Students try to shut down CUNY lecture on free speech

Grania brought this tweet to my attention. Josh Blackman, an associate professor of law (and expert in Constitutional law) at the South Texas College of Law at Houston, was invited to speak by the Federalist Society at the City University of New York.

As he recounts in an article on his blog about his experience, Blackman was invited to talk about “originalism” (the judicial philosophy of interpreting Constitutional Law as how the Founders supposedly intended) as part of a panel on constitutional interpretation. As nobody else accepted, he decided to talk about free speech on campus, a talk he’d given several times before without problems.

But, of course, you can’t talk about anything if you’re poltically impure. He was warned that there would be protestors, and the president of the Federalist society explained why:

The President provided an explanation:

These students saw first, that this is a Federalist Society event; and second, they saw a few of your writings (specifically a National Review article praising Sessions for rescinding DACA and ACA), and instantly assume you’re racist; and third, our event being titled about free speech is reminiscent of events that claim free speech just to invite people like Milo Yiannopoulos and Ann Coulter.

I’m no fan of Sessions, and I’m a supporter of DACA and the Affordable Care Act, but he wasn’t even going to talk about those. I’d always be interested in hearing a talk on free speech.  But the students didn’t see it that way. You can see their protest in the hall, which is fine and apparently within CUNY’s guidelines, but they also interrupted his talk for the first few minutes and were impolite. Eventually they settled down and let him speak (I haven’t yet heard the talk, though I watched the disruption.) Again, we have another instance of the Left disrupting the Right, and, as always, I’ll be glad to post about the reverse situation if I hear about it (it’s rare).

I have to say that attendance was extremely light, and I’m not sure why. Perhaps it was the topic, the Federalist society, or a lack of advertisement.

Here are a few photos of the protestors, including them standing in front of the room as Blackman tries to speak (I consider that disruption). You’ll be familiar with the tropes.

I particularly like this as an example of mush-headedness. One’s existence and another’s opinion are NOT alternatives to be ranked. You can have both!

 

Here’s the old “hate speech” canard. See if you think Blackman purveyed that in his talk:

 

 

62 Comments

  1. Posted April 12, 2018 at 1:34 pm | Permalink

    I have to say that attendance was extremely light, and I’m not sure why.

    Quoting from the blog:

    “Indeed, though there were only five people at the start of the event, by the time it concluded, I counted about 30 people. I learned that some students were either ashamed, or intimidated, and did not want to be seen as attending the event. A number of students thanked me after the event, and explained that conservative speech is stifled on campus not by the faculty, but by the students. The students swarm on anyone who does not toe the progressive line.”

    • zoolady
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

      NOBODY as ARDENT as college students! Unless it’s Evangelicals.

  2. glen1davidson
    Posted April 12, 2018 at 1:37 pm | Permalink

    “My existence > your opinion” == “My opinion > your opinion.”

    Freedom kills. Well, your freedom kills, so I’ll kill your freedom if I can.

    It’s back to the microaggression problem, what is designated by self-appointed ignoramuses cannot be allowed, and since free speech can involve microaggression, it’s a bridge too far. Rather than discuss and understand, just ban what you don’t like. Theocracy in secularized form.

    Glen Davidson

    • Craw
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

      It’s the delusional stuff Heather MacDonald talked about. Her existence is threatened!

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

      “…so I’ll kill your freedom if I can”

      I find these signs unbelievably stupid, but to be fair to the protesters I don’t see them as having disrupted the talk or stopped the speaker from speaking.

      And it’s not a “secularized theocracy” is it? That’s an absurd thing to say. No-one’s being stoned to death or chucked off a tower block. It’s a bunch of nasty, obnoxious students behaving like they own the campus. Not good, and to be challenged whenever possible, but it’s some distance from Iran or Saudi Arabia, or Stalin’s Russia.

      • glen1davidson
        Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

        I find these signs unbelievably stupid, but to be fair to the protesters I don’t see them as having disrupted the talk or stopped the speaker from speaking.

        Despite the fact that the post states that they did:

        You can see their protest in the hall, which is fine and apparently within CUNY’s guidelines, but they also interrupted his talk for the first few minutes and were impolite. Eventually they settled down and let him speak (I haven’t yet heard the talk, though I watched the disruption.)

        Here are a few photos of the protestors, including them standing in front of the room as Blackman tries to speak (I consider that disruption).

        So you see them as having disrupted the speech, even though there’s video of it.

        And it’s not a “secularized theocracy” is it? That’s an absurd thing to say. No-one’s being stoned to death or chucked off a tower block. It’s a bunch of nasty, obnoxious students behaving like they own the campus. Not good, and to be challenged whenever possible, but it’s some distance from Iran or Saudi Arabia, or Stalin’s Russia.

