Categories
Right Angle

This is NOT ‘Free Speech’: Federal Judge Blacklists Shouting Protestors at Yale Law School

In a strange turn of events, a federal judge circulates a message encouraging his peers to block the protestors from future court internships.

This is NOT 'Free Speech': Federal Judge Blacklists Shouting Protestors at Yale Law School

A panel talk by The Federalist Society at Yale Law School gets heckled, and shouted down by 100 protestors, forcing police to shuttle the panel out of the hall for their own protection. In a strange turn of events, a federal judge circulates a message encouraging his peers to block the protestors from future court internships. Did these future lawyers merely exercise their free speech right to shout down the conservatives on stage?

 Scott Ott, Stephen Green and Bill Whittle exercise our freedom five times a week, thanks to the inspiration and funding provided by our Members. You can join our committed conservative patriots when you click the big green button above. To donate without joining, click the big blue button. Either way, we appreciate you.

Listen to the Audio Version

23 replies on “This is NOT ‘Free Speech’: Federal Judge Blacklists Shouting Protestors at Yale Law School”

The subject of the shout-down invited speakers was the transgender of prepubescent children. Another arm of the transgender fight to control our speech. Continuation of your Right Angles “Man Up for the Women’s Swim Competition” and “Stopping the Grooming”

I only wish the Federalist Society were worthy of the acclaim and “high esteem” some people hold them in. However, it seems when it comes to choosing between freedom/human rights and bureaucracy, the Federalist Society members on the Supreme Court choose bureaucracy more often than not.
Someone in the comments mentioned that the mob’s actual target was the lawyer defending that Christian baker that the LGBT activists have been targeting. That is someone who is worthy of acclaim.

There’s another problem with Scott’s argument to the judge. The conservative speaker was not unopposed. It was a debate. And I don’t necessarily agree with what Bill had to say about YouTube either. This goes back to the platform versus publisher question and YouTube’s double standards when interpreting and enforcing their own rules. You guys have talked about that before. I’m disappointed.

Last but not least, I’ll have to disagree with Bill on one point. Under Section 230, YouTube agreed with the U.S. government to receive immunity from liability as publisher. People can’t sue them for the content on their platform. In return for this immunity, they agreed to act as a platform except for specific carve-outs.
For instance, they are allowed to prevent child traffickers from posting videos. They are supposed to allow everything not specifically prohibited, but like all other leftists, they don’t act in good faith. Their moral compass is not the external standard set by God but rather their own “internal morality” (as the atheists say as if we grew morality) which allows them to violate ethics and the spirit and letter of the law as long as they believe they can get away with it.
As former private companies, Big Tech made their deal with the devil a long time ago. They granted the intelligence agencies and law enforcement access to their user accounts, and I believe the Section 230 protection was the quid pro quo.
I’ve also heard that they’ve taken government subsidies, which if true, would show that we as taxpayers are effectively shareholders with a say in the matter. Amazon and Microsoft are fighting over $10 billion from DARPA…
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/06/pentagon-cancels-10-billion-jedi-cloud-contract.html

The immediate image that came to mind upon hearing about this story was the leftist toddlers—some say paid protestors as they saw money being exchanged—banging on the door demanding “justice” during Justice Kavanaugh’s Senate confirmation hearing or yelling at Sen. Jeff Flake as he entered the elevator, accusing him of supporting a rapist.
Whether or not I would consider these law students as future interns / employees would depend upon the following: a) whether or not they had a point and b) if they were apologetic for disrupting the forum and ignoring the rules of civil discourse.

I can work with someone or employ someone with whom I disagree. On the other hand, I refuse to spend my valuable time nor should I be forced to spend my valuable time due to wokeness or political correctness with an entitled, immature toddler who holds any one of the following three beliefs:

1) the world revolves around them and the rest of us should adjust our behavior and open our wallets to ensure their comfort;

2) society at large is hindering their success. While it is distinctly within the realm of possibility to experience objectively egregious levels of unfair treatment and long-term consequences due to poor regulations and laws passed most frequently by shortsighted liberals who never apologize instead excusing their complete lack of wisdom with, “We were just trying to do the right thing,” as they profess to be the arbiters of fairness which they are most definitely not (e.g., how “fair” is it to legal immigrant to allow illegals to stream across our border), this is often not the case.

