Campus Speech Codes Are Bad For Higher Education

We should counter hateful speech with more words—not government force

We’re proud that America is the land of free speech. That right is recognized in the First Amendment, and we usually take it seriously. It wasn’t always the case.

In John Adams’ administration, the Sedition Act made it a crime, punishable by fine and imprisonment, “to write, print, utter or publish...any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government...or to excite against (it) the hatred of the people...”

Thankfully, Thomas Jefferson and other libertarians got rid of that law.

Under Woodrow Wilson, Eugene V. Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for calling for draft resistance during World War I. His conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court, led by that alleged civil libertarian Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Today, fortunately, no one goes to jail for criticizing the draft, or the U.S. government’s wars.

So we’ve made progress—in some areas. But in others, we’ve regressed.

I once interviewed someone who said words are like bullets because words can wound; this justified some censorship in his eyes.

Ugly words in a workplace can indeed make it hard for someone to succeed at work, and racism in school can make it hard to learn. But I say words are words and bullets are bullets.

Speech is special. We should counter hateful speech with more words—not government force.

I discussed this issue on my Fox Business show with lawyer Harvey Silverglate, who has devoted his career to defending speech. These days, he sees new threats.

“The old threats we managed to beat mostly in court and also in the court of public opinion,” Silverglate said. “So the censors have simply come up with new terms for speech they don’t like. They call it ‘harassment’ or...'bullying.’”

The “harassment” attack on speech came from feminists who said sex talk in the workplace must be forbidden because certain statements harass women.

“They tried to restrict speech on the theory that harassment may make it impossible for somebody in a historically disadvantaged group to get their work done, to study and get an education.”

I pointed out that sexist speech might in fact do that—if you have a bunch of guys making cracks constantly about women.

“You’ve got a right to respond with horrible speech if you are attacked with horrible speech. As long as that’s a two-way street, the First Amendment has worked.”

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • White Indian||

    "Free speech" is a debate convenience, not a libertarian principle.

    When White Indian shows up to Reason, it's hilarious to observe the "free speechers" kick into "it's my property, damn it!" just like the censorious universities.

  • Confused||

    When White Indian shows up

    Wait a minute. Aren't you Pale Injun?

  • George||

    George is getting upset!

  • R. Budd Dwyer||

    Hey man, Nice Shot.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Tell us where you live, [idiot whose name should not be uttered], and we'll see how much you care about "your property".

  • White Indian||

    Here's how I use free speech:

    Fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap...

  • ||

    I'd be happy to pay for some meds for this guy, but I hope I'm not paying for his internet service.

  • The Dan||

    now that's a blast from the past

  • Rectal||

    I'd rather not discuss White Indian.

  • Trail of Tears||

    WI brings up views the Soviet hivemind of neoliberalism cannot accept without self-incrimination.

    But I'm more than just a little curious how you plan to go about making your amends to the dead.

    To the dead.

    Not to pull your halo down, around your neck and tug you to the ground.

  • White Indian||

    I prefer to endorse the views of the Soviet hivemind of neoliberalism. Communists and their ilk are always so much more understanding of my right to everything anyone else has than all these believers in privation property here.

  • Ex-pat Cuban||

    You're full of shit, White Indian. You know NOTHING of life under communist rule.

  • Realist||

    How could a white Indian be full of shit....he would be brown Indian.

  • Liar!||

    I'd rather not discuss White Indian

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There's something creepy about giving anything to dead people.

  • BigT||

    What does free speech have to do with private property?

  • Privation Property||

    fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

    Everything has to do with privates properpee. Even my meatus.

  • Soviet Hivemind||

    In the name of the people's revolution, WI, we are taking your computer and internet access away to be used for the common good. You may apply for your turn at the public internet console on second Thursdays every January and July when there's a blue moon. Be sure to fill out all forms accurately, quickly, and in triplicate, and deposit them at the office of the commisar, which is open every Friday morning from 9:00 to 10:00.

  • Mitch||

    You can cry all you want about whatever you bitch and moan about, but your posts border on spam and are a waste of internet bandwith. That being said, to take the time to post such crap, makes one wonder if you are a paid shill that uses these posts as a underhanded attempt divert any meaningful conversation about the subject at hand or as a furtive denial of service attack in which the readers, posters, and owners of this website have every right to call you out on your antics. You seem to forget that this website is privately owned and has every right, if so desired, to ban any idiot, such as yourself from said website.

    If you want to whine about how you cannot gambol on the "plain," then go to a get a permit and go protest on public grounds as which is your right to do so.

    No go back and finish sucking George Soros's dick like a good little cunt you are.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Maybe some offshoot of the Occutard movement? That, has Soros spoo all over it.

  • White Indian||

    *Slurp! Slurp! Slurp! Slurp! Slurp!* Mmm, Soros, more sperm please!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Probably the most-truthy W.I. post. Ever.

  • affenkopf||

    Fuck John Adams.

  • ||

    Yeah! Fuck him with a greased baseball bat!
    No! Not greased...dry!
    Yeah, fuck that Braintree cunt!

  • ||

    Homeboy was funny in Sideways, though.

  • R. Budd Dwyer||

    It seems like everything is grey and there's no color to behold.

  • R. Budd Dwyer||

    a man has gun
    hey man, have fun
    nice shot, man

  • Quincy||

    Without Adams getting the funding for the Revolution from the Dutch, there would be no America today.

  • ||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNzPVqgFRSg

    y/n

    Don't fume at his "we conservatives" phraseology -- he lumps libertarians into it

  • chris||

    Gaa! Saw the Google+ commercial while watching Packers v. Detroit. Could have been titled Birth of OWS Nation.

  • ||

    Another post about "politically correct" speech.

    meh

  • R. Budd Dwyer||

    I am aware now how everything's gonna be fine.

  • ||

    Janet Napolitano is wiggling her fingers excitedly at this.

  • ||

    I bet there's a secret division in Homeland Security called the "Office of Tea-Bagger Containment and Elimination", and it's watching Stossel and all of us.

    Stossel, make sure you stock up on ammo and Oreos.

  • With your halo slipping down||

    Your halo's slipping down.

  • wtp||

    +1 for APC

  • Single Acts of Tyranny||

    I think I was just sick in my mouth...

  • Acts of the Apostles||

    Paul?

  • ||

    D'oh- left out the quote:

    In John Adams’ administration, the Sedition Act made it a crime, punishable by fine and imprisonment, “to write, print, utter or publish...any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government...or to excite against (it) the hatred of the people...”

    Janet Napolitano is wiggling her fingers excitedly at this.

  • ||

    And she's probably got a boner, too.

  • R. Budd Dwyer||

    I feel the dream in me expire, and there's no one left to blame it on.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    "Thomas Jefferson and other libertarians got rid of [the sedition] law."

    Not quite-

    It expired of its own force just before Jefferson came in (quite a coincidence), and Jefferson then pardoned the victims. In 1840 and 1850, Congress refunded the fines paid by two of the victims (Mathew Lyon and Thomas Cooper respectively).

    The Supreme Court justices upheld the law at the time, but around 1963 the Court got around to saying it was unconstitutional.

  • ||

    IIRC it never came before SCOTUS. In fact, the doctrine of judicial review was not in force yet, as Marbury v Madison occurred during the Jefferson administration.

  • IRC = Internet Relay Chat||

    ....iirc.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I said the Supreme Court *justices*, not the Supreme Court. Several Supreme Court justices (either half of them or a majority, I forget) upheld the Sedition Act when they were serving as trial judges. None of the Supreme Court justices said it was unconstitutional.

    Jefferson simply thought he understood the Constitution better than the Supreme Court justices. So did Congress in 1840 and 1850. The Supreme Court waited all of 162 years to acknowledge that Jefferson and Congress were right, and that previous Supreme Court justices were wrong.

  • ||

    And the 1963 statement was meaningless dicta, as the law had expired more than 150 years prior and no one then living had any standing to bring a claim against it.

