Stanford dean of DEI attacks invited speaker, Judge Kyle Duncan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Have you not read this thread or are you being purposefully obtuse? Conservatives consistently conflate rights with policies. Read no further that this thread for an example of them referring to constitutional law.

[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.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

[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.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

[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.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

[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.

Does the University take government funds of any kind?

[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.

Does the University take government funds of any kind?

Good question, and one we might ask of that shining right wing example of “free speech” Liberty University as well.

[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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Historical_origins

[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.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

The Constitution, including what is and what isn’t in it, is very much a hill I *could* die on as a woman of reproductive age thanks to Federalist Society clowns. Stanford isn’t the government, and there is no right in the Constitution or law to receive a peaceful and respectful reception of your speech from private actors. Sorry, snowflake. The marketplace of ideas has spoken, and yours are losers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech#Historical_origins

Forgot to add, Do you ever stop and think for a second that the principle of free speech can be enshrined in both the U.S. Constitution and a University's code of conduct and approach to pedagogy?

Shocking, I know.

[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.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

I see you have no response.

[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.

Does the University take government funds of any kind?

Good question, and one we might ask of that shining right wing example of “free speech” Liberty University as well.

Feel free to do so

[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.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

The Constitution, including what is and what isn’t in it, is very much a hill I *could* die on as a woman of reproductive age thanks to Federalist Society clowns. Stanford isn’t the government, and there is no right in the Constitution or law to receive a peaceful and respectful reception of your speech from private actors. Sorry, snowflake. The marketplace of ideas has spoken, and yours are losers.

The students are invoking first amendment and constitutional rights in their protest posters, genius. That would be...constitutional law, last time I checked.

[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.

Why can’t liberals understand that the first amendment isn’t the same thing as a free speech policy?

The comment that started all of this was the SLS students did not “understand Constitutional law.”

Is this really the hill you want to die on?

I see you have no response.

Stop frothing at the mouth for a second and read the posters.

[Anonymous]

These students behaved very badly. The judge also behaved very badly. He went there to get this exact response so that he could go on the right wing victim tour. Yelling insults at a bunch of students is completely unbecoming of a federal judge. There are no good guys in this story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:These students behaved very badly. The judge also behaved very badly. He went there to get this exact response so that he could go on the right wing victim tour. Yelling insults at a bunch of students is completely unbecoming of a federal judge. There are no good guys in this story.

What do you suggest? Remaining quietly obsequious while a virulent mob continues to overrun institutions?