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.”
Kind of a new follower of turley’s blog here. Who is this guy X? I’ve already decided to just skip through his/her nonsensical posts.
he’s a non-lawyer who likes to hang out on AI, then rewrite AI so it looks like his legal opinion. He is very anti-Turley but comes here multiple times every day to put Turley down with ad hominems like “Turley’s so disingenuous” or Turley’s a hypocrite” or ” Turley forgot to mention that” etc. He also is not very smart and picks up tactical argument skills from other posters, then pretends they are own.
X is not a good-faith commenter. X just tries to be contrary to anything anyone else says. I no longer interact with X or read X’s comments because of X’s history of both ignorance and refusal to concede mistakes. I don’t mind liberal commenters, and I will willingly engage in discussion with them. But when I realize they are not commenting in good faith, I stop.
oldman, if I were a cynical person, I might start to wonder if X is a house plant for the blog, there to keep the comment count high. It is statistically hard to be that reliably opposed to anything Turley writes without it being deliberate.
That would be a logical explanation, but then again, the trolls that populate this blog have also shown that their MO is just to say “Turley is wrong.” So both explanations are possible.
There is one Anonymous I’ve labeled the Remora. He doesn’t even try to make argument; just nibbling at other peoples comments.
Hmm, maybe that’s what the 1:19 comment was below. Just a flat denial that the incident I described actually happened.
Gentlemen,
Interesting lines of thought.
oldman and Upstate, I don’t think X is planted. He just looks that way because he’s perfectly adapted to the environment. On a blog that runs on engagement, the guy who takes the opposite side every time gets all the oxygen. After a while, that’s not just opinion, that’s a role.
The reasonable move is simple. Ignore him completely. As they said in WarGames, “the only winning move is not to play.”
No replies, no engagement, no fuel. He only works if we play along. I can be disciplined enough to test this theory.
Olly, that is far fetched, even for you. Have you ever considered that I am just the only one who exercises some healthy skepticism about Turley’s opinions, claims, arguments, and assertions? Because I have pointedly shown he does omit important facts that rob a topic of its true context, or employs disingenuous rationales to push a false narrative. I’ve said it many times, it’s fair game. I don’t really care if others don’t read ( they do) my posts. I’m also aware that there’s an audience besides those who post regularly.
“Olly, that is far fetched, even for you. Have you ever considered that I am just the only one who exercises some healthy skepticism about Turley’s opinions, claims, arguments, and assertions? ”
Considered and rejected based on the evidence of your own posts.
I often disagree with Turley – as do others here.
You ALWAYS knee jerk post.
Your posts are predictable.
The typiclally start with some version of
“Turley once again posting to satify his maga paymasters at Fox, gets everything entirely wrong.”
A significant portion of your posts start tht way.
They are then followed by – an argument that is pretty much also some permutation of
Orange man bad, MAGA evil
Left Wing nuts good.
The arguements have nothing to do with the law, the constitution or any consistent set of principles or values.
You CONSTANTLY damn any on the right that seek to expose the bad conduct of those on the left, or who respond unfavorably to the bad conduct of those on the left.
Then you defend those ont he left when they enage is similar – usually far worse conduct.
Censorship is GOOD in your world – if it is done by those on the left.
It is BAD when it is done by those on the right.
This particular article is a relevant example – you and the left constantly seek to “dox” those on the right – you want to Dox ICE officers. You want to dox federalist members.
But god forbid anything should expose who you or anyone else on the left engaged in bad conduct are.
Regardless – you have no principle, no morals, no values that do not shift with the wind.
That makes you and those like you incredibly dangerous if ever given power.
Fortunately you do not have any power and those like you tend to lose any power they are given quickly.
You stand for NOTHING – beyond – My side good, your side bad.
The actual issues, the law, the constitution, moralaity, principles of any kind are all meaningless to you.
You will argue ANYTHING to defend your corner of the political spectrum while attacking ayone not in your camp for exactly the same conduct you were defending moments ago.
You do not believe in anything at all.
“Because I have pointedly shown he does omit important facts that rob a topic of its true context”
No you repeatedly introduce irrelevancies. And you always do so in a predictable fashion – all arguments you make always are driven putrely by politics – not principles, not facts. Whatever argument you make – you will predictably make the opposite tomorow if that suits your politics.
And you will falsely claim that some fact or context is the difference.
The only context that matters to you.
The only FACTS that matter to you – is whose oxe gets gored.
That is it.
” employs disingenuous rationales to push a false narrative.”
Back to the Ouija board and mind reading.
