Search the Lounge


« Academic Publishing | Main | Illinois Law Review on the first 100 Days »

April 26, 2017


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


So many misstatements, so little time.

First, "the extreme ends of the political spectrum have made clear their readiness and intention to utilize violent tactics in support or in protest of certain speakers at UC Berkeley." Please cite the groups on the "other end" of the political spectrum preventing any speakers at Berkeley.

Second, Lubet, as usual, doesn't really present all sides of the debate (sorry, the "FIRE" statement doesn't address the issue at hand in any level necessary to dispel false impressions, especially those Lubet promotes by highlighting certain passages of the UCB statement).

To wit, there no statement from Coulter. There is no report about her "side of the story."

According to her, she accommodated every request; intentionally, to avoid be blamed for being not accommodating as an excuse. She recently (as of last night, as I recall) stated that she would NOT speak on the scheduled date because the student group that had invited her withdrew its support.

As NPR reports: "Reuters and The New York Times report that Coulter said in an emailed statement that she decided to cancel the speech after conservative groups backed out of sponsoring the event."

Is THAT what Lubet refers to when he states that there is "news" here that one doesn't hear reported fairly?

Lubet states that there is some "new" information in the UCB statement. No, sorry, this is the MSNBC version of "news" ... which is to say, a one sided, incomplete, biased version of events, repeated over and over and over, with no opportunity for rebuttal by persons involved in the events discussed.

In other words, this post, once again, is a slanted, biased fake "news" hit, ripped from the talking points of the "right" side of the debate by Lubet. This "news" is inaccurate by omission of truthful information that renders the facts stated misleading, at best.

Readers be aware.

A scholar would be interested in the climate that the groups he slavishly supports are creating; a climate, that he, by ignoring the positions of anyone with whom he disagrees, fosters and supports by implication. These groups clearly wish to stifle and silence any voices with which they disagree. They want to live in a world where only the Party speaks.

Steve: like you?

I ask because every single time you post on a political issue, you palm off this one sided tripe, with no context, no deeper thinking, no recognition that there is plenty of fault in the Democratic Party (and its extreme members) contributing to the dysfunctional political climate that is ruining this country.

Can't you see this?

Why don't you post Coulter's statements on this issue, and highlight HER words?

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

anon at 7:35 pm:

As long as I have enjoyed this blog, Professor Lubet has always made intellectual, merit based arguments. This post follows that pattern He is similar to the giants on the right that I enjoy reading or hearing: Scalia, George Will and Charles Krauthammer. One of the finest speeches I ever had the pleasure of hearing was given by Justice Scalia.

Ann Coulter and her colleagues at Regenry Publishing are into personal attack dog politics. Similar to your post. They are into name calling..."Liberal this and Liberal That" Liberal, Liberal, Lib-tard. Even the Ayn Rand folks are in to this conduct. I bought a book this past weekend with a wonderful title....The Unfairness of the Minimum Wage. I was looking forward to an intellectual argument. The book is laced with Anit-Liberal platitudes and name calling.... I judged a book by its cover and was disappointed... Give me a good argument on the Right, not a tirade.


Deep State Special Legal Counsel:

"Ann Coulter and her colleagues at Regenry Publishing are into personal attack dog politics. Similar to your post. They are into name calling..."

Is this really your response to anon? I think you just reinforced his point. Anon says that not all sides are fairly presented, and that the posted statement includes misstatements and blatant omissions. Your response is to ignore all this because - name calling? Isn't this just another version of the "I don't like what you're saying, so you must be wrong and I don't need to explain why" epidemic that is creating the trouble at Berkeley?

Patrick S. O'Donnell

Precious, albeit typical bullshit from Coulter: “It’s sickening when a radical thuggish institution like Berkeley can so easily snuff out the cherished American right to free speech.” That anyone would want to listen to (let alone pay for) what this woman has to say is emblematic of the depths (i.e., the muck and mire) to which mass media-filtered "public discourse" in this country is capable of sinking.


Anyone who doesn't adhere to the received viewpoints of the Party is low in comparison to the ever so high and mighty, morally superior authorities on everything, including who may speak at Berkeley.

Most comments aren't even in the ballpark of recognizing the issue here.

All some folks want to do is vent about Coulter.

I find this as disgusting as they find her.


"Conservative groups, in their attempt to frame this complex series of events as a “free speech battle” by suing Berkeley’s administration, have used the label of free speech as a tool for publicity. Conservative groups, in their attempt to frame this complex series of events as a “free speech battle” by suing Berkeley’s administration, have used the label of free speech as a tool for publicity."

