The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

Free Speech

UW Administrator Says Prof Created "Toxic Environment" with His Land Non-Acknowledgment

The Director of the UW School of Computer Science & Engineering said Prof. Stuart Reges's statement is "not relevant to the content of the course he teaches"—but the school encourages professors to include its own preferred view, which is just as irrelevant to the course content.


The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education reports:

If professors at the University of Washington want to include a statement of land acknowledgment on their syllabi, they must parrot the administration's viewpoint or shut up.

It has become increasingly common in academia to promote statements that formally recognize indigenous ties to the land occupied by a university, but the UW Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering encourages professors to include a land acknowledgement on their syllabi at the expense of their First Amendment rights.

Professor Stuart Reges learned this the hard way when a land acknowledgement on his syllabus was censored by administrators because it didn't match a university-approved statement. Today, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education called on UW to ensure that faculty, if they choose to address this topic in their syllabi, can use the university's statement or craft their own.

"UW pays lip service to inclusivity, but censorship is incompatible with inclusivity," said FIRE Program Officer Zach Greenberg, who wrote today's letter to UW. "UW needs to re-evaluate its list of 'best practices for inclusive courses' in light of its tolerance for viewpoint discrimination."

On the list, the Allen School includes an "Indigenous Land Acknowledgement" statement. The list notes that the provided statement is "an example," suggesting that the university intends it to be a starting point that can be adapted, not a rigid take-it-or-leave-it statement. The fact that the statement could be adapted seemed clear—until a professor wrote one that administrators didn't like.

On Dec. 8, Reges criticized land acknowledgment statements in an email to faculty and included a modified statement he put in his syllabus: "I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington." Reges's statement was a nod to Locke's philosophical theory that property rights are established by improving land.

"I decided to see whether it was acceptable to present an alternate viewpoint," said Reges. "Obviously their version of diversity does not include conservative viewpoints."

Almost a month later, on Jan. 4, Allen School Director and Professor Magdalena Balazinska ordered Reges to remove his modified statement from his syllabus immediately, labeling it as "inappropriate" and "offensive," creating "a toxic environment in [Reges'] course." Reges refused and criticized the department's inconsistency in allowing other professors to include modified statements that are less critical of the pre-approved version.

In response, Balazinska countered that she "will ask any instructor who uses a land acknowledgment other than the UW land acknowledgment to remove or replace it," meaning the only position professors' syllabi can take on this issue is the one preapproved by the Allen School.

Balazinska also claimed that Reges' land acknowledgment statement is "causing a disruption to instruction" (UW has not specified what that "disruption" is) and "is not related to the course content," and informed Reges that she unilaterally removed the language from his syllabus. Balazinska then emailed Reges's class apologizing because his syllabus allegedly "contained an offensive statement under the heading of 'Indigenous Land Acknowledgment.'"

As a public institution bound by the First Amendment, UW must uphold its professors' free speech and cannot discriminate against them based on viewpoint. UW is free to encourage its faculty to include land acknowledgment statements in their syllabi, and even to suggest examples, but it may not mandate that they either use only approved statements or remain silent on the issue.

I also e-mailed Prof. Balazinska to ask about a local story on the subject, and got this response:

The University of Washington is committed to providing an inclusive and equitable learning environment. The statement Stuart Reges included in his syllabus was inappropriate, offensive and not relevant to the content of the course he teaches. The invocation of Locke's labor theory of property dehumanizes and demeans Indigenous people and is contrary to the long-standing relationship and respect the UW has with and for the Coast Salish peoples and the federally recognized tribes within the state of Washington.

The Allen School and the UW reserve the right to amend academic materials in this way, as the syllabus for an intro to computer programming course is not the appropriate place or manner for a debate about land acknowledgements. Reges' statement, in fact, is not a land acknowledgement—and neither the UW nor the Allen School require a land acknowledgement to be included in a course syllabus. It first came to our attention due to student complaints and has already created a significant disruption to the academic purpose of the course.

Reges can and has expressed personal views with which the Allen School and the UW profoundly disagree on other platforms. However, a syllabus is not the appropriate place to express personal views unrelated to the course he is teaching.

My question in response, as you might gather, was:

I take it that his point was that the University's preferred land acknowledgment, which I understand professors are encouraged to include on their syllabuses, was not relevant to the content of the course he teaches, either.  Or am I mistaken on this?

Prof. Balazinska in turn responded:

The UW land acknowledgement is encouraged—again, not required—as a recognition of tribal sovereignty and stewardship of the land on which our campus sits. An instructor can opt to include the land acknowledgement or not. However, the course syllabus is not the appropriate place or manner in which to have a debate about or mock land acknowledgments and Indigenous people.

Here's my thinking: I agree that professors generally shouldn't include ideological messages in their syllabuses or other class materials that are unrelated to the subject matter. How people should react to the history of conquest is an interesting question, whether it's conquest in the Americas or in Europe or in the Middle East or anywhere else on a planet where most land has changed hands many times over the centuries. (I'm looking at you, Israel, Poland, Turkey, Alsace, Spain, Kosovo, East Prussia, Belgium, and too many other places to list.) But it's not something that I think belongs in computer science classes, or for that matter in my First Amendment class.

But once the university decides to encourage (even if not require) faculty to inject such matters into their syllabuses, it loses its ability to credibly fault faculty's rival statements as being supposedly "not relevant to the content of the course he teaches." Indeed, when it does so, it shows that it's interested in indoctrination, not education—that it thinks a syllabus is an "appropriate place" in which to push one side of the issue, but not an "appropriate place" "in which to have a debate" in which the other side of the issue can be presented. (And of course while Locke's theory of property is just one of many plausible theories, and indeed not the one that we usually think of when it comes to sovereignty claims, there's nothing "dehumanizing" about it or about its application to American Indian tribes.)

I don't include land acknowledgments in my syllabus, nor do I argue against them in my syllabus. Again, I do think that syllabuses aren't a place for ideological messages unrelated to the class topic. But the University of Washington obviously does think they are a place for ideological messages unrelated to the class topic—if they are ideological messages the University likes.

NEXT: The Eviction "Tsunami" that Wasn't

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. Growing up property rights and ownership were portrayed as "this land is my land, it is not your land, I got a shotgun, and you ain't got one...."

