The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Professor Suggests Murder as Alternative to Shouting Down Speakers
An English professor at Wayne State University apparently had an overheated reaction to the fiasco at Stanford Law School. He thought the protesters did not go far enough, and he took to Facebook to say so.
"I think it is far more admirable to kill a racist, homophobic, or transphobic speaker than it is to shout them down,"he began, and he concluded with "The exemplary historical figure in this regard is Sholem Schwarzbard, who assassinated the anti-Semitic butcher Symon Petliura, rather than trying to shout him down. Remember that Schwarzbard was acquitted by a jury, which found his action justified."
The president of Wayne State has now announced that the professor has been suspended and his social media post referred to law enforcement.
The professor's post is almost certainly constitutionally protected as neither a true threat nor an incitement to imminent lawless action. Wayne State, like many universities, has adopted the language American Association of University Professors' 1940 Statement on Academic Freedom. Under that policy, when speaking in public as a citizen a professor should be free from institutional censorship or discipline. Once the police investigation concludes, the professor's suspension should be lifted.
The professor would be well-advised to take a break from social media. Negative partisanship has gotten quite intense in our current environment, and the number of individuals who like to fantasize on social media about the death of their political opponents is truly disturbing.
Now would be a good time for the professor to recall the admonition in the AAUP Statement and the university's policy:
As a person of learning and an educational officer, he/she should remember that the public may judge his/her profession and his/her institution by his/her utterances. Hence he/she should at all times be accurate, should exercise appropriate restraint, should show respect for the opinions of others, and should make every effort to indicate that he/she is not an institutional spokesperson.
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"As a person of learning and an educational officer, he/she should remember that the public may judge his/her profession and his/her institution by his/her utterances. "
I hereby judge his profession by his utterances.
And he's not the only one. Erik Loomis, of URI, has expressed similar sentiments.
nb: "URI" = "University of Rhode Island".
"The president of Wayne State has now announced that the professor has been suspended and his social media post referred to law enforcement."
Sadly, that's the only thing that surprised me here.
Advocacy of murdering Federal judges was NEVER part of the AAUP's definition of Academic Freedom nor anything else -- and this is not protected speech. I don't know what dimension of reality you live in, but in mine, things change when you start advocating murder....
Could the tide actually now be turning"
This is absolutely protected speech.
Unless it is uttered by a Trump supporter. Then it becomes insurrection.
Do you have an example of a Trump supporter who was prosecuted for similar speech?
Doesn't look like a "true threat" to me:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brendan-hunt-guilty-prison-sentence-b1839246.html
'An ardent supporter of Donald Trump who called for the “slaughter” of members of Congress two days after the Capitol riot faces up to 10 years in prison after a jury found him guilty of threatening lawmakers.'
'On 8 January, two days after the assault on the Capitol, Brendan Hunt posted a video titled “KILL YOUR SENATORS: Slaughter them all” to a website popular with the far-right.'
Doesn’t look like a “true threat” to me.
He is quoted saying as much.
Perhaps you are as ignorant of that jurisprudence, as you seem to be of everything else.
Well that's why I don't charge or try or sentence people for crimes, no more than you'd be able to bring charges against the professor.
Here's the "Perfessor's" contact info
Steven Shaviro
DeRoy Professor of English
Wayne State University
Department of English
Suite 9408
5057 Woodward Ave.
Detroit, MI 48202
Phone: (313) 577-5475
Fax: (313) 887-6437
E-Mail: shaviro@shaviro.com
Oh good, Volokh's blog is now facilitating doxing.
But this shouldn't be any surprise - right wingers have been promoting violent social change for decades. Right wingers are shooting up schools and anything else that tickles their resentment.
I get why people are pretending to get the vapors. But expecting your adversaries to play by rules you don't is silly.
So your next trick is repeating St. Ronnie's trick - find a way to ban guns, but only from your opponents.
Doxing? It's from the guy's web site.
"...expecting your adversaries to play by rules you don’t is silly."
Doesn't stop you from expecting it, apparently.
doxing
Copying and pasting information the individual makes public themselves isn't even remotely "doxing".
right wingers have been promoting violent social change
That's a rather odd comment to make in response to a left-winger (actually more than one, as pointed out in a previous comment) advocating mass murder in the name of social change, especially when the post you responded to did no such thing.
