Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Sherry Murray's avatar

I thought your original piece was spot on and this is as good or even better. As a socially liberal lawyer, I am really disappointed in the law students and even more so in the Dean of DEI for trying to shut down the Judge’s speech - even though I think that thenJudge and a few others like him are not qualified to be on the bench, but that’s a whole ‘ nother argument. In this case I do think this guy was invited partly to bait the students and provoke the reaction he got in furtherance of the victim hood card frequently being played by the right. But that still doesn’t give the students the right to censor him- two wrongs don’t make a right and his behaviors doesn’t legitimize theirs.

Expand full comment
polenta's avatar

Ken White is simply one of the best we have on the First Amendment.

He's crystal clear on the crucial distinction between preventing or punishing speech, and harshly or rudely criticizing it on the other hand. The position of the boundary is the point. He also discussed a principle of evenhandedness, where neither side (right or left) is allowed to gain an advantage by declaring a different boundary depending on who you are.

These principles seem obvious, but it's the application that counts. He does us a service -- he shows in careful detail how they apply in a complex, concrete, emotional situation like the Stanford incident. He quickly discovers that the speech claims of both sides are bossy, hypocritical, and garbled. Thus the previous post trashed both sides.

What else can you do? They're execrable and make no sense.

But -- hot as he runs, he does it with a precision laser. Never lose focus, avoid collateral damage. You can't turn up the laser to full strength until you have exactly the right target.

Expand full comment
94 more comments...

No posts