The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
The New Wave of Faculty Terminations
My two recent pieces in Chronicle of Higher Education
The Fall semester is not going well so far when it comes to campus speech. Obviously the most horrible event in this regard was the murder of Charlie Kirk while he was engaged in a public speaking event on a university campus. A few years ago there were numerous instances of mobs of students and agitators disrupting conservative speakers and rioting when conservative speakers came to a college campus. The pace of such mob activity seemed to have slowed, but the Kirk shooting is a terrible escalation.
Unfortunately, the Kirk shooting is not the only news on the campus speech front. In just the past few days, I have written two pieces for the Chronicle of Higher Education on moves to fire professors for speech that has drawn the ire of politicians.
The first responded on events at Texas A&M University, where an English lecturer was quickly fired after a viral video promulgated by a Republican state legislator. The video shows a confrontation in a class on children's literature in which a student objected to the professor presenting materials on gender identity. The university president initially defended the instructor and her academic freedom, until the Texas governor started demanding that she be fired.
From the piece:
Events in Texas have been fast moving, and a great deal of factual information about the case remains unknown. What is clear is that state-government officials are extremely willing to intervene to punish professors at state universities for saying things in the classroom that those politicians do not like, and that university presidents there are under immense pressure to comply with such demands. Academic freedom is a tenuous thing in such an environment.
Read the whole thing here (you will need a free account to sign in).
The second is at the top of the website this morning. This longer piece walks through the First Amendment rights of government employees and particularly professors and other employees of state universities. Since the murder of Charlie Kirk, there has been an orchestrated campaign to identify individuals who posted on social media celebrations of his death (or worse) and to pressure their employers to fire them for those posts. University employees have been just one target of that campaign, but several universities have been extremely quick to bow to that pressure and suspend or fire professors for their speech relating to Charlie Kirk. In the process, some universities have issued public statements egregiously mischaracterizing First Amendment doctrine. The piece points out the circumstances when such terminations are constitutionally permissible -- and when they are not.
From the conclusion of the piece:
The American Association of University Professors once emphasized that, when speaking in public, professors should remember that the public will "judge their profession and their institution by their utterances," so they should conduct themselves with discretion when speaking in public. That remains good advice. Higher education is now under extraordinary political pressure, and public confidence in colleges and the academic profession is in free fall. Professors who behave immaturely (or worse) in public exacerbate those problems. Perhaps more immediately, constitutional doctrine that treats professors as different and special compared to other government employees depends on a judgment that professors make positive contributions to our public discourse, even when those contributions are controversial. If professors are seen as polluting the public environment and contributing to political polarization and intolerance, the calculation of how to balance the competing constitutional interests is likely to change. Perhaps judges should continue to insist that professors are different even when they are chanting on the campus quad or posting on social media, but they are likely to do so only if they think professors are acting responsibly.
Even if a sense of public virtue is not sufficient to encourage professors to exercise more care when speaking in public, self-interest should.
For a more extensive discussion of constitutional doctrine and academic freedom principles related to professors speaking in public about matters of public concern, see my law review article here.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
What's your thoughts on Rubio's statement that he's going to revoke the visas of, and deport, foreign national who made inappropriate comments about Charlie Kirk's death.
That's a lot more people than the number of college professors.
Can he legally do that? Is there legal recourse that some of these people, especially permanent residents, could take if he actually does it?
As Eugene recently posted, it's not settled law.
Maybe it is time to settle the law then. These foreign nationals can wait in their home countries until it is settled. And say whatever they want from their home country.
They are now unwelcome guests, by their own words and deeds.
That conclusion is really victim-blamey.
And what the heck is this passive voice: "If professors are seen as polluting the public environment..."
"Victim" is a hell of a stretch in most of these cases. I think what Whittington is acknowledging is that outside of academia, people who say outrageous or profoundly stupid things on social media have little or no protection from losing their jobs as a result. If academics want to continue having a special right to say controversial things and be protected from the consequences, they will have to exercise some level of self-control. Academic freedom is in large part a norm rather than an inviolate legal entitlement.
These fools using social media to celebrate the assassination of a public figure are weakening support for academic freedom, to the detriment of those who genuinely contribute to public debate by taking unpopular positions and challenging orthodoxy. I don't blame the latter for resenting the former.
No, it’s not. Academic independence is under attack.
And saying the way to retain your independence is to act like you dint have it is not the advice of a supporter; it’s appeasement.
I also don’t think social media accounts get people fired from private jobs regularly. Or didn’t till the recent right wing turn to become the SJWs they used to yell about, now with federal backing.
Saying Charlie Kirk deserved to die on Twitter or in your classroom isn't "academic independence".
A professor's political speech isn't "academic independence".
Have you no shame or decency? Why do you gaslight like this? Are you paid to do it or are just a fanatic?
"recent right wing turn to become the SJWs they used to yell about"
Yes, we learned from you.
Random people on Tumblr like 10 years ago is why you're all anti-speech now?
Nah - anyone who has been paying attention knows the nihilistic authoritarian asshole was within you all along.
Cancel culture is 10 years ago Tumblr?
Why do you lie so effortlessly?
"Random people on Tumblr like 10 years ago"
Gaslighting. "Cancelling" was widespead and mainstream on your side.
So when I said SJW, you read it as something else and now you're mad at me.
There's a huge difference between digging up something said years ago as a child, and spotlighting what was said yesterday, as an employee and representative of their employer.
Don't try to pretend they weren't representing their employer. When they identify as an employee, they are borrowing their employer's prestige and reputation, their branding. Their employer has every right to take back the affiliation by firing them.
OK dude. You love cancel culture but don't want to be called an SJW. We get it.
There you go again, Mr Telepath, knowing what I love and want to be called. We get it.
I'm being flippant, but your comment above
1) enthusiastically endorses cancelling a shitload of people.
2) says being an SJW is different than that.
If you write it down, you don't get to call it telepathy when I read your words and make fun of what they say.
Spoken like a guy who sees one in the mirror every morning
Given academic freedom's likely ultimate status as non-constitutionally protected, it behooves supporters of academic freedom to convince the rest of us that it's in our interest.
I am inclined to agree. Whittington's makes the case thus :
Perhaps more immediately, constitutional doctrine that treats professors as different and special compared to other government employees depends on a judgment that professors make positive contributions to our public discourse, even when those contributions are controversial.
That is not a law of nature but a proposition subject to empirical testing. It's not unreasonable to have the occasional oddball insisting that "Trump is a fascist" or "The Earth is flat" but the point of cherishing oddballs with odd things to say is that we might hear lots of different oddball ideas, and a small fraction of them might be worth exploring. But if a thousand oddballs all insist in unison that "Trump is a fascist" or "sex is a spectrum" they cease to be useful oddballs. We've heard those ideas before.
This btw is not an analysis exclusive to government universities. The government might, or might not, wish to specially cherish a diversity of oddballery at its universities. But a private university is in the same position, not legally, but in terms of what it regards as its interests. Tedious, repetitious, dull, cliched, oddballery is not the sort of oddballery worth cherishing.
Whoever is the sponsor - public or private - your license to speak your mind on someone else's dime is inevitably dependent on there being an idea or two in your mind that is, or at least has a chance of being, meritworthy in the eyes of the sponsor.
You only get a completely free rein if you are your own sponsor.
That conclusion is really victim-blamey.
Yes, it is.
It's pretty terrible. Kowtowing to intimidation is not a good practice.
What's the kowtowing part? It seems to me to be a rather straightforward acknowledgement that the current caste system where certain hallowed groups receive greater protection from the consequences of their day-to-day actions than the unwashed masses is not inevitable but simply current practice, and that it's very possible for them to abuse that privilege to the point where it will no longer be current practice.
That is what is happening = ...it's very possible for them to abuse that privilege to the point where it will no longer be current practice
(from the law article) " . . . but the First Amendment does not hinder government employers from making judgments about the quality of their employees’ ideas . . . . "
WHAT?!?
Now the govt can do "thought police" actions on its employees?
GTFO
Obviously there are no "absolutes" and a line does have to be drawn somewhere.
But that line CANNOT be anywhere near "the quality of their employees’ ideas."
Yes it can when the government is acting as the employer.
In fairness, it cannot be near the employees' mere ideas or beliefs. Apedad does the law article a disservice by omitting the context that makes clear they were talking only about the employees' published ideas (and/or demonstrated behaviors). And that's something the employer, including a government employer, can get quite close to depending on the circumstances.
