Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

At University of Virginia the White Supremacists Have Already Won

College limits protest, suppressing everybody's free expression.

U.Va protestShay Horse/NurPhoto/Sipa USA/NewscomIf any state university is right to limit speech by members of the public on its grounds, the University of Virginia is that university. Last summer it played unwilling host to a mob of torch-bearing white supremacists shouting "Jews will not replace us!" and other repellent things.

The next day, demonstrations by more white supremacists at Lee Park in Charlottesville led to violent clashes with counterprotesters and the murder of Heather Heyer. It was a shocking episode that made news around the globe.

The reverberations are echoing still. The other day a group of recent graduates demanded that the school pay reparations to the injured. Last month U.Va. had to serve Jason Kessler, organizer of the Unite the Right rally, with a no-trespassing warning after students complained that he had threatened and bullied them, and his appearance at the Law School library caused a disturbance. Charlottesville also has rejected Kessler's request for a second Unite the Right rally for 2018. Kessler is suing over that.

So you can understand why the university has adopted a new policy restricting speech on the grounds by persons or groups not affiliated with the school. Under the new policy, those who wish to speak on the grounds may do so only in one of nine outdoor locations. Would-be speakers, pamphleteers, and the like must request a reservation at least seven days in advance (but no more than one month in advance), and the reservations are good only for two-hour blocks Monday through Friday. An applicant cannot make more than one reservation a week. Applicants cannot use a location that is in use by somebody else at the same time.

Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, told the Charlottesville Daily Progress that last restriction effectively prohibits counter-demonstrations. This might be by design, given the melees that erupted last August. U.Va. president Teresa Sullivan says the new rules were made for safety's sake.

But again, if any public university is right to limit speech by outsiders, U.Va. is that university. There's just one thing: No public university is right to do so. Especially not U.Va..

Some certainly claim the authority to do so. U.Va. has carefully tailored its new restrictions to thread the constitutional needle. The Supreme Court forbids content-based restrictions on speech but allows restrictions on its time, place, and manner — so U.Va.'s policy announcement repeats the phrase "time, place, and manner" like a mantra. And the policy is, on its face, neutral: It will apply equally to the NAACP and the Klan, to abortion-rights groups and abortion opponents, and so on.

But it is not neutral on the broader question of speech generally: It comes down squarely in favor of limiting expressive activity by members of the public. It will reduce the opportunities for citizens to express themselves on what is, after all, public property.

In fact, it already has. When U.Va. grad Bruce Kothmann learned of the policy, he went to the Rotunda and read a Bible verse on the steps. When he returned the next day to read the same verses he reads each week at synagogue (Kothmann is Jewish), the police asked him to leave. The Rotunda, which U.Va. calls the architectural and academic heart of the university community, is now off-limits to the rest of the community: It is excluded from the list of designated speech zones for outsiders.

That means events such as the March 14 demonstration in support of gun control on the U.Va. Lawn would have to ban participation by outsiders. "U.Va. students, faculty, staff, and members of the local community participated in the National School Walkout exactly one month after the deadly attack at Marjory Stoneman High School in Florida," U.Va.'s news service reported at the time. So much for solidarity.

The Rotunda was designed by Thomas Jefferson, who founded the school. The university's web page devoted to the building includes a quote, famous to all U.Va. students and faculty, by Jefferson about U.Va.: "This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

U.Va. even produces a publication "focused on showcasing the best of the University of Virginia" — called "Illimitable."

But the school has now decided the freedom of the human mind should have some limits after all, and that certain errors — and, for that matter, many great truths — should be tolerated only within strictly confined boundaries.

The irony is thicker than wet cement. U.Va.'s new policy is, literally, reactionary: It has come about in reaction to last summer's outrage. That outrage was perpetrated by a group of hooligans who reject tolerance, individual rights, personal freedom, and other core tenets of Enlightenment liberalism.

The greatest rebuke to such backward notions would involve strengthening the commitment to those values. Instead, the rise of right-wing illiberalism has fueled illiberalism on the left. The two feed off each other — and the values of classical liberalism go begging.

If any university should be standing up for those Jeffersonian values now, U.Va. is that university. Instead, it has chosen to back away from them.

Photo Credit: Shay Horse/NurPhoto/Sipa USA/Newscom

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.

  • DajjaI||

    The main purpose of free speech is to prevent violence. Because it's too easy for speech restrictions to be used as a pretext for police action and crack downs. As this policy will quickly demonstrate. #happymemorialday #ihavenot4gotten

  • Eidde||

    I don't really know what to think about this - chanting mobs of outsiders don't really have a legitimate place on a university campus. It's not a traditional public forum like the public streets and parks.

    There have often been disputes about the right of students to invite outside speakers, but this is about the right of outside speakers to invite themselves.

