinforcing Turley’s core points a hundred different ways while the traffic numbers look great. Whether that is what is actually happening or not, the effect is the same. The “opposing view” here functions less like honest dissent and more like a traffic engine that keeps everyone arguing with a ghost.
OLLY,
Great comment!!
“The “opposing view” here functions less like honest dissent and more like a traffic engine that keeps everyone arguing with a ghost.”
That right there. Why argue with a bot? Just scroll past.
Oh, and AI, well it is not as great as it is cracked up to be, US Law Firm Apologizes After AI Hallucinations Made It To Legal Filing
https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-law-firm-apologizes-ai-hallucinations-filing
Upstate, not all AI’s are the same. Since it is new there are bound to be glitches and errors. AI itself warns you that not all responses can be accurate. It’s still up to you to determine if they are or not.
But the reality is AI is improving every day. And that means it improves with more usage and more inputs. Just how Tesla improved its autopilot feature in their cars. More data means more accuracy.
By the way you’r not arguing with a “ghost”. I’m still putting in my own commentary and expressing the view I want. In fact using it makes you think more critically and learn more about the subject you’re arguing. Shouldn’t that be a good thing?
Upstate, you’re right to flag that case. Even a top‑tier firm had to walk it back after AI slipped fake citations into a filing. That is not a small miss. That is a breakdown in judgment and verification. But that actually proves the point, not undermines it.
AI is a tool. It can be incredibly useful, but it will also confidently hand you garbage if you let it. Courts are already seeing filings kicked and lawyers sanctioned when that line gets crossed. And it is not just law. A senior European journalist was just suspended after admitting AI helped fabricate quotes and put words in people’s mouths, and outlets like Ars Technica have fired reporters for the same thing. In academia, editors are now warning that tens of thousands of recent papers may contain AI‑generated citations that do not even exist.
Use AI as a force multiplier, not a final authority. It is great for first drafts, but it still has to be checked against reality. If the stakes involve money, law, or facts you are going to stand on, verify it. Treat it like a sharp junior assistant. Useful, fast, sometimes impressive, but never the last word. And if you are using it to write an opinion, like over on this blog, it is only as principled as you are. It reflects your standard. It does not create one.
OLLY,
I can see where AI can be a useful tool. Read the other day, the CEO of some health care group wants to use AI in x-ray and the like screenings. There will still be a human involved but would be faster and more efficient. Although the one part he left out was the number of radiologists they would have to unemploy/cost savings.
However, I am not interested in someone using AI to formulate their opinion. That is slow and lazy thinking, or should I say, non-thinking.
Upstate, I get where you are coming from, but I see it a little differently.
Saying you are not interested in someone using AI to formulate an opinion is like saying you are not interested in how someone is using a gun to decide what to shoot. The tool is secondary. It begins and ends with the mind that picks it up. If someone has been formed for self government in a constitutional system, AI is going to be used to dig into text, history, case law, and it will tend to produce content that reflects that foundation. If someone has been formed to chase power, grievance, or permanent opposition, AI will happily reflect that too.
So I do not think AI, by itself, makes an opinion “slow and lazy” or “non thinking.” The question is what kind of thinking is already in the person before they open the app. Used by a citizen who actually cares about first principles, it can speed up the work. Used by someone who just wants a faster way to troll, you get what we are seeing from X.
OLLY,
That is a good point.
However, in this context I was thinking more in lines with the non-thinking trolls who need AI to make their opinions for them and try to claim it is what they think. Clearly they are not thinking.
Olly you’re correct about most of what you posted. But you still have not shown why that is wrong.
I don’t use AI entirely or copy and past certain responses. But this is no different than what used to be the norm even with some conservative posters copying and pasting paragraphs or quotes out of context from articles they googled. That’s the ‘old fashioned’ way of using a helpful tool to make an argument.
I will defend my use of such tools by pointing out that even lawyers are using AI to write court arguments and Trumps DOJ prosecutors have used it to make arguments and even create narratives to support their accusations or views.
What you DO get wrong is that I blindly put out what AI spits out. That’s not true. I verify it by going to the sources it cites and cross check it with other sources it offers. What is different is that it often corrects small details or adds more context which most of the time show Turley does leave out. It’s fair to point it out and use it as a counter argument. You don’t agree?
The real question why don’t YOU use it? Is it because you are not yet familiar with it how to properly use it? Or are you going by your own assumptions and prior research?
