The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law has brought a new meaning to the heckler’s veto. Some of us criticized the law school for its failure to hold students accountable for disrupting a recent Federalist Society event featuring James Percival, general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security. While the law school administration does not appear interested in holding the protesters accountable, it has threatened the Federalist Society that it could face discipline if it identifies any of the students who disrupted the event. This perfectly surreal position was stated in a letter from Bayrex Martí, UCLA’s assistant dean for student affairs.
On April 21, law students organized a protest to prevent others from hearing Percival. As others protested (appropriately) outside of the event, these students entered the room and drowned out the speakers by booing, shouting profanities, playing cellphone ringtones, and even allegedly making death threats.
These tactics are expressly prohibited by the university as conduct that is “so disruptive as to effectively silence” a speaker. The fact that the speaker continued to try to speak (and succeeded after a walkout) does not change the fact that these students succeeded in disrupting and effectively silencing the speaker during the event.
UCLA issued a feckless response where it mouthed support for the free exchange of ideas but did nothing to punish the responsible students.
As I discussed earlier,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.
The UCLA 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.”
However, UCLA wants to deter anyone who names the students who are clearly shown in the video proudly disrupting the events and spewing abuse.
In April 22 emails, Martí warned Federalist Society President Matthew Weinberg against identifying the disruptors.
“I have also seen requests online to identify students in the audience who are visible in video recordings. I would strongly encourage you and other organizers to not disclose those details.”
If that “encouragement” was not enough, Martí threatened “reasonably predictable” consequences.
In a barely comprehensible message, Martí warns:
“If that information is shared despite the tenor of some online commentary, and an implicated student reports behavior from anyone that falls under prohibited behavior per the Student Code of Conduct, the student organization and/or individual students could be connected to it (the allegation being that the outcome was reasonably predictable when the names were disclosed) and subjected to campus processes.”
Whatever that means, it is not good for free speech or the law school as an institution. Presumably, the law school was responding to concerns from these students who appear to demand both the right to disrupt speakers and the right not to be held accountable for their conduct.
By participating in this disruption, these students took a public stand against free speech and actively sought to prevent others from hearing opposing views. However, they do not want to experience any consequences themselves while denying the rights of others.
These protesters know that many would view their conduct as unprofessional and uncivil. Specifically, employers from judges to law firms to agencies would likely find this misconduct relevant in considering these students for positions. Viewpoint intolerance is strangling higher education and destroying basic values of civility in our profession.
Few law firms would relish hiring a lawyer who screams “Nazi” or holds up disgusting signs to those who hold opposing views.
The Federalist Society, student journalists, and any of the student body have the right to report on public events and to identify those responsible for public disruptions. The letter seeks to impose a form of coercive censorship on student groups that wish to offer detailed descriptions of these controversies.
For example, what happens under this letter if the Daily Bruin publishes the names of the students? How about a student blogger?
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) has sent a letter urging the university to retract what it calls a threat against Federalist Society members’ rights: “As painful as online criticism may be at times, UCLA may not restrict protected speech merely to shield student protesters from the consequences of their actions.”
Notably, the letter contained a footnote stating “Student protesters have also published video clips and photographs of the event alongside comments publicly identifying and mocking Federalist Society members visible in the clips, including a photograph of Weinberg taken in the hallway outside the event.”
What is most distressing is the relative silence of most law faculty in light of this conduct and the most recent threat against the Federalist Society. Where is the rest of the faculty after their students shouted down a high-ranking government lawyer who came to campus to discuss immigration policies?
To his credit, Percival was willing to take time from an undoubtedly busy schedule to engage UCLA students and teachers on these controversies. He was met first by a mob from the student body and then by silence from most of the faculty.
Most glaring has been Dean Michael Waterstone’s role in this controversy. Waterstone appears to have taken a relatively passive role as his school becomes the latest symbol of academic intolerance and hypocrisy. At a minimum, Waterstone should explain if he had prior knowledge of the Martí letter. If so, he should explain to the rest of us how the law school believes it can compel the silence of groups, students, and journalists regarding publicly available information related to the controversy.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Wait, so these leftys want to stop others from hearing views that they don’t like?
And ALL democrats are encouraging this kind of Un-American behavior?
I don’t like that. Reminds me of stories from the communist hell holes of yore.
They’re wishing for a uncivilized past like putin is. we don’t stand for this crap in 2026 in Trump’s America.
the democrats are lost and the rest of us are making America great.
More coddling.
If you look at this from a pure “school as a business” angle, the incentives are pretty obvious. Like any school, UCLA Law wants graduates who go out, build big careers, and then come back as proof that “this is where top lawyers are made.” That is how you sell the next class and the next donor.