A good example of actual injustice ignored by the “fair” liberals who profess to care deeply about “social justice” is the case of human rights violations occurring on our own soil. Dozens of unjustly imprisoned January 6th protestors are suffering now not due to their own decisions but rather due to unreasonable and unforeseen consequences of their actions enforced by leftists in the White House and the DOJ targeting them with political persecution for their involvement in January 6th, and;

3) “political correctness” has value. It doesn’t. Not a white not a sliver. We had a standard of common courtesy in this country—a standard which is routinely violated now by leftists shouting their opponents down at a public forum like toddlers screaming in the grocery store when mommy won’t buy them the ball.
Prior to the advent of political correctness, this standard worked quite well in everything. Opening doors for other people, respecting other people’s privacy and property, respecting elders and authority, educating ourselves about the issues of the day in order to preserve our nation and honor the sacrifices of those who handed it to us, politicians actually feeling an obligation to the citizens who elected them and…
…CIVIL DISCOURSE…
…were all included in our beloved common courtesy. So was not punching a Nazi or punching a guy who wore glasses.
By the way, one of my favorite examples of this is Harry Truman refusing special treatment and driving himself back home after leaving the White House at the end of his term.

Our beloved common courtesy which rested upon the Christian principle of love your neighbor as yourself worked rather well thank you very much, but God forbid we bring back civil society and Make America Great Again by speaking with each other, allowing other people their turn to speak, knowing our neighbors and remembering we serve a God who will judge us one day.

Isn’t it funny how now the very same communists who in the late 80’s early 90’s used our own good nature and generosity against us to start controlling what we can and can’t say via political correctness now feel entitled to shout people down?

Remember when they “just wanted” us to call secretaries “executive assistants”? They’ve gone way over the line in violating the trust from which we indulged them.

Whenever a liberal says they “just want” you to do something in the name of health, safety, fairness or (clasp hands and look skyward as you say this) “the children,” run far and fast in the opposite direction. They are about to take advantage of you.

Former KGB agent Yuri Bezmenov discusses the use of political correctness in his 80’s lecture on communist subversion. His talk on the subversion of the media is good too…

Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society (Complete)
https://youtu.be/5gnpCqsXE8g

Subversion of the Free World Press – Yuri Bezmenov
https://youtu.be/sQN4c3uN_tA

Tammy Bruce also wrote a book entitled The New Thought Police which addresses the topic. At one point, there was a YouTube video by the same name of Bruce giving a talk about it. I wish she would repost it on YouTube or somewhere else.

I don’t know the specifics of the Yale students’ beef, but I will say this.
The specifics of the incident are irrelevant to my point above, which is that reasonable, civil people are tired of the toddlers and the lying propagandists in the fake news who promote and support the “mostly peaceful” protests of leftists as they bully, threaten and destroy.
For example, these leftists showed up to terrorize Tucker Carlson’s wife and family, banging on his front door to the point were his wife needed to hide in a closet and call 911.
They also accosted Sen. Josh Hawley’s wife and infant child at home while he was away on business with threats and intimidation.
They also started a fight with the Proud Boys in NYC which, like some of the January 6th protestors, led to political persecution in the form of unjust sentencing for some of the Proud Boys who finished a fight they didn’t start. None of the Antifa participants spent a night in jail. In fact, one of the arresting officers told them something to the effect that he hadn’t seen such persecution so someone higher up must have it in for them.
Of course I don’t know for sure, but given the fact that I’ve NEVER seen a group of vocal conservatives shouting anyone down, if I were a betting man, I would place my money on the fact that these “protestors” are likely leftists and probably organized by some non-profit funded by dark money from the left. They’re most likely the same brand of toddlers who were shouting down and rioting when Ben Shapiro, Milo Yiannopoulos, Ann Coulter or anyone else with whom they disagree dared to hold an event back in 2016.