And, those who will prevent Coulter from speaking "by any means necessary"? What values are they pursuing?

Lubet? Anything to post that addresses that issue?

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

r at 2:13 am

You are correct. I don't like what Coulter and what the above poster is saying. They resort to Labels. No different than a 6th Grader in a tight spot with limited coping skills. I don't like labeling people. I enjoy a good argument...

Enrique Guerra Pujol

How does the heckler's veto figure in all this?


Exactly, as WIKI (not always the best source, but accurate here), most people misunderstand the "heckler's veto" to refer to the heckler. Rather "In First Amendment law, a heckler's veto is the suppression of speech by the government, because of [the possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers. It is the government that vetoes the speech, because of the reaction of the heckler. Under the First Amendment, this kind of heckler's veto is unconstitutional."

Left wing extremists don't see how embarrassing their own hypocritical stances should be. But, because the media largely supports any interference with, ridicule of, outage or other negative reaction - and now, in the parlance of these ideologues "resistance" - to any person who is not a member of the Party saying or doing anything, the embarrassment is never felt.

What is so amazing is that the actions of these persons in doing what they do (and those on sites like this who support them) mirrors the fascists far more than Coulter does.

Her speech was to concern enforcing the EXISTING immigration laws. The horror of such a thought!

If those laws are wrong, they must be changed, or, as we have seen, enjoined by the courts. That is our system. Those who seek to shut down speech of that sort are ignorant.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

The "Heckler's Veto" is best illustrated by the Illinois Neo-Nazis' attempts to march on Skokie during the 70s. The Village of Skokie attempted to enjoin the marches in court. Coulter's appearance and talk is not that.

Extremism on the Left is not laudable. However, Coulter fabricates "outrage" where none existed. That is her gig. It's entertainment. It appears that Berkley foiled her ranting when they "allowed" her speech. It's no fun, nor does it maker her MONEY when there is no controversy.

Patrick S. O'Donnell

Lest we forget, "Leftist extremism," insofar as this refers largely to indiscriminate and/or "terrorist" violence (in quotes by way of noting that there are contested definitions of same), and especially against persons, is not (for some time now, if ever) commonplace in this country, indeed, it's fairly rare, in comparison, that is, with comparable violence committed by members of the extreme Right (religiously or otherwise motivated), by either individuals or groups. Imagine if Native Americans and/or Leftists had engaged in a 41-day armed occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon! The treatment by the mass media, political pundits, and law enforcement officials would have been as different as night and day. If you think that is implausible, consider what often happens when those on the Left engage in principally peaceful (nonviolent and unarmed) protest: perhaps some property damage occurs owing to a few outliers, but that is typically incidental to the overall characterization of the behavior of the demonstrators (although it becomes the primary 'spectacle' for mass media consumption). Cf., for example, this article (as illustrative):


Alcatraz, Ferguson (Justice Dept. found the triggering incident lawful), Baltimore (two acquittals followed by charges dismissed after calls for prosecutor to be removed), and on and on and on and hundreds of other examples, especially during the protests of the late 60s and early 70s.

Yes, "consider what often happens when those on the Left engage in principally peaceful (nonviolent and unarmed) protest."

The "media consumption" is mostly light and supportive. Compare then the coverage of the "teabaggers" ...

The comment above is perfectly illustrative of the blinders worn by some, mostly on one wing of the spectrum these days. Nothing can wake them up, even neo fascists in Berkeley trying to shut down free speech.


Add to the comment above the reaction of some when, say for example, adherents of a particular world view based on what THEY say is their faith engage in what can only be called barbarism.

Some come to their defense, or worse, attempt to pretend that these persons are not doing what they are doing for the reasons that THEY say they are doing these things.

Relevant to the comment above, shall we call those persons who engage in religious extremism "rightists"?

The whole thrust of the partisan bs that gets peddled here is so obviously wrong and muddled. Zealots are always wrong, but don't always pretend to be morally superior while doing or supporting very bad things indeed.

Of course, the response must be, that the media has been kind to Coulter? Or the "teabaggers"? Please ...

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

The Wild Life Refuge Right winged wankers are a poor example to cite for lack of media coverage. What did they do? Over powered an elderly volunteer docent staffing a school children's interpretive center containing stuffed beavers, projectile points and a little gift shop with post cards and slides. There was no real threat to human life and property and there was no real threat of contagion. It was a "boring" stand off...

The Left Wing nut rioters destroyed a CVS, tossed bricks into an Apple Store and posed a real, immediate treat to human life and spreading violence. It was dramatic and dangerous and made for good television.

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad