colleges

Free Speech Even for Corey Lewandowski

College declines pressure to uninvite.

|

Corey Lewandowski
Anthony Behar/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Since arriving in the White House, Donald Trump has upended many customs and norms, including many whose value was not fully appreciated before. But at least one tradition has proved impervious to his corrosive impact: the University of Chicago's reverence for free and open debate.

Trump's penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse. He has blurred the line between reality and fiction in a way that North Korean propagandists must envy. He has also converted many of his followers to ideas they once rejected—such as the ineffable charm of Vladimir Putin.

But he has also driven some on the left mad. On Feb. 1, at the University of California, Berkeley, self-styled anarchists attacked police and civilians, started fires and smashed windows in a successful effort to prevent an appearance by the venomous Breitbart News contributor Milo Yiannopoulos.

This time, the offending party is the president's first campaign manager and notorious apologist, Corey Lewandowski. He was invited by the University of Chicago's Institute of Politics, headed by longtime Barack Obama adviser David Axelrod, to participate in a closed, students-only seminar on Wednesday. Naturally, some at the university demanded that he be disinvited.

UofC Resists, which represents students and faculty, is one of four groups that signed a letter to Axelrod proclaiming that the institute should not "provide platforms" to "those who incite hatred and violence against refugees, immigrants and minorities."

Assistant philosophy professor Anton Ford offered a creative elaboration. "Sometimes there are people or views that are dangerous in and of themselves," he told the Chicago Tribune's Dawn Rhodes. "The very ceremony of debating that is problematic."

But those objecting are using words in the same deceptive way as Trump and his confederates. In the first place, Trump's inflammatory words about Mexicans and Muslims do not amount to incitement, which refers to trying to produce immediate action. Had Trump actually incited violence, he could be criminally prosecuted.

Last year, the U of C was the site of a lecture by Angela Davis, a longtime leftist and former Communist Party USA leader—which somehow went off without much notice. This is a woman once indicted for supplying guns to men who took over a California courthouse to force the release of prison inmate George Jackson. In the process, they took hostages and killed a judge.

Davis was acquitted, as historian Ronald Radosh has written, "despite her proven ownership of the murder weapons and a cache of letters she wrote to George Jackson in prison expressing her passionate romantic feelings for him and unambivalent solidarity with his commitment to political violence."

Lewandowski's sins, though they be as scarlet, don't come close to that level of reckless irresponsibility. If his opinions are dangerous, as I think they are, they are also well within the protection of the First Amendment. For him to be invited to defend Trump is exactly what freedom of expression is supposed to include.

Ford rejects the "ceremony of debate" as intolerable. But debate, particularly with those holding toxic views, is not a ceremony. It's the beating heart of a free, democratic society.

Shielding U of C students from exposure to Lewandowski wouldn't refute his views or convert those who share them. It would only prevent students from hearing what he thinks, gaining insights into how the campaign persuaded so many voters and responding to him.

The university, to its credit, firmly upheld its formal policy on free expression, which says that "debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed."

This is not the only school that insists on permitting speech that some abhor. There was Texas A&M, which in December allowed a talk by white supremacist Richard Spencer—an event that moved thousands of Aggies to hold a counter-event at the football stadium. There was Berkeley, which refused to cancel the Yiannopoulos talk until violence made it too dangerous for anyone in the vicinity.

The people in charge of these institutions understand that if suppression of speech ever becomes the default option in America, the people being suppressed will be on the left, not the right. They also know that the only way to defeat bad ideas is to advance good ideas—and that the time to get started on that urgent task is now.

© Copyright 2017 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: Mattis Tells NATO to Pay Up or U.S. Will Pull Back—Why Not Both?

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.

  1. OH MY GOD REASON UNBAN ADDICTIONMYTH U UDIOTS

  2. Reason writers, please: if you’re going to keep throwing in asides to the effect of “X’s views are abhorrent, but,” perhaps you should link to them saying abhorrent things? Having no prior knowledge of Lewandowski’s positions on anything, besides what I learned from this article (i.e. he’s Trump’s campaign manager), am I supposed to simply take your word for it that the guy’s a jerk? That little bit of extra effort would make your articles twice as good.

