Leaks: US Supreme Court Staffer Leaks Roe v Wade... WitchHunt Protests Police Ensue

[grarpamp]

Violent left...

"When The Mob Is Right": Georgetown Law Prof Supports "Aggressive"
Protests At Homes Of Justices

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/11/the-mob-is-right-georgetown-law-professor-calls-supports-aggressive-protests-at-the-homes-of-justices/



Georgetown Law Professor Josh Chafetz is under fire this week after
going to Twitter to defend “aggressive” protests at the homes of
Supreme Court justices. Chafetz explained that such mob action should
be permissible when “the mob is right.”  For many who have watched the
rise of threats and intolerance on our campuses, Chafetz’s comments
capture the culture of many on the left. While many were taken aback
by a professor seemingly supporting mob action, it is the same “by any
means necessary” justification that has been used to justify
everything from packing to sacking to leaking on the Court.

While I have opposed arresting the protesters on free speech grounds,
I have been an outspoken critic of the doxing and targeting of
justices at their homes.

Chafetz tweeted May 8 that “The ‘protest at the Supreme Court, not at
the justices’ houses’ line would be more persuasive if the Court
hadn’t this week erected fencing to prevent protesters from coming
anywhere near it…And before the ‘oh so you support J6 lmao!’ trolls
show up: the difference is *substantive*. When the mob is right, some
(but not all!) more aggressive tactics are justified. When not, not.”

No line captures the academics supporting this age of rage better than
“when the mob is right, some (but not all!) more aggressive tactics
are justified. When not, not.” Presumably, Chafetz will tell us when
aggressive protests are warranted and when they are not. It is the
same license supporting the censorship of social media.

We have seen similar claims of license for what Nancy Pelosi called
this week “righteous anger” and Mayor Lori Lightfoot called a “call to
arms.”

Rage can rationalize any means of response. Elie Mystal, who writes
for Above the Law and is The Nation’s justice correspondent, for
example, Mystal declared on MSNBC, without any contradiction from the
host, that “You don’t communicate to [Trump supporters], you beat
them. You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.”

Many have noted that Professor Ilya Shapiro remains suspended for a
poorly worded tweet that he posted objecting to President Biden
pledging to only consider Black female candidates for the next vacancy
on the Court. However, Chafetz mocked the very thought that he could
be punished for tweet supporting liberal mob action. He tweeted out:

    “Folks can snitch tag @GeorgetownLaw all they want (I’m so sorry,
public affairs folks!), they’re not going to fire me over a tweet you
don’t like.”

(According to news reports, Chafetz limited access to his account
after that tweet).

That is very likely correct under the very logic explained by Chafetz.
Reckless and even violent rhetoric is tolerated when the targets are
conservatives or Republicans in academia. A conservative, libertarian,
or even moderate faculty member would make no such assumption today.
The common view is that any controversy involving conservative or
libertarian or contrarian viewpoints will result in calls for
suspension and termination. With comparably few such faculty members
teaching on most faculties, the chilling effect is glacial.

The concern over consistent and uniform treatment of speech is
long-standing on campuses. In past postings, I have defended faculty
who have made an array of disturbing comments about “detonating white
people,” denouncing police, calling for Republicans to suffer,
strangling police officers, celebrating the death of conservatives,
calling for the killing of Trump supporters, supporting the murder of
conservative protesters and other outrageous statements. I also
supported the free speech rights of University of Rhode Island
professor Erik Loomis, who defended the murder of a conservative
protester and said that he saw “nothing wrong” with such acts of
violence.

Even when faculty engage in hateful acts on campus, however, there is
a notable difference in how universities respond depending on the
viewpoint. At the University of California campus, professors actually
rallied around a professor who physically assaulted pro-life advocates
and tore down their display.  We also previously discussed the case of
Fresno State University Public Health Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher
who recruited students to destroy pro-life messages written on the
sidewalks and wrongly told the pro-life students that they had no free
speech rights in the matter.

In all of these controversies, my natural default is in favor of free
speech despite the offensive content of the statements. I have the
same inclination in this controversy. Chafetz should not be sanctioned
for his tweet any more than Shapiro. There has been rising viewpoint
intolerance at Georgetown, including retaliatory measures against not
just faculty but student writers.

For an academic to support the targeting of jurists and their families
at their homes should be shocking but it is not. It is manifestation
of our national rage addiction. Academics are not immune. Indeed, they
can be rationalize and capitalize on such rage. The means of the mob
are justified when “the mob is right” … and many in academia and in
politics are eager to embrace the “righteous anger” of the mob.