    1. Universities are finished. Just teach engineering, physical sciences (at the PhD level as BS degrees in physics and chemistry are pretty worthless), computer science and business (maybe economics but only austrian school not the pedo keynes). Every other major should be shut down (I'm not including paraprofessional degrees like nursing). Fire most administrators and cut tuition 80%..universities are breeding grounds for communists and cultural marxists.

      For the most part modern universities are a waste of resources.

      1. Education-disdaining, on-the-spectrum clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        Do you ever get tired of losing?

      2. "BS degrees in physics and chemistry are pretty worthless"
        A worthless comment based on total ignorance

      3. Universities should be able to offer courses in whatever they want, but I see no reason to provide Federal money in the form of grants or student aid to fields that have no prospect in leading to gainful employment.

        Let labor and job market statistics be the guide as to how limited resources be divvied up.

        So fine, you want to major in the Basketweaving of One Armed Eskimos, that's fine with me, just don't expect the taxpayers to finance or subsidize you.

        1. When universities existed largely to supply clergy, the uselessness of the degree was never in question then either. It is the growth of the managerial/professional class that depends most on the university credential in future employment.

    2. Then there is the Society of Creative Anachronisms version. The final verse is: “This land is my land, and you can’t have it. Get off of my land, and on to your land. I have a broad sword, I have a crossbow. This land belongs to only me.” And then the chorus, “This land is my land. This land is my land. This land is my land. This land is my land. From over here, to over there. This land belongs to only me.”

  2. It may seem odd that Prof. Volokh (and the Volokh Conspiracy in general) never criticizes the everyday censorship and dogma enforcement that is a signature element of conservative-controlled campuses in America . . . until one considers the perspective of a whining, disaffected, partisan, culture war casualty and right-wing cheap-shot artist.

    1. Religious institutions generally acknowledge that at least part of their mission involves promoting a particular belief system. Most secular universities do not (and *public* universities are not permitted to).

      1. Wrong. Strong schools tend to value inclusiveness, modernity, reason, tolerance . . . and they say so, and they are entitled to, and it aggravates the clingers fiercely. So conservatives claim that superstition-based values are trump while disregarding the values of the modern, triumphant liberal-libertarian mainstream.

        Don't like it? Tough.

        1. There you go again with the conclusory list of abstract terms...but alas to the other half of society, it's *your* side that often fails to be inclusive, tolerant, reasonable, etc.

          I'll grant the the prof in this particular case was basically trolling, but the underlying *viewpoint* (even if not the manner of expression) is eminently reasonable and well-deserving of tolerance/inclusiveness.

          And again, you keep assuming that those on your ideological side would not be religious (or "superstitious"). Many religious people - and several religious institutions - happen to be on your side politically.

    2. It takes a special kind of bias to believe that the majority of academia is a bastion of right wing conservatives. A bias only capable of being evidenced by a bigotry and intolerance honed by years of being a political hack in " Filthadelphia ". I experienced the most overt bigotry in my years working and living in S. Jersey/ Filthadelphia. Worse than I experienced in the South.

      1. It's not a majority. It's a couple of hundred downscale (fourth tier, or unranked) conservative schools with nondescript faculties, mediocre students, and unaccomplished alumni that impose strenuous censorship, teach nonsense, mock academic freedom, enforce conduct codes, suppress science and warp history to flatter superstition and dogma, and collect loyalty oaths and statements of faith.

        Those are the conservative-controlled schools that get an undeserved pass from FIRE and the Volokh Conspiracy, for shabby partisan reasons.

        1. I went to Georgia was a great school based on merit only (and a damn hard place to get a degree from)..then it went woke..opened up all these "wooly" majors...all for equity of outcomes to make the champagne socialists who ran the school feel good about themselves. Same at most universities today..they have become shitholes of left wing diversity and stupidity

          1. It's not just Georgia Tech. All of America is in decline.

            Uppity blacks, lippy women, the gays running around like they own the place, Muslims and Asians everywhere . . . it is nearly impossible for a regular White guy from the heartland to get the respect he and his traditional values deserve these days. The churches and the traditional towns are emptying,

            They're making it easier for people to vote, harder for people to find a school that doesn't brainwash the children with anti-American revisionist history and militant secularism. The Bible's creation account and prayer left the schools a long time ago, and next they'll take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, because the fact that was good enough for George Washington isn't good enough for these woke people.

            The saddest part, Titus, is that guys like you arranged all of this by getting your asses kicked by the liberal-libertarian mainstream for 50 or 60 years.

        2. They get a pass because (a) the First Amendment doesn't apply, and (b) they're usually clear about what you're getting into, and aren't promising robust free speech for students and then breaking that promise.

          1. Strong schools often indicate they value inclusiveness, tolerance, modernity, reason, science, progress, the reality-based world, and other values -- and when they act in congruence with that position, at the expense of conservatives' intolerance, superstition, dogma, and backwardness, right-wingers at FIRE and the Volokh Conspiracy start whining selectively and hypocritically.

        3. Your bigotry knows no bounds.

      2. Where in South Jersey, may I ask?

        1. Mt. Laurl, Cherry Hill, Camden, Woodbury

      3. "conservative-controlled campuses"

        All five or six of them?

  3. I wonder why none of these noble institutions never offer to give these stolen lands back?

    1. Because they don't truly believe that the lands are stolen.

      1. About a year ago when this was an issue at Princeton, I made that exact same point. Here, a public institution, may or may not have the independent authority to sell/donate land, but surely a private institution like Princeton can do so. If they really believe that the college are nothing more than colonial occupiers with no legitimate claim to that land surely the only moral and ethical thing to do is give it back (and maybe try to rent it from the real owners after doing so). Funny how the regressives tend to stop at that point though....

        1. Hell..time to give Manhattan Island back...please do it...and don't stop there..DC...put the white folks in NYC on a reservation after they have been moved to some piece of worthless land like the Cherokee. Time has come for the colonialists to suffer like the natives did

          1. It is basically what the liberals who populate that island have been asking for all these years. So let's give it to them.

    2. Give back to whom? The Neanderthals? The Clovis? The various non-hominid life that existed before ancient human precursors?

      This game of indigeneity is fouled by the fact that humans have not existed very long in North America. When they did arrive, they used up resources and migrated around.

      A very strong case can be made that none of the land in North America was sovereign until the Europeans arrived and taught the concept of sovereignty to the humans who preceded them. So none of the land statements make sense.

      It’s just woke bullshit to romanticize the uncivilized natives as being in harmony with the land. They weren’t. The land was never theirs.