    1. I’m not sure about Lewandowski but you’re right to be suspect-Chapman is a sack of shit with ideas that aren’t so much dangerous as dangerously stupid. I won’t provide you a link but check out his article archive which speaks for itself.

      1. Well he still believes in free speech. Also Hitler was kind to small animals.

        Hi Godwin!

      2. I’m aware Chapman is generally considered bottom-tier as Reason writers go, but I was also thinking of Robby here.

    2. Hint: at least two cited references to verifiable, named, reliable sources, or it is either an editorial, or fake news.
      In this case an editorial; facts not required.

  3. Well I thought maybe I could try to read a bit of Chapman’s article…

    Oops. Fucker couldn’t make it to the third paragraph without comparing Trump to a dictator.

    So as a warning to anyone else: SC;DR

    Fuck, I can’t imagine Reason would have stood up to queen Hilary even one bit. But damn if they aren’t virtue signaling like the best Progs.

    1. Still better than Dalmia.

      1. That’s a pretty low bar… as in, “Take this bar to the bottom of the Marianas Trench”.

        What distinguishes Steve Chapman’s writing from the leftist drivel emitted by convulsing bodies still wracked by Hitlery’s election loss is…

        Damn. Can’t think of anything.

        The bottom line is, Trump may be a horrible president. Or he could turn out to be the best president since Jefferson. So far, I give him generally passing grades with points off for twitter, responding to the irrelevant left, and general clumsiness in implementing his agenda. I’m not one of those libertarian “idealists” whose goal is for America to be overrun by every third-world piece-of-scum that wants to come to America purely to flee a country they won’t work to improve, so I generally do NOT have a problem with Trump’s immigration ban… and frankly think he should expand limitations on the L-1 and H-1B visa programs. Neither do I have a problem with him talking to Putin (that could go either way), or appointing people to posts over entities they would rather destroy (Education, Energy), nor am I concerned by his disemboweling of Obozocare. So far, so good.

        I didn’t even vote for Trump. But I tend to wish I had.

    2. Still better than Dalmia.

      1. Talk about damning with faint praise. You really know how to hurt a guy don’t you?

  4. UofC Resists, which represents students and faculty, is one of four groups that signed a letter to Axelrod proclaiming that the institute should not “provide platforms” to “those who incite hatred and violence against refugees, immigrants and minorities.”

    The University responded by placing the four groups on a newly created list of groups who incite hatred. They will no longer be permitted to speak or appear on campus.
    If only!

  5. Trump’s penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse.

    Were you asleep for the last eight fucking years or something? Fuck me, another goddamn Cosmotarian that acts like the last POTUS wasn’t a blood-drenched lying sack of shit. Seriously, nothing that orange shit-gibbon has done wasn’t already in place when he got into the White House. You want to bitch about how polluted political discourse is, start with the assholes who foisted bullshit SJW and identity politics we’ve been dealing with for decades now.

    1. Was gonna post this exactly. Yeah, its TRUMP that has the monopoly on this shit and the reason everyone is so cynical about politics. Trump.

      Fuck you, reason, you have become the hysterical libtards you used to make fun of. Jesus you people need to get a grip.

      I’m AMAZED you all are still defending the first amendment. I bet in two weeks you’re all going to be making standard prog arguments to the effect “Well, HE shouldn’t have the right to speak freely…”

      Sighhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…………

      1. The only reason they are pissed off about Trump is that they honestly thought only their side would ever fight dirty.

        1. That’s exactly right. Notice how the media REALLY gets shrillest when the right starts thinking about adopting their tactics? Borking? Started by Dems? Getting rid of the filiibuster? Done by Dems. Violently shutting down opposing viewpoints? Done by Dems (and still not done by the right)…..

          1. In this very article Chapman compares Trump to Kim Jong Il and then accuses Trump of polluting the political discourse. The amount of projection and hypocrisy on display here is remarkable.

            1. Heads are exploding in undiscovered universes even as we speak….

      2. They aren’t all defending the first amendment. #fireshikha.

  6. Trump’s penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse… can we have us some samples or citations ? Otherwise this is just more bullshit and nonsense, it’s almost like you want to go all MSM and stop driving that 1980 corrolla

  7. I think “venomous” is a great word to describe Milo. While his positions on some things are very distasteful for many, his delivery is mean spirited and biting.

    1. And your point is….?

    2. Congress shall make no law regarding the right to free speech…..unless that speech is mean spirited and biting.

    3. I actually listened to Milo on Adam Corolla’s podcast – had never seen an interview or read any of his stuff before – and found him to be tremendously well -spoken with extremely coherent points.

      From what I’ve seen he’s what we need a lot more of in our electorate….

      1. Chapman and Soave and others on Reason constantly throat clear with “of course Milo is a horrible person who believes horrible things” but they never explain why that is. I don’t pay a lot of attention to him honestly. But the things by him I have read and the times I have seen him speak on the internet appear to be entirely reasonable.

        Just exactly what is so bad about Milo? That he told the truth about the new Ghostbusters movie being awful? They never explain it, because they really don’t know themselves. They just know that their peers think that and therefore they must as well.

        1. Right. I have found the first defense against the irrational hatred of the Emmanuel Goldmans of the world to be “Okay, well what did he do SPECIFICALLY that offended you so much?”
          Most often what people think they know (“She said she could see Russia from her house!!! She’s a MORON!”) is not exactly true….

          1. The game is the same every time. The left picks a new Goldstein and declares him or her the new object of hate. Then useful idiots like Chapman follow along because “he must be awful or so many of my friends wouldn’t hate him”. And they fall for it over and over again.

            Long before all of this, there was Sarah Palin. They would always take it as a given that Palin was an extremists and stupid. Yet, they never could give any examples of that. At best they could point to the infamous Couric interview that late turned out to have been deceptively edited. Reason, shits its pants for a month over Breitbart not fully releasing the full transcript of the Obama official bragging about sticking it to white people and being cheered for it, but the fact that NBC selectively edited the infamous Couric interview to make Palin look bad was never even mentioned.

            They are so lost in the giant smug cloud of the Washington media, they just can’t help themselves.

            1. OT: I almost fell out of my chair when Palin appeared on the new Match Game – which is about as close as you’re going to get to a convention of NYC-based lefty celebrities. And they treated her well. I don’t know what happened because a few years ago these same people were hissing and spitting about her.

              1. They think she is no longer a threat to win an election. Now she has graduated to “reasonable Republican” to be used to concern troll current Republicans.

            2. Yeah, they’ll also fall all over themselves claiming Okeefe selectively edits his videos. But not the Daily Show, for example, oh no, they’re saints.

              And before Sarah Palin there was the vilification of one Clarence Thomas….

        2. Just exactly what is so bad about Milo?

          National populist, supports some degree of immigration control (I don’t believe he’s pro-wall though), supports immigration restrictions on Muslims, mocks transgenders and fat women, trolls and deliberately riles up his followers to bug people on Twitter.

          That’s basically it. That and he’s a hell of a lot less timid when it comes to going after social justice concepts.

          1. That means he hold’s positions that libertarians disagree with. That doesn’t make him a bad guy. It just at most makes him wrong. None of that justifies the kind of vitriol they give him.

            1. I think it’s less ‘he says things we disagree with’ and more ‘he’s loudmouthed and forward about his opinions, and MY WORD I cannot tolerate such a boorish man’ *falls onto fainting couch*

              1. Other writers, like Welch, seem to hang out with Gavin McInnes have no problem, so it’s probably a case-by-case basis.

          2. But most importantly… He’s a gay man who holds those views. The left can’t stand one of the people that’s supposed to be in “their” camp not falling in line. Just like the insult any black conservative, they can’t go conceding that gay men might have views that don’t fall in line with supporting EVERY SINGLE STUPID LEFT WING IDEA THAT’S IN VOGUE AT THE MOMENT. Because that way lies chaos of course.

            They have thrown together a coalition of a bunch of radically different groups, that really don’t have a lot of goals in common, and then try to force all of them to tow the whole party line. If they ever start having any of these groups splinter off, especially with how much they’ve alienated normal white working class folks (read everyone from working poor to worth a couple million bucks, especially if they have penises), then their whole party comes crashing down. Could you imagine if blacks started voting even 40% Republican again? The Democrats would be DONE. So they must be overly harsh with any one of “their” people in “their” groups that steps out of line.

            Gay people may only be 4-5% of the population (that’s what I’ve seen for strictly self reported homosexuals before) but if it’s 90% Democratic voting that’s a solid little freebie for them every election. They gotta hold onto that, not traitors shall go unpunished!

          3. ” (I don’t believe he’s pro-wall though), ”
            “Build the fucking wall”
            Direct quote.

            ” deliberately riles up his followers to bug people on Twitter.”
            Citation needed.

  8. “The people in charge of these institutions understand that if suppression of speech ever becomes the default option in America, the people being suppressed will be on the left, not the right.”

    Um, you have any evidence for this little aside? Cause I’m not seeing ANY censorious tendencies among the right whatsoever nor do I see any evidence that the Right could pull together the kind of power needed to censor their opponents. Sure there was a time when you could have said that, maybe even as late as the early 1990’s but by Clinton’s second term the social needle had moved far enough that the right wing could no longer claim a credible “silent majority” and their numbers have been dwindling ever since.

    At this point the right wing is so weakened that they couldn’t even get a candidate into the General election and their political party has been taken over by a group of populists who have little use for traditional American Conservatism.

    1. The left owns nearly all of the mass culture. And they think nothing of ruining people’s careers for not properly toeing the party line. Yet is the left that is in danger of being suppressed? Where on earth is the left’s speech being suppressed today? I can’t think of anywhere. Meanwhile, in places like Canada and all over Europe it is more or less illegal to criticize Islam or immigrants.

      Chapman is a perfect example of someone allowing their belief and immersion in leftist cultural values to make them appallingly stupid.

      1. Try thinking outside of the box or a change. Why don’t you create some new labels for yourself while you are at it.

        “The left owns nearly all of the mass culture. And they think nothing of ruining people’s careers for not properly toeing the party line.”

        The “left” isn’t a thing. It is a creation of political analysts. The “left” doesn’t own anything much less mass culture. Mass culture contains all of everything. It isn’t dominated by the left or the right and it changes everyday.

        The “right” isn’t a thing. It is a creation of political analysts. The problem though is that radical people on both ends of the spectrum tend to get more coverage and inordinate representation in the public domain. The majority of America is centrist and often ignored.

        It seems like you are trying to express displeasure because you didn’t get what you want, but that isn’t true. You got exactly what you wanted, a situation where you could put your little ideas about left and right into play and complain about the injustice of it all.

        You have projected this monster personality onto what you call the left and it is absurd. Continue to scapegoat this group of miscreants if that makes you feel better, but honestly it will do nothing to make you happy because you strike me as someone who enjoys their misery

    2. “The people in charge of these institutions understand that if suppression of speech ever becomes the default option in America, the people being suppressed will be on the left, not the right.”

      Projection much??!!!

      1. Can he really be that stupid and unaware, or is Chapman actually shreek?

        1. On second thought, Chapman sounds more like Tony.

    3. I missed that turd; couldn’t make it that far.

      But that might be the most astonishingly stupid thing I have ever read on this site.

    4. Yep, most institutions are either in control of or operate in fear of the left. Progressivism is the state religion in our little theocracy (not to say secular caliphate, ahem).

  9. Trump’s penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse. He has blurred the line between reality and fiction in a way that North Korean propagandists must envy.

    Anyone who would write such a sentence self identifies as a histrionic moron. This is why you have editors; to get this sort of stupidity out of articles and save your writers from themselves. There is no reason to take anyone who writes that sentence seriously about anything.

    1. Hey Reason. Make Stossel the Lead Editior and run every story by him to root out all this insipid BS.

    2. They just syndicate him, for whatever unknown reason. They don’t “edit” him.

  10. Good morning all
    woke up kinda sick 🙁

    oh well off to drag myself to work anyway, those orphans won’t beat themselves

  11. “Sometimes there are people or views that are dangerous in and of themselves,” he told the Chicago Tribune’s Dawn Rhodes. “The very ceremony of debating that is problematic.”

    Coming soon, a new Constitutional Amendment guaranteeing to right to be free of any speech or information that is disagreeable, offensive, or just plain annoying. From a liberal point of view, naturally, as they are on the right side of history. Meryl Streep says so.

  12. The whole notion of free speech has nothing to do with invitations for public speaking engagements. It is unreasonable to convoluted the two. In Milos’ case he is free to speak and say whatever he wants, but it doesn’t also include saying it wherever you want, or at any event you want.

    At no point was his right to free speech violated. People and institutions have the right to invite or cancel speakers. This is not related to free speech.

    If people decide in the end they don’t want to hear what you have to say, they don’t have to give you a podium and a microphone to say it. If they allowed him to come to the event but tried to prohibit what he could say, now that might be a violation of free speech.

    I am not sure why people think you have to let everyone speak at every public event or free speech has been somehow left for dead. People like Milos can say whatever they want, but his divisive rhetoric is not welcome everywhere. That is just people making choices about what programming they are going to present, listen to, or watch, the same as when you turn on the television.

    1. People and institutions have the right to invite or cancel speakers. This is not related to free speech.

      Sure they do. But Milo was invited to speak at Berkeley. And a bunch of fascist brownshirts showed up and staged a riot attacking people who wanted to hear what he had to say. Do you think that is okay?

      1. Exactly.

        Plus I thought liberals were against bullying, but bullying a school to cancel a speaker is ok. They are great at ignoring their own transgressions while complaing about the other team for the exact same thing.

        Obama has been the deporter in chief. But you don’t hear the left complain about that, except when the other team does it.

        They complain about Flynn’s possible lies but remain silent when Clapper was caught lying to Congress and us.

        No consistancy in their beliefs.

      2. Yes it is okay. It is called free speech. Sometimes it gets ugly. Welcome to America.

        I hear some say they want free speech, but they don’t really want it. They only want it when it suits their sensibility. They only want free speech when for whatever reason they want the person to speak. That is not the way it is supposed to work.

        The protesters, non-violent and violent were actually engaging in protected free speech. It is weird you only want to focus on the violent people and you want to deny all of the protestors their right to free speech as you say was done to Milos.

        There were no “brownshirts” in Berkeley. There were a group of about 100 violent protesters clad in dark clothing that caused the problems. The were 1,500 other protesters that were not involved in the violence.

        Personally I don’t think violent protest is an answer, but a lot of people are tired of the status quo and that is their response. It concerns me too, that people don’t consider that this could be a type of counter insurgency that was often used during the 60’s to invalidate protest and criminalize the participants.

        You have fringe groups like the anarchist group in Oakland that perpetrated the violence, that does not make up the majority of the protest. Free speech should not be denied people even if some people show up and start breaking things.

        1. You right to free speech does not extend to denying me MY right to free speech.

          Not by protest. Not by screaming, and not by violence.

          You don’t have to listen, but you don’t get to deny those who want to listen the ability to do so.

          You are part of the problem.

    2. Great strawman, NM. Built AND burnt!

    3. “The whole notion of free speech has nothing to do with invitations for public speaking engagements.”

      I disagree. Most colleges have publicly stated criteria for recognized groups obtaining the use of venues for invited speakers. Temper tantrums about such invited speakers interfere with the free speech rights of the student group that issued the invitation. Either all groups have an equal access to lecture halls for such events, or the college is surreptitiously censoring some groups.

      Now, if a private college wants to support some groups over others, that is its right, although it should have the guts to say so from the start. A public college does NOT have such a right.

      The freedom of speech being constrained is not that of the invited speaker, but the right of the inviting group.

      1. And schools that are publicly funded, have no right to discriminate against one side of the political spectrum like this.

        1. Do you remember who were the biggest proponents of the “Fairness Doctrine”, John?

    4. I’ve seen this explanation bandied about on facebook… going so far as to say free speech protections only apply where government is involved. If it’s not government or its agents stopping you from speaking, then the right to free speech isn’t involved.

      This just seems hugly wrong to me, but I couldn’t come up with a counterargument… was waiting for someone here to bring it up to see what people would say.

    5. “If people decide in the end they don’t want to hear what you have to say, they don’t have to give you a podium and a microphone to say it. If they allowed him to come to the event but tried to prohibit what he could say, now that might be a violation of free speech.”

      Except there were and remain plenty of people who DO want to hear what Milo has to say and plenty of venues who are more than willing to not only give him a platform to say it but they are actually willing to pay a hefty fee to entice him to come say it. Then, however another utterly unrelated group of people closes in on the locale and initiates threats of violence along with actual violence forcing the venue to cancel the event for security reasons. They were still willing for Milo to speak, they even pay his fees, it is the threats of violence they are afraid of, not Milo.

      In otherwords, YES these violent protests ARE denying him his right to speak because even though the Audience does want to hear him and the venue is perfectly happy to give him the stage an unrelated 3rd party wants to ensure that audience never hears what he has to say and uses violence to prevent it.

  13. “Lewandowski’s sins, though they be as scarlet, don’t come close to that level of reckless irresponsibility”

    What is this crap? At least have the balls to call one unpopular speech and the other accessory to murder.

    A war on capitalism by moronic arrogant leftist should be answered with equal yet civil outcry against marxists radical sheep with a proclivity towards violence. The capitalist are afraid.

    I hardly think trump represents free market capitalism, liberty, or small government but his proposals at least offer some letter of the law to be applied, appealed, or adjudicated.
    I appreciate the repeated efforts to preach to the choir about free speech including unpopular speech but we should let the letter of the law takes its course which at least trump is not dismissing. He scares me too but the comparison in this article of a trump guy to a murdering piece of shit is a little bit of a stretch.

  14. Are there any grown-ups left at Reason?

    Is Reason so desperate for cash, they’ll post any clickbait shit they can get their hands on?

    1. If there are, it isn’t Chapman. This is par for the course for Chapman. Even when he makes the correct point, he manages to do it in an offensively stupid way.

  15. The very ceremony of debating that is problematic.

    As “problematic” as being an anti-speech totalitarian? GFY, professor, and pray the worm never turns – your political opponents might someday find your views “problematic”. If that ever happens, you won’t even have the excuse of Pastor Niem?ller, since you’re actively seeking to shut others up.

  16. Trump’s penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse.

    You’re damn right it has. Political discourse is now thoroughly polluted by lies and demonization whereas before it was only halfway polluted by lies and demonization. The left called anybody who disagreed with their bullshit racists, misogynists, Nazis, fascists, retards, evil, greedy, oppressive defenders of the white patriarchy, homophobes, Islamaphobes, xenophobes, you name it, the left slandered anybody who dared question their agenda. And the non-left stammered and stuttered out their apologies for being misunderstood and attempted to argue that they weren’t actually all these things instead of recognizing that they were under attack and had to fight back.

    Disagreeing with Obama doesn’t make you racist, disagreeing with Hillary doesn’t make you sexist and disagreeing about our national priorities doesn’t make you any other sort of evil greedy retarded bastard. Anybody who claims otherwise is not arguing in good faith and doesn’t deserve being argued with in good faith. You ignore them, mock them, slander them, punch them in the mouth if it comes down to it. You treat others as they treat you – and here we are. It would be nice to have some civil discourse but Trump can’t clean up his act and bring civil discourse back when only one side is willing to engage in civil discourse.

    1. Exactly that. And Trump’s supporters know that and are tired of incivility only going one way. So, the nastier and less civil Trump is, the more his supporters like him. Trump has no reason or motivation to be civil. Being so would accomplish nothing except encourage his opponents to be less civil, if that is possible, and demoralize his supporters.

      And it is pretty fucking rich for Chapman to bemoan Trump’s lack of civility in the same article where he compares Trump to Kim Jong Il. Talk about lack of self awareness.

  17. Here I thought this was an article on Corey Lewandowski.
    Nope; that was click bait for just one more TRUMP IS A POOPY HEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  18. “President Donald Trump’s penchant for lies and demonization has thoroughly polluted political discourse.”

    Oh fucking please. So Donald Trump adopting the core tactics of the Democrat Party has somehow polluted political discourse. Go take a pill and sit in a darkened room until the throbbing passes, because you are deranged.

    Political Discourse is a sewer. It has always been a sewer. The surviving debates of Athenian Democracy show that it was a sewer then, and I suspect that the sewage goes all the way back to the early proto-apes. If at times exceptional people have managed to clean it up to the level of, say, a storm drain that doesn’t mean that the inevitable return to sewage isn’t normal.

    Is Trump a font of Truth and Beauty? No. But let’s not pretend that he isn’t exactly what the Democrat Party deserves for its tactics over the last few decades. Pop some popcorn and sit back and watch the fucking circus. And for gods’ sake stop clutching your skirts and shrieking like a maiden aunt upon seeing a mouse.

  19. The effort to shut down Yiannopoulos and other “controversial” speakers long predates Trump’s presidency, or even his candidacy. They’ve been doing this for many years now.

    1. Yes they have. And it is pretty sad that Chapman and Soave honestly seem to think that it won’t happen to them.

      1. “But those are my friends! They would never do anything like that to me… oh, hey, what are you guys doing here? What’s up with the pitchforks and torches? Where are we going, hey, put me down now, come on guys, this isn’t funny any more…”

  20. Lewandowski’s sins, though they be as scarlet, don’t come close to that level of reckless irresponsibility

    It would be helpful if you stated what they are, because otherwise it comes off as guilt-by-association with you-know-who.

    1. It is total guilt by association. It is also a lot of professional jealousy. Chapman and the rest of reason would give their first born to have the kind of influence that Lewendoski has. And worse, he has that influence because he threw in with a long shot outsider. They must really hate him for that.

  21. Well I see the usual suspects aren’t happy unless every sentence mentioning Trump is concluded with the phrase “but Obama was worse”.

    1. So you think Trump is like Kim Jong Il? Why don’t you elaborate on that? And while you are at it, why don’t you list Lewendoski’s alleged sins?

      In other words either having something substantive to say or shut the fuck up. We have plenty of trolls to shit on threads and post stupid shit. You don’t have to do all the trolling.

      1. He didn’t compare Trump to Kim Jong Il. That outrage is completely in your head.

        As for Lewandowski’s sins, maybe you have heard about what he did to Michelle Fields. Does it rise to the level of Angela Davis’ kidnapping and murder? OF COURSE NOT. But it’s not like Lewandowski is some saint.

        Oh and let’s not forget how Lewandowski slimed Senator Sununu in the 2002 campaign while he was working for Sununu’s primary challenger.

        But you are going to be pissed no matter what Reason writers say about Trump and his crew, as long as it isn’t accompanied by the qualifier “sure these guys may have done something wrong or boorish, BUT OBAMA WAS THE DEBBIL”

        1. Okay I guess Sununu was the challenger and Lewandowski was working for the incumbent senator. My bad. But still, the point remains.

  22. This crap is going to continue until Colleges start expelling people who riot on campus. Since the colleges approve of the riots, that isn’t going to happen soon.

    1. Why don’t you investigate the situation? You would realize that the people that came and perpetrated the violence were identified as being from a radical anarchist group from Oakland. They don’t go to Berkeley and who knows what their goals were in reference to why they showed up and trashed the school. Maybe they didn’t want Milos to speak, or maybe they had other goals in mind.

      They couldn’t expel these rioters because they don’t go to the school. There are millions of people in the Bay Area that do not attend Berkeley. They were from that rather large group

      Public universities have no obligation to provide platforms for public speaking. It is not a right to speak at public universities. They do so at their discretion.

      It is absurd to assert that colleges approve of riots, but that is in keeping with the psychotic tone of this comments section. What is so wrong with thinking rationally? What is wrong with the common understandings about free speech?

      Creating these false impressions about infractions upon peoples rights only serves to misinform and exacerbate people’s tensions in this odd political moment. No ones free speech was violated.

      1. They were identified?

        So, arrests are being made?

        No one knows why the trashed the school?

        Not only are you part of the problem, but you’re a lying piece of shit as well.