This should be THE discussion as more and more people learn to use AI effectively and STILL present your version of your argument. I pointed out that even Turley uses AI. Grammarly which we know he uses to keep his typos and grammar errors in check also has an AI feature. If it helps him present a more fluent argument or more concise narrative, even a disingenuous one, it’s still a good use of a tool he knows will benefit him.
This is a point i was making when Turley brought up the topic of AI. Those who learn how to use it effectively will end up having the advantage over those who don’t or refuse to use it. It is no different when computers first started becoming more prevalent and those who learned how to use them effectively became more productive than those who sneered at them and dismissed it as a fad. They got left behind while those who chose to learn moved ahead and achieved greater success in whatever career they were in.
Perhaps you should give it a try and maybe you would see why may be a better way for you to make an argument.
“But this is no different than what used to be the norm even with some conservative posters copying and pasting paragraphs or quotes out of context from articles they googled. “
GSX, this statement demonstrates you don’t truly understand AI.
I can see, it is new to you and you are very chipper about it. If you want to learn use AI appropriately. If you don’t learn and only use it as argument, you lose.
Olly, using AI is not fraudulent. You only say that because to you it is an unfair advantage. How is that different than using google and do the work the old fashioned way?
Or…why would you not use AI to make a counter argument or fact check my arguments?
Hullbobby, let’s look at it another way. Turley rarely openly criticizes Trump or Republicans directly. Using your logic, would it be fair to question why Turley doesn’t post more aggressive disagreements or criticisms of Republicans or Trump? Or how about him writing an opposing view of them 50% of the time?
Or why does he oppose Democrats and their views 100% of the time? It puts him in the same position I am with regard to conservative views or his. Does that seem like a fair comparison in your view?
HullBobby,
Well thank you for that compliment. Means a lot coming from you.
James brought up and then OLLY commented on this kind of behavior being deeper than just the hecklers veto which OLLY described as a tool. But there is a deeper psychosis at work here where this kind of behavior is not only encouraged but rewarded as some kind of moral righteousness. It has also been noted of the increased calls for violence, get in their face, and use of profanity by leftists. And I do believe it is about control. Everything from the use of words, speech, even denying others speech or denying others the opportunity to listen to a speaker as forms of control.
That’s what YOU think.
Exactly right Upstate, and the calls for violence are increasing from the left all the time. People like you, like Olly, James, Lin and a bunch of others make great points without getting into the gutter with the Anonymous types.
If God didn’t want us to nuke ourselves, he wouldn’t have given us uranium.
And free will to be smart enough not to!
Ice should be ALLL OVER CALIFORNIA daily! I do not care how the optics look, there are a plethora of illegals in that state and some of the idiots pretty much admitted to it by claiming we are harming their “undocumented(normal people need to stop using their guilt trip framing)” students!
Said perfectly. An ”undocumented” is still here illegally, independent of their political views or skin color. They broke the law crossing the border and by default, are denying citizens the rights and privileges they have the right to but denied by an illegal taking their place. Don’t like the law, get elected to congress and change it. Can’t, then give up your citizenship and move to a country that supports and defends your ideals.
More of the famous leftist love and tolerance we keep hearing about.
I am going to attempt to engage in wokespeak.
“Your speech is violence and my actions are no more than self defense.”
The students did nothing wrong, in fact, they should be commended.
HOW DID I DO S@@TLIBS?
antonio
“For this people’s heart has grown callous; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts, and turn. And I would heal them.” Matthew 13:15. The left is afraid of what they will hear. They have to shut down honest dialogue. It is a threat to them.
Excellent
Notice how quickly Turkey’s free speech absolutism goes away when it is a MAHA getting protested.
They booed when he was introduced but in the video it seemed that he did give his talk successfully. If the students were not too disruptive during his talk then they did nothing wrong.
If you a high level official in a fascist government you deserve to get booed (and more).
Sally George Anonny-
Ride Sally Ride…
Do you even know what a fascist is?
Pubescent pimple cream aisle 6
Do you?
https://www.keene.edu/academics/cchgs/resources/presentation-materials/characteristics-and-appeal-of-fascism/download/
Sally, you really the point of Turley’s article. Protesting is fine. Disrupting (interfering conduct) is not fine. The whole purpose of a university is hear different ideas. That purpose is defeated when one group decides what ideas
others are able to hear.