YOU are the one who uses “rationales” – Turley makes Arguments. You are the one who tries to push false narratives.
Turley deals with relevant facts.
“I’ve said it many times, it’s fair game. I don’t really care if others don’t read ( they do) my posts. I’m also aware that there’s an audience besides those who post regularly.”
I read your posts – because dismembering them point by point is useful to others.
You are correct – you are free to post, you are free to post predictable idiocy.
And others are free to point out how massively in the tank and blindered you are.
LOL, some of the alleged ‘real’ lawyers here can barely pass off as sane or logical. I’m just here posting my two cents and if a discussion ensues then we have a discussion or disagreement.
Picking up tactical argument skills? Huh? How about learning something new and using it to improve. You think that is a bad thing? Wow.
You are absolutely correct that the ability of many real lawyers to make logical arguments or to properly comunicate the law and or constitution are poor.
That is not actually new. We must ALWAYS make the world work with the people we have – not with prefect people we wish we had.
But you are not an impovement on the worst of lawyers.
Opposing views are never popular in a crowd that won’t entertain an alternative. Echo chambers just get stagnant when nobody is allowed to challenge the narrative.
The real issue is that people can’t actually disprove my points, nor will they admit the professor is biased. That’s his right, but it’s also my right to call it out.
Plenty of people here are just looking to bash liberals or vent about ‘the left.’ That’s perfectly fine, but don’t act like a contrary opinion is an attack on your values just because it breaks the cycle.
X – when have you EVER “entertained an alternative” ?
You are massively predictable.
You echo left wing nut arguments – and fallacies,
You pretty much never actually engage in anything substantive.
YOu pretty much ALWAYS engage in fallacies – like your nonsense above.
A false narative has another name – a lie.
Please cite when Turley has LIED ?
You lie in nearly every post.
Please cite when you have ever ceded a point to anyone else.
You are just about the stupidiest “know it all” that is unwilling to ever admit error that I have encountered.
When someone points out factual errors, or legal errors or constitutional errors or logic errors or fallacies in your posts
You ignore them. If you respond you do NOT address the misrepesentations that have been pointed out.
And often a few hours or even minutes later in another thread you repeat the same nonsense that was refuted by others.
You do not live in reality.
“Opposing views are never popular in a crowd that won’t entertain an alternative.”
Very bizarre and meaningless and irrelevant statement.
Do you think blog posts are some kind of popularity contest ?
” Echo chambers just get stagnant when nobody is allowed to challenge the narrative.”
Correct – but this is not an echo chamber.
What is however true of this blog is that the quality of arguments made by those on the left are near universally poor.
Which is weird, because Turely is NOT MAGA, NOT conservative, he is not even libertarian. He is pretty typical of a liberal law professor from the 70’s and 80’s.
You are not liberal – you are just an idiot on the far left.
“The real issue is that people can’t actually disprove my points, ”
ROFL
Myriads of people disprove the idiocy you post ALL T HE TIME.
As I said before – you are predictable, predicably bad.
You claim you hve not been disproven – a huge and hillarious lie, but worse still – when you are proven wrong – which occurs repeatedly,
you either do not respond or you counter with a distraction or more irrelevance.
“nor will they admit the professor is biased.”
Turley is liberal – most people here no that – he is “biased” towards the liberal values of the political left in the 70’s and 80’s.
He would have fit in fairly well with the student left that occupied buildings on campus in the 60’s protesting for Free Speech.
He is a living reminder of how far from its roots the left today has moved.
” That’s his right, but it’s also my right to call it out.”
It is absolutely your righ to lie about other people.
“Plenty of people here are just looking to bash liberals or vent about ‘the left.’”
Of course there are – and you are the perfect example of why.
Once in a long while you accidentally say one or two things in your posts that are correct – and you do not grasp that those remarks are at odds with everything else you claim to support.
especially disturbing is that asside from their being slightly better at creating appealing expression – you are little different from the otherwise stupidest left wing politicians in the country.
Students can use protester tactics against the left to push back. I did it successfully years ago. Students today can do it too.
I had graduated years before, but some of my friends at Northwestern were members of a conservative students group. In 1985, they invited Nicaraguan Contra leader Adolfo Calero to speak on campus. (The Contras were a guerrilla resistance fighting the communist government of Nicaragua.)
Marxist English Professor Barbara Foley organized a riot to prevent Calero from speaking. She seized the podium and announced that Calero had no right to speak there. Somebody threw red liquid on the suits of Calero and the local Cuban and Central American emigre businessmen who had organized Calero’s Chicago visit. The mob was physically threatening.