        Public universities, because they accept public monies, absolutely ARE under the responsibility to uphold the right of free speech on their campuses–including the right of their student body to invite and hear speakers of their choice–AND the right of people who don’t want to hear said speaker to not attend.

        NO ONE has the right to prevent others from hearing speakers they choose to hear.

  23. Chapman is like Robby on progderp steroids.

  24. Assistant philosophy professor Anton Ford offered a creative elaboration. “Sometimes there are people or views that are dangerous in and of themselves,” he told the Chicago Tribune’s Dawn Rhodes. “The very ceremony of debating that is problematic.”

    “That is why I and my views are not subject to debate.”

  25. http://twitter.com/_Makada_/st…..9459823616

    Lewendowski can’t speak on college campuses because he is just so horrible. Meanwhile, a guy who started an Islamic Journal that advocated for the execution of gays and promoted the Taliban, not only can speak but also get an award from Harvard, because TOLERANCE!!

  26. It’s getting to where I just skip the articles and go straight to the Comments.

    1. How can you mock properly if you don’t at least skim (ok, if it’s Chapman i just read until i get to the 1st stupid thing he says. The majority of his articles are a very short read).

  27. Steve Chapman makes Shikha Dalmia look like Adam Lanza with Sheldon Richman’s skin coat. – Reasondamus

  28. ut he has also driven some on the left mad. On Feb. 1, at the University of California, Berkeley, self-styled anarchists attacked police and civilians, started fires and smashed windows in a successful effort to prevent an appearance by the venomous Breitbart News contributor Milo Yiannopoulos.

    In fairness, that was an appropriate safety precaution, since the university did not carry Milo antivenom on site.

    So… I guess black blocs didn’t go around breaking shit before Trump got elected? I guess snowflakes weren’t already equating speech they didn’t like with violence against them before Trump elected, which was already predicted to lead to and justify left-wing violence against speakers? I must have imagined all of it.

    Chapman doesn’t understand cause and effect, perhaps because it is an inconvenient truth: Trump’s election didn’t lead to left-wing madness, left-wing madness led to Trump’s election, as a countermeasure or a social immune response.

  29. “The people in charge of these institutions understand that if suppression of speech ever becomes the default option in America, the people being suppressed will be on the left, not the right. They also know that the only way to defeat bad ideas is to advance good ideas?and that the time to get started on that urgent task is now.”

    Seems like you may be too late for your “urgent task” since that should have started with the last administration and its admirable cast of characters! They’ve already advanced their bad ideas and the left is still doing it!

  30. I can see what your saying… Raymond `s article is surprising, last week I bought a top of the range Acura from making $4608 this-past/month and-a little over, $10,000 this past month . with-out any question its the easiest work I’ve ever had . I began this five months/ago and almost straight away started bringing in minimum $82 per-hr .
    ========== http://www.4dayjobs.com

  31. Last year, the U of C was the site of a lecture by Angela Davis, a longtime leftist and former Communist Party USA leader?which somehow went off without much notice. ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ????? ???? This is a woman once indicted for supplying guns to men who took over a California courthouse to force the release of prison inmate George Jackson. In the process, they took hostages and killed a judge.

  32. Do You want to get good income at home? do you not know how to start earnings on Internet? there are some popular methods to earn huge income at your home, but when people try that, they bump into a scam so I thought i must share a verified and guaranteed way for free to earn a great sum of money at home. Anyone who is interested should read the given article…
    __________________ http://www.4dayjobs.com

  33. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result. Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
    ===================== http://www.moneytime10.com

  34. Most of us want to have good income but dont know how to do that on Internet there are a lot of methods to earn huge sum, but whenever Buddies try that they get trapped in a scam/fraud so I thought to share with you a genuine and guaranteed method for free to earn huge sum of money at home anyone of you interested should visit the page. I am more than sure that you will get best result. Best Of Luck for new Initiative!
    ===================== http://www.moneytime10.com

  35. “There was Berkeley, which refused to cancel the Yiannopoulos talk until violence made it too dangerous for anyone in the vicinity.”
    Yeah after the faculty spent days saying how horrible he was and then made sure the cops did nothing. Saying that you support free speech then letting people beat up on the audience is bullshit. Berkley should burn.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.