pageok
pageok
pageok
Thugs Suppressing Free Speech:

From the Charlotte News & Observer:

UNC-CH police released pepper spray and threatened to use a Taser on student protesters Tuesday evening when a crowd disrupted a speech by former Colorado congressman Tom Tancredo opposing in-state tuition benefits to unauthorized immigrants.

Hundreds of protesters converged on Bingham Hall, shouting profanities and accusations of racism while Tancredo and the student who introduced him tried to speak. Minutes into the speech, a protester pounded a window of the classroom until the glass shattered, prompting Tancredo to flee and campus police to shut down the event....

About 200 protesters reconvened outside the building. "We shut him down; no racists in our town," they shouted. "Yes, racists, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night!" ...

UNC graduate student Tyler Oakley, who had organized the protest, said he regretted the broken window but not silencing Tancredo. "He was not able to practice his hate speech," said Oakley. "You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak."

Appalling. But here's an enheartening item:

But campus visitors and some faculty members in the capacity crowd of 150 urged the students to let Tancredo speak.

"We are the children of immigrants, and this concerns us," said junior Lizette Lopez, 22, vice president of the Carolina Hispanic Association. "So we would at least like to hear what he has to say if you want to hear what we have to say." ...

"We were more interested in an intellectual conversation instead of a shouting match," she said. "Ironically, the people that are trying to get our voices heard silenced us."

Thanks to InstaPundit for the pointer. Cornell Prof. William Jacobson has more, including video.

Sagar:
prof. V

just read at Taxprof blog that VC is the 3rd most read lawprof blog with over 10 million visitors in the past year. Congratulations!
4.15.2009 2:10pm
ShelbyC:
How 'bout severe criminal penalties for disrupting speech on college campuses?
4.15.2009 2:12pm
rick.felt:
"unauthorized immigrants"? Is that what they're called now?
4.15.2009 2:20pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Ok, so this would cover unauthorized immigrants but presumably not children of unauthorized immigrants born in the US (jus soli, the 14th Amendment, and all that).

It would be interesting to see specifics of the proposal, but people of all ages tend to be whipped up into mobs pretty easily.
4.15.2009 2:22pm
cboldt (mail):
It's for the greater good that Tancredo's right-wing extremism speech not be tolerated. DHS has aptly described the potential consequences ...
.
Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use. Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers.
4.15.2009 2:25pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
Them holding a banner in front of his face was definitely "disrupting speech", but what about when they had it over to the side? I'd tend to think that current laws could deal with things like this.

The general issue of Tancredo is a bit more complicated than those not familiar with this topic might assume. He has opponents both on the left and the right, and it all boils down to the fact that what he supports would take some of their power and their money away. One company that indirectly profits from illegal activity even funded his opponent, and groups from both the right and the left have tried to smear him.

In case anyone wants to do something about the wider immigration issue, here are some tips.
4.15.2009 2:26pm
Kenvee:

"You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak."


But not the right of one person to speak, apparently. Nice to know you can pick and choose.
4.15.2009 2:27pm
cboldt (mail):
-- It would be interesting to see specifics of the proposal --
.
Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors (D.R.E.A.M.) Act. To oppose it is to be extreme.
4.15.2009 2:29pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
"Unauthorized immigrants" means illegal aliens. Many MSM sources, for one reason or another, try to pretend that the issue is about the children of illegal aliens. However, their status may be different from their parents, and the issue is about those who are themselves illegal aliens irrespective of the status(es) of their parents.
4.15.2009 2:30pm
Pete P. (mail):
The typical leftist interpretation of 'free speech' - "Only leftists are allowed to speak, and anything they do to prevent others from speaking, up to and including mob violence, is OK'.

Sad.
4.15.2009 2:31pm
OrinKerr:
It's for the greater good that Tancredo's right-wing extremism speech not be tolerated.

Cboldt, what other kinds of speech do you think should not be tolerated for the greater good?
4.15.2009 2:34pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
Actually, the DREAM Act is a national bill. There are state versions which are called that but which might also be called different things. The national version would legalize hundreds of thousands of illegal alien "children" - including those as old as 35 years of age. The state versions can't legalize people, but they do give them in-state tuition. That might be in violation of federal law, but the feds have no interest in enforcing it.

And, to oppose it is to be American due to what it would do. The national and state bills would allow illegal aliens to take college educations away from U.S. citizens. Because of that, it's incredibly easy to discredit a politician who supports the bill and have an impact on their political career. If someone can upload a video of them really pressing, say, Dick Durbin on what his bill would do it would have a very powerful impact on this issue by sending a strong message to all the rest. An opening question you can ask him or another nationally-known supporter is here.
4.15.2009 2:35pm
Connecticut Lawyer (mail):
I don't agree with Tancredo about much but reading this my only thought was that the University ought to expel Tyler Oakly forthwith. He's a graduate student, presumably old enough to know better, and he's boasting about how he shut Tancredo down. Let Oakly drive taxis or load garbage trucks for a living, but for God's sake, don't give him a graduate degree and let him teach.
4.15.2009 2:36pm
Sagar:
"You have to respect the right of people to assemble and collectively speak."

"collectively", yes!

wonder what some of the leftist rationalization will be for these thugs, who are truly the enemy of classic liberalism.
4.15.2009 2:39pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

but they do give them in-state tuition. That might be in violation of federal law

but ... but ... but ... STATES' RIGHTS

Because of that, it's incredibly easy to discredit a politician who supports the bill and have an impact on their political career.

Didn't have so much impact in 2008 huh
4.15.2009 2:39pm
cboldt (mail):
-- what other kinds of speech do you think should not be tolerated for the greater good? --
.
I thought the DHS pamphlet covered a few of the bases, "including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms ownership and use," I assume as examples and not meant to be an exhaustive list. (Rightwing extremists are increasingly galvanized by these concerns and leverage them as drivers for recruitment.)
4.15.2009 2:41pm
Sagar:
Prof. Kerr,

I read cboldt's post as sarcasm, since he/she went on to quote the DHS nonsense about rightwing extremism ...
4.15.2009 2:42pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

DHS nonsense about rightwing extremism ...

Oh what, you mean this?
http://www.fas.org/irp/world/para/left.pdf
4.15.2009 2:45pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):
Here's a quote from the April 2001 report. It's like a rite of new administrations or something.

Left-wing extremism often has developed from working-class movements seeking in
theory to eliminate, not preserve, class distinctions. Communism evolved from left-wing
extremism. The threat from left-wing extremists did not die with the collapse of the
Soviet Union, however. Domestic groups and state-sponsored cells and individuals have
continued their espionage activities and the planning of terrorist actions against the U.S.
government. Leftist extremists were responsible for three-fourths of the officially
designated acts of terrorism in America in the 1980s. From an international perspective,
of the 13,858 people who died between 1988 and 1998 in attacks committed by the 10
most active terrorist groups in the world, 74 percent were killed by leftist organizations.
4.15.2009 2:48pm
Loophole1998 (mail):
I wonder if the in-state tuition policy extends to unauthorized immigrants from Virginia?
4.15.2009 2:49pm
Mitchell Young (mail):
@ruffles

The actual federal law now doesn't interfere with a state's ability to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens. What is does do is say that if a state chooses to do that, it must also grant in-state tuition to all US citizens (and presumably to legal residents). So the law doesn't interfere with a state's positive rights, but does not allow them to exclude legal residents in the USA from something it grants to illegal residents. Minimal if any violation of federalism.
4.15.2009 2:51pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
I don't recall much problem on Volokh with the 2001 DOE report on left-wing extremism.

The conservative movement is lapsed into self-parody.
4.15.2009 2:52pm
David Schwartz (mail):
The actual federal law now doesn't interfere with a state's ability to grant in-state tuition to illegal aliens. What is does do is say that if a state chooses to do that, it must also grant in-state tuition to all US citizens (and presumably to legal residents).
This is a purely semantic distinction. It is akin to the difference between "now everyone pays the employee price" and "there is no employee pricing anymore". No difference except the spin.
4.15.2009 2:56pm
Ariel:
I think Tancredo's a nut.

