FreeSpeech and Censorship: Thread

[grarpamp]

Uncivilized mobs, Leftist screechers as usual...


Should The Names Of Stanford Student Disrupters Be Published?

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/19476/stanford-student-disrupters

https://freebeacon.com/campus/dogshit-federal-judge-decries-disruption-of-his-remarks-by-stanford-law-students-and-calls-for-termination-of-the-stanford-dean-who-joined-the-protesters/
https://freebeacon.com/campus/hundreds-of-yale-law-students-disrupt-bipartisan-free-speech-event/
https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/599486-free-speech-under-attack-at-two-law-schools/
https://www.thecollegefix.com/video-stanford-law-dei-dean-rowdy-student-protesters-berate-federal-judge-invited-to-give-speech/

Once again, a conservative speaker had been shouted down by censorial
law students who didn't want him to speak. This time it was Stanford,
last time it was Yale. Then it was Georgetown.

If the Stanford Dean of diversity, equity and inclusion gets her way,
this censorship of conservative speakers will spread to other
campuses. Among the worst offenders in this all-too-common censorship
fest was Dean Tirien Steinbach. In what appears to be a written
statement prepared in advance, she effectively silenced the speaker,
federal Judge Kyle Duncan, by monopolizing his space. She sought to
justify not inviting speakers who might offend the sensibilities of
students who she claims to be responsible for "protecting" and
providing "safe spaces" against uncomfortable ideas.

After paying lip service to free speech, she suggested reconsidering
Stanford's speech policy, repeatedly asked whether "the squeeze is
worth the juice". She questioned whether Judge Duncan, whose opinions
and views cause "hurt" to students, should have been invited to speak.
Her bottom-line message was that offending some students is worse than
allowing others to hear from a controversial speaker. This from a
high-ranking administrator who was purporting to speak on behalf of
the university.

The real victims of this censorship were the students who were denied
the opportunity to hear Judge Duncan's full presentation.

An angry Judge Duncan responded, "Don't feel sorry for me. I'm a
life-tenured judge. What outrages me is that these kids are being
treated like dogshit by fellow students and administrators."

As the late Justice Thurgood Marshall once observed, "The freedom to
speak and the freedom to hear are inseparable; They are two sides of
the same coin."

To her credit, the dean of the law school, Jenny Martinez, condemned
the disrupters, writing, "However well-intentioned, attempts at
managing the room in this instance went awry... The way this event
unfolded was not aligned with out institutional commitment to freedom
of speech." She gave no indication of whether anyone would be
disciplined.

To be sure, protesting, picketing and even brief heckling of speakers
is also protected free speech, but shouting speakers down with the
intent to silence them is not.

It is explicitly prohibited by Stanford's rules. Yet that's exactly
what occurred without apparent consequences to the disrupters.

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 made a similar suggestion about publishing the names of Berkeley law
students who voted to ban all Zionists — that is, believers in
Israel's right to exist — from speaking at 14 law school clubs,
including feminist, Black and gay organizations.

As one who well remembers McCarthyite "blacklists," 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.

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".