What they have instead is a reputational problem. They have a chunk of the student body that thinks screaming down a speaker and turning a law school into a mob scene is “advocacy.” They cannot control it. They do not seem to know how to control it. And they know that footage of that conduct, tied to actual names, is bad for the brand.
So this may not even be ideological. It may be pure damage control. If those names get out, firms and judges will start to connect the dots and say “UCLA Law is turning out exactly the kind of lawyer we do not want anywhere near our clients or our chambers.” The school cannot fix that culture quickly, so it does the one thing it can do in the short term. It tries to keep the names out of the story.
That is the quiet confession in this letter. The administration is more worried that the public will see what kind of lawyers it is producing than it is about whether those lawyers understand free speech, professional ethics, or basic civility.
So what’s your point… lots of words hanged together. You going for word count only or stating a point?
Thank you for your boilerplate.
Olly, no. This is about the school sticking to its rules. It’s a law school. And the students are exercising their free speech rights to oppose a speaker and to protest. Many protested outside the venue which Turley clearly had no problem with. It’s the few who were inside and disrupting the event just enough to not break the rules but enough to be annoying and obnoxious as to frustrate the speaker.
What Turley and most don’t seem to to get is that the rules specifically say a ‘true’ disruption that would merit punishment or discipline would involve silencing a speaker to the point where they cannot finish or express their view. Clearly that did not happen. The speaker got to finish is speech and express his view and conclude and FEDSOC got to conclude the event.
Was it wrong to disrupt the speaker a few times with obnoxious ring tones and sporadic heckling, YES. But it did not rise to the level of disruption considered by the school to be enough to warrant the kind of punishment Turley wants and that is what drives him crazy. But rules are rules and as a law school they are bound to stick to the rules. The students who were more likely law students knew just how far to push it and not break the rules. Which is what a client would want as a skill and a mark of a a good lawyer. They protested with a nuanced albeit obnoxious intent that did not specifically break the rules set by the school.
FEDSOC wants to seek revenge and be petty by threatening to expose those student protesters by literally violating school rules because the students did not technically break the rules when they were protesting. Their speaker got to finish his speech and express his views. That is what Turley does not want to focus on because he wants to keep the anger alive enough to force a punishment on protesters exercising their free speech rights. The irony is clearly lost on so many here.
Non-students should make a concerted effort to identify the protestors – perhaps with anonymous assistance from students who are not members of the Federalist society. No doubt some of them may be found through research such yearbooks – photos of groups like the National Lawyer’s Guild and other leftist groups. Names should be posted and sent to every law firm and agency that recruits at UCLA Law.
UCLA is a public land grant university, which makes it a de facto government entity. Can any of the lawyers here explain to me exactly what sanctions UCLA administration could potentially impose on the Federalist Society for disclosing the identity of the misbehaving activists (which would have been information already known or freely available to anyone physically attending the event or viewing video of it) without running afoul of 1A free speech protections?
To correct your assumption… there are no lawyers here. Regards, The management.
“I would strongly encourage you and other organizers to not disclose those details.”
You can always count on Leftists to get the moral equation precisely wrong: Protect the guilty. Punish the innocent.
Always? Seems that’s exactly what you’re doing Sam.
Our rectal disinfection specialist showed up early this morning.
Heckler’s veto?
Rectal? And you’re the hemorrhoid on this blog I’ll bet.
Well, you are clearly the @$$w1p3, in case you failed to comprehend the message.
Your mother wears army boots
Sam, guilty of what? They didn’t break the rules. The ‘innocent’ want to exact revenge by breaking the rules. Who are being the moral ones here?
If the SCOTUS can leak the Dobbs opinion with the leaker never being identified, I’m pretty sure that the Federalist Society can leak the names of the agitators anonymously.
What does UCLA and SCOTUS have to do with the incident? The whole thing is a nothingburger but Turley attempts to make it a 1A crisis?
One can only imagine how many such incidents take place at Turley’s G. W. University that he will not reveal. But UCLA is fair game?
Nothingburger!
I feel dumber after reading your comment. Are you a TDS carrier?
“nothingburger, nothing to see here fellow American! This just did not happen!”
You ARE a TDS carrier!
Dumber you say? So you admit to being dumb before you commented?
The heckler’s veto is a thing. The American tradition of free speech, protected from government interference through the first and fourteenth amendments, is a thing.
And here, a unit of government failed to protect speech from a mob shouting the speaker down. An institution calling itself a university, tolerated the censorship of a point of view. Imagine if all socialists on campus were thus silenced, but by MAGA mobs. Still a nothingburger?
There’s a pattern here that’s hard to miss.
At UCLA Law, the rule says you can protest but you do not get to shut down a speaker. These students crossed that line in full view of the cameras. Instead of holding them to the rule, the school is now leaning on the people who might name them. That flips the script. The violators become the protected class and the rule followers get warned.