      1. And funny how their origin stories are sacrosanct and holy land is to be respected - but others, not so much.

    3. Because virtue signaling costs nothing. That's the point. If they actually had to give up something, they would suddenly forget what they are saying.

  4. Did any indigenous nations believe in individual ownership of the land? All nations had their own creation beliefs and that included where they gods had made a place for them. They not only defended their own places, they would take control of other nation's land if they could.

    Should the professor have included this acknowledgement and have pointed out that the white culture was just better at acquiring territory?

    1. My understanding is that they certainly knew who had planted what crops where, but nomadic tribes did not recognize any long-term "ownership" beyond occupancy.

      There's a book, "Comanche Empire", about the Comanches from 1700 to 1850, more or less. I got the distinct impression that modern technology had buffaloed their philosophy, pardon the pun. Nomadic people can live pretty easily with the idea of community property, limiting personal property to clothes and such. If a hunter kills a buffalo, it makes no sense for him to keep it to himself; he cannot preserve it, and with no pack animals larger than dogs, even preservation would be useless to mobile people. It was more moral to take from hoarders than to recognize private property in perishable goods.

      Then the Spanish brought along horses and the associated increase in mobility. If that was all, it might not have mattered much, but the Spanish also brought technological goods, such as firearms, textiles, pots and pans, and the Comanche morality was ill-equipped to deal with goods which could only be produced by settlements and private property far beyond clothes -- factories, mines, merchants. The Comanche mindset was still hung up on sharing regardless of ownership. When the Spanish did not like what the Comanche offered in trade, the Comanche attacked, stole, and kidnapped, all perfectly proper by their still-nomadic mindset.

      Yet the Comanche did have farms, and did settle down for weeks or months to process hides and harvests, and it was not clear to me if this was only after horses made it possible to cart around heavy materials. The book says there were 10 horses for every Comanche, and that's a huge change from nothing but a few dogs.

      Unfortunately for the Comanche, the expanding Americans squeezed them out. I often wondered how their nomadic sharing morality would have changed if they another century or two to adjust.

      The book also implied that its nomadic morality only applied to Plains Indians, that most Indians east of the Mississippi did have real settlements with real farms and clear property boundaries, but not enough to say how much was tribal boundaries and how much was individual. They did know who had planted which crops, but not whether farm boundaries were assigned by tribal leaders, whether they persisted over years and generations, whether land ownership could be transferred, or other property matters.

      And this one book is pretty much the limit of my knowledge on Indian property customs. I may have gotten entirely lopsided views of it.

      1. I always shake my head whenever I see a map of some area of America showing every inch of it covered by some tribe's supposed "territory". It really shows an ignorance of tribal history.

      2. On the other hand, nations like the Iroquois, Aztec, and multiple Mayan Nations were truly nations like we recognize them today, with defended borders, ruling counsels, and organized armies. You can't just treat American Indians like they are unified in any way, shape, or form. It's the same as saying Arabs and Koreans the same since they are both on Asia.

  5. Is this instructor a professor? The college newspaper identifies him as a lecturer. But that publication may employ editors, so . . .

    1. Lecturers, clinical professors, teaching professors, and all other non-tenure-track faculty are protected by the first amendment when teaching at public universities.

      1. Indeed, but administrators can tell them to stick to their knitting over classroom speech that is not germane to the course being taught. (To be sure, they should use some common sense. Although a Dean could legally tell a professor at the City College of New York to stop spending 30 seconds every class to bemoan the state of the New York Giants, it would be a dumb idea.) That the school insists on a message of its own doesn't change that.

        1. IDK. If a school creates a limited public forum for professors to express their views about a particular topic on the syllabus, they can't censor viewpoints about that topic.

          1. If they do, that's fine. But they don't. What would a "limited public forum" on a syllabus even look like?

            1. I suppose it would look like a policy that says that teachers can express their personal views on a particular topic on their syllabi.

              1. OK. If you find one in the wild, please take a picture of it and send it to me.

        2. So as far as I can tell, public university faculty are in a murky gray area with the first amendment. It definitely applies in a meaningful way, but not when it interferes with the educational function of the institution...

          So yes, spending significant amounts of class time to discuss something irrelevant would probably not be protected speech. Using language that's deemed to be "discriminatory" or attacking" people is tricky, though...because on the one hand that would indeed interfere with everyone getting equal access to an education but on the other hand today's left/progressives argue that *everything* they disagree with rises to that level...

          I think that's what the 6th Circuit was getting at with the Meriwhether case....essentially if it's a matter of *controversy* (i.e., no social consensus), then public universities may not treat it as if it's some universal principle of basic decency or the like...

        3. I could forgive bemoaning about the NY Giants. They really did suck last year, and Daniel Jones needs some serious work.

          1. Agreed. Almost the whole point of this season was to find out if Daniel Jones was the guy or not. If we knew he was, we'd know what to do; if we knew he wasn't, we'd know what to do. Now, after a full season, we still don't know.

  6. How much are we paying admins to bicker about this shit? Sounds like the UW could use some budget cuts and some cardboard boxes.

    Kids are borrowing money to spend it on this, and then demanding that their loans be forgiven.

    1. The university established a policy. The clinger bickered to signal his lack of virtue.

      1. So if they established a policy that Blacks could not be admitted, that'd be okay?

        1. If that occurs it won't be a public or mainstream school that establishes such a bigoted policy. It will be a conservative-controlled, throwback yahoo factory.

          1. As much as I tend to dislike your posts, RAK, "throwback yahoo factory" is a tremendous turn of phrase!

      2. "The university established a policy. The clinger bickered to signal his lack of virtue."

        The professor followed to policy.

        The clinger is the one who is bitterly clinging to some ancient claim of land ownership. The clinger is a she, Arthur.

  7. "I agree that professors generally shouldn't include ideological messages in their syllabuses or other class materials that are unrelated to the subject matter.... But once the university decides to encourage (even if not require) faculty to inject such matters into their syllabuses, it loses its ability to credibly fault faculty's rival statements..."


    1. The Moties, in The Mote in God's Eye, were engineering supergeniuses. They could almost cobble together a heart lung machine from junk to save a severed head.

      But they were silent. The political class, however, blabbered heavily.

      Just do your magic, inventing stuff for us, but otherwise shut up and don't get in our way.

      Stop putting up with that BS.