So telepathy is off the table. Boy do I feel freer for that.
Que ? You're against telepathy ?
But you're always telling other people what they really think.
And then he complains when anyone points it out.
University employees have been just one target of that campaign, but several universities have been extremely quick to bow to that pressure and suspend or fire professors for their speech relating to Charlie Kirk. In the process, some universities have issued public statements egregiously mischaracterizing First Amendment doctrine.
Another extreme-left academic...
Sorry EV, gonna have to go all Anglo-Saxon for a minute....
You want some "Free Speach"??
Well FUCK these University Professors, they can go support Ham-Ass in Terror-Anne, Kabul, or better yet, Gaza, like Peter Quinn said in "Homeland" THAT's the Problem, these University Faculty have a plan, and it's to usher in the Caliphate, WTF do you think (the) Zoran Ram-a-damn-he is? Mullah Ill-hand Omar?? Priapism Slap-a-Jap??
and yes, "My" People are part of the problem, just like in Roosha and East Germany (Look up Markus Wolf sometime) what can I say? Civil Wars are the bloodiest.
Charlie Kirk deserved Free Speach too, ironically his message will spread faster with him dead than alive.
His name is Charlie Kirk
Frank
Freedom of Speech for one side, but not the other? That's not Freedom of Speech at all. But, it is a popular viewpoint right now (see for example Vance and Miller on Kirk's podcast yesterday).
{The post was by Whittington, not EV)}
Yes, Captain Obvious, I know the post was by "Keith E. Whittington"(probably an upstanding Mensch, but name sounds fake) but EV (his friends call him "EV") is the Ramrod for this Cattle Drive, and I've gotten the "High Sign" on more than one occasion to (redacted) the (Redacted) bad language and disparaging personal comments.
Of course seems like I'm the only one playing nice, so on occasion I have to go all Jack Tatum on some panty-waist receiver trying to catch a pass over the middle.
Free Speach is one thing, allowing Ham-Ass collaborators to "collude" (used accurately for perhaps the first time on this Blog) with the Enemy is another.
Look up what we did to the Nazi Saboteurs in "Operation Pastorius" and those guys weren't planning 1/2 the (redacted) Professor Moe-hammed Khomeni Bin Laden Osama is at East Dumbfuck Tech,
I know it's been almost 2 years, but 10-7 could happen here, might happen here, will happen here (and no, I don't have any inside Information, I have these things called "Eyes" and what we call a "Brain" (a "Very Very Big" one)
Frank
Should Frankie lose his job at the free clinic if one were to shuttle his black and gay hatred comments here to his employer?
Thanks Hobie-Stank, didn't realize Nazis and Ham-Ass Supporters were "Black and Gay", I'll have to work that into my material
and you mean the job I don't have anymore that didn't pay me anything???(I paid to work there in extra Malpractice Coverage and lost time I could have spent getting paid
and that still keeps trying to guilt me into coming back?
Most of the Patient Population/Staff is Asian/Hispanic with the Odd Serb/Bosnian/Croat thrown in (ever met any? they're pretty "Odd") they don't really like the Blacks and Gays either.
Frank
“My People”
You mean the mentally disabled?
Of course, you can convert, like Rod Carew and Sammy Davis Junior.
Where are the champions of free speech on the Texas A&M business?
Nowhere to be seen, apparently.
Charlie Kirk was for Free Speach, look what happened to him.
His name is Charlie Kirk.
Frank
Exactly. Kirk clearly approves of demeaning an assisinated thought leader:
"MLK was awful" "He's not a good person"
Were Kirk alive today counting his post rally merch shekels, he'd approve of all the stuff he's been rightly called. Wouldn't you agree, Frankie?
Oh, he's alive, like Clark G with the Family Truckster
"You think you hated Charlie when he was alive? just wait till he's Dead"
His name is Charlie Kirk.
Frank
""He's not a good person""
Well, he was a womanizer and misogynist. Nowadays we have been removing statues and other honorifics to such people. Generally folks like hobie have applauded that.
1. The article acknowledges that "a great deal of factual information about the case remains unknown." Did something new emerge since that was penned?
2. After the past several years of being patiently instructed that employees well-of-course-duh can be fired for expressing calm and rationally-stated opinions on current social issues, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to suddenly get worked up about this one. (I addressed the inevitable "but professors are gods, yo" rejoinder in my post further up.)
It's a government institution. The government deciding what goes on in government institutions, including what can be taught by Profs at government colleges, is not an abridgement of free speech.
If you want freedom from government controls on what you can teach as an employee at a college, go to a private college.
The solution to this "how should we apply the 1st Amendment to government universities and schools" remains childishly simple.
Do without government universities and government schools.
Your comment has a view of our government that is more Soviet than American.
Freedom of speech and inquiry in our universities, both public and quiet, was why we were the jewel of the modern intellectual commons, and the most talented researchers vied to work here.
And did you even notice you switched from free speech to 1A?
'it's legal so it must be moral' has never been a good argument.
You are, as so often, mistaken. I'm talking about free speech not the first amendment.
The government restricting its employees in what they can say on the job is a matter of the master-servant relationship of employment, just as it is in the private sector. Don't like your employer's restrictions ? Go and work elsewhere.
If - as Josh suggests below - the courts might find that government restrictions on its employees' on the job speech is a breach of 1A, that's a legal conclusion, not a moral conclusion. Voluntarily agreeing to control your speech as part of the master-servant relationship of employment is not "an abridgement of free speech" it is a voluntarily accepted restraint on your own speech, undertaken in exchange for cash.
So you're not making a legal argument, you just think as a policy matter we should be treating professors at public institutions more like servants.
Or at least impose 'voluntarily accepted restraint[s] on...speech'
Welp, I think we're done here. You and your weird lochnerian scholarship utopia is a horrible idea to anyone who has ever known an employed human, understands history, or done any research.
There you go again with that telepathy. "you just think ..."
Are you going to complain now that I am guessing what you think?
Or are you just going to bow out because you've been outed as a telepath?
Indeed. Poor fellow can’t resist
See, you had a bad vibe, in Sarcastr0-speak. He was triggered.
I read his comment, is where I got that.
Did you?
I read this ... "you just think ..." from your comment. Did someone else write that?
I think his comments lay out what he thinks, yeah.
This line of attack doesn't seem to be working well for you.
No. Government employees ARE servants of their employers, just as private sector employees are servants of their employees.
The terms of service are contractual and whether or not an employer wishes to insist on employee restraint as to speech or clothing or frequency of showering is up to the employer. Just as it is up to the employee as to whether he wants to agree to the terms.
Of course in a private employment there is usually a third party trying to butt in and direct the parties as to what they may agree. The third party is the government.
In a government employment there is no third party because the third party is one of the two parties.
Surely this is not that hard ?
"So you're not making a legal argument, you just think as a policy matter we should be treating professors at public institutions more like servants."
Of course. For example, we should require Physics teachers to show up for work, and to teach Physics and not Shakespeare or Young-Earth Creationism, and to teach the elements of Physics that fit within their portion of the curriculum, and to evaluate their students according to a specified rubric, all of which they would have a right not to do if they had full first amendment rights.
"more Soviet than American."
He is the guy who used to accuse other of red-baiting.
It's not settled law whether academic freedom limits what the government can restrict in the curricula at public universities.
I am not making a legal point, just a reality point.
What reality were you referring to when you said, "The government deciding what goes on in government institutions, including what can be taught by Profs at government colleges, is not an abridgement of free speech."?
See my reply to Sarcastro above.
It seems your point is the government should be able to choose the curricula at public universities. That's an opinion, not a reality.
Not quite. In fact the government decides what is to go on in government institutions, because it’s the government. If it decides that what goes on should be decided by a committee of the five oldest tenured Profs, then it is still the government deciding what goes on, since it sets the rules for how decisions are to be reached. So it’s a reality point.
Which is as you say a different question from what precisely the government should decide should go on
The reality is the government decides in a manner of their choosing (*)? That's a trivial reality.
(*) subject to First Amendment constraints.
I hope that triviality wasn't your point when you said (my emphasis), "The government deciding what goes on in government institutions, including what can be taught by Profs at government colleges, is not an abridgement of free speech."
Not sure what point you're making, or what you think is trivial.
The government decides what is to go on in government schools. It can do so by a mixture of legislative (inc constitutional) , executive and judicial action. Which government agents do what bits of the deciding depends on the rules set up by .... the government.
This is no different - save for the possibility of government intervention - from how businesses decide what goes on in the business. I can see that this is banal, though hardly in the sense of trivial, as it describes how what goes on comes to be what goes on, which is quite important. But I concede it's hardly rocket science.
"The government deciding what goes on in government institutions, including what can be taught by Profs at government colleges, is not an abridgement of free speech."
Not seeing what your problem is here. The Profs are employees hired under contract by the government, they talk on the government dime, and they speak as the government directs. If they decline to do so they're not keeping their end of the employment deal. Which they entered into voluntarily.
Of course the government might hire Profs and direct them thus - "say and teach whatever you like" - the government direction of what is to go on may be "whatever you like."
But if the government chooses to set limits, by contract, on what may be said by the Profs, that is not an abridgement of the Profs "free speech", because the Profs are not speaking for themselves. They are speaking the government's speech. In exchange for cash. They have voluntarily agreed to speak as the government directs - in the university - by signing a contract. They're welcome to quit at any time to escape their contractual obligations.
An "abridgement of free speech" is something imposed by compulsion. Not something assumed by your own volition. If you offer your son a cookie if he will remain silent for 30 seconds at a stretch, his 'free speech" is not abridged. He is earning his cookie. As are the Profs.
Again - to be clear - I am not making a legal point, but a reality point. Taking money in exchange for voluntarily refraining from speaking is not an abridgement of free speech in reality even if the courts were to decide that for legal purposes, it is. The law is full of fictions.
You are not making a "reality point" (i.e., a factual claim). You are expressing your opinion that "Taking money in exchange for voluntarily refraining from speaking is not an abridgement of free speech." Others disagree with you in the context of public university curricula.
Of course, other people have every right to take a different view from me of the meaning of "abridgement of free speech."
It's just that in my opinion (sic) the notion that voluntarily curbing your tongue, in exchange for money, is "abridgement of free speech" is daft. You can chatter all you like if you're willing to forego the compensation offered.
It's a bit like arguing that employment is slavery, because (until you quit) you are required to do what the boss tells you, within the limits set by your contract. Required, on pain not of criminal sanction, but of not getting paid or getting fired. That's not an abridgement of your freedom from slavery, it's a job.
Your last sentence implies that you maybe think "free speech" means something different when applied to university Professors from what it means when applied to cab drivers . I don't. Smacks of Titles of Nobility. Good morning, Professor, or I should say Your Grace. With the enhanced constitutional rights. Nah, I don't go for it.
An here is an excellent, topical, illustration :
https://x.com/YoBenCohen/status/1968161740757119057
Jerry of Ben and Jerry's is quitting Ben and Jerry's because under the cruel corporate dominion of Unilever, he can't keep talking about social issues and keep his job.
Has his freedom of speech been abridged ? Not at all, for here he is is flapping that lip nineteen to the dozen.
All that has happened is that the deal he made a while back, no doubt for lotsa cash, that he could continue at the company he sold so long as he minded his lip, is now irksome; and faced with the choice - a choice he voluntarily agreed to - between continuing with the lip flapping and keeping his job, he's decided to pick the former and lose the latter.
Just like the kid who decides after 10 seconds that yacking is going to have to trump the promise of cookie.
There's nothing to see here, move along.
"how should we apply the 1st Amendment to government universities and schools" sure sounds legal.
That is a legal point. And one which I always make when lawyers complain that applying the first amendment to government schools and colleges gets very complicated.
That point is separate from the non-legal point that voluntarily agreeing to curtail your speech in exchange for money does not constitute an abridgement of free speech.
voluntarily agreeing to curtail your speech in exchange for money
Powerful. We should do this for all other liberties as well!
Actually, legally preventing people from curtailing their speech for money would be a restriction on their liberty.
As would legally preventing people from taking money for saying things other people want them to say.
Are you suggesting that we can run a public university without paying people to do things that they would otherwise have a first amendment right not to do?
"It's not settled law whether academic freedom limits what the government can restrict in the curricula at public universities."
It's certainly not. But the current court is unlikely to settle it in favor of academic freedom.
And rightly so. The idea that state actors at universities have some sort of individual first-amendment right to decide how the state university conducts its business, insulated from the voters and perhaps in pursuit of their own ends and not the governments, is antithetical to the democracy.
And any other notion of applying the first amendment to achieve independence for universities is inconsistent with the first amendment and just using it as an excuse to insulate public policy from the public.
Just wondering; how is it different to teach that men can become women, and to teach that the earth is flat?
Well, you're obviously not "just wondering," and you just as obviously don't care what the actual issues are.
But for a legal analysis, there would be a whole bunch of salient "facts" that would matter-
1. What do you mean "teach?" Do you mean "have a belief privately and discuss that." "Post on social media." "Talk about in class as part of a discussion on salient and related material" (we discussed the Flat Earth Society when talking about Patricia Lockwood in a Literature Seminar). Or do you mean, "Teach specific facts as part of the syllabus that will be tested on" (the earth is flat, that is the correct answer, and you must answer that on the test)?
2. Is this a public or private institution?
3. Is this K-12 or at a university? Is it a college course or a post-graduate course? What's the post-graduate course in? If it's a law course, can the professor not teach the past and current law related to transgender individuals under state and federal law?
4. What is the subject matter of the class? Is this an astrophysics teacher saying that the earth is flat, or a poetry teacher?
Should I continue? I'm guessing you didn't really want to know.
Look at it this way, bro. From conservatism's long history up until this very day with re-raising of the South, it is clear that they are hostile to black people. YET, conservatives claim they are not racists...just like a man claiming to be a woman.
The people’s “Hostile” to Black Peoples are the ones responsible for murdering millions and millions of them before they could even get born.
Yes Queenie, I’m a crying Bee-otch because I don’t approve murdering the Unborn(I could be persuaded with some of the Born though*)
* I’m kidding, I mean like Ham-Ass, Al-Kaida, etc etc
Frank
Uh...Frankie...that would be black women taking plan B in their own black-ass home. I'm not sure that qualifies as racism.
The former is an opinion because whether the definition of "man" and "woman" refers to sex or gender identity is an opinion. The latter is a statement of fact (false in this case).
Surely not. The lather’s truth or falsity depends on the definition of “earth” and “flat.”
If a minority went to the trouble of establishing a new usage of “flat” equivalent to “not completely spherical” then the statement would be true. Under that definition.
If someone who argues the earth is flat does so by offering an alternate definition of either "earth" or "flat," then that could be a matter of opinion. I assumed the hypo did not do that.
Getting a coherent alternative definition of "man" and "woman" out of someone who rejects the traditional "adult male human" / "adult female human" definition (with the "male" and "female" in turn defined by reproductive role) is the Holy Grail of public discourse. Sought but never found.
Uh no. Genetic identity is determined at conception. You are male or female, and have the goods to prove it. There is no changing that.
You are expressing your opinion that "male" and "female" refer to one's genes. Others disagree because it is a matter of opinion.
Here's a regular reminder.
"Without the right to stand against society's most strongly-held convictions, the marketplace of ideas would decline into a boutique of the banal, as the urge to censor is greatest where debate is most disquieting and orthodoxy most entrenched. The right to provoke, offend and shock lies at the core of the First Amendment." 605 F. 3d 703, 708 (9th Cir. 2010).
The test as to whether or not you truly believe in the First Amendment is not when you think it is being violated to censor speech that you agree with- it is when you loudly stand up to denounce the censorship and suppression of speech you do not like- speech that offends, provokes, and shocks you.
If you find that you regularly invoke the FA because you think that speech you like is being suppressed, yet always find reasons to excuse the suppression of speech you don't like- then you aren't a fan of free speech. You're a fan of your speech. Period.
+1
I don't know much about Kirk. But what little I have heard implies he would strongly endorse this position. If so, he could rightly be a martyr for freedom of speech. Sadly however, too many of his supporters (e.g., Vance, Miller, Bondi and Trump) don't support freedom of speech for those they disagree with.
Yes (for citizens, that is) 😉
Republicans are the party of cancel-culture and are anti free speech. They do 100x what they accuse the liberals of doing.
This current accountability these vile Democrat Supremacists are getting is still on a scale less than what the Democrat Supremacists did to J6'ers.
Every single Democrat Supremacist in this thread has completely erased from their minds the Democrat Supremacist reaction to J6.
The Democrats went very easy on the J6 traitors and got true justice for only one of them.
And which one of those was the one that got true justice?
The woman who was shot by the cop.
"Republicans are the party of cancel-culture"
Now, but your side showed the way. Weapons never stay only in the hands of the first wielders.