I also think these folks are nuts. Why is it so hard to let people speak who disagree with you? Have you never been exposed to thoughts other than the collective's?
4.15.2009 3:06pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):
My bad, DHS also commissioned a leftwing extremism report a week after Obama took office.

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/leftwing.pdf

(U//FOUO) DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) judges that a number of
emerging trends point to leftwing extremists maturing and expanding their cyber attack
capabilities over the next decade with the aim of attacking targets in the United States.
— (U//FOUO) The potential for economic damage, the individually-initiated and
anonymous nature of cyber attacks, and the perception that cyber attacks are
nonviolent align well with the ideological beliefs, strategic objectives, and
tactics of many leftwing extremists.
— (U//FOUO) The increasing reliance of commercial businesses and other
enterprises on cyber technologies, including interconnected networks and
remote access, creates new and expanding vulnerabilities that technically-savvy
leftwing extremists will exploit.
— (U//FOUO) The proliferation of cyber technologies and expertise as well as the
public availability of online hacking tools and "hackers-for-hire" offer leftwing
extremists incentives to adopt a cyber attack strategy.
4.15.2009 3:08pm
Kevin R (mail):
I don't recall much problem on Volokh with the 2001 DOE report on left-wing extremism.


Which "Volokh" would that be? Assuming you're referring to the website and not the person, this one didn't start until 2002, so that may explain why you don't recall any commentary on an event in 2001.
4.15.2009 3:10pm
rosetta's stones:
"Leftist extremists were responsible for three-fourths of the officially
designated acts of terrorism in America in the 1980s. From an international perspective,
of the 13,858 people who died between 1988 and 1998 in attacks committed by the 10
most active terrorist groups in the world, 74 percent were killed by leftist organizations."


So, 3/4 of terrorism originates from those of leftist origin.

And it's fair to say that nearly 100% of on-campus political violence, similar to what occcurred at the Tancredo event, originates from the Left.

Meanwhile, these tea parties, which likely are composed by those of right or libertarian persuasion, appear to be taking place today absent any of this foolishness.

What is that DHS lady smoking?
4.15.2009 3:11pm
OrinKerr:
I don't recall much problem on Volokh with the 2001 DOE report on left-wing extremism. The conservative movement is lapsed into self-parody.
I don't recall any discussion of it either, but then the Volokh Conspiracy didn't exist until April 2002 (and comments weren't introduced until 2005 or so).
4.15.2009 3:14pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

So, 3/4 of terrorism originates from those of leftist origin.

And the deadliest (by deaths) domestic terrorist attack on US soil originated from Tim McVeigh, a right-wing extremist. Do I get a free tea bagging?
4.15.2009 3:15pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
I assume cboldt's post is in the spirit of Swift's, A Modest Proposal.

When I initially downloaded and scanned the DHS assessment report, I thought it was a hoax. This report is so poorly written and contains such errors of logic, that I thought it must be a parody put out by some right wingers. The report reads like a gossip conversation at a redneck trailer park, only the grammar is worse. Note like the usual government document it lacks an author's name. I have written many government documents and every one has my name. I tend to disregard anything without an author.
4.15.2009 3:17pm
GA Onlooker:
My children have tried the age-old tactic of simply shouting louder in order to win an argument. Thankfully, they have generally ceased that by age 6 or 7. Unfortunately these select young people at UNC have not apparently matured to that level. Pearls before swine.
4.15.2009 3:17pm
rosetta's stones:
ruufles,

I don't know anybody, left, right or center, who embraces McVeigh.

Do you embrace the little Eichmann's who broke that glass and broke up Tancredo's speech?
4.15.2009 3:18pm
Visitor Again:
DHS nonsense about rightwing extremism

As contrasted with the wisdom about leftists and their views that regularly appears on this blog, including a couple of the comments appearing in this very thread.

As a leftist, I support free speech for all those on the right not merely because I'm a strong advocate of free speech in general but because the more the right speaks, the closer it comes to political suicide.
4.15.2009 3:19pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

I don't know anybody, left, right or center, who embraces McVeigh.

Its not who embraces McVeigh, but who McVeigh embraces, that makes him right-wing extremist.

And I thought Tancredo got out-Tancredoed in the primaries.
4.15.2009 3:21pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):
Huh, how about that

Perhaps McVeigh should be executed for the wanton murder of innocents. But when he is executed, that's not what he will be executed for. He will, ironically, be executed for having killed government agents. And if you divorce that single concept from the rest of the massacre at the Murrah Building, that brings up the question: if the government is your enemy, then is killing the agents of the government morally wrong?
...
Had Timothy McVeigh assassinated the agents connected to these massacres, or had specifically destroyed THEIR offices, this would have been justice.

4.15.2009 3:25pm
Smooth, Like a Rhapsody (mail):
This type of thing used to make the news more frequently in the Reagan/Bush years.
It brings back a very unpleasant memory of watching then- Associate Justice Rehnquist hooted off a stage during a speech at my law school.
Terrible.
4.15.2009 3:26pm
rosetta's stones:
You didn't answer the question, ruufles. Do you embrace these little Goebbels who destroyed property at Tancredo's speech?
4.15.2009 3:27pm
Bama 1L:
What does enheartening do that the more accepted heartening does not?
4.15.2009 3:28pm
Calderon:
How 'bout severe criminal penalties for disrupting speech on college campuses?

We could at least start just by actually using existing criminal penalties (such as those against damage to property for the guy who broke the window) or penalties that the university has at its disposal (such as suspension or expulsion). If there was actually some costs to these kinds of acts, maybe they would be curbed, but most universities seem more interested in protecting their students, regardless of what they've done. (To get a university mad at a student, the student has to do something terrible like be falsely accused rape when he has clear evidence that he's innocent)
4.15.2009 3:32pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):

You didn't answer the question, ruufles. Do you embrace these little Goebbels who destroyed property at Tancredo's speech?

No it was pretty stupid. SOP would have been a (non violent ) counter protest.
4.15.2009 3:35pm
ruuffles (mail) (www):
Like this one for tea bagging

http://img.wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/wtf08.jpg
4.15.2009 3:38pm
ShelbyC:

I don't recall much problem on Volokh with the 2001 DOE report on left-wing extremism.

The conservative movement is lapsed into self-parody


Wow!!! What a telling observation. You're right!!! There were 0 comments on the VC in 2001 about that report. But now there are some comments about a report on right wing extremism!!! I wonder what is different?

Talk about your self-parody.
4.15.2009 3:38pm
CamarilloBrillo (mail):
But not the right of one person to speak, apparently. Nice to know you can pick and choose.


Funny isn't it? I thought freedom of speech/expression existed to protect individuals with unpopular views from the tyrany of the majority and to preserve the marketplace of ideas.
4.15.2009 3:43pm
Suzy (mail):
That's quite scary, actually! To smash a window because you don't like what someone says? I don't know if people present were actually injured, but that's a very threatening act that could easily cause serious injury with the flying glass. I hope they arrest/expel these people and that this follow-up is well-publicized.

If a university cannot be a place where ideas can be exchanged, because of outbreaks of violence, the point of the university is lost. How sad.
4.15.2009 3:44pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
Regarding a couple of the things that ruuffles has said:
1. Before the election, no one really pressed BHO or other candidates in the way that I'm suggesting. I went to a BHO event in Feb. 2007 but there was no Q&A session. After that, I started urging people to go to his events and really press him on things. I got almost zero support from BHO's supposed opponents (one ace.mu.nu guestblogger promoted a comment I left about the plan into the body of the post, but that was it.

The closest we've come to what I want was the BarneyFrank/student confrontation: youtube.com/watch?v=0pk--Ox49L0 The problem there is that the student wasted time on a general question rather than asking him questions that would be difficult to answer with the intent of discrediting him.