  8. Ask the Tierra del Fuegans about land policy...and who stole what from whom.

  9. It seems like arguments against land acknowledgements come in various forms:

    Those who agree that the land was essentially stolen, but regard the gesture as empty/performative; or

    Those who don't agree, due to:

    Labor theory of property or related principles requiring actual occupancy commensurate with the breadth of asserted ownership (analogous to adverse possession, etc); or

    History-based arguments, such as the notion that much of the land in question was actually purchased and/or that the record of ownership isn't clear...

    1. I think some of the land was essentially stolen¹, and for other areas of the land the issues are far murkier, and in either case, the gesture is empty/performative.

      ¹Though that doesn't necessarily mean it was stolen from its "rightful owners"; just because Tribe X possessed the land when European settlers got there doesn't mean Tribe X didn't steal it from Tribe Y a year or two before that.

    2. Something that isn’t owned can be taken from people, but not "stolen" from those people.

  10. We spent $5 trillion slaughtering Muslims on the other side of the world and per capita spent $40k per Afghani during that asinine war. For around $1 trillion we could give every descendant of American slaves and every Native American between the ages of 30-50 a $40k lump sum and give those younger $10k upon getting a certain number of Social Security credits along with free college and those older would get $10k and an extra $200/month SS from ages 62-72.

    1. You're awfully free with other people's taxes.

      1. Yep, Trump paid $10 billion reparations to white coal miners in West Virginia and you voted for him. You also voted for Bush so he could flush $5 trillion slaughtering Muslims. I want to use dollars to decrease crime and increase GDP growth which makes America stronger unlike the dollars you spent slaughtering hundreds of thousands of Muslims while creating a Muslim girls robot team.

        1. I see your knowledge of economics matches your knowledge of my voting record.

          1. We just did a haphazard helicopter drop which is how we got inflation. Advocating reparations pretty much makes one sound like a racist but statistics are what they are—descendants of American slaves simply aren’t that successful and the vast majority have very little in savings and work in low wage jobs and their birth rate os relatively high. So they are the very people one would target for a helicopter drop that wouldn’t lead to inflation but it would lead to some temporarily dropping out of the labor force. Btw, I opposed the 2021 helicopter drop and said it would lead to inflation because I saw what happened with never ending unemployment insurance benefits in Obama’s first term. I literally got blocked on a liberal Keynesian blog for predicting what would happen in 2021 several years ago.

            1. "So they are the very people one would target for a helicopter drop that wouldn’t lead to inflation"

              I can't for the life of me think of any reason to suppose a "helicopter drop" of money to any group that wouldn't predictably just bank it and not spend it, wouldn't be inflationary.

              If anything, the reason most of the 'stimulus' of the last decade wasn't causing more inflation, was that it was aimed at the wealthy, who tended not to spend it. So, while it boosted income inequality, it at least wasn't inflationary. It also wasn't stimulatory, but, what the heck, it was just a payoff to cronies, not monetary policy, so why would you expect it to efficiently stimulate the economy?

              We didn't start getting major inflation until they started targeting the money drops at lower income groups who actually WOULD spend the money.

      2. Actually those numbers (and along the same lines for descendants of slaves) would be a deal I could go for as a taxpayer....if they were part of a settlement .

        A settlement wouldn't bar discussion of history, and it wouldn't bar legal claims for new specific acts of discrimination after the date of the deal. But it would bar legal claims based on the idea that current disparities were caused by acts before the date of the deal. Because that would be exactly what we were paying to settle.

        1. But there's no chance of that. If there's one thing history has taught, it's that if you pay the Danegeld, you're never rid of the Dane.

          And that's all reparations demands are: Danegeld.

    2. And in 20 years they would be claiming it wasn't enough

      1. Just like some Whites, after hundreds of years of undeserved privilege and passes, still claim it isn't enough.

        The conservatives, mostly.

    3. SC,
      That would not be a bad idea IF all other preferential treatment programs, all DEi etc. were eliminated at the same time.Fix the problem for once and for all.

    4. Why not just send them all to the moon and pay them nothing? Or does your morality only work in the direction of hurting people?

  11. If they truly believe the land belongs to someone else they should pick up stakes and GTFO right now. Acknowledging and continuing your theft is way more offensive than if you didn't believe it occurred in the first place.

    1. They don’t. If it means anything, it means America? Yuck!. But even that is much more thoughtful and considered.

  12. Quite to the contrary, Locke’s “theory of property” is essentially about deprecating land-claims disfavored by White European Christians, and has long been invoked (and programmed into our textbooks) to erase the history of indigenous peoples in the Americas (that is, prior to our continent-spanning genocide).

    Reges’s statement was essentially no different from saying, “from the perspective of those who killed and subjugated them, the Coast Salish people had no legitimate claim to the land that we, its current occupants, need to worry about acknowledging,” His position isn’t “conservative”; it’s just ignorant, to the extent there’s a difference between the two.

    1. There has to be some system more detailed than the vague 'white man belong here colored man belong there and by the way we're totally nonracist' theory of property rights implied whenever hippies talk about this subject, to determine what is who's property. Whats your solution?

      North America in particular was quite depopulated by the time of European settlement. If the indians own empty unused land by virtue of being the closest or having crossed there a few times does Neil Armstrong own the Moon? Does Mexico have a greater claim to antarctica than britain?

      The make up of precolumbian America at the onset of European colonization was almost certainly the result of a series of invasions, genocides, and displacements of which the European one was another step in the series. What about the peoples displaced or genocided 1 step or 3 or 30 steps before the ones displaced by the Europeans? What about the property rights of all the other peoples outside and inside the US whose property rights were violated before and after the age of European colonization?

      What makes the ones displaced by Europeans in land now occupied by the US...many not even by the US so special?

      1. There has to be some system more detailed than the vague 'white man belong here colored man belong there and by the way we're totally nonracist' theory of property rights implied whenever hippies talk about this subject, to determine what is who's property. Whats your solution?

        This begs the question entirely: "What are the rules that determine whether I get to force you off the land I claim to be mine?"

        Imagine a scenario where an extraterrestrial species came to our solar system. Finding us to be no threat or of any particular interest, they set about mining the asteroid belt and various moons throughout the system, including our own.

        Now, maybe some consortium of Terran governments gets together and says to themselves: Hey, those are ours! We don't have the technology to exploit those resources fully yet, but we may in the future! How do we convince ET of our claim? How do we dispute ET's apparently claim of right?