        Oh I see, it has to be absolutely Manichean for you. Gee I doubt that you’d say, “Fine, teach Christianity in the schools, it’s not theocracy because no one’s being stoned to death or chucked off a tower block.”

        What an absurd world you live in, that you pretend that it’s not theocracy–or like one–because it doesn’t involve death to the heretics.

        Anyway, my point wasn’t just this protest and disruption, but the indoctrination often discussed here. You don’t seem very open to, say, photographic evidence or evidence of authoritarianism that manages not to kill anyone. I think we’d do well to oppose secular authoritarians well before they’re killing us.

        Glen Davidson

        • glen1davidson
          Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:01 pm | Permalink

          Should have been “So you don’t see them as having disrupted the speech, even though there’s video of it.

          Rushed, something in the oven that has to get out now.

        • Saul Sorrell-Till
          Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:32 pm | Permalink

          You and Jerry might consider standing at the front of the room a disruption of someone’s speech, I don’t. I consider disruption actively stopping someone from speaking. And they didn’t do that. Nor did they “stop the speaker from speaking”. He finished his speech.

          Your talking about a ‘secularized theocracy’, when referencing a video of some students standing at the front of a talk and holding up obnoxious signs is absurd. In fact, I think in retrospect absurd is too kind. You didn’t even say it was ‘like’ a secularized theocracy, you just said it was theocracy in secularized form. That’s fatuous, as is your analogy with teaching Christianity in schools. As you say, I wouldn’t support teaching Christianity in schools. On the other hand, if they did start doing so, I wouldn’t immediately leap to the conclusion that the entire schooling system was a theocracy, or theocratic in nature.

          And, amusingly, we do actually teach Christianity in schools, here in the UK. We also have a strong secular opposition which manages to oppose said faith schools without describing the schooling system as a ‘theocracy’. That’s because they have some restraint and proportion. They don’t predict that obnoxious, card-clutching student progressives are going to “kill us” if we don’t oppose them now for example.

          I truly wonder at your invocation of the term Manichean by the way. You couldn’t have demonstrated such a mindset more perfectly if you’d set out to.

  3. Posted April 12, 2018 at 1:50 pm | Permalink

    Apart from anything else, this protest offends me on an aesthetic level.

    Who the hell makes these placards?

    If a five year old brought one of these home from school you’d make him apologise to the teacher for wasting crayon.

    • Craw
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

      You just don’t appreciate artisanal craft. Each placard is a unique and hand-crafted artifact.

      It’s only the ideas that are pre-fab and cookie-cutter.

      • Posted April 12, 2018 at 1:59 pm | Permalink

        They look like they are advertising home made meth.

      • infiniteimprobabilit
        Posted April 12, 2018 at 8:18 pm | Permalink

        Ouch!

        cr

        (In other words, that was unkindly accurate 🙂

    • BJ
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 5:29 pm | Permalink

      They were made in a safe space room. That’s where they got the colored markers. The person in the pajamas at the front of the first picture? Her favorite marker is the blue one because it smells like blueberries. They have the smelly markers in the safe space room.

      My favorite was always the black/licorice flavor. I’m sure that means I’m somehow fetishizing black people, but it’s the truth, damn it.

    • infiniteimprobabilit
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 9:03 pm | Permalink

      On reflection, it is easy to sneer at these home-made signs, but would any of us do much better? Some of those are in fact, quite well written (I’m referring to the standard of lettering here, not necessarily the words). Certainly better than I could manage.

      And if, on the other hand, they had been properly printed (i.e. by computer), I’m sure someone would by now have made the jibe that their holders were ‘professional protestors’.

      So I think this is kind of irrelevant to the actual issues. In terms of graphic design, the poster announcing the talk is nothing to shout about, either.

      cr

      • BJ
        Posted April 13, 2018 at 10:14 am | Permalink

        You’re right, of course. Back in 2003, I went to an Iraq War protest with a poster board-and-Sharpie sign that read “Lick Bush, Beat Dick.”

        Ah, the follies of youth.

    • Laurance
      Posted April 13, 2018 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

      Oh wow! A blast from the past for me! Way back in the dark ages, in the days of anti-Vietnam War protests I created some of the placards that we carried, and I was an artist who put real effort into creating A Work Of Art in each one. Oh man, poster paints, beautiful lettering, heavy-duty creativity…those signs are most likely long gone, that was fifty years ago, although there was a guy who fantasized that some day long into the future they’d be renovating and remodeling a building downtown, and there in a long-forgotten closet they’d find protest signs by Laura the Signpainter…

      I put a hell of a lot of time into my signs. I’m not surprised that most people aren’t going to put the immense time and effort into each sign the way I did back in those days. And now in this day and age, neither would I, although I would make the effort to write neatly and legibly.