2. As for "Tancredo got out-Tancredoed in the primaries", that's what the NYT/MMFA would have you believe, but it's not true. His opponents made tough-sounding noises in an attempt to get what they wanted by fooling people. For instance, McCain's sham argument that he wanted to secure the borders first, followed by "reform". He was actually doing the far-left loons a favor, trying to develop a workable tactic to get their amnesty. They responded by trying to mislead people into thinking that he didn't support amnesty anymore.
4.15.2009 3:48pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
is killing the agents of the government morally wrong


McVeigh has his apologists. And talking about "killing the agents of the government" is perfectly acceptable if you're McCain's pal Liddy. Because when friends of the GOP talk about anti-government violence, we're supposed to consider that patriotism, not extremism. It all makes sense if one just uses the proper terminology.
4.15.2009 3:50pm
rosetta's stones:
Hey box, how about Barrack's buddy back in Chitown, the "guilty as sin free as a bird" terrorist bomber guy, does he count for anything?
4.15.2009 3:55pm
Sagar:
ruuffles,

since it seems to matter to you, let me state that i think what DHS wrote about leftwing extremism is also nonsense. now what?

my point above was when i read cboldt quote the DHS piece verbatim as justification for curbing freespeech for the "greater good", i assumed it was sarcasm. after reading the DHS bit about leftwing extremism, i am not sure it is not a parody ... if onion published it it wouldn't be much different.
4.15.2009 3:55pm
Desiderius:
"trying to get our voices heard"

I nominate this concept, which I heard ad infinitum post nauseum on Ivy campuses among those trying awfully hard to get their devotion to the oppressed heard by their chosen authorities, for the same treatment that "trying to make you happy" gets in pop psychology.

In other words: you can't make someone else happy. That's something for them to do. You can't "get heard" - hearing is something that someone else does. What you, and I, and everyone else, can do is to make it socially unacceptable, and, if necessary, illegal to silence the voices themselves. Whether the intended communication completes the circuit is entirely up to the validity of said communication.
4.15.2009 3:58pm
Desiderius:
CB,

"Funny isn't it? I thought freedom of speech/expression existed to protect individuals with unpopular views from the tyrany of the majority and to preserve the marketplace of ideas."

What do you have against the majority - are you one of those antidemocratic Wingnuts? No doubt due to your slavish devotion to free-market ideology. And how dare you soil the purity of intellectualism by referring to it as a grubby marketplace. Ideas are too important to be left the "market".
4.15.2009 4:02pm
David Drake:
Andrew J. Lazarus--

If you are equating the substance of the DOE report with the substance of the DHS report, then it is apparent you have not read one or the other, or both.


The DOE report cites terrorist acts by the leftwing groups (as well as the threat from rightwing groups) and carefully delineates acts from advocacy. It states clearly that extremists of all stripes have a constitutional right to advocate for their goals. The premise of the report is to refute the 90s idea that the left wing had given up its violent ways and that only rightist groups were violent.

In contrast, the DHS report admits that there are no current plans by rightwing groups for violent activities and generally goes back to the 90s to dredge up instances.

The main problem with the DHS report is that it is aimed at the right of association by emphasizing recruiting and radicalization by rightwing groups. The DOE report emphasized terroristic activities.

Also, of course the DOE has little enforcement mechanism. Some lefties spent much of this decade decrying the sinister powers of the Department of Homeland Security.
4.15.2009 4:02pm
David Drake:
jukeboxgrad has appeared. That's the end of this thread. From now it will degenerate into a discussion of his comments.
4.15.2009 4:05pm
geokstr:

CamarilloBrillo:
Funny isn't it? I thought freedom of speech/expression existed to protect individuals with unpopular views from the tyrany of the majority and to preserve the marketplace of ideas.

Not only that, but a lot of the ideas "unpopular" to leftwing dissidents on the campus are still quite popular to the general citizenry. I don't doubt that some of Tancredo's ideas would be as well.

Not everyone wants massive illegal immigration in this country. I would bet that a majority are against it. So whose ideas are really the "unpopular" ones, anyway?
4.15.2009 4:08pm
whit:
i'm still waiting for all the examples of RIGHT WING extremists shutting down left wing speakers on college campuses...

waiting...

waiting...

coulter has had pies thrown at her, threats made, etc.

goldberg has been shouted down...

leftists have stolen rightwing college newspapers, destroyed political displays (like pro-life displays where a TEACHER helped in the vandalism), etc.

etc. etc.

leftwing speakers, no matter how extreme (think angela davis) can say whatever they want and not worry about rightwingers infringing on their rights.

the same cannot be said about leftwingers
4.15.2009 4:10pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
I suggest a reason that a report on right-wing extremism has to cite sources from the 1990s: namely, that Dick Armey and Glenn Beck and whatever other blowhards are out there were perfectly happy under the Bush Administration, and re-emerged from their caves only when an un-American Administration was voted in by the un-Americans over the wishes of the normal Americans who live in parts of the South and Mountain States. Try mainstream conservative journo Michael Barone on this:
[T]he Republican Party is the party of people who are considered, by themselves and by others, as normal Americans -- Northern white Protestants in the 19th century, married white Christians more recently -- while the Democratic Party is the party of the out groups who are in some sense seen, by themselves and by others, as not normal -- white Southerners and Catholic immigrants in the 19th century, blacks and white seculars more recently.
The left-wing will have to work pretty hard to match Timothy McVeigh. Meanwhile, that nutcase Poplawski has already been driven to murder because he didn't realize that all the bloviating about gun confiscation and socialism and Sharia Law (socialist Sharia?) was for higher ratings and to restore the tax cuts for the owners and highest-level entertainers at Fox News.

Just for the record, and to be on-topic, I'm with CT Lawyer that a few expulsions are in order no matter how misguided Tancredo is. Protestors who are in search of a cathartic anti-Oedipal experience nauseate me.
4.15.2009 4:16pm
A.C.:
Desiderius, thank you. I'm sick to death of people who think they have a right to be heard. What they seem to mean is a right to be agreed with. They don't get the idea that someone can hear their argument, perhaps to the point of exhaustion, and still disagree.

Or, if they do get that point eventually, they start with the tantrums and name-calling.

Yes, everybody gets to speak. But not everybody gets to win the argument.
4.15.2009 4:23pm
Daniel Chapman (mail):
Another comment thread not worth reading...

What do you want to bet that the same people posting 5-6 times on this thread will be complaining next time the comments get closed?
4.15.2009 4:24pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):
cboltd:

There are some good things about the DREAM act. Suppose you have a stateless child of an American citizen (i.e. the child does not qualify for citizenship in any country). Currently despite parental status, there is no path to citizenship for such a child.

If you had a grandchild which was stateless because your ex-resident ex-wife took the kid back to a country where citizenship goes through the father exclusively (no jus soli) and residency requirements were not met, what would you do? What options would you hope would be available for your grandson?
4.15.2009 4:28pm
cognitis:
No Court defines any Amendment to perpetuity; and, in matter of Free Speech, Court has described gestures or events consentaneously with universally perceived conditions. Recently the US banking system's destruction has precipitated a various and disparate citizenry into a Depression of the kind proximate to major wars and disintegration. Court now should resuscitate Holmes' famous "Clear and present danger" standard as consentaneous with the citizenry's universally perceived recent crisis. Let the Court now deter actors of any party from disturbing or inciting a various and disparate citizenry with hateful or injurious gestures or speech.
4.15.2009 4:29pm
My Middle Name Is Ralph:
OT, but why the conservative outrage at the DHS report? Are conservatives really denying that rightwing extremist groups exist?
4.15.2009 4:42pm
Alexia:
These are tax-funded schools, I am assuming. So, maybe Tancredo sue for losing a civil right.
4.15.2009 4:46pm
Xanthippas (mail) (www):

The typical leftist interpretation of 'free speech' - "Only leftists are allowed to speak, and anything they do to prevent others from speaking, up to and including mob violence, is OK'.

Sad.


Don't be silly. It's typical of the less thoughtful members of the left and the right to think that exercise of free speech includes the power to shout down the free speech of others. Everybody respects free speech, at least until it comes to having to tolerate it being exercised by someone you vehemently disagree with.

I've never understood the desire to shout down the nuts on the left or the right. Letting them speak does more harm to their causes.


How 'bout severe criminal penalties for disrupting speech on college campuses?


Spoken like a true conservative.
4.15.2009 4:46pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
The situation einhverfr describes is so rare that it can be dealt with via private relief bills if there aren't already other means.

Meanwhile, worries about those extremely rare cases can be used to enable foreign citizens who are here illegally to take college educations from U.S. citizens and can be used as cover by those state legislators who frequently act like they work for the next federal government over (example).
4.15.2009 4:48pm
Adam J:
rosetta's stones- Granted, the students acted like a bunch of idiots, but does it really justify comparing them prominent nazis?
4.15.2009 4:50pm
24AheadDotCom (mail) (www):
My Middle Name Is Ralph: my "outrage" at the DHS report is because of the thing that no one else has noticed. Specifically, one part of it was derived from a misleading report by a far-left group that consistently supports illegal activity.

In case there's someone out there who has an in with the DHS, press them on that and the degree to which the rest of the report was derived from those type of sources.
4.15.2009 4:51pm
Dave N (mail):
Ralph,

I am guessing that conservatives are outraged because the report is nothing but unsubstantiated speculation--and we see the reason for the outrage when people like Andrew Lazurus want to equate right wing extemism with Dick Armey and Glenn Beck.

How wonderful that the left thinks the former Majority Leader of the United States of House of Representative is a right-wing extremist--and that is a fair reading of Lazarus' comment. I am surprised he didn't throw in Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for good measure.
4.15.2009 4:53pm
Gilbert (mail):
Such an ironic title. When I saw it was an article about police threatening to use TASERS TO SILENCE A CHANTING MOB I immediately concluded that "thugs" referred to the police.
4.15.2009 4:54pm
rosetta's stones:

Adam J:
rosetta's stones- Granted, the students acted like a bunch of idiots, but does it really justify comparing them prominent nazis?


Adam,

The "little Eichman" reference was for all the Ward Churchill fans out there, but I'll withdraw any comparison of these student idiots to mass murderers, for sure.

However, I'm sure you understand that the Nazis as a group started out as street brawlers, very much like the thugs who broke the glass at Tancredo's speech, while shouting him down, and shutting down said speech. That's mob rule, as practiced by street brawlers, imo. This is a very bad road to be going down, and I welcome your reference to those practicing this nonsense as a bunch of "idiots".

They need to find that rockthrower, and prosecute.
4.15.2009 5:12pm
My Middle Name Is Ralph:
Watched the video. Don't understand why the students who disrupted Tancredo by placing a banner between him and the audience while he was speaking were not arrested. Then whoever broke the glass should also be arrested, but wouldn't be surprised if the perp wasn't identified. As to the protestors, maybe they were doing more than shown by the video, but it looked to me like they were just protesting Tancredo. Not my cup of tea, but nothin illegal or, from what I could tell, disruptive of Tancredo's speech.
4.15.2009 5:15pm
trad and anon (mail):
Ugh, I hope those students are subjected to disciplinary sanctions. The one who broke that window was particularly awful—that was tantamount to a threat of physical violence against the person.

These students have every right to hold their protest outside. They should probably even be allowed to hold a non-disruptive protest inside (holding signs or turning their backs or something). But their conduct here was indefensible and they should be suspended or expelled or something for it. I find Tancredo's position on this highly objectionable—punishing children who are technically illegal aliens because they were brought here by their parents without visas is essentially punishing them for their parents' conduct.

Our immigration laws ought to be a lot more liberal anyway. Freedom of movement is part of freedom. It should not be so restricted by a government line.

Also, to those making the Nazi references: you auto-lose. Godwin's law has not been repealed.
4.15.2009 5:37pm
geokstr:

Xanthippas:

How 'bout severe criminal penalties for disrupting speech on college campuses?

Spoken like a true conservative.

And how might a "true liberal" propose to stop radicals from either side shouting down or otherwise disrupting the free speech of the opposing side? Note that the commenter did not specify that such penalties should only be applied to the side that doesn't agree with him.

(We'll have to accept, just for the sake of argument, that shouting down others happens in both directions.)
4.15.2009 5:46pm
Jeff R.:
The window was tantamount to a threat? What about "we know where you sleep"? Is there any reasonable way to interpret that other than as a threat of violence? (Presuming that RICO would exist in a just world, in a just world it would be in the process of being deployed...)

And on the DHS-report subthread: the federalism bit is the most offensive segment. And also, you know, completely inaccurate. We haven't actually had right-wing violent extremist groups who were friendly with (or even less than outright hostile to) state or local governments since the days of the old Klan...
4.15.2009 5:51pm
rosetta's stones:

Also, to those making the Nazi references: you auto-lose.


No, not in this case. You use Nazi tactics, and you get tarred with the Nazi brush.
4.15.2009 6:05pm
J. Aldridge:
Interesting, William Penn didn't considered the people of Pennsylvania as children of immigrants, but "children of our invited settlers."
4.15.2009 6:07pm
Swede:
The Left is all about free speech.

As long as they get to choose what that is.

Surprising absolutely nobody.
4.15.2009 6:53pm
Toby:
There is a political movement whose name is now largely a curse word that relies on three principles:

- State control of privately held coproations (as oposed to state ownership)
- Crowds shouting down all dissent with tacit support from the powers that be
- Extreme Nationalism.

Well, it looks like we will only have two of the three, so we avoid the F-word. What shall we call it?
4.15.2009 6:55pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
rosetta:

how about Barrack's buddy back in Chitown, the "guilty as sin free as a bird" terrorist bomber guy, does he count for anything?


Hmm, let's see. Ayers plotted to damage property. Liddy plotted to kill people. That's one relevant distinction. Here's another one: Liddy is actually a convicted felon (served almost five years in prison). Ayers is not. And here's another one: McCain has said he is "proud" of Liddy, and has praised Liddy. Obama has not made equivalent statements about Ayers.

But let's put all that aside, and pretend that Ayers and Liddy are roughly comparable. The former got a ton of ink last summer. The latter did not. Feel free to explain why. That darn liberal media.

===============
drake:

jukeboxgrad has appeared. That's the end of this thread. From now it will degenerate into a discussion of his comments.


Yes, it's terribly unfair the way I hold a gun to peoples' heads and compel them to respond to me. Those responses are obviously my responsibility, and not the responsibility of the people writing their responses. Welcome to the GOP concept of personal responsibility.

And speaking of irony, who compelled you to write your substance-free comment? And why shouldn't it be classified as "discussion" of my comments? Then again, maybe it's more like meta-discussion of my comments.

===============
whit:

leftwing speakers, no matter how extreme (think angela davis) can say whatever they want and not worry about rightwingers infringing on their rights.


Unless the leftwing speaker is Ward Churchill. Then you lose your job.

===============
jeff:

the federalism bit is the most offensive segment. And also, you know, completely inaccurate.


Really? Glenn Beck is promoting the idea of secession. And there are definitely people who think that's a good idea. And Rick Perry is pandering to that group.
4.15.2009 7:12pm
DangerMouse:
Regarding the DHS report:

The top House Democrat overseeing the Department of Homeland Security is demanding that officials there explain how and why they wrote and released a controversial report identifying veterans as potential terrorist threats.

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson of Mississippi, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said in a letter to DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" such a report would be issued.

"This report appears to raise significant issues involving the privacy and civil liberties of many Americans -- including war veterans," Mr. Thompson said in the letter sent Tuesday.

As I am certain you agree, freedom of association and freedom of speech are guaranteed to all Americans -- whether a person's beliefs, whatever their political orientation, are 'extremist' or not," Mr. Thompson said.

The report "blurred the line," and Mr. Thompson said he is "disappointed and surprised that the department would allow this report to be disseminated" to law enforcement officials nationwide...

...

"I am particularly struck by the report's conclusion which states that I&A 'will be working with its state and local partners over the next several months to ascertain with greater regional specificity the rise in rightwing extremist activity in the United States with a particular emphasis on the political, economic, and social factors that drive rightwing extremist radicalization,'" Mr. Thompson said, demanding to know what types of activities DHS had planned for "the next several months."


So if the top Democrat, who by the way is a liberal who sued Bush over Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (he lost), is complaining about the report and the "activities" that involves monitoring political activities of conservatives, then it seems that perhaps DHS's report is a problem.
4.15.2009 7:21pm
trad and anon (mail):
Really? Glenn Beck is promoting the idea of secession. And there are definitely people who think that's a good idea. And Rick Perry is pandering to that group.


What's really interesting is the way these people use the rhetoric of patriotism to justify hating the actual United States of America. People who fly the flag of treason seem to tend to consider themselves patriots too.
4.15.2009 7:30pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
mouse:

So if the top Democrat… is complaining about the report … then it seems that perhaps DHS's report is a problem.


What's stranger, the fact that Bennie Thompson is attacking the report, or the fact that Charles Johnson is defending it? Hard to say.
4.15.2009 7:37pm
rosetta's stones:

Ayers plotted to damage property. Liddy plotted to kill people. That's one relevant distinction. Here's another one: Liddy is actually a convicted felon (served almost five years in prison). Ayers is not. And here's another one: McCain has said he is "proud" of Liddy, and has praised Liddy. Obama has not made equivalent statements about Ayers.


box,

Barrack's Chitown buddy was involved with a group that brought on death. He remained clear of prison on legal technicalities alone. He has not repented, and is to be scorned.

Don't know how John McCain and Gordon Liddy came into this, but you can round them both up and send them to Gitmo for immediate waterboarding, as far as I care (ok, no waterboarding, but Gitmo is fine, and I'm sure we can find something on 'em.). I have no more use for those 2 than I do for Barrack and his bomber buddy.

I don't condone violent political thugs, whether they're idiot students today or those of 40 years ago.
4.15.2009 7:54pm
Syd Henderson (mail):
Be simpler to tase Tancredo and cut out all the third parties.
4.15.2009 7:57pm
DangerMouse:
Gosh, Juke, the world must be crashing down if a lib like Thompson sees how problematic the DHS report is. You'd best stick your head in the sand on this one. Misdirection to LGF won't help you.
4.15.2009 8:00pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
rosetta:

Barrack's Chitown buddy was involved with a group that brought on death.


"Brought on death" is a nice euphemism. Here's what you're trying to say, in plain English: a few of them blew themselves up. That's very different from killing someone else.

Liddy plotted to kill people. He admitted it. Let us know when you're ready to show that Ayers did the same thing.

He has not repented


That's a very popular talking point. Too bad it's not exactly true.

Don't know how John McCain and Gordon Liddy came into this


Read the thread and maybe you'll remember. It has to do with the specious assertion that extremists on the right don't get encouragement from the mainstream GOP.

I don't condone violent political thugs, whether they're idiot students today or those of 40 years ago


Nice way to duck the question. Why did the press make a big deal about Ayers, while hardly mentioning Liddy? That darn liberal media.

=============
mouse:

Gosh, Juke, the world must be crashing down if a lib like Thompson sees how problematic the DHS report is. You'd best stick your head in the sand on this one. Misdirection to LGF won't help you.


Gosh, mouse, the world must be crashing down if a wingnut like Johnson sees how benign the DHS report is. You'd best stick your head in the sand on this one. Misdirection to Thompson won't help you.
4.15.2009 8:15pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
A Fox News "journalist" said on air today: "Guys, when are we going to wake up and start fighting the fascism that seems to be permeating this country?" [But only since 1/20/09???]

When Ward Churchill gets an MSNBC slot, let me know. Until then, I'd say the so-called mainstream conservative movement has decided to go apes--- hysterical. The fact that Limbaugh and Gingrich and Beck and Armey are on board with this has become a statement about their perspective, not mine, unless you decide to ignore the babble coming out of their mouths.

I will agree, on a handful of college campuses the situation is otherwise, perhaps even reversed. BFD.
4.15.2009 8:23pm
rosetta's stones:
Hmmmmm, so box, building bombs to blow up people is ok, as long as you don't succeed, and just blow up yourself? Odd, that. Certainly shows they intended sufficient violence to kill, however, and that includes Barrack's Chitown buddy. Let me know if he ever repents. He hasn't. He has admitted his guilt, however.

Don't know and don't care why the media prints what they do. But in this case, they got it right. Barrack's buddy is a terrorist. He traded in death. Let's hope the Carolina window breakers don't graduate to his methods. Prosecuting them would be a good start.
4.15.2009 8:27pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
rosetta:

building bombs to blow up people is ok, as long as you don't succeed, and just blow up yourself?


Let us know when you're ready to show proof regarding Ayers' role in "building bombs to blow up people."

Certainly shows they intended sufficient violence to kill


Who is "they?" Ayers wasn't in that house that blew up. Some other people were. And he has speculated that Oughton set off the bomb deliberately, because she opposed the plan to use the bomb against humans.

Let us know when you're ready to show proof regarding how Ayers "intended sufficient violence to kill."

in this case, they got it right


You seem to be claiming that it was "right" for the media to ignore McCain's friendship with Liddy, even though you seem to have admitted that Liddy was a 'violent political thug.' So you "don't condone violent political thugs," but you do condone politicians being friends with "violent political thugs," provided those politicians are GOP. Interesting how that works.
4.15.2009 9:07pm
geokstr:
The bomb that went off in that NY townhouse killing Ayers girlfriend and 2 others "...had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too."
NRO

In addition, an FBI informant who penetrated the WU inner circle testified that Ayers said they might have to kill 25 million Americans if they couldn't be re-educated.

And his wife is a real monster, implicated in a bomb that went off at a police station in SF killing an officer. And the little honey also said "Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in pig Tate's belly. Wild!" about the Manson family killing of Sharon Tate:
Bernardine Dohrn

I lived through the period that the WU was active. I was one of the servicemen that got spit on by slime like these two scumbags. It's absolutely disgusting to be making them out to be some kind of well-meaning kind hearted kids who didn't want to hurt anybody.

Go drink some more kool-aid.
4.15.2009 9:20pm
rosetta's stones:
No, box, I don't give a fig about McCain or Liddy, and you can export them to Gitmo as mentioned. Or write a nasty article about them if it suits you.

I am fascinated by your desire to defend Barrack's bomber buddy, though. You'd be the first I've come across, not that I get around much on the internets.

Getting back to the campus thugs in question here, do you approve of what they did? Would you advocate prosecution?
4.15.2009 9:41pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
geo:

Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed


I guess you didn't notice the question I asked. Let us know when you're ready to show proof regarding Ayers' role in creating that plan. You cited McCarthy, who claims the bomb was being built to "Ayers specifications." McCarthy shows no proof for that claim. I can't find any. Can you?

an FBI informant who penetrated the WU inner circle testified that Ayers said they might have to kill 25 million Americans if they couldn't be re-educated


Wrong. First of all, Grathwohl didn't 'testify.' That means a statement under oath. He made a statement in an interview. And he didn't claim this was something "Ayers said." He didn't even claim that Ayers was present. He said it was something someone said, but he didn't name who it was. And this tale of his has no corroboration from any other source. Likewise for virtually every other statement he has made, on this subject.

his wife is a real monster, implicated in a bomb that went off at a police station in SF killing an officer


Yes, and I've heard that you're "implicated" in torturing kittens. McDonnell's death is an unsolved crime. No one was ever arrested. Let us know when you're in a position to make statements backed by proof.

then they put a fork in pig Tate's belly


Saying offensive things is not a crime. Likewise for marrying a person who said offensive things. On the other hand, Liddy committed crimes, and was convicted.

================
rosetta:

I don't give a fig about McCain or Liddy


You've already made it clear that GOP thugs don't bother you, and likewise for GOP politicians who are friends with GOP thugs. There's no need to repeat yourself.

I am fascinated by your desire to defend Barrack's bomber buddy


My "desire" is to give you a chance to show off your brazen double standard. And to give geo a chance to show off how much trouble he has getting his facts straight, and how much trouble he has understanding the difference between evidence and speculation. I'm glad you're both so obliging.

Getting back to the campus thugs in question here, do you approve of what they did?


No.

Would you advocate prosecution?


I don't know enough about the facts or the law to make a judgment about that. And I haven't seen anyone here specify what statute was violated.
4.15.2009 10:25pm
Andrew J. Lazarus (mail):
Unlike jukeboxgrad, I'm willing to dump Ayers, at least the 1960s Ayres, in with McVeigh.

Does Ayers have a regular Fox News show?
4.15.2009 10:48pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Does Ayers have a regular Fox News show?


I guess not, but he has been granted the title of Distinguished Scholar by the University of South Carolina. With no apparent objection by Gov. Sanford (R), who is the ex officio Chairman of the Board. I suppose that means Sanford hates America.
4.15.2009 10:59pm
Daryl Herbert (www):
Yes, racists, we will fight, we know where you sleep at night!

Anyone caught on tape saying this should be expelled.
4.16.2009 12:27am
Jonathan Ellis:
FYI. It's the Raleigh News &Observer, not Charlotte.
4.16.2009 12:43am
cognitis:
Protesters evidently sensed and estimated Tancredo and his speech to be offensive, so they expelled him. Other schools, schools with large Jewish populations, have denied Arab speakers a forum; likewise, had protesters sensed and estimated the school's administration to have neglected the student body and the taxpayers, then the protesters should have expelled an offensive speaker irresponsibly permitted a forum by the administration. The matter here is not Free Speech but instead representation of student minorities by the administration.
4.16.2009 12:48am
Gene Hoffman (mail) (www):
To expound on Jonathan Ellis' comment, this is UNC-Chapel Hill, not UNC-Charlotte...

-Gene
4.16.2009 1:43am
Rich Rostrom (mail):
Cognitis: A self-appointed mob of political vigilantes invaded and disrupted a speech they didn't like by a person invited to speak by other members of the university.

Apparently you consider this the equivalent of a university not inviting an anti-Israel speaker.

To begin with, Tancredo was not invited by the university, but by a student group. The rioters not only denied Tancredo the opportunity to speak, they prevented the students who invited him from hearing him.

Protests against the invitation of anti-Israel speakers have, AFAIK, focused on invitations by universities themselves, which is a different matter. Furthermore, the objections have usually been to speakers who excuse or even praise terrorist violence against Israel, and repeat bogus accusations against Israel. Even so, I have yet to hear of any Jewish or Zionist students shutting down even the most obnoxious anti-Israel speaker by mob action.

Mr. Tancredo does not advocate or defend violence against illegal immigrants, nor does he go about repeating lurid charges against them. He calls for the U.S. (and states and cities) to enforce existing immigration laws, and to refrain from policies that reward illegal immigration.

That did not matter to the mobsters. "Open borders" is a current goal of the radical left, and no one is allowed to dissent. ("Smash all racist borders" is a favorite slogan.)

And because the left is dominant on campuses, their fascist tactics are tolerated. (If UNC was serious about civil behavior and freedom of thought, Tyler Oakley would be expelled. At the very least, no professor would be his advisor, and he would be suspended from any teaching assistant work.)

Jukeboxgrad: Ward Churchill lost his job for repeated and egregious scholarly misfeasance, including fraud and plagiarism. His profoundly offensive speech drew the attention which led to his exposure, but it was not the reason for his dismissal. Churchill had made a 30 year career of such speech. His academic credentials were negligible: a Masters degree from a third-rate school. However, he claimed (falsely) to be an Indian, and was a noisy anti-white, anti-American radical. This got him a tenured position and eventually a department chairmanship at a major university. His private misbehavior during this period included posing as an Indian artist in order to sell plagiarized art, disrupting a Columbus Day parade, and feuding with real Indian activists who objected to their cause being hijacked by a white poseur. Churchill and his then-wife assaulted Sioux activist Carole Standing Elk, knocking her down and breaking her arm. Since his outrageous post-9/11 remarks were exposed, he has been a darling of left-wing college groups, and has had dozens of lucrative speaking engagements - none of which have been shut down by hostile mobs.

Jukeboxgrad: Bill Ayers was intimately involved with the Weather Underground (a leader). By his own admission, he participated in bomb-planting. None of the bombs he admitted planting killed anybody; but he was a WU leader when the Fort Dix bombings were planned and the Park Police bombing was carried out. The WU continued its murderous violence into the 80s, when his old friends Boudin and Gilbert killed two cops and a guard in the Brinks robbery. Ayers and Dohrn obstructed the investigation (Dohrn served seven months for obstruction), and there is strong suspicion that Dohrn supplied stolen ID information used by the robbers. When Boudin and Gilbert went to prison, they gave their son Chesa to Ayers and Dohrn to raise. Ayers has avoided conviction, but he was neck-deep in the far-left murder swamp for over a decade, and happily retains all his ties from that time. If he was an ex-Kleagle, who'd burned an empty church, and was at most one step removed from lynchings, and was the friend and associate of murderous "race war" advocates, I don't think you'd be so eager to exculpate him.
4.16.2009 3:36am
David Warner:
There is something almost semper fidelis in JBG's devotion to his cause and those who fought at his side - his reluctance to join his comrades in throwing Ayers under the bus of present political expediency is admirable.

Unfortunately, he also reminds me of the Japanese Vets found on isolated pacific islands who thought that WWII was still going on well into the 50's. PTSD can be a bear.
4.16.2009 7:57am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
rostrom:

Ward Churchill lost his job for repeated and egregious scholarly misfeasance, including fraud and plagiarism.


A jury ruled otherwise.

he was a WU leader when the Fort Dix bombings were planned and the Park Police bombing was carried out


WU was obviously not a monolithic, authoritarian organization which adhered strictly to the edicts of one particular 'leader.' But there was a dominant faction which adopted a rule that violence should be against property, not humans. And Ayers was part of that faction. So the burden is on you to prove that Ayers supported violence against humans. Let us know when you are ready to do so.

And "investigators have found no evidence that links the Weather Underground to the [Park Police] bombing." If you have some, let's see it.

You seem to be someone else who has a hard time grasping the difference between speculation and fact.

The WU continued its murderous violence into the 80s, when his old friends Boudin and Gilbert killed two cops and a guard in the Brinks robbery.


At the time of the Brinks robbery, WU did not exist. At that time, Boudin and Gilbert were not members of WU. They were former members. And having a friend who is a criminal does not make someone a criminal. If it did, then McCain would be a criminal for being friends with Liddy.

If he was an ex-Kleagle, who'd burned an empty church


If I thought that intimidating black people was on the same moral plane as trying to stop the Vietnam war, then you might have some kind of a point.

And it's not a question of wanting to 'exculpate' him. It's a question of understanding the importance of separating fact from fiction. It's striking to notice how often the GOP relies on the latter (example: geo saying that Grathwohl said something he didn't say).

And aside from McCain's friendship with Liddy, here's some other evidence regarding the GOP's relationship with its own extremists: Palin's refusal to say that Eric Rudolph is a terrorist. And some more evidence: Romney announcing how proud he was to share a stage with Ann Coulter.

So it's not just that rightwing extremism is real. It's that the so-called mainstream GOP has a hard time disowning it. And that problem seems to be getting worse, not better. An example from just yesterday: Rick Perry talking about secession.

==================
warner:

his reluctance to join his comrades in throwing Ayers under the bus


It's not a question of being reluctant to throw someone under the bus. It's a question of understanding the importance of separating fact from fiction. Something you obviously find challenging.
4.16.2009 8:11am
cboldt (mail):
-- JBG's devotion to his cause and those who fought at his side --
.
Why can't you Leave JBG Alone?
4.16.2009 8:48am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
McCain and Liddy were violent?
In libspeak, any dissent is "violent", not to mention "racist", "homophobic" and "hate".
4.16.2009 9:58am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
aubrey:

McCain and Liddy were violent?


As usual, you're not reading very carefully. Who said McCain was violent? So far, no one in this thread has made any such claim (although dropping bombs on Hanoi was definitely a form of violence, and most likely McCain killed a lot more people, including civilians, than the WU ever did).

And as far as Liddy being violent, I didn't claim he committed violence. I claimed that he plotted and advocated violence, against humans. The evidence of that is clear, in his own admissions and documented statements. I'm still waiting for someone to show such evidence regarding Ayers.

In libspeak, any dissent is "violent"


When Liddy promoted the idea of shooting government agents ("kill the sons of bitches"), he was doing something other than just "dissent." But I realize that in wingnutspeak, anti-government violence is considered a form of patriotism, as long as it is committed by friends of the GOP.

I recall what Chris Buckley said, quoting his dad:

I've spent my entire lifetime separating the Right from the kooks


Right now it looks like Buckley lost that battle.
4.16.2009 11:52am
Sagar:
not sure how this discussion got to where Bill Ayers is just a "property destrying" paragon of virtue ...

but Bill Ayers said "kill all the rich people, kill your parents, etc ..." do the rich and parents count as people as opposed to mere property?

2001 article about Ayers
4.16.2009 12:50pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
kill your parents


Nice try, but it's not clear that he ever actually said that:

he says he doesn't actually remember suggesting that rich people be killed or that people kill their parents, but ''it's been quoted so many times I'm beginning to think I did,'' he said. ''It was a joke about the distribution of wealth.''


And if he did say it, he didn't intend for it to be taken literally, and the people around him did not take it literally:

No one thought I meant that literally


A statement like "kill your parents" is obviously not meant literally. If someone has a bumper sticker that says "kill your television," it doesn't mean they put a bullet in their set.

Whereas Liddy gave specific advice that was obviously meant literally:

Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests


And Liddy has also said he has no regrets about his crimes, and that "he went to jail as 'a prisoner of war.' "
4.16.2009 1:13pm
Sagar:
JBG,

it is not my job to defend Liddy - i am not very sure who he is and why he got into the discussion here when the topic was free sppech on UNC campus, but your covering up is amazing!

And if he did say it, he didn't intend for it to be taken literally, and the people around him did not take it literally:

this should be copyrighted (and macro'd) so you can use it anytime your side says something you can't defend or don't want to when they change position. for example

1. reducing taxes for 95% of Americans

2. Obama promised "net spending cut"
4.16.2009 4:01pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
i am not very sure who he is and why he got into the discussion here when the topic was free sppech on UNC campus


The OP was about left-wing extremism. It's not surprising that comparisons were then raised between left-wing extremism and right-wing extremism. Liddy is a right-wing extremist. He also happens to a friend of McCain. The press paid virtually no attention to this fact. That darn liberal media.

your covering up is amazing


Hopefully at some point you'll let us in on the secret and tell us what it is I'm allegedly "covering up."

this should be copyrighted (and macro'd) so you can use it anytime your side says something you can't defend


If you think Ayers intended to be taken literally when he said "kill your parents" (if he even said it; it's not clear that he ever did), good for you. You're obviously entitled to your opinion. But he says that if he ever said something like that, he didn't intend to be taken literally, and the people around him understood that he didn't intend to be taken literally.

Then again, if your position is that all statements should be taken literally, then presumably you're upset to find that Limbaugh is condemning Obama because he "Ordered the Killing of Three Black Muslim Kids … three teenagers shot on the high seas at the order of President Obama."

Is Rush just joking? I guess that's an excuse you use "anytime your side says something you can't defend."
4.16.2009 4:32pm
Desiderius:
cboldt,

That link doesn't help your cause, whatever it is. I was serious about admiring JBG's devotion to his cause. I just think he's fighting the last war, or perhaps the one before that, and I don't consider this forum a battlefield in any case.
4.16.2009 10:45pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Liddy's comment was about what to do when the feds come in shooting. If they come in not shooting, he said, cooperate.
Context is a great thing.
4.16.2009 11:14pm
cboldt (mail):
-- That link doesn't help your cause, whatever it is. --
-- I was serious about admiring JBG's devotion to his cause. --
.
My comment was riffing off David Warner's 7:57 comment, and your comments are totally off my radar. My expression (via that link) was meant to be a light-hearted exhortation to avoid adversarial discourse with JBG. I figure my plea is about as effective and useful as Chris Crocker's plea to "Leave Brittney Alone." As such, I took for granted that it would not "help my cause."
4.17.2009 12:21am
David Warner:
cboldt,

i.c. Apologies then, missed the point.

BTW, to aid JBG's future use of this link, I'll keep it short.

I am Desiderius.
4.17.2009 10:06am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
desid:

I don't consider this forum a battlefield


We know what you "consider this forum:" a place to post fiction. And we also know how you define "battlefield:" any place where people are not willing to go along with the fiction that your fiction is something other than fiction.

==============
aubrey:

Liddy's comment was about what to do when the feds come in shooting. If they come in not shooting, he said, cooperate. Context is a great thing.


The one omitting context is you. Pay attention to what happened:

In 1994, after the disastrous federal raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, he gave some advice to his listeners: "Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches."

He later backed off, saying he meant merely that people should defend themselves if federal agents came with guns blazing. But his amended guidance was not exactly conciliatory: Liddy also said he should have recommended shots to the groin instead of the head. If that wasn't enough to inflame any nut cases, he mentioned labeling targets "Bill" and "Hillary" when he practiced shooting.


So the idea that his advice only applied "when the feds come in shooting" is something he added later. It was not part of his original statement. And that statement is not the only instance of Liddy promoting and/or plotting violence:

Liddy has acknowledged preparing to kill someone during the Ellsberg break-in "if necessary"; plotting to murder journalist Jack Anderson; plotting with a "gangland figure" to murder Howard Hunt to stop him from cooperating with investigators; plotting to firebomb the Brookings Institution; and plotting to kidnap "leftist guerillas" at the 1972 Republican National Convention


But it makes perfect sense that McCain would be friends with him, and it makes perfect sense that the press would ignore all this, while also making a giant fuss about Ayers. That darn liberal media.

==============
cboldt:

I figure my plea is about as effective and useful as Chris Crocker's plea to "Leave Brittney Alone."


I figure that when you have to explain a joke it's probably not too funny.
4.17.2009 10:53am
Richard Aubrey (mail):
I guess one question is whether objecting to Liddy's advice is done to facilitate the feds' coming in shooting.
Like they should be able to when there is no crime involved.
What do the enlightened suggest be done when the feds come in shooting?
Presume you must be guilty of something and take your rounds?
4.17.2009 12:32pm
Desiderius:
JBG,

Anyone curious to note why JBG could raise a hackle or two might be well served to take a few minutes to investigate the link he sees fit to provide whenever engaging me in these forums.

Notice:

He's the only participant here of whom I am aware who regularly links a past post (this makes about eight times for that link, by my estimation) of a participant in an attempt to discredit a poster, rather than to challenge a point, hence the battlefield perception. Frankly, I'm at a loss as to what he thinks he's accomplishing.

The link he's chosen to keep posting wouldn't say what JBG seems to think it says (about my character) even if he were correct in his claims and could prove them (that Bush Sr. never said anything welcoming to atheists, which would make him about the only Episcopalian alive in the past 30 years who hasn't). My character would only be impugned if I knew that Bush would never say anything of the sort (if, for instance, I knew him to be a bigot) and yet still claimed he did for some purpose other than the truth.

His continued linking of this post borders on the surreal. As does, perhaps, my own interest in JBG. He's like the Howard Cosell of the VC, though - very hard to ignore, one way or the other.
4.17.2009 6:17pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
aubrey:

I guess one question is whether objecting to Liddy's advice is done to facilitate the feds' coming in shooting.


I guess one question is why you're pretending to not notice what Liddy actually said in his original statement. In his original statement, he didn't describe a scenario of "the feds' coming in shooting." He said this:

Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. ... Kill the sons of bitches.


He said that if armed government agents come to arrest you, you should shoot them in the head. Not because they are "coming in shooting." Simply because they are armed and coming to arrest you. Is this good advice? It's not clear where you stand on this.

What do the enlightened suggest be done when the feds come in shooting?


What do the enlightened suggest be done when a commenter like you persists in pretending that Liddy's original statement was something other than what it actually was?

==================
desid:

He's the only participant here of whom I am aware who regularly links a past post


That's because unlike you and lots of other people, I think that when disparaging someone it's appropriate to show proof to support the disparagement.

that Bush Sr. never said anything welcoming to atheists


What you implied in your original claim (which can be found via here) is not just that "Bush Sr. [ever] said anything welcoming to atheists." What you implied was that he said something "welcoming to atheists" in his inaugural address (or in some other speech with a similarly high profile). Trouble is, that assertion is false. And not just that: in the end, you never even managed to prove that Bush Sr. ever said anything "welcoming to atheists." Instead, you presented a minor statement by Dubya, as if you expected us to not remember that your original claim was about Bush Sr.