    OTOH I don't really trust administrators at a university to be neutral as between "correct" and "incorrect" speech, so I'm suspicious about how they'll administer their policies.

  • hpearce||

    tough article to parse and put together

  • ThomasD||

    That's because the author is contorting himself to blame people who have done nothing other than exercise their right to enagage in (offensive) speech in a publicly funded forum.

    While UVA has contorted itself to suppress that speech, so as to prevent any repeat of the confrontations with 'counterdemonstrators' seeking to suppress those people engaged in free speech.

    IOW, the 'counterdemonstrators' have won.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I gather that the man who killed Heather Heyer is being charged with first degree murder. Well and good. And if he just up and rammed into the crowd, that's what he deserves. But I've heard so little about that incident in the last months that I begin to wonder. Maybe it isn't as cut and dried as it sounded, and the Dominant Narrative is hoping everyone will forget.

    It might be seriously embarrassing, for example, if it came out that he Antifidiots had been rocking the man's car, trying to overturn it, and he rand over Ms. Heyer trying to get away. It isn't a far fetched scenario; the Antifa mob are prone to violence, and have a history of doing dumb things involving automobiles.

    Mind, I have NO evidence. I'm prejudiced in part because the counter protests the Antifidiots staged are almost universally described in Teh Narrative as 'non-violent', and reports at the time said otherwise. Hobby Protesters on the Left get all kinds of free passes, going back to Kent State. Somehow, when talking about the 'tragedy' of Kent State nobody gets around to mentioning that the 'protesters' did a million dollars in 1972 money to private property in the town. Or that the night before the Guard was sent in, they set fire to the ROTC building on campus and interfered with firefighters on the scene.

    So when a story like Charlottesville goes silent, I begin to wonder if maybe some of the Establishment Left;s little angels did something seriously stupid, and someone died as a result.

  • mtrueman||

    "It might be seriously embarrassing, for example, if it came out that he Antifidiots had been rocking the man's car, trying to overturn it, and he rand over Ms. Heyer trying to get away."

    It would be embarrassing if the man was not in his car, but outside trying to hotwire the vehicle, and it slipped into gear killing the poor lady. You can read about such an incident in Gaddis's A Frolic of His Own, where where it was the hotwirer and owner of the car, a Japanese Sosumi, who was injured and he ends up suing himself.

  • I can't even||

    It already came out that an Antifa kook chased the driver with a rifle. The mainstream press declined to report the story. Instead people will be Outraged" when he isn't convicted of first-degree murder.

    www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/.....dly-crash/

  • mtrueman||

    "It already came out that an Antifa kook chased the driver with a rifle."

    The nerve of some people!

  • Tony||

    I know, it's really hard to believe that a Nazi would do something terrible.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Tony, get real. The Antifa morons are just as Fascist as the White Supremacist idiots. Both sides are given to self-righteous violence, and monumental stupidity. A fight between them is like the fight between the Conquistadores and the Aztecs; two bunches who richly deserve each-other.

    But I am ALWAYS prejudiced against Teh Narrative. It paints people who have philosophical differences as ravening monsters, and violent thugs as downtrodden angels. And when it suddenly drops a subject, I want to know why.

    I mean, come on, these are the same narrators who want to sell us on Trump as a certain vile Austrian reincarnated. Trump as Huey Long come again? THAT I can see. And the Kingfish, for all that many people try to soft-pedal it, was given to thuggery and slandering his opponents. But Trump as Hitler? You're several cans short of a six pack.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    How am I supposed to believe these guys were Nazis when they call everybody who disagrees with them that?

    If the media wants me to take their word for it, they shouldn't have spent decades squandering their credibility.

  • mtrueman||

    "But Trump as Hitler? "

    Hitler had an impeccable military record. He was also a total outsider, not even a German, as you point out, Trump just doesn't measure up to the man. Even George W. Bush's military record outshines Trump's.

  • Tony||

    Trump is too stupid and fat to be Hitler.

  • damikesc||

    ITT, left-leaning "libertarians" pine for Hitler.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    "The Antifa morons are just as Fascist as the White Supremacist idiots."

    I'm not so sure about that. I haven't noticed that White Supremacists, (Even granting, purely for the sake of argument, that they were all that.) are big on violently "no-platforming" anybody they disagree with.

    As far as I can tell, they came to Charlottesville prepared to fight, maybe even hoping for a fight, but also to talk. While the Antifa came to Charlottesville to start a fight, in order to silence people.

    Add that the Nazis were "National Socialists", and the Antifa is a communist movement, and the Antifa actually look more fascist to me than white supremacists do.

    White supremacists don't have to be nice people, to not be "fascists"; The word actually has a meaning, even if the left uses it as a content free epithet.