  • James Joyce||

    Meaningless dicta. And the 1963 statement was expired. As the law had more than 150 years living prior. And no one then had any standing to bring a claim against tits.

  • HermanLame||

    It wasn't a coincidence. In addition to being extremely statist for their time, the Federalists were also partisan and manipulative as fuck. The law was designed to expire at the end of Adams's administration so the Dem-Rep's, whom the Federalists hated and blasted as mobsters and crooks in language that would make the SDS and Black Panthers blush, could not use it.

  • ||

    Jefferson wasn't all that nice of a guy after he was in power either. Read up on what he did to Aaron Burr.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Didn't Burr kill Hamilton in a dual for writing unflattering things about him? Not exactly a champion of free speech.

  • Du-Al Do-All Du-Wall||

    Is yours big enough?

    .552 Libertard Auto

  • ||

    Hamilton accepted the duel, so it wasn't coercive.

  • jimmy hat||

  • ||

    They are definitely bad for higher education, in the sense that they harm the intellectual diversity of the college.

    That doesn't mean all of them are unconstitutional though. The relationship between university and student is a voluntary one.

  • HermanLame||

    What you said, with a caveat. While going to a school is a voluntary relationship, and one can voluntarily agree to speech restrictions if they chose to, we should still criticize these restrictions strongly, as they breed a mindset that is hesitant to speak out and too easily accepts other kinds of speech restrictions. It isn't so bad for us Libertarians, but it is for apolitical types, who get used to speech restrictions, and then support them when actual legislatin' time comes. Think about the amount of people who support the Patriot Act.

  • HermanLame||

    What you said, with a caveat. While going to a school is a voluntary relationship, and one can voluntarily agree to speech restrictions if they chose to, we should still criticize these restrictions strongly, as they breed a mindset that is hesitant to speak out and too easily accepts other kinds of speech restrictions. It isn't so bad for us Libertarians, but it is for apolitical types, who get used to speech restrictions, and then support them when actual legislatin' time comes. Think about the amount of people who support the Patriot Act.

  • R. D. Lang||

    Breed a mindset, restrictions strongly.

    Us Libertarians voluntarily agree to speech restrictions if they chose to.

    Hesitant voluntary relationships support the Patriot Act kinds of going to a school, with a caveat.

    It isn't so bad.

  • Ted S.||

    If Title IX can be used to force private universities to do all sorts of nasty things in punishing men accused of sexual assault or require genital quotas in the athletics department, why can't it be used to make them follow the first amendment to the same extent as state-sector universitites?

  • Title IX||

    Title IX doesn't go half way, Teddy boy. Wait until evolution starts happening again.

    (Evolution has been in artificial suspension for 6000 years or so. But not for long.)

  • Quincy||

    But it's a publicly funded institution, so I think the first ammendment needs to apply there.

  • ||

    Yes, but the relationship between the university and the taxpayer isn't.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Except that my funding of it is completely INvoluntary.

    One needn't attend a public university to have a relationship with it, nor criticize their "free speech" zones.

    If higher education is seen as this public good that we simply cannot live without, we all have a responsibility to reject the idea that a free speech zone within them is congruent with the censored education currently provided.

  • ||

    Completely agree. That was the point I was making to Tulpa. If the relationship between university and student is a voluntary one, that between university and taxpayer isn't. To the extent that a university acts as the agent of the taxpayer, then it should be obliged to obey the same limitations imposed on other taxpayers' agents.

  • ||

    In particular, I don't see any problem with prohibiting political demonstrations in university buildings. The flag distributors had the entire outdoors to hold their demonstration in; it's not like being excluded from buildings was preventing the demonstration or disconnecting them from the intended audience. Your distaste for the rain is not the university's problem.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Is handing out flags peacefully in the Student Union really a problem? It's not as though they were marching through lecture halls wearing red bandana and flinging Molotov cocktails...

  • ||

    I feel so bad for this cop. Because those 5 year olds can be deadly. Especially when a cop makes unwanted contact and the kid asserts himself. Even more so when the cop is brought in to talk to a five year old without his parent present.

    I know. I know. This incident is isolated, right dunphy?

    It bears repeating: fuck these pigs.

  • ||

    My sister is a lawyer, and she's utterly convinced that the legal profession has gone to shit and reached new lows.

    Why can't cops admit that there are fundamental problems with their PROFESSION? With many of the people that are employed IN THAT PROFESSION?

  • ||

    Because a majority of cops are thugs who break the law on a regular basis. The minority that doesn't are too happy with their pay, pensions and perks that they are willing to turn a blind eye to this kind of obvious abuse.

    I swear, if I found out a cop had:
    1. Gone into a room with my 5 y/o child without me being present.
    2. Made an unwanted physical contact with him.
    3. Hogtied my kid when he asserted himself against said contact.
    4. Took him to a mental hospital without me being notified.
    I would be out for blood.

    Oh, and the charges against the kid were dropped.

  • ||

    And the kid was given a Penn State athletic scholarship.

  • ||

    But he showed up at his arraignment with a Syracuse sweatshirt on.

  • ||

    GO BABY RAPERS!

    They're going to win the championship!

  • ||

    Yeah? Then why are the Shower Sodomites the top seed?

  • Butthead||

    heh,,,heh....you said seed!

  • ||

    And while they may be the top seeds in the US playoffs, I have a feeling they will be outmatched when they cross the pond and take on the British boarding schools.

  • ||

    I've heard that the Afghani warlord team sponsored by Blackwater will be a force next season.

  • ||

    When they go for the "long bomb", WATCH OUT!

  • ||

    That's the kind of inconsistency we should expect when rankings are decided by a NAMBLA poll instead of on the field.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Comparing pedophiles to the ncaa is not very nice to pedophiles.

  • ||

    Yeah, at least pedophiles aren't fucking taxpayers.

  • ||

    I immediately regret ^^this^^ post.

  • Coeus||

    Don't apologize. It only emboldens Ken.

  • Megyn Kelly||

    Zip ties? Don't the Stockton police have educational tools, like TASERS?

  • mustard||

    There are fundamental problems with the Reason commenter profession too, but you folks don't admit that either.

  • Sevo||

    I'll bet you're used to your mom laughing at your jokes.

  • ||

    Don't insult his mom!

    He hasn't stopped breastfeeding yet.

  • ||

    Arrest mustard for sexual assault!!!

  • ||

    There are fundamental problems with the Reason commenter profession too, but you folks don't admit that either.

    The first problem with the "profession" being that we are not paid, hence are not professionals. Second, we...

    wait a minute. No. I'm not gonna get sucked in by this cunt.

  • ||

    Nothing wrong with being sucked in by a cunt. Some might even find it enjoyable.

  • Coeus||

    Not the way they did it in American Gods.

  • ||

    Not me.

  • ||

    Spoof or outing? You decide.

  • Spiral out||

    Tool Lateralus

  • Ted S.||

    Profession?

    Then why the hell am I not getting any checks from the Koch Foundation?

  • Arf?||

    You're not getting your checks? I'm getting mine. You should probably talk to Carol in Payroll.

  • KOCHsucker||

    I'm getting mine too, and it's puritanically white.

    Still messy though.

  • ||

    Have you filed you TPS reports yet?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yeah, there are problems, mustard... you posting here, for instance.

  • Anacreon||

    "My sister is a lawyer, and she's utterly convinced that the legal profession has gone to shit and reached new lows."

    Wow, that must have been a major drop, given the lofty position they held previously.

  • R. Budd Dwyer||

    I do it for the love I get from the bottom of a bottle.

  • ||

    lol

  • ||

    sloopy...

    yawn. if this isn't trolling, nothing is.

    really. this thread isn't about that.

    are you really that butthurt and incapable of discussing concepts without devolving to personal snipes (as seen in other threads) that this kind of stuff is that representative of your personality disorders etc?

    grow up.

    i didn't click on the link. it may very well be an example of misconduct. so what? i have said dozens of times, police misconduct happens, and it sucks. cops are human. some of them are just plain bad, and any of us is capable of doing bad things, just like any other human being on planet earth

    imo, ime, and based on evidence and statistics, police brutality is rare. some agencies work hard at rooting it out. others don't

    and of course, in a legal system where the rights of the accused are respected, that applies to accused cops, too

    again, grow up

    you're butthurt. i get it. stop acting like a 12 yr old. you only diminish yourself

  • ||

    Butt-hurt 12 year old? I didn't know you worked for Sandusky's PR team on the side, dunphy.

  • ||

    Tell you what: just stop commenting on the accounts of police abuse I bring up.

    If you don't click on the link and read it, how the fuck can you make an informed opinion as to the veracity of my claims (of abuse).

    As you say, it may be rare. I don't think so, and I doubt the 5 year old kid who got hogtied by a cop and taken to a mental hospital without notifying his parents prior to the interview (that was not the direct result of any action on the kid's part, but designed to "scare him straight") or the trip to the loony bin.

    Fuck you, Fuck your brothers in blue who commit crimes against individuals on a regular basis, and fuck the enabling cocksuckers that allow it to happen because a paycheck and pension are more important than principles.

    Please stop stalking my posts. It's unnerving when someone does it, especially since you have access to a police computer and can probably look up my personal info from my e-mail address without fear of reprisal or consequence.

  • ||

    You wrote, "I know. I know. This incident is isolated, right dunphy?" then you accuse dunphy of "stalking" you? Seriously?

  • Yeah||

    Sloopy is a moron, that's not news...

  • Sevo||

    And when the market opens again, we'll see the response to Portuguese paper:

    "Portugal lowered to junk status as big strike hits"
    Note the strike is the now-typical response to reality (called "austerity" in MSM-speak).

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/.....743S55.DTL

  • ||

    Ndamakong Suh: dirty player or dirtiest player?

  • ||

    You know, you never see somebody (that looks) like AJ Hawk or Clay Matthews do shit like that.

  • Jesus wont you fucking whistle||

    Sober

  • ||

    Yeah, wait until after the game when they get to drink their PBRs.

  • Christian Laettner||

    Maybe in football.

  • Wilton Alston||

    I agree, and I disagree. First of all, one needs to be clear. The First Amendment (like *all* the Amendments) restricts the actions of the government. What you or I choose to do in our homes, in our businesses, or, in fact, in the schools that are (functionally, if not politically) private enterprises, is irrelevant. Or at least it should be. In other words, if the owner of a firm wants to "limit" speech on his premises in *any* way he chooses, more power to him. The problem comes when laws are created to either protect the "victims" of those words or justify the use of that language. It's not needed. So while I think campus speech codes are rather stupid, as are people who use language to harass those with whom they work, I don't think those things have much to do with the First Amendment.

  • Gary Chartier||

    Well, maybe I missed something, but I didn't see this as a piece about the Constitution. I saw it as a piece about the merits of not restricting speech. Of course employers and private universities should have the bare right to restrict speech on their property (the public universities are bound by the Constitution here, of course). But that doesn't mean that it is either morally or prudentially appropriate for them to do so.

  • Libertarian Speech Restriction||

    Our pedantic legalism helps manipulate free speech into acceptable censorship with one word -- property.

  • White Idiot||

    Spoken with forked tongue. 4Q

  • Sevo||

    Please.
    Vermin shit gets no food.

  • Comrade Sevo||

    Political corrections officer!

    Listen to him!

    wisdom flows from his frantik keyboard

  • fish||

    Wilt

    Love your LRC articles!

  • With your halo slipping down||

    But I'm more than just a little curious how you plan to go about making your amends to the dead.

    To the dead.

    Your halo's slipping down.

  • fish||

    You're fab when you forget your dose!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I make amends to the dead the same way I do time-travel... not at all, because both acts are impossible.

  • ||

    Jefferson wasn't all that nice of a guy after he was in power either.

    True, but all of The Founders were flawed individuals in one way or another. None of them are in any danger of being beatified.

    Read up on what he did to Aaron Burr.

    To be fair, Burr was a treasonous scumbag (Mexico, anyone?) and one of the more colourful characters in US history.

  • ||

    Mexico didn't exist at the time, and there's no evidence Burr committed treason in his land dealings in Louisiana.

    At the time it wasn't clear whether the US would actually be able to hold on to Louisiana, since Spain claimed (rightly) that the previous treaty transferring it from Spain to France stipulated that France was not permitted to sell it.

  • Vermillion Part Two||

    She seemed dressed in all of me, stretched across my shame.

  • ||

    Ndamakong Suh: dirty player or dirtiest player?

    Positively filthy.

  • ||

    He's so dirty that pigs demand he wear three sets of gloves when he does a veterinary DRE.

  • ||

    There are fundamental problems with the Reason commenter profession too, but you folks don't admit that either.

    Clearly, this is a cry in the wilderness for a Commenters Union.

  • PantsFan||

    One hour before the next game? Who schedules this?

  • ||

    Jenny-O or Butterball is my guess.

  • R. D. Lang||

    I experience your behavior.

  • ||

    A very touching story.

    I wish her the best and hope she does the right thing for her constituents and resigns so she can concentrate on her physical and mental recovery.

  • R. Budd Dwyer||

    I won't let this build up inside of me.

  • ||

    Jesus Budd, pull the trigger already!

  • ||

    Mexico didn't exist at the time, and there's no evidence Burr committed treason in his land dealings in Louisiana.

    Mexico didn't exist in name, but the land certainly didn't go anywhere.

    As for your assertion of "no evidence":

    I have obtained funds, and have actually commenced the enterprise. Detachments from different points under different pretenses will rendezvous on the Ohio, 1st November-- everything internal and external favors views--protection of England is secured. T[ruxton] is gone to Jamaica to arrange with the admiral on that station, and will meet at the Mississippi-- England---Navy of the United States are ready to join, and final orders are given to my friends and followers--it will be a host of choice spirits. Wilkinson shall be second to Burr only--Wilkinson shall dictate the rank and promotion of his officers. Burr will proceed westward 1st August, never to return: with him go his daughter--the husband will follow in October with a corps of worthies. Send forthwith an intelligent and confidential friend with whom Burr may confer. He shall return immediately with further interesting details--this is essential to concert and harmony of the movement.... [T]he project is brought to the point so long desired: Burr guarantees the result with his life and honor--the lives, the honor and fortunes of hundreds, the best blood of our country. Burr's plan of operations is to move rapidly from the falls on the 15th of November, with the first five hundred or one thousand men, in light boats now constructing for that purpose--to be at Natchez between the 5th and 15th of December--then to meet Wilkinson--then to determine whether it will be expedient in the first instance to seize on or pass by Baton Rouge. On receipt of this send Burr an answer--draw on Burr for all expenses, &c. The people of the country to which we are going are prepared to receive us--their agents now with Burr say that if we will protect their religion, and will not subject them to a foreign power, that in three weeks all will be settled.
    The gods invite to glory and fortune--it remains to be seen whether we deserve the boon.... --29th July.

    Linky.

  • ||

    The "letter to General Wilkinson" which you quote was almost certainly faked. It was in Wilkinson's handwriting. At trial he claimed it was a copy of the original which he had since lost.

  • ||

  • Vicarious||

    Sod's brood, be fear of me!

    ~James Joyce, Finnegans Wake

  • ||

    Yeah, come on. That letter was a joke. Jefferson was being a vindictive dick in this. I'm no Jefferson hater but his hard-on against Burr was pretty much off the rails. Also, I've read Burr by Gore Vidal like five times so I'm inclined to be sympathetic to the old scoundrel.

  • ||

    Fucking Lions. Score a touchdown with 11 seconds left to cost me 3 fantasy points.