        ET may have an entirely alien theory of "property." We might try to fashion some claim based on proximity, exploration, etc. But why would they have any reason to respect our philosophical framework? Why would they be subject to it, and not us, to theirs? We might say, "Your technological superiority does not entitle you to these resources," and they might just thumb their "noses" at our in ability to follow their higher form of reasoning.

        Having a theory of property may provide some guidance when fashioning a legal system to which people are bound. It provides no particular justification in a "clash of cultures" situation where neither side has any particular a priori claim to a superior framework for settling disputes.

        North America in particular was quite depopulated by the time of European settlement.

        This is part of the American mythos, but there is little basis for making this claim. Unless you mean, "it was quite depopulated after the first post-Columbian colonizers started killing them off through violence and disease."

        The make up of precolumbian America at the onset of European colonization was almost certainly the result of a series of invasions, genocides, and displacements of which the European one was another step in the series.

        Certainly, we have every reason to believe that precolumbian societies engaged in their own atrocities. I don't subscribe to the "noble savage" myth. We might even suppose that their conquerors had a tendency of vindicating their claims over their victims with false history and self-serving philosophical/religious claims, as you do.

    2. See my comment below. I think the Coast Salish would do pretty well under a labor theory of land, if one accepts an environmentalists’ view of what constitutes “improvement.”

  13. "Locke’s 'theory of property' is essentially about..."

    By acknowledging that it's Locke's, you acknowledge its legitimacy.

    You get to disagree with Lockean property theory. You don't get to de-legitimize it (i.e., dismissing as "ignorant" vs. "conservative," when its literally quintessentially the latter). Legitimacy is not decided by those who disagree with something. Otherwise every time any of us feels strongly against something we would simply whip out that handy-dandy power...

  14. Leftist theology strikes again. You will be made to agree. Boot, meet face. Forever.

    1. I for one fully support Progs giving back everything they've stolen with interest to deserving Indians. But I have a sneaking suspicion 'we must make amends' means 'you must make amends'.

      1. How about we give them back the truly valuable land in America—the Hamptons and Martha’s Vineyard and Malibu. I would say give them the Permian Basin but they don’t believe in burning fossil fuels so Texas and its ugly land and hot and humid weather is worthless to them. Austin and DFW and Phoenix and Florida are the hottest real estate markets and the land was basically worthless 100 years ago and Oklahoma is equal to that land.

    2. The only way white men can get ahead in Ameriduh is chop their balls off or convert to Islam—all praise to Allah!!

  15. "We admit this land really ought to be given back to the [fill in the blank] nation, but it won't be, we're keeping it, put that in your peace pipe and smoke it, suckers."

  16. "...Again, I do think that syllabuses aren't a place for ideological messages unrelated to the class topic...."

    Is that the right term for more than one syllabus? I would have guessed "syllabi." [I mention it because the version you used looks like a clever portmanteau . . . syllabus merged with "abuses," which seems totally on point, what with the school and this a**hole professor both abusing the proper (IMO) use of a syllabus.]

    1. Lewis & Short has syllabus as a second declension noun, which would indeed make syllabi correct.

      1. If one is speaking or writing in Latin, sure.

    2. "...what with the school and this a**hole professor both abusing the proper (IMO) use of a syllabus.]"

      Why blame the professor instead of the incompetent administration? If you encourage "Land acknowledgement statements" on syllabi, you are literally begging for this kind of stuff. Encouraging discourse around irrelevant topics that can derail actual study, and the participating in the derailment, is about as incompetent as it gets.

  17. It’s the most retrograde, emotional, and insubstantial of all the progressive nonsense.

    Do people have ancestrally-transferred, racial ownership rights to land? Or are these statements 100% emotion, and not intended to have any actual literal meaning?

    Answer: they haven’t thought about it. It’s really more of a greeting among comrades than anything else.

    1. Well, inheritance is a thing isn’t it? Isn’t that “ancestrally transfered”? Isn’t the idea that property rights pass through families a form of “racial ownership rights?”

      I mean, why in the world should you have any claim to land just because of something your parents did,m? That’s 100% emotion, not intended to have any actual literal meaning, right?

      1. Inheritance is a direct transfer between specific individuals. Land acknowledgments aren’t about individuals.

        Try going anywhere in the world at any time and saying your great grandfather owned some land once so you should own it now. Everyone, everywhere, at every time in history would tell you to pound sand. Even if the people still there are your distant cousins.

        And the land acknowledgments don’t mean that anyway. They don’t care about who was related to whom. They group by race and language and shared culture. They hand-wave at ownership to throw out an anti-American barb. It’s progressives saying Let’s go Brandon.

        Inheritance and the reasons for it are an entirely different, unrelated topic. And I try not to get sidetracked by irrelevant stuff.

  18. Land Acknowledgment: ownership of land isn’t conveyed or bound by racial or ancestral membership. Races don't own land. Land not owned by a race was not, and could not be, stolen from a race.

    1. thats actually a good point. If Chief A 'owned' the land and you give it to Chief B who Chief A may have hated or had absolutely no meaningful relation with just because he is indian isn't that the essence of racism?

      If a white guy dies with no heirs how would UW feel if his estate was purposely kept from benefiting nonwhites and distributed to another random white guy living in his area?

  19. It’s not really relevant to the dispute. But an environmentalist might take the view that Western settlement has tended to deteriorate rather than improve the land, giving the indigenous people who managed to keep it in more considerably better and more stable condition (environmentally speaking) a greater rather than a lesser claim under a labor theory of land use.

    1. You're in for a rude awakening if you think the historical Indians were anything like the kumbaya in tune with nature hippies Holyweird has brainwashed people into thinking they were. You know America used to have lions and tigers and giant amadillos and sloths running around in a landscape a bit different from what the Europeans found. If fracking and cars had been around i doubt it would take much convincing for them to adapt it just like they adapted many other conveniences like horses and guns. Holdouts would probably be more from tradition rather than innate reverence for nature like a 21st century environmentalist.

      1. While it’s true humans replaced the previous apex predator niche, that’s a relatively minor reworking that didn’t have much effect on the fitness of land for long-term human use.

        The issue isn’t “kumbaya environmentalism.” The issue is hard-nosed sustainability. Malthusianism, the idea that unchecked growth leads to starvation and life at the edge of poverty following a temporary and unsustainable period of bogus apparent prosperity, has never been regarded as a kumbaya doctrine.