Obama’s “red line” in Syria was the same move at a higher level. He drew a clear boundary on chemical weapons. Assad crossed it. Instead of real consequences, the line got blurred and the regime stayed in place. The words survived. The enforcement died.
With Iran, we said we would stop a hostile regime from going nuclear and underwriting terror. Instead they kept pushing and got cash and sanctions relief. A lot of that money flowed right back into proxy violence. Again. The line existed in theory. The reward went to the people testing it.
Nick Shirley is the street version of this. He points a camera at what looks like industrial scale fraud in Minnesota and California. The response in California is not to move heaven and earth to clean it up. It is to talk about new rules that would make exactly that kind of exposure harder.
Three different arenas. Same instinct. Draw a line for public consumption. Let it be crossed when it is costly to enforce. Then move to contain or punish the people who insist on saying out loud that the line was crossed.
That is how institutions teach citizens that the real offense is not abuse of power. The real offense is exposing it.
There is no pattern. So you extrapolate the UCLA, to Obama to Shirley? What a leap. Takes a warped mind to make that tangent.
I guess you’ll say anything for attention eh Olly?
Lambasting speech of those with whom you disagree is a sign of a petulant child not getting what they want from parents. My bet is you are the one who has a warped mind with your constant degradation of people with whom you disagree. Say something nice for a change. . .you might get better results.
My bet is you are the one who has a warped mind with your constant degradation of people with whom you disagree. Sound familiar?
Right back at ya.
I have yet to see any positive responses you have made to those with whom you disagree. None of us can be wrong (or not) 100% of the time, and lambasting the thoughts of others is a sign of anger and resentment.
Its called heckler’s veto. Ever hear of it?
And if one may add, where’s your intellectual gems? I know its a stretch considering …
Well stated, thank you
They didn’t cross the line Olly, the speaker was never silenced. That’s the point. While the protesting was disruptive it was not disruptive enough that the speaker stopped completely.
The rules specifically mention that the protest violates the rules IF they succeed in completely silencing the speaker. That did not happen. They managed to halt speaking sporadically by the speaker still finished his speech.
Keep in mind that this is a law school and these protesters are also law students who know how to push the limits without breaking the rules. This is more likely the source of Turley’s ire. He wants to punish these students for violating the speakers exercising his free speech rights for them exercising their free speech rights right up to the limit. Technically the protesters did not really break the rules enough to warrant the kind of punishment Turley wants.
There’s also rules about doxing. The federalist society wants to break that rule because it ‘feels’ it has a right to be vindictive about what happened and the lack of punishment. Problem is exposing those protesters directly violates school rules it doesn’t just push the limits, it goes beyond that. That is why the school is issuing a warning about what FEDSOC intends to do. If they choose to do that they WILL face disciplinary action for actually breaking the rules. The protesters are law students who know that technicalities matter and that it’s important to know how to use them to their advantage. Because that is how it works in court. Turley knows this since he is a torts lawyer. He’s just annoyed by the fact that these students know how to really push the limits without breaking the rules and not get punished.
“He’s just annoyed by the fact that these students know how to really push the limits without breaking the rules and not get punished.” As Rodney King said. . .”Can’t we all get along?”
Turley’s point was that these people are not having to pay any consequences for their behavior, and rules preventing doxxing are protecting them. Why should they be protected? Life is not consequence free.
UCLA can do as it pleases. The public has no say. If they had, based on what precedence can the public get that info?
Seems no one at UCLA is willing to name names. Newsom does not care, he encourages it. And i doubt Trump & Co. gives a toot what happens at UCLA.
As for consequences… job prospects etc. Doubt those kids give a toot. Soros will see to that.
Canuck, correct. They are not paying the consequences for their behavior precisely because they did not technically break the rules.
Turley is chastising the school for not going beyond what their rules state constitutes a disruption. If the students were so disruptive to the point where the speaker was forced to stop his speech entirely and leave the event THEN there would be reason to punish the students because the rules would have been specifically violated. The speaker DID get to finish his speech and present his point of view. Yes, there was some hollering or sporadic heckles and ‘loud’ ringtones. But those disruption did not rise to the point where the speaker could not finish his speech or present his views and that is the distinction that Turley does not want to admit. He resents the fact that the students were smart enough to protest just enough to be an annoyance and but not enough to warrant punishment according to school rules. These are law students and they were smart enough to know how far to push their protest without breaking the rules and still be disruptive enough without preventing the speaker from completely stopping.