    Pricks!

  • ||

    I'm just glad they didn't go for 2, I need every Jason Hanson point I can get.

  • ||

    He's so dirty that pigs demand he wear three sets of gloves when he does a veterinary DRE.

    Try elucidating that during one of your Calculus classes Dr. Tulpy Poo.

    Which reminds me...,

    That doesn't mean all of them are unconstitutional though. The relationship between university and student is a voluntary one.

    The relationship b'twixt student and university is voluntary, but, assuming the institution is a state school, part of the funding is not, via state and federal funding. Does this not throw a wrenched monkey into the mix? Does the public via taxes, therefore a financial stake, have say so in speech codes one way or the other (YAY Democracy!)?

  • ||

    Not to mention, when a student agrees to go to a college, he accepts the rules that are in place. When the rules are changed after a student pays hit tuition, he/she should have the right to spit on those new rules, at least through the session they are in.

    IOW, if they allowed it when the kids paid, they have to allow it until the school is out of session.

  • PantsFan||

    Terms are subject to change without notice?

  • ||

    I'd like to see that on their admissions forms.
    Then I'd shut the fuck up...probably to your delight.

  • Vicarious TOOL||

    Cuz I need to watch things die.

    From a good safe distance.

    Vicariously, I.

    Watch while the whole world dies.

    Why can't we just admit it?

  • ||

    I think the bigger part of the problem here is the rights of the accused - or lack thereof. I can see why some people may be afraid of retaliation if they report actual harassment but administrations take it way too far and make both standards and adjudication of violations into an almost Kafkaesque ordeal.

  • ||

    The university trustees who are ultimately in control of such things are either elected or appointed by elected officials. Which is all the control voters have over spending matters in other areas too.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So that totally makes all of the other bureaucrats that make shitty rules in all facets of government operation acceptable and beyond criticism too, right?

    Don't be a douche Tulpa.

  • PantsFan||

    I just realized Michael Corleone's Lake Tahoe compound had more security than the POW camp Steve McQueen escaped from in "The Great Escape"

  • ||

    Tell me "The Tailor" (Flying Officer Griff Griffith) doesn't look like Crispin Glover.

    Tell me!

  • ||

    The "letter to General Wilkinson" which you quote was almost certainly faked. It was in Wilkinson's handwriting. At trial he claimed it was a copy of the original which he had since lost.

    Considering Gen. Wilkinson and Burr corresponded through coded letters of Wilkinson's design, a history of letters I might add, of course it would have been in Wilkinson's handwriting. Inductively, it would lend credence to Wilkinson's testimony, and didn't prove any fraud nor does it now, which you assert.

    The only thing that saved Burr's bacon was John Marshall.

  • ||

    LOL. The fact that it was in Wilkinson's handwriting proves it was written by Burr? Hmm.

    How sad to see you towing the government's lion, even if everyone involved has been dead and buried for 150 years.

  • Yeah||

    "The fact that it was in Wilkinson's handwriting proves it was written by Burr? Hmm."

    Post the quote where he says that asshole.

    You're wrong again, and attacking straw men again.

  • Burr's Bacon = Burr's Ass||

    A burr under one's ass?

  • ||

    Nothing wrong with being sucked in by a cunt. Some might even find it enjoyable.

    Being sucked in suggests elasticity and turgidity and would be certainly stimulating, depending on the diameter of the meatus.

    Now, FALLING IN...different story...(echo)...different story...(echo)...different story...

  • ||

    ... of the meatus.

    Why do I laugh every time I read that word?

    Meatus.

  • ||

    Speaking of meatuses, what's up with that DA in Wisconsin?

  • Christ had compassion||

    Compassion is obsolete.

  • ||

    Let's check with Ken Shultz's focus group about how the word "meatus" affects pubic perception of libertarianism.

  • Head like a Hole||

    God money I'll do anything for you.
    God money just tell me what you want me to.
    God money nail me up against the wall.
    God money don't want everything he wants it all.

    Head like a Hole Meatus
    Nine Inch Nails
    1,081,602 views
    5,472 likes, 43 dislikes
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao-Sahfy7Hg&ob=av2e

  • ||

    I'm Fixing a hole meatus where the wang gets in
    And stops my mind from wandering.
    Where it will goooooooo.

  • Sevo||

    Sloopy,
    Please.

  • ||

    And now, the weather.

  • Ffffffffffffuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu||

    How cum them guys look like Justin Bieber, anyway?

    Time travel. Proof. April 2009. Scooter Braun.

  • ||

    Nature Photography at it's finest.

  • ||

    "I've fallen and I can't get it up"

  • ||

    That's the kind of inconsistency we should expect when rankings are decided by a NAMBLA poll instead of on the field.

    What does a bunch of Marlon Brando dopplegangers have to do with sports rankings, cap l? That's just plain creepy.

  • ||

    Now, FALLING IN...different story...(echo)...different story...(echo)...different story...

    "Pinch hitting for Pedro Borbon... Manny Mota... Mota... Mota... "

  • Sevo||

    Hank Greenwald, announcing for the Giants years ago did a riff on the Alou brothers; comments on the careers of Felipe, Matty, Jesus, and the little-known Bee-Bop.

  • PantsFan||

    Whatever happened to cool half-time shows like Up With People?

  • ||

  • ||

    You gotta hand it to the guy, he was not kidding around.

  • ||

    Our nation would be better off if more politicians followed his lead.

  • Vermillion Part Two||

    A catch in my throat.

    Choke.

    I won't let this build up inside of me.

  • ||

    OK, maybe there is a way Obama could earn my vote.

  • ||

    Another revolver aficionado.

    Respect.

  • ||

    I just know there's a Simpsons reference here somewhere but it escapes me at the moment.

  • I was bangin' 7 gram rocks||

    Bi-Winning
    6,048,400 views
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QS0q3mGPGg

  • Right every wrong||

    36,048,400 views
    Fweeeeee Makkit rhesus·search!

    schmoooooooyoooho

  • ||

    A pretty funny story, but the comments are most telling...especially IRT dunphy's brothers in blue in the Seattle area.

    Looks like the people up there generally have the correct impression of their police. Maybe I have misjudged them.

  • Vermillion Part Two||

    I don't know what to do when she makes me sad.

    But I won't let this build up inside of me.

  • Sevo||

    ""Our policies on shoplifting are intended to protect our customers, but built on common sense. And everyone understands what common sense is," said company spokesperson Cherie Myers"

    Well, not *everybody*.
    Seriously, while I understand the high-school 'hall monitor' syndrome, WIH was the guard thinking?

  • ||

    Read the comments.

  • Sevo||

    All 250+? How about a hint?

  • Lazy||

  • ||

    I like that no matter the circumstances in the comments section of any news story involving kids you get a few of the "Where were the parents during all of this!? Tsk Tsk, shame shame!" posters.

    ------------------------

    MISSOURI__ Police are alleging today that former Penn State coach Jerry "Sandbanana" Sandusky barged into a daycare center armed with two assault style shotguns and exposed his man-meatus to the frightened children...

    Comments: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic.

    Concerned (and outraged) Parent |11.24.11 @ 6:57PM|#

    Where the hell were the parents in all of this!? I know that if Sandbanana came into my kid's daycare I'd be there to protect them. Really it's these negligent parents that we should be charging with a crime. If mothers would stay home and take care of their kids instead of wage slaving away for giant corporations just to keep up with the Joneses then our country might not have so many problems!

  • ||

    The fact that it was in Wilkinson's handwriting proves it was written by Burr? Hmm.

    The transcribed copy was written by Wilkinson, since the original was written in code by Burr.

    From the linky @ 3:38:

    In this troubled time, the end of President Jefferson's first term, Aaron Burr stepped down from the Vice Presidency, and began preparations for a military expedition that was either-- depending upon whose views one solicited--treasonous or patriotic. At its core, however, the Burr Conspiracy clearly was about conquest and adventure.

