First Amendment Protects Sign at University Saying "God Created Male and Female and Artemis Langford Is a Male"

Langford had been in the news for joining a sorority, which has caused a good deal of controversy at the University of Wyoming.

From Schmidt v. Siedel, decided yesterday by Judge Nancy Freudenthal (D. Wyo.) (see also the coverage in Cowboy State Daily (Clair McFarland), and this post about a pseudonymity issue in a lawsuit stemming from the sorority controversy):

Schmidt is an elder at the Laramie Faith Community Church…. He has reserved a table in the UW Union breezeway on a regular basis for the past 17 years. The UW Union allows campus groups and various outside organizations to utilize breezeway tables to communicate with students. The breezeway tables provide access to a high degree of student pedestrian traffic. Schmidt uses his breezeway table to display various DVDs and books. He also places on his table a Velcro-backed sign with plastic lettering to display different messages.

According to UW Officials, they have over the years warned Schmidt to stay behind his breezeway table and not engage in a confrontational manner towards passersby. The University alleges it has received and documented complaints from students that Schmidt "got in people's faces" while trying to talk to them and chased after students who refused to speak with him. Schmidt states that he was not aware of any student complaints to University staff about him and received no warning from the University regarding student complaints.

In September of 2022, a UW student named Artemis Langford joined a UW sorority. Langford was born a biological male but identifies as female. In October, the UW university newspaper, the Branding Iron, ran a story about Langford joining the sorority, and included quotes from Langford. Other publications, including the Cowboy State Daily, Washington Examiner, and National Review, ran articles about Langford as the first openly transgender student in UW history to join a sorority.

Schmidt disagrees with the propriety of transgender students joining sororities, and on December 2, 2022, he placed a sign at his breezeway table in the Union stating, "God created male and female and Artemis Langford is a male." Various students gathered in front of his table in an attempt to block others, and Langford, from seeing Schmidt's sign. {Artemis Langford is both a UW student and an employee in the Wyoming Union.} These students engaged in tense debate with Schmidt.

UW Dean of Students Ryan O'Neil asked Schmidt to remove Langford's name from his sign because it violated Article II Section 2.B.4 of the UW Union policies {"Requests [for table space at the WY Union] may be denied for reasons which include, but may not be limited to, conflict with the mission of the University, conflict with the mission of the Wyoming Union, unfeasible setup/turnaround time, and historic negligence or abuse."}, and because it targeted an individual University student in a protected class. Schmidt initially refused to remove Langford's name; however after O'Neil responded that she would call University Police, he agreed to remove Langford's name. O'Neil left and Schmidt continued to speak with students from his table.

On December 5, 2022, UW President Edward Seidel sent out an email message to the UW community regarding the tabling incident. He stated that Schmidt had removed Langford's name from his sign when asked and that "while [Schmidt] engaged in heated exchanges with students and perhaps others throughout the afternoon, these interactions, were not in obvious violation of UW policies." Seidel went on to encourage community members to "engage regarding those with different perspectives with respect and integrity."

Various student groups felt disappointed with Seidel's response and on December 7, 2022, a UW alumni group sent a letter to Seidel disagreeing with his statement that Schmidt had not broken any UW policies. The letter recounted prior incidents in which Schmidt had allegedly yelled at and harassed students regarding their sexual identities. The letter asked Seidel to ban Schmidt from tabling in the UW Union. They stated that if he did not do so they would resign from alumni memberships, withhold donations to the University, and refuse to return to campus for future activities.

Later that day, Dean O'Neil sent Schmidt a letter suspending his ability to reserve a table in the UW breezeway until Spring 2024. She also reminded him to adhere to University policies or risk trespassing. She based this decision on a December 7th report from the University's Equal Opportunity Report and Response Office which stated that Schmidt had violated UW Regulation 4-2 (Discrimination and Harassment) and noted that his behavior was "on a trajectory which, if continued, is likely to also create a hostile environment." {UW Regulation 4-2 defines … ["harassment" as "Verbal or physical conduct that unreasonably interferes with an individual's work or academic performance or creates an intimidating or hostile work or educational environment.["]}

Dean O'Neil also cited the Wyoming Union Policies and Operating Procedures Article II Section 5.B.15 which prohibits discrimination or harassment and requires individuals tabling in the Union to bring views in a respectful and civil manner. Lastly, she referenced prior multiple verbal warnings to Schmidt for previous student complaints. Although Schmidt is unable to reserve a table in the breezeway until Spring 2024, he is not banned from campus, nor the Union building….

This likely violated Schmidt's First Amendment rights, the judge concluded, and therefore issued a preliminary injunction that "enjoins [university officials] from censoring Schmidt's views on the sexual identity of Artemis Langford and enjoins the application of the ban on tabling currently in effect."

Discriminatory harassment at a university is primarily governed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. "Hostile environment" harassment cases first originated in the workplace. To bring a Title VII action for sexual harassment in the workplace, the harassment must be "must be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." To determine if an environment is hostile the court examines the "frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance."

The Supreme Court extended these Title VII hostile environment cases to the Title IX context in Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education (1999), holding that "a plaintiff must show harassment that is so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive, and that so undermines and detracts from the victims' educational experience, that the victims are effectively denied equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities."

In Bostock v. Clayton Cnty., Georgia, the Supreme Court ruled that Title VII extended to situations in which "an employer … intentionally treats a person worse because of sex—such as by firing the person for actions or attributes it would tolerate in an individual of another sex."

These cases thus focus primarily on conduct, rather than pure speech. See also R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) ("Where the government does not target conduct on the basis of its expressive content, acts are not shielded from regulation merely because they express a discriminatory idea or philosophy.") "[N]on-expressive, physically harassing conduct is entirely outside the ambit of the free speech clause." Saxe v. State Coll. Area Sch. Dist. (3d Cir. 2001). However, where "pure expression is involved, anti-discrimination law steers into the territory of the first amendment." "'Harassing' or discriminatory speech, although evil and offensive, may be used to communicate ideas or emotions that nevertheless implicate First Amendment protections." There is no "categorical 'harassment exception' to the First Amendment's free speech clause." …

Here, the facts do not demonstrate harassment under the Davis standard, i.e., harassment so severe, pervasive, and objectively offense that it denies the victims' equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities. Schmidt engaged in tense debate with students regarding the propriety of a biological male joining a sorority. He did not engage directly with Artemis Langford. His sign was pure speech and not conduct. Furthermore, Schmidt's speech does not meet the University's own definition of discrimination of harassment. There is no evidence Langford suffered any adverse consequences or experienced interference with academic or work performance.

Nor does Schmidt's speech meet the lesser Tinker standard of "substantial disruption" or "invasion of the rights of others." The University puts forth no evidence of either. Various students were upset by Schmidt's speech, but the "'mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint' cannot justify the prohibition by school officials of a particular expression of opinion".

Schmidt's speech was expressive, with the intent to convey a particular message. Schmidt mentions Artemis Langford by name, but that is unavoidable, as the debate revolves around the propriety of a particular biological male participating in an activity— joining a sorority—traditionally reserved for biological females. Schmidt does not misgender Langford to denigrate her, but to debate a public issue. Normally, mentioning a student by name or ignoring a student's requested pronouns has low expressive value. Outside of a debate about gender, misgendering is of limited communicative value.

Here Schmidt's speech is part of an earnest debate about gender identity, a matter of public importance. "Gender identity … [is a] sensitive political topic[] and … undoubtedly matter[] of profound value and concern to the public…. Such speech occupies the highest rung of the hierarch of First Amendment values and merits special protection." "Speech on matters of public concern is at the heart of the First Amendment's protection.  [I]t is the essence of self-government." This is particularly true on college campuses because they are the "marketplace of ideas." While elementary and public schools prioritize the inculcation of social values, universities seek to encourage inquiry and the challenging of a priori assumptions.

Therefore, this Court finds that Schmidt's speech is protected free expression and not harassment or discriminatory conduct.

The court went on to conclude that the "because University breezeway tables are not open to the general public and a reservation is required for use, this Court finds that the breezeway tables are a limited public forum," where the government as property owner may impose reasonable and viewpoint-neutral restrictions. But it concluded that the restriction imposed by the university was likely viewpoint-based, and thus impermissible even in a limited public forum:

Here, Schmidt wishes to express his viewpoint that Artemis Langford is a male and to debate the propriety of Langford's participation in a sorority. This is a viewpoint. The University counters that it allowed Schmidt to keep the remainder of his sign that did not contain Langford's name. However, without Langford's name Schmidt is unable to fully express his views regarding Langford's sex specifically. Students approached Schmidt's table to debate his views on Langford's sex. Presumably some of these students have views opposed to those of Schmidt and believe that Langford is female and belongs in a sorority. There is no indication that those students were prohibited from debating Schmidt or speaking Langford's name. Therefore, the University appears to be favoring one viewpoint over another….

{The granting of Schmidt's preliminary injunction does not diminish the University's ability to sanction possible future misbehavior by Schmidt, such as continuing to engage with students who do not wish to speak with him.}

I think this is the correct result, though I am even more skeptical of attempts to recharacterize speech as "harassment" than the judge is (see here). Note that a policy categorically forbidding outside groups from mentioning students by name might be seen as permissibly viewpoint-neutral; but that wasn't the policy here: Saying that Langford is a woman and not a man wouldn't have been forbidden; likewise as to, for instance, condemning by name one of the students challenging Langford's admission to the sorority.