        1. It wasn't minor at all. Entire guilds of animals perished and plants as well. The extinctions in america were much more severe than their counterparts elsewhere through the globe to the point that you could say the indians caused the Jared Diamond handicap of no horses or suitable livestock. For the indians themselves theres little reason to believe they wouldn't eventually industrialize and pave over their forests once they got the opportunity. They're humans not brown colored pixies after all.

        2. The North American natives were savages who were nomadic because they destroyed resources wherever they went. Had their population been larger, they would’ve gone extinct before Europeans ever showed up.

          1. I'm sure it gives you a thrill to say as racist things as you can think of, but it really doesn't do anything to advance your 'side' of the argument; all it does is discredit it.

            (I am assuming you're being sincere rather than that you're a leftist trying to make conservatives look bad.)

            1. A bunch of references in this piece. Pre-Colombian North America was a savage, brutal place occupied by migratory, savage natives.

              There’s good reason that early settlers had to live within fortified arrangements.


    2. That would typical of environmentalists to say. Land is more fit for more people than it was before. Environmentalists aren’t really, generally in favor of people and place a rather low value on us.

      1. No, in general densely settled, highly worked land is less fit for people than sparsely settled land. The “fitness” you’re describing isn’t a long-term proposition. Land always yields more this year if you overplant and overfertilize, just as it does if you eat the seed corn. But the higher-yield bonus is temporary.

        1. Anyone can compare present day productivity, lifespans and living standards to any time in the past and see that you are clearly wrong.

          1. How about current reproductive rates? A species that doesn't reproduce is headed towards extinction.

            Cities have been population sinks throughout all of recorded history: People moved to them for various advantages, but the people living there never had enough kids to replace themselves. This is pretty horrifying at this point, your average city dweller has a lower reproductive rate than people used to have in the middle of war zones or during horrifying epidemics like the Black Death.

            Statistics say that rural life expectancies are lower than urban, but the worst life expectancies are found in densely populated city centers; Life expectancy peaks in the suburbs, where you have relatively good access to medical care and fast response emergency services, but the population density isn't oppressively high.

            1. The cultural environment is worse for people. The physical environment is better.

    3. If you measure good land use as the average health, wealth, and longevity of the folks living on it, current use is vastly better.

      Proper use isn't camping on it, nor feeling gloaty, looking on trees out of your picture window of your $7 million mansion.

  20. This whole thing is silly and none of this belongs in course syllabi. People need to get a life.

    1. I believe the liberal-libertarian mainstream should continue to decide what occurs at our strongest research and teaching institutions and that conservatives should continue to decide what occurs on our fourth-tier, censorship-shackled, nonsense-teaching campuses.

      Clingers such as FIRE and Prof. Volokh should be entitled to continue to nip at their betters' ankles, too.

      1. We liberal-libertarians just gained ascendancy in a several hundred year process of reason and pushing freedom.

        You seem to think that, once having won, all the evils misused are now fair game to pick up and swing around, like censorship and orthodoxy enforcement.

        A quick look at China shows those in the US who make that side strong, media, Hollywood, corporations, loudmouth sports stars, buckle and kneel in a game of Censorship for Dollars.

        So your belief in solidity is not justified. Society can collapse back easily. You seem to want that somehow?

      2. You often refer to your position as "liberal-libertarian," yet most people who call themselves that tend to be far more supportive of free/open discourse and the principle of viewpoint/values neutrality in our public institutions.

        You more often seem to espouse a rather prescriptive approach, with coercion and vilification for large portions of society. Historically that's been how religious zealots behave, to the general dismay of classical liberals and libertarians...

    2. Who started it? Progressives. Felt like they needed yet another way to put down America.

  21. I wonder who had the land before the Coast Salish people took it off them ?

  22. Is the syllabus statement government speech, as in the specialty license plates at issue in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, or private speech in a limited public forum? The answer would seem to be outcome determinative since the free speech clause does not apply to government speech. Rather than debate ideological priors, why not address that question?

  23. "The invocation of [John] Locke's labor theory of property dehumanizes and demeans Indigenous people..."
    "PragerU videos...deny the humanity of many groups...: people of color, women, LGBTQ members." (source)
    As Prof. Volokh says, it's all about shutting down rival views / ideas, avoiding an open debate where all sides of an issue can be presented, making sure that ideological messages you like are the only ones heard / seen.

  24. A view from a very long time ago - - - - -
    13 “In this Year of Jubilee, each of you will return to his property. 14 If you make a sale to your neighbor or a purchase from him, do not cheat one another. 15 You are to make the purchase from your neighbor based on the number of years since the last Jubilee. He is to sell to you based on the number of remaining harvest years. 16 You are to increase its price in proportion to a greater amount of years, and decrease its price in proportion to a lesser amount of years, because what he is selling to you is a number of harvests. 17 You are not to cheat one another, but fear your God, for I am Yahweh your God.

  25. For the most part, Whites have owned the land longer than the Indian tribe they displaced. North America underwent immense Indian migrations during the 18th and esp first half of the 19th Centuries, which means that very often the tribe displaced had only had the land for maybe a century. In MT, the inland Salish controlled the area around where we live in MT as late as the 1820s, but then got pushed out by the Blackfoot, who had been pushed over the Continental Divide by the Sioux. And they were able to do that only due to a population explosion resulting from horses (ultimately from the Spanish) greatly expanding their ability to hunt and follow herds, esp of Bison. White men gave them the horses that allowed a nomadic lifestyle, following bison herds, and then we took it away by killing most of the bison.

  26. The weird thing about this is it isn't even real, actual guilt that is driving these strange apologies and acknowledgments, the guilt itself is just in name only. It's a fake apology for a fake crime for which they feel a fake sense of guilt.

    The way you know it's fake is because it doesn't actually change anything. It's not like they're going to give the land back, or even pay rent on it. It's just words.

  27. "The UW land acknowledgement is encouraged—again, not required—as a recognition of tribal sovereignty and stewardship of the land on which our campus sits."

    Riiight. I'm surprised you didn't take issue with this whopper. Like they'd really have ignored it if he'd blown them off. "Best practices" are often optional only in a "you don't have to remain employed here" sense.

    1. What does a Land Acknowledgement Statement have to do with a course on Engineering or Computer Science?

      How can it be "related to the course content"?