    The Burr Conspiracy had its origins in a series of discussions over the winter of 1804-05 between Burr and his longstanding friend, General James Wilkinson. The two served together in the Quebec campaign of 1775-76. Over the years they often corresponded in a cipher invented by Wilkinson. Wilkinson was an intriguer of the first-order who had formerly been the head of a party in the West that favored a separation of the western states from the Atlantic states.

    (emphasis mine)

    How sad to see you towing the government's lion, even if everyone involved has been dead and buried for 150 years.

    Burr engaged in treasonous activity, and Jefferson, as President, had a duty to protect the nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Was poor, poor Burr, who had no qualms plugging Hamilton in a duel, BTW, the victim of a Vast Jeffersonian Conspiracy?

  • ||

    The evidence for your position is a letter in his accuser's handwriting and claims by said accuser that it was so because they were corresponding via secret codes....and I'm the conspiracy theorist?

    BTW Hamilton instigated the duel and cheated as well, giving himself a pistol that required only a half pound of pressure on the trigger to fire compared to the usual 10 pounds.

  • Guns!||

    fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap

  • Yeah||

    "and I'm the conspiracy theorist?"

    Well, you're an idiot and an asshole, but i dunno about that one

  • ||

    And there definitely weren't two witnesses to an overt act of treason as required by the Constitution. There wasn't even one.

  • Legalism Schegalism||

    When you're right, you're right.

  • ||

    But it's good to reveal yourself as an authority fetishist who approves of presidential usurpation of the constitution to "protect the nation".

  • Tulpa talks to himself||

  • Always Use Protection||

  • Yeah||

    And it's obvious that once again you can't admit you're wrong

  • ||

    But I'm not wrong and I don't believe in lying.

  • Privation Property||

  • .||

    Illegitimate property.

    Or is all claimed property legitimate?

    Prop. Per. Tee.

    Come on, let us know. Is it all legitimate or not?

    CME Boosts MF Global Guarantee

  • Sevo||

    Please no food for vermin shit.

  • Sevormin shit.||

  • ||

    Support FIRE. i do. they are an org that works hard to fight against ILLEGAL and in some cases not illegal but unethical campus speech codes. they have won tons of battles , especially against govt. schools that MUST respect the 1st amendment

    www.thefire.org
    http://thefire.org/cases/freespeech/

  • Not illegal, but unethical?||

    If it's legal, it's ethical.

    That's the libertarian way, dotchaknow?

  • Meaty Balls||

    Welly, welly, welly. I'm stuffed. I have to make sure I have enough toilet paper for the huge dump I know I'm going to take tomorrow morning.

  • Messy Balls||

    Diseases of Civilization, how do they work?

  • Meaty Balls||

    Diseases of Civilization, how do they work?

    For me? It was dirty needles 25 years ago.

    Been there, done that, got the positive HCV results to prove it. I start interferon next week, so I'm eating like a fucking pig until then, because I sure as shit won't be able to eat much for the next 24 weeks.

  • Boy Cott||

    STOP BLAKC FIRDAY!
    http://www.stopblackfriday.com.....tt-on.html
    Hit the 1% where it hurts - in the wallet.

  • Blark Frydai||

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yeah! And while we're at it... spread anti-capitalist bullshit!

    Stupid Occutards.

  • Comrade Sevo||

    Da, tovarisch, you have to be told.

  • Why is every single thought...||

    ...about White Indian?

    Is it because there is zero freedom in orthodox Libertarianism?

    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

  • But, but, but, but, but....||

    City-Statism benevolently gives us increased lifespan.

    For the last few decades.

    If you live close to the center of empire, instead of what the empire's economic hitmen have made of the "turd world."

    Cuz half of civilization is starving.

  • Your physician||

    "Why is every single thought...about White Indian?"

    That's called a mental disorder, and it's impressive that you finally admitted you have a problem with obsessive thoughts.

  • White Indian||

    (Thinking of myself.)

    Fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap fap...

  • ||

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Public park as public toilet? Sure, why not.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    John Stossel: Tragedy of the Commons?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    The Pilgrims were stinkin' commies!

  • ¢||

    There is hope for America after all!!!

    Nyoooooooooooo-ho-wah! there isn't. Metallica has been the most embarrassing band in the world for longer than Miley Cyrus been alive.

    SELF-IMPROVEMENT-THEMED DAD ROCK UP YOUR ASS

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Governor Bradford: Champion of Capitalism and Weird Speech Patterns

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Communism is killing the rain forest. Boom, take that, environmentalists/collectivists!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    OMG! Stossel just brought up "private roads".

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hawks are pricks. People are awesome. Chickens are saps.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Stoss is including the Injuns in the blame for the extinction of the bison. Every part, my ass.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Shooting bison from trains? Another evil of rail travel.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Elephants were destroying livelihoods? No wonder the Repugs use them as their mascot.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Make their bison pay?

    "Hey, bison! You're late with the rent again."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    ...and gambling.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Manny is listing Canada over the United States! How dare he? America has destroyed its indians second to none.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    And later colonial Americans put down masking tape to divide the country up amongst themselves.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hey! No dissing America on Iraq and Afghanistan!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Property rigths, is there nothing you can't do?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Hey, Stossel is dissing prostitution!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Shirley should go around making sure no one enjoys the park without realizing the money isn't going to the public coffers.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Boston Common sucks too much to tarnish private enterprise with its suckiness.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ha, Kressel is a journalist? One can only imagine her unbiased reporting.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    "We have the same number of homeless in the park as when it was public."

    Ha! Private enterprise is stagnating on homeless growth.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    HFS! First she's pissed that the homeless were kicked out, now she's derisive of allowing the homeless in the private park!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Bureaucrats are better to manage the parks than private managers.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Ha! Suck it, Pilgrim commies.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Okay, you got him, Stossel. He recognizes private is better now. You don't have to be a dick about it.

  • Boy Cott||

    Why can only females sell dishwashing detergent? MALE PRIVILEGE!

  • Megyn Kelly||

    "You're soaking in it"

  • Madge||

    That's NOT Palmolive!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Happy T-giving, my peeps!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    I was wondering if this would ever be back...

  • Elaine B||

    George|11.24.11 @ 5:54PM|#|show direct|ignore
    George is getting upset!

    The thing about George is … he's an idiot.

  • Arf?||

    Tired of being an adult? Miss your footie pajamas? Try Forever Lazy™!

  • Arf?||

  • F Hart||

    College chicks across the country will be wearing them to their 8:00 AM 10:00 AM classes, if they are not already.

  • Rabbler||

    Genetically-modified organisms (GMOs) run rampant like a plague, spreading poisonous genes into food and fiber crops, livestock, wildlife, insects, birds, the soil, and unsuspecting people. We are what we eat, and we are eating toxic unnatural food contrived in laboratories by billion-dollar chemical companies. Ninety percent of American corn, cotton, canola, soybeans, and sugar beets are genetically modified today. Eighty percent of all processed foods on our grocery shelves are made with GM ingredients. Livestock are fed primarily with genetically-modified feed in feed lots and factory farms, and those malnourished, sickened cattle, pigs, and chickens are the chief source of our protein.
    http://www.sonofafarmer.com/

  • .||

    ^^^^Luddite^^^^

  • Tony||

    Fine sentiment and I don't dispute that liberals and their universities can go too far. But this gripe is almost exclusively that of aggrieved heterosexual white males. You see clearly that you should have the freedom to say what you want at all times, but you see less clearly that women should be free to work in a non-sexist environment, at all times. Just as you'd demand for yourself if men were most often the victim of sexism. The whole point is that it fosters an asymmetrical gender-based power relationship. In such an environment, countering sexism with "more speech" will likely not solve the problem and make it worse for the woman.