We got even later. Someone privately funded over a thousand cheap bumper stickers that said “Fire Foley! Expel Red Rioters.” These were plastered all over campus, and they were not the easy to remove kind of bumper stickers. Foley was denied tenure and got fired. The campus newspaper headline read “Red Rioter Fired.” We used protester tactics against the protesters, and it worked.
BRAVO!
Conservative law students can now credibly claim UCLA has committed fraud, and demand their money back. Why? The school took that money on the pretense it was a law school, when in fact it’s a left-wing violent anarchy school that actively discourages discussions of the law.
Oldmanfromkansas, what?! ROFL! You’re hilarious. Committed fraud? How? The speaker got to finish his speech and end the event as planned. He even admitted it himself.
“ Percival joined “The Will Cain Show” Thursday and explained why he went through with the constitutional law discussion as student activists tried to drown out the event with loud noises and insults.
“I might get death threats when I go on a college campus, but the people I work with at DHS get death threats just for showing up to work every day,” Percival said. “I really felt like I had an obligation to the people I work with not to back down, to show up and take some abuse.”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/dhs-lawyer-says-ucla-utterly-failed-stop-protest-chaos-law-school-appearance
And contra to many here some students were disciplined. According to the severity of the disruption or interruption. Turley is upset that the school didn’t punish them as severely as he wanted. FYI a protest is not always going to be orderly or civil.
X – OMFK’s fraud argument is with regard to UCLA
The university did make promises that it has not kept.
Your claim that the speach eventually went forward if true is just about damages 0 the SIZE of the Harm.
There was still harm.
Further the conduct of the students was criminal – only a small crime, but still a crime.
When you act badly in public – espectially when you act illegally in public – your victims have the RIGHT to expose you publicly and criticize you publicly.
You are correct elsewhere in claiming there is a tiny possibility that exposing you publicly will result in bad conduct by others.
If so – they too should be punished for their conduct.
The law does not hold third parties accountable for the criminal conduct of others.
The victims of the student disruptors misconduct – have the RIGHT to expose them and criticize that conduct.
So long as they do not explicitly call for an illegal response – they are not responsible if others choose to respond illegally – though again all the bad conseqnces you talk about are most common when someone on the right is doxed – not the left.
The bad conduct of these students does NOT justify illegal conduct by others.
But it is FORESEEABLE – ad the foreseability of bad outcomes for bad conduct is one of the major deterents to bad conduct.
People do not rob banks – because they might go to jail.
People should not disrupt events that offend them – because they might spend the night in jail.
OR they might lose a job oportunity,
OR there is a very remote chance some loon might harrass them illegally or harm or kill them.
There is no liability for third parties.
Contra your claim the University bears ZERO duty to protect the names of people who broke the law – because there is a remote possibility some criminal might target them.
The universities actual duty is the opposite – it is to expose those who engage in bad conduct and to punish them for the harm done their victims.
OldManFromKS,
I think we all know if you attend UCLA, it is an leftist indoctrination camp.
My own daughter experienced it when a professor told her to shut up in front of the whole class. My daughter said she could feel the entire class was taken aback and the professor knew she did wrong and did apologize to my daughter later. When the rest of the class had left.
After that, my daughter kept her head down and got out of there as fast as she could.
That is a perfect example of how institutions quietly form the kind of citizens we become, and how real formation still happens in the family when your daughter decides to leave. Well done Upstate!
. . . it is an leftist indoctrination camp.
Sadly, that describes most academic institutions these days. Speaking of stories from one’s daughter, one of my daughters was attending a private liberal arts college in 2016 when Trump was elected. The next class meeting was devoted to griping about the election. The class only had like 10 students so at some point it became obvious my daughter was the only one not griping. The professor and fellow students tried peer-pressure her into complaining about the election. She responded that this is an art class and she had paid good money to learn art. This made her a pariah among her fellow students and the professor.
Oldman, again, Well done!
Thanks Olly, and good day to you!
Sounds more like you’re making it up. Nobody in any school will pressure a student to join in on the “ griping” She was probably the only one with a different opinion and didn’t want to share it with a group that was obviously in sync with the general consensus opposite hers.
Anonymous troll: nope, not making it up. My daughter has her faults, but fabricating stories like this is not one of them.
Plus, her account was consistent with others I heard from my other kids. I had three in college during the 2024 election, all at different colleges, but the mental breakdowns among the faculty and students were remarkably similar. Trump derangement is real!