  4. Posted April 12, 2018 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Also, hold them across your chest or raise them above your head, don’t cover half your face.

  5. Posted April 12, 2018 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    And clean your toom.

    • Craw
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 1:57 pm | Permalink

      My mess > your opinion

  6. Heather Hastie
    Posted April 12, 2018 at 2:20 pm | Permalink

    One sign that especially annoyed me was:

    Conservative Hate [does not equal] Intellectual Debate

    They make the assumption that conservative = hate. Conservatives do not see their pov as hate, and calling someone a hater up front is not going to get them to change their views. Intellectual Debate is exactly what’s needed to expose how and why conservative views are wrong.

    Actions like disrupting a speaker (protest is fine of course) give conservatives the moral high ground.

    • Dave
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 2:29 pm | Permalink

      “Intellectual Debate is exactly what’s needed to expose how and why conservative views are wrong.”

      Or who knows, it might even show how and why (some) leftist views are wrong…or is that inconceivable?

      As for the equation of conservatives with hate, from where I’m sitting it looks as though the hate is coming overwhelmingly in one direction, and it isn’t from conservatives.

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted April 12, 2018 at 2:41 pm | Permalink

        “from where I’m sitting it looks as though the hate is coming overwhelmingly in one direction, and it isn’t from conservatives.”

        Get a new seat. One that might take in the view of Charlottesville, online trolling, doxxing, the recrudescence of the far-right, the unmoored rantings of Alex Jones, Fox News, the alt-right and their constant, roiling project to smear and terrorise anyone who gets in Donald Trump’s way. And Donny himself of course. Because to say what you said you have to be living in a different galaxy entirely.

        • Taz
          Posted April 12, 2018 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

          Online trolling and doxxing is practiced by the left as well as the right. From what I’ve seen, SJWs are more inclined to try and get someone fired for their political views.

          • Posted April 12, 2018 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

            Or for a joke.

        • Posted April 12, 2018 at 7:19 pm | Permalink

          Charlottesville? You mean that time when a hundred sad boys, who should’ve been laughed at or ignored, stood around with tiki torches, then were assaulted by thousands of anarchist thugs, who then tracked down those sad boys as they drove away, smashing their windshields and taillights, causing one sad boy on the autism spectrum to panic, ram into the car in front of him, then peel away in reverse as more anarchist thugs pounded his car? Oh and where an obese, chain-smoking bystander who’d been walking around all day “looking for trouble” had an heart attack?

        • Max Blancke
          Posted April 12, 2018 at 9:21 pm | Permalink

          Once again, a thousand images of that one guy with the Nazi flag at Charlottesville does not equal the Nurnburg rally. There are certainly some right wing extremists. In a country this large, there are going to be some people who hold absurd views.
          It is like kids telling ghost stories around the campfire, then being afraid to be alone in their tents. The stories have not actually increased the risk of being attacked by a one-armed ghost. Just like accusing everyone you disagree with of being a Nazi does not actually increase the power or number of Nazi sympathizers in the US.
          I have spoken to a number of people who actually believe that there are still literal lynch mobs roaming the south, and that many hundreds of unarmed Blacks are killed by police every year.
          Many Evangelicals believe that there is a literal army of secular humanists, in league with Satan, trying to corrupt their children and steal their souls for the devil.
          It is the same tactic; motivating people to action by wildly inflating the power of one’s opponents, or even inventing imaginary ones.

      • Heather Hastie
        Posted April 12, 2018 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

        Some leftist views are wrong. But I’m not a leftist, I’m a liberal. Not the same thing though the conservative media shows us as one and the same. It is convenient for them that liberal and left have always been conflated. That didn’t matter much before, but now that the far left are becoming bigger and louder and more of an entity in their own right it can be problematic. Of course, liberals and the far left do share many values, but there are big differences too.

        Liberals support freedom of speech, equality for all (though some may need extra support to get them to equality – we’re anti-intersectionalism), we don’t think violence can be justified (we’re anti-Antifa), we’re not authoritarian (unlike both the far left and most of the right) and we think communism is a stupid idea. Also, most of us support free trade – like traditional Republicans but unlike Trump Republicans.

        • Saul Sorrell-Till
          Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:02 pm | Permalink

          Yes, that’s a crucial distinction, the one between leftism and liberalism. They’re two separate political worldviews.

          That’s why I always thought ‘illiberal left’ was better than ‘regressive left’. It made it clear that what they were doing went fundamentally against liberal principles, and that the far-left and liberalism are two very distinct entities.