The FEDSOC students wanting to dox the protesters would be in direct violation of school rules against doxing if they go ahead with identifying those protesting. Their purpose is to be vindictive and Turley seems to want to justify it because the protesters were not held accountable despite not really breaking school rules. Blacklisting those protesters and exposing who they are so potential future employers don’t hire them is a punishment that would force silence on other students exercising their free speech right to protest future speakers in the same manner. Turley wants to silence protesters who don’t conform to HIS standard instead of the school’s. He WANTS the harshest possible punishment on those who don’t adhere to what his view should be the standard for accountability.
Alright… 600 words… and is there a point somewhere in there. or just going after the wordcount award for today?
So you’re saying you’re not smart enough to understand. That tracks.
How is identfying a disruptive student “doxing”? Doxxing means providing documents: home addresses, phone numbers, etc.
Where in the UCLA Student Handbook is a rule against identifying disruptive students? Individual administrators cannoot make up rules on the spot.
The speaker was silenced from the get-go. The fact that he eventually got his message out does not negate his initial silencing. Someone who administers a bare knuckle beating is not sxcused of liability because he eventually stopped.
michaeldix2f64102fb2,
Correct.
Watching the video the uncivil students clearly were shouting over, yelling, using their cell ringtones to disrupt the speaker and prevent others who were there to hear what he had to say, denying them their 1stA right.
OLLY,
Well said.
The CA lawmakers attempting to pass a bill to keep the fraud going and not getting exposed is rather puzzling.
That’s not what Olly said. No mention of CA. Wrong post maybe?
Nick Shirley exposed hospice fraud in California: organizations collecting tax money for services never provided. AG Rob Bonta’s wife introduced a bill in the CA legislature that apparently would hamper such efforts in future.
You have the right Michael. When I think about what hospice funding is supposed to be for, what Nick Shirley is exposing is almost too on the nose. Hospice money is meant to care for people at the end of life. Instead, you have a political and bureaucratic class looking the other way while sham hospices and shell operators suck hundreds of millions out of the system for services never delivered.
In that light, this is not just fraud against a program. It looks like a corrupt regime using “end of life” funds to keep its own dying institution on life support. They are feeding themselves off money that was supposed to ease the last days of real patients. That tells you everything about who they really care about.
This is what OLLY said, “Nick Shirley is the street version of this. He points a camera at what looks like industrial scale fraud in Minnesota and California. The response in California is not to move heaven and earth to clean it up. It is to talk about new rules that would make exactly that kind of exposure harder.”
This is what OLLY was referencing, Dems ripped for ‘Stop Nick Shirley Act’ that could ‘shield’ fraud and abuse in California
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/california-dems-ripped-bill-dubbed-stop-nick-shirley-act-could-penalize-independent-journalists
Upstate, At this point, California passes Stop Nick Shirley Act to protect fraud from citizen journalists is a headline I would fully expect to see in the Babylon Bee. The only problem is it is not satire.
Maybe UCLA needs a letter from the Dept of Justice. They are, after all a public supported land grant institution.. Thats a little different from Private universities such as Northwestern and Stanford. So, in effect, a public funded institution of the state of California is apparently engaged in the suppression of free speech. The Heckler’s veto for one side yet threats of dire consequences if the opposing side responds. That is definitely viewpoint discrimination and an interesting twist to an interpretation of the 1st amendment. The heckling students entered a public forum in a state supported school. They have no right to be protected from identification.
Seems like a great time for some guerrilla journalism to smite the oppression of Asst Dean and the Law School and identify the miscreants.
Public supported – true, but it doesn’t empower the DOJ to interference in the daily management of activities at the school.
Guerrilla journalism? So spying on private persons is okay when you say so, because a bunch of stupid kids can’t use the 1st A?
Gotta ask, what is it with you old crazies here, you attack youth as if it were a disease.
Time for you useless old farts to disappear; you contribute nothing to society.
go after the accreditation of these far leftist anti 1st amendment schools
BTW shouting down and physically blocking people…isn’t 1st Amendment…they are CRIMES
harrassment and assault
Accreditation? based on what, you don’t like them? Grow-up man. Seriously.
Dad, this is how Allen Cole spun out of control Cole Allen spun out of control. Please come up out of the basement!
You are the one who needs to grow up. All of your posts are repeated attacks on those with whom you disagree. Just a suggestion, but you need some counseling to get rid of the anger and hate.
Sound familiar? You are the one who needs to grow up. All of your posts are repeated attacks on those with whom you disagree.
are you georgie? Copying others on this blog who taught you table-turning tactics?
End Federal Aid including Student Loan backing…to colleges
speak in a language they understand.
BREAK THE DEMOCRATS
In so many parts of this country, people are living in an upside down world. This is but one example. It is hard to imagine a law school, of all places, unwilling to insure that unpopular viewpoints are heard and considered by its students. This is the mentality that has allowed so many evils to go unchecked for so long. This morning I read that the City Council of Ann Arbor voted unanimously to remove all 600 Neighborhood Watch signs from the city because they were not “inclusive”, suggesting that some people just don’t belong in certain neighborhoods. And then there’s the “progressive” agenda in which boys must be allowed in girl’s sports and a baby born alive still can be aborted. When a Seinfeld episode featured the upside down world in which George seemed to live, I thought it was comedy. Now, it seems more like prophecy.