P.S. What happened to “believe all women”? She was there and you weren’t. But because you dislike what happened, you just deny it. I think you’re suffering from the same mental maladies as my daughter’s fellow students.
Speaking of just making stuff up:
“Nobody in any school will pressure a student to join in on the ‘ griping’”
That peer pressure is well-known and documented. It’s called “academic mobbing.” That collectivist manipulation has been around for decades, is wide spread, and has been amply covered in academic and popular literature.
Just as they tried to pass a law to protect fraudsters from being investigated, so the left does everything it can to protect criminals. Violent protesters are criminals and should have been punished but instead are encouraged and protected by an increasingly malevolent violent tyrannical left. The left is clearly trying to establish a police state in America. Anyone who votes for Democrat is supporting that concept.
At the rate this is going, I would not be surprised if the protesters end up telling the administration to stop “helping” them. The more UCLA Law bends over backwards to hide their names, the more it signals to firms and judges that even the school understands this conduct is indefensible in public.
You can almost hear the conversation. We were just here to make a scene. We did not ask you to turn our behavior into a permanent stain on a UCLA Law degree. The administration thinks it is protecting individual students. In reality it is broadcasting to the whole country that it cannot or will not form the kind of lawyers anyone would trust with a hard case.
While the administrators are busy “protecting” the protesters from being individually doxed, they are self‑doxing their entire law school. They are telling every judge and law firm exactly what kind of culture they are willing to defend and what kind of lawyer they are prepared to send into the profession.
“ While the administrators are busy “protecting” the protesters from being individually doxed, they are self‑doxing their entire law school. They are telling every judge and law firm exactly what kind of culture they are willing to defend and what kind of lawyer they are prepared to send into the profession.”
Seriously? You sound more bitter than outraged by the notion that a school will protect its students from the pettiness of a conservative student group.
This need for extreme punishment for interrupting a speaker speaks volumes about the mindset of conservative egos.
If these students are going to be future lawyers and they know how to push the limits of a rule and still be within it, I would think they are doing it right. Heck, Trump’s lawyers do this all the time. The irony is so thick i don’t think you realize it.
“Seriously? You sound more bitter than outraged by the notion that a school will protect its students from the pettiness of a conservative student group.”
Correct – if you rape someone – they are free to condemn you publicly – whether the police prosecute you or not.
Disrupting an event is a small crime, but a crime none-the-less and the victims are entitled to expose you publicly. That is true whether you think it is pety or not.
“This need for extreme punishment for interrupting a speaker speaks volumes about the mindset of conservative egos.”
I have no problem with people losing job opportunities in the law for violating the constitutional rights of others.
Regardless as has been discussed before – the NORM is that employers must chose among many people when they have a job.
It is a societal GOOD that the good oportunities go to those that did NOT violate the constitutional rights of others.
When I hire people – when I rent to people, I am ALWAYS looking for ways to say NO.
I have ONE job, I have ONE apartment. I have many people after that.
I am trying to balance my need to act quickly, to not make it my lifes work so I am after whatever information I can get easily to allow me to say NO, until there is only one choice left.
I find this left nonsense about trying to “ban the box” hilariously stupid;.
Do people who committed crimes deserve a 2nd chance – MOSTLY yes, though there are some crimes so heinous the answer is no.
But 2nd chances is not the correct question.
The correct question is Who should get the best oportunities ? Those who abided by the law, or those who did not ?
Those students who did NOT violate the rights of others should get preference over those who did.
It is not “petty” for Federalist society to make public the lawlessness of student disrupters – it is a public good.
The whole social contract rests on the fact that criminal conduct has consequences.
Even small criminal conduct.
“If these students are going to be future lawyers and they know how to push the limits of a rule and still be within it,”
Doubly false.
The duty of lawyers is to follow the law – NOT to push the limits.
The rule of law requires that as best as possible a law means the same thing tomorow as it does today.
We do not want lawyers – and especially we do not want judges who “push the limits”
Changing the law is the role of legislatures – usually driven by the public.
REGARDLESS, those who go outside the law – who comitt crimes, even small ones, should not have the same oportunities as those who stay within the law.
There were studnets protesting outside this event. They stayed within the law.
They are the ones who should get the judicial clerkships, the offers from the better law firms.
“I would think they are doing it right.”
Typical left wing nut – bad conduct should have no consequences.
” Heck, Trump’s lawyers do this all the time. T”
They do ? Please – what Trump lawyer has disrupted a public speaker ?
Beyond that Trump lawyers are accused of misconduct all the time.
Those accuastions are adjudicated – often badly by groups like the Bar.