I will also say that it’s important to remember that a large portion if not the majority of Yale students and those of our elite institutions overall probably hate these people as much as we do if not more. Publicity such as this wears away at the reputation of these institutions. The majority of students at these institutions worked their tails off to be there. Not everyone there is the son of a titan of industry or the daughter of some liberal elite.
So unlike some, such as Tucker Carlson, I am not willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and discard wholesale the credential of an Ivy League or similar degree simply due to the fact that some dope like Sen. Cory Booker—what an embarrassing, fawning, cringe-inducing performance by Booker at Supreme Court nominee Judge Judge Tokenji Brown Jackson’s Senate confirmation hearing—graduated from the school.
The disaccreditation of a Yale or similar degree is entirely unfair to the many undergraduate and graduate students past and present—of whom I would argue are the majority—who thoroughly disagree with these virtue-signaling ninnies.who unfortunately attend Yale and other high-level institutions.

While my radar would certainly go up today more than it would in the past upon hearing that a prospective employee or partner graduated from one of these institutions, I would not discard them out of hand. J.D. Vance, as a Yalie,is a perfect example of why we shouldn’t submit to the somewhat fashionable Ivy League bashing.

The same applies to the black community, particularly the urban black community. While I sure as hell don’t want to work with someone who blames their current lot in life on the legacy of slavery, systemic racism or whatever excuse their wheel spin lands upon that day, there are many urban blanks uninfected with a sense of entitlement or lack of personal responsibility that I have been and would be delighted to work beside.

The unfortunate reality is that leftist race-baiters like BLM, just like the leftist Yalies, have tarnished the reputation of their respective at-large populations. With regard to the black community, there is a study which results in a lower percentage of people with black-sounding names being hired. While the social justice warriors offer the study as evidence of system racism, it serves as evidence to me that business owners—particularly small business owners who have their entire lives and the future of their families invested and riding on the results of their business—don’t want to deal with the hassle and even worse, the risk of hiring an entitled person who self-identifies as a card-carrying member of a victim group.

Why, when your life is on the line, would you hire a potential troublemaker who could hold the sword of Damacles over your head every day? It’s impossible to fire them without a lawsuit, and during their employ, you and the rest of your employees would always be on edge due to the potential for a lawsuit due to “discrimination” or “sexual harassment” which could bankrupt you and end your means of supporting yourself and your family whether it has merit or not.

Notice that the leftists don’t have this problem. Regardless of skin color, gender, sexuality, whatever, there is no disagreement or diversity of thought. Supreme Court nominee Judge Tokenji Brown Jackson might be black and female, but she can’t define a woman and serves as an apologist for kiddie porn lovers. In other words, she’s in lockstep with leftist dogma.

Upon hiring one of these loose cannon loons, you essentially give away the power to run your business as you see fit in exchange for the daily joy of appeasing one spoiled toddler while sacrificing all of the productivity you had when everyone could speak freely. It’s crazy times a billion, and Americans are sick of it.

I said a long time ago that the first major corporation to ditch the woke garbage would make a gajillion dollars. They haven’t, and the reason I think they haven’t is that I agree with Glenn Beck and his researchers. The globalist establishment is dangling trillions of dollars in front of these big corporations if they play along while threatening to shut them out of the new world order and sock them with “reputational damage” if they don’t. All part of the fascist public-private partnerships (the China model) where the private parts are really controlled by the communist state. They seize the means of production while presenting the facade of private industry.

While we argue over free speech, the globalist fascists are looking toward a future involving five new technologies including AI and gene manipulation set to emerge within the next 5 years or so, and they are attempting to set up their surveillance state with digital passports, digital currency and otherwise planning accordingly. It’s about time we all recognized this and put a stop to it.
WE paid for all that technology. It was OUR tax dollars which funded a lot of this research and technology through corporate subsides, university grants and government institutions such as the NIH. Therefore, the fruits of our tax dollars belong to US not Dr. Fauci and his friends who awarded themselves the right to patent the results of government research and government-sponsored research at universities (the second part of Plandemic touches upon this; I found it on Bitchute. Haven’t looked on Rumble).

As a for instance of the globalist plan, they could care less about climate change. They all electric vehicles for their driverless car grid. Fossil fuel-powered vehicles provide us with freedom and independence and therefore can’t be tolerated. You will never own an electric vehicle. They’ll all be owned by the state. Remember what they say about the Great Reset? You will own nothing and be happy.

Even those with wealth will have it confiscated just like Castro confiscated the farms and forced the former owners to work them. To Castro’s credit, he did allow them to keep some food for themselves which they could enjoy when his goons weren’t showing up to make sure that a picture of Castro was prominently displayed on their wall.

