I apologize if I did a poor job expressing myself leading us to this question, and I hope you understand why this topic especially is exceptionally raw for a lot of people.
My point is not that the judge was violating any specific speech policy. I am not making a legal argument. I'm not a lawyer, and wouldn't dream of arguing the specifics of the law with you or any other lawyer, because I'm not an expert — you are.
But I don't believe you made a legal argument in this newsletter. You made a moral and ethical one, and that's what I'm responding to. In your own words:
"And they are too hubris-swollen — not too stupid, but too drunk with self-righteousness — to see that exceptions to free speech have always been used most harmfully against the powerless, and always will be. They’re too full of themselves to see that “let a crowd decide who is allowed to speak” is a horrific norm to promote with grotesque historic resonance. Some of them will grow out of this."
This is why I bring up European speech policy. And Canadian speech policy. And existing exceptions to the 1st Amendment that you touch on regularly, including in your newsletter about Shivaro.
I'm not saying there is a specific policy, law, decision, memorandum, or other bit of obscure legal wrangling that makes what the judge said wrong, or gives legal air cover to the students shouting him down. What I AM saying is that carving out exceptions to the 1A and freedom of speech as a concept has not, in fact, "always been used most harmfully against the powerless, and always will be." And that, in fact, the students shouting down the Judge in no way caused any meaningful harm to either the judge's free speech OR to the concept of free speech in general, and that perhaps we should look at expanding exceptions to free speech, not to include "anyone I think is an asshole," but to include "anyone who's speech is used to create harm to the very powerless that you're worried may be hurt in stone distant future when we've fully slid down the slippery slope that others have managed to avoid sliding down.
Maybe I'm drunk on self-righteousness and hubris-swollen. Maybe I'm arrogant in thinking that we, as a people, are capable of thoughtful carve-outs of inalienable rights that simultaneously prevent marginalized communities having to be refugees in their own countries AND prevent the United States from becoming the Fourth Reich. But if I am, then you must admit that you are as well, for supporting carve-outs of the 1A. The only difference, as I see it, is that you believe the issue is largely settled with the expeditions we have, and that the law must lead and the rest of us follow; whereas I believe that there's still room for improvement, and that the law is a trailing indicator for justice.
And I apologize for calling you dishonest. Everything else aside, that was unnecessary and petty.
I’ll bite.
What was the judge saying at Stanford that would be limited by a European speech policy?
I apologize if I did a poor job expressing myself leading us to this question, and I hope you understand why this topic especially is exceptionally raw for a lot of people.
My point is not that the judge was violating any specific speech policy. I am not making a legal argument. I'm not a lawyer, and wouldn't dream of arguing the specifics of the law with you or any other lawyer, because I'm not an expert — you are.
But I don't believe you made a legal argument in this newsletter. You made a moral and ethical one, and that's what I'm responding to. In your own words:
"And they are too hubris-swollen — not too stupid, but too drunk with self-righteousness — to see that exceptions to free speech have always been used most harmfully against the powerless, and always will be. They’re too full of themselves to see that “let a crowd decide who is allowed to speak” is a horrific norm to promote with grotesque historic resonance. Some of them will grow out of this."
This is why I bring up European speech policy. And Canadian speech policy. And existing exceptions to the 1st Amendment that you touch on regularly, including in your newsletter about Shivaro.
I'm not saying there is a specific policy, law, decision, memorandum, or other bit of obscure legal wrangling that makes what the judge said wrong, or gives legal air cover to the students shouting him down. What I AM saying is that carving out exceptions to the 1A and freedom of speech as a concept has not, in fact, "always been used most harmfully against the powerless, and always will be." And that, in fact, the students shouting down the Judge in no way caused any meaningful harm to either the judge's free speech OR to the concept of free speech in general, and that perhaps we should look at expanding exceptions to free speech, not to include "anyone I think is an asshole," but to include "anyone who's speech is used to create harm to the very powerless that you're worried may be hurt in stone distant future when we've fully slid down the slippery slope that others have managed to avoid sliding down.
Maybe I'm drunk on self-righteousness and hubris-swollen. Maybe I'm arrogant in thinking that we, as a people, are capable of thoughtful carve-outs of inalienable rights that simultaneously prevent marginalized communities having to be refugees in their own countries AND prevent the United States from becoming the Fourth Reich. But if I am, then you must admit that you are as well, for supporting carve-outs of the 1A. The only difference, as I see it, is that you believe the issue is largely settled with the expeditions we have, and that the law must lead and the rest of us follow; whereas I believe that there's still room for improvement, and that the law is a trailing indicator for justice.
And I apologize for calling you dishonest. Everything else aside, that was unnecessary and petty.