Federal judge heckled at Stanford says 'don't feel sorry for me,' says mob

'The Stanford Federalist Society invited Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to speak on campus. It is a great opportunity to hear the views of one of the highest ranked judicial officers in the country. Some students also are likely to apply to Duncan for prestigious clerkships so this was an opportunity to make an important connection.'

So, a group of students that wanted to hear from Federal judge invited him to come speak to them.

But, a group of Leftist Totalitarian students, decided that this judge and the inviting group of students could not be allowed to converse on campus.

'However, leftist students decided that allowing a conservative judge to speak on campus is intolerable and set about to “deplatform” him by shouting him down.'

'Duncan was planning to speak on the topic: “The Fifth Circuit in Conversation with the Supreme Court: Covid, Guns, and Twitter.”'

So, certainly an important subject for law students.

'Video shows that the students prevented Duncan from speaking and the judge asked for an administrator to be called in to allow the event to proceed.'

So, you'd think that the Dean would restore order?

'Dean Steinbach then took the stage and, instead of demanding that the students allow for the event to proceed, Steinback launched into a babbling attack on the judge for seeking to be heard despite such objections.'

'A law school dean was legitimating an attack on free speech and supporting the claim that hearing an opposing legal views on issues like the Second Amendment was harmful to students.'

'Blocking others from speaking is not the exercise of free speech. It is the very antithesis of free speech. Nevertheless, faculty have supported such claims. CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek showed how far this trend has gone. When conservative law professor Josh Blackman was stopped from speaking about “the importance of free speech,” Bilek insisted that disrupting the speech on free speech was free speech. (Bilek later cancelled herself and resigned). Even student newspapers have declared opposing speech to be outside of the protections of free speech. At University of California- Santa Barbara, professors actually rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates and tore down their display.'

https://www.zerohedge.com/political...fire-dei-dean-participated-student-led-revolt

Edu-Thugs, out of control. I do not believe it is any longer in our national interest to subside education at these totalitarian indoctrination centers that do not recognise the basic rights of others.

 

Well at least the president of the university and the Dean of the law school apologized to the judge for what happened and promised unspecified discipline on those staff and students who did it.

 

Hopefully, prospective employers will take note of this from Students involved that intend to get involved in Law.

 

Please cite all legitimate officials that approved of the actions on 1/6. And please, with quotes, approved or agreed to the actions of those who ENTERED THE CAPITAL by force!! We’ll all wait.

 

And there are those on the right, who believe their right to assemble and protest means harassing women who seek an abortion, follow them back to their own home, get in the faces anyone entering and leaving, refer to them as baby killers and do so in front minor children. . There are also some on the religious right that believe in 'protesting' at the funeral services of AIDS victims, screaming about how they will damned to hell, and proclaim that such is the rightious punishment for the sin of same sex expression.

Some people let their political and religious passion lead them astray of decency and decorum regardless of ideology.

 

These folks have a hard landing, coming. In this nation, we respect each others rights, and these folks, as a value, crap all over the rights of those that disagree with them.

 

Except when you do not agree with them.

 

Fake news. We most certainly do respect the right of others to disagree and to do so publicly. That is so normal, that it shouldn't even be remarkable.

 

PUBLISH THEIR NAMES

Should The Names Of Stanford Student Disrupters Be Published?

"The freedom to speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; They are two sides of the same coin..."

'The disrupters also attempted to shame the sponsors of the speech by disclosing their names and subjecting them to harassment. This suggests a possible response to the disrupters. Following the Yale disruptions, some judges have announced that they will no longer hire law clerks from Yale. Similar announcements regarding Stanford are likely. In my view, that amounts to collective punishment of the innocent along with guilty. Many law students from these schools do not agree with disrupting speakers, and they should not be denied clerkships. Instead, the names of the disrupters might be published and made available to potential employers, so they can decide whether they want to hire graduates with such intolerance for diversity of viewpoints.'

'I'm uncomfortable about publishing the names of student censors. But if they are proud of their very public efforts to silence speakers with whom they disagree, they should be proud to have their names published so that potential employers can have relevant information before they make hiring decisions.'

Don't punish the students that didn't disrupt for the actions of the disrupters.

'That would be far better than judges and other employers refusing to hire ANY students from the offending schools.'

'Law schools are supposed to teach advocacy skills and a commitment to the rule of law. They should have and enforce vigorous free speech policies. They should not have deans, like Steinbach, who are part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.'