    Libertarians seem to want radical freedom for everything they like to do, and given their demographic makeup, that tends to exclude types of freedom women and nonwhite people might have an interest in but which white men take for granted.

  • Bullshit.||

    Nowadays white men take second-class citizenship for granted!

  • Tony||

    You're confusing "not being dominant anymore" with "second-class citizenship." It's more difficult than you think to put yourself in someone else's shoes, particularly if you don't belong to any minority.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the Pederast,

    You see clearly that you should have the freedom to say what you want at all times, but you see less clearly that women should be free to work in a non-sexist environment, at all times.


    Women ARE free to work in a non-sexist environment, all the time - they can always QUIT and find that environment.

    Just as you'd demand for yourself if men were most often the victim of sexism.


    You seem to think that men are all pussies like you.

    In such an environment, countering sexism with "more speech" will likely not solve the problem and make it worse for the woman.


    So you want censorship - got it.

  • Tony||

    Your freedom to be boorish doesn't trump women's freedom to be free from harassment in the workplace. This is what I'm talking about. You think your liberties matter more than other liberties for different types of people, like a typical libertarian.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    "Your freedom of speech doesn't trump women's freedom of censorship."

  • Tony||

    It's not speaking words that is the issue, but creating a hostile work environment.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Best recourse: Say nothing to female co-employees.

    Ever.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Let me amend that to:

    Best recourse: Say nothing to ANY co-employee.

    Ever.

    Because you never know when someone is going to be "offended" by even the most innocuous comment.

  • Tony||

    You have the right to say anything you want, other people don't have the right to be offended.

    Libertarian freedom.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fire someone for non-offensive speech.

    Team Blue freedom.

  • Tony||

    I thought employers ought to be free to fire for whatever reason they want.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    They should, but firing or even merely sanctioning for the purposes of revenge is not good employer management.

  • Tony||

    So does it occur to you that it might not be good management to allow a sexist workplace environment?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Either you're a free-speech absolutist, or you aren't.

  • Quincy||

    Other problems with Tony's analysis: who decides where to draw the line at harassment? Where is that line? Harassment for some means actual physical behavior - groping, etc. For others it's repeatedly asking someone out on a date who has repeatedly expressed disinterest (or even just asking someone out on a date). And for others, it's telling a joke that *someone* finds offensive. Or looking at a picture that someone finds offensive, having a screen saver up that someone else finds offensive. I find some of these definitions offensive but if a private employer wants to enforce such a fascist work environment then I think it's up to them.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Your freedom to be boorish doesn't trump women's freedom to be free from harassment in the workplace.

    You know what I bet most businesses would love to be free from? The perpetual environment of hostile, petty backbiting, faction-forming, and time-wasting that inevitably occurs whenever women come to dominate the workplace.

  • .||

    "I don't dispute that liberals and their universities can go too far. But this gripe is almost exclusively that of aggrieved heterosexual white males"

    Which means you have an excuse for why it doesn't matter, right cunt?

  • Tony||

    I'm a free speech absolutist. But speech can be a component in behavior that ought not to be tolerated, such as sexual harassment.

  • Tony||

    I just contradicted myself, but it's for the cause.

  • Tony||

    I don't believe someone should be sanctioned merely for speaking words. That's not incompatible with workplace rules.

  • Tony||

    ...but I continue to contradict myself...

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I got yelled at by a feminist co-worker for saying "hey, kid, how's it going?" - in front of half a dozen witnesses. She claimed calling her "kid" was some kind of insult - fuck, she was fifteen years younger than me, so she was just looking for an excuse... she tried to get harassment charges against a few more of my fellow male co-employees.

    Yes, that's *all* I said. Ever. Because I never spoke to her again after that. I needed that job, so I made sure to avoid the bitch from that point on.

    So, Tony... you were saying?

  • Tony||

    So which of her freedoms do you want to eliminate for your own benefit? Her freedom to voice offense, or her freedom to sue for harassment?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I just demonstrated how a comment with zero offensive content, was used as bludgeon in an attempt to get even.

    But you're fine with that, apparently.

    No harassment, no case.

  • Tony||

    So what is your complaint? We both agree that she doesn't have the right to have a court rule in her favor. But doesn't she have the right to take the actions she took, even if they were obnoxious? That's exactly the freedom you're asserting for yourself.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If one is going to make a claim, it must have validity.

    Sidebar: If a gang of gay men beat up a straight guy, is that a hate crime?
    Just wondering.

  • Tony||

    I thought you were for free speech... shouldn't people be able to make any claim they want? The court can decide if it has validity.

    It is a hate crime if a person is targeted for his sexual orientation, gay or straight.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Getting fired because some liberal shitheel convinces the boss of specious claims =/= valid argument, Tony.

    Which damned near happened to me and a few other guys, in ONE business. Repeat that experience across the nation, and that adds up.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Try taking someone to court for getting you fired for saying something with absolutely zero offensive content.

  • Tony||

    So what you're saying is suddenly you see the benefits of restricting speech... at the precise moment you might be negatively affected. Thanks for demonstrating my original case.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, it's okay for someone to lie about words spoken, just to make a political, monetary, or purely revenge-motivated point?

  • Tony||

    If you're for radical free speech, sure.

    Unless you're just for radical freedoms for yourself and people like you and fuck everyone else.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That would be "yes", then.

  • Tony||

    You can't be a libertarian and then get cold feet the minute you might have to suffer some of the consequences.

  • Tony||

    You can't be a libertarian and then get cold feet the minute you might have to suffer some of the consequences.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What's the point of suffering consequences for non-criminal/offensive behavior?

    If you cotton to the idea of people being punished just for the fuck of it, then I pity your thought process.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    BTW... we eventually got rid of that hideous-on-the-inside woman, after a few of us bought portable tape recorders and caught her admitting she was trying to get men fired any way she could.

    But you appear to be fine with that, so that's your problem.

  • Tony||

    Did I say I'm fine with it? I said you, as a radical believer in individual liberty, should be fine with it. If she's acting obnoxious, isn't your recourse "more speech" as Stossel said? Or do you want to restrict someone's freedom because it might interfere with yours? Are you becoming a liberal?

  • Tony||

    What's the point of suffering consequences for non-criminal/offensive behavior?

    You mean like the non-criminal/offensive behavior of being born to poor parents?

    Scratch a libertarian you find an authoritarian. It's like pulling teeth getting any of you to believe in a freedom that you personally won't benefit from. For all you care, anything that doesn't immediately benefit you isn't a legitimate freedom. It's the crux of nearly every argument here.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    First, asshole, I am *not* "fine" with people getting fired for speech content.

    Second, asshole, you know damned well what the subject his here. Your bringing up "being born to poor parents" has less than nothing to do with said subject.

    Of course, you have the right to engage in your usual pattern of wealth-hatred, but your attempt to tie it in with speech issues is more than pathetic.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If I had used "more speech", she might have convinced someone to fire me for, oh, maybe... commenting on the weather.

    However, I was savvy enough to never be out of earshot, so she COULDN'T make up some feminist-fueled excuse to get rid of one of the guys - at least, until I bought that tape recorder.

    "Or do you want to restrict someone's freedom because it might interfere with yours? Are you becoming a liberal?"

    Interesting. So... you're admitting how liberals believe, here?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "out of earshot of witnesses", I mean.

    Man, the late 80s/early 90s sucked almost as bad as they do now.

    Thankfully, I work in a job where PC bullshit holds no sway whatsoever. The girls joke just as much as the guys do, and no one gets fired for it.

  • Tony||

    If I had used "more speech", she might have convinced someone to fire me for, oh, maybe... commenting on the weather.

    So which freedom do you want to restrict, her freedom to convince another to fire you, or the freedom of the employer to fire you for any reason?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Weak attempt at an argument, Tony.

    If, as you claim, you are a "free speech absolutist"... should you be against speech codes?

  • Tony||

    Yes, I am. Why aren't you?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I *am* against speech codes.