China is trying to dominate all five of the new technologies. President Xi Jinping was the keynote speaker at Davos 2022. Disgraced Dr. Fauci also spoke.

But hey. Nothing to see here! Look! Ukraine!!!
Putin has 20,000 tanks. He’s used 600 and non of his MIG’s. Does that sound like a Hitler Blitzkrieg to you?

Once the fascist globalists have their global surveillance state in place including facial recognition, our free speech and the Constitution we treasure won’t be worth a damn. Think about that.

There is precedent for people in power shouting down the opposition. The British Parliament seems to be happy to debase themselves in this manner.
I wonder if shouting down is going to work in future USA’s courtrooms?

No; this was not youthful indiscretion.
These were no 18 year-olds letting off some steam. These were Yale Law School students, anointed to be our future leaders and betters, coddled by their professors and administrators.
The Federalist Society, while generally populated by “conservatives”, is devoted to the principle of the free and unencumbered discussion of ideas.
No mercy to these proto-thugs.
(And I write as a proud former President of the my law school’s Federalist Society).

Leftists shouting people down doesn’t mean they’re on target. Quite the opposite. These are the same toddlers who screamed at the sky after losing a legitimate election.

While neither of you watched the film and deserve some criticism for not doing so, I agree with the comments and especially appreciate the statements you, Scott, made to change the context of meaning of the film. I agree particularly with Bill’s answers and just as I did not watch The Handmaiden’s Tale, I won’t be watching this travesty of “art”.

I’m not sure I agree with Scott because the fact that 100 people are standing up and shouting at the Federalist Society with impunity isn’t evidence that something is “on target”. It’s a symptom of the failure of our system that 100 people with advanced education don’t know better than to try that.

It’s not a sign that we’re making progress because 30 years ago the idea of doing such a thing would be so obviously wrong that it wouldn’t, and didn’t, happen.

Just as your right to swing your fists around ends at the tip of MY nose, so your right to Freedom of Speech ends at the point where you’re denying that same freedom to someone else. Your freedom of self defense does not allow you to redefine self defense to mean that being “attacked” with speech justifies your denial of speech to anyone else. That’s a dangerous slippery slope that ends with pogroms and lynchings. Don’t think for one second that a significant fraction of those 100 people doing the shouting wouldn’t have dragged the Federalist Society into the streets for summary execution if they believed they could get away with it.

The fact that a single Federal Judge wrote a single memo to some of his colleagues is about as close to impunity as it gets. Bravo to that Judge for doing that but the effect is going to be largely nil because all the Federal Judges should be saying the same thing to all the other Federal Judges.

Just as a fever can be a successful response of the host body to infection, the fever can also be the thing that kills the host. Society has a fever that we ignore or even worse credit as a positive thing to our own peril.

Perhaps I took it differently. I thought what Scott was saying was that if 100 people decided to try and shout down the Federalist Society, than what the Federalist Society was saying was on target. And the mere fact that it generated protest demonstrates this to be so and the fact that they got a forum at Yale and people wanted to hear them is also a good thing.

That’s the way I took it too. I understand what Scott’s saying, I respectfully disagree with him and with your last sentence. If it were just a shouting match then that might apply but there was more to it than that. I don’t think it’s encouraging at all because it was done with impunity. I think I made that part of my point clear? Maybe not, sometimes this stuff makes more sense as an idea in my head than it does when I try to move that idea out to text.

Just to be clear before I go on, the nearly 120 protesters claimed that they were exercising their free speech in exactly the manner that Scott said would happen.

The reason for the political mob was not The Federalist Society. It was because one of the two opposing debaters was a member of the Christian non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). The ire of the mob was due to ADF’s successful defense before the SCOTUS of a Colorado baker for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding.

It was a lynch mob targeting that one person for all practical purposes.

I would be encouraged if of the 1,770 Federal Judges in the United States denying Leftist grads who trod upon the rights of others an internship — Became even a fractionally significant tacit policy. That would be a consequence that denied the perpetrators impunity. That would be a real thing, not a hopeful quest to find something to feel good about. Like the election of Glenn Youngkin, the crashing ratings at CNN, etc. are real things and can be pointed to as real examples that things are not as well for the Left as they want us to think they are.