And that's what they are upset about. They are so accustomed to burning the chess board and our side always sitting down again to play chess.
Fuck them. Fuck their whining. Fuck their jobs, fuck their livelihoods, fuck their businesses, fuck them all. If we don't do something now, we will become the next Charlie Kirk.
When one of theirs dies tragically, like that Ukrainian woman, we pray. We one of ours dies tragically, like Charlie, they celebrate and increase their volume and rhetoric and attack our vigils. They are working themselves up into a frenzied bloodlust.
Remember what they did to Emmanuel Cafferty?
I remember what Cafferty said "they" did to him five years ago, I remember that his employer said something different, and I remember that there was talk of lawsuits. Does anyone have any follow-up that might give us insight into what really happened?
"I remember that his employer said something different,"
They did? According to this article, his employer said:
That's not different. Do you have additional information?
Here, Lex, let me put the glee into terms you can appreciate. Just think of Kirk as a gang member in a sea of acidic MAGA students, and the stage his boat. And he's laden with heaps of harmful things he wants to bring to the United States of Gay People. So the gays send up a Tranny Drone that fires a nice hellfire bullet and the threat eliminated. We kill people without trial now, Lex. I know you approve of that. So why aren't you celebrating?!
While I think that is true de facto, I don't think it is actually true.
Why? Because the Republicans don't actually have any principles at all. What do they stand for?
Free speech? HA!
Free trade? HA!
Fiscal restraint? HA!
Private companies not having to kowtow to the government? YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
Just keep going down the list. I suppose ... nativist and anti-immigrant. There's that. Not sure that's a principle, but I'm struggling to think of any principle other than "Trump."
His name is Charlie Kirk
How stupid.
His name is Charlie Kirk
We just call him vile fascist trash. But Babbitt has a new cell mate.
I bet it really makes you feel good inside thinking about all those dead conservatives.
They are enemy soldiers in the war. Did the US take joy in shooting down German planes, or sinking Japanese ships?
So you advocate political assassination to win the (civil?) war.
She does, of course bullets don’t care who their target is.
I hope you don't slip and fall while dancing in all that blood.
C'mon, Scooter. Can't gays be happy at the demise of their tormentor? Seems equitable to me.
Tormenter of Gays?
Last I checked the HIV Virus (Redundant I know) is still alive (well as “alive” as a Virus can be, arguably more so than Sleepy Joe) and well and living in the bloodstreams of millions of (mostly) Gay men (and the women unfortunate enough to have sex with them)
Oh yeah, and Haitians
Grank
Molly projects more than a dozen IMAX theatres.
I’d still like to use my “Move” that always works on her (Flunitrazepam))
To be clear, are we talking Terminations, or are we talking “Terminations”? (the Permanent kind)
This misstates the McCarthyite mentality of the right; the orchestrated campaign is identifying individuals who posted condemnations of his murder but who also had the temerity to criticize Kirk.
After the whole OK symbol panic, this is justified.
Remember Emmanuel Cafferty?
After the whole OK symbol panic, this is justified.
'Why do you make me hit you?'
Based on something from 6 years ago where you cite no jobs lost. Instead you reach to some dude who got fired from a municipal job in 2020.
Like all abusers, your weak excuses betray you.
Scroll up, an hour ago you were digging up 10 year old Tumblr posts.
This OK guy was fired and is still unemployed.
Last week's pitchfork-wielding mob was awful. Thank God we have this week's pitchfork-wielding mob!
Your weekly false equivalence.
We were dragged across the line.
"Celebration of death" is a patently dishonest mischaracterization of advocating for assassination.
Faculty are employees not owners.
There is only labor or management, nothing else.
Another right-winger slides off into Marxism without realizing it.
Sad. Many such cases.
Funny how Sarcastro is the only one to realize it.
You don't understand, TIP. Let me explain.
Sarcastr0 knows things!
Thought I would help out, heh. 🙂
And any concern about whether the things he knows are actually correct is just formalistic bullshit, of course.
More distortions from gaslighto. Most managers are also labor. As for his slide into Marxism, that is his usual dishonest name-calling.
“We’re going to remove these leftist liberals on campus, who are inciting students....Also, their picture ought to be on the internet forever with their name so they can never get a job.” - Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick
This is pretty mask off at this point.