Ken WhiteMar 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
Show threadKen WhiteMar 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.)
Show threadKen WhiteMar 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
Show threadJustAnotherWizardMar 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.

Show threadKen WhiteMar 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.
Show threadFumblebeeMar 14, 2023
@Popehat @AaronPound not be a pain in your ass. It’s a cringey way to use speech, sure. And Stanford as a private institution would be correct to take steps to prevent or punish the shouting down.
But I’m having some trouble identifying any 1A exception that addresses heckling.
Show threadKen WhiteMar 14, 2023
@fumblebee @AaronPound It’s a little complicated because of Leonard’s Law in California applies First Amendment requirements to private universities. But content-neutral rules against disruption are accepted time/place/manner restrictions. The First Amendment doesn’t protect pulling the fire alarm to stop a speech even if you meant it expressively.
Show threadFumblebee
@Popehat @AaronPound you couldn’t have told me I couldn’t pull the fire alarm like 1 minute sooner?
Mar 14, 2023 at 4:07pmWeb
Show threadFumblebeeMar 14, 2023
@Popehat @AaronPound in all seriousness though, thanks for the thoughtful and informative reply
Show threadHalf Cocked LawMar 14, 2023
@fumblebee @Popehat @AaronPound Was the auditorium crowded?
Show threadFumblebeeMar 14, 2023
@halfcocked @Popehat @AaronPound thought about making this joke but decided I’d already bothered Ken enough