Lawyer, I saw the story about Ann Arbor taking down the Crime Watch signs in order to be more inclusive too and upside down is a perfect way to put it.
The left shouts down conservative speakers claiming “free speech” and then demands the people stopped from hearing the speaker not say who these “hecklers” were…again under the guise of free speech. It is the Bizarro world of Superman and Seinfeld.
The thing I notice about the Ann Arbor thing is this, it doesn’t change that there are STILL the Neighborhood Watches. It just doesn’t tell the purported burglar that there ARE Neighborhood Watches. So, my advice, get a gun! When that person enters your house, without your permission, let the Medical Examiner and Police take care of the body as it is removed.
In essence, this removes the warning sign, NOT the Watch! Also, might I suggest the following on a sign: “If you are intent on attempting to enter this house, please pray first! Get Right with God, as you WILL be meeting him, shortly!”
Anon– in Austin Texas where we used to live a thief tried to steal a neighbor’s car. The neighbor went outside with a shotgun, the thief advanced on him and the neighbor shot. When the police arrived, they outlined the position of the body on the street with chalk. The next day, some neighborhood kids spray-painted over the chalk, creating a permanent outline of the body. That was, in my opinion, the best neighborhood watch sign I’ve ever seen or heard of. In order to remove it, the city had to repave that part of the street. Too bad.
The Professor argues the protesters used a “heckler’s veto” to silence the speaker. However, by demanding these students be blacklisted from jobs and publicly shamed, he is trying to use a “corporate heckler’s veto” to silence the protesters. He wants to ensure that anyone who disagrees with a government lawyer is too afraid for their future career to speak up.
If Professor Turley truly cared about the “free exchange of ideas,” he would support the school’s attempt to keep the debate on campus and off the “outrage” sites of the internet. By encouraging the naming and shaming of students, he isn’t protecting the First Amendment—he is turning a law school into a battlefield for internet trolls. Which is where civility dies an early death. Professor Turley will not get the punishment he wants the school to dole out to the protesters, instead he wants the federalist society to be able to do it through doxing. How is that exercising civility?
Again george, you’re twisting Turley’s words. I duress it takes a twisted mind…
Twisting? Nope. Just pointing out the reality of Turley’s argument. It’s called having a different perspective.
George, he’s not arguing anything, he’s stating an opinion.. Did he cite any laws in his opinion that would make you think it is an argument?
You just make shit up and think you’re smart? Hey, why don’t you write for the National Review or the Federalist? You tried but was rejected, you say. No wonder. Conspiracy theories aren’t their thing.
Reality? Funny you should use that word. What is reality George?
Bizarro X once again says the opposite of reality. He claims the students didn’t use the heckler’s veto (they did) and then demands that those prevented from seeing the speaker not release the names of those hecklers because it doesn’t fall under free speech???
Where did I say the students didn’t use the hecklers veto? Because what they did is not a hecklers veto. Even Turley doesn’t use the term “heckler’s veto” correctly and he’s a lawyer.
Correctly X? So what’s the proper usage?
Ditto that anon.
JT “wants to ensure that anyone who disagrees with a government lawyer is too afraid for their future career to speak up.”
Per usual, nice job butchering JT’s argument.
They are not “protesters”. They are criminals, and violent thugs, and they deserve to be named and shunned. No decent person should ever employ them or voluntarily associate with them, and for that they need to know who they are. Threatening the students if they expose these thugs is a violation of their freedom of speech.
Suppose some group started publishing the names of Young Republicans and MAGA Youth so they can be banned by employers? No problem with that?
Ah… a black voice. Liberals have been doxing, even resorting to violence with the protection of democrat officials and liberal institutions nationwide, even before conservatives even thought about using doxxing to raise issues with liberals doxxing conservatives. Or did get that wrong?
Why would an employer ban nice conservative kids? I’m guessing if you were an employer, you wouldn’t hire white kids with degrees eh? No problem with that. Just confirms known racial biases among blacks. Less so whites. But those kids will do just fine in any society. But you just perpetuate racial stereotypes for the sake of your animosities towards all-things-white, the kind that white liberals and black liberals have propagated for decades.
/\ Anon @ 9:12 am
I agree with most of your comment. I disagree with identifying the individual as a “Black Voice”. There is nothing in his comment that introduces race into the overall dialog. The picture, I guess it is called Gravatar, could be of someone else, though not likely. When society stops with seeing the color of the person, we can progress our discussions to just the facts or non facts as presented by the individual.