    Including in the workplace.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Yes, there are no poor people here defending the rights of rich people not to be taxed. Not a single one.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Speech codes sound pretty fucking authoritarian, don't they?

  • Tony||

    Yeah, so why do you want to impose a speech code on easily aggrieved women?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why do you want women (or anyone, for that matter) to be able to lie about being offended in order to get revenge?

  • Tony||

    Because I believe in free speech.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So... it's okay if someone lies, and people are punished or lose their jobs over the false accusation?

    Thanks. That says a lot about you.

    Maybe now, you'll understand why I bristled at being called a bigot a while back.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Y'know, Tony, in a court of law... lying is called "perjury", and it's a huge no-no.

    But, according to you, it's okay OUTSIDE the courtroom.

    How do you feel about the lives ruined by false claims of rape, for instance?

  • Tony||

    I didn't say it was OK. My original point was to bring up the idea that speech has consequences, and thus free speech can harm people. Just as you've explained. So why is it OK to restrict an easily aggrieved woman's right to complain about whatever she wants, but it's not OK to restrict a man's freedom to make offensive comments?

    I'll tell you. Because as a libertarian you believe in maximal freedom for yourself, even if that means restricting others' freedom. Ayn Rand thought people who didn't believe like she did deserved to die in a fire. This is why I am a liberal, we believe in freedom for everyone, understanding that requires some give and take.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Most speech codes are *written* by liberals.

    How convenient.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Note that I never said it's "OK to restrict an easily aggrieved woman's right to complain about whatever she wants"... it's just wrong for someone to be punished/fired over blatant lies.

    Which is just fine with you.

  • Tony||

    Yeah I'd like to see how free someone is to spout atheist rhetoric at Bob Jones U.

    You're evading the issue with infantile liberals are teh devil talk.

    You are arguing that people's speech ought to be restricted for your own benefit. You understand that meaningful freedom (the right not to be fired arbitrarily) sometimes requires the restriction of less important freedom (the right to accuse someone of sexual harassment with no evidence). The only thing preventing you from having a more sophisticated political worldview is the ability to extend that logic to situations in which you might be on the losing end.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And we're back to the "you didn't go to college, therefore you are not as intelligent as I am" bullshit.

    Nice that you put "the right to accuse with no evidence" in the "less important freedom" category. Tells a lot about your character.

  • Tony||

    This is too perfect... now you're expressing an unmotivated grievance. I don't mean you specifically. Lots of libertarians went to college and are bizarrely still libertarians. I'm not commenting on your intelligence, because libertarianism itself suffers from this fundamental problem. But what do you expect from a political worldview that gives you everything you demand out of life, but doesn't allow anyone remotely different from you to demand different things.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You've commented on my intelligence many times... falsely, I might add.

    Just like you misused the term "bigot" a while back, although a college-educated individual ought to be able to read a dictionary, one would think...

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Lots of libertarians went to college and are bizarrely still libertarians.

    Some of us aren't as easily brainwashed as you were, Tony.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Maybe you can't understand - due to your lack of a fractional division of woldview - what it's like to nearly lose ones' livelihood over the use of a phrase with absolutely zero sexual-harassment content - is like, Tony.

    I came >..< that close to losing my job for calling a younger co-employee "kid". If the owner hadn't been standing there when I said it, I could have lost my job.

    Yes, it still bothers me, almost twenty years later, because we still have a version of that "walking on eggshells" mindset. And Team Blue helped foster most of that mindset.

    OWN it, Tony. You're proud of it, right?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, just for the record:

    The woman in question, was fired when she accused the owner of the company of sexual harassment - in his office - on video AND audio recordings, which he announced he was recording the moment she walked into his office.

    I suspect she never grew out of that infantile phase of her miserable, hate-filled life.

  • Tony||

    Yeah someone can lose his livelihood from false accusations. The price of free speech?

    Because it seems that you're just fine making women pay the price of sexist men's free speech.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Actually, I'm against ANYONE getting fired/punished for ANY speech.

    Nice end-run accusation of misogony, though. Very subtle.

    So... we've established it's okay to lie in order to punish another person. What else can we glean from this, Tony?

  • Tony||

    I didn't say it was OK. I'm just noting that you seem to be in favor of your very own speech codes, the ones that benefit you specifically.

    Not only that, but you want to arbitrate just which grievances are legitimate on the part of other people. Why don't we just put a crown on your head and call it a day?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Grievances are legitimate when backed up with evidence, Tony.

    You, OTOH, seem to think evidence is just arbitrary to the accusation.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    sometimes requires the restriction of less important freedom (the right to accuse someone of sexual harassment with no evidence)

    Your words, unabridged and in context.

  • Tony||

    Yeah, you want to restrict that freedom, do you not? Because you were almost victimized by it.

    You can't see that someone who's different from you can be victimized by speech as well?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    There was no victimization on her part. She made it up in her fevered, man-hating mind, and was willing to lie to further that story she concocted on the spot.

    Shit, why bother having evidence at trials? Under YOUR crown, the accusation itself is just as golden.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.25.11 @ 1:08PM|#
    "I didn't say it was OK."

    That's a lie, shithead.

  • ||

    Herein lies the problem--with real free speech the complaining woman would be told,'Yeah? well, tell him it bothers you, I'm not your father/mother/someone who cares' and he only recourse would be meeting speech with speech.

    In liberal-world she has recourse to courts because they've illegalized 'harassing' speech without doing anything about lying.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You, Azathoth, just made a valid argument.

    One internet for you, sir.

  • Quincy||

    Exactly. In a libertarian world, with true freedom of speech, workplaces would be allowed to have whatever speech codes they wanted or to be completely free of speech codes. If you didn't like the particular speech code or the lack of a speech code, you can get a job somewhere else. But since the government interferes in this area, it throws the issue all out of whack. Likewise, as the government has interfered so much in the economy, greatly restricting the number of jobs available, as well as portability of insurance, it makes it that much harder to just get up and get a job somewhere else.

  • abercrombie Milano ||

    What a fun pattern! It’s great to hear from you and see what you’ve sent up to. All of the projects look great! You make it so simple to this. Thanks

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It IS simple to this. Welcome you are.

  • coal milling||

    I once interviewed someone who said words are like bullets because words can wound; this justified some censorship in his eyes.

  • cynical||

    You should have said something very mean and then shot him in the leg; then you could ask, if he had to choose to forgo one or the other in the future, which he would pick.

  • ||

    Really makes me wonder who comes up with this stuff.

    www.surf-privacy.at.tc

  • ||

    statistics and facts on frequency of use of force in seattle. huge surprise (not!) despite the claims that seattle is a hotbed of assaultive cops (epi, how can you live there?!?!!!! derp derp derp), seattle is clearly well below the national average in UOF incidents as well as those involving deadly force etc.

    facts, not rhetoric

    also, contrary to the reason meme about the militarization of police leading to increase violence, etc. for the last period available (2006-2009) UOF went down substantially

