Mastodawn

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

Stanford was right to apologize. This is an embarrassment to the institution. Denounce the speaker online or shun the Federalists who invited the speaker or protest outside the venue. But preventing the speaker from speaking and the attendees from listening? That's totalitarian shitbirdery and ought to make law students unemployable.

https://stanforddaily.com/2023/03/12/president-law-school-dean-apologize-to-judge-kyle-duncan-for-disruption-to-his-speech/

President, law school dean apologize to Judge Kyle Duncan for ‘disruption’ to his speech

In a letter co-signed by President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and SLS Dean Jenny Martinez, the University apologized to Duncan for the “disruption” to his Thursday speech at the Law School, calling the incident “inconsistent with [the University’s] policies on free speech.”

The Stanford Daily

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

(It's worth remembering, before the Stanford Federalists pose as free speech martyrs TOO much, that they reported and tried to derail the graduation of a student who made a satirical flier about one of their events.)

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

It would also be wrong to view the judge as a victim rather than a provocateur and asshole.

One of the key lessons of American civic life is that there doesn't have to be a good guy in the story.

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/yale-law-is-no-longer-1for-free-speech

Yale Law Is No Longer #1—For Free-Speech Debacles

Note the UPDATES: Stanford’s president and law dean have apologized to Judge Duncan.

Original Jurisdiction

JustAnotherWizard Mar 14, 2023

@Popehat So the solution to this is to prevent the students from exercising their free speech rights?

"We want to audience to sit and be respectful" doesn't seem to me to be sufficient justification to prevent people from exercising their right to speak, even if they are rude while doing so.

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

@AaronPound That's like saying "if I can't set off an airhorn during the movie my rights are being violated." There's actually no free speech right to shout down/disrupt a speech. They can, and did, protest tons of ways before, during, and after.

JustAnotherWizard Mar 14, 2023

@Popehat They were allowed to protest in all the ways that don't matter.

Which means they wanted them to protest ineffectively. Unless a protest causes inconvenience, it isn't a protest at all.

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

@AaronPound You're entitled to feel that nothing but shouting people down matters. I'm not inclined to take that seriously.

JustAnotherWizard Mar 14, 2023

@Popehat Your airhorn comment is a red herring. That's a venue issue, not a free speech issue.

If Stanford wants to say some people can't speak in certain places, they can do that, but let's not pretend they are not engaged in suppressing some people's speech in favor of others.

@AaronPound @Popehat

Yes, if we say hecklers and protestors are not allowed that's favoring institutional speech.

If one believes there is social value that requires favoring institutional speech, then there are some reasonable arguments to be made for that position, but its no longer free speech at that point. Its controlled speech, controlled by institutional power.

The nub is that fascism seeks to co-opt that institutional power so as to eventually limit every one else's speech.

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

@Spicewalla @AaronPound “If I can’t stop you from speaking and stop people from being able to listen to you then my free speech rights are violated” is a take that sounds like FedSoc would come up with.

Spicewalla Mar 14, 2023

@Popehat @AaronPound

Its misleading to say they are stopped from speaking when they are just stopped from speaking from a podium with the backing of institutional power. Like most people, the judge in this case has innumerable other venues of expression. He has not been silenced.

Meanwhile the protestors are also speaking — expressing criticism. Uncivilly, perhaps.

Favoring institutional speech, is a defensible position, but that's no longer about free speech, its about institutional power.

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

@Spicewalla @AaronPound Well, sure. If you want to be specific you can say that the students are saying “we decide who speaks at this university and to whom university students can listen while here.”

Somehow I doubt this would be a persuasive argument if Stanford used it to ban speakers that the students liked.

Spicewalla Mar 14, 2023

@Popehat @AaronPound

Right, because they are expressing their disapproval of the use of institutional power for his speech.

If the same protestors and the same judge had the same set of interactions in a public park, far fewer would expect the protestors to respectfully allow his speech to go uninterrupted. The only difference being the involvement of institutional power.

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

@Spicewalla @AaronPound Is it really about institutional power, or just "these are the good guys and those are the bad guys"? If Stanford Law's ACS invites someone controversial to conservatives, are you going to be fine with conservatives shouting them down because institutional power is invoked?

Spicewalla Mar 14, 2023

@Popehat @AaronPound

"Controversial" is overly generic. But lets say they brought a conservative hate-target like Nikole Hannah-Jones.

Its not really about me, but I personally would not criticize such protestors on the basis of free speech, but on the basis of opposing justice. Their shouting her down would be opposition to institutional power backing justice.

I don't think it is outside the democratic tradition to say that institutional power ought to be aligned with justice.

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

@Spicewalla @AaronPound And you're comfortable you know what justice is and, therefore, who should be able to speak.

Spicewalla Mar 14, 2023

@Popehat @AaronPound

That would sure be simple wouldn't it? But here's the thing, institutions make those judgements all the time — officially and unofficially. We may differ on where that line should be drawn, but we all accept the existence of a line.

For example, harvey wienstein would have a pretty tough time getting invited to speak.

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

@Spicewalla @AaronPound Except here it was a student club that invited the speaker, as student clubs are free to do. IN what cases has Stanford told a student club they couldn't invite someone?

I could totally see FedSoc inviting Harvey if it would own the libs.

Spicewalla Mar 14, 2023

@Popehat @AaronPound

If they didn't fear the reputational cost they might, I mean anything is possible.

But institutional power isn't just the school admin. Its the student groups who are social elites (and all the money backing them) its also the social structures that made weinstein notable and possibly palatable enough to the fedsoc. Etc.

All that power has to line up just right for a speaker to make it to Stanford, unlike the same thing in a random public park.

Ken White Mar 14, 2023

@Spicewalla @AaronPound I'm not sure that FedSoc folks are the most socially elite at STanford law school.

Spicewalla Mar 15, 2023

@Popehat @AaronPound

They may be behind the average Joe in getting laid, but they make up for it in access to clerkships.