Schmidt is represented by Douglas J. Mason (Mason & Mason) and Nathan W Kellum (Center for Religious Expression).

Comments

[Frank Drackman]

A real female that ugly would be lucky to get into a Sorority.
Don't believe me?, take a look. (Put on your Medusa Glasses first)
https://i0.wp.com/nypost.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2023/05/NYPICHPDPICT000011164216.jpg?resize=708%2C708&ssl=1

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I'd like to know the complete backstory on his admission to the sorority -- the portions which have leaked out stink to high heaven. It was a combination of career-interested graduating seniors sacrificing the organization for their personal gain, a national seeking to appease a powerful person(s) on campus, and a powerful person(s) on campus wanting a boy in that sorority.

This is what needs to be remembered about conservative states -- just because it is a conservative state doesn't mean that its Division of Student Affairs is conservative -- there has been 40 years of penetrations by sleepers and they are now able to be far left with impunity because no one expects leftism to raise its head in such a socially conservative state.

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

She would never make an SEC sorority…except maybe once Texas becomes an SEC school. 😉

[Frank Drackman]

Ouch! Aggie?? Sooner?? can't wait until both find out what a real Conference is like.

[BravoCharlieDelta]

lol damn

[Sam Bankman-Fried]

Someone needs to shave that dog and teach it to hunt!

[Frank Drackman]

I'd rather shave that pussy and teach it to "Stay"

[Kazinski]

See Frank?

"I just can't quit [muting] you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you weren't such a loyal clinger, Mr. Drackman, Prof. Volokh would censor you for using that word.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Perhaps Prof. Volokh would favor us with an explanation of why he scrubbed that word from my comment and instructed me not to use it again but has had nothing to say when conservatives continue to use it.

Or perhaps not.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Here, the facts do not demonstrate harassment under the Davis standard, i.e., harassment so severe, pervasive, and objectively offense that it denies the victims' equal access to an institution's resources and opportunities. Schmidt engaged in tense debate with students regarding the propriety of a biological male joining a sorority. He did not engage directly with Artemis Langford. His sign was pure speech and not conduct . . .There is no evidence Langford suffered any adverse consequences or experienced interference with academic or work performance.

Well, no evidence until this decision, anyway. The notion is crazy that it is harmless to announce a principle that members of protected categories lose protection on campus because speech is important on campus. There is a readily-available bright line standard which the judge had to work hard to ignore. There is a difference between arguing a principle and attacking an identifiable person.

To permit that kind of attack, and then force-multiply the attack by adding the weight of a judicial decision approving it, demands that the University administration announce an end to a protected category, and thus join in targeting some of its students. I get that is what the judge wanted, and probably what many here at the VC want too. But you can't build a legitimate judicial system on a principle to endorse targeting individuals with bigotry.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exactly what part of "shall make no law" do you not understand?!?!?

[ChrisC]

Right - Congress shall make no law... except if someone's feelings are hurt, in which case there are no rules.

[Noscitur a sociis]

To permit that kind of attack, and then force-multiply the attack by adding the weight of a judicial decision approving it, demands that the University administration announce an end to a protected category, and thus join in targeting some of its students.

How does that follow? Why does the school not being able to “protect” Artemis Langford (and other transgender students) from this one sign mean that it can’t protect them at all?

[MeanGene]

You are wanting to characterize a statement like "Artemis Langford is male" as an "attack" so that you can justify censoring the person making that assertion. You want to be able to censor certain kinds of opinions for what you believe to be the good of society, so why don't you just come out and say so rather than going through the rhetorical gymnastic of characterizing that statement as an "attack".

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Old Newspaper Guy Ironically Confused about First Amendment.
(more on page 7.)

[David Nieporent]

Literally the only speech Lathrop is in favor of is that of newspaper publishers and photographers. In every other instance — every other one — he comes down on the anti-speech side. (Coincidentally, Lathrop is/was a newspaper publisher and photographer.)

[Stephen Lathrop]

Stop lying Nieporent. You have no idea what you are talking about, but you do know I support expressive freedom.

You just disagree for ideological reasons with the means I think work best to maximize that freedom. I disagree with you because when it comes to publishing, you are not only an amateur, but also a utopian who has no notion about the practical means necessary to maximize and perpetuate free published expression.

You don't know it, but your advocacy, if it were ever to become policy, would thwart the goals you love to take credit for advocating. You hate it when I detail why your utopianism cannot work, so you attack me with false assertions that I oppose the freedom which we both actually intend to support. Unfortunately, you have no notion how to do that realistically.

Also, as a journalist, as a managing editor, and as a publisher at various publications—most of which have never been mentioned on this blog—I did more to facilitate expressive freedom for others than you can ever hope to do.

I have lived as an expressive freedom advocate—both speech freedom and press freedom—and worked to encourage it and maximize it for others. Please stop your tiresome and distorted attacks.

[sCuLLeRcRUsHEr]

Being a journalist is only of importance to other journalists. In fact, most people are suspicious of journalist and rightly so.
One question that I did not see addressed in this discussion. Where is the proof that the statement was meant as a personal attack on Langford? And where is the evidence that Langford suffered enough harm to be sufficient to supersede the First Amendment. Remember the specific call out in the FA of freedom of Religion as well as freedom of speech

[David Nieporent]

Stop lying Nieporent. You have no idea what you are talking about, but you do know I support expressive freedom.

Nope. You argue against protections for fair use. You argue against protections for student speech. You argue against protections for picketing vaccination sites. You argue against protections for people criticizing/insulting/being rude to a college student, in multiple ways. You argue against protections for people burning Korans. You argue for expansive liability for defamation, repeatedly acting shocked and demanding proof that the Supreme Court said what it said (and then doing it all over again next time the topic comes up), and then of course there's your monomania over § 230 even though it's the most speech-protective law Congress ever enacted. (I say "even though," but you actually argue against it because it's the most speech-protective law Congress ever enacted.)

Those are just the ones I remember, and if you deny any of those, you're a liar, because the links all still work.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Again, stop lying. I have said explicitly, in print, literally for decades, that I support fair use. We apparently disagree about what scope constitutes fair use. You could try admitting that.

Go ahead with the links. Show where I ever argued for laws against burning the Koran. In general, I favor very broad protections for doing that, and always have. But I do also think circumstances might affect cases. Maybe I misremember something. Show me the circumstance. I doubt you can find anything at all.

I have never argued for legal penalties for being rude to a college student, so long as the rudeness takes place in the public square. I argue for protections for students on campuses as a matter of public policy, but not as a matter of legal prohibition with criminal penalties for the speech itself. Indeed, and contrary to what you said above, I have since the Viet Nam War advocated for speech protection on campuses for what some call a heckler's veto. On that, I advocate broader speech protections than you do.

Speech which targets individual students on campuses should be treated by policy as a trespass. I liken that to the privilege employers enjoy to protect workers from speech targeting in their workplaces. You seem to advocate to protect the workplace but sacrifice the campuses. I take that as an unreasoned ideological premise of yours.

You and I disagree about the extent of the public square. You, however, do not want to admit that your own arguments, consistently applied, would turn private workplaces into the public square, and end prerogatives of private property owners to control expression not only on their own property, but also in their own commercial venues.

I do not argue for expansive liability for defamation, whatever that is intended to mean. I argue against internet utopians who insist there should be no liability for defamation—and thus turn themselves inadvertently into practical enemies of press freedom. Stupid utopianism is bad for press freedom when it goes so far that it results in meaningful pressure for government intervention, with an eye to force particular content to be published, or not published.

I know you understand that as a risk, so it does you no credit when you lie about my position because of our disagreement about means. You seem to want to confine the means to a private property prerogative. I wanted it broader, so that people who lack property get some of the protective benefit the employers get. I generalize that reasoning to purposeful venues outside the public square, including some, like college campuses, which are operated by governments.

It is government intervention for or against specific expressive content which I most fear and oppose. That puts me squarely in the mainstream of pro-speech advocacy. You repeatedly lie about my advocacy because you hate having your ideological utopianism challenged as dangerous to the freedom you think you support, but actually undermine.

On Section 230, again we disagree. I do not see it as speech protective. I see at as a practical obstacle to expressive freedom, especially press freedom. It is atrocious policy for several reasons. The first is the support it gives to publishing giantism, which results directly in a public backlash against press freedom, and leads also to calls for government interventions to control content.

That giantism in turn, predictably, and as a matter of record, has undermined support for news gathering by private publishers who edit their content prior to publishing it. That has been a disaster for the public life of the nation.

Because you know nothing practical about the publishing business, and thus do not understand even a little the material basis necessary to support press freedom, you discount those concerns to zero, in favor of your longed-for utopian alternative. What is your utopian alternative? It can be summarized. It is advocacy for a publishing power so broad and so unfettered (except by the prerogatives of private property) that anyone anywhere can publish anonymously, at no cost, worldwide, without prior editing, and without post-publication liability, anything at all, including defamations, lies, hoaxes, scurrilous private attacks on non-public persons, election frauds, and a great many other goads to political attacks on press freedom.

That is a publishing power broader than anything anyone on earth has ever previously enjoyed, or ever could enjoy. You can't have it because no one can have it. It can't be done. Attempts to make it happen will destroy the means to accomplish publishing before that ambition could possibly succeed. That kind of power would ruinously disrupt commerce. It is too destructive. Before it could be made general, it would so dangerously disorganize politics and society that public demands to use government controls to end it would prevail, and press freedom would be gone. I get that it is hard to understand that if you know little or nothing about the practical means necessary to sustain publishing, and care less.