  • mtrueman||

    "As far as I can tell, they came to Charlottesville prepared to fight"

    They ran and they've been running since. This is a movement in its last gasps. Antifa controls the streets, at least in America. In Europe the left is old and tired out but America, tomorrow belongs to Antifa.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

    Harder to believe than SDS, the Weather Underground, the SLA or the Black Panthers would do something terrible. I'm old enough to remember how the Side of the Angels came into power.

    What exactly is the history of Nazi violence in the USA? Bueller? Bueller?

  • Tony||

    Hey, deja vu. The cool think about Nazis is that you don't have to explain why you're against them.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Indeed, that's the primary reason for calling somebody a Nazi: So that you don't have to give a good reason for being against them.

  • Tony||

    It's just that it's assumed in polite society that murdering all the Jews is a no-no.

  • Azathoth!!||

    Well, except on the left, where it's okay so long as you call them 'zionists' or 'Israelis'.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I suspect the same thing. The Antifa rioters were probably attempting to pull the guy out of his car for a beating when he hit the gas. It's consistent with the way other Antifa goons have behaved everywhere else they've ever showed up.

    I can't possibly trust the media goons to report anything about this truthfully, after all the propaganda they've pushed for and against other protests like Occupy Wall Street, the Tea Party, etc. They're simply too biased to be taken seriously.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Or it may be that the guy IS a White Supremacist, and DID attack a crowd of Lefties with a vehicle. But the way the narrative went quiet about him causes me to wonder.

  • AndArmorU/W||

    Well we have to then think what is more likely. So what happens more, Antifa needlessly inciting violence against a innocent person who just so dared to not agree with them, or literally ANY other explanation. My vote is on antifa being a bunch of fucking douche bag martians.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    fucking douche bag martians

    I think there was an H.G. Wells novel about that.

  • Ecoli||

    If you look at the video of the car backing out of the scene you will notice at least one guy careening off the rear window and holding a club (maybe a baseball bat).

    Why would an obviously "good" person bring a club to that event. Maybe he was just on his way to batting practice and suddenly wound up sitting on a moving car? Is it possible that some of the "good" people were actually "bad" people?

  • Ecoli||

    Actually it was several guys with clubs. Hard to tell, but it looks like at least four club-wielding good guys.

    Go to 5:42 in the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kerAy94eWLc

  • MoreFreedom||

    "And the policy is, on its face, neutral"

    Liberal universities haven't been and aren't neutral in protecting the civil rights of speakers. And I disagree that "The White Supremacists Have Already Won" when speech restrictionists are the ones winning. What happened to government shall pass no law restricting the freedom of speech, say by a partially government funded university?

    Seems to me the liberal mayor and governor for Charlottesville wanted violence for the benefit of Clinton, so they could claim white supremacists had initiated violence and use that as further pretext to restrict speech. Thus, they didn't protect people. Read the Heaphy Report summary in Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally

    Law enforcement failed to break up fights or take an active role in preventing fights and were instructed not to intervene except in cases of "extreme violence". This decision represented "a tremendous tactical failure that has real and lasting consequences".
    University of Virginia officials were aware of plans for a torchlit rally by white nationalists but "took no action to enforce separation between groups or otherwise prevent violence"

    What would be good, would be for Trump to prosecute those politicians for failing to protect people's civil rights.

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I'm with you, except on the "for the benefit of Clinton" part.

    The local government had denied "Unite the Right" a parade permit, and lost in court, being ordered to allow the demonstration. The best reading of what happened, I think, is that they set out to create some violence, in order to have an excuse to shut down a protest they'd only allowed under court order.

    I don't really see Clinton coming into it. It was more about the movement to tear down statues, than the Presidential election.

  • Deconstructed Potato||

    You make many good points. There likely isn't any conclusive evidence to prosecute those who attacked the car, who are arguably just as responsible for the resulting death of Heyer. It can potentially still he established that the actions of the driver were in panic/under duress/self-defense, but it's unlikely.

  • Nardz||

    Prediction: not guilty (or a "hung jury") on murder 1.
    Might get manslaughter.
    From what I remember seeing, it's damn hard to say beyond reasonable doubt that what he did was intentional murder rather than fearful, idiotic panic.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "But I've heard so little about that incident in the last months that I begin to wonder. "

    If facts fit The Narrative, we'd be hearing about it 24/7.

    If you watch the video, this made no sense as a terrorist attack. Instead of mowing down hordes of people crowded together on foot, trapped between parked cars and building walls, he ran into the back of a car, which hit another car, which then killed the woman.

    Then he drove off.

    It's possible the guy was just the most stupid terrorist in the world.

    Or maybe he was high, on drugs, or a lunatic. Maybe he had a seizure.