Right wingers are shooting up schools
Among other examples, what is the basis for your assumption that the "transgender" nut job who just shot up a school in Nashville is a "right winger"?
And he will be shocked, shocked, when the murderers come through his window at 3AM instead of shouting him down.
He’ll be in his campus office at 3:00 am?
I thought the same thing... 🙂
“On May 25, 1926, Schwarzbard shot and killed the Ukrainian leader Symon Petliura on the streets of Paris…”
So the professor-approved method for rough justice doesn’t require that the target be making a speech at the time. Or be in his office. His bedroom window ought to be just fine.
The post appears to be abstract advocacy of murder rather than a specific threat to kill, and hence is likely not a police matter under First Amendment jurisprudence. Nonetheless, I think that public universities are entitled to ask somewhat more of their professors than merely avoiding conduct for which a state could criminally punish an ordinary citizen. I think abstract advocacy of wholesale murder of federal judges (and political opponents generally) crosses a line that other recent controversies – advocating therapy rather than punishment for pedophiles, presenting a painting of Mohammed in a class lecture, putting on a comedy show dressing in drag, others – don’t even come close to approaching.
In other comments I’ve attempted to distinguish between advocacy of ideas, even highly controversial or wrong-headed ones, and invective. This is invective.
What would you say about a professor who habitually uses vile racial slurs and operates a forum that cultivates an audience teeming with bigots and people itching for a race war?
Do you have someone in mind? Your description seems pretty specific.
I guess the professor is EV and we are the audience teeming with bigots and people itching for a race war.
But Artie hides behind insinuation because doesn’t have the honesty to say it directly.
I. on the other hand, am perfectly happy to identify Artie as a lower form of matter than toilet scum.
I have detailed the publication of vile racial slurs by this blog hundreds of times. I have described the roundly, aggressively bigoted nature of many of this blog’s regular commenters hundreds of times.
The guy short on honesty around here is the guy who claimed the removal of comments, banning of a commenter, and prohibitions on certain words were merely even-handed enforcement of civility standards rather than partisan, hypocritical, viewpoint-driven censorship.
Other than that, great comment!
Thats what happens when you claim some peoples are "Betters" than other peoples.
Some people start launching racial slurs and craving a race war?
Do you have a test to apply, or do you know it when you see it?
A lot of discussion of abortion advocates acts that are criminal since nine months ago. I think abortion is not as bad as murder. Red state lawmakers may disagree.
Abortion is murder.
The judiciary made up the "true threat" doctrine. If they think that more "threats" against judges should be treated seriously, they can always do away with it.
I am confused. I get that you don't like the "true threat" doctrine and want to get rid of it. But then what? Do you want to see the speech currently labeled "true threats" decriminalized? Or do you want to criminalize more speech, beyond what is currently labeled "true threats"?
Nah dude, that's a whole new sentence that I didn't say or imply.
Simply put, I don't have to advocate anything to point out that lawyers/judges are being hoisted on their own petards, laying in the beds they made, reaping what they have sown, etc. and so-on.
Steven Shaviro seems a dumbass whose opinions are worthless*.
His blog seems bland. Maybe this is a cry for help from someone in acute distress. Or maybe he is an unhinged loser.
* Solem Schwarzbard and the jurors who acquitted him seem to have been useless dumbasses, too. Far worse than the pedestrian bigot Kyle Duncan or the fledgling Federalist Society bigots who invited Judge Duncan to a legitimate university.
The "legitimate university" apologized to the judge and suspended the DEI Associate Dean, so I would gather you approved of that if I didn't already know that you are pond scum.
It's a bit suspicous that he argues the students are getting moral validity but strengthening the bigots while making a statement that clearly gives bigots a reason to keep this going and have something genuinely, if abstractly, threatening to point at, thereby strengthening the bigots. Is it really real? Is it trolling?
That's the second one I've seen today. Since there's no limiting principles of progressivism, leftist derangement is also unlimited.
Right wing websites must be out trawling social media for posts old and new they can use to keep the outrage going. And have only come up with two?
"The professor would be well-advised to take a break from social media."
Really, good advice for all of us. Just because you have a platform on which to speak, doesn't mean you should. And it doesn't mean you have anything interesting to say, or that people should be listening to you.
Pay less attention to social media and more attention to your local community. Spend less time crafting perfect comments owning some imaginary opposition and more time helping out with a local charitable organization. You'll feel a lot better about yourself and the world.
Especially good advice for academics though. Because of academic freedom, they often can't be fired (for good reason) no matter how badly they act on Twitter, but they still make their schools and profession look bad when they do this. And LOTS of academics say really wild and offensive stuff on Twitter or get into nasty fights.
Some professors seem to delight in making their schools -- against whose preferences and worldviews they make rebelling a crusade -- look bad.
Better schools are likely to respond by hiring fewer professors who exhibit the characteristics of the selfish, disaffected, conservative misfits.
Earlier today, I provided solid proof the Right’s university woke/DIE/political correctness hysteria is grossly exaggerated. The evidence was this very forum itself. As I noted, there probably isn’t a single campus story nationwide that isn’t scrapped off the daily news and highlighted here with multiple posts. I think we’re up to ten or eleven on the Stanford story alone! That’s damn good efficiency if you look to promote frenzied passion on limited means.
So given this site is the universal sinkhole for every College “woke” story under the sun, it’s kinda amazing how little there is there. Collected together, they don’t amount to a single drop in the ocean of America’s higher education.
So here we find ourselves making hay out of a nobody professor at a less than premium university. We’re reduced to mining people’s Facebook pages for scandal (which I recall as reprehensible coming from the left).
The earlier DIE post was full of flaming takes about “sickness”, “poison” and “infections”. This country’s entire higher education system seen as damaged beyond repair! Well, here’s our proof: Dr. Steven Shaviro of Wayne State University. Kinda makes me wonder what I could prove with MAGA social media posts. Hell, what couldn’t I prove with Rightist comments on this very site !?!
Cool story bro
DEI is bad enough, I'm in no hurry to learn what "DIE" is.
Touché!
As if the scandals that get into the papers weren’t the tip of the iceberg.
His PhD is from Yale,
The last DEI idiocy was at Stanford, not Wayne State.
So it’s idiots all the way down.
No, a scandal is when your foster system allows young people in its care to to be trafficked. These are bun fights, a kerfuffle at worst, the amount of effort that goes into turning them into outrage is prodigious, but there is a willing audience, which helps.
Sorry, pal, just because idiots like you are fine with it doesn't make it OK.
Yes, on a relative scale, my horror at the foster home scandal does make my horror at this seem pretty mild. As opposed to vice versa.
Gotta be kindas sad when your career peaks...at Wayne State University.
And you might not be competent enough to last there.
Perfectly good school. And compared to the Ivies, it's way above. Not sure why you're knocking smaller colleges.
They've got a great Med School, like you'd have a chance to get in.
Oh, it can be much worse.
I learned that at this blog.
Your career apparently peaked when you became a full-time tedious bore pest here, apparently.
Jerry does have those 2 Natties at Penn State (1982/1986)
He was born in '54. Doctorate in '81. Wikipedia doesn't say when he started Professoring, but it seems it's a bit late for him to "not last".
The post may not be criminal and it may be protected by the First Amendment. But, is it unethical or a violation of professional standards?
Hardly matters, once the right wing free speech absolutists found it, he was fucked.
So if right wingers didn't know about it, it didn't happen? What kind of utter lunacy is that?
Which leads us to the tree falling alone in the middle of the forest. Does it make a sound? My solution is this:
1. Define sound as vibrations that, traveling thru a medium like air or water & reaching a sentient creature, causes a neurological reaction in that creature – then, yes, it makes a sound.
2. Define sound as that neurological reaction – no, it doesn’t.
Problem solved……
That may be lunacy but it's nothing to do with anything I said.
What you said had nothing to do with DB's question.
It does indeed matter whether he deserves what the "right wing free speech absolutists" compelled their obedient minions at Wayne State to do to him.
Well hopefully they won't tar and feather him or come into his room at 3am to murder him, they're not THAT beholden to right wing free speech absolutists.
Too bad he won't get what he deserves, to encourage the others to behave better.
You and he are quite alike.
Wayne State U (Detroit — Michigan’s third-largest university) is run by and for right wing free speech absolutists? Who knew?
This sounds almost a deranged as Jussie claiming that Chicago is "MAGA country".
I'm sure all the right wing free speech absolutists are currently writing to both the university and the professor and each other in strong support of his freedom of speech.
Not me.
I am shocked, shocked.
Maybe he shouldn't have celebrated murder then.
Well this is what freedom of speech is for. Let a thousand nutty thoughts be spoken. One in a thousand will bring forth a daffodil.
I find this way less alarming than students and DEI apparatchiks preventing an invited speaker from saying his piece.
Which was nowhere near as alarming as the fuss tried to make it out to be.
I'm not alarmed by the DEI apparatchiks and student stormtroopers, I just want them tarred and feathered and kicked out, along with the higher ups who tolerate their behavior. This is detestation, not alarm.
And that's fine, you hysterical cloud of rage and insecurity.
It’s anyway not what you said. But recognizing your own inconsistencies is not one of your strengths.
Do you have ANY?
I have a sense of proportion, if that's any good.
I *am* alarmed by them -- they are brownshirts and dangerous.
They *would* kill us if they could get away it -- and that's why this guy needs to be fired. Just like a professor who said "kill all n*****s", and you kinda know how that one would end.
Got bigger fish to get alarmed about.
No, the brownshirts are those Proud Boys protesting drag shows. That's literally the sort of thing brownshirts did.
Murderous Marxists have rights, too. But it'd be nice if academia wasn't filled with these guys.
The mere freedom to not be thrown in prison for your speech is a far cry from being able to enjoy a posh government-funded propaganda gig despite your speech.
I find it rather useful when the blood-thirsty psychos are allowed to publicly expose themselves for what they are.
For Professor Shaviro to cite the Sholem Schwarzbard case is absurd. Schwarzbard killed a man who commanded a militia that murdered hundreds of people.
Apparently, Shaviro considers that being a "racist, homophobic, or transphobic" speaker (however Shaviro defines these terms) is equivalent to being a mass murderer. This is unhinged. This shows disrespect for the genocide committed against the Jews of Ukraine during the Ukraine/Soviet war of 1919-1920.
Some form or professional sanction should be imposed.
That's nothing. Above, TwelveInchPianist links to a news story about a different college professor justifying murdering someone based on ... the hat they're wearing:
Being a racist or a gay-basher is not as bad as being a mass murderer. Not nearly.
But it's despicable.
I do not call for sanctions against professors (or others) who are, or who lather, racists, gay-bashers, Islamophobes, antisemites, misogynists, etc.
Bigots have rights, too.
Yes. Bigots have rights. It’s hard to defend laws when they protect people we don’t like …but that is where the law really matters. Otherwise we end up with a system where the most popular person always wins.
You are pretty unpopular here, but I will defend your right to be unpopular
He has a right to be unpopular and I have a right to despise and excoriate him.
What is this verb, "to lather", pond scum? Did you leave off "up"?
For the past few weeks, I’ve been listening to the podcast: The Witch Trials of J.K. Rowling. People accusing Rowling of being a transphobe or a TERF are misguided…if you actually read what she wrote or listen to her speak, she acknowledges the existence of trans people and respects their rights and their dignity. Rowling wants there to be more nuance in how society deals with the inequality and injustice suffered by cis-women as well as by trans-women. Most of the people condemning Rowling have no idea what she has really written or said. They've created a "straw man" (should I write, "straw woman?") regarding Rowling so they can howl with outrage at a villain that really does not exist.
There are some experiences that only a cis-woman can experience: menstrual cycles, pregnancy, miscarriage, abortion, ovarian cancer, and hysterectomy just to name a few. Is it homophobic or transphobic to voice these concerns?
By the way, the podcast is excellent. It explores trans issues and made me aware that there ARE situations where trans women are at special risk.
Shaviro apparently does not want to discuss nuance. He apparently would cheer on someone murdering Rowling. Well, count me out. I am not vengeance. I am not justice. I will not take the law into my own hands and I will condemn anyone who does.
"Most of the people condemning Rowling have no idea what she has really written or said."
That’s a standard pattern of outrage mob leaders. They refer to statements instead of quoting them. Because actually quoting the statements and acting outraged looks either very petty or borderline insane.
We saw it all the time with the Trump-deranged.
Or grb et al on above, on this very thread, on the OK Supreme Courts abortion decision.
She is absolutely a transphobic terf. You can claim to acknowledge the existence and dignity and yadda yadda of trans people with one side of your mouth and be part of a movement to remove their rights and their access to health care and paint them as this terrible danger to women and children with the other. If she wants to distance herself from them, rather than retweeting and praising them, she's welcome to, any time. The Nazis might get mad at her, though.
‘Is it homophobic or transphobic to voice these concerns?’
Well, she’s wrong, trans men also experience them, and for another thing, what concern is she raising, that trans women are causing them?
‘Well, count me out. I am not vengeance. I am not justice. I will not take the law into my own hands and I will condemn anyone who does.’
So much for the 2nd amendment.
When did she advocate denying trans people health care? Her position is that cis-women need certain types of protection and save spaces. You are creating a straw man to knock down. Are trans women vulnerable and at risk? Yes, and Rowling does not deny that.
What angers me is that the trans activists want total freedom to attack, insult, and argue while insisting that the slightest opposition to any of their actions or arguments is out of bounds. That is not the way things work in a healthy, functioning society.
She has been at the forefront of a movement that has set out to systematically demonise trans people and deny them health care and access to public restrooms. That's not 'slight opposition.' That's a hate campaign. If you think trans rights activists have that total freedom, wait till you find out what transphobes do. They pass laws denying tans people access to health care and they ban drag shows.
You are a loon. No one I know of wants to deny men in dresses access to men's rooms.
See? These are Rowling's people.
Not bloody likely. Just because the criticisms of her -- in particular yours -- are insane doesn’t mean that she's RIGHT about anything much.
Doesn't go far enough, amirite?
Critics of the trans extremists are not monolithic. But if you want to treat us as such, then those of us with more open minds will disengage and let the anti trans extremists have their way.
The non extremists could reach agreement and develop sensible policies.
If you're willing to step aside and let the anti-trans extremists have their way, you were never that opposed to them in the first place.
I do not want to stand aside, but people like you give me no choice. People on your side want the freedom to make any statement or argument they want...and then say that everyone must accept these statements or arguments without question. Any attempt to question those statements or arguments is prohibited.
You want us to surrender to the most extreme activists on the pro-Trans side without question. That is tyranny.
If you’re willing to let evil occur just because people opposing the evil are uncivil, then you’re not all that opposed to evil. Even if you find both sides grating, you still have the capacity to make a moral choice about right and wrong. I'm not even sure what the tyranny of pro trans extremism is supposed to be, they're not passing any laws forcing people to be trans.
"She has been at the forefront of a movement that has set out to systematically demonise trans people"
Has she called for murdering them?
"I think it is far more admirable to kill a [tranny]" -- amazing how things change when you change the object of the sentence....
"and deny them health care"
Refusing to slice off healthy body parts is not a denial of medical care -- refusing to treat someone injured in an auto wreck is a denial of medical care...
" and access to public restrooms."
They can use public restrooms, just like anyone else can.
"wait till you find out what transphobes do. They pass laws denying tans people access to health care and they ban drag shows."
No.
True "transphobes" would murder you -- and it has happened.
‘“I think it is far more admirable to kill a [tranny]”’
You’re like a child – it’s amazing how putting new words in a sentence changes the sentence! Shiny!
‘Refusing to slice off healthy body parts is not a denial of medical care’
Your ignorance and lack of empathy have no place in other people’s health care.
‘They can use public restrooms, just like anyone else can. ‘
No, they can’t. Otherwise there wouldn't be an entire movement devoted to stopping them.
‘True “transphobes” would murder you — and it has happened.’
No shit sherlock. Murder you, criminalise you, all the same transphobic family.
Why do you hate women?
"the podcast,,, made me aware that there ARE situations where trans women are at special risk."
Before the podcast you thought guys in dresses were perfectly safe in biker bars?
Guys in the wrong sort of biker gear aren't even safe in biker bars. They have pretty astringent opinions on fashion.
I don't think *anyone* is safe in a Biker bar, and that sane people don't go there.
That there are other “special risks” doesn’t mean that a guy in a dress hasn’t got a special risk all his own.
Yes, transphobia is everywhere.
It may well be protected speech (that is, not prosecutable) but I fail to see how this is academic speech. Freedom of speech in an academic setting is the freedom to be an academic - to say things freely that are relevant to your expertise and field of study. Advocating for the murder of one's political opponents might be a valid issue for a Political Sciences professor or maybe even a Sociologist. But how is this relevant to the study of English? Why, precisely, should this hate-filled rant be protected under the principles of academic freedom?
It is no more protected speech to call for the murder of a Federal Judge than to call for the murder of the President, and I believe the latter is a Federal Offense. 18 U.S. Code § 871 if I'm not mistaken.
I'm kind of on the fence about this whole "tenure" thing.
There are very good arguments for it. On the other hand, generally private ordering is best and parties such as educational institutions and faculty members should be able to make whatever agreements they see fit in this regard.
The real problem is the federal government shoveling trillions of dollars to academia, mostly disguised in the form of "loans." That should all just be stopped cold turkey, and then let the rest sort itself out.
You're giving the Volokh Conspirators heart palpitations. How long would most of them last at strong schools without tenure?
How long would most academics in general last without trillions of dollars in government funding?
How long would
Military
Fire Departments
Police Departments
FAA
Congress
Courts
in general last without trillions of dollars in government funding?
Which of these is different than the others?:
Military
Fire Departments
Police Departments
Cribs for useless tax-sucking “academics”
FAA
Congress
Courts
The military. Massive, corrupt, obscene waste of money.
Still upset they wouldn't take you (Homo)?? Hey, who else was gonna pay for my daughter's flight training (I paid for it up to their Instrument card, bookoo dinero) or my Medical training? My Med School Tuition was $7,500/year, that was real $$$ in 1983
Is this one of those fake biographies you chatbots like to generate?
Apedad -- over HALF of all fire departments are unpaid volunteer departments, as is most rural EMS.
When Justice Roberts fell and injured himself on Hupper's Island (his vacation home) it was the St. George Volunteer Ambulance Core who borrowed a boat, rowed him ashore, and took him to the hospital in their ambulance.
Yes, the ambulance is registered/insured as a municipal vehicle and I believe the town paid for it, but a lot of their supplies come from bake sales and donations.
Apedad, From what I understand, before I was born, university tuition used to be about equal to a summer's wages for a hardworking student. Do you know anything about this?
This was before the government money firehose was turned on, of course.
When I went to State U, tuition, room, and board was around $3K a year and the minimum wage was $1.60. A common strategy was to work summers. If you could get a summer job for $2/hr, that would cover about a third of the cost. Then you could work say 20 hrs a week during the school year at some kind of work-study job in your field, or at worst in the dining halls (which were happy to schedule around classes) which would cover most of the rest.
With luck you could get a summer job that paid more than $2 and had overtime, then work less during the year, use the money you earned from jobs in high school, etc. In any event, you absolutely could work your way through school that way, I had friends who did.
They also had a co-op program where you did a normal freshman and senior year, but took 3 years for your sophomore/junior year by working 3 or 6 months in your career field and then being on campus 3 or 6 months. For fields like geology/engineering/math/physics/etc that were in demand companies and agencies actively recruited for those. It’s been a long time, but I think I was getting $5 something an hour from the agency I co-oped with. IMHO, that was a great program and ought to be the norm. You got to see first hand whether you liked your chosen field, and if you were competent you’d likely get a job offer when you graduated.
Kirkland, you really need to reflect on what Justice Alito says about Yale Law -- how he didn't learn any law there.
What we really need is a new law with penalties for criminal stupidity. If someone like Shaviro does something indicating his head is so far up his asshole he won't see daylight for a month he should not be allowed to get away with it.
How can someone say "I find the murder of [Group X] admirable, and also here is a case where people who murdered a member of [Group X] were acquitted" without consequences? Regardless of legal considerations (IANAL), this sort of communication is clearly an attempt at persuading the target audience to commit a specific act. How is this allowed in a society where milquetoast comments merely ABOUT jury nullification (much less urging the jurors to do it) are strongly proscribed?
There's a link to "true threat" in the article. iirc.
If that doesn't help you can look it up
I'm not so sure about that.
You don't have to use someone's name to be specific -- if I say "that senile nut in the white house" does anyone not know that I mean Joe Biden? Or that Donald Trump is "Orangeman"?
This was a specific reference to a specific speaker who was shouted down and hence a threat to a specific person who is clearly identified as much as if his name had been included.
And isn't there some right-wing nut in prison for having called for the murder of a civil rights activist after someone did it?
Nowhere near as specific as KILL ALL SENATORS.
Legal or social consequences?
Legally, you just have to make sure you only target people low enough on the totem pole. Those kinds of threats about senators and presidents tends to get you investigated by the FBI. About representatives is iffier, depends on where in the hierachy of the House they are. Threatening statements about SCOTUS justices? Probably 50-50, any lower judge and you're probably fine. When it comes to CEOs and the like, it's a lot more iffy, really depends on personal sway more then anything.
All of which is to say, "rank has its privileges".
Socially? Just have to target the right group. It's also easier to avoid social consequences if your statements don't escape the environment you put it into. For example, while here "eat the rich" is going to get you condemned, "all liberals need to be put on an island and nuked" won't merit much comment (if any).
Which is why after the Pulse Nightclub massacre, that one preacher got a little bit of external flack for his "the only problem is they didn't kill more" comment, but within his community there was no push-back at all.
And that's before you even talk about women. Casually threatening violence towards women, saying they should be murdered, raped, etc. and so-on, is so well-integrated in our society that you have to try really hard to cross the line where you'll get widespread social condemnation rather then mild pushback. And in many cases, you won't suffer any permanent reputation damage either.
Whittington's conclusion agreed to. Faculty member's post ill-advised at best, incredibly fucking stupid at worst.
This is the perfect example of why current jurisprudence on the 1A rights of government employees goes too far. No, government shouldn't be able to throw you in prison for saying something like that. Yes, government should be able to fire employees who say something like that. This person should not be a professor.
Audrey Elizabeth Hale was a Trans Terrorist.
Hey, even Trannies can have a case of "Mondays", should change the name to something more cheerful.
Better ban more drag shows, then.
So you got a problem with the AAUP now?
Good thing that whole "committing vandalism to stop the transfer of power" didn't happen then.
They're called human beings. Of course sociopaths don't view anything properly except if it benefits them in some way...
You are sick.
"English" is broad enough to cover all of those (except probably philosophy), yes. Broad enough to cover advocating for the murder of one's political opponents? I'm not seeing that.
Yes, it failed.
He'd have to be.
Ed Grinberg : “You are sick”
Oh, you haven’t seen anything when it comes to sick. The Oklahoma Supreme Court just ruled that a pregnant woman has the right to abortion “when necessary to preserve her life.” But it was a near-run thing, requiring one Republican-appointed Justice to break ranks and join four Democratic-appointees for a 5-4 ruling. The minority found it “a necessary and worthy dialogue for the people to commence.” in their dissent.
The biggest con job in American politics is people buying the anti-choice crowd as driven by high moral principles. In fact, they are truly sick fucks. Whether they do or don’t believe a rape victim should be forced to bear the child or her assailant. Whether they do or don’t think a ten-year old should carry the child of her molester. Whether they summon the consistency to wage jihad against IVF clinics or not. Their entire movement is rotten with hypocrisy.
One thing is absolutely true though. At the core of this sicko movement is one thing that repeatedly emerges when they’re careless and say the quiet part out loud: Women just can’t be allowed to “get away with it”. You wanted unreproductive sex, slut? Well we’re going to see there’s no easy out. That’s the real reason why they seek to destroy the lives of thousands upon thousands of women each year. Simple petty malice.
" The minority found it “a necessary and worthy dialogue for the people to commence.” in their dissent."
What's wrong with that? Why do you want these issues to be decided by mostly male courts, instead of mostly female electorates?
Oklahoma Supreme Court justices deeply divided over constitutional abortion rights
The actual point of disagreement was not, as I understand it, whether a women was entitled as a matter of law to an abortion where necessary to save her life. The statute in question clearly established that she would be so entitled, and all that was really needed was to establish whether a medical emergency had to be imminent or not to qualify as an emergency under the statute.
It was over whether to just resolve a matter of statutory interpretation, or unnecessarily assert a state constitutional right.
It will be interesting to see if the majority follow their own reasoning when somebody challenges some unrelated to abortion medical regulation... I suspect not; Abortion decision reasoning never seems to get applied to other cases.
The ruling is shown here: "Oklahoma Supreme Court upholds laws banning abortion, clarifies exceptions" https://www.krmg.com/news/local/oklahoma-supreme-court-upholds-laws-banning-abortion-clarifies-exceptions/4RGFI6EGDVEWDA7T5QCVZX3HMY/
As a typical lying lefty you of course misrepresent the issue, which is whether a pregnant woman has the Oklahoma Constitutional right to abort her child ABSENT a medical emergency (when the law makes an abortion explicitly legal) but based on the mere motivated speculation of some complaisant doctor that the pregnancy in the future might result in danger to her.
We all know how that will work out in practice.
Again, what's sick about having a mostly female electorate deciding when and if abortion should be legal?