As an irresponsible, ideological, utopian advocate, you do not care if the means you demand exceed any that society can practically accomplish. Despite rapidly increasing evidence of massive damage to public life, and present growing support for big-government intervention to control content, you demand ideological purity that no one ever came close to implementing before.

You spurn the only practical free market method to set workable limits. Those worked for more than a century by devolving all content decisions to be settled among a myriad of private publishers who edited their content in advance of publication, in mutual rivalry and competition, to accomplish the broadest possible range of published expression achievable by practical means, and without government control of content.

That system worked splendidly for so long that almost no one thought to object to it. It was counted instead as an ornament to civilization, and a potent bulwark against government abuse. You think it wasn't good enough, but have no notion what consequences your pipe dream alternative holds in store.

And you think I am the one who is a danger to expressive freedom. Neither on purpose, nor by accident, does my advocacy approach the danger to expressive freedom that your practically ignorant and chaotically idealistic advocacy would inflict if it prevails. Too bad that you do not know that. Also bad, if less so, that you keep lying about my advocacy.

[David Nieporent]

Again, stop lying. I have said explicitly, in print, literally for decades, that I support fair use. We apparently disagree about what scope constitutes fair use. You could try admitting that.

I could, but it wouldn't be true. RFK Jr. insists that he's not anti-vaccine; he supports safe ones. But when challenged to name a vaccine he considered safe, he couldn't name a single one. Similarly, you have never endorsed a fair use defense here — indeed, expressing incredulity based on things you think you heard as a newspaper publisher that things could even be fair use.

Show where I ever argued for laws against burning the Koran.

Like I said, I knew you'd lie.

A law against burning a sacred text is a law against intimidation and silencing. Loyalty never gets into it. The text in question is itself protected speech. Americans have long held that the remedy for unwanted speech is more speech, not an attempt to silence opponents. Burning a sacred text is a symbolic silencing of opponents, against the spirit of the First Amendment.

I would oppose any law against flag burning, but would have no trouble with a law against symbolically burning books of any kind, including sacred books. The cases are simply different.

https://volokh.com/2010/09/16/justice-breyer-clarifies-earlier-remarks-suggests-koran-burning-is-constitutionally-protected-after-all/#comment-522818245

You pull that shenanigan all the time, relabeling speech as "intimidation" and then arguing for banning it.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Fair enough, and especially thanks for the partial context. It shows you trying to use my own radical support for speech freedom as an example to prove I do not support free speech. What it doesn't show is my own follow-up in the same thread, in response to another person I confused, like you got confused.

Here is my follow up comment, which you omitted to get rid of contextual evidence against the point you want to make against me (as you typically do). Thus, in the interest of full non-lying context:

Some Commenter: Stepen Lathrop: That’s why book burning has long been recognized as a harbinger of totalitarianism. You do know that book burning is what you’re defending, right?

Stephen Lathrop No, I am not defending book burning. But yes, people do have the right to burn their own books if that is what they want to do in order to make their point, and the government is prohibited by the first amendment from telling them they can't. I couldn't care less if that Florida preacher burns it, reads it aloud or eats it page by page in the town square. All could be legitimate ways to express his views, and all equally protected against government injunction. The book burning you are describing as a harbinger of totalitarianism is official book burning, by the government, prohibiting the citizenry from reading certain texts. That is unconstitutional. It also has absolutely nothing to do with the case of an individual burning a copy of book in order to express him/herself and make a point.

Once again, Nieporent, stop lying about my advocacy. Or even better, pay attention to what I have to say and learn something.

Thanks for the hilariously failed, "Gotcha!"

[Kenneth Almquist]

The commenter who wrote “…people do have the right to burn their own books…” was Esteban. Are you claiming that Esteban is a sock puppet?

Under your own name, you wrote:

“To be clear, I’m not suggesting that I think the present state of the law in the U.S. forbids book burning, of Korans or any other books. I am suggesting that if the law did forbid that, then speech in the U.S. would be better protected, and nothing important would be lost.”

[Stephen Lathrop]

Almquist, I quoted my own words exactly, cut and paste.

Esteban I know nothing about.

I am curious why you seem to want to support Nieporent's misleadingly presented characterizations of my commentary. That seems unwise.

About why that other quote concerns you. I am a committed and fairly extreme defender of expressive freedom. That does not always mean I necessarily agree with every long-popular ideological defense of expressive freedom. Sometimes I think those could be improved upon, and make deliberately provocative suggestions to give others a chance to critique them. I guess that is what you were trying to do, so thanks for that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Almquist, I quoted my own words exactly, cut and paste."

No you didn't.

[Randal]

Stephen Lathrop, you quoted Esteban's post and attributed it to yourself.

The only part you said was the pro-book-burn-ban part:

That’s why book burning has long been recognized as a harbinger of totalitarianism. You do know that book burning is what you’re defending, right?

The rest of that post was Esteban's response to your anti-First-Amendment position that he quoted.

[David Nieporent]

Once again, Nieporent, stop lying about my advocacy. Or even better, pay attention to what I have to say and learn something.

My god, you are insane. You didn't say those words. Esteban did. You repeatedly defended laws against book burning.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Now, Nieporent, as to fair use, I have said repeatedly in threads on that subject that fair use was at one time a limited exception to copyright protection, specifically empowering use of copyrighted material for the purpose of critiquing the material itself, or critiquing the work of the person who made the material. That is an uncontroversial view that will be familiar to older intellectual property lawyers, and to others who supervise the use of private materials, such as academic archivists.

Thus, you can publish a copyrighted work for the purpose to discuss its artistic merits or demerits, and to promote or detract from the notion that the creator was an important artist, or to show the work as an example illustrating a trend in art, or a school of influence, etc. All fair use.

In addition, there had long been a tradition of approval, on a closely similar principle, for transformative use, with an eye to protecting opportunities to critique expressive work by use of parody, satire, etc. Again, fair use which I have always approved of, and never objected to.

All of that I repeatedly said in comments on these threads.

That was the situation before the, “steal everything,” movement on the internet started to get traction in courtrooms run by confused judges. After that, it started to get controversial whether someone could expropriate a photographic image with a powerful graphic theme, then use simple computer graphic techniques to make and sell something they lacked the talent, or money, or willingness to expend effort, to do themselves. So the expropriator would change the color scheme with a computer, or transform a pixilated photographic image into line art on a computer—all for the purpose to get hold of the graphic theme, (or other content-based characteristics such as historical subject matter, for instance), to pirate and profit from what was valuable in the image.

That conduct I reject as actually non-transformative, no matter what stupid opinion a graphically ignorant judge might offer to the contrary.

See, I approved many instances of fair use, and rejected others. As I said, we differ about scope, and you lie about the differences, saying I oppose speech freedom. Even today, almost any academic archivist would tell you that my interpretation is the one more protective of expressive freedom, and yours is the one which undermines it.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

"On Section 230, again we disagree. I do not see it as speech protective. I see at as a practical obstacle to expressive freedom, especially press freedom. It is atrocious policy for several reasons. The first is the support it gives to publishing giantism.."

Considering that argument is false on its face, I have to question whether you understand the protections of section 230, literally, "at all."

What "press freedoms" are restricted by making publishers not responsible for the content other people create?

I might as well be asking a literal dinosaur to explain String Theory.

[Stephen Lathrop]

What “press freedoms” are restricted by making publishers not responsible for the content other people create?

Cavanaugh, most advocates here who might support the notion that you have asked a cogent question, do so because they intend to use government to force publishers to publish content the publishers have a constitutional right to reject. Most folks who know little of the practicalities of publishing as a business activity cannot be taught in any brief discussion why that insistence could prove fatal to expressive freedom.

Your concluding comment suggests you number yourself among the internet utopians who want government to guarantee everyone a publishing power broader than any ever previously enjoyed by anyone in the world. You could sober up by asking yourself why that might not turn out to be practical, and why it never happened before.

Until then, I am happy to try to answer specific questions, if you can bring yourself to stick to good faith questions and courteous replies. Maybe we could create a dialogue long enough to instruct some others about the practical problems Section 230 has created, and why it remains a baleful threat to expressive freedom.

In the hope you might want to participate, I will bait you with an assertion and two corollaries which seem self-evident to me, but which you might want to contest. Here they are:

Assertion: An intention to sustain press freedom in any nation depends critically on the ability of entrepreneurs to practice publishing activity on a basis sufficiently profitable that they can at least break even without need of public or private subsidy.

Corollary 1: Press freedom is not possible without self-sustaining publishing institutions, because only those institutions have capability to sustain critical publishing activities such as to mobilize and monetize an audience, to pay the costs and organize the effort to distribute expressive materials to audience members, and to recruit, select, and edit content for the purpose of sustaining the interest of the audience.

Corollary 2: On the basis of the description of publishing activity set forth above, it is self-evident that contributors are not typically publishers, and cannot usually perform necessary publishing activities on their own.

Have any comments or questions?

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Why don't we start with these:

What do you think Section 230 c1 says?
What do you think it means?
Why do you think it has anything whatsoever to do with the economics of journalism?

I am not expecting to be impressed by your responses.

[Stephen Lathrop]

1. Section 230 says—irrationally, because Congress did not know what it was talking about—that contributors can be held liable for defamation, but online publishers, unlike other publishers, will not be held liable for defamations which originate with their contributors.

2. Section 230 means that Congress posited publishing activity in which publishers did not create damages, even though they did almost all the activities which make defamatory allegations damaging. And also, conversely, it means that contributors who were mostly incapable to do publishing activities which make their allegations seriously damaging were the only parties to be held liable for damages.

It also means that online publishers, who no longer have any practical need to generate their own content to attract an audience and sell advertising, can grow without limit, and become giantistic and monopolistic. A further implication is that online publishers who do take on any editorial burden to generate content or edit contributions, will find themselves at a competitive disadvantage vis a vis other publishers who do none of those things—so news gathering is doomed, and there will be near-zero effort expended to guard against world-wide publications of both defamations, and other non-defamatory swill, such as pizza parlor child exploitation hoaxes.

3. The economics of publishing are important because it is not possible to sustain press freedom unless someone pays for indispensable but costly publishing activities. Contributors will have nowhere to publish if the considerable costs of publishing their contributions cannot be recouped by free market business activity.

Neither government subsidy nor private patronage is capable to deliver a free press. Only the free market can do that.

I have offered you brief answers where much more would serve better. For your part, you have not shown good faith to try to address the points I began with. I did not expect you would.

To substitute counter-questions while ignoring those put to you is the commonplace field mark of a typical internet utopian. Change the subject, and clear the decks for ideologically propelled salvos of baseless nonsense. Never engage. That's how you think you can win. You don't even have a clear idea of what there is to win, or to lose. You just want what you want—which is cost-free personal publishing power greater than anyone has ever enjoyed. Good luck. No one has the power to provide that. It can't be done.

[Tom for equal rights]

Sarcastro - What makes him a protected category?
He is a male which can never be changed.
Does his mental illness move him into a protected class?

.

[Brett Bellmore]

The very idea of 'protected classes' is a gross violation of the EQUAL protection clause, anyway.

[Josh R]

You have said this over and over, but have never responded to the counter argument that all people are treated alike. Everyone is equally protected based on their protected characteristics and equally not protected based on their non-protected characteristics. White tall people get the same protection based on race and lack of protection based on height as black short people.

Putting it another way, if the EP clause is violated, which people are treated unequally?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, yeah, theoretically, we're ALL "protected classes", so it's not an EP violation. Theoretically.

Back in the real world, it doesn't work that way. There's a reason people talk about "protected classes": Some classes are protected, and some aren't.

[Josh R]

If the EP clause is violated, which people are treated unequally?

[Josh R]

Quoting from Bostock:

When an employer fires an employee for being homosexual or transgender, it necessarily and intentionally discriminates against that individual in part because of sex.

The protected classification is sex.

[Brett Bellmore]

And that was utter nonsense, a rationalization. If a company fires someone for cross-dressing, or being a homosexual, yeah, sure, you might make that argument. Might lose it, too, if they're in a customer facing position and are scaring off the customers.

But in the case of the transgender, they're firing the person for being a liar and/or delusional. Now, sure, you can't establish that somebody is LYING about their sex, without their sex coming into the matter. But they're not being fired for their sex, they're being fired for lying about it. Or being too crazy to know they're lying.

And being a liar or insane is actually a valid reason for firing.

[Josh R]

A transgender woman (natal-sex man) is not claiming their sex is female. They are claiming their gender identity is female.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, right.

[Josh R]

That's the "argument" of an 8th grader.

[Tom for equal rights]

Thats an argument for someone that doesnt understand biology

[Josh R]

What does biology have to say about gender identity?

[Tom for equal rights]

Josh R 17 hours ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"What does biology have to say about gender identity?"

Josh - you proved my point

[Josh R]

What point?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But in the case of the transgender, they’re firing the person for being a liar and/or delusional.

More or less delusional than ostensible adults who believe (or at least claim to believe) that an illusory man in the sky created our world, watches over us, and demands that we treat gay people like dirt?

[Davy C]

What if protected categories had nothing to do with it? What if the student being protested against was a football player who had managed a 12 on their ACT and the protest was that they were admitted despite being academically unqualified? What if the protest was that the current quarterback was just really bad at football and they should replace him with the backup before the team loses any hope of winning their conference? Would the protest be limited to principles and not be able to specify who they are talking about? What if the student being protested was the editor of the student paper, or an RA, or a member of student government? Clearly at some point "no naming names" isn't compatible with free speech.

[David Nieporent]

attacking an identifiable person.

Attacking a person sounds really bad!

Oh, wait — you meant speech about an identifiable person. No attack at all.

[ConservativeProfessor]

Supposing Artemis held white supremicist beliefs and a table sponosred by the NAACP said on a sign that Artemis is a white supremicist. Artemis doesn't like it, not because its false, but because it is an unpleasant truth he'd rather not see.

[Ben_]

Shorter version: any speech Lathrop doesn't like is "an attack" and therefore not protected by 1A. Speech Lathrop likes isn't "an attack" and is protected.

[Social Justice is neither]

And don't forget that physical violence in furtherance of things he likes is speech and protected. They are just clowns, evil clowns.

[David Welker]

Stephen,

There is no rule that free speech ends just as soon as you use a person's name. I agree with David Nieporent. Your views on the First Amendment are totally incoherent.

Using a name along with an opinion about the person who uses that name is protected speech.

Your little speech about being in favor of expression was further revealed to be empty by Mr. Nieporent with respect to the burning of "sacred books." I think you are view is that speech that could hurt someone's feelings isn't protected.

How about this. People need to learn to control their feelings. People may say something you dislike hearing. But you don't have to care.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

People need to learn to control their feelings. People may say something you dislike hearing. But you don’t have to care.

Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland likes the way you think!

Prof. Volokh, though, not so much.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Welker, whatever Nieporent's virtues about other subjects may be, he is an unreliable source when he discusses my commentary, and even when he purports to quote it. See my reply to him, which your comment preceded.

[KenveeB]

Saying the word "attack" repeatedly doesn't suddenly transform mere words into an attack. Someone disagreeing with your perspective, even heatedly isn't an attack. Stop with the histrionics. You can't stop everyone from saying things you disagree with just by labeling it an attack.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Boorish, bigoted, half-educated, superstition-addled culture war casualties have rights, too -- and the white, male, conservative Volokh Conspiracy is dedicated to preserving safe spaces for right-wing bigots, especially on college campuses not controlled by conservatives.

Carry on, clingers. So far as your stale, ugly thinking could carry anyone is modern, improving America.

(Would someone inform Prof. Volokh that his pal, John Eastman, has been in the news lately, in a context that evokes legal issues -- including some involving freedom of expression -- that Prof. Volokh would naturally be eager to comment about.)

[ConservativeProfessor]

Believing that "identifying as a woman" makes one a real woman sounds a lot like a superstition, a bit of magic that can be conjured by thoughts and words (preferably pronouns).

[Scooter]

Brought to you by the same people that endorse "Blood Libel" as defined by DEI policies.

So much SCIENCE!!!!

LOL

[David Welker]

Rev:

What makes you think anyone needs your permission or approval to carry on?

I noticed that you said that you have made some sort of list of all the times you have been censored on this blog. Just maybe you should value your time more than you do?

You spend a lot of time here trolling, adding nothing of value. Speaking from YOUR perspective, how is this even worth YOUR time???

One thing that is especially strange is how your rhetoric implies that you are superior. Especially to so-called clingers. But then the way you use your time implies the opposite. Especially constantly repeating yourself, constantly trolling, all of that. It just isn't a good use of time.

I guess this is some sort of psychological issue? I guess you are just venting. Even so, not a great use of time, in my view. Although, I suppose there are even worse uses of time.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What do you think of the time the Volokh Conspirators devote to daily operation of this blog in the service of stale, ugly right-wing bigotry, backwardness, superstition, and ignorance?

Should Prof. Volokh have stopped when his dean had to apologize for the professor's conduct?

What is your opinion concerning Prof. Blackman's frequent contributions to this blog? Is that a good use of time?

Do you think the Volokh Conspiracy adds "[anything] of value?" Why? And how are the stylings of these disaffected, cowardly right-wing law professors more valuable than the comments of those who point out the Volokh Conspiracy's objectionable conduct and unpopular opinions?

You strike me as just another disaffected, cranky culture war casualty who can't abide all of this damned progress, inclusiveness, reason, science, education, and modernity -- and, therefore, agree with the Volokh Conspirators and their fans, who share your position at the receding fringe of modern American society.

[David Welker]

I do think that VC contributors make good use of their time. And that reading this blog is often a good use of my time.

I do not feel the same about your comments, which typically are (1) conclusory, (2) unreliable, (3) reflect an axe-grinding grievous attitude (4) whiny, (5) reflect a superiority complex, (6) trolling and insincere and (7) do not often present very many actually sincere arguments or points.

I believe that your comments are, on the whole, superficial. And repetitive.

I also think you are probably intelligent enough to do better, but choose not to do better for some psychological reason. Because I believe you can do better, I have taken my time to actually respond to you. The quality of your comments do not deserve a response, but I am familiar enough with you to believe you actually COULD say actually worthwhile if you wanted to.

I think the most valuable time you are wasting here is your own.

If everyone can absolutely predict what you are doing to say, why say it? Maybe don't.

[SimonP]

Yes, Eugene, long-time readers are familiar with your "concerns" about how laws forbidding harassment limit the First Amendment rights of people who just want to hit on and sexually harass their co-workers in peace. Not sure why you felt the need to remind us, for this story.

Apparently the remedy for Langford, et al., will be to reserve another Breezeway table for a campus LGBT group or other outside groups, with a sign stating something to the effect of, "Schmidt is an asshole and a bully whose selective and incoherent interpretation of scripture gives his church and his faith a bad name." Maybe they could get other clubs and organizations to participate.

[Currentsitguy]

Exactly! That's how this whole free speech thing works.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Not for him and all the other know-it-all busybodies. It only "works" when it prevents nasty speech.

[SimonP]

Indeed. The real world should reflect the cess-pit of targeted harassment that we call Twitter as much as possible. The Founding Fathers would be proud.

[Currentsitguy]

You may want to read your Early American history. The debates about the Constitution were anything but civil.

[Stephen Lathrop]

If you actually posit the standard of civility at the Constitutional Convention, or in the Federalist Papers, as a standard by which to measure current norms on public controversy, that is an argument your side loses big.

[Randal]

Now we call it X, appropriately enough.

[migrant log picker]

Way too simple for Simon Sez and his fellow leftoid crybullies and their delicate sensibilities.....

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Not sure why you felt the need to remind us

Miss a chance to mention some transgender sorority drama?

The white, male, Republican blog that specializes in coverage of lesbian-white grievance-transgender parenting-Muslim-black crime-transgender rest room-drag queen-racial slur-transgender sorority drama issues?

Plus, it doesn't mention un-American, indicted, disgraced crackpot and Volokh Conspirators' dreamboy John Eastman

[Tom for equal rights]

The proper thing for Langford to do is get competent medical and mental health treatment to reduce his delusions instead of pseudo mental health treatment that plays into and enhances his delusions.

[David Welker]

SimonP:

This proposal of yours isn't a bad idea. If people are actually motivated to do that, they should feel free to express themselves in such a manner.

I personally don't agree with you. But that is why we have free speech. To share different perspectives.

[bevis the lumberjack]

College guy says something mean about another college guy. How will the nation survive?!?!?!?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Ask Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland, who was banned by the Volokh Conspiracy Board of Censors for making fun of conservatives a bit too deftly for the proprietor's taste.

[Davy C]

Nobody has ever accused you of being too deft, and you sure post a lot for a banned guy.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Artie Ray was banned.

I am Arthur.

I have never been banned, although there are some words -- relatively bland words -- I am forbidden to use at this blog, some of which are erased by the censor(s) if used to describe or poke fun at conservatives.

[Life of Brian]

although there are some words — relatively bland words — I am forbidden to use at this blog, some of which are erased by the censor(s) if used to describe or poke fun at conservatives.

Yet another tiresome bit of your fictional persecution complex. Why don't you just use those supposed words right now and show us how that supposed censorship process works?

Oh, right -- after nothing would happen, you'd have to find a new topic for your prevaricating prattle.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

p_ssy

sl_ck-jaw_d

c_p succ_r

Those are some of the words -- along with anything and everything written by Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland -- Prof. Volokh has scrubbed or prohibited at this blog (when used to criticize or make fun of conservatives).

I urge you to join me in requesting that Prof. Volokh correct anything I have stated with respect to censorship of those words or of that speaker is incorrect.

[Life of Brian]

So let's see:

Pussy.

Slack-jawed.

Cop succor.

And there you have it. How much longer will you allow your cowardly superstition (at best -- I'd lean more toward deliberate deception) to persist?

.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not expect this blog to censor you, as it did me, for writing those words because you are a bigoted conservative, and therefore get a pass from blog management.

[Life of Brian]

So your superstition is conveniently non-falsifiable -- how cute!

I'd expect no less from someone who spends large portions of their waking hours posting what appear more and more to be particularly pathetic projections.

[Frank Drackman]

Can I be "Frank"??(I'm Frank, how else could I be)
We don't like you for the same reasons Juanita Broderick/Paula Jones/ Kathleen Willey don't like William Juffuhson Clinton, why Mary Jo Kopeckny wouldn't like Ted Kennedy, why Nicole Simpson wouldn't like Orenthal James,
Oh, and you're a Pompous Ass.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Can everybody join together in a hymn for the Rev,?
All together now: Him, Fuck him.
Thank you.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

That is the civility Prof. Volokh wants to see!

I see little chance you'll ever be censored at this blog.

[Ben_]

The sacred and exalted feelings of one of the special people were at risk of not being catered to.

Of course you were happy to endorse sending authorities to punish a school kid for using "the wrong" pronouns.

[Michael Ejercito]

Thos sort of thing was inconceivable in the mid-1990's.

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

OFF TOPIC:

Is Judge Ho some kind of a clown?

Judge James Ho of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, writing separately from his two colleagues on a three-judge panel, borrowed from environmental case law to contend that medical providers challenging abortion care suffer “aesthetic injury from the destruction of unborn life.”

“It’s well established that, if a plaintiff has ‘concrete plans’ to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal,” Ho wrote, citing a long list of environmental opinions from the Supreme Court and other federal appeals courts.

“Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them,” he continued. “Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

[Internet sloth]

Also, saying Jesus had a 3rd nipple is unconstitutional

[Davy C]

Yeah, I don't think that works in the context of a doctor of a woman who wants to murder her unborn kid. You have the right to travel into a national forest and view random wildlife that may appear. You don't have the right to perform an ultrasound on that woman; she's free to choose another doctor at HER discretion, not the doctor's.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you have information concerning any murder in the reality-based world, the sole reasonable and decent course would be to alert the relevant law enforcement authorities immediately.

If you do not have such information, the only reasonable and decent course would be to stop spewing superstition-drenched nonsense and leave the reasoned debate to competent adults.

[Davy C]

Yes, of course my response to a comment about a concurrence in a court ruling regarding an abortion drug means I have information on a specific murder.

Just because you think you're prohibited from being deft doesn't mean you have to be daft instead.

[Michael P]

Isn't he just pointing out the incoherent ad-hoc-ness of leftist legal principles?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that's how it came across to me -- as well as inviting the sort of scornful responses represented here, which can then help dial back the silly overreach of environmental and similar litigation down the road.

[SimonP]

Ho is a clown, yes.

They just ran a piece about his receiving some kind of financial benefit from anti-abortion groups. I am wondering what's taking Josh so long to defend him here.

[Frank Drackman]

Surprisingly, most peoples who go into OB/GYN like delivering babies, not dismembering them. And who hasn't had to pretend to be interested in a blurry Ultrasound of a "Gestational Sac" which is a human, but is about as impressive visually as Halley's Comet 50 years out from Perihelion (next at 28 July 2061 Mark the Date!) Doesn't mean it won't be impressive some 38 years from now (Look at Senescent/Parkinsonian Joe, 80 years and we're still waiting)
But peoples do enjoy the later images, of unborn babies sucking their thumbs (they do that) yawning (they do that, pretty boring in Utero) and (redacted, They do that, pretty boring in Utero)

Frank "Loves (other Peoples) Babies"

[Frank Drackman]

Jeezo-Beezo,
all of this Butt-ounage,
and I have to point out that
"Sorority Sister" Artemis Langford (wasn't he on "Wild Wild West"?)
umm, still has a
"Little Artemis" if you get my Penis Drift
might be a little disconcerting during the weekly Sorority Sister Pillow Fight (do they still have those?)

Frank "Say Hello to my Leedle Friend!!!!!!"

[Intelligent Mr Toad]

"In Christ, there is no longer male or female." -Apostle Paul, Galatians 3:28

[Frank Drackman]

Christ? Jesus Christ? Jesus Christ! really, we're gonna start quoting scripture?? I can see where this is going....( OK, my dad's sort of an SOB, but wouldn't put him at Satan's level)

Frank "Jesus Wept?. What a Pussy!"

[bevis the lumberjack]

Paul was definitely big on gender fluidity.

And you purposely omitted the rest of the letter, which puts your excerpt in perspective.

[Frank Drackman]

So you're saying Paul was a "Peter Puffer"!!!
Praise da Lawd!!!!!!!!!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

No no no. Paul Pelosi.

[mydisplayname]

Yes, a salient portion of the quotation was omitted. In that style, consider 1st 1 Corinthians 12:13 ("We were all given one Spirit to drink.") and identify the Spirit so given -- Jim Beam, Absinthe, Dark Rum, what?

[John Rohan]

In that case, Artemis Langford can't identify as a female.

[Frank Drackman]

I know I'm a Stranger in a Strange Land, and awaiting "Replacment" by a Somalian "Head Hunter" (HT "Coach" A. Kirtland-Sandusky)

But could "Breakfast at Tiffany's" even be made today??
Don't recall any characters 1: Of Color (OK, Maybe Mickey Rooney's character) https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=mickey+rooney+breakfast+at+tiffany%27s+japanese&mid=65F13B67126AEF9D7EBA65F13B67126AEF9D7EBA
2: LGBTQMOUSE (Ok, always had my doubts about George Peppard)
3: Was Holly "Trafficked"??? definitely "Exploited"
Great Trailer here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPQkbvo99Ug

Frank

[Longtobefree]

Well, I'm old, and my memory is not perfect, but I recall Holly was the exploiter, not the exploited.

