University of Florida Suppresses Speech Ron DeSantis Might Not Like, Report Alleges
Keeping professors from testifying in lawsuits isn't the school's only free speech problem

Last month, Reason reported that three professors at the University of Florida (UF) had accused the school of denying them the right to testify in certain lawsuits, possibly because of political pressure from the state government. The university cited its conflict of interest policy, saying that as a public institution, it functions as an arm of the state government. Gov. Ron DeSantis' administration denied involvement in UF's actions.
The professors have filed a lawsuit against the school, and three more instructors from other departments have joined the suit. UF President Kent Fuchs called for an internal "task force" to review the school's conflict of interest policy. That task force later determined that the school's decision-making process "was not subject to external influence."
But last week, the UF Senate Faculty Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Freedom released a report from its own investigation into the allegations, which contradicts the task force's findings.
Contrary to the university's recent statements, the report notes that current policies "do not define a conflict of interest to be taking a stand that might oppose the interests of the executive branch." It further found that among the six professors involved in the lawsuit, "the only consistent factor is that in all these cases faculty were prevented or limited in their ability to participate in lawsuits in which the policies of the current executive administration were challenged in the courts."
The investigation alleges other instances of suppression as well. Among them: "reports that University of Florida employees were told verbally not to criticize the Governor of Florida or UF policies related to Covid-19 in media interactions"; "external pressure to destroy" certain data, as well as "barriers to publication of scientific research" regarding COVID-19; and that "websites were required to be changed, that course syllabi had to be restructured, and that use of the terms 'critical' and 'race' could not appear together in the same sentence or document." If true, that last example would seem to echo the recent trend of Republican-led states drafting laws intended to forbid "critical race theory" instruction.
DeSantis' office has denied any involvement with the university's decisions. Nonetheless, the report corroborates what The Chronicle of Higher Education described as an environment of "university administrators who are hesitant to rile a potentially hostile Republican Legislature, and who are willing to compromise faculty autonomy to avoid essentially poking the bear." If substantially true, the allegations would indicate a campus hostile to free speech, regardless of whether the state government is directly involved.
On college campuses, and especially at public universities, free speech rights are paramount. Just as they apply to students, they apply to professors as well. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) noted in a letter to UF this month, "It has long been settled that the First Amendment is binding on public universities like UF." And as FIRE's Kelley Bregenzer and Sabrina Conza wrote last week in response to the new report, "Just as preventing professors from testifying as private citizens violates their First Amendment rights, it is also a violation of those rights to prevent faculty from adequately researching and publishing information."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
No Texas abortion law tweets today for a story so back to hit pieces on DeSantis? There are actually 50 states in the US.
What DeSantis needs to do is pass a section 230, the 1A of the internet, for Florida's Universities to offer Good Samaritan protections for the blocking and screening of offensive material.
Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…FIPh And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.
Try it, you won’t regret it........CASHAPP NOW
Are you upset that he's rightfully being called out on his bs? Is that it?
I’m questioning the hyper focus on two specific states by an editorial group that largely supported the least libertarian candidate in the 2020 presidential election.
Is this a top ten libertarian story of 13 December, 2021?
You mean, New York and California? Seems like every day we're reading some Reason article about crazy public school teacher unions in NYC, or crazy lockdown/housing shortages in California.
Once again, you don’t get it.
What does the word alleges mean to you?
Fuck off Jeff.
FIRE has been calling out UF over speech suppression for years.
Yet it's only a concern here when it's the leftist ox getting gored.
If other public universities are affected by censorship in this regard, let's hear it.
Until then, those defending DeSantis in this context are likely low-quality, faux libertarian clingers who deserve to continue to be defeated by their betters in the culture war.
Individual stories on each college that has a speech code incongruent with 1A would be appropriate.
Sorry, go cry about it to your mommy. You should copyright "clingers".
Who wrote this headline? None of the reports talked about how DeSantis' administration was driving this, but (at best) it was administrators at UF assuming that DeSantis might do something.
Also, given the range of "Not 'testifying' against the Governor.", "Not 'testifying' against UF COVID policies", "Destroy data", "Change websites", "Change syllabi", and "Exclude 'critical' and 'race' from the same sentence", I'm calling bullshit. It feels very much like a Rebekah Jones smear campaign.
They're overtly cobbling together a bunch of shit that may or may not have happened and trying to portray it as though DeSantis is combing through UF faculty websites and syllabi line-by-line and vetoing the parts he doesn't like. Bullshit.
If the Chemistry Department has a policy stating that 'critical' and 'race' shouldn't appear in the same sentence... good.
"The precise racemic ratio is critical to the success of the experiment." - Sorry, this sentence has got to go. TY, Ron
Sigh. Interns are not what they used to be.
"If the Chemistry Department has a policy stating that 'critical' and 'race' shouldn't appear in the same sentence... good."
Forget critical, what legitimate reason would there by for "race" to appear in any sentence in a course description or syllabus in the Chemistry department.
Being clear, I don't know that it specifically was the Chemistry Dept. just pointing out that Universities can and do, across the board, nudge syllabi and publications in all kinds of directions with or without the Governor's input for entirely appropriate reasons. The lack of back story in this article is appalling, but not entirely atypical for Reason.
"The lack of back story in this article is appalling, but not entirely atypical for Reason."
It is what they do.
Is requiring a chemistry professor's course to be about the science of chemistry a violation of free speech, I wonder?
I tend to be a free speech radical, but you are required to the job you are hired to perform.
I remember when university chemistry professors would defend the rights of white privileged lacrosse team student athletes. Seems like the woke want to do away with that and duke it out in campus not so safe spaces.
Exactly. A whole world to research, but someone wants the entire university system to write 1,000 useless papers on critical race.
It is probably a problem that they would even think this even if Desantis isn't involved.
What kind of reputation do you have when people would even think you'd do something like this? And considering his manner of governance, I'm not surprised they would think this way.
Heckler's veto much? His political opponents being so disconnected from reality that they can't smell bullshit on this story, says only bad things about the intelligence of his opponents.
A bad reputation among "progressives" and Koch libertarians is a badge of honor.
That is 11 kinds of stupid.... And par for the course.
They have tried these types of smear campaigns before and they were proven to be hoaxes.
But in your world, perpetuate ebough hoaxes and they magically become true??
It would be nice to know what sort of lawsuits UF is supposedly preventing these professors from testifying in, that might be relevant to judging if this is actually an issue.
Is the problem with publishing class curriculum really about putting the word "critical" to close to "theory", or are they objecting to not being allowed to teach race essentialism?
Reading the article, it's not even clear that all of the claims are about being prevented from testifying. Is there really a case where someone sued because they were allegedly told by someone else not to use 'critical' and 'race' in the same document?
That would require some investigative journalism.
Huh. Sort of like all the leftist Uni's suppressing conservative speech. The left is going to hate when their rules are applied to them. Especially when there is a red wave in state and local governments.
Two wrongs make a right winger!
More like a Cassandra.
In the roundup thread you continued to claim you criticize both sides. Odd.
Ideas!
ROFLMAO! Sure enough, the actual case has nothing to do with Critical Race theory or COVID-19 data. Or even really the ability to testify at all:
University Of Florida Backtracks On Allowing Faculty To Testify
Reason Magazine: In favor of paid employees offering paid testimony in favor of their preferred voting method.
paid *State* employees...
The restrictions were not just on paid proffs. The pediatrician was not going to be paid. That was a lie by the administration.
That was a lie by the administration.
The Forbes Administration?
Read your own quote mad. Yes, the ability to testify was limited, there was another case about masking that UF denied a proffs intent to testify and the alleged restrictions on releasing Covid data is recounted in the Faculty Senate report. You should know that the state changed it's own reporting of Covid data after Delta got going to limit how often and where it occurred.
You should know that the state changed it's own reporting of Covid data after Delta got going to limit how often and where it occurred.
Is this the sensationalist. fabulist, felonious Rebekah Jones thing again?
Florida changed its reporting to more accurately report when people were getting sick and dying instead of just reporting the date in which the state received the information, in line with roughly half the other states.
For some reason this was a problem for the innumerate idiots in the media and sycophantic partisans like Joe. I can't imagine why.
Waiting until after a 3 day weekend to post 3 days of covid cases all at once doesn't look like a huge spike three times normal if you do it that way.... Duh...
Right. I knew they openly and transparently changed from 'time report received' to 'time of death declared'. They also openly and transparently switched from 'positive test' to 'currently active cases (requiring treatment)' at the same time as roughly a dozen other states.
Somehow, in the minds of Rebekah Jones and her ilk, openly and transparently switching to more objective measures constitutes deception.
more objective
More objective and directly concerning to the state. If 4 people test positive for COVID in their own home and recover of their own accord, the state has no obligation regarding flattening the curve.
No
Yes
Lawsuits where UF proffs were recently restricted:
1. Testify against voting bill promoted by DeSantis and passed by his lapdog legislature, a creature of successful gerrymandering. It is widely criticized for restrictions aimed at limiting voting by Democratic constituencies. Proffs were from Law school and Poli Sci department, one of them at least a rgeu;larly quoted expert on elections.
2. Lawsuit against limiting local school boards from mask mandates by Med School pediatrician.
The new crackpot state surgeon general was railroaded through UF hiring and tenure procedures after emails from the DeSantis donor head of the GOP university board of governors. The President is a well known coward who is shaming what had been a world class university with his cow towing to the MAGA governor and his minions.
The Board of Governors is
*barf*
Wow... Word salad much? Gerymandering doesn't mean what you seem to think it means.
Need evidence of these claims happening. Then need evidence that all these claims are not about previously disallowed behavior that was just not enforced before (a.k.a. a school is already not allowed to teach that one race is superior to another without having funding pulled from feds and states, but as recent years have shown, that rule is often only enforced selectively). Then need evidence that the claims were caused by DeSantos's actual laws, policies, and actions, and not dumb administrators who can't read or bad faith foot stomping behavior like a two year old saying they'll hold their breath until their mom gives them a cookie.
Or to put it simply, I need some evidence that these claims underwent even the most basic fact checking and weren't just repeated uncritically because they confirm the author's pre-existing biases.
Illocust, the facts on the two lawsuits testimony is not in dispute. The administration admitted it.
But I thought you all *wanted* a chilling effect to discourage teachers and faculty from even discussing CRT, or topics somewhat related to CRT, or any topic about race that makes Republicans sad. I thought you wanted to discourage these conversations entirely without actually going so far as to ban them. Now that the speech you don't like has been chilled, why aren't you rushing to take credit for it? Isn't this the outcome you wanted all along?