Ah… someone who only thinks in terms of race. I have hired white people without giving their race a thought, only their ability to do the job, and get along with their fellow employees. Compare that to Trump and Hegseth who are rooting out Black and female leaders crediting meritocracy, suggesting qualified white people were more deserving than Black and female officers with decades of service to the nation.
Who I would like to know about and not hire is the Young Republicans who participated in the group chat full of racist and sexist quotes. I would absolutely not hire them, but they could still work for the current administration like Darren Beatie who wants things run by competent white men.
“Competent white men must be in charge if you want things to work.”
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article314928484.html
People are punished for their ACTS, not their STATUS. When sodomy was a crime, no one was punished merely for being homosexual, but for having sex with men.
Merely being a Republican cannot be a crime, outsde of an Orwellian dystopia.
Being a racist and misogynist Young Republican and participating in group chats revealing their character is an act, wouldn’t you agree?
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article314928484.html
Millhouse, criminals? What was the crime?
Warning them that exposing these student protesters is a violation of school rules. Because they want to be vindictive? It’s petty.
Turley is clearly against black listing. But he is wholly supportive of the idea when it’s the other side who is being subjected to it. He even argued once that black listing is a violation of free speech.
As I pointed out many times and Turley kind of admitted. The student protesters disruption did not stop the speaker from finishing his speech or expressing his views. The rules per Turley state disruptive behavior that ends up stopping or silencing a speaker is a violation. That did NOT occur. That’s why Turley is upset about the lack of accountability and the fact remains that technicalities matter. The school cannot hold students, law students, accountable because they did not technically stop the speaker from finish his speech or expressing his view. The event concluded with the speaker fully expressing his views and finishing his speech. Turley doesn’t want to mention that because that would mean it would be harder for the school to justify any punishment when the speaker was not literally silenced and prevented from speaking at all.
clown X/George says, “The event concluded with the speaker fully expressing his views and finishing his speech. Turley doesn’t want to mention that.”
And how does X know that the speaker finishing his speech? X/GEORGIE READ IT IN TURLEY’S POST!!!!! In fact, George/X wouldn’t even have known about this event had it not been for this blog.
(Not to mention that just a handful of intended audience remained.)
Crime? False representation , fraud in advertising that UCLA actually has a law school for which people pay good money. Fleecing the American people in fraudulently using taxes, theft, robbery, perjury etc.
It appears that you need to be reminded… Actions have consequences.
Actions have consequences. Sure. When those actions break the rules. Here it seems they did not technically break the rules. FEDSOC on the other hand seems intent on breaking the rules just to be petty and vindictive. That would earn them consequences for those actions. Because it breaks the rules.
Turley mocks the school for warning students not to identify the protesters. However, he ignores that when names are posted online today, it often leads to death threats, harassment at home, and “swatting” (calling police to someone’s house). The school isn’t “silencing” the Federalist Society; they are warning them that if they start an online mob that leads to violence, they could be held responsible for that outcome. That isn’t “surreal”; it’s basic safety.
Turley is very upset that the school didn’t punish the protesters for being “disruptive.” But he is perfectly fine with the Federalist Society potentially violating the Student Code of Conduct by targeting individual students for online abuse. You can’t demand the school enforce its rules against one group while insisting another group should be allowed to break the rules regarding harassment.
Turley calls this “academic intolerance” from the left. He conveniently omits recent examples where right-wing groups have successfully pressured universities to fire professors or cancel speakers they don’t like. For example, in many “Red” states, new laws actually ban certain types of speech and diversity programs in colleges. Turley rarely calls those laws an “existential threat” to the Republic, even though they come from the government, not just a group of shouting students.
Mocks? The only mocking here should be of you. Whats it like to be an attention whore?
Dad! The drinking and all night gaming is obviously taking a toll on you. Think of what it is doing to your family. Please come up out of the basement and start looking for work!
Bizarro X supports laws forcing ICE Agents to not be allowed to wear masks, as attacks on ICE Agents increased 1000% and yet wants to protect fascist students from being named when he cannot name one leftists student that has been doxed. Yes, radical students committing crimes while HERE ILLEGALLY have been named and deported, but there isn’t one that has been attacked. The left does the attacking, the right doesn’t.
It’s these criminals whom the university is protecting, who are responsible for death threats, harassment, and SWATing. Never the other way around. So exposing them is unlikely to lead to such consequences. But if it does, it would be no more than they deserve. Again, they are not “protesters”, they are criminals and evil people, who deserve to be named and shunned. The university should be expelling them, not protecting them.
What is curious about law schools canceling alternative viewpoints, or this latest threat to retaliate against exposure of protesters, is that it is done by fiat. And at a law school, no less, where the faculty and students alike should get juiced at the prospect of arguing the legality of such an action. The UCLA Law School did a little CYA job by getting a (really) low-level administrator to write the letter.
Is intelligent debate at the Academy dead?
This is akin to scientists rejecting a theory because they don’t like it. It is also akin to the military general rejecting the teachings of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War” because he was Chinese, or Carl von Clausewitz’s “On War” because he was Prussian.
It’s a law school. These students, future lawyers, know technicalities matter. If they can protest by pushing it to the limit without breaking the rules it’s still not breaking the rules and Turley is upset that they are getting away with it without facing the consequences he wants them to face.
The Federalist Society wanting to expose these protesters will actually violate school rules which is why the school is warning them not to do it. Exposing students by doxing them and naming them does more than just push the limits of the rules, it breaks them directly and that is the distinction. Turley is calling out the school for warning the FS not to directly break the rules because they feel the need to be vindictive. It’s a level of pettiness that Turley seems to want to allow because the protesters were smart enough to know how they could push the limits of their protest without breaking the rules.
I believe I was discussing the legality of debate on campus. You are defending a rule because it is a rule, thereby supporting a rule in favor of the anonymity of disrupters. Loving arbitrary rules.
Well what good are rules is they specifically mean something needs to be met in order for something not to be in violation? You know, the whole rule of law thing.
If the rules say a disruption is considered a disruption if the speaker is silenced or prevented from speaking at all and the speaker does end up finishing his speech and expressing his view concluding the event is the ‘disruption’ by the students a violation of the rule?
These are not arbitrary rules. They are specific. One says disruptions that do not stop a speaker from speaking or expressing their views is not a serious disruption that merits the kind of punishment Turley wants. Rules that specifically say doxing or exposing students identifies for revenge is prohibited then FEDSOC’s intentions would be literal violations of school rules. How is that arbitrary?
They DID break the rules. Both the student code of conduct and the actual law. The university should be expelling them and prosecuting them, not protecting them.
No they didn’t Millhouse. UCLA defines prohibited disruption as speech or conduct that “effectively silences” an invited speaker or prevents them from communicating with a willing audience.
The speaker was never effectively silenced. He got to finish his speech and express his views. The audience eventually got to hear his point.
These are the specific violations stated in their website.
Physical Interference: Blocking entrances or exits (ingress/egress) of facilities, walkways, or roadways.
Auditory Interference: Sustained noise that drowns out a speaker or prevents others from hearing. While amplified sound is permitted in certain areas, it must remain below 85 decibels and cannot disrupt campus operations.
Operational Interference: Conduct that unduly obstructs or interferes with teaching, research, administration, or the permissible use of university facilities.
None of what the students did violated those specific rules. Ring tones don’t get any higher than 85 db. Was there anyone holding a meter there? So how would you enforce that?
Students can be held accountable under the UCLA Student Conduct Code, which prohibits “disruptive behavior” that inhibits a safe and peaceful learning environment.
Since they didn’t inhibit the safe and peaceful learning environment per their definition of what constitutes a disruption they did not technically break the rules.
The punishment as of February 2026, the code includes a “Letter of Admonition” for potential violations and a “90-day resolution target” for misconduct cases.
Expulsion or suspensions are for extreme violations, not this.
Well, X, we can see that you never went to law school. When you are shouted out and muted with shouts, boos, cellphone rings, pounding, etc., and more than half your audience leaves because they do not want to be part of the disruption, that is what “effectively” means. Notice that UCLA does not demand a per se “silencing.” You are such a clown.
Half the audience were protesters you idiot. They came in with the intent to walk out. Sheesh.
ad hominem much, georgie? Student mind reader much, georgie? Sheesh.
gdonaldallen,
It is an Academy in name only. As we have seen over the past several years there is nothing academic about it.
“ These tactics are expressly prohibited by the university as conduct that is “so disruptive as to effectively silence” a speaker. The fact that the speaker continued to try to speak (and succeeded after a walkout) does not change the fact that these students succeeded in disrupting and effectively silencing the speaker during the event.”
Professor Turley as a lawyer forgot that details matter. UCLA’s rules do say if the protesters succeed in silencing the speaker the conduct is in violation of the rules. Keep in mind that this is a law school and students know exactly how to push the boundaries without violating the rules. Here Turley admits the speaker succeeded in finishing his speech. Therefore the protesters did not disrupt the event enough to call it a true violation of the rules. This is what seems to be upsetting the professor. Students were not held accountable because technically they did not break the rules.
We all know Professor Turley prefers to punish students with the most severe punishment possible for exercising their free speech rights by protesting in a manner he does not approve of.
We all know? Nope. Only your twisted mind George is capable of making up lies. You pitiful old man.
Dad…Dad! Please quite the all night gaming and commentary and come up out of the basement! You need to find a job. The kids are hungry!
Great post! It’s a perfect example of a child with a temper, and without adults to teach them how to talk to someone with calling them names.
I’m willing to bet you don’t even believe a word of what you just posted
I’m willing to bet you don’t even believe a word of what you just posted. Your forgot the period.
That would be a losing bet
Exactly. He’s a niche commenter looking for clicks by using AI to write contrarian viewpoints. He’s got himself a remora (Anonymous) and the two of them get the attention they seek. Ignore them.
Olly, I have not used AI today. It’s ironic that you cannot even recognize it.
What I find interesting is that my ‘contrarian’ view which is literally a different perspective on the issue is perfectly valid. You don’t seem to be able to refute or show that how i might be wrong or if anything I’ve said is false.
You are often arguing about specific details on issues and here I am pointing out a very valid point about technicalities and the fact that it IS a law school where students are taught to argue about technicalities and details about the law.
Based on the school rules the students technically did not break them because the speaker still got to finish his speech and the audience got to hear his point of view in the end. Are you going to say that did not happen?
You filthy liar. The rules make no such distinction, and neither does the law. You are defending criminals, because you are one.
Millhouse,
UCLA defines prohibited disruption as speech or conduct that “effectively silences” an invited speaker or prevents them from communicating with a willing audience. Specific violations include.
“ 1. UCLA respects freedom-of-speech, including the lawful freedom-to-protest;
2. protests may not be so disruptive as to silence the invited speaker from communicating with a willing audience;
3. after a warning, protestors whose actions prevent the event from proceeding will be escorted out, be subject to arrest, and will be held accountable under relevant laws and University policies.”
https://www.adminpolicies.ucla.edu/APP/Attachment?fileName=862-C#:~:text=%E2%80%94%20SAMPLE%20ANNOUNCEMENT%20TEXT%20%E2%80%94,a%20peaceful%20and%20respectful%20event.
The speaker was not prevented from finishing his speech or the audience from hearing his views.
The protesters at most managed to interrupt the speaker a few times. Not silence him.
The UCLA faculty and administration is ideally suited for time travel. They could be transported to the Soviet Union any time before 1989 and their thinking would be welcome. In fact more and more I have come to believe that institutions like the UCLA School of Law are symptomatic of the creation of the People’s Republic of California.
The People’s Republic of California is bankrupt not only financially but also morally. The time is coming, soon I think, when California will need a bailout. I for one will not support that unless there is also a moral bailout.
Soviet Union? Pal, its 2026, time to grow-up, stop with the childish memes, you’re 73 years old.
Dad, now you attempt to insult others with the very epithets you use on your family whenever you come up from the basement? This is getting serious, Dad. Do you not see what all-night gaming is doing to you and your family? Think of what it did to Cole Allen, Dad. Please come up from the basement, take a shower and look for a job
Forgive me. Did you folks know that the doctor who signed Jim Morrison’s death certificate doesn’t exist? Never did. No evidence. They don’t even know how to spell his last name. “Dr. Max Vassille” (sometimes spelled Vassile)” No record of this guy. Never was any record of him. Morrison got away with it.
Jim Morrison was going to prison for six months upon returning to the United States. Jim Morrison refused, absolutely refused, to go to prison.
He faked his death.
Doesn’t belong here, I know, but it is a big story.
Dad, have you absolutely no insight at all? Do you not see what the unemployed basement dweller lifestyle is doing to you? You are now posting about death circumstance of an ancient scumbag that only aging hippie wannabees would be aware of on those days of clarity?
The kids are hungry, Dad. Your government job is NEVER coming back. Move on instead of retreating into the distant past. Our family does not need a Cole Allen type on top of everything else.
Wrong anon stupid.
I believe that all federal money should be withdrawn from these institutions. They are not really schools. Every student there should also have a right to sue the school for its infringement on their free speech and the right to hear who they want to hear and learn from, to the full extent of any tuition spent. Better, they should have the right to do this after they get their degree so that the school can’t retaliate, and they should be able to soothe the responsible school officers personally.
Federal monies are authorized by congress. Do yo know what that means?
Sure he does, Dad. So what?
You have responsibilities, Dad. Engaging in drivel from the basement everyday does not put food on the table for the kids. And look how it worked out for Allen Cole.
IllegitimateSonofAnonymous, heed your own advice… put your panties on, wash your hands, and get out of the basement.
Surprised? Not anymore
You’re in a constant state of bafflement Dustoff. Give it a rest.
Dad, please come up out of the basement, get dressed and start looking for a job. The benefits have long run out after your government job was cut and mom is already working two jobs. Your ‘Allen Cole lifestyle’ is playing hell on the kids. Will your gamer lifestyle never come to an end?