      1. That was part of the guy's objection to being pressured to include one.

  28. If everyone includes one in their syllabus, it will quickly turn into meaningless background noise.
    Bury it in a page of administrative boilerplate.

  29. Reges is an idiot. Or autistic. He lacks EQ and sounds perfect for a computer science professor.

    You can’t cite a white philosopher to justify white colonialism and expect to be taken seriously. Hey! You aren’t using it so now it’s mine!

    What’s next? A Reason editorial in favor of eminent domain?

    1. Obviously right, it was totally unfair of us to take by force land from tribes that had taken it by force from tribes that had taken it by force, going all the way back to the guys who first made it to North America in pre-history.

  30. Maybe I missed it....

    Is Professor Reges tenured?
    Did any UW professor decline to include the land statement?

    We can debate the germaneness of a land statement in a CompSci class....but is the university really wrong in saying that an employee cannot take employer materials and use them in a manner to bring ridicule to the employer? I mean, some might see that as crass insubordination.

  31. Balazinska is Polish, so she can't blame her actions on her ancestors.

    She voluntarily came to the land of the Coastal Salish and lives and works on their stolen land. Shame, shame.

  32. Interestingly, I've never seen any Indians requesting this. It's always rich white people leading the charge for including these sorts of statements. Mostly, Indians just want to be left alone to live their life and just want to not be mocked or insulted in pop culture. Those who are activists want actions, not meaningless gestures.

    So, why are they pushing for this? Who is this for?

  33. One day last year my pastor started a sermon with one of these, saying the church (and his house) were on stolen land. Later I asked him if he was planning on deeding the church over to whatever tribe he had named. He gave me the typical reasons for including the land acknowledgement. I paraphrased it back to him: "The church is on stolen land but we ain't gonna give it back." He has not made another land acknowledgement, at least not while he could see me in a pew.

  34. Eugene Volokh proves that he puts "Free Speech" above the value of human life, even if the actions that involve speech are malicious, threatening, and should be illegal and no excused just because they involve "speech."

    The guy's a pure sadist who wants to see people's lives get ruined and likely takes pleasure in it. You can see it in his eyes. He has no sense of civility or concern about impacts to victims.

    This human being is dangerous.

    Eugene Volokh lacks any empathy for anyone but himself.

    Another example of how Eugene Volokh takes sadistic pleasure in seeing people's lives be ruined under the guise of "Free Speech."

    Eugene Volokh is a sadistic, unethical liar of the highest order.

    He gets paid by Google so that's why he's purposely ignores the pain to victims of online harassment, cyberstalking, and related crimes. He doesn't care because he gets richer if laws are not passed to make Google remove harmful material. But these laws are necessary because otherwise victims have no recourse, and criminals are having a field day online. Eugene helps criminals and lines his own pockets with money.

    People on this forum who support Eugene Volokh are nothing but domestic terrorists who support using "speech" that is part of criminal conduct to justify online harms. America is screwed if people don't have the civility to agree that things like online harassment, cyberstalking, doxing are malicious and illegal. It means the people in this country have totally lost it and have no value of decency whatsoever. Free Speech is being weaponized to hurt the fabric of society and people are drunk on it.

    Eugene Volokh is a sadistic piece of shit for trying to harm the US social fabric and leave victims of heinous online crimes with no recourse.

    If you look through these forums, many others have called out Eugene's hypocritical analysis. The sadistic guy (Volokh) seems to take extreme pleasure in people getting their lives destroyed by harassers online and coming out and defending the harassers while leaving the victims to hang. He takes pleasure when people lose their jobs and livelihoods over doxing. He takes pleasure when plaintiffs cannot file suits using a pseudonym even when they are doing so to protect being re-victimized by the court system. He does not ever talk about how malicious the perpetrators are - they use VPN to hide their own privacy while purposefully, intentionally trying to destroy the lives of innocent victims. He never talks about whether it's fair or not for perpetrators to be able to hide behind "Free Speech" while all the friction to justice in the legal system fall on innocent victims. He never talks about how Section 230 has enabled intermediaries to contribute to the abuse by not removing harmful content in time. He never talks about the suicides that come with cyberharassment and bullying and how victims cannot ever get away from the tormentors. He doesn't give a shit, that's why he's a psychopath that is dangerous for society.

    Most people who take an absolutist view on the 1A have low empathy for people's sufferings, and are obsessed with defending the rights of a bunch of pervs, assholes, psychos, and low-life criminals of society who do not deserve defending and should be punished (fines or jail or both). Bad people deserve to be punished, but Eugene is advocating to punish the good people instead. Eugene Volokh is a grade A sadistic liar and a borderline psychopath based on his behaviour. He enjoys seeing people in pain and then coming out with his BS "Free Speech" arguments to make victims suffer more. You can see it in his eyes, he loves to destroy people using the "Free Speech" shield.

    Eugene Volokh's approach would give victims of malicious targeted online harassment NO legal recourse, even if their lives have been turned upside down by the malicious stalking or harassment from these individuals, and the speech does not implicate public interests and are purely aimed to harm the victims. For Eugene, Free Speech trumps all - deaths, suicides, victims be damned.

    Volokh has been trying his best to strike down all laws that would criminalize malicious online behavior like doxing, cyberstalking, harassment. This guy is grade-A liar and a psychopath who is harmful for society.

    Volokh purposefully ignores talking about the huge impact to the lives of victims of cyberharassers who target these people for years because the harasser has a mental issue. The reality is that Free Speech should be balanced with safety and appropriate privacy for citizens online, otherwise it's been weaponized by sick and sadistic bastards and criminals, and Eugene is fighting hard for these sadistic bastards and criminals to keep harming people.

    Eugene has never given two shits about the victims of cyber-harassment, never in any of his papers does he even consider the unique nature of the internet and the ability for malicious actors to ruin private individuals who are not in the public eye. Eugene Volokh has opposed laws banning doxing, revenge porn, Section 230 reform, etc... anything that would put more legal responsibility on platforms, ISPs, and intermediaries to make their products safer for people and to balance Free Speech with privacy.

    That's what's wrong with the USA today, it's maniacal focus on Free Speech to the extent of allowing social harms is what will destroy this country. All the countries around the world like EU, UK, Hong Kong, Australia, NZ, Canada, Brazil, Argentina are all passing legislation to criminalize doxing, online stalking, online harassment as it should, as these are crimes against human dignity. Is the right to be "free from harassment" not a fundamental right? Eugene doesn't think so. He fights for criminals to continue harming people online. Eugene is a threat to the American public and to the future of the country. He is basically fighting for America to be lawless online. Why should something be legal online when it is illegal offline?