'Stanford should apologize to Judge Duncan for the dean's actions and inactions. He observed that in his view, "This was a set up. She was working with the students." Stanford should discipline any students who violated its speech policies. Most importantly, it should foster values of diversity of viewpoints, rather than merely diversity of race and ethnicity. Perhaps the law school should appoint a new dean of "diversity of opinions, tolerance for other views and free speech".'

CAPITAL IDEA!

 

The brownshirts are running the show at Stanford.

'The shouting down at Stanford Law School of a conservative US Circuit Judge, Kyle Duncan, and the ostensible abetting of that thuggish behavior by a high-ranking member of the School’s administration, Associate Dean Tirien Steinbach. Dean Steinbach added an especially nice touch by giving Judge Duncan a six-minute lecture on the “real harm” he was inflicting on students by, among other things, trying to talk to them. Although the Dean of the Law School and the President of the University have apologized to the Judge, not a single person at Stanford has apologized to the Federalist Society, which invited him to speak, or — most importantly — to the students who came in good faith to the auditorium but who were unable to hear the speaker because of the continuous and sometimes vulgar shouting and heckling. And as of this writing, no discipline has been handed out to (or, really, even very strongly hinted at) either Steinbach or the Brownshirt “students.”'

Don't hold your breath.

'Another high-ranking member of the School’s administration, Acting Dean of Students Jeanne Merino, has, however, delivered a message to Stanford’s students. In sum, it’s this: We’ll help you find a shrink so you can talk about your feelings.'

Publish the names of the authoritarian future lawyers who refused to allow the Judge to converse with those that wanted to hear what he had to say.

 

Why? How would that change what happened?

 

Sorry, that isn't how FREE speech works. It cannot be hand picked and catered to please an audience. We have FOX and MSNBC when we want our speech to come with coddling and agreeing views.

 

Realy? Why don't you tell me how it does work?

Who said it can be?

Neither of which is relevant.

 

seems like a bunch of SPIN AND BS

Lets try this again since you completely ignore the post of yours that I was replying to with your fancy little post dissection.
Here is what YOU said "Your right to free speech does not mean that other have to listen or not speak at all while you do. Don't like it go somewhere else to speak and take those who want to listen to you with you."

and that is complete BS

They don't have the right to shout over people and heckle when there is a scheduled speaker at an event. They DO have the right to leave. Regardless of party, people should still have common MANNERS

 

And they think that they have a right to do that to people who dare to disagree with them.

 

What is?

Why? On what premise should I be forced to listen you your crap if I do not want to?

It is becoming clear that it is you who does not know what is and how free speech works.

They have that right too, or stay as long as they are there legally.

I never said anything to the contrary. In fact I made it clear that it was not an issue of free speech but one of civility.

 

In fact they do have that right, even if you would want to deny it to them.

 

If they don't want to listen to the speaker, they don't attend the event

Its that simple

Get some logic man!

 

Or conversely the speaker can go where people want to listen to what (s)he has to say.

Yes it is simple

You first.

 

are you saying it makes sense to attend something you know you don't want to listen too and that it then makes more sense to go there anyway and cause a scene instead of just not attending? If that is really where you are going with this (and it sounds like you are), then I really have nothing else to say. Have a wonderful day!

 

I did not say it makes sense or it is civil, only that it is not a rights issue or illegal. Why is that not clear to you?

 

I guess you missed the part where the speaker was invited to speak to a specific group?

The students who felt they should do this should try it in a court of Law. I'd love to see the results if someone actually did tried it.

Children scream and shout, thinking to accomplish something. If you want to call that 'free speech', then understanding the use of 'free speech' in society should be taught in the early grades. Oh, wait.....

 

No I did not miss that part. Did you miss the part where whis was not an exclusive engagement only for the benefit of some?

That would be illegal, this was not.

If you would love it so much try it and have the firsthand experience?

 

No where did I say it was an 'exclusive engagement', but I suppose the idea of if someone is not interested in the subject, they should just stroll on by has gone by the wayside.

Why would it be 'illegal' one place, and not another? Wouldn't it still be free speech? Or does civility only apply in certain places.

Why would I? If I don't care for something, I don't feel that I should prevent others from doing it or hearing it, as long as it harms none. The twits who felt they had some right to prevent others from hearing what the Judge had to say are going to be in for a rude surprise in the real world, an those who support such actions are doing harm.

 

Nor did I say you said that.

Yes, that option was not taken.

Try it. I am sure the judge, as an expert on the matter, will be more than happy to explain it to you.

Civility only applies to those who are civilized. Some people forsake it at times for some reason.

As they did what they did, they did have the right to do so.

Maybe, maybe not.

Possibly.