[Frank Drackman]

Because she “Learned a Trade”?? are you Ron De Sanctimonious??? OK, I’ve felt the same way about the E-viles of “Prostitution” “So women I can chose from will pay me to have sex, and more importantly, not to attach any emotional significance to it, and then leave and never call me again?”

Frank Call me! (Holly)

[Longtobefree]

To determine if an environment is hostile the court examines the "frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance."

Funny thing; in this definition, and in all the others in this article, the truth of Schmidt's position is never discussed or considered.

[David Nieporent]

Because it's not relevant. If you follow someone around constantly yelling "You are a Nazi SOB," that is harassment whether it's true or false. If you put up a billboard saying the same thing about the person, then it's not whether it's true or false.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's the precise problem, deciding up front that the truth is irrelevant.

If Artemis were actually, objectively a girl, "she" would have had a great defamation case. Because the truth is relevant in defamation cases.

But Artemis is actually, objectively, a guy. Who is demanding that everybody around him pretend he's a girl. And he has allies who are trying to enforce that demand.

What's going on is an attempt to add to the defamation exception to the 1st amendment, a "Told a truth that somebody didn't like" exception. (But only selected somebodies, of course...) You're trying to construct the ability to punish contradicting lies.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Even if all that is true, it has nothing to do with his point that truth is irrelevant to whether or not it constitutes harassment.

[David Nieporent]

That’s the precise problem, deciding up front that the truth is irrelevant.

If Artemis were actually, objectively a girl, “she” would have had a great defamation case. Because the truth is relevant in defamation cases.

Why are you talking about defamation? This isn't a defamation case.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's what I was saying: "Contradicting someone's lie/delusion is "harassment!" Is an effort to evade the fact that the truth is a defense in defamation law. It's an attempt to create a kind of pseudo-defamation where the objective truth no longer matters.

As you have no right to deceive other people, no one violates your rights when they point out that you're lying about yourself.

[Randal]

Literally nobody is claiming that Artemis's rights were violated in any way. What are you talking about?

More VC autism I suppose.

[Brett Bellmore]

Really? Nobody is claiming that he was harassed, for instance?

[Randal]

Anti-harassment (here at least) is a policy of the university, not some sort of individual right.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

But Artemis is actually, objectively, a guy.

Just as the religion you espouse is actually, objectively, a bunch of childish, illusory, fictional, bigoted, silly bullshit.

You can pretend to believe that nonsense, or perhaps you genuinely are gullible enough to fall for it, but I doubt you are consistent enough to have it labeled delusion and lies.

[Randal]

Another autistic post. I think we're on to something!

[Religion and Politics, my life]

What about this sign, REV

[Religion and Politics, my life]

What about this sign, REV
https://i0.wp.com/4.bp.blogspot.com/-mjKn-x_Zi1s/W2OmG9v9BfI/AAAAAAAAJGY/-G3SoRDckVoNiUC--WbdCDtfLIgTfJE1wCLcBGAs/s1600/20180127_104953.jpg?ssl=1

[Ama Valde Intellectum]

Only a hateful asshole fool could take offense at that. We all know some think that so why would actually expressing it matter ????
I am sure the reaction to that exactly mimics the reaction when male Artemis Langord told those around him "No, honest, I am a woman" -- if that was free speech then this must be.

[Mr. Bumble]

Reverting to type with the yo’ momma shit again. What a class act.

[Frank Drackman]

My mom was (I'd say "is" but she's 80, lets just say if she was married to Paul Pelosi he wouldn't be getting thrashed by Gay Escorts) hot as fuck, all my friends used to bust my balls about it, and umm, she could have been a stand in for Mary Tyler Moore on the Dick Van Dyke show, sorry your mom was so fat when she layed "Around the House" she layed "Around the House" when she stepped on the scale it said "One at a time!" Your dad had to roll her around in flour just to find her Pussy...

Frank "Moms are off limits"

[Krayt]

Someone complains about ugly women, she just responded at the appropriate intellectual level.

[Mr. Bumble]

How chivalrous of you to defend your queen.

[Eugene Volokh]

OK, folks, I appreciate a good bit of tit-for-tat to expose the folly of another's approach (which is how I understood Queen Amalthea's "yo momma" response to Frank Drackman's "she's so ugly"); but at this point might it be better to return to substance?

[Krychek_2]

Eugene, forget it. That ship sailed a long time ago. If this blog ever starts requiring substance and courtesy you’ll lose half the content.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Never an objection to QAnon-level delusions, defamatory accusations, etc.

Never a warning with respect to incessant racism, gay-bashing, xenophobia, Islamophobia, antisemitism, misogyny, etc.

Never a discouraging word about calls from this blog's right-wing fans for liberals or libertarians to be gassed, lined up and shot, placed face-down in landfills, raped, shot in the face as they open front doors, sent to Zyklon showers, shoved into woodchippers, etc.

But if someone says something mean about a conservative . . .

[Frank Drackman]

Mr Volokh? Sir? "Gene"??
in my defense, my knowledge of Sorority's is limited to Auburn circa 1980-1984 and from getting the Bum's Rush from their various Soiree's . And while there were a few Horse Faces among the Sisteren, they usually had smoking bods (it was 1980, Morbid Obesity wasn't endemic in the 18-23 demographic yet) I don't think any had Schlong-edges, Johnson's, Richards, "Members", do I have to say it,
"Cocks"
So I wasn't really saying "She's so Ugly" but "He's so Ugly"

Frank

[Kazinski]

I really appreciate the mute function.

Doesn't take more than 2-3 back and forths of that nature to mute them both.

[Noscitur a sociis]

Prof. Volokh,

Is this really the comment that you feel crosses the line?

[Randal]

Holy McFuck Eugene! This is the post you choose to object to after years and years of rank racism, homophobia, and threats?

What are we to conclude but that you appreciate the racism, homophobia, and threats that you've cultivated here on your site?

Or is this the new libertarian view of free speech, where innocuous wordplay is harassment, but racism, homophobia, and threats are legitimate "viewpoints" that must be held up as honorable contributions to society?

Sick and gross, Eugene.

[Brett Bellmore]

I agree here, wholeheartedly.

Too much, you can't even call it sexual "inuendo", it's too direct for that. Just graphic sexual insults. I've muted more than one commenter over it, the only thing that stops me from applying a flat policy of muting everybody who does it is that the comment threads would turn into Swiss cheese at this point, if I did.

But I'm this close to not caring, and doing it anyway.

Look, folks, all the insults do is underscore that you don't have any reasoned arguments. They're not even witty anymore, if you think they are you're delusional.

[Social Justice is neither]

It's funny how you only ever step in to defend the ignorant, bad faith leftists dragging everyone off topic.

[theobromophile]

Nothing particularly enlightening to say, except for the content neutral question:

I have a very hard time imagining UW shutting down speech saying "trans women are women," "Artemis belongs in a sorority," or "JK Rowling is a bigoted TERF." In fact, it seems as if some of the criticism faced by members of the sorority came from within the campus.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Seriously?

You're concerned about 'yo mamma' jokes, but the regular suggestions of genocide and civil war are perfectly acceptable?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Ok, I missed that. Take out the “college” adjective on both parties and the point remains.

But clearly Schmidt the Elder is a complete prick. I guess being for free speech and all Schmidt would support my right to put that in a billboard.

[Tom for equal rights]

the statement made is factually accurate. Langford is indeed a male, nothing can be done to change that.

[Scooter]

If Artemis chose to identify as a Koala, would it be an 'attack' to state, factually, that he is a human male?

[ConservativeProfessor]

Suppose the student identifies as a non-bigoted person but we discover that he is a closet white supremacist. Is it an "attack" to bring this to the attention of the public?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It’s clearly an attack given the student doesn’t identify as that."

That makes it a disagreement, not an attack.

[Life of Brian]

Never a discouraging word about calls from this blog’s right-wing fans for liberals or libertarians to be gassed, lined up and shot, placed face-down in landfills, raped, shot in the face as they open front doors, sent to Zyklon showers, shoved into woodchippers, etc.

Ah, time for this nonsense yet again. There's a very good reason why you stick to your fanciful, inflammatory paraphrases rather than providing actual links to actual posts. The last time you tried to back up your risible rhetoric, it didn't go well for you at all.

[Mr. Bumble]

Feel free to leave. Honest, you won't be missed. Take Kirkland with you.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Would that be a bad thing?

[Mr. Bumble]

...and try harder this time.

[Mr. Bumble]

Only in your world could the truth be deemed an attack.

[Scooter]

No, it is not an attack.

[Tom for equal rights]

Its an attack on those who believe we as a society should entertain and embrace the guys delusions. Its an attack on those who are evil enough to torture the individual by participating with his delusions. He will always be male, There is absolutely nothing medical science can do to change that. You remain part of the problem - endorsing the evil.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"It’s irrelevant. Saying someone is a fake blonde could be factual but it’s clearly an attack."

Saying someone colors their hair is not an attack.

[Scooter]

No.