@Sally
Turkey? You just gave yourself away to those of us who have been reading the blog for a while.
James,
I think that was autocorrect. Mine does it sometimes.
I have been reading since at leas 2009. Long before Turley became a MAGA and this blog was mostly nerdy analysis of law.
So then you recall the entire script of Beowulf in German … That was an attack on your free speech, how did you like that disruption to the forum?
The good professor did not become a MAGA. The Democrat party left him for radical far left wing nihilism. Bill Maher has been saying the same for years now.
He is a bit of a Turkey to have written UCLE instead of UCLA and published that twice.
In the Comments on April 23, 2026 at 7:08 AM, “Anonymous” wrote: “Death to MAGA!”
Everyone should understand that Anonymous and his/her friends mean what they say.
What’s striking about this post and this comment section is that it’s the same pattern Turley is talking about at UCLA, just in a different format. On campus, the move is to make so much noise the speaker cannot communicate with the people who came to hear him. Here, the move is to flood the thread with rage bait, personal shots, and canned talking points so people who actually care about ideas get dragged into pointless slap fights instead of engaging the substance. That is not some higher form of free speech. It is the online version of a heckler’s veto dressed up as “more speech” and it works only if we keep volunteering to play.
The one advantage we have here is that we are not trapped in a room. We can scroll past, we can read Turley’s piece, we can check the law, and we can talk to each other like adults while the hecklers bark in the background. That takes discipline and a little civic pride. Either we keep feeding the heckler economy with our time and attention, or we decide that not every provocation earns a response. They are going to be loud, unfair, and obnoxious no matter what anyone says to them. The only real power we have is whether we let them hijack the conversation. If we stop paying them in attention, they do not vanish, but they do become what they should have been all along: irrelevant to the serious work of a free people trying to think together about their country.
OLLY,
Well said and great comment!!!
They are ever so irrelevant. Just scroll past.
However, those of us who are civil have earned respect, we must call out exactly the uncivil, anti-1stA conduct those who would shout down a speaker, denying others their Freedom of Speech rights to hear the speaker while the uncivil fascists try to claim their heckler veto is a form of Freedom of Speech. It is nothing of the kind, in denying others their rights.
Upstate, it’s one thing to show up in a thread, lay out what free speech actually means, and draw the line between protest and a heckler’s veto. That is worth doing. The record is there for anyone who actually wants to think. It is something else to sit there all day trading replies with people who are clearly not interested in law, facts, or anything but keeping the fight going. At that point you are not defending the First Amendment. You are helping run a free entertainment service for trolls.
If folks want that, fine, just admit it. Say, “I am here because I am bored and arguing with clowns is fun.” But let’s not dress it up as some noble civic mission. It is not. It bores the hell out of me and it buries the serious comments that already did the work. This thread could have had a handful of solid points about free speech and campus rules and been done. Instead it turns into another endless food fight. The grown up move is simple. Make your point, then scroll.
Olly, and people are not allowed to leave the room? Who is ‘trapped’ in a room? The UCLA event didn’t keep people ‘trapped’ in the room.
If you don’t want to hear both sides of an argument, just don’t show up. If you do, on the off chance you might learn something about the other side, then listen. You don’t have to agree, but a lot of young men died or were terrible wounded in WWII to let us have the right of free speech. Hitler was not in favor of letting the other side talk either.
It’s pretty clear that this level of fragility is almost a form of psychosis. That is one thing, administration turning a blind eye is another. It is no wonder we are approaching a mindset, a la Mao, where the only solution in the minds of young leftists is to toss the elders off a cliff and rewrite history. It isn’t simple viewpoint intolerance: they can’t cope with the possibility of anything that disrupts their personal comfort levels existing at all, period. It’s madness.
“……a Constitutional Republic…..if you can keep it!”…………..Benjamin Franklin
make federal arrests…process them in North Dakota!
STOP allowing the BROWNSHIRT Fascist Democrats…. We don’t want a repeat of 30’s and 40’s
time to END Federal Aid to colleges and states. Including STudent loans.
STOP rewarding failure.
Also outlaw public unions the taxpayer funded political army of the democrats!
Here’s a example of a obviously insane rightist, folks.
aspiring democrats appear to confuse
Free Speech with Fascism!
shouting down and block people are CRIMES…not speech!