"Hooray for red states banning CRT! It's a toxic ideology that has no place in our classrooms!"
"Wait, there's a bunch of administrators who are hesitant to permit faculty to discuss CRT for fear of adverse consequences? That can't possibly be!"
It used to be a hallmark of the left, that certain speech was to be shut down. That was back when the right would welcome opposing debate. But now? The right has adopted the tactics of their enemies. Who needs debate when you can cancel the opposition?
I know, right?
But the real slimy part here is that they want to pretend that when they get their preferred outcome, that it's not their fault. When we have administrators saying that they don't want to use certain Forbidden Words for fear of risking the wrath of Team Red, the right-wingers around here want to pretend that the Team Red campaign to use the power of the state to legislate against these Forbidden Words had nothing to do with it.
Maybe if you left-leaning people would hold your side accountable more often when they abuse their powers, I wouldn't view your criticism as nothing more than what you always want to do: criticize the right.
Seriously, Chemjeff- you had an opportunity to criticize the left for its abusive vaccine mandates. But you couldn't be troubled to care. But you sure cared when Desantis and Abbot used their powers to prohibit mandates.
After about the 80th example of you exclaiming, "How dare the Right take up practices I silently ignored when the left did it," people may perhaps get the feeling that you don't care about consistency at all.
you had an opportunity to criticize the left for its abusive vaccine mandates. But you couldn't be troubled to care.
Ah yes. The "You didn't say what I wanted you to say when I wanted you to say it, which means ...." argument.
It's tiresome, man. Seriously. You are literally arguing against what he didn't say.
What the fuck?
And sarc is back to proving he criticizes the left as he claimed this morning.
Sarc: you are the one who brought up the fact that the Left used to be the bad guys on (say) Speech, but now it is all sides.
My point is that if people ON THE LEFT had maybe stood up and said "Knock it off", maybe 1) it would have had more of an effect, 2) I would believe that they actually care about the principle at stake.
I'll give you an example, Sarc. We respect the ACLU specifically because they defended the Free Speech of their ideological enemies. This gave their attempts to protect liberal speech just as much weight. The fact that they have specifically changed their tactics has (rightfully) been seen as them turning into nothing but another left wing advocacy group.
What does that have to do with anything? Seriously. You're acting like me or jeff has a responsibility to say this or that as representatives of our team. Well we're not on a team. That's what you fail to understand.
Lol.
"What does that have to do with anything? Seriously."
Silly me, I thought we were discussing why the Right has now adopted the tactics of the left. And as far as I can tell, it is because it works. And since the more moderate left-leaning voices couldn't be bothered to stop it when it wasn't their ox being gored, their protests now will not matter.
And yes I specifically called out Chemjeff. He spent hours arguing that mandates don't really need to be criticized, and then spent hours insisting the response to those mandates (TX Mandate Bans) ought to be criticized.
If I were a right-leaning libertarian who wants to find common ground with others, why should I listen to Chemjeff? He has demonstrated that any abuse of libertarian values on the left will be met with a, "meh" and that any reaction on the right will be vehemently criticized. Whatever "team" he is on, it seems pretty clear that there is no rational value from those conversations.
Nolan chart. Seriously. Politics isn't linear. As long as you take deviation from the right as support for the left we can't have a worthwhile conversation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolan_Chart
"As long as you take deviation from the right as support for the left we can't have a worthwhile conversation."
Chemjeff has ADMITTED to being left-leaning. He has admitted to giving the benefit of the doubt to the left vs the right.
That isn't the same as calling him a Democrat. I take him at his word that he leans libertarian. But if you aren't going to stand up for principles, then you should be prepared that people who lean right have no reason to consider your principled arguments.
He spent hours arguing that mandates don't really need to be criticized
No, I spent hours explaining why I don't FEEEEL the same way about you when it comes to government vaccine mandates. You want me to FEEEL outrageously outraged, and I don't. I think they are mainly well-intentioned but misguided to use coercion to compel their use. That's not good enough for you. From the crowd that mocks people who were offended by Trump's mean tweets, you sure seem upset that people don't FEEEL as strongly as you on every single issue.
Chemjeff has ADMITTED to being left-leaning. He has admitted to giving the benefit of the doubt to the left vs the right.
I ADMITTED that I don't think left-leaning people are a bunch of sociopathic monsters who hate America and are the root cause of every evil in the universe. I suppose treating left-leaning people as people rather than caricatures of cartoon villains counts as "left-leaning" around here.
But if you aren't going to stand up for principles, then you should be prepared that people who lean right have no reason to consider your principled arguments.
That sounds to me like one of those "You better be absolutely perfect because any misstep means you're a worthless hypocrite and nothing you said means anything!" standards that no fallible human being can live up to.
I think they are mainly well-intentioned but misguided to use coercion to compel their use.
Aye. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
.... I don't think left-leaning people are a bunch of sociopathic monsters who hate America and are the root cause of every evil in the universe.
Again, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I'm not going to argue with anything jeff said.
"No, I spent hours explaining why I don't FEEEEL the same way about you when it comes to government vaccine mandates. "
But you sure as hell FEEEEEEL differently when Abbot bans mandates. Man you will post for hours about how important individual rights are and that abbot has interfered with these rights. In other words, you think feeeeeels trump principles.
There is no need for feeling here. If something is wrong, you criticize it. It took you HOURS to move from "I don't support these" to even the basest criticism. And that is why you aren't principled.
"I ADMITTED that I don't think left-leaning people are a bunch of sociopathic monsters who hate America and are the root cause of every evil in the universe. "
No, you specifically said something along the lines of, "Ya caught me, Overt! I am more critical of the right than the left."
And I am merely pointing out that if you are always going to be more critical of people ideologically further away from you, don't expect them to care about your protests. Because, rationally speaking, there is no gain in it.
I'll openly admit that I'm more critical of the right than of the left. The right is supposed to be the good guys. You hold the good guys to a higher standard. That's why I'm so hateful towards bad cops. Police are supposed to be the good guys. They're supposed to have standards and principles. That's what separates the good guys from the bad guys.
So when conservatives and Republicans abandon their principles, I have a hard time viewing them as the good guys.
But you sure as hell FEEEEEEL differently when Abbot bans mandates.
You're right, I do!
Man you will post for hours about how important individual rights are and that abbot has interfered with these rights. In other words, you think feeeeeels trump principles.
No, the principle is exactly the same:
1. I oppose government vaccine mandates.
2. I oppose government banning private property owners from issuing their own mandates on their own property.
But, you are right, I don't FEEEEEEL the same about the two. One of them gets me more upset than the other. You are correct! But that is not because of any disagreement with principle. It is just a difference between emotional attachment. Which is the entirety of the disagreement between us. YOU are the one who is confusing FEELZ with principles. You feel more outraged about the government forcing a needle into your daughter's arm. I totally understand why that might make any parent upset. I don't have a child who would be subject to that type of mandate. I am not as emotionally invested in the issue as you are. You've let your completely understandable parental emotions cloud your reasoning on this issue.
No, you specifically said something along the lines of, "Ya caught me, Overt! I am more critical of the right than the left."
That is correct. Since I used to be a Republican voter, I feel a greater sense of betrayal by what they have become vs. what they used to be. I was never any sort of reliable Team Blue voter - I voted once for a Democrat for mayor of my town, since she was a personal friend of mine, and once for a Democrat to challenge my current Republican rep, because he is a total sleazebag - but that's it. The rest of the time it's either been Republican or Libertarian, or, not at all. I don't feel betrayed by Team Blue because in my mind they haven't let me down; they've always been the same dismal team that they always have been.
"You want me to FEEEL outrageously outraged, and I don't."
No, and you continue to make this absurd statement. If you claim that principles are important to you, then you ought to criticize the violation of those principles REGARDLESS of whether it results in an outcome you dislike.
That is literally the CLASSIC test of whether or not someone is principled: that they stand by the principle even if it costs them. This is why, despite disliking Twitter's anti-conservative bent, I defend their section 230 protections.
"I don't have a child who would be subject to that type of mandate. I am not as emotionally invested in the issue as you are. You've let your completely understandable parental emotions cloud your reasoning on this issue."
When this was an abstract, theoretical situation in June of 2020, you agreed that mandates were bad and ought to be resisted. There was no emotion then, because we were talking hypotheticals. But when it actually happened, *I* was consistent. And you changed your mind. But for some reason, me being consistent is emotion.
Sure, Jeff.
Chemjeff is full of shit and bad faith. I remember when people said they hoped Smollette served time in jail for his illegal actions that they were now rooting for "political prisoners."
Because he wants to equate the concerns that people are being held for months while denied bail or even a bail hearing with someone who posted bail, had his day in court, represented by an attorney, and was found guilty of criminal acts at trial. It's him using the words of those he disagrees with back against them without actually caring about the principle behind them.
I'll openly admit that I'm more critical of the right than of the left.
You are only critical of the right and attractive anyone else who says the left is worse. You follow Ken around like a retarded puppy to criticize him for the very thing you just claimed, that the left was worse. Youre a piece of shit and have no principles if you are now claiming you attack those you fucking agree with.
I remember when people said they hoped Smollette served time in jail for his illegal actions that they were now rooting for "political prisoners."
In that discussion where this comment occurred, I was referring to the people who wanted Smollett imprisoned not just for his perjury, but in addition to "send a message". When you want to incarcerate people in order to make some political statement, then that starts to veer into "political prisoner" territory.
And no, the Jan. 6 rioters are not "political prisoners". The Soviet gulags were political prisons. The Chinese forced labor camps in the Cultural Revolution were political prisons. Calling someone held in jail for breaking a completely valid law a "political prisoner" is an insult to the term.
Jeff, do you understand WHY people are using the term "political prisoners?" It's because other people have committed very similar crimes to those who are being held in Washington, and because their POLITICS are different, they are being treated differently. It's not like people trespassing or vandalizing a government building was a brand new phenemonon on January 6.
And I wouldn't care if they tried every single person who vandalized the Capitol on Jan 6 and gave them all jail time. That's an actual crime and it deserves punishment. The problem is that so many people have spent more time confined without even being able to schedule a bail hearing, or have been denied bail, to periods in excess of what their overall sentences should be.
On the other side, there's someone who could have simply told the truth, apologized, and there would have been zero punishment. Instead he continues to peddle lies to accuse to accuse immigrants of crimes in order to pretend like there's a greater social movement of hateful people in the country. We want to see him face something more than probation as a result of his conscious actions that he's continued for months and years. All I want to see him actually punished for the five felonies he actually committed, just so people can respect that the justice system doesn't shield specific populations.
It's because other people have committed very similar crimes to those who are being held in Washington, and because their POLITICS are different, they are being treated differently.
Come up with a new term, because the one you're using implies lots of things the Jan 6 jokers were not.
Jeff, do you understand WHY people are using the term "political prisoners?"
Because they want to compare the US justice system with Soviet gulags, when it's THEIR TEAM that is being punished for crimes. That's why.
And by the way, the reason I call this out so much, is because a great way to tell when someone is principled is when it costs them a little.
https://reason.com/2020/06/30/supreme-court-declares-another-abortion-law-unconstitutional/?comments=true#comment-8326253
That was Chemjeff saying that- as a very principled guy- he would probably RESIST mandates. See, it was easy for him to claim principles when it didn't mean criticizing the left.
Now we flash forward to when it was time to resist the mandates, he couldn't even bother to CRITICIZE them. All he could say is that I got the FEEEEELZ wrong because I expected him to criticize something that he said he would criticize.
Again...why do I have ANY motivation to agree with Chemjeff at this point? If we disagree and come to a consensus on something, I can expect that when it will mean criticizing the left, he'll bail as usual.
And this effect is seen all across the internet and political spectrum. If all you can be bothered to do is criticize people you are already going to criticize anyway, they'll never listen to you.
"he couldn't even bother to CRITICIZE them"
Judging someone by what they didn't say. I can't do it. Apparently you can.
I'm hungry. Time to make tacos. Mmmmmm tacoooos....
"Judging someone by what they didn't say. I can't do it. Apparently you can."
Sarc- He said he would resist mandates if they happened. Because he was trying to look reasonable. And when the mandates came, he declined to resist them. So, yes, I am calling him out for *what he said*
In the end, it's hard to take someone seriously in a principled argument if they don't demonstrate consistent principles.
Good Lord, not this again.
You realize that your entire thesis hangs on your subjective interpretation of one single word - "resist" - that was given as one part to an answer to a hypothetical question from over 18 months ago. Based on that word alone, I am to be condemned. If everyone was held responsible not just for every single word that they uttered, but also how others would subjectively interpret those words, then no one would survive that level of scrutiny. All of humanity would be found wanting, given that standard that Overt seeks to apply to me.
When are you going to mention the dozens and dozens of times that I have opposed government vaccine mandates? When are you going to mention the dozens and dozens of times I have opposed government mask mandates? Do I get no credit at all for that?
And how am I not "resisting" vaccine mandates? I don't advocate for them. I don't vote for politicians that support them. I don't support them. Is that not "resisting"? What exactly did you think I meant with that term? And why am I being held to YOUR standard of the term based on a conversation from 18 months ago?
You are holding me to an unreasonable and unfair standard if you are going to condemn me to eternity based on your subjective interpretation of a single word from a hypothetical question in a conversation from 18 months ago, based on a real-world situation - the pandemic - which, at the time, we all had very limited information about.
This is your version of going through the social media history of some poor schlub and finding that one time from 10 years ago where he said something a little mean, and using that single event to condemn him for life and ruin his livelihood, while ignoring every single other positive thing that the guy did. It is a ridiculous standard and you know it.
This is why I have JesseAz and others on mute. It was a constant barrage of things I never said nor did, and inferences based upon things I didn't say, combined with attacks when I tried to clarify. Now I'm not tempted to respond because I can't see their words.
You're doing the same thing. You asked me to please stop, and I did. Now I'm asking the same thing. Don't be a JesseAz. Please stop.
Stop linking your past comments showing youre a left leaning hypocrite?
"You're doing the same thing. You asked me to please stop, and I did. Now I'm asking the same thing. Don't be a JesseAz. Please stop."
I was responding to Chemjeff, not you.
But the point remains. Leftist attacks on free speech of Conservatives would have been less successful if more on the left had stood up and said "Enough." Conservatives were fighting it CONSTANTLY.
But after 10 - 20 years of the Left continuing to institute safe spaces, canceled careers, and speech codes, with SILENCE from the supposed free-speech people in their party, why SHOULD conservatives generally stick to the principle. Should they wait until they are completely marginalized?
Because principle is what separates them from the emotional animals on the left. Once conservatives abandon principles and play by the same rules, they're no different than the people they hate.
"Once conservatives abandon principles and play by the same rules, they're no different than the people they hate."
So what? It's been a good 20 years of the leftists harassing the right out of universities with their speech codes, safe spaces and cancel culture campaigns. You are saying they should just accept that for principles? How does that help a professor who no longer has a job? Is he supposed to live on principles?
I listened to an interesting debate about cancel culture recently. That black dude that contributes (or did) to Reason was on it, Kmele Foster.
*googles*
Found it.
https://shorefire.com/releases/entry/intelligence-squared-u.s-debates-cancel-culture-is-toxic
Who has lost their means as a result of being canceled? That's one of the questions asked in the debate.
It was good. I did miss some because I went through the car wash while listening.
Better link.
https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/cancel-culture-toxic
"Who has lost their means as a result of being canceled?"
Wait, are you now saying that I have to prove Cancel Culture, hostility to free speech, (etc) are actually harmful? Just a minute ago you were saying that it was bad that the Right adopted these tactics. Is it bad or not?
How the hell do you not recognize your entire posting history is emotional diatribes?
Vitriolic or hyperbolic strawman are not logical argumentation.
Denting what you've said in the past is not logical argumentation.
Rushing into threads critical of the left yo point at the right is not logical argumentation.
Admitting the left is worse than the right but spending 99% of your time attacking the latter is not logical argumentation.
No, I'm saying that was a question in the debate that I thought was interesting.
Check it out. Along with Kmele Foster, Garry Kasparov was also on the side of "Cancel culture is toxic."
Garry was coming from firsthand knowledge of life behind the iron curtain.
It's a good debate.
"Because principle is what separates them from the emotional animals on the left."
So are you saying that there is no reason to appeal to principles on the left because they are emotional animals? You realize that you and Chemjeff have both basically implied "we only criticize the side we believe can be better."
Is that really the case? Because if so, now you know why I criticize you and chemjeff.
Overt. That is what they are claiming. But they also say attack those they are now saying they agree with, those who attack the left as being worse. That's how you know they are full of shit. Both follow Ken around now. Both run around calling anyone critical of the left cultists. Sarcasmic said just recently all racists were on the right, yes I can link it.
They are fundamentally dishonest of they are now claiming the left is worse based on their actions. They can't claim to have principles.
So are you saying that there is no reason to appeal to principles on the left because they are emotional animals?
No I'm not saying that, though Ken certainly is.
You realize that you and Chemjeff have both basically implied "we only criticize the side we believe can be better."
More "you didn't say that which means you said this!"
I'm not playing.
Here we go, it's Rule #1 of Right-Wing Reason:
"It's Always Team Blue's Fault"
Evidently Team Red has no power and no agency whatsoever. Whatever Team Blue does is their fault, and whatever Team Red does is also Team Blue's fault.
"Whatever Team Blue does is their fault, and whatever Team Red does is also Team Blue's fault."
The desire to ascribe fault is very interesting. I call this "rational". For years, the right has stuck to certain principles (that was Sarc's argument, not mine), and we have objectively seen Right representation in tech, social media, universities, etc decline. And the left has suffered no consequences. Why shouldn't the right adopt the same tactics? Principles? If "independents" like yourself will never give them credit for sticking to their principles, what is the point?
"Stuck to" was a bit too much. Perhaps "attempted to represent" or "gave lip service to" would have been more accurate.
Overt, I used to be a Republican. I liked the 1990's version of Newt Gingrich (well, except for the cheating part). I liked his ideas for making government smaller but also more effective and more efficient. He would point out that it was possible for a bank to verify a person's identity to a sufficient degree, using just ATM cards and PIN numbers, in order to perform most ordinary banking services, so why couldn't more government functions be like that? I WAS a Team Red voter, back when they actually had interesting ideas that I could support. I would never vote for Team Red now, because they are now a lifestyle brand. If you're white, rural, Christian, didn't go to college, own guns, like NASCAR, drink cheap beer, respect cops, love the military, and are a super-patriot, then the Republican Party is for you! Where are the policy ideas? They are few and far between. What's way more important is lifestyle and culture. That is the effect of Trumpism in a nutshell. Policy doesn't matter, principles don't matter, all that matters is signaling one's membership in the tribe.
I would LOVE for another 1990's Newt Gingrich to come along and to offer some interesting, updated, conservative-leaning and libertarian-leaning policy ideas on how to fix what's broken. Where is this person? Trump? Tucker Carlson? Matt Gaetz? Josh Hawley? Give me a break.
Once they start becoming a party of ideas and principles again then maybe I will take another look. But if their condition for membership is that I swear fealty to the Cult of the Orange One then forget it.
That is the effect of Trumpism in a nutshell. Policy doesn't matter, principles don't matter, all that matters is signaling one's membership in the tribe.
Pretty much.
"Once they start becoming a party of ideas and principles again then maybe I will take another look."
Who do you think you are fooling, Chemjeff? You played this game once before when I asked if you would resist mandates. You said you would, but then decided not to when it came time to put up.
https://reason.com/2020/06/30/supreme-court-declares-another-abortion-law-unconstitutional/?comments=true#comment-8326253
We all know what would really happen if a Newt Gingrich republican was gaining prominence. You would find them unqualified for religious policy views similar to those Gingrich had, or for some other reason.
If you want the right to stop adopting the tactics of the left, you should try being overtly critical of the left's use of those tactics. Because, you know, they are the ones initiating the practice and them stopping will mean that the right will stop.
If you want the right to stop adopting the tactics of the left, you should try being overtly critical of the left's use of those tactics. Because, you know, they are the ones initiating the practice and them stopping will mean that the right will stop.
Only if I were to believe the fiction that Team Red has no power and no agency, and that everything that Team Red does is actually Team Blue's fault.
f you want the right to stop adopting the tactics of the left, you should try being overtly critical of the left's use of those tactics. Because, you know, they are the ones initiating the practice and them stopping will mean that the right will stop.
I didn't think jeff was serious when he said Team Red blames literally everything, including their own actions, on Team Blue.
But here you are saying that the right only uses the left's tactics because the other guys did it first, and because jeff hasn't convinced the left to stop.
*shakes head*
Principles shminciples.
"Only if I were to believe the fiction that Team Red has no power and no agency, and that everything that Team Red does is actually Team Blue's fault."
What does it say that you will never criticize Team Blue? Is it that you think THEY don't have free agency?
"But here you are saying that the right only uses the left's tactics because the other guys did it first, and because jeff hasn't convinced the left to stop."
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that if you can only find the time to criticize the retaliators in a two sides conflict, the retaliators have no reason to stop. And that has nothing to do with "lacking free agency". It is a rational decision.
You know what happens when you hold one side of an encounter to a higher standard than the other? The side being held to a higher standard stops caring, and starts acting like the other side. That is basic game theory. You can go read dozens of articles on it.
This also goes for yourself. You want to know how to get people to follow you? Hold yourself to a higher standard than you hold them.
It is very weird both jeff and sarc claim the right can be better when 99% of their posts are attacking the right. Including threads critical of the left
Dishonest shits.
sarcasmic
December.13.2021 at 4:37 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
That is the effect of Trumpism in a nutshell. Policy doesn't matter, principles don't matter, all that matters is signaling one's membership in the tribe.
Pretty much.
You two shitheads don't talk policy.
Translating Overt:
Don't bother me with free speech issues that aren't useful in right wing culture wars. I'm not a Libertarian, I'm MAGA.
Give him a break. He's a respectful debater, unlike most of the crew here.
You especially.
Like that guy.
That's not unique to Team Red. Nobody wants to say "That's my fault!"
Yes sarc. Stopping teaching of vocitomozation by race by school teachers is shutting down speech.
But you're not a leftist.
Jeff. Why do you keep ignoring the Detroit superintendent admitting crt is not only taught in schools but ingrained in various courses including math? You denied it was happening for months.
Critical race theory is not what I'm paying for with my state taxes to teach my kids. I don't want garbage in the curriculum. Content matters.
This isn't a Libertarion comment board, it's MAGA.
You just figured this out?
There are a few libertarians on the board. Not many, but we exist. Though the MAGA crowd can't distinguish between a communist and a libertarian. Both are critical of Trump, which means in their minds communists and libertarians agree on everything.
How many tribes and ex-wives do you go through before it begins to dawn on you that it's not the wives, or the tribes?
My ex-wife? She's on #3 and feeling restless.
Depends on how much individuality must one sacrifice to be accepted into a tribe.
You sacrificed 100% of your credibility to join jeff and Mike.
Spoken like a true anti-vaxxer.
Say what? I thought that, according tot he narrative anyway, that I wanted mandates for everyone including infants, and concentration camps for the noncompliant. Now I'm an anti-vaxxer? You guys need to get your stories straight about me.
I just said you were an anti-vaxxer. If you perceive yourself differently you can take that up with
your wifeyour tribeyourself.I don't understand.
You know who else declared something "MAGA country"?
*barf*
the fuck is a Libertarion?
He is a mega robot that forms from five other robots: Freedion, Non-intervention, Self Defension, Open Marketion and Expression. He battles the forces of evil including Taxion, Vaxion, Court Paxion, False Faxion and Government Haxion.
I miss Battle of the Planets and Star Blazers
Boo hoo. Take your ball and run to Vox.
Why isn't Reason being critical of Democrat governors, huh? This is solely about a GOP governor, which proves that Reason is an arm of the Democrat party. They've never criticized Biden or the Democrats. What a bunch of partisan, leftist bullshit. Just the fact that the article doesn't have "Go Brandon" in it is proof that the author is a shill for the left.
Reason is lamenting the fact that some blue checkers had gotten a taste of their own medicine? So sad...
Omicron emergency declared in the UK. Boosters immediately ordered for entire country.
U.K. PM declares Omicron emergency, orders immediate COVID-19 booster shots for entire country
Current Omicron death toll in UK:
1
Complete and utter nutbaggery - about inline with Joe Friday; congrats Joe maybe you'll get the Noble, you've been a part of the group that has helped to create mass insanity.
omicron = moronic
. . . until the stock drops a bit, then we will be equally confident that four doses are needed . . .
Right wing news.
Just not enough doses, probably need 6 to get it done.
COVID Hospitalizations climb nearly 40% from a month ago.
"72% of Adults are vaccinated... but that does not include booster shots."
If you're vaccinated, do you need to wear a mask?
Conclusion: Yes
"We are in the thick of it right now. Vaccines not 100%, masks not 100%, distance not 100%, but all of them together layer on that protection"
"But to your point, Karen, you say we're still 'in the thick of it' people hoping we were getting out of the thick of it..."
"Well, Bob, no one hoping that more than I... back to you Bob".
Holy Fuck! "Here in New York State it has just been made mandatory that if you are indoors, regardless of your vaccination status, or if you're not on the air you need to be wearing a mask."
Does the law really exempt broadcast "news" anchors or do broadcast "news" anchors just get to publicly declare themselves exempt? W.T.H.F.?
California mandated masks in your own home.
I can see a case where someone choosing to wear a mask in one's own home is on some sort of stable rational ground. I certainly wouldn't agree with it for COVID, much less mandatory, but the underlying premise of wearing PPE to prevent infection makes some sense.
In the background of Diane/Paul's point; "Vaccine not 100%, masks not 100%, distancing not 100%, news cameras 100% effective." it's anti-sensical. Both from a biological and ethical 'freedom of speech'/second-class citizen angle.
Based on real world data and no correlation to policies... most of the regulations are closer to 0% than 100% and none should be mandated.
Well, now they're even debunking the AP fact check.
Time to force vaccinations on children and newborns.
The virus is a a dirty ageist. Woe is equity.
Wow, you mean having a major institution under the control of the government can lead to the powers running said government forcing said institution to bend to their personal whims? Just wow! Who could have seen that coming?
Sounds like the university could solve this problem by rejecting all state and federal funding.
But that would make their self created problem worse.
Enjoy, it's rare enough to be both rare and news. The university has been here a long time - as have other state U's - and this is a first.
What I learned from the Commentariat: It's okay if a Republican does it.
What we've learned from Brandybuck: It's okay for Democrats. Everything is okay as long as the doer has a D beside his name!
It is as fucking stupid as when sarc, jeff, and Mike do it.
Even the article says alleges shitbag.
But you are pro race based engineering apparently.
Only if you lack basic reading comprehension.
In case someone missed it. Sarc named his list. And think I'm back to no 1 on it. Suck it chumby.
sarcasmic
December.13.2021 at 1:31 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
Marshal, you're getting close to joining JesseAz in the land of the Sarcastrated. That's what happens when people continually accuse me of things I never said nor did, and call me a liar when I try to set the record straight.
If that's what you want, that's fine. I'm sure he'll welcome the company
By tomorrow, Omicron will be 50% of UK cases.
Delta is so five minutes ago.
You should still get the delta booster prior to the omicron booster.
Kirsten Joy Weiss has a new calendar.
https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/kirsten-joy-weiss/2022-joy-of-shooting-calendar/paperback/product-dqnj8d.html?page=1&pageSize=4
Hubba hubba. Not worth thirty bucks though. To me anyway.
Man you're a fucking creep.
Just watched her video where she shoots a playing card in half with a 5.56. Lesson learned: The 5.56 has a 50% one-shot-stop ratio against a playing card. Go .30 caliber or go home.
Check out the one where she shoots two .45 slugs from a double 1911 and takes out a card with each bullet.
Lady's got talent.
Or pumpkin carving with a .22, which I tried but I'm not a good enough shot.
sarcasmic
November.19.2021 at 1:45 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
I don't carry a gun. I'm not a great shot and I lack training. Doing so would be inviting trouble that I don't know how to handle.
I had to peek to see what kind of insult JesseAz could come up with in reaction to me saying I can't carve a smiley face on a pumpkin with a .22.
He quotes me saying that I fully acknowledge that I'm not prepared to carry concealed pistol around with me.
Um........
That has what to do with grabbing a rifle and a box of shells, and shooting at pumpkins?
I can't figure it out.
That's why the pathetic troll is on mute.
Rejoin the Sarcastrated.... c-ya!
You wax with a hard on trying to make friends with guns then say you don't know whit about them. In a thread you said it sucked an 18 year old walked over obvious on video self defense.
You've admitted you gave no credibility. Not with guns. Not with libertarian ideals on self defense.
And you read everything dummy.
Whi h is why it is really weird you claim you don't and then invent pure strawman in response. Because you are fundamentally a dishonest person. See above where you claim you think the fight is better but spend all your time following Ken around and attack those who agree.
You have really fucked up tendencies
"report alleges" HA!
Guaranteed this is false, just from the wording
Meanwhile, DeSantis and minions and the chicken s..t UF administration is tanking the reputation UF has worked so hard to burnish and which had them most recently ranked as the #5 American public university, including a world class research university, and the best hospital and med school in the state. Ignoring and quashing science (the University has not mandated masks or vaccines though it's own researchers have completed studies validating those strategies) out of administration fear is not a good look, nor is rushing the hiring and tenure of a quack so he can work as the Governor's state Surgeon General.
The universities accreditation is being reviewed as a result of the attempt to quash the right of proff's to be expert witnesses and in the academic and medical world it is unfortunately become a laughing stock. This kind of stench stays.
I would be a bit "gun shy" as an academic on the state payroll in Florida as to what I could and could not say. Might as well be in Beijing or Moscow. Does anybody else remember the proscription of the terms like "global warming" in 2015? Welcome to AMERIKA.
Deletion of words and phrases from our lexicon is reminiscent of "NEWSPEAK" as in George Orwell's 1984.
btw - there are too many trolls
As usual, the article is well thought out and adheres to enlightenment principles like free thought and speech while the comments are partisan.
Censorship? Because that's what Nazi-Education Camps do....
I see Reason is already worried that DeSantis might run an effective presidential campaign, so they are starting to smear him early.
Joe, since you're obviously new to libertarianism, here's a quick lesson: the conflict between "academic freedom" and "public universities" in a libertarian world is resolved by abolishing public universities. Universities financed by extracting money via taxes are fundamentally incompatible with libertarian principles.
But as long as taxpayers are forced to pay for public universities, public universities and their employees are governed by the rules taxpayers set for them through the democratic process. And there is no natural right to "academic freedom" at such institutions.