[Frank Drackman]

Well you're "off the grid" and "Don't watch TV" (I wish I didn't watch TV, at least with the US (Biological) Women's World Cup performance, and the Maui Fires (are they aware there is this substance called "Water" and this substance can put out Fires?) Really? Parkinsonian Joe had "No Comment!" about the Fires?? Not even "They're in our Prayers"(OK, he's praying enough they don't trace his and Hunter's Saudi/Chinese $$$$$)

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

It's his fucking name, what should they call him??, Bartholomew Hispanic Oliphant?? "Barry" (what he was called before he went into politics) And I didn't give a fuck what his name was (was grateful he Bee-otch Slapped that Bee-otch Hillary Rodman Clinton) but that he re-invaded Off-Gone-ee-Ston (How did that work out?) and his Hussein-O-Care has only succeeded in making Health Insurance unaffordable for anyone with a decent income, or going on Medicaid, and maybe getting to see some Sawbones off the boat from Somalia,
Oh, and your mom's U-G-L-Y, she ain't got no AL-I-Bi,
She UGLY! She UGLY!

Frank "I went to Pubic Screw-el too"

[Scooter]

No, it isn't

Unless your a science denying Lib that can't figure out what a "woman" is.

[Frank Drackman]

Artemis is a fat creepy schlubby guy with a dick and a stupid name, it's a testament to today's Tolerant Society none of his "Sisters" boyfriends have given him the Bryan Kohberger Treatment. (Just wait, there's gonna be a "Gay Theory of the Case" at some point)

Frank

[Krychek_2]

Now, now. Just because I routinely kick your butt (when I notice you at all) is no reason to get testy.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and every comment about Trump's orange tan is an attack?

[Frank Drackman]

Do you mean an "Internet Kick Butt" or do you go at it with balled up fists? Regret that my last real fist fight was when I was 21, some a-hole my sister had dumped insisted on coming into the house to see if she was there (she was, duh so no, duh, you can't come in) kicked his ass right on the carport (It was Alabama, only the rich A-holes had Garages) just like Sonny Corleone did to Carlo in "I"
Had a few close calls in later years, but then I got my CCW, so why bother with Boxer's Fractures, Rotator Cuff Tears...

Frank

[BrotherMovesOn]

Go easy in our effeminate little insult troll.
Posting insults here is its whole life.

[Mr. Bumble]

See you're putting your degree in gibberish to good use.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, "Queen" (C'mon "Queen" how many inches is "Little Queen*"??(Underappreciated Song/Album BTW) you can't tell with the N-words (OK, I only know in my "Professional" position) , some Sammy Davis/Erkel geek has a friggen 18 inch Anaconda and Mr. T has a Shy Night Crawler)
And I told you, Mom's (AKA "Mammies" ) are off limits, but since they're not
Yo Mama so fat, her waist size is "Equator"! (Rim Shot)
Yo Mama so fat, she walk past the TV I miss the first half!
You Mama so old, her Diaphraghm size is in Roman Numerals!
Yo Mams so ugly, Trojan paid her delivery Doctor bills
Yo Mama so fat, she got a Mink Coat and Mink go extinct.
Yo Mama so fat she fills the Tub, then turns on the water!

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Tell us which one you think would, since you seem to think your opinion matters more than the host's.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You're asking a guy who habitually uses racial slurs where he'd draw the line?

[Magister]

No, you moron, he was saying it was setting a dangerous precedent. I can’t wait until the civil war starts simply so people like you can choke on Zyklon B.

From hoppy025
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/24/monday-open-thread-10/?comments=true#comment-10166845

In a later comment in that thread hoppy025 says Democrats should be "united" in gas chambers.

Reading Dr. Ed 2 once is more than enough, but he pretty regularly "warns of" or "predicts" civil war and widespread deaths of liberals, and is delighted with the prospect.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Veteran readers of this blog know that those calls for violence against liberals have been a regular feature of this blog, every bit as much as the steady stream of racial slurs -- dozens this year, so far -- from the proprietor and his downscale fans.

They also know that Life of Brian is among the disaffected, roundly bigoted, unreliable conservatives that this white, male blog actively attracts as an audience.

You're a worthless bigot, Life of Brian, and our society will improve the moment you are replace by your betters. Until then, though, Prof. Volokh thanks you for your service.

[David Nieporent]

Right; everyone understands that this is merely a metaphor and not justification for banning such ads. Lathrop is treating it as literal and arguing that it is a justification for banning such speech.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahahahahaha!!!!

[Stephen Lathrop]

Nieporent, "such," is doing way too much work. Do you intend it to include everything from the public square to every purposeful private institution in society. If so, I have different takes for many of the stops along the way. Are you really in favor of a right for an outsider to come into a law firm which you own, and scream racial slurs at a particular employee?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Scooter, if you believe that for a person to identify as a Koala, and insist that others support that, is an unreasonable demand, and even a symptom of mental illness, why not just make that argument as a matter of principle. Why does it call for singling out some non-public person—viewed by you as mentally ill—for denunciation, and by implication for social exclusion and banishment.

Also, you know, as we all do, that the instance under discussion involves religious motivations behind the attack and the singling out—it ascribes to evil what our society as a whole has decided ought to be normatively acceptable. You are free to disagree with that decision. You do not need to target non-policy-making individuals to express your disagreement.

[Krychek_2]

You’re just jealous that I’ve never noticed you.

[Krychek_2]

If you can’t tell simple straightforward English from gibberish then you’re the one with the problem.

But back up a minute. It was your totally uncalled for statement that no one would miss me if I left that started this Donnybrook. If you don’t like me returning fire maybe you shouldn’t start stuff.

[Scooter]

Not if you understand what a "Woman" is.

Of course for the Science Denying Left, that's a bridge too far.

Cry Harder.

[Scooter]

Maybe the dude should retake HS Biology and realize that he is not a Woman.

It's not an attack to point out basic Science.

[sCuLLeRcRUsHEr]

Wrong. If I said “I think it’s wrong and against God’s teachings that biological males, such as Langford, are allowed to join sororities.”

[Randal]

You're very obviously retarded, bee.

There. True, and an attack.

[Kazinski]

What was the sick and gross part:
"but at this point might it be better to return to substance?"

And it seemed to me he was reacting to the whole chain, not one comment.

[migrant log picker]

Call a waaaaambulance, Sparky.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Holy McFuck Eugene! This is the post you choose to object to after years and years of rank racism, homophobia, and threats?

What are we to conclude but that you appreciate the racism, homophobia, and threats that you’ve cultivated here on your site?

If you expect Prof. Volokh -- or any of the conservative law professors who operate this blog -- has the courage or character needed to acknowledge or discuss that point, we disagree.

Prof. Volokh will watch his fans claim that contentions concerning bigotry or evocations of violence at the Volokh Conspiracy are false or overblown (much as he stands mute as his fans lie about this blog's repeated censorship), then dutifully resume tossing a steady stream of transgender-Muslim-drag queen-white grievance-Black crime-lesbian content (punctuated by racial slurs) to his carefully cultivated collection of intolerant, ignorant, conservative commenters.

[Randal]

Yes. Calling someone a white supremacist is an attack, even if true.

[sCuLLeRcRUsHEr]

all of you are really messed up. Hey Queen. I don’t deny we have a climate. I also believe that climate has, and will always change.
Where would the statement about Langford not be attack? What if the situation was a priest in a public location? The priest says, “Langford is a biological male. He joined a sorority. The church does not condone biological males joining sororities.” Is that allowed? If it is, why should it not be allowed elsewhere? Conversely, If those kinds of statements are banned in campus, why not everywhere else? To me, it’s more of an attack on the priest to ban his or her speech, than any possible attach on males joining sororities.

[Randal]

The sick and gross part, terrorist-boy, is that he's proven his willingness and ability to call out posts that he doesn't appreciate. Which means he does appreciate, for example, all of hoppy's posts urging a return to the policies and society of the Holocaust.

[Life of Brian]

A for effort -- certainly more than Artie himself was willing to put in. But 1) it doesn't match any of his alleged examples other than a word-search bingo sense; and more importantly 2) Hoppy has only been around for a short while, and that particular comment for less than a month. The right Rev has been cutting and pasting this same nonsense claim for years.

[Life of Brian]

All flailing vitriol; zero substance as always. Post your supposed forbidden words and show us the censorship, you worthless coward.

[Magister]

Not sure what you think "people like you" and "Democrats" means, if it doesn't include liberals at least. And it's not like any of the posters who share your apparent politics said much anything about hoppy025's posts. I'm not willing to reread recent Dr. Ed 2 posts, let alone the guy who was always trying to locate Kirkland's grandchildren, nor to go back through months or years of open threads to satisfy your goalpost shifting. We'll just say it's gone badly for you and leave it at that after one addendum:

The last time I can find that Kirkland brought this up was an open thread for July 13th, and the only response was several comments from Bwaah:
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/07/13/thursday-open-thread-145/?comments=true#comment-10156366
who wrote:

I agree that all those sentiments, ugly much as you describe, are widely expressed here in endless variations. Expressed sincerely, those sentiments reveal contempt in the heart of the speaker, for an expressed reason that *can’t*, in my mind, be a basis for, or justification for, such a sentiment. There’s a lot of hateful stuff.

That doesn't look like it went badly for Kirkland, despite Bwaah's wondering if these are people's actual sentiments or just talk, while Kirkland doesn't seem there or here to claim that people have actual intent to do these things. Kirkland's point is that Eugene Volokh chides a fairly bland response while ignoring those more hateful comments, intent only or not.

[sCuLLeRcRUsHEr]

So what if Langford was said to be biologically male?

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, not sure how long you've been around here, but you parachuted into the middle of a tete-a-tete several years long. I was referring to the last time Artie was careless enough to actually try to point to specific comments themselves, rather than his poignantly airbrushed interpretations. I believe that was well before COVID -- he's wised up and retreated to the non-falsifiable path since then.

