College PC

Conservatives Want UC-Davis to Fire a Professor Who Welcomed Violence Against Cops

Joshua Clover has a First Amendment right to say horrible things about the police.

|

Davis
Daderot / Wikimedia Commons

Conservative students and lawmakers are demanding the University of California-Davis take action against a professor of English, Joshua Clover, for his past comments that appeared to endorse violence against cops.

UC-Davis has affirmed Clover's free speech rights, however, and is not moving to punish the professor.

In February, student Nick Irvin published an article in The California Aggie listing Clover's various offensive statements about the police. Clover had tweeted, "I am thankful that every living cop will one day be dead, some by their own hand, some by others, too many of old age #letsnotmakemore," and "it's easier to shoot cops when their backs are turned." He had also allegedly said, "People think that cops need to be reformed. They need to be killed," according to Inside Higher Ed.

Those are horrifying statements, but they are also protected by the First Amendment. Clover's general endorsement of violence against the police is not a true threat, or incitement to lawless action.

Nevertheless, many conservative students would like to see him punished. The campus's College Republicans chapter sponsored a "Fire Josh Clover" event, and Republican Assemblyman James Gallagher has circulated a petition aimed at achieving the same result.

Thankfully, UC-Davis is holding strong. The administration confirmed to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education that Clover is not facing any kind of investigation stemming from his offensive statements.

"FIRE is pleased that UC Davis has reaffirmed that Clover is not under investigation, and hopes that universities facing similar controversies in the future will also choose to abide by their legal and moral obligations to free speech and the First Amendment," wrote FIRE's Sarah McLaughlin.

Clover is on medical leave, and has declined comment on the matter. He told Inside Higher Ed that when "police have as much to fear from literature professors as black kids do from police, I will definitely have a statement," so he's probably not walking back his past comments. As such, it's fine to criticize him, but conservatives who want Clover to face formal sanctions are undermining the very free speech principles they purport to defend whenever a right-of-center speaker says something offensive.

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.

138 responses to “Conservatives Want UC-Davis to Fire a Professor Who Welcomed Violence Against Cops

  1. Dumb kampus konservatives.

    1. The issue isn’t freedom of speech, Clover is free to say what he wants.

      The issue is I’m being forced by government to pay this guy’s compensation thru my taxes.

      Private employers can fire you for far less. Government employees advocating violence against other government employees is just support for them going postal. I expect most employers would fire him if he said that.

      1. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

        >>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://www.payshd.com

      2. Google is now paying $17000 to $22000 per month for working online from home. I have joined this job 2 months ago and i have earned $20544 in my first month from this job. I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do

        So I started….>>>>>>> http://www.Just4Work.com

      3. Tax Payers don’t pay college teachers. The University does through the tuition and fees.

    2. I am creating an honest wage from home 3000 Dollars/week , that is wonderful, below a year agone i used to be unemployed during a atrocious economy. I convey God on a daily basis i used to be endowed these directions and currently it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with everybody, Here is I started??.

      >>>>Click THIS WEBSITE>>>> http://www.AproCoin.CoM

    3. Because inciting violence is freedom of speech?

      1. The courts would never classify this as inciting violence and it isn’t particularly close.

    4. No, conservatives are right. And to illustrate……..

      https://xkcd.com/1357/

    1. FIRE sent the school a letter in defense of the professor 10 days ago

      1. oh, sorry, thought you were asking re: the above mentioned issue

        1. No, I don’t recall FIRE having a word to say, much less getting involved, when Travis Rettke was arrested,hounded out of school and criminally charged after consultation with University administrators, campus cops and a local DA. The former student is still awaiting trial

          1. Here’s the start of what they said on their website at the time.

            “Last week, East Tennessee State University (ETSU) freshman Tristan Rettke was arrested by campus police and charged with a felony under Tennessee’s Civil Rights Intimidation statute after confronting peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters in the ETSU free speech area. Rettke’s act?dressing in a gorilla mask and attempting to hand bananas to the protesters in an attempt to “provoke” them?has to have been intended to be offensive. But, as the ACLU of Tennessee’s executive director observes, the First Amendment precludes the criminal charge against Rettke. It likewise would have precluded ETSU from formally disciplining Rettke had he not voluntarily withdrawn from the institution.”

            But I’m pretty sure FIRE doesn’t do criminal law, so they are unlikely to be much help with those charges.

            1. So much for “individual rights in education”.

              1. I love how you don’t admit you were wrong and just press on ahead. It’s adorable.

                1. SIV picks a position and just pecks away at it until nothing is left.

                  1. The chicken thing was never funny, which is why you think it was funny.

          2. “No, I don’t recall FIRE having a word to say, much less getting involved, when Travis Rettke was arrested,hounded out of school and criminally charged after consultation with University administrators, campus cops and a local DA. ”

            It seems that “I don’t recall” is the universal excuse of lazy people who want something to be true, but who don’t want to actually look at the evidence in case it conflicts with their preconceptions. If you had taken thirty seconds to do a search on the FIRE website, using the term “Rettke,” you would have found a page containing a long discussion of the case.

            So they definitely had “a word to say,” and if they didn’t “get involved” it’s most likely because the incident moved beyond the school to the courthouse once he was charged with a crime. FIRE is not generally in the business of criminal defense. There’s not much it can do if a prosecutor brings changes and a grand jury indicts; once it gets to that stage, the legal process is going to play out.

            And if you’re so invested in this case, you’d think you would be able to get the guy’s name right. It’s Tristan, not Travis.

            1. Maybe I’m not so “invested” in the case? Like FIRE, the ACLU and all the big 1A defenders who race to defend government employees from workplace discipline for bad behavior “on the clock” but don’t give a shit about some kid getting arrested, going to jail, and facing felony charges for exercising his 1A rights.

              1. You seem pretty invested. Knowledgeable, not so much. But invested? Definitely.

              2. I agree with you SIV. A guy giving away free bananas with a gorilla mask on is not engaging in violence of any kind. Certainly it was provocative, but it wasn’t violent, and while I personally try not to offend others and wouldn’t do such a thing, he shouldn’t be charged with a crime.

                There’s too many people looking to be offended these days, and people should be working just as hard at not being offended by other people’s speech as they are at not trying to offend others.

                And you’re right about FIRE and the ACLU defending a government employee behaving badly, but letting the government roll over a student engaging in speech on his own time and not as an employee of the government. Are government employees free to encourage a coup, or engaging in treason? I think not. That’s defending government more than individuals.

            2. Lol. SIV hasn’t gotten a dusting this bad since his mom doused him in diatomaceous earth after pulling him out of the family chicken coop in the middle of the night.

              1. Diatomaceous Earth. We have a huge bed of it in Eastern Washington inbetween the Cascades and the Columbia River.

              2. Diatomaceous Earth. We have a huge bed of it in Eastern Washington inbetween the Cascades and the Columbia River.

    2. A peaceful protest on East Tennessee State University’s campus Wednesday afternoon was disrupted when a man wearing a gorilla mask showed up and started handing out bananas to students holding Black Lives Matter signs.

      Was he handing out bananas violently?

      …a Black Lives Matter event was happening in the Free Speech area …

      …Rettke was charged with civil rights intimidation…

      Hmm. He must have stepped outside the free speech area.

      I’ve never had someone to my face be disrespectful like that, so it was just new to me,” ETSU student Trevor King said.

      Privilege?

    3. Damn, I just noticed this was from 2016. Oh well. Anyone know the outcome?

      1. Late 2018 he was still awaiting trial on “ethnic intimidation” charges. The former student spent some pretrial time in jail and I doubt his withdrawal from the university was all that “voluntary” (like maybe they offered to let him out of jail if he quit?). I guess if he wanted a bunch of high profile 1A defenders he should have been a communist professor facing possible discipline/termination for workplace conduct.

        1. Did he not reach out to the ACLU?

          1. They probably offered as much help as FIRE.

  2. As such, it’s fine to criticize him, but conservatives who want Clover to face formal sanctions are undermining the very free speech principles they purport to defend whenever a right-of-center speaker says something offensive.

    Or intentionally undermining the equal protections bullshit that even many libertarians would like to see walked back a bit. IMO, the first two quotes aren’t direct or threats/calls of violence. However, “They should be killed.” is a pretty clear call to violence with the only question being how direct ‘they’ is. If he’d said, “People think that homosexuals (or Jews, African Americans) need to be reformed. They need to be killed.” There wouldn’t be any question that he’d pretty much sacrificed his job in saying as much and there would likely be calls that he be brought up on charges.

    Not exactly defending police officers here, but there could be many reasons why Conservatives are taking the stance they are. Many of them quite reasonable even from libertarian sensibilities. The idea that universities tolerate professors’ off hand recommendations that groups of people be killed without even investigating seems ill-conceived.

    1. Assuming I understand his statement in full context, then what he said is pretty vile. I’d even be willing to forgive his statements if he were talking about a SPECIFIC group of police officers who were directly involved in a controversial incident that resulted in them being cleared of wrongdoing. But he seems to indicate all officers should be killed. If you’re an organization like UC Davis and you’re going to have any standards for employees of your organization, then firing him or even sanctioning him seems well within reason.

      1. I do have to admire the sheer level of the double standard. This is a clear and explicit call for violence. It is not a clear and present danger, so criminal charges are definitely wrong. However, I do not see how wishing for the deaths of people is not a violation of the ethics code that can lead to termination. At the very least, this should receive formal censure.

        1. The “Clear and Present Danger” doctrine:

          “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. It does not even protect a man from an injunction against uttering words that may have all the effect of force. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
          Schenck v. U.S., 249 U.S. 47 (1919) at 52

          was superseded some time ago:

          “These later decisions have fashioned the principle that the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
          Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) at 447

          1. So…

            “Kill the cops!”?OK

            “Kill the cops NOW!”?not OK.

            1. More like, “Kill THAT cop right over there, NOW! – not OK.

          2. Thank you for the references. However, the point still stands. He clearly should not be prosecuted. However, every university has an ethics code. He clearly violates this both in the call for violence and bringing shame to his school..

  3. not conservatives, tyrants.

    how is “Fire Josh Clover!” more subject to scorn than all the stupid shit Clover said?

  4. Robby, publish unironically the same sentences that Clover did, except replace “cops” with “blacks” or “Muslims” and get back to us about that First Amendment.

    1. Or “journalists”.

    2. You triggered Robby’s hair right off his head.

      1. Unpossible

  5. The professor has every right to say what he said. However, is it really so much a stretch to argue that “They should be killed.” isn’t a call to violence? I thought students have the same rights as faculty? Is it really unreasonable to hold the view that this professor ought to be fired. I am not saying I agree that he should be. But, it is hardly beyond the pale to advocate for his firing. Especially by students who attend the school.

    So leftists on college campuses get professors and students in trouble for nothing more than having opposing view points. But a conservative group calls for the firing of a professor who advocated violence.

    But hey they are all the same, amirite?

    1. Exactly right. Professor Clover’s right to protected freedom of speech ended the moment he, without apology, began calling for the murder of anyone, let alone police officers. As Justice Holmes stated, “The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic…The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” In the case of openly advocating for violence and murder, Professor Cover clearly crosses that threshold. And then some.

      1. Nobody in their right mind gives a damn what some moron tweets.

        It’s important to remember that what Justice Holmes considered the equivalent of falsely shouting fire in a theater was protesting the draft. Whenever you quote that passage, that’s the kind of restrictions you are saying should be permitted. Plus, that case has been all but overturned.

        1. The Court has hardly “overturned” Holmes’ example. The case that addresses it the most closely, Brandenburg v Ohio, defends the right to inflammatory speech except when “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action,” which is very much the kind of language Holmes’ was addressing and exactly what Clover is doing. Clover was pretty unequivocal when he asserted, “People think that cops need to be reformed. They need to be killed.” Regardless, even if the language of this moron professor (and piss poor poet) is protected by the 1st Amendment, so, too, is that of those demanding his ouster. I would rather join my voices with theirs than with those at Reason and Fire who are defending him.

          1. “The Court has hardly “overturned” Holmes’ example.”

            The Court never overturns examples. It overturns cases.

            “which is very much the kind of language Holmes’ was addressing”

            The language Holmes was addressing was a peaceful protest of the draft for WWI. You can try to ignore it, but that’s what the case was about.

            “Clover was pretty unequivocal when he asserted”

            I agree. That doesn’t make it a true threat or incitement, anymore than a Reason posters comment about feeding judges to wood chippers did.

            “Regardless, even if the language of this moron professor (and piss poor poet) is protected by the 1st Amendment, so, too, is that of those demanding his ouster. I would rather join my voices with theirs than with those at Reason and Fire who are defending him.”

            It’s somewhat odd to admit that the First Amendment bars the university from firing him then calling for them to do so anyways. But you do you.

            1. you do you

              Is that what one does when one’s invited to go fuck himself?

            2. “The Court never overturns examples. It overturns cases.”

              Oh ok you’re an asshole and goong for the “if I can’t be correctt I’ll be pedantic” move.

              For that alone you lose.

              1. I’m not sure what you think JWC was talking about. Are you suggesting he thinks Schenck remains good law? I was trying to give him a little credit.

          2. The call to kill all cops is hardly an “imminent threat”. No cop is in imminent danger from what some looney professor tweets from his office, unless there is a cop standing in a large group of the professor’s Twitter followers, and even this scenario is still pretty sketchy on prof’s liability.

        2. So by your statement, Anything Trump tweets is ok since ” Nobody gives a damn what some moron tweets.” So you will defend Trump or anyone who tweets anything that is “hateful or inciteful rhetoric”? Because nobody gives a damn about what someone tweets.

  6. As such, it’s fine to criticize him, but conservatives who want Clover to face formal sanctions are undermining the very free speech principles they purport to defend whenever a right-of-center speaker says something offensive.

    This, as most of these situations go will be a matter of consistency. I can’t speak to any history of UC Davis (as I believe each institution should be judged individually) but would UC Davis fire another professor for making similar remarks, but for a different group (read: not police officers).

    Perhaps Mr. Clover enjoys a certain amount of white privilege in this circumstance.

  7. As such, it’s fine to criticize him, but conservatives who want Clover to face formal sanctions are undermining the very free speech principles they purport to defend whenever a right-of-center speaker says something offensive.

    Are you saying my free speech rights don’t include the right to advocate on behalf of sanctions for people who say things I don’t like?

    And the thing is, “Hi, my name is Rush Limbaugh” shouldn’t be so horrendously offensive as to cause grown men to piss their pants, women to faint and cattle to spontaneously abort their calves – and yet it is. Allegedly. That’s why there are fucking riots on campuses where these people try to speak, a little pushback is perhaps understandable. Sauce for the goose and what not.

  8. Robby hit the ground running today.

  9. The cop’s death that allegedly precipitated the whole affair? A 22-yr.-old rookie who showed up at the scene of a traffic accident and was shot to death by a guy barred from owning guns under a protective order because he assaulted a co-worker and blamed the police department for “hitting [him] with ultra sonic waves meant to keep dogs from barking.” before shooting himself.

    So, no principled call to dismantle police departments or defend innocent victims. Just open fire on anyone with a badge. The sort of thing that anarchists usually like to distinguish as ‘chaos not anarchy’.

    Fuck. Reason, FIRE. Is there no hot mess that you won’t wallow in on principle?

    1. A 22-yr.-old rookie who showed up at the scene of a traffic accident and was shot to death by a guy

      Gr… FUBARRED the link. A guy who had nothing to do with the accident I might add.

      Might as well be cheering people shooting at ambulances.

      1. Sheesh, I didn’t think context could make this statement more offensive.

        1. Sheesh, I didn’t think context could make this statement more offensive.

          I had the same thought. I’m wondering more about the Tim Poole v. Twitter ‘debate’ where the Twitter execs kept crying “context!”. They still came up way short, and it would be saying a lot to gloss over the murder precipitating a ban on speech with “context!”, but it does give pause that there may be some sort of context.

        2. That’s not the actual context. Nick Irvin’s article explains that he had heard rumors of the douchebag professor’s 2014 statements before Natalie Corona was murdered in 2018 but didn’t think all that much of them. It was her murder that convinced Irvin to look into the statements, but the douchebag professor did not make his statements in response to her murder.

  10. Clover is on medical leave, and has declined comment on the matter.

    If a city official– or a cop said that he hoped Clover’s medical condition was “ass cancer and I hope it kills him” I think we could all agree that’s not a true threat.

    1. But I’d bet a fat dollar that if a city official said he hoped Clover’s medical condition was ass cancer and he hoped it killed him that that city official would at least be publicly reprimanded for the statement on the grounds that the statement reflects poorly on his employer. See, “free speech” isn’t blanket immunity for saying whatever you please as this professor seems to think – and Robby seems to agree with – but is subject to contractual obligations not to be a liability to your employer. As a number of others have pointed out, let’s see how stout UC-D’s free speech principles are when one of their profs says something outside the acceptable bounds of leftist propaganda. As if that would ever happen.

  11. His comments are despicable, but I agree he shouldn’t be fired. I’ve had a few run-ins with cops in my years in CA. They are well trained and professional. You could say it’s because I’m ‘white’, but I’ve seen them treat people of all races fairly and humanely in stressful situations. Sure there might be a few bad apples, but then why demonize all of them? I lived in Jerusalem 2 years ago and the cops are vicious, nasty and violent. Also remember that US law enforcement is well represented among all races. So if you are going to accuse them of racism, then consider who is responsible for that, and whether your criticism really benefits minorities as you claim.

    1. I’ve had a few run-ins with cops in my years in CA. They are well trained and professional. You could say it’s because I’m ‘white’, but I’ve seen them treat people of all races fairly and humanely in stressful situations.

      Read about the case that supposedly precipitated the comments. Reason Magazine backs white, male college professor that cheers violent, crazy white dude who shoots unwitting young, hispanic female officer responding to an unrelated traffic accident.

      The only way it could be more idiotically typical of Reason is if they’d published an articles against the breakup of social media companies and the cultural rise of white nationalist violence.

      1. True but what I meant to say is, this whole idea of ‘incitement to violence’ is a huge fallacy. The problem is that no one counters him – which was the purpose of my comment. Hopefully he will read it and realize that his crusade against cops is misguided and repents. Whereas if he is fired he will only be radicalized and become more dangerous.

        1. Whereas if he is fired he will only be radicalized and become more dangerous.

          This sounds like a wholesale buying in to ‘incitement to violence’. Not that this is what you’re saying but employers shouldn’t be required to keep someone on staff who’s bordering on threatening and, even if only visibly, fomenting a movement not aligned or specifically against the University’s stated direction. The government can’t file suit against it’s employees for saying they’re going to shoot LBJ, but that doesn’t and shouldn’t forbid the University from firing professors who call for violence against (e.g.) campus police or the dean.

          1. New rule: if you didn’t say anything when they first said it, then you really just need to stfu.

  12. Is it ok if I want all UC Davis professors fired?

  13. Clover’s general endorsement of violence against the police is not a true threat, or incitement to lawless action.

    Serious question: Can you provide an actual example of “incitement to lawless action”? I mean, without getting into legal trouble?

    1. “There’s that guy that just raped that little girl! Let’s go get him, boys!” While pointing at a random passer-by.

      1. ^ Nailed it.

    2. Serious question: Can you provide an actual example of “incitement to lawless action”? I mean, without getting into legal trouble?

      “If there’s ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here? walk out, put that double barrel shot gun and fire two blasts outside the house.”

      “just fire the shotgun through the door.”

      1. Ol’ Two Blasts Biden. Fires a blast for each of his functioning neurons.

        1. Just walk out onto your balcony everyone. You know, your master bedroom balcony on the third floor overlooking the iron fence surrounding your estate. Jeez, do I have to explain everything to you yokels?

  14. conservatives who want Clover to face formal sanctions are undermining the very free speech principles they purport to defend whenever a right-of-center speaker says something offensive.

    No, they are not. Do you see why?

  15. So if Clover is free to speak like an asshole, are the cops free to slow their response time to any calls coming from the Clover residence?

    1. Not if they care about the foundation of law they’re allegedly there to uphold.

        1. Thank you. I was about to search for this case & link to it, but you’ve already — well — done the job.

          There’s no snappy comeback to this one.

  16. Conservatives Want UC-Davis to Fire a Professor Who Welcomed Violence Against Copsi

    Do they? Or do they want UCD on record refusing to do anything about this so the next time the Red Guard cries about non-leftist speech they have a precedent to point to?

  17. “I am thankful that every living leftist will one day be dead, some by their own hand, some by others, too many of old age #letsnotmakemore,”

    “it’s easier to shoot leftists when their backs are turned.”

    “People think that leftists need to be reformed. They need to be killed,”

  18. DOJ made agreement with Hillary that it would not get to look at any Clinton Foundation emails on her server

    Fired FBI agent Peter Strzok told Congress last year that the agency “did not have access” to Clinton Foundation emails that were on Hillary Clinton’s private server because of a consent agreement “negotiated between the Department of Justice attorneys and counsel for Clinton.”

    That agreement was revealed in newly released congressional transcripts from Strzok’s closed-door testimony at the House Judiciary Committee on June 27, 2018.

    WHAT. THE. FVCK.

    1. Your president just whined on twatter about a rerun episode of SNL. Eye on the ball, freedom people.

      1. Plus he’s been a Russian intelligence asset since 1987 and colluded with a hostile foreign power to win a hacked election.

        #TrumpRussia

        1. 9.5

          Not hugely imaginative, but perfectly on message, and genius timing as a Tony response.

  19. Calm down, it’s not like he said all cops should be dead-named.

  20. You’d think that on a libertarian website coercing people to commit violence wouldn’t be considered a right.

    1. Coercing? He’s a moron, but he sure as hell wasn’t coercing anyone.

      1. Coerce:

        to compel by force, intimidation, or authority,

        1. I’m aware of the definition. That’s how I know he wasn’t coercing anyone.

          1. As a professor, he was in a position of authority.

            Using the internet as a platform, he reached out to everyone. There is a great likelihood that his message would find someone who would be coerced.

            If he was a cleric, saying it was “God’s will” and that the truly faithful need to act, do you think that would be coercing?

            A professor teaches truth, in theory.

            1. “As a professor, he was in a position of authority.”

              In the classroom or while dealing with his students. Not while sending out moronic tweets.

              “Using the internet as a platform, he reached out to everyone. There is a great likelihood that his message would find someone who would be coerced.”

              No, in his classrooms is where he could find people who could be coerced.

              “If he was a cleric, saying it was “God’s will” and that the truly faithful need to act, do you think that would be coercing?”

              I don’t know. It depends on the relationship between the cleric and his flock and what he’s asking them to do. For most religions, absolutely not. For some hardcore ones, maybe.

              1. He doesn’t leave his authority at the classroom door. He communicates his authority with the internet also.

                He intentionally encouraged criminal behaviour to people who would “likely” be intimidated and recognize his authority.

                “Likely” is the weasel word the Supreme Court chose to limit the first amendment.

                I think it is irrelevant because every command is intended to coerce, and the justice system should not base its decisions on undefinable likelihood’s.

                1. “He doesn’t leave his authority at the classroom door. He communicates his authority with the internet also.”

                  To who? I certainly don’t recognize any authority in his tweets. Sure, if he tweets one of his students that they have to do something or he’ll give them a bad grade, that could be coercion. But he didn’t do anything like that.

                  “He intentionally encouraged criminal behaviour to people who would “likely” be intimidated and recognize his authority.”

                  Who would be intimidated by this pathetic piece of shit? They’re tweets. What happens if you ignore them? Nothing.

                  “I think it is irrelevant because every command is intended to coerce, and the justice system should not base its decisions on undefinable likelihood’s.”

                  You are giving the government more power to ban more speech. Screw that.

                  1. Leaving laws defined by weasel words like “likely” gives more power and potential for corruption to the courts.

                    Suddenly it’s not likely if you’re rich, or very likely if you’re opinionated.

                    I’d like laws to be clearly defined with very little wiggle room for court decisions.

                    We don’t need to say someone “should” be killed unless we are threatening that person with death which is already a crime.

                    The assumption being, we do what we should.

                    1. “Leaving laws defined by weasel words like “likely” gives more power and potential for corruption to the courts.”

                      Leaving out out words like “likely” gives more power to the police and prosecutors. And they’ve been a bigger problem than the courts.

                      “Suddenly it’s not likely if you’re rich, or very likely if you’re opinionated.”

                      This douchebag probably isn’t rich, but he’s certainly opinionated. And yet he’s protected.

                      “We don’t need to say someone “should” be killed unless we are threatening that person with death which is already a crime.”

                      Fuck you and your authoritarian ilk for trying to decide what I need to say.

                    2. If someone brandishes a gun and says you should be killed, at what point are you being threatened?

                      Would you like the courts to decide the likelihood that your self defence was warranted?

                      You’re so paranoid that the police will violate your rights, that your throwing them away.

                    3. “If someone brandishes a gun and says you should be killed, at what point are you being threatened?”

                      I’d be more worried if he said he was going to kill me, than just that I should be killed, but actually brandishing a gun completely changes the equation. And I’m guessing this douchebag professor has never held a gun, much less brandished one.

                      “Would you like the courts to decide the likelihood that your self defence was warranted?”

                      That’s what they do now. This isn’t South Park. You don’t just get to say, “It was coming right at me” and shoot whoever you want. Even the cops aren’t getting away with that as much anymore.

                      “You’re so paranoid that the police will violate your rights, that your throwing them away.”

                      I’m not the one trying to throw away my rights.

                    4. This piece of dogshit troll is obfuscating our discussion with its stank.

                      Like dog shit, it’s stink is it’s purpose.

                      It’s parents must be so proud.

                    5. So we can add “obfuscating” to “coercion” on the list of words that Rob Misek doesn’t understand.

                    6. The troll darkens the discussion which has the opposite effect of clarity.

                      Which is what you are beginning to do.

                    7. Bless your heart, aren’t you a special one.

                    8. “Leaving laws defined by weasel words like “likely” gives more power and potential for corruption to the courts.”

                      Yeah, “not guilty” is definately a ‘weasel term’ to fucking idiots like you.

                    9. I’d like laws to be clearly defined with very little wiggle room for court decisions.

                      Here’s an essay on why that is an impossible — and even if possible, definitely not wanted — idea.

                    10. “Here’s an essay on why that is an impossible — and even if possible, definitely not wanted — idea.”
                      Misek is an imbecile; ask him about “THE JOOZE!” and “THE GAYS”.
                      Don’t bother confusing him with facts.

                    11. The essays “1984” premise is that the justice system is corrupt. Who is this guy, Captain obvious?

                      It wouldn’t be if it reflected the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth which is not contradictory, hypocritical doublethink.

            2. Rob Misek|3.18.19 @ 7:51PM|#
              “As a professor, he was in a position of authority.”

              To a fucking idiot like you, that has something to to with ‘coercion’. To those with an IQ above room temperature, it shows that you are, indeed, a fucking idiot.
              Here’s your homework, idiot:
              Read the definition of “coercion” you provided above and give us 500 words on how you could possibly confuse that with what the other idiot said.

              1. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I never respond to your posts except when you try to foul one of mine. You are a foul smell.

                Fuck off troll.

                How do I scrape dog shit like you off my shoe?

                1. Try sticking your foot in a running woodchipper.

                  1. Is that how you demonstrate how you value the first amendment, by trying to stop the discussion with aggression, vulgarity and thinly veiled threats, you fucking troll.

    2. Nah. Supporting, yes, coercing, no.
      That is why it is a fireable offence, but not a criminal one.

  21. “Clover’s general endorsement of violence against the police is not a true threat, or incitement to lawless action.”

    Uhm, how did you ascertain this exactly? Did you sit down and interview the man? Because from what I know of this case, he has more than double-downed on his calls for violence against law officers. With the violence we’ve seen on other UC campuses–provoked and supported by such activists from the field of education as Yvette Falarca and Eric Clanton–I have absolutely no reason to believe that this ass-clown does not mean every single thing he says about wanting people to murder police officers.

  22. For fuck sake just counter these spineless poseur academics with harder rhetoric, calling them out as being nothing more than pussies that wouldn’t have the balls to raise a fist to anyone.
    In the comments here at least people call out Tony for the insufferable retarded intellectual gimp that he is whenever he opens his douche-hole. We’re not about to sue or sanction him.

  23. Or just walk up to the dude and punch him in the face. What’s he going to do? Call the cops like that faux anarchy prof in NC?

  24. If some hypothetical right wing prof was tweeting from an account that identified her employer that women who supported gun control deserved to be raped I would have no problem with her employer looking into whether they could take disciplinary action against her.

  25. Conservatives may want UC Davis to fire professor who welcomed violence against cop and they are just as likely to get as someone in hell getting ice water. In this world and especially in California getting ice water when one goes to hell the home of the devil and the firing of that professor has about the same chances of coming true.

  26. Conservatives may want UC Davis to fire professor who welcomed violence against cop and they are just as likely to get as someone in hell getting ice water. In this world and especially in California getting ice water when one goes to hell the home of the devil and the firing of that professor has about the same chances of coming true.

  27. You never want to go full murder. The donut industry has been doing its slow, steady work on cops’ arteries for years, and nobody’s ever going to suspect a thing.

  28. He has a first amendment right to say what he wants without being punished by the government. He doesn’t have a right to a job. That said, fuck the police.

    1. “He has a first amendment right to say what he wants without being punished by the government. He doesn’t have a right to a job. ”

      But since he’s employed by a gov’t agency, he can’t be punished by that agency for making an ass of himself.

  29. Why is that horrible? The cops are unbelievably immoral.
    “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of tyrants and patriots. It is its natural manure.”

    1. The cops are unbelievably immoral.

      I don’t disagree, but you don’t make them or society in general more moral by shooting *them* in the back.

      That’s the part that gets me. I get the calls for blood when there’s a wrong-address no-knock raid where police discovered bullets missing from their guns and the homeowners’ bodies full of holes or the revelation at trial that a retired cop had been running a torture ring for decades.

      But the specific story in this case is that a rookie responded to a call about a traffic accident and a bystander opened fire on her. This guy isn’t calling for a measured walking back of police action or heightened accountability and it’s not entirely clear that he wouldn’t cheer for the shooting of children dressed as a police officer for Halloween or playing cops and robbers.

  30. Yup fired. Out.

    Does he have a contract or employment agreement? Sure he does. Call legal, call in the rest of the admin.

  31. He’s not much of a foresighted leftist if he doesn’t value the enforcement arm of central planning.

  32. I am a fanatical supporter of the First Amendment but… this isn’t really about the First Amendment. He’s calling for the outright murder of cops. That’s a terroristic threat and incitement to violence. Moreover, any employer should have the right to fire somebody who advocates murder. He’s clearly a threat to the safety of others in the workplace and a worldclass asshole. There are basic standards of decency and safety that should be expected by employers and fellow employees.

    1. I was just about to make the same point.

      Terrorists should be incarcerated not simply inconvenienced.

      I advocate the right to free speech limited only where it violates other people’s rights.

      I strongly oppose being persecuted for exercising a right as some have wrongly suggested it was his right to say it and his employers right to fire him. Two rights cannot be in conflict.

  33. Whenever some limp wrist like Robby says someone’s really bad behavior is OK because the 1st amendment its actually just OK for threatening this particular group of people cops.It would be OK if it was just white people or starlight white Christian guys heck anything goes. Or oif the bad actor is the right color e.g. Farrakhan its either Ok or we just dare not mention him.

    Wonder how Robby would feel if he threatened violence against blacks or gays?

    Probably would need fired. He’d last a bout 19 microseconds.

  34. Now here’s a dude who has it figured out….the police have no place in a free society, at least in theor current form.

  35. Out here in the private sphere I can get fired for saying this. I know people who have been fired for far far less because of a Facebook post. But it’s more than that. It’s the hypocrisy that galls me. Public universities only pull out the “academic freedom” and “free speech” card when it suits them. The rest of the time they’re at the front lines trying to stamp out free speech and regulate academics.

    So not I can’t work up any sympathy. It’s not about progressive or conservative, it’s the hypocrisy that this is happening at Davis.

  36. “Need to be killed” is incitement and not free speech.

  37. As Deplorable and disgusting as it is. And if he’s not inciting or encouraging anyone to kill a cop It’s Protected Speach.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.