So Delighted to See So Much Interesting and Important Commentary from My Colleagues Here


I just wanted to tip my metaphorical hat to my cobloggers who have been posting such interesting things about the Capitol riot and its direct and indirect fallout. They don't all agree with each other (or with me), but that's part of the point.

My own expertise is of course limited, and as a result I've only had things to say about a few matters. But I'm very glad that they've opined, based on their knowledge, about so many other things that our readers (and I) want to read about—and I'm delighted that I've had the opportunity to provide them with this platform.

NEXT: A Simple Way for Republicans to Keep Impeachment from Exacerbating Conflict and Disunity

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Still able to say that, for now.

    Tomorrow maybe some tech companies decide to shut you down.

    1. There are lots of ISPs on which a blog can be hosted. So long as you own the domain name, it is not difficult to move from one company’s servers to another’s. This blog is on, which as far as I know has not bee removing sites it considers politically unpalatable.

      1. Google can block it in Chrome. And Comcast and others can block it or fix it so DNS doesn’t work for the domain for half the US.

        But I bet Rackspace would deplatform it if pressured the right way.

        1. I use and Mocha text when I must.

          1. Then 0.001 percent of the current readers will have access to it that way. Great plan.

            Geeky workarounds are bad.

        2. Does Chrome block anything? Does Comcast? They should have lists they publish if so.

          1. Does Amazon AWS breach their contracts and kick companies off their service with no notice?

            And yes, Chrome blocks lots of stuff for “security” reasons. No idea about Comcast. Being put on a “list” of blocked sites is hardly a remedy.

  2. Perhaps a post regarding the world leaders and their response to Twitter’s censorship, and why they find it troublesome?

  3. Since none of those who post on this Forum have advocated for the violent overthrow of the United States government we don’t think this site will be shut down. And freedom of speech, as has often been pointed out here, includes the right of private parties to engage, sponsor or support the speech of their choice. The question is not about how or why tech is shutting down seditious speech, the question is what took them so long.

    But what Prof. Volokh has said here is absolutely correct. The discussion over whether or not Trump’s speech is protected and for that reason he cannot be impeached for it (it’s not protected and even if it was he can be impeached and convicted for it) was really a high point of the current debate. It was rational, measured, unemotional and instructive.

    1. The n word has been quoted in posts here. Might get shut down, might not.


        This movement conservative
        blog has operated for
        TWELVE (12) DAYS
        without gratuitous use
        of a vile racial slur and
        627 DAYS
        without engaging in partisan,
        viewpoint-driven censorship.

  4. After the lathering of misfits who engaged in insurrection, with blood still fresh on the hands . . . if the first two words from a Republican are not ‘I’m sorry,’ or ‘I apologize,’ why should decent people care much about what follows?

    1. “why should decent people care much about what follows?”

      Because they are decent people. And decent people care.

      1. “Decent for me, not for thee”

    2. If you think that was a coup AK watch some videos of actual ones. This was nothing more than a singular event of civil disobedience and seeing how bat shit crazy the left has become over it, the event was extremely effective.

      1. A failed coup is still a coup

        1. Poe’s Law?

          I suspect you really mean it.

    3. On another topic, don’t you admire the restraint which kept last years protests mostly peaceful?

    4. Kirkland, are you aware of what actually happened at the Boston “Massacre” instead of what Hancock & Revere spun it into?

    5. I’m sorry, but fuck you Artie.

      Did I do that right?

      1. “Did I do that right?”

        By Volokh Conspiracy standards, yes. You didn’t use forbidden terms such as ‘c-p succ-r’ or ‘sl_ck-j-wed’ to describe conservatives. The vulgar insult you used will not be construed as a “vulgar insult” with respect to Volokh Conspiracy civility standards by the Volokh Conspiracy Board of Censors because you are a conservative. You didn’t make fun of conservatives.

        You’ll be fine.

        1. And yet you keep coming back. Again and again and again.

  5. Professor V,

    If impeachment happens, would you all consider writing about the state of late impeachment pre-1787? I’ve read Brian Kalt’s law review article on it, which seems to be the most thorough. But maybe there’s more to it, I don’t know. Given the likelihood of some challenge to the legality of late-impeachment of a POTUS, I would find it interesting.


    1. “If impeachment happens, would you all consider writing about the state of late impeachment pre-1787?”

      That would be difficult, given that the first attempt at impeaching a President at any point in his term didn’t happen until 1868.

      1. Forgive my imprecision. By “state of late impeachment pre-1787”, I mean all impeachment under the common law. Kalt’s law review article (early 2000s) notes various examples of late impeachment in England and the American colonies/states, from the inception of impeachment up until the ratification of the US Constitution. Since the framers understanding of impeachment surely was influenced by this common law background, I am curious to know if anyone has expanded on Kalt’s analysis.

  6. I agree. Reading this blog has been educational and on-the-ball, but especially the past few days.

    The comments, not so much. I hate to say this, because I like commenting here, but you should kill the comment section. It’s just hatred and uninformed, tin-foil potshots, mostly directed at the VC’ers, not the other commenters.

    1. The way to improve this blog would be to diversify the contributors, not to kill the comments.

    2. Thank goodness Prof. Volokh recognizes the best medicine for speech you don’t care for is more speech. I’ll be tickled pink if we emerge from this recent debacle with that principle generally back in place, and I’d strongly suggest you think twice before jumping on the current suppression bandwagon.

