Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

-100. They understand it perfectly. Nothing in the Constitution entitles someone to a receptive and respectful audience while they exercise their right to speak free of government interference.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

-100. They understand it perfectly. Nothing in the Constitution entitles someone to a receptive and respectful audience while they exercise their right to speak free of government interference.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

[Anonymous]

What it shows is the left's fear to debate.

[Anonymous]

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

You don't get that the college supports a policy of free speech? When a school administrator steps in to shut a speaker down, there is a problem. She represents the school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What it shows is the left's fear to debate.

No. It’s shows everyone lost their cool.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

-100. They understand it perfectly. Nothing in the Constitution entitles someone to a receptive and respectful audience while they exercise their right to speak free of government interference.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

Right, right. And if the invited speaker happened to be a liberal, and the students conservative, you'd be outraged at the way in which he was treated. As it is, we don't see conservative students behaving this way. And certainly not breaking windows and throwing projectiles at people they want to silence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What it shows is the left's fear to debate.

Exactly. They can't debate, so they try and silence instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

You don't get that the college supports a policy of free speech? When a school administrator steps in to shut a speaker down, there is a problem. She represents the school.

+1
Once again, Stanford ITSELF acknowledges this behavior is in direct contradiction to the concept of free speech. I'll take that admission over some anonymous LWNJ apologist.

"Martinez and Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne previously apologized publicly to Duncan. Wednesday's letter said all Stanford Law students will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What it shows is the left's fear to debate.

Yes. It shows spoiled, idiotic Stanford law school students and administrators lost their cool and humiliated themselves and their university.

FIFY. Do better and stop trying to blame others for the seriously disgusting behavior of the left.
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

You don't get that the college supports a policy of free speech? When a school administrator steps in to shut a speaker down, there is a problem. She represents the school.

+1
Once again, Stanford ITSELF acknowledges this behavior is in direct contradiction to the concept of free speech. I'll take that admission over some anonymous LWNJ apologist.

"Martinez and Stanford president Marc Tessier-Lavigne previously apologized publicly to Duncan. Wednesday's letter said all Stanford Law students will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring."

I really don't care about apologies at this point.

We know how the left plays: if it feels good, do it and make a racket to get headlines. All apologies will be printed on page F17 in 6 point font.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

-100. They understand it perfectly. Nothing in the Constitution entitles someone to a receptive and respectful audience while they exercise their right to speak free of government interference.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

You are talking about the first amendment to the Constitution, not free speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

-100. They understand it perfectly. Nothing in the Constitution entitles someone to a receptive and respectful audience while they exercise their right to speak free of government interference.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

You are talking about the first amendment to the Constitution, not free speech.

The term “free speech” is a reference to the constitution. Always has been. There is no other context where it makes sense. Private organizations have always had limits on speech either by code or custom so that wouldn’t make sense as any sort of argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

-100. They understand it perfectly. Nothing in the Constitution entitles someone to a receptive and respectful audience while they exercise their right to speak free of government interference.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

You are talking about the first amendment to the Constitution, not free speech.

The term “free speech” is a reference to the constitution. Always has been. There is no other context where it makes sense. Private organizations have always had limits on speech either by code or custom so that wouldn’t make sense as any sort of argument.

How embarrassing…. the concept and ideal of free speech is both considerably older and broader than the US Constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

-100. They understand it perfectly. Nothing in the Constitution entitles someone to a receptive and respectful audience while they exercise their right to speak free of government interference.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

You are talking about the first amendment to the Constitution, not free speech.

The term “free speech” is a reference to the constitution. Always has been. There is no other context where it makes sense. Private organizations have always had limits on speech either by code or custom so that wouldn’t make sense as any sort of argument.

How embarrassing…. the concept and ideal of free speech is both considerably older and broader than the US Constitution.

Try to spin it all you want but you are wrong. There is no such thing as a right to say what you want to other people without consequences. You probably think you have “free speech” on your Facebook friend’s feeds too and feel victimized and “censored” when they delete your dumb comments. The school can have a policy that they allow and encourage opposing views to be discussed and they can have a conduct code. That’s what’s being addressed. Those things can be enforced. That is not “free speech” as you want it to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looks like you do not have to be intelligent anymore to be a law student.

+100
Or, understand Constitutional Law. Amazing, really.

-100. They understand it perfectly. Nothing in the Constitution entitles someone to a receptive and respectful audience while they exercise their right to speak free of government interference.

No, they very clearly do not understand the concept of free speech. They're free to protest - and the judge should have been free to give his speech. He was prevented from doing so. Those students are idiotic, spoiled, imbeciles who are all in for a very rude awakening when they start looking for jobs. No one sane is going to want to work with these dopes.

The moronic dean who wouldn't let Duncan speak is now on leave (and will hopefully be fired). And all Stanford Law students "will undergo a half day of training on “freedom of speech and the norms of the legal profession” this spring." That right there tells us that their behavior was NOT acceptable and did NOT demonstrate an understanding of what freedom of speech actually means, among other things.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/stanford-law-official-who-admonished-judge-during-speech-is-leave-dean-says-2023-03-22/

None of this has to do with free speech. My god. Free speech means the government can’t punish you for your opinions, writings, words - unless you are threatening or endangering other people, obviously. WHY can’t conservatives understand this fundamental aspect of democracy???? They consistently and routinely misunderstand free speech.

What happened was wrong. It was unbecoming of law students and the university, and it was obviously rude to the invited speaker. But it has NOTHING to do with free speech.

You are talking about the first amendment to the Constitution, not free speech.

The term “free speech” is a reference to the constitution. Always has been. There is no other context where it makes sense. Private organizations have always had limits on speech either by code or custom so that wouldn’t make sense as any sort of argument.

How embarrassing…. the concept and ideal of free speech is both considerably older and broader than the US Constitution.

Try to spin it all you want but you are wrong. There is no such thing as a right to say what you want to other people without consequences. You probably think you have “free speech” on your Facebook friend’s feeds too and feel victimized and “censored” when they delete your dumb comments. The school can have a policy that they allow and encourage opposing views to be discussed and they can have a conduct code. That’s what’s being addressed. Those things can be enforced. That is not “free speech” as you want it to be.

Stanford has an entire page dedicated to their adherence to free speech at the university.

https://communitystandards.stanford.edu/resources/additional-resources/freedom-speech-fundamental-standard

As an institution committed to the exchange of ideas, freedom of speech is core to the mission and academic life of our university."