    There is a counter narrative that runs that someone smashed his tail light with a bat or a stick. There's some video to that effect. He panics/spazzes and hits the gas. Then drives off.

    We're not hearing exposes on this guy. No co-conspirators. No word of trial. No nothing. Disappeared.

    Whatever we're not hearing, you can be sure it doesn't fit The Narrative.

  • damikesc||

    Hell, I do not even know the guy's name.

    And the press would have zero interest to keep it quiet.

  • Azathoth!!||

    He ran into the back of a car..

    ....that was being swarmed by a lefty mob. That's a bit about this that seems to have totally disappeared.

  • Rich||

    U.Va. even produces a publication "focused on showcasing the best of the University of Virginia" — called "Illimitable."

    You can read it during a reserved two-hour block once a week.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The free speech story of the day is about Tommy Robinson, leader of the English Defense League (an anti-Muslim, anti-immigration group), who was arrested for filming Muslim defendants in a "grooming" trial and given a prison sentence of 13 months for it--without trial.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/n.....68821.html

    I believe "grooming" in this case refers to what anti-immigrant people call rape gangs and what we might call facilitating child molestation. Because the press has been prohibited from covering the pertinent aspects of the trial, it's hard to tell what exactly is going on.

    There are so many aspects to this case, it's hard to know where to start. I'll start with two observations:

    1) The First Amendment matters

    If you ever wanted to see what it would look like if the U.S. didn't have the First Amendment, just look at the UK. There are all sorts of laws that are different on the U.S. side of the pond because of the First Amendment, from libel laws to protections for freedom of the press. It is a rare exception where the courts in the U.S. will facilitate a criminal prosecution because someone published the truth, certainly not for broadcasting the truth from outside a courtroom.

    All this, apparently, because, you know, hate speech? Can't have people saying bad things about Muslims?

  • perlchpr||

    OK, I read the linked article 3 times. Where did you get the "13 months in prison" from?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The linked article said the suspended sentence from the last time was three months, but I believe that's wrong. It was 13 months.

    A quick DuckDuck Go search comes up with this at Fox News, which also quotes the sentence as 13 months.

    "But shortly after his arrest, a source with knowledge of the case told Fox News that he had been jailed for 13 months on a contempt-of-court charge."

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2.....trial.html

    The same linked article has a tweet from Geert Wilders who quotes the sentence as 13 months, as well.

    I originally heard about this by someone who was reading it to me off of an Australian newspaper website--and she also said 13 months.

  • Ken Shultz||

    2) The English Defense League is described by its enemies as something like halfway between National Front skinheads and common football hooligans. I'm not saying whether that's right or wrong, but I will say this. If that's what they really are--it's amazing that they've managed to make a martyr out of this guy by violating his free speech and free press rights. Once again, this is how we know our rights are real and not created by government--because violating them tends to have the same effects cross culturally and throughout history.

    In the wake of 9/11, I didn't think it was possible to create sympathy in the world for terrorists--until the Bush administration started torturing them. And who thought there could be anything less popular in the UK than the leader of what people in the U.S. would think of as Alt-Right street thugs? Sure enough, where there's stupidity, there's a way. All you have to do to create sympathy for the hopelessly hated is to violate their rights--especially their free speech rights. If the left had stayed up all night trying to think of a better way to create sympathy for anti-immigrant activists, they could hardly have come up with anything better than jailing Tommy Robinson without a trial for exercising his natural right to stupid speech.

  • mtrueman||

    I don't remember any outpouring of sympathy for the dozens shot to death by Israeli security forces last week while they were demonstrating against the Jerusalem embassy business. In fact the sentiment here was decidedly pro-massacre.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Maybe Hamas terrorists don't have a right to cross into Israeli territory without going through a checkpoint. I don't know.

    I know that violating people's property rights tends to have the same negative consequences cross culturally and throughout history.

    I know that violating people's free speech rights had the same kinds of consequences in ancient Greece, ancient Rome, during the French revolution, during the Cultural Revolution in China, and in the UK today.

  • mtrueman||

    "Maybe Hamas terrorists don't have a right to cross into Israeli territory without going through a checkpoint. I don't know."

    Still no sympathy for the dozens shot to death for demonstrating? I understand you're deeply moved by the plight of the poor English nationalist, but you're defeating your own point.

  • Eidde||

    I'm always open to the possibility that the Israelis gunned down some innocent flower children in the middle of a chorus of Kumbaya, but I would need some evidence of this.

    If this is a case of a mob trying to crash an antiterrorist barrier to get into Israel, then I'd still sympathize with the putative flower children - I'd sympathize with them for being manipulated by Islamist fanatics into a deadly confrontation.

  • mtrueman||

    "I'm always open to the possibility that the Israelis gunned down some innocent flower children in the middle of a chorus of Kumbaya"

    You'd be more honest if you said that you're willing to bend over backwards denying Israeli responsibility for the massacre. If you disagree with Ken's point, you can address your comments to him directly.

  • Eidde||

    You'd be more honest if you shut your yap.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I see four good responses:

    1) The lack of sympathy around here doesn't mean there was no sympathy anywhere provoked by those people being gunned down.

    2) The idea that there are negative consequences associated with violating people's rights (including creating sympathy for those whose rights were violated regardless of whether their cause is worthy of sympathy), isn't disproved or even countered by mtruman's chatroom empathy meter.

    3) Mtruman often brings up irrelevant exceptions that prove the rule--possibly when he's bored. It sure as hell bores me, and it generally doesn't merit a response.

    4) The right of terrorist groups to cross borders into areas inhabited by their intended victims may not be a right at all.

  • Eidde||

    Anyway, I'm sympathetic for the protesters in Israel whether their deaths are the fault of Israeli "overreaction" (a telling word) or incitement by their Islamist misleaders. Their deaths are still tragic.

  • mtrueman||

    "Anyway, I'm sympathetic for the protesters in Israel"

    Me too. I don't see where this Islamist incitement comes in. They live in Gaza, essentially an open air prison they were confined to through no fault of their own, aside from the fact of not being Jewish. Seems they have plenty reason to protest and don't need incitement.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    " They live in Gaza, essentially an open air prison they were confined to through no fault of their own, aside from the fact of not being Jewish. "

    (Consults map) Oh, look! The Gaza strip has a border with Egypt!

    So, whose idea is it that it be a prison? You can see why Israel wouldn't have an open border with a bunch whose elementary school classes open with chants of "Death to the Jews!", but why don't the Palestinians just walk out by way of Egypt?

  • mtrueman||

    "but why don't the Palestinians just walk out by way of Egypt?"

    You already indicated the answer. Palestinians are not Egyptians. That's why you call them Palestinians.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Gaza borders Egypt as well as Israel, and Egypt has closed its border with Gaza, despite Gaza having been Egyptian territory prior to the '73 war, if memory serves. Nobody wants to deal with Gaza because of Hamas, which was the resident's choice to put in charge.

  • mtrueman||

    Nonsense. Gaza was an open air prison long before Hamas came into existence.

  • mtrueman||

    1) The lack of sympathy for gunned down demonstrators on this board is worth noting, nonetheless.

    2) I don't see any negative consequences for those who gunned down dozens of unarmed protestors. Were any charged, or suffer any consequences?

    3) mtrueman is bad to bore you.

    4) Still no sympathy for gunned down demonstrators? You're undermining your own point.

  • Ken Shultz||

    mtrumen says that those people being gunned down provoked no sympathy, even as he expresses sympathy for them and criticizes those who showed none.

    All of this, of course, for no purpose. It just seems to be out of boredom.

  • mtrueman||

    "All of this, of course, for no purpose. It just seems to be out of boredom."

    The overwhelming sentiment here was that they had it coming. You seem to agree with it, calling them terrorists etc. What makes the transgressions against the rights of this English nationalist so much more worthy of our sympathy?

  • Ken Shultz||

    I only support Israel to the extent that I think doing so is in the best interests of the United States.

    My only contributions to threads on that topic have been to call out those who were saying that Israel was the real victim in that massacre.

    Like your observations regarding my sympathies with the protestors, your observations on what I wrote about how we know our rights exist have little or nothing to do with anything I've actually written.

    If you're not bored, I sure am.

    zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

  • mtrueman||

    "My only contributions to threads on that topic have been to call out those who were saying that Israel was the real victim in that massacre."

    I have to admit I'm surprised. We seem to be the only two on the board who would argue that.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I would check the validity of the term "Demonstrating". I have read assertions that the "Demonstrating" involved throwing rocks and Molotov cocktails. Now that may be propaganda....but it is entirely in line with the behavior of Palestinian 'protesters' in the past.

    The Israeli's claim that 26 of the 32 shot were know to have close ties with terrorist organizations. Again, may be propaganda, but totally in line with previous Palestinian behavior.

    Call me a grouch, but 'Protesting' is something done without violence and gratuitous destruction of property. A mob that employs violence is not 'protesting' it is rioting. There are justifications for rioting, but let's call things what they are.

  • mtrueman||

    "Again, may be propaganda"

    Of course it's propaganda. You don't really need me to point that out, do you? And this massacre seems unprecedented. I don't remember mass gunning down of unarmed protestors, so it can't be said to be in line with previous behaviour.

    "Call me a grouch, but 'Protesting' is something done without violence and gratuitous destruction of property."

    This is my point. People have the right to protest without being shot to death by security forces.

  • Don't look at me.||

    Is violence an acceptable part of protesting?

  • mtrueman||

    "Is violence an acceptable part of protesting?"

    Is surgery an acceptable part of health care? Unless you're a pacifist, depends, doesn't it?

  • Nardz||

    You're a joke.
    60/100,000 were killed (50 of which were claimed by Hamas), and of the 1,000 injured the vast majority of wounds were to the legs.
    Propaganda? All you trueman.
    On the other hand, I'd have 0 sympathy if you are brutally killed.
    There it is - You're welcome for the gift of feeding your narcissistic and malicious self-righteousness.
    Bye.

  • Nardz||

    And, lest I neglect to add, Israeli soldiers have a right to defend themselves, their border, and their families behind that border against a murderous mob storming that border - even if that mob only has rudimentary weapons.

  • mtrueman||

    Read the press reports. Even those from the Israeli press. They make no mention of a murderous mob, indeed, they make no mention of a single Israeli being injured, let alone murdered. They report that some 60 unarmed demonstrators were gunned down by Israeli security forces.

  • mtrueman||

    "You're welcome for the gift of feeding your narcissistic and malicious self-righteousness."

    As long as I'm not boring you. Carry on, dear reader.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    But they don't have a right to assault troops with lethal force, and rock and molotov cocktails are potentially lethal.

    Now, the Palestinians may have turned a new leaf and gone non-violent....but I doubt it.

  • mtrueman||

    "But they don't have a right to assault troops with lethal force, and rock and molotov cocktails are potentially lethal."

    Of course they do. All in a day's work for those resisting military occupation.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Yeah, no sympathy. You say "demonstrating", I say "armed invasion with human shields".

    I mean, Hamas. Even knowing nothing but that Hamas was involved, the latter becomes more likely than the former.

    But, of course, we know plenty.

  • mtrueman||

    "You say "demonstrating", I say "armed invasion with human shields".

    I'm just using the words I read in the press. Including Israeli press. Whose words are you using? You really think Israel was invaded? There wasn't even a single Israeli injury that resulted from this armed invasion of yours.

  • ThanksForTheFish||

    What websites have you been reading? Stormfront?

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's a bigger story outside the U.S., I'm sure, but I'm seeing it in the mainstream news.

    I already linked to The Independent.

    Here it is in the Daily Mail:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....rrest.html

    Neither of them are Stormfront, but the injustice is the same no matter the source covering it.

    The fact that our First Amendment makes us different than others in the English speaking world and the fact that we we don't generally jail deplorable people for political advocacy because of that would be the same regardless of where I read about it, too.

    Oh, and the fact that violating deplorable people's rights has consistent and negative consequences in the real world would be the same no matter where I read about this story.

    In fact, you bringing up stormfront doesn't have any relevance to anything I wrote--far as I can tell.

  • mtrueman||

    "What websites have you been reading? Stormfront?"

    Not many. Aside from a few mainstream Reuters etc, I checked out a couple of Israeli reports like Haaretz to get some of their perspective. I'm not really familiar with Stormfront, but I gather it's more of a propaganda outfit than a news reporting site. I wouldn't recommend it.

  • damikesc||

    50 of 62 were Hamas terrorists.

    Well, according to Hamas.

    So a single dozen. And, well, when you intentionally dress to look like civilians, their deaths on your head.

  • mtrueman||

    "your head."

    My head? I try to make it a point to dress like a terrorist!

  • buybuydandavis||

    "described by its enemies as something like halfway between National Front skinheads and common football hooligans. "

    Everyone to the right of Mao is described as a Nazi.

    The Mittens and Ryan ticket wants to "put ya'll back in chains".

    When I hear "far-right" from European reporters, I translate as "Europeans who might give a damn about freedom". Works nine times out of ten.

  • damikesc||

    Nothing says "The government is the good guys here" like imprisoning a man for speech and banning the press from covering it.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    Heck, it wasn't even speech. As I understand it, he was just standing there taking a video with his phone.

  • Longtobefree||

    "This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

    While you mind may be free, we are damn sure going to limit your mouth. It's not like Jefferson really wanted freedom or anything - - - - -
    Now that reason is no longer free, the truth can be limited all we want, and all of our errors can be tolerated. So shut up an deal.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    Yeah, don't do this. Don't throw away fundamental liberties because a few assholes abused them.

  • chemjeff radical individualist||

    And, "illimitable"? Really? It is such an awkward word.

  • AndArmorU/W||

    That is the beauty of it.

  • Let freedom ring||

    REASON says that Heather Heyer was murdered...the driver of the car was arrested, but there has not yet been a trail. Reason, like the Red Queen, believes in "verdict first, then the trial."
    There is a good chance he will be convicted, because Charletsville is a white liberal stronghold, even if the death was not murder by Virginia law that allows for the right to drive from a dangerous situation, even if someone is struck.
    Both the ACLU and independent investigation has charged the local government and police of conspiring to push the right wingers and Antifa together in order to produce clashes and stop the demonstration as an "unlawful assembly".
    Alt right journalist Faith Goldy lost her official job for her video reporting on the incident, but whatever you think of her views, her You Tube is gripping. She was also booted from Patreon recently, purportedly for saying white people have aright to protect their heritage for their children.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "White people have a right to exist."

    Obviously a Nazi.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    A Memorial Day Tribute to Our Fallen

    (One day in 2004)

    Mr President, the sectarian violence in Iraq is far worse than I thought it would be when I, err "we", decided to conquer the region. Sunnis and Shia' are fighting for dominance in the Muslim world and the absence of Saddam has made the situation worse.

    43 - YOU MEAN THEY IS TWO KINDS OF MUSLIMS?

    Yes, Mr President. But don't worry. We have four years to win. The American people are behind you. Luckily, we convinced them that Saddam Hussein attacked us on 9/11. Our puppet was elected and soon that Hydrocarbon Law will be signed and we will own all that sweet crude oil.

    43 - Okay. You're the expert Cheney. Just make sure sir.

    Cut to 2008.

    43 - Cheney, we have lost 4500 of our best soldiers and we still ain't got that oil! Now it looks like the Saudi/Jew/US alliance will have to take out Iran to git 'r done!

    Mr President, things look bad now. That socialist Obama has been elected. We have a plan to run the clock out on him and get Bolton and our guys back in office. You know, someone who wants to take that oil back for us!

    43 - Well, goddammit Cheney. I trusted you. And now my approval rating is only 22%.

    Don't worry Mr President, The American people have lousy memories. Those 4500 dead soldiers will soon be forgotten and the GOP will rise again.

  • MarkLastname||

    You seemed to forget about the tens of thousands who died in Vietnam and learned to love Lyndon Johnson's policies pretty easily.

    You're obsession with being as much of a partisan shill as possible is I guess a breath of fresh air; most people try to conceal their vices.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I can't think of two worse Presidents than LBJ and Dubya and Vietnam was a painful tragedy.

    I am not partisan in the least since I hate progressives as much as I do conservatives. It just SEEMS like it to a GOPer like yourself.

  • my sour cream turned sourer||

    "I am not partisan in the least since I hate progressives"

    As someone who watched you defend them, and continue to blame everything on the GOP during Obama's presidency, I can confidently say that you aren't going to convince anyone of this. You can claim whatever you like, your behavior belies your statements.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    I have defended Obama only. And for doing classic liberal things.

    Like cutting taxes, reducing the trillion dollar deficit the GOP left him to half that, getting the fuck out of Iraq, cutting spending in the sequester, and setting up a non-nuke agreement with Iran.

    His record is far more classic liberal than the Bushpigs or Dotard.

  • my sour cream turned sourer||

    Your problem is that after watching you play partisan shill for 8 years, you can't memory hole your behavior.

    You can claim whatever you like. It really doesn't carry any weight anymore.

  • SusanM||

  • Napoleon Bonaparte||

  • SusanM||

    I think the ironically festive arrangement puts Country Joe in the lead.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The only reason this is an issue us because the university professors encourage mob violence against alternative viewpoints. Do they really think that it's not possible to win a war of ideas against skinheads without resorting to using violence to make them shut up?

  • Eidde||

    They think the racist protesters are simply part of the white racist resurgence in the Age of Trump. Racism is everywhere and must be fought everywhere.

    (Racism before Trump was caused by hatred of Obama, now it's Trump dog-whistling to them)

    /sarc

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    The White Nationalist movement of Trump/Bannon/Breitbart is sketchy to say the least.

  • my sour cream turned sourer||

    I'll care when you spend as much time shouting about all the other races first organizations like La Raza. I'm sure you'll minimize their impact, because you're ignorant and don't live anywhere near where such groups are active.

    Your racist slip is showing hon.

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    How am I a racist?

    I have been called a racist other places for my intense hatred of Islam but I hate all religion.

  • my sour cream turned sourer||

    "How am I a racist?"

    Read my post again until you understand it. I was pretty clear.

    Maybe get someone smarter to read it to you?

  • Palin's Buttplug||

    So you have nothing.

  • my sour cream turned sourer||

    So you don't understand the very simple language in my post.

  • Ecoli||

    PB, I will admit up front that I know almost nothing about Bannon or Breitbart, and not much about Trump except that he is our president.

    Can you give me a link that shows any of the three advocating for white nationalism?

  • Brett Bellmore||

    The accusation is usually based on Breitbart not censoring comment threads. Since the left routinely censor comment threads to exclude any viewpoints they disagree with, they interpret not censoring a viewpoint as proof of agreeing with it.

  • XenoZooValentine||

    I recall some people have questioned the "Jews will not replace us!" quote. Someone said they're chanting "You will not replace us!" in the video and someone captioned it wrong, either purely by accident or to spice up the narrative.

  • my sour cream turned sourer||

    This is such a tiresome story for exactly this reason. None of the people reporting it can be trusted to deliver the facts without some sort of partisan dostortion.

  • Ecoli||

    Yes. Indeed. I don't trust the media at all. The left media is the worst of the lot.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    According to the BBC, , it was "You" will not replace us.

    Sure sounds like "you" to me.

  • MasterThief||

    An interesting point. I certainly don't trust the media to report these things honestly. Still, my memory tells me that when I heard unedited clips the crowd did alternate between saying "you" and "Jews." Is my memory corrupted by the coverage, my own biases, or both?

  • XenoZooValentine||

    Off topic, but is it just me or did the comment system get even worse when I wasn't looking? If the Kochopus was really destroying our democracy with briefcases full of dirty money, you'd think they could afford to replace that squirrel-powered 486 in the basement.

  • buybuydandavis||

    I'm surprised they still allow comments.

    Most people here hate New Reason, and let them know about it daily.

  • MasterThief||

    I just started reading Reason in the latter part of the 2016 campaign. Even then there were a decent number of articles clearly advocating ideas from a libertarian perspective. After the election it has taken a hard turn into TDS and frequent pandering to the left regardless of how far off their actions are from libertarian principles. Honestly, aside from a few writers and occasional articles it seems like most of the writers view things from the perspective of sjw's and leftists. Being a right leaning libertarian means that all too often they barely represent my views and frequently have different moral imperatives and conclusions. Not trying to make a no true scotsman argument, but judging from the comments and my own reading, Reason has been abandoning libertarianism.

  • Brett Bellmore||

    I gather that a while back they fell for the "liberalitarian alliance" ploy, somehow not realizing that the left doesn't do alliances, only takeovers.

  • ThomasD||

    Previously they were willing to espouse high ideals while politely losing on the ground. Now that Obama has been replaced by Trump everything is tooth and nail down in the trenches.

  • Ecoli||

    As Trump correctly said: "There were bad people on both sides" in Charlottesville.

  • mtrueman||

    How would he know? My guess is it's his idea of sounding presidential.

  • Ecoli||

    The video clearly shows it, for one.

  • wreckinball||

    You mean the Antifa folks with feces bombs and baseball bats were not necessarily peaceful
    I'm shocked

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    I think Rolling Stone should do an in-depth article on the state of free speech at UVA.

    /ducks

  • wreckinball||

    WTF
    The White Supremists have won what?
    The right to free speech like everyone else. No kidding
    Jesus H Christ Reason is a gigantic dope fest.

  • wreckinball||

    WTF
    The White Supremists have won what?
    The right to free speech like everyone else. No kidding
    Jesus H Christ Reason is a gigantic dope fest.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "The next day, demonstrations by more white supremacists at Lee Park in Charlottesville led to violent clashes with counterprotesters and the murder of Heather Heyer."

    Note The Narrative.

    White supremacists on one side, counterprotestors on the other.

    Name one side with the worst individuals within it, and refuse to identify anyone on the other side, except by saying that they are "counterprotestors".

    Antifa is international Marxist terrorism.

    In Reason's shiny new Progressitarian utopia, Marxists, who murdered 100 million people in the 20th Century, are "counterprotestors" of white supremacists.

    Yay Marxism!

  • damikesc||

    Also, nothing about the police basically funneling the nationalists straight into a confrontation with the antifa in order to justify shutting it all down.

  • d_remington||

    This is bullshit. If the white supremists had won they'd be able to go onto any campus they wanted and deliver their message while remaining unmolested by security and antifa. They're not.

    The left won their battle against free speech by the right, and I think it's time that reason of all places stopped fucking covering for them.

  • buybuydandavis||

    Reason is the Left now

    Except in the Comments section

  • Brett Bellmore||

    If this is the white supremacists "winning", I suppose ultimate triumph would involve the white supremacists being publicly executed?

  • simplybe||

    A University is supposed to be place of education. No one needs to be on campus that is not enrolled there. Any student that disrupts school classes be they right or left politically should be expelled. Most people go to college to learn and pay dearly for that privilege. If they are there to act like a whiney babies then send them home to suck on their mommies tit. Why should college be any different than High School, because you would be expelled for such behavior.

  • Leslie the Bard||

    I suspect that UVa has learned to be more fearful of Antifa than of any bunch of supposed "alt-right" sad-sacks -- and their host of professional provocateurs. Are you aware that Jason Kessler used to work for "Occupy"?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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