But more importantly, it's been nearly a decade since his first account was banned (and Eugene actually posted some examples of the posts that got him there, which quite predictably were not the playful, innocuous turns of phrase he runs into the ground). So the only apples-to-apples comparison that exists are comments back in that era that weren't moderated. These days, he repeatedly refuses invitations to say what he supposedly wants to say and supposedly can't, so there's no basis whatsoever to show any inconsistency in present-day moderation decisions.

And dollars to donuts, he refuses because he knows nothing would happen and he'd lose his premier whining point.

[Magister]

Ah, so you have a story too and don't provide links. Got it!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have detailed the times I was censored and the time I was banned, more than once.

Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland, a parody account that should have been easily tied to me even by the most sl_ck-jaw_d fan of this blog, was banned after (1) making fun of conservatives and (2) criticizing conservatives. Artie Ray never called for anyone to be shoved through a woodchipper, raped, gassed, shot in the face, or placed face-down in landfills (comments from others to which this blog's management did not object), but he was banned.

The words that were scrubbed from my comments by Prof. Volokh included p_ssy and c_p succor. The first term has been used repeatedly by the professor's fellow conservatives -- as recently as a couple of days ago -- without objection by the professor. The second term probably involves more wit than any of his fans could muster, but the professor has approved far worse from conservative commenters.

The words I was told to stop using by Prof. Volokh include "sl_ck-j_w," for reasons the management of this blog must explain because I find it inexplicable.

Prof. Volokh is welcome to identify any error in my account, but I do not expect him to try, in large part because I still have the emails with which he has censored me repeatedly.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

These days, he repeatedly refuses invitations to say what he supposedly wants to say and supposedly can’t,

I do not use the words or accounts Prof. Volokh has banned because this is his playground and therefore is governed by his rules. (Hypocrites who impose viewpoint-driven censorship have rights, too.) If he wishes to cancel any or all of the censorship, that would be great.

Life of Brian may be trying to goad me into providing grounds for Prof. Volokh to impose another ban. Until Prof. Volokh rescinds the censorship, I intend to attempt to comply with the restrictions the proprietor of this blog has established.

[Life of Brian]

I do not use the words or accounts Prof. Volokh has banned because this is his playground and therefore is governed by his rules.

Presumably if the prior accounts are truly banned, you would have no choice about using them.

Until Prof. Volokh rescinds the censorship, I intend to attempt to comply with the restrictions the proprietor of this blog has established.

As shown in my post further down, your persistent, bitter clinging to your -- at best -- misunderstanding of whatever forum policies may have been in place around a decade ago just makes you look foolish and weak.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I do not remember the procedure I used to post as Artie Ray. This blog’s proprietor indicated Artie Ray was no longer welcome and should stop posting; I am respecting that rule unless and until it is rescinded. If that strikes you as foolish and weak, that level of judgment is consistent with my impression of your judgment.

If I am mistaken about the censorship that still shackles me, I invite the Volokh Conspiracy’s clarification of the situation. But I am not mistaken, which explains Prof. Volokh’s standing failure to identify any mistaken statement from me.

[David Nieporent]

No, I am not in favor of repealing trespass laws. The first amendment protects against government action, not private action.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

yawn

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Cry Harder.

Open wider, Scooter.

And try to be nicer. Your betters are not required to be magnanimous in victory.

[Kazinski]

Maybe he just has higher expectations of Queenie.

After Hoppy's first 2 or 3 posts it was obvious he just wanted attention, I just muted him and moved on. Its obvious though he fulfills some sort of need for you, which is probably why EV tolerates him, that and he has better things to do than play commenter whack-a-mole.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The sick and gross part, terrorist-boy, is that he’s proven his willingness and ability to call out posts that he doesn’t appreciate. Which means he does appreciate, for example, all of hoppy’s posts urging a return to the policies and society of the Holocaust."

There's some sick and gross reasoning.

The fact that he calls out some posts that he doesn't appreciate doesn't mean that he calls out all posts that he doesn't appreciate.

But you knew that.

[Kazinski]

Its not always easy telling them apart lately.

[Randal]

Ok, terrorist-boy. I'm going to go along with that for the good of Eugene. He only attempts to moderate the people that he respects, when they fall below his hopes and expectations.

Congratulations, Queenie! Eugene must like you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Someone denied that we have a climate?

[Kazinski]

Well thanks for acknowledging my point that hoppy and queenie are disparate cases, as even Queenies rather grudging response above shows.

But as for the “good of Eugene” that’s pretty high minded too, I can imagine his distress at such a devastating intellectual riposte as “Holy McFuck Eugene”.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"He only attempts to moderate the people that he respects"

Artie Ray Lee Wayne Jim-Bob Kirkland would thank you for that -- if "often libertarian" Prof. Volokh hadn't banished poor Artie Ray for making fun of conservatives and criticizing right-wing bigots.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski, I doubt Sarcastro will appreciate that remark, but it is fine by me. I like the guy. I expect that when he is older and wiser he will like my advocacy better than I think he does now. In the meantime, he might benefit by taking bait less persistently, and reserving comment opportunities to those which better showcase his considerable reasoning strengths.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Its not always easy telling them apart lately.

Antisocial, awkward, disaffected, often autistic people -- the kind of people who choose to live in off-the-grid hermit shacks in can't-keep-up backwaters; rant against modernity and all of this damned progress; and flock to white, male, bigot-hugging conservative blogs -- are said to have trouble with faces, cues, and other elements of normal human interaction.

[Brett Bellmore]

More likely say, "Oh, dear, are my roots showing?"

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Most of them seem to be autistic to one degree or another.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do not forget why Hinkley shot Reagan -- to impress Jodie Foster.
I'm really surprised that someone with a crush on one of the sorority girls hasn't done the same thing here.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I have provided the detailed account of the repeated censorship more than once.

If I am misdescribing any of the censorship, Prof. Volokh should correct me.

Prof. Volokh and I both know what he will not attempt to do that. That he knows what he did, when he did it, why he did it, and how that conduct reflects on him is plenty to satisfy me.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

And you expected him to have the courage and character to respond?

Welcome, newbie!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

It’s his fucking name, what should they call him??,

Yehven? (Or Yevgeniy?)

Rafael?

Nimirata?

Carry on, clingers.

Bigoted, worthless, bitter, conservative clingers.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Calling a bigot a bigot isn't whining, clinger.

It's public service.

[Randal]

That makes it a disagreement, not an attack.

I think you're an asshole, you (presumably) disagree. So by your logic, I can call you an asshole in public, and it's not an attack because it's a disagreement.

I love it! Tiny Pianist is an asshole, everyone!

[Tom for equal rights]

An asshole would be someone that embraces the guys delusions. In fact it very evil to participate in his delusions.

In the world of woke - evil becomes compassionate.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I think you’re an asshole, you (presumably) disagree. So by your logic, I can call you an asshole in public, and it’s not an attack because it’s a disagreement."

Well, that depends. If you actually think I'm literally a sphincter, then sure, that's a disagreement, and you're more deluded than Artemis here.

If you're calling me a sphincter as an insult, then sure, that's an attack.

I hope that helps.

[Randal]

Just because something's an attack doesn't mean it's not "allowed."

There'd be very little left of the First Amendment if it failed to protect speech that could be characterized as an attack, Lathrop's fantasies notwithstanding.

[Randal]

Well Tom, imagine you'd been born with a pussy that one day started squrting blood on a monthly basis. As a man, would you be willing / able to go through life with such a horrible deformity, all the while being told by asshole evangelicals that you're not a man at all?

[Randal]

If you’re calling me a sphincter as an insult, then sure, that’s an attack.

I hope that helps.

It sure does!

Schmidt is misgendering Artemis as an insult, so that's an attack.

I hope that helps.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You don't think Schmidt believes that Artemis is a man?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's extremely unlikely that Smith, a man himself, thinks that calling Artemis a "man" is an insult.

[Kazinski]

I appreciate the insults to the degree it lets me know when I've struck a nerve.

I'm not going to respond to the insult, not when that exposed nerve is out there and such an inviting target.

[Randal]

I'm sure he does, just as I believe you're an asshole.

[Randal]

I'm starting to believe Rev and Queenie that you guys are just fundamentally autistic (in addition to being assholes) and are incapable of understanding simple social truths like that a statement can be both an honest belief and an insult simultaneously.

[Randal]

He's singling her out for a very obvious (and insulting) reason.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some of these clingers must be surprised that Prof. Volokh hasn't joined the discussion to deny that he censored me repeatedly, which would delight his fans by branding me a liar.

(If you want him to show up, though, say something mean about his conservative fans.)

[Tom for equal rights]

Randal - your comment has no relationship with reality. though that has become standard for those believing in woke science and who wish to inflict evil on the mentally ill.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The point is that the pattern is obvious and disgraceful.

Calls for liberals to be killed in inventive way?

Nothing.

Vile racial slurs?

Nothing (other than joining in on the fun).

Incessant bigotry in various forms (racism, white nationalism, antisemitism, misogyny, gay-bashing, Islamophobia, xenophobia, etc.)

Nothing.

Poking fun at conservatives, or criticizing them with mean words?

Warnings, or perhaps the ban hammer.

[Randal]

Oh, my comment is reality for lots of people. Calling them mentally ill isn’t helpful. It's just a way for you to write them off and not care. Aka bigotry.