In contrast I do not find a plus side to the idea that a bunch of people who really ought to know better succeeded so well in threatening others with the excuse that they didn’t like their political stance that the victims of that attack had to be evacuated for their own safety. That’s barely a hair’s breadth from open violence. The next step is gunfire and molotov cocktails, as we saw during the “summer of love” in 2020.

What should have happened is those threatening violence to the point where people had to be evacuated needed to face consequences for their illegal, inappropriate, uncivil, immoral behavior. That would be a thing I could find some real encouragement in. No one stood against them. Their victims ran for their lives or at least for their better health. Running isn’t good, trying to put a happy face on running is a bit Pollyanna-ish to my thinking.

You can say “Well it’s good that the Federalist Society panel were there to be attacked, that means they’re on target” and … Nope. From where I sit that’s more than a bit like condoning a lynch mob going for a black man because he just happened to be somewhere talking about civil rights. He’s right, he’s on target, he’s morally and civilly justified — And he’s garnering an inappropriate, excessive negative response. Right up until he gets hurt or killed and the mob is satisfied or he manages to flee for his life and escape.

Scott offered the analogy of aircraft combat wherein a plane on the attack against an enemy starts pumping out flares to decoy an incoming threat. Hopefully the threat will take out a flare and not the plane. That all sounds well and good until you consider that it doesn’t always work or … the plane being attacked runs out of flares.

That’s why I used the analogy of a fever. A fever is never good because it indicates illness. A fever might crop up to try to intercept an infection and like chaff and flares from a fighter plane dodging incoming missiles it might work. Or it might not. But the fact that the fever is there, or that the plane is being fired on, means you’re already in trouble and that is not a real hopeful place to be. In my personal experience.

The response to an unprovoked attack should always be swift and certain. Even if you have to run away to fight another day, that doesn’t mean the attack can be allowed with impunity. At the very least those attackers in this case should have been arrested and charged with criminal trespass. Even if you ignore the threat they were presenting, and I do not, that would have been a real response to their anti-social action. They also violated quite a few of Yale’s policies and campus rules without punishment.

I guess what I’m trying to get across is that I do not like the idea of trying to find a silver lining to every cloud. It’s overly optimistic and denies reality. Some clouds are harmless and even quite pretty. Some clouds are supercells with tornados hanging from them and those clouds are dangerous no matter how hard you look for the silver lining. Because even if it is there, the silver lining does not negate the danger and it’s the wrong thing to be concentrating on.

When you can see the storm coming, that’s the time to take action to protect yourself and not the time to look for silver linings. I think there might be a storm coming and this could be one of many little clouds that precedes a supercell. I think we need to do something concrete about that because unlike a storm, we can take proactive action.

I think being overly optimistic is every bit as bad as being overly pessimistic. Two sides to the same coin, neither preferable to the other.

I see the breakdown of civility and disregard for the rules those people themselves have agreed to live by, that they can toss away without thought or consequence as a wholly bad thing. It is such a bad thing that in this instance there is no good that outweighs the bad. Scott, and you, any anyone else, are welcome to disagree but that’s the way I see it.

Good argument. You are right – looking deeper exposes the issue for what it is – squelching free speech using violent means. Punishment is lacking, but sorely needed.

Yeah, sadly a deeper look is seldom a better view and silly me … I always take a good, hard look.

There are things that give me hope, there are things that make me feel like we’re going to win but this kind of thing isn’t one of them. Lack of punishment, either formally or by social disapproval, just encourages this sort of people.

Trying to put a positive spin on it is just an “All that’s necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing” response … Trying to make it something positive when it definitely is not is an equivalency to no action at all. It might even be worse.

It worries me a bit that this is going to become a ‘new normal’ even to people like our hosts on this site. Personally I don’t think we should ever accept this infringement of natural rights in any way. Unless we want it to become permanent and that type of creeping crud is something the Left is very, very good at. That’s how we got where we are now.

This kind of thing isn’t going to get better until those stupid people get burned for doing it. No matter how you look at it, they denied another human being her rights, made violent threats in the process, got away with it Scot-free and … It’s results that count.

The flak might be heaviest when you’re over the target but that’s not an excuse to not release your bomb load, pat yourself on the back and head home with unexpended weapons either.

C’mon Bill, “but muh private corporations?” You know we love your work, but be careful going down the same road as theFrench Davidians!

Leave a Reply