    Volokh is a dishonest liar and sadistic human being with no ethics or morals. He only cares about superficial "speech", with no understanding (or even effort to understand) the fact that the internet has made it possible for anyone to use "speech" to wreak another's life, with or without justification, and many times, purely out of spite. This is why cases of cyberharassment, doxing, cyberstalking, revenge porn, blackmail are going through the roof, yet Eugene doesn't say a word about this. Has Eugene Volokh ever honestly asked himself, is it fair that the OFFENDERS CAN CONVENIENTLY HIDE BEHIND THE EXCUSE OF FREE SPEECH BUT WRECK HAVOC TO THE EMOTIONAL AND PHYSICAL LIVES OF THEIR VICTIMS? Does Eugene give a damn? This is part of the problem. Free Speech should only be free to the extent your rights don't interfere with those of others to live their lives free from your interference. "Your rights end under my nose".

    Yet Eugene doesn't care about the victims, the people who are harmed by malicious, low-value-add free speech that is solely meant to harm and torment private individuals. He wants every single law that would help victims of these crimes get redress to be cut down, so that criminals can run freely on the internet, and maximize the lethality of revealing victim's private information, doxing them, causing them emotional and social upheaval. The real reason Eugene supports this dangerous view is because it enriches Big Tech like Google, which then give kickbacks behind the scenes to Eugene Volokh. Eugene indirectly makes money from the pain and suffering of victims.

    Eugene Volokh is an emotionless being who doesn't weigh both sides of the arguments. For this robotic, emotionless “lawyer”, it's either Free Speech or nothing. His textualist interpretation of the First Amendment doesn't take into account that the Framers likely never even imagined the advent of the Internet, in which case an overly expansive view of the First Amendment can actually cause social harms because there is no barrier to entry, no cost of publishing cheap, harmful, malicious speech. Combined with Google's search engine, this means any malicious actor can type harmful things about someone, with or without justification, and this has a disproportionately large and negative impact on the victims' life, just for the sake of protecting the speaker's "freedom". But no consideration is made to balance the rights of the speaker against the rights of the victims, including the right of the victim to be free from harassment, free from stalking, privacy rights, freedom from intrusion into their lives. These are also Constitutional Rights (4th Amendment and elsewhere) Eugene ignores all of this and still adheres to his sadistic and dangerous view that it's all about the speaker and the rights of the victims be damned, even if they are bullied to suicide.

    How come Eugene has never addressed the fact that cyber-harassment and cyberstalking hurt and suppress the FREE SPEECH rights of victims? Isn't that a violation of the free speech rights of victims? Not surprisingly, Eugene is completely silent on this. That’s because he has an ulterior motive.
    Eugene Volokh's views are dangerous to the social fabric of America.

    The fact that no one on this forum, including himself, can respond to my points in a rational way shows that Eugene himself knows my arguments to be correct. I've exposed him as a biased, partisan, dishonest mouthpiece of Big Tech (especially Google), not dissimilar to other dishonest organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), who wants to strike down consumer protection laws online to enrich themselves at the expense of protecting Americas. Eugene is a dishonest individual with a hidden agenda to enrich Big Tech. He doesn't care about Free Speech at much as you think, what he cares about is making money by peddling dangerous views. If you notice, all of his views are exactly what Google would like to see, and he has written papers directly funded by Google absolving Google of all platform/ISP liability.

    Prove me wrong Eugene. Your sad and pathetic lack of ability to rationally respond to my points suggests you admit them to be true.

    Prolonged cyber-harassment, multiple instances of doxing, prolonged cyberstalking that can be shown to have malicious intent, will be categorized as "courses of conduct", and not "speech", hence will not receive First Amendment protections. They will be prosecuted for the crimes against individuals that they are, and malicious online stalkers who try to stay in the shadows and destroy innocent victims' lives will be locked up and fined, or both.

    If telephone harassment is illegal in states like California (PC 653m), then why the hell is doxing and online harassment NOT illegal and a crime? Makes zero sense.

    What's your view on this Eugene Volokh? Do you just think the world is better off if cyberstalkers are allowed to run amok and damage the fabric of society?

    Stalkers who use the anonymity of the internet to hide in the shadows, hide behind Free Speech, to try to ruin people's lives, are cowards and scum of the earth.

    The people who actively help these scum to hide from the law and hurt their victims without legal recourse are worse than scum.

    Volokh's interpretation of the 1A is borderless sadistic.
    Under Eugene Volokh’s asinine interpretation of the First Amendment, there would be NO such thing as cyberstalking or cyber-harassment! These crimes would simply not exist in his world. Because these actions are performed with words, Eugene would have the 1A apply to anything that involves words (or by extension, pixels). No course of conduct that involves typing words on a screen would be subject to any civil or criminal liability regardless of content, form, or intention. This mean in Eugene’s warped world, revenge porn, doxing, public disclosure of private fact, privacy violations, even swatting would be perfectly legal, and even encouraged!

    Ludicrously, he argues that these malicious acts are actually “valuable” because they provide value to “at least some people.” That’s a BS argument, because anyone can argue that say doxing material provides value to “someone” – yeah, the doxers and the criminals doing the harassment of course! A person’s credit card can be posted and it would provide value to someone, the thieves. A person’s revenge porn pictures can be posted and it would be obviously valuable to countless shady people on the internet. Eugene’s 1A internet speech test is: as long as the information posted is “of value” to someone, that content doesn’t qualify as harassment! This insanely warped logic is beyond asinine that I wonder how Eugene can say this with a straight face. There is no discussion at all from him on the rights of the victims and their constitutional right to be free from malicious harassment (4th Amendment). Eugene Volokh is borderline sadist who just wants to see people’s lives get wrecked and he takes enjoyment in seeing victims suffer.

    No civilized society would just let victims take the brunt of harassment while online criminals can get away by hiding behind a warped definition of the First Amendment. If the constitution says “Congress shall make no law” then maybe the 1A needs a new interpretation in the age of the internet! Because the current approach is leading to very bad social results and instability when people can just say whatever they want online with no liability. Volokh is insane.

    Eugene Volokh is dangerous to the public safety and to America. This guy is harming victims of cybercrimes. He should be arrested and tried for treason.

Please to post comments