Most of those accusations fail.
Regardless, any lawyer that engages in ACTUAL misconduct – right or left – should face consequences.
“he irony is so thick i don’t think you realize it.”
Because it is not there.
You ACCUSE Trump lawyers.
The video of those disrupting this event CONVICTS these criminals. If not in a court, in public and in their future prospects.
That is appropriate.
OLLY,
Well said.
If I were running a law firm, UCLA applicants resumes would go to the bottom of the stack.
The doxxing thing is a fake cover, to cover up their uncivil and unprofessional conduct. I would not one of them in my firm.
Olly, UCLA cannot ‘help” FEDSOC dox students. Surely you see the problem, don’t you? Your’e asking why UCLA is not helping FEDSOC commit a crime and undermine student private rules.
FEDSOC wants revenge and the petty need to dox demonstrators because they cannot be punished for the disruption that did not stop the event or silence the speakers says a lot more about FEDSOC’s lack of integrity as an organization.
They are required to protect these students. It would be incredibly stupid to ‘help’ FEDSOC dox these students and then be subject to serious lawsuits.
This was not a “permanent stain” on the institution. It’s par for the course at many universities with passionate student bodies. You seem so focused on the need for punishment to the point of willing to disregard what the actual rules say about what constitutes disruptive behavior that merits the kind of punishment everyone wants. It’s literally mob rule instead of rule of law mentality.
UCLA ‘s duty is not to “help” FEDSOC, it is to impose consequences on students who violate the law.
Disrupting a public event is a crime.
FEDSOC publicly video of students committing crimes is NOT a crime.
There are no privacy rules that apply to conduct in public.
There never have been.
What has changed is our recent ability to trivially prove misconduct in public.
Regardless, there is no right to privacy in public.
“FEDSOC wants revenge”
Was #metoo Revenge ?
You ranted about Turley supposedly pushing false narratives – here you are.
Regardless it is irrelevant what you thing FEDSOC’s motives are. It is irrelevant what their actual motives are.
The disruptors violated the law, they violated the rights of other attendees, the sponsors, and the speaker.
They did so in public and they have no right to privacy.
I would note that committing crimes in private does not give you a right to privacy either.
If you rape someone in private – they can publicly expose you.
“the petty need to dox demonstrators because they cannot be punished for the disruption that did not stop the event or silence the speakers says a lot more about FEDSOC’s lack of integrity as an organization.”
Of course they CAN be punished.
First – any disruption causes harm. At the very least it delays things – that is a small harm – but it is a harm.
The time of hundreds of people has value and disrupting steals it.
Disrupting an event is a crime – asmall one – but still a crime.
UCLA has its own police force – they COULD arrest them and LA could prosecute them – but we know that will not happen.
The School could expel them or suspend them.
The school appears to have chosen NOT to do so – which is a mistake.
FEDSOC can publicly expose those who violated their rights. Doing so it a positive societal good – just like imprisoning murders.
It is an act of integrity.
As I noted earlier if it costs the disrupters oportunities – that is appropiate – those oportunities will go to people who did NOT violate others rights.
“they are required to protect these students.”
Not from the consequences of their own actions.
“It would be incredibly stupid to ‘help’ FEDSOC dox these students and then be subject to serious lawsuits.”
No it would be an act of integrity, morality and a public good.
You seem to beleive that bad acts – violating the rights of others should not be punished.
That is a violation of the social contract.
Society only exists because much of the time we punish people for their bad acts.
“This was not a “permanent stain” on the institution. ”
Correct – the institution already soiled itself. Putting stain upon stain only goes so far.
But the university is standing up for lawlessness.
“It’s par for the course at many universities with passionate student bodies.”
That is unfortunately true.
Those of you on the left seek to destroy the social contract and the rule of law.
The fact that you do so passionately – is NOT a good thing.
“You seem so focused on the need for punishment”
Correct – misconduct must be punished. While we can jot do so perfectly – we can not always prove misconduct,
It is massive moral hazard to choose not to punish misconduct when it is self evident from video.
The social contract – society itself exist because misconduct is punished.
Not doing so moves you closer to anarchy.
” to the point of willing to disregard what the actual rules say about what constitutes disruptive behavior”
There is no doubt this behavior is criminal. There is no question here.
There was an event – it was disrupted.
Even a short delay is a disruption and a violation of the rights of others.
Typically the consequences are small – but there ARE consequences.
This type of conduct is supposed to result in arrest, at-least a fine, or where the school is “law enforcement” – which si a different problem.
it should result in expulsion or suspension.
When you violate the rights of others – there are consequences.
The university is FAILING by interfering in that.
“that merits the kind of punishment everyone wants.”
I have no idea what you are talking about – and I highly doubt you do either.
Conduct that violates the rights of others is a crime – that is what “everyone” has decided – through out legislature and laws.
The police arrest people for crimes, prosecutors prosecute them, and judges and juries convict them.
This is a small crime – but a crime none-the-less.
It typically will have a small punishment.
But when we institutionally decide not to punish it at all, then we are lawless. We are NOT doing what “everyone wants” – as we decided through our legislatures and laws.
” It’s literally mob rule instead of rule of law mentality.”
Mob rule is litterally violating the rights of others.
The face of leftist tyranny is now plastered for all to see at the UCLA “law” school. Despotism was once limited to governmental actions. Not any more.
Section 403 of the California Penal Code makes it a misdemeanor to wilfully disrupt a lawful public meeting. The Federalist Society should contact the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office about charging the perpetrators. Moreover, 18 U.S.C. 241 criminalizes a conspiracy against rights. The Federalist Society should contact DOJ about charging the perpetrators under this statute.
Under California law, a “willful disturbance” must substantially impair the conduct of the meeting. Courts generally require that a participant be warned that their conduct is disruptive before an arrest is made.
At the UCLA event, protesters reportedly booed, played loud sounds on their phones, and held profane signs. Whether this reaches the level of a criminal misdemeanor depends on whether it “substantially impaired” the meeting or if it was considered protected (though rude) expression.
Private individuals disrupting another’s speech typically do not fall under § 241 unless they are conspiring with government officials to suppress those rights. So that option is out immediately.
All the DOJ can do is make a note of it. They can’t do anything about it.
False.
Conduct that obviously infringes on the rights of others does not require notice or warning.
We generally require Warnings to elevate misdemeanors to felony’s
ignorantia juris non excusat,
This is also why the law itself can not be arbitrary and caprecious.
Humans generally understand right and wrong by the age of 7.
While the law itself must be precise – because often conduct that is right and conduct that is wrong are only distinguishable by the details.
All killings is not murder – some is self defense.
Regardless people are expected to know the difference between right and wrong, and the law is required to properly i9dentify and punish wrong conduct, while not punishing right conduct.
These people were violating the rights of others.
They either KNEW that or they SHOULD have known that.
Again a 7 yr old would know that.
They need not know the precise statute they are violating – what they need to know is that their conduct is wrong.
And ALL conduct that violates the rights of others is wrong.
And no conspiracies against rights are not limited to working with Government.
There is separate laws that cover government actors violating peoples rights.
18 USC 241 was specifically past after the Civil war to allow the federal govenrment to target groups like the KKK.
The involvement of government in a conspiracy – increases the types of rights violations that can be prosecuted.
As an example 18 USC 241 does not protect free speech against interferance with private actors UNLESS Govenrment is involved.
The university is a govenrment actor and their actions are an after the fact violation of the free speech rights of those at this event.
Therefore 18 USC 241 can be applied.
How far we’ve come. I recall an incident in the later1960s, during the free speech movement, where a disruptive college crowd was addressed by the Dean of Men. The message was simple. The students were told the behavior was unacceptable and the good doctor also mentioned that the school started with 13 students and they were willing to go back to that number. The crowd dispersed rather rapidly.
Today, the educational community is enabling the dissolution of society. I expect a great many of those in positions of power believe they’ll have favored status under a form of government more to their liking. History show us that isn’t likely. Since they’re using the tactics of the National Socialist, perhaps they should review the Night of the Long Knives.
UCLA can KMA!
So according to the UCLA threat, anyone who tries to hold UCLA accountable for failing to hold those students accountable will face the very same “campus processes” that UCLA refuses to apply to the students who exhibited prohibited behavior in the first place? Unbelievable.
The Federalist Society should respond by suing UCLA for the disclosure of the information they refuse to provide and for an injunction against the university from retaliating and for any appropriate damages.
Failing to hold them accountable for what? They didn’t break the rules. FEDSOC’s speaker got to finish his speech and express his views to the audience.
What the protesters managed to do is interrupt him a few times. That’s it.
Demanding the school hand over student identities so FEDSOC can dox them would expose the school to lawsuits. FEDSOC seems to not understand how the law works. They just want their revenge.
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.)
I know because the speaker himself said it. He did not back down and did exactly what he is supposed to do. Continue.
“Percival joined “The Will Cain Show” Thursday and explained why he went through with the constitutional law discussion as student activists tried to drown out the event with loud noises and insults.
“I might get death threats when I go on a college campus, but the people I work with at DHS get death threats just for showing up to work every day,” Percival said. “I really felt like I had an obligation to the people I work with not to back down, to show up and take some abuse.”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/dhs-lawyer-says-ucla-utterly-failed-stop-protest-chaos-law-school-appearance
Based in that fact, the students did not disrupt the event to the point of silencing him. Therefore that is why the students cannot technically be held accountable per school rules.
X, Hilarious! SO cute! ROFL (or as you used to say, ROLF!)
YOU said, “c“The event concluded with the speaker fully expressing his views and finishing his speech. Turley doesn’t want to mention that.”
Oh, but he DID mention it,, loud and clear. And we are to believe that you watch FOX?
C’mon X, we know you are not much better than that. geez
So where did he mention it? If I it was so clear you should have been able quote him saying it.
Third paragraph, “The fact that the speaker continued to try to speak (and succeeded after a walkout)…”
X, thanks for confirming to us that you didn’t even read the whole thing, but went straight to your anti-Turley crap.
LOL! So what. He buried it by barely mentioning it. Big deal. He didn’t seriously emphasized it.
Besides that paragraph is contradictory.
“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.”
He wasn’t “effectively silenced” if he was able to continue. How can he have been effectively silenced when he succeeded in continuing? Sounds more like Turley is being disingenuous.
Do you wcwn understand what “effectively” silenced means? You’re hilarious!
even, not wcwn
Apparently you don’t. Not in the context of the rules.
The rules do not imply that the speaker finish his speach. They are to deter violent, coordinated interruptions of the speaker and the serious audience from exchanging viewpoints. Within the hall, the collective effect of the protestations should be viewed as the ignorant crude activism that they were.
Wayne K Ford, the rules imply that if the speaker is not duly silenced or threatened with violence it is not considered a disruption that merits the kind of punishment many want including Turley.
Fox News loudly claims the protesters failed to stop the event. Which is why demands for accountability by severely punishing the students is not done. Fun fact: students were indeed held accountable. They were issued warnings and some escorted out of the building. It may not be the kind of accountability many here want, but it’s still a consequence for their behavior.
why did you change the word from “effectively silenced” to “duly silenced?” georgie, you fool no one.
It must be exhausting to try to find ways to defend the indefensible
Indefensible? You haven’t shown how it is indefensible because I have consistently pointed out that it is using the school’s own rules and the admission from the speaker that he was not deterred by the protests to finish his speech and express his view.
Such sophist nonsense. The point isn’t that he managed to finish. The point is that he was substantially hindered by people violating the school’s rules. Just because they eventually stopped and walked out doesn’t negate the previous behavior.
“Failing to hold them accountable for what? They didn’t break the rules. ”
They violated the law.
“FEDSOC’s speaker got to finish his speech and express his views to the audience.”
Not the standard.
If you attempt to kill someone and they live – you have still committed a crime.
“What the protesters managed to do is interrupt him a few times. That’s it.”
And that is a crime.
A small one, but still a crime,
and it has consequences.
“Demanding the school hand over student identities so FEDSOC”
That is not what is occurring.
The school is baring FEDSOC from making public the criminal acts of these disrupters.
On the lunatic basis that there is some right to privacy in public misconduct.
FEDSOC has a first amendment right to make the video public.
Separately they or others can seek to identify those in the video.
And they can seek consequences – from law enforcement, from the university, from the public, from prospective emploers for that misconduct.
“can dox them would expose the school to lawsuits.”
Which would be dismissed immediately – there is no right to privacy in public,
and there is no libaility for the bad acts of third parties you have no involvement with.
“FEDSOC seems to not understand how the law works. ”
NO YOU and the university do not.
These spoiled brats absolutely need to be identified and punished. AND their names should be made public to let the law firms know who these people are before they hire them. I am all for free speech, and I will defend it with my life. BUT, actions also have consequences.
The more significant point is that the grownups fail to demonstrate leadership and administer accountability. This syndrome has pervaded our entire society.
So very true.
They did administer accountability. Students were removed. Some were issued warnings while some left on their own. The event still went on and students at most managed to interrupt a few times.
Prof Turley writes that the protesters had the right to express their disapproval outside the hall. But why should the presence at a law school of someone who expresses unpopular views be the subject of a demonstration? The law school should make clear that anyone who does not advocate immediate violence should be welcome at the school. What is the point of having a mind if it is not challenged?
Here’s the UCLA video. Sounds like a female is giving birth.
Here’s the UCLA video. Sounds like a female is giving birth.
Bayrex Martí is a Fascist who doesn’t care at all about freedom of speech.
Their irony meters aren’t just broken – they have seemingly been surgically removed, right along with their brains, hearts, and souls. They make injury lawyers look ethical.
Did the Federalist Society sigh a NDA before the event? Since when is free speech a threat to an institution of higher learning?
Not doxing. Here is the openly-published email address for: https://rocketreach.co/bayrex-marti-email_825603848
Let’s give Mr. Marti a little taste of his own medicine.
When his email shuts down and crashes from overload, and he opens a new one, we don’t need 11,780, We just need ONE UCLA student to give us his new email address.
Maybe he’ll get the message.
The Federalist Society should absolutely release the names. Do it publicly with as much fanfare as possible. Send a note to the Assistant Dean; “Our attorneys eagerly await the University’s response and the chance to discuss any negative repercussions with the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights .”
What really jumps out at me is how odd the school’s position looks if you take their story at face value.
If these students acted within the law, within school policy, and in line with the values UCLA Law says it teaches, why would anyone need to stop their names and faces from being reported. If this was principled advocacy, the administration ought to be proud of it. You would expect them to say, “These are our students, this is what we train them to do, and any firm or judge should be glad to hire them.”
If the conduct was really admirable, they would be putting these students on the brochure. The fact that they are hiding them says more than any press release about what they know, deep down, about how this looks in the real world.
Olly, the school isn’t hiding these students because their conduct was ‘admirable’; they are protecting them because we live in an era of online doxing. Identifying students by name on ‘outrage’ blogs often leads to death threats, harassment of their families, and ‘swatting.’ A university has a legal and moral duty to keep its students safe from physical harm, even if those students were loud, rude, or broke a school rule.
The school’s position isn’t ‘odd’; it is legally prudent. By refusing to help the Federalist Society or bloggers identify individual students, UCLA is preventing a campus disagreement from turning into a dangerous, off-campus security crisis. You don’t have to like the protesters to recognize that the university shouldn’t be an accomplice to doxing.
UCLA did not refuse to help identify. They threatened the Federalist Society if they identified the students. This is a priori restraint, which has been litigated and deemed illegal in this country.
They didn’t threaten anyone. They warned FEDSOC that it they would not be party to a doxing effort and that doxing those students can lead to potential legal ramifications later on. They are a law school and they know that ‘helping’ FEDSOC dox the protesters makes them liable for a serious lawsuit. Even Turley would understand that, but he seems more intent to join the mob demanding punishment and retribution for exercising their free speech right to protest and voice opposition.
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.)
Think man, the ‘handful of the intended audience were protesters. 50 of them walked out. That does not mean they were there to hear him out. They just protested by getting up and walking out.
They didn’t threaten anyone, they just told them there could be legal ramifications?
They told them there COULD be legal ramifications.
“Accomplice of doxing?” Under its threat, UCLA Law becomes an accomplice to tyranny.
OLLY,
That is a good point. The administration clearly does not want to face the embarrassing fact they have not only created these kind of uncivil students but by their non-action to do anything makes them look even more inept.
Ucla fears free speech.
OLLY,
One can see by the videos those students did not act within school policy. They prevented others from hearing what the speaker was saying by shouting over him, denying those in attendance their rights to hear the speaker.
Upstate, It reminds me of Lt. Kaffee’s question to Col. Jessup in A Few Good Men. If everyone follows your orders, why would Pvt. Santiago need to be transferred off the base. The same logic applies here. If these protesters were acting within school policy and embodying the values UCLA Law claims to teach, why would their identities need to be protected at all. You would expect the school to be proud of them and eager to have their names attached to their “advocacy,” not scrambling to keep them in the dark.
Nope. At most they interrupted the speaker. He still got finish what he was saying and the audience that was there still got to hear what he said. Nobody was denied anything. What did happen was that he was interrupted a few times. It’s an obnoxious and annoying tactic, but what it absolutely did not do is silence the speaker and deny those who wanted to hear him hear what he had to say.
I would strongly encourage the wide publication of the list of students heckling and censoring free speech. I personally would like the list. I’ve hired hundreds of young lawyers over my career as a large public company General Counsel, and not one candidate resume has highlighted the blatant disregard of another’s 1st Amendment rights. Every prospective employer should know the hecklers names so they can make an informed decision on the moral character of the candidate. Federal funding of publicly funded institutions should be frozen until free speech exercise can be vigorously defended and assured.