    3. It’s not just that the commenters are frequently uninformed, it’s that so many of them lie. For example, some of the more frequent commenters continue to insist — without any evidence whatsoever — that the election was rigged and that Trump won. That’s bordering on insane. There is a simple reason why Trump lost so badly: millions and millions of people hate him for the kind of man he is and what he’s done to the country. Too bad commenters can’t be given just one shot to get it right. If someone says ballot boxes were stuffed with pre-printed Biden ballots in West Chicken Coop County, and fails to present evidence after being challenged to do so, perhaps that person could be blocked — at least for that thread. Facts, thoughtful opinions, and well-reasoned arguments should always be welcome; lies should be condemned by everyone.

      1. Would you extend the same demand for proof to social justice issues? Prove racism exists.

        By the standards that the BLM movement is held to, there is overwhelming proof the election was rigged.

          1. Seriously? You’re citing Joel B. Pollack to support your feeble whataboutist argument? That’s the best you could come up with? You’d have more credibility if you’d simply said “So’s your mother.”

            1. So, no comments about the allegations or sources? No rebuttals of the actual claims? You’re going straight to the ad hominem? I haven’t read the article and don’t think I’ve ever heard of Pollack but even I know that’s not a credible rebuttal to Dr Ed.

          2. Well, I wasted a few minutes reading that drivel.

            Apparently he thinks the election was unfair because more Democrats than Republicans voted, and because the media pointed out the simple fact that Trump spews lies at record rates.

            Fucking ridiculous.

        1. Do you realize how silly you are?

          Let me translate what you said.

          “By the standards of Mickey Mouse, we’re Donald Duck. ”

          Here’s a clue. THEY’RE BOTH FICTIONAL CARTOON CHARACTERS. Real mice and ducks don’t talk and don’t wear pants.

          1. ? Donald doesn’t wear pants either.

            1. To clarify for the horrified: I meant Donald Duck, not Donald Trump.

    4. Interesting comment considering that an awful lot of the hatred and uninformed, tin-foil potshots (great turn of phrase, by the way) come from a commenter called captcrisis.

      The saying about glass houses comes to mind.

  7. Why don’t you criticize twitter outright for censoring da prez … like Merkel did. Your blog will become homeless shortly, comrade!

    1. What is Merkel’s view other than that it is problematic? Comments by her spokeman, Steffen Seibert, indicate a clear misunderstanding of the relationships between private companies and the governement in the U.S.

      1. Think about that a little more — she may understand it better than you.

      2. Yes, her view is that only the State gets to censor, not private companies. Hardly a comfort.

  8. “So delighted to see so much interesting and important commentary from my colleagues here”

    Funny, Gene, funny! You’re a funny man! But not as funny as this one:

    “True, it’s not Jan. 20 yet. But my prediction is that (setting aside the surface matters related to the epidemic) it will be a Jan. 20 of an inauguration year much like any other.”

    For sheer pusillanimity, that one still takes the cake. Funny! Funny! So keep ’em comin’!

  9. The posts are all Deep State advocacy, and anti-populist. The Democrat Party is the party of the lawyer and of big government.

    1. And you think that the VC contributors are Democrats?

      1. They are agents of the billioinaire owner, Koch. The deep state has won, and they scored $trillion in 2020, likely $2 trillion in 2021. The rest of us will be empoverished by the same amount. The worst suffering will be in the Democrat constituencies, people who keep voting for their mortal enemies because of media propaganda.

  10. “and I’m delighted that I’ve had the opportunity to provide them with this platform.”

    I like you you ended your post by turning it back on you, and giving yourself a pat on the back. You managed to give a Donald Trump style compliment.

    1. Thank you for using this platform to post 0.00000000000001% of online comments about topic, thus making it the premier spot to do so.

  11. Its the capitol Peaceful Protests. Only a tiny minority actually engaged in fisticuffs and of the dead I believe the majority were protestors who were killed by the police with one exception.

  12. Prof Volokh — it’s been over 50 years since the trial of the “Chicago 7” and most of us only know of it as history and anecdotes we may have been told.

    With the FBI having arrested 160 people and charging ALL of them with sedition (10 year felony), I think this is going to blow up into more of a political mess than I think the Chicago 7 trial was.

    The other thing that bothers me is that there is talk of defining speech — saying that the election was rigged — as a form of terrorism. In theory, SCOTUS would throw out such a law…

  13. While I agree that your cobloggers have much to say, I am less sanguine about the content. The endlessly repetitive NeverTrumpers are just boring. And when they step out of their areas of expertise (‘does the law allow X’) and into general punditry, it actually hurts their respective reputations, though I fear they do not yet see it.

    Thank you for giving them (and us) the platform. I do wish, however, that one or two of them (and us) would be a little more judicious about how they use it.

  14. I do appreciate the platform and enjoy reading all points of view — so, thank you!

    I also appreciate “foreign” journalism, particularly in these times when mainstream domestic “journalism” suffers from bias. It is both humbling and gratifying to (for example) hear those in the Ukraine comparing the 2014 (UA) and 2020 (US) election cycles, to see cartoons in underground Chinese newspapers show Biden literally limping onto the world stage barely able to lift his hand in oath, to watch video showing a “universally popular unifying leader” protected by a well-armed army, et c.

  15. As a Republican and Trump supporter, it delights me as well, because it makes the Democrats look buffoons obsessed with the destruction of their bête noir even after he has left the stage, It also distracts them from the destructive legislation they would otherwise be working on.

    It reminds one of the Cadaver Synod. In the year 897. Pope Stephen VI had the cadaver of former Pope Formosus, dead some seven months, exhumed and put on trial, where the deceased pontiff, propped up on a witness stand, was accused of perjury and lying to fraudulently assume the papacy. Formosus’ cadaver was found guilty, and his papacy declared a nullity retroactively.

  16. Your colleagues are stark-raving, barking at the moon insane.

Please to post comments