    Police use force infrequently.
    Despite what is shown on television and in movies, national studies reveal that less than 1% of
    all interactions between police officers and the public involve the use of force.1 To do their jobs,
    police officers rely on the public’s compliance, which they gain 99% of the time. In Seattle, the
    use of force rate has declined over the last three years going from 0.18% in 2006 to 0.12%
    in 2009. This is less than one-fifth of the national rate.
    Even in making arrests, police use of force is rare.
    Arrests are the type of police-public contact where one would expect force to be used most
    often. One study of adult custody arrests in six police agencies found that 98% of arrests
    occurred without any police use of a weapon.2 In Seattle, the rate of force use relative to arrests
    went from 3.3% in 2006 to 2.4% in 2009. This means that Seattle police officers accomplish
    arrests without any use of force over 97% of the time.
    Most often, police officers use force at the lowest end of the force spectrum.
    A study by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) found that physical (bodily)
    force (which is at the lowest level of force options available to officers) was the type of force
    used by police officers in 87% of use of force incidents.3 In contrast, firearms were reportedly
    used in 5% of force incidents. In Seattle in 2009, officers used their own bodies (i.e., hits,
    kicks, etc.) in 78% of use of force incidents and used firearms in 0.6% of such incidents.4
    In the majority of incidents when police use force, those subjected to force are
    not injured.
    Nationally, about 15% of those who experience force by police are injured.5 In Seattle, 6.3% of
    use of force subjects sustain injuries, with major injuries limited to 0.8% of the subjects.6
    Most use of force subjects in Seattle sustain either no injuries (31%) or minor injuries such as
    scrapes or scratches (62%).
    Complaints about police use of force are relatively infrequent.
    Nationally, most persons (83%) who had force used or threatened against them by police felt
    that the force was excessive, but only 13.1% indicated they had filed complaints with the police.7
    In Seattle, for the four-year period of 2006-2009, complaints were received in just over
    10% of use of force incidents.
    1

    also, contra the racial profiling meme, UOF's track arrest stats almost exactly. no disparity. and yes, arrests are made disparately according to race (and gender and age) but those stats closely mirror NCVS stats as to offender's race, gender and age...

    iow, based on what VICTIMS tell police, these are the race, gender, and age of the offenders.

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/seat.....06-2009.pd

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: DUNPHY,

    To do their jobs [sic], police officers tax-fed jack-booted leeches rely on the public’s compliance, which they gain 99% of the time. In Seattle, the use of force rate has declined over the last three years going from 0.18% in 2006 to 0.12% in 2009.


    Yes, after a few cracked heads, people progressively tend to learn to acquiesce. Hence the lessened need to kill people to gain their compliance.

  • ||

    Making and arrest, in and of itself, is the use of force, the use of terror, the use of intimidation and the projection of power by a state actor being paid by property forcibly taken from its owners.

  • .||

    Your report is autheroed BY THE POLICE.

    Sorry, you're a liar and so are the rest of your scumbag buddies who let other officers commit crimes and get away with them.

  • ||

  • Alum||

    To the part about students at Northern Arizona handing out flags. I was there, in this situation, the admins asked them to move to a table/ booth, still inside, less than 15 feet of where they were standing, the students said no to get the media attention. I will support their right to hand out flags. But come on

  • General Secretary Mark||

    This article, comrades, is why we need to fund my political re-education pilot project. We can...house...those in need of re-education in the soon to be vacant facilities of the Solyndra Design Bureau. Comrade Bloomberg has arranged for feeding the...patients... and Comrades Pelosi, Moore, and Olbermann are ready to conduct 24/7 lectures...

    - Comrade General Secretary Mark
    "For the People"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The supposed "free speech absolutist" says:

    So does it occur to you that it might not be good management to allow a sexist workplace environment?

    Is so funny! It is to laugh! I slap my knee in bemusement.

  • Tony||

    I've argued many times that real freedom means a give and take. You are the libertarian, yet you think that means absolute freedom for you, and none of the messy consequences when anyone else is allowed that absolute freedom. But it's not a contradiction, since that's what libertarianism is all about.

  • Tony||

    Which is to say, libertarianism is the most authoritarian political philosophy given legitimacy in this country. It means little that it has the word liberty in its name. Absolute monarchy is radical liberty too--for the monarch.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "give and take" =/= "free speech absolutis[m]"

  • Tony||

    I believe there shouldn't be legal consequences to speech. That doesn't mean no consequences. I don't see you crying over the woman getting fired for her speech, after all.

    Whoever said radical liberty was easy?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    She had contacted an attorney, and had started the process of a lawsuit... until her attorney saw the videotape.

    Now, you'll accuse the attorney of abridging her rights to sue.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    less important freedom (the right to accuse someone of sexual harassment with no evidence)

    Translation:

    Accusations of sexual harassment need not be *true* to be valid.

  • Tony||

    She sounds like an obnoxious person, but I don't see why you think it's OK to restrict her obnoxiousness but not that of a sexist male coworker.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Translation:

    Anyone who makes up sexual harassment claims out of whole cloth, with no validity of harassing content, equals actual sexual harassment.

  • Feministing||

    Women NEVER lie about sexual harassment!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "a sexist male coworkeR"

    Ahh... so, in your mind, the coworker HAD to be "sexist", no questions asked, no proof necessary.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Argh... caps-lock key fail.

    BTW, how do you feel about women who sexually harass/are accused of sexually harassing their co-employees?

    (Note: I do not willingly use the word "worker".)

  • Tony||

    I believe sexual harassment should be illegal no matter who does it.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.25.11 @ 10:27PM|#
    "I believe sexual harassment should be illegal no matter who does it."

    And lying about it is just fine, right, shithead?

  • Tony||

    All I ask is that you name one freedom you think people should have that you personally would never, ever benefit from, even if you somehow managed to become rich.

  • Tony||

    sevo there's no call for your usual hysterics, I think this has been an interesting discussion.

  • Tony||

    On my part anyway.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.25.11 @ 10:33PM|#
    "sevo there's no call for your usual hysterics,"

    Shithead, calling you on your constant bullshit is not hysterics, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    "All I ask is that you name one freedom you think people should have that you personally would never, ever benefit from, even if you somehow managed to become rich."

    What the fuck does that pile of bullshit mean, shithead?
    I 'benefit' from freedom of speech, shithead. Am I never to 'benefit' from my freedom, shithead?

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    The freedom to agree with Tony?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why the fuck are you bringing economics into this, Tony?

    Seriously, "becom[ing] rich" has NOTHING to do with this topic.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    "All I ask is that you name one freedom you think people should have that you personally would never, ever benefit from, even if you somehow managed to become rich."

    The freedom to sleep with members of the same sex. The freedom to have incestuous sex. The freedom to use heroin. The freedom to smoke dope. The freedom to short-sell stocks.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and please define "sexual harassment", shithead.

  • Team Red||

    No, we're more authoritarian!

  • Team Blue||

    No, WE are!

  • Team Red||

    Well... WE passed the PATRIOT Act!

  • Team Blue||

    We did, too!

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.25.11 @ 1:04PM|#
    "Which is to say, libertarianism is the most authoritarian political philosophy given legitimacy in this country."

    Shithead, you can continue to claim that up = down as long as you please, shithead.
    And it doesn't change the fact that up /= down, shithead.
    Is that clear, shithead?

  • Sevo||

    Hey, shithead!
    Answers please, shithead. I've got time to point out more lies and strawmen, shithead.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|11.25.11 @ 1:02PM|#
    "I've argued many times that real freedom means a give and take."

    You've proven once again shithead that you have no idea of what you claim to address.

  • Anita Hill||

    Lying worked well for me, in the end.

  • Tawana Brawley||

    Net gain for me, as well, though Al still won't return my calls.

  • ||

    Is almost everyone who posts in this comment section institutionalized and provided with free internet access?

    Reason seriously needs to reconsider its no-moderation policy. This is a wasteland.

  • Billy Bibbit||

    Wuh-wuh-wuh-wuh why do you ask?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "I believe sexual harassment should be illegal no matter who does it."

    I see.

    How do you square that with "free speech absolutist" thinking?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Just so there is no mistake, in this or any past/future discussion:

    Words and actions are two different things. Therefore, the kind of sexual harassment involving touching, is not IMO "free speech".

    Jot that down, Tony, so you can't use it to your advantage.

  • Tony||

    But saying "can I feel your tits?" is both speech and sexual harassment, if spoken in a workplace.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Doing the physical act, is much worse than saying the mere words.

    Surely, you can't be that thick-headed...

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I notice you only seem to fret over male-on-female harassment, Tony. I wonder why that is.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Wait a minute there, Mister Free Speech Absolutist... oh, never mind. I'll let your self-contradiction speak for itself.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement