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: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?

Lol 300 followers?

[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.

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.

And they are exercising those rights. This thread is about how the right wing completely falls to pieces when their speech is met with anything other than respect and appreciation.

It does raise a thorny question when a federal judge appointed for life insults them in the media, though. Is it state action? Certainly a better case for that than anything Stanford did or didn’t do as a receiver of public funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

And they are exercising those rights. This thread is about how the right wing completely falls to pieces when their speech is met with anything other than respect and appreciation.

It does raise a thorny question when a federal judge appointed for life insults them in the media, though. Is it state action? Certainly a better case for that than anything Stanford did or didn’t do as a receiver of public funds.

Then why are they complaining about their constitutional rights being infringed upon by the school?

[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?

Lol 300 followers?

Wow, you are desperate. Follower count?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You show up looking for a confrontation, you don’t get to play victim when you get what you’re looking for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You show up looking for a confrontation, you don’t get to play victim when you get what you’re looking for.

Looks like he is winning this exchange and sounding the alarm on this ridiculousness that has been metastasizing within academic spaces and even more broadly.

Meanwhile these virtuous activist students are suddenly demanding anonymity. What beacons of courage and conviction!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You show up looking for a confrontation, you don’t get to play victim when you get what you’re looking for.

That’s not how this works.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You show up looking for a confrontation, you don’t get to play victim when you get what you’re looking for.

Looks like he is winning this exchange and sounding the alarm on this ridiculousness that has been metastasizing within academic spaces and even more broadly.

Meanwhile these virtuous activist students are suddenly demanding anonymity. What beacons of courage and conviction!

He sure his. He wanted his name all over the right wing media as a victim of the left so he could be on top of the SCOTUS short list. Mission accomplished.

[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?

She isn’t a source for anything reasonable or honest. She’s a radical.

[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?

She isn’t a source for anything reasonable or honest. She’s a radical.

Is that picture from SLS legitimate or not? Are students whining about constitutional rights or not?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You show up looking for a confrontation, you don’t get to play victim when you get what you’re looking for.

Looks like he is winning this exchange and sounding the alarm on this ridiculousness that has been metastasizing within academic spaces and even more broadly.

Meanwhile these virtuous activist students are suddenly demanding anonymity. What beacons of courage and conviction!

He sure his. He wanted his name all over the right wing media as a victim of the left so he could be on top of the SCOTUS short list. Mission accomplished.

Sadly, this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You show up looking for a confrontation, you don’t get to play victim when you get what you’re looking for.

He was not looking for a confrontation. He was an invited speaker. He probably expected some push back, given what has happened in the past at elite law schools, but I doubt he ever thought the students would be as rude as they were or that faculty/administration would say what was said and not take any action when students shouted him down (it has been reported that 5 member of the faculty/administration were in attendance and did nothing until he requested a member of the administration speak).

Quit excusing the egregious behavior of these law students.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

You show up looking for a confrontation, you don’t get to play victim when you get what you’re looking for.

He was not looking for a confrontation. He was an invited speaker. He probably expected some push back, given what has happened in the past at elite law schools, but I doubt he ever thought the students would be as rude as they were or that faculty/administration would say what was said and not take any action when students shouted him down (it has been reported that 5 member of the faculty/administration were in attendance and did nothing until he requested a member of the administration speak).

Quit excusing the egregious behavior of these law students.

I’m not excusing them. Their behavior was awful. Stop excusing his horrible behavior.

[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?

Lol 300 followers?

She’d have more but alas, they were killed by the communists

[Anonymous]

It’s the MAGA victim Olympics. Provoke some dumb lefties to shout you down, and then write WSJ opinion pieces and make appearances on Tucker and Fox and Friends to complain about your horrible treatment. When are these dumb students going to figure out they’re just being played to get MAGA eyeballs and clicks?