So your original claim was complete nonsense, and you still haven't taken responsibility for that.

even if he were correct in his claims and could prove them (that Bush Sr. never said anything welcoming to atheists…)


You're joking, right? The burden is not on me to prove a negative ("that Bush Sr. never said anything welcoming to atheists"). You asserted, emphatically and unequivocally, that he had made such a statement. So where's your proof?

Here's what I've proven: that you repeatedly make empty claims, and then avoid taking responsibility when you are caught doing so.

which would make him about the only Episcopalian alive in the past 30 years who hasn't


Consider the following two formulations:

A) I think he probably made such a statement, since Episcopalians often make such statements, in my opinion.

B) It's a known fact that he made such a statement.

Do you understand that A and B are not the same? I guess not. Because what you said earlier is B, and now you're acting as if you only said A.

His continued linking of this post borders on the surreal


What is surreal is your sustained refusal to take responsibility for making bogus claims.
4.18.2009 8:22am
Desiderius:
JBG,

My recollection is that Bush I said such things. You claim its bogus. You have no more proven your claim than I have proven mine. It's indeterminate, and therefore bizarre grounds with which to claim my character is impugned by making my claim, which would only follow if I had knowingly stated a falsehood, and given Bush I's widely acknowledged character - good luck proving that. The burden should rightly lie with the accuser, and you're the one accusing me of lying, and not once but ad nauseum.

Do you even know what lying means? Do you know that the dead horse you keep beating, and baldly mischaracterizing, was a minor point in my original argument, in which I never stated or implied that such things were said in an inaugural address, in any event? Do you know what damage is done to your own reputation by such tactics?
4.18.2009 10:59am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
My recollection is that Bush I said such things.


The statement you're making now is quite different from the statement you started with.

Imagine that I made the following statement: Dubya admitted that he tortures kittens. Imagine that you claimed he never said it, and you then challenged me for proof. Imagine that the best I could do is say that it's my "recollection" that he "said such things."

Our burden of proof would not be equal, and it would be silly for me to say that "you have no more proven your claim than I have proven mine."

And it's not just that you made an unsubstantiated claim (and you presented that claim emphatically, as if it were a commonly-known fact). It's that when you were challenged for clarification, you evaded the question, instead of simply admitting that your claim was nothing more than a recollection that you couldn't prove. It took much more teethpulling before you were finally willing to make that admission.

And there are other examples of you doing this sort of thing.
4.18.2009 2:22pm
Desiderius:
JBG,

"Imagine that I made the following statement: Dubya admitted that he tortures kittens. Imagine that you claimed he never said it, and you then challenged me for proof. Imagine that the best I could do is say that it's my "recollection" that he "said such things.""

That would be an accusation, and one entirely at odds with the character of the speaker, so the burden would be on you to prove it. My recollection was not an accusation, but rather something that he easily could have said, given his character and the position of his fellow Episcopalians on the matter.

You're accusing me not only of a falsehood, but a deliberate falsehood, so the burden is very much with you. If you choose to premise your accusations - again, an accusation repeated time and again - on statements which you cannot show to be false, let alone deliberately false, that's your problem, not mine.

The bizarre thing is that you tend to be persuasive on matters with which I have only passing familiarity, but your utter ridiculousness on matters with which I am familiar undermines entirely your credibility.
4.19.2009 1:45am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
My recollection was not an accusation, but rather something that he easily could have said


From the perspective of a strict believer, the claim that someone ever said something nice about atheists could be seen as an accusation. So your "recollection" could indeed be seen as an accusation. My example is just more extreme, for the sake of clarity.

But that aspect of the analysis is not terribly important. What's important is that you're now expressing an opinion. Trouble is, your original statement was not presented as an opinion. You didn't say it's "something that he easily could have said." You said, flatly and emphatically, that he said it: "references to non-believers go back at least to Bush I." As if this was a known, proven fact. Trouble is, it's not.

You're accusing me not only of a falsehood, but a deliberate falsehood


As usual, you're having a lot of trouble paying attention to what's actually been said, and keeping it separate from what's going on in your imagination. I am not necessarily taking the position that your original statement ("references to non-believers go back at least to Bush I") was "a deliberate falsehood." What I'm doing is calling attention to your shabby behavior subsequently. I challenged your claim, and asked you to substantiate it. I said this:

I hope you'll tell us what you mean by "references to non-believers."


At that point, you were in a position to respond with a simple, truthful answer. That answer would have been something like this: "my recollection is that Bush I said such things … [it's] something that he easily could have said." Of course those are your exact words, which you're using now. Because it's only now that you're finally admitting that you were not presenting a known, provable fact, but rather just your own vague recollection that you can't prove.

But you were too cowardly to make this admission at the time. Instead, you ducked my question. Is that your concept of honorable, trustworthy behavior? If so, that's your problem.

And let's recall the context. It had been pointed out that Obama recognized atheists at an exceptionally important moment: in his inaugural address. It would be silly to compare this to a statement made by a prior president if that prior statement was made in a low-profile context. The comparison would be relevant and valid only if the prior statement had been made in a similarly high-profile context: either an inaugural address, or an event with a similarly high profile.

And here's the key point: if Bush I had made his remark in a high-profile context, it would have been noticed and recorded. It would have generated some controversy and comment (just as Obama's remark generated comment). And therefore it would not be the case that both you and me find that remark impossible to find.

Which means that if he ever did say such a thing, it was said in a very low-profile context, which means it's not comparable to what Obama did. (And indeed, the closest you came to ever substantiating your claim was to find a statement made by Dubya at a relatively low-profile event.) Which is something you should have understood right from the start. And admitted when I challenged you. But it's something you still haven't admitted.

Why? Who knows. But it's very similar to other things you've done.

If you choose to premise your accusations … on statements which you cannot show to be false


I just pointed out that neither of us, despite trying pretty hard, has been able to find any such statement by Bush I. Which means that the likelihood is nil that he ever made such a statement in a high-profile context. And the relevant question is not whether he ever said it. The relevant question is whether he said it in a high-profile context. And to the extent that it is ever possible to prove a negative, it has been proven that he never said it in a high-profile context. If he had, I would have found his remark before I even challenged you the very first time. And you would have found his remark by now.

And, as I explained, the key point is that you didn't just take a vague recollection and present it as if it was a known fact. You then evaded the question when I challenged you to admit that this is what you had done.

And you engage in similar forms of shabby behavior over and over again.

your utter ridiculousness on matters with which I am familiar


Where is your proof that I have committed "utter ridiculousness?" You'll be showing proof of that as soon as you show us proof of Bush's statement. As usual, you're pulling claims out of your hat and pretending they are facts.
4.19.2009 9:23am
Desiderius:
"But where's the Man, who Counsel can bestow,
Still pleas'd to teach, and not proud to know?
Unbiass'd, or by Favour or by Spite;
Not dully prepossest, nor blindly right;
Tho' Learn'd well-bred; and tho' well-bred, sincere;
Modestly bold, and Humanly severe?
Who to a Friend his Faults can freely show,
And gladly praise the Merit of a Foe?
Blest with a Taste exact, yet unconfin'd;
A Knowledge both of Books and Humankind;
Gen'rous Converse; a Sound exempt from Pride;
And Love to Praise, with Reason on his Side?"

Pope, Essay on Criticism
4.20.2009 7:20am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
"He may look like an idiot and talk like an idiot but don't let that fool you. He really is an idiot." - Groucho Marx
4.20.2009 8:06am

Post as: [Register] [Log In]

Account:
Password:
Remember info?

If you have a comment about spelling, typos, or format errors, please e-mail the poster directly rather than posting a comment.

Comment Policy: We reserve the right to edit or delete comments, and in extreme cases to ban commenters, at our discretion. Comments must be relevant and civil (and, especially, free of name-calling). We think of comment threads like dinner parties at our homes. If you make the party unpleasant for us or for others, we'd rather you went elsewhere. We're happy to see a wide range of viewpoints, but we want all of them to be expressed as politely as possible.

We realize that such a comment policy can never be evenly enforced, because we can't possibly monitor every comment equally well. Hundreds of comments are posted every day here, and we don't read them all. Those we read, we read with different degrees of attention, and in different moods. We try to be fair, but we make no promises.

And remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.