Fine. Own it. Come out and say the woman should die for the fetus. If you’re morally bankrupt enough to believe that, why not admit it proudly?
Of course morality is an elusive thing for these pretend pious. They used to have a solid majority for rape/incest exceptions until the movement found that hypocrisy a burdensome irritation. After all, a baby is a baby if the women was taken by force but not if her contraception fails? That struck a little too close to home. So they collectively shrugged their shoulders and said, “Whatever. It’s only a few thousand women and children we’re putting thru unimageable hell each year.”
I’ve seen entire common sections of anti-choicers baffled IVF clinics are even an issue. After all, they’re for matrons who want to fulfill their womanly duty, right? Of course that too may eventually be jettisoned as an inconvenience since convenience is the driving force behind the movement. It’s the simplest worry-free no-cost easiest piety available in the marketplace today. A real consumer choice. Wanton harlots vs cherubic protobabies. You don’t have to break a sweat. And if your wife, sister or daughter faces disaster because of an unplanned pregnancy? Well, obviously she’s not kind of slut the movement battles. A little adjustment is perfectly acceptable in that case. Lord knows we see that often enough in the news.
Not directly as far as I know, but it sounds like it is pushed by "associations" and accreditation organizations and the like. But there's no point in pretending that there's any kind of free market or private ordering in a sphere where the federal government is pumping in trillions of dollars.
"Do you think tenure is government mandated?"
It actually is.
An IHE must be "accredited" in order for its students to be eligible for these loans, and any IHE that outright eliminated tenure would lose its accreditation. QED, tenure is de-facto government mandated.
It must be terrible to believe that most of your countrymen are cold-blooded murders. It's also the kind of thinking that derives from -- and causes -- delusion, disaffectedness, and desperation.
It's not all moral bankruptcy. Plenty of it is misogyny, contrarianism, and the knuckle-dragging gullibility that fuels superstition and delusion.
"Fine. Own it."
You own the claim you made:
"Oh, you haven’t seen anything when it comes to sick. The Oklahoma Supreme Court just ruled that a pregnant woman has the right to abortion “when necessary to preserve her life.” But it was a near-run thing, requiring one Republican-appointed Justice to break ranks and join four Democratic-appointees for a 5-4 ruling. The minority found it “a necessary and worthy dialogue for the people to commence.” in their dissent."
So given the OK Constitution, what's sick about allowing a majority female electorate to decide if abortion should be legal?
No need to explain yourself, grb. You said what needed to be said. Gays and blacks and women are tolerable, but when they try to have sex you get Lawrence and Loving and Dobbs to show them who's boss. The collossal, juvenile bigots of this blog fear their white replacement above all else
Why not try getting to know the people you are condemning? Nah, too much work. You might find that some of them are sincere, good people.
Nope. I am a 63 year old weakling; Zoe Kravitz could probably best me up.
Do you need to be accredited by one of these associations to get on the lazy river of trillions in student loan gravy?
Combine all you like, but if you successfully "push" the government to deploy its guns on your behalf you may deserve to be opposed and despised.
I feel comfortable in my ability to avoid being punished under a new criminal stupidity law as long as I don't advocate killing peeps.
We get that YOU would qualify.
Nothing wrong in judging a profession by the actions of those in it. What else is there?
Lots of those jailed didn't attempt it and therefor didn't fail at it.
E.g., that "shaman" nutter who was denied access to the video evidence of his innocence.
They were jailed for their attempt or crimes committed in the pursuit of that attempt. The video proved nothing.
The most “impacted parties” are the “zygotes” (still that up top nine or so months old, apparently), which are “mostly female” by only a very small margin.
Maybe he figures that, if you kill them, the resulting sympathy will be ineffectual, on account of their being dead?
Indeed, he SAID he was confused. Duh. But that's because the comment was mostly unclear as to its intended point. Feel free to better express the thought if your broken brain gives you a special insight into the expressions of the similarly damaged.
““He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.”
So he thinks the killer was right, no matter what he thinks of the testimony of the friend.
Not seeing the assumption you claim was made.
What "profession" is this that "involves" advocating the murder of political enemies?
If "academic freedom" requires not judging that then I'm OK with cutting it back.
Bullshit. What the video shows absolutely contradicts what the judge said about him, without seeing the video, when sentencing him.
No it doesn't, it just shows the bits where he wasn't doing the criming he was sentenced for, as opposed to the bits that did.
Yes -- and that is a problem.