          • Posted April 12, 2018 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

            ‘Regressive’ Left is a play on their own label of ‘progressive’.

            Calling them ‘illiberal’ won’t bother them because they’ve always used ‘liberal’ as a term of abuse.

        • Craw
          Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:21 pm | Permalink

          Trump has driven the free traders out of the GOP for sure. Not many left in the Dems either alas.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted April 12, 2018 at 4:38 pm | Permalink

            All those Tea Party deficit-hawks seem to have been struck deaf and dumb, too.

            • Craw
              Posted April 12, 2018 at 7:03 pm | Permalink

              Indeed. The party used to at least pretend to care about such things; no more.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted April 14, 2018 at 3:53 pm | Permalink

            I think there are more than admit to it. It’s become trendy to be anti-free trade because Bernie and the Greens are anti. But Bernie isn’t actually a Democrat. The party is for it these days, though Hillary made some noises about renegotiating TPP to keep support. The deal was still being negotiated at that stage anyway.

        • Posted April 12, 2018 at 4:14 pm | Permalink

          Only comment – I too identify as a liberal but I disagree with you that “we” think violence can not be justified.

        • Posted April 12, 2018 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

          I do not think that liberal and left have always been conflated. E.g. the Austrian school of economics uses “liberal” in quite another meaning. I think “liberal” has become “left” recently, and this was a U-turn in its meaning.

          • TJR
            Posted April 13, 2018 at 9:58 am | Permalink

            Yes, the conflation between “liberal” and “left” is fairly recent and fairly US-centric.

            I remember George Galloway saying “I’m a leftist, not a liberal”. You don’t say.

            • Posted April 13, 2018 at 11:27 am | Permalink

              There has always been the conflation. Some of it is due to certain figures being *both*, and some of it due to misrepresentation (e.g., of John Stuart Mill and Popper).

          • Posted April 14, 2018 at 9:13 am | Permalink

            It’s not a U-turn, it’s a straight line. There’s a long American tradition of liberalism with a leftish flavor – because thinkers like John Dewey correctly surmised that liberal ideas led there. Meanwhile on the other side of the pond, many liberals took a right turn toward, shall we say, neoliberalism.

          • Heather Hastie
            Posted April 14, 2018 at 3:57 pm | Permalink

            I’m talking about a US context.

            They’re not conflated in NZ either. The main centre-right party calls itself liberal because it has liberal economic policies. Nowadays it’s also socially liberal. No one in NZ considers lhem leftist!

      • scottoest
        Posted April 14, 2018 at 2:52 am | Permalink

        Seriously? There’s an entire media ecosystem for “conservatives” in the United States, that exists to wind them up and prey on their ugliest instincts. It has been wildly successful, and has no equivalent on “the left” that even comes close.

      • scottoest
        Posted April 14, 2018 at 2:52 am | Permalink

        Seriously? There’s an entire media ecosystem for “conservatives” in the United States, that exists to wind them up and prey on their ugliest instincts. It has been wildly successful, and has no equivalent on “the left” that even comes close.

  7. Saul Sorrell-Till
    Posted April 12, 2018 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    You can tell by the self-satisfied smiles and cheery poses that the protesters are truly in fear for their lives. As they point out, their very existence is under threat.

    Ugh. I’m no fan of the right-wing glomming onto this stuff and carrying out their bad-faith exercise in hypocritical outrage – the political equivalent of shouting about a couple of dogs fucking, while ignoring the giant, bewigged orange orang-utan rampaging through the city – but these photos of these protesters, and their awful, cringe-inducing banners and slogans just make me so utterly enervated by the direction these people have taken. Instead of considering for a nanosecond whether these kinds of displays, these kinds of stupefyingly vacuous slogans, might have actually contributed to Trump winning, they have instead decided to double or triple down on the same divisive, smug, crass rhetoric that puts off white members of the electorate from voting for the left.

    And they can thump their fat little fists while sat in their moral high-chairs as much as they want, but unfortunately politics involves appealing to people they might not like. It’s not a game of who can out-woke the next person. You have to actually draw in people who voted for Trump, as much as that might make you grind your teeth to nubs. And all the right have to do at the moment is put up their showreels of stuff like this. We are doing their PR for them.

    • Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      I couldn’t agree more.

      The only thing I’ll add: free speech is definitely a liberal cause. And I don’t mean just in the historical sense.

      The blog post makes the point that there are more options than the one person’s existence and the other’s opinions.

      But I imagine that there’s an even more fundamental truth the sign-carrier should be striving to express. If the speaker truly is racist (I know nothing about him and refuse to comment either way) then surely she can poke holes those opinions of his. They are, after all, opinions, not empirical truths.

      Why so many on the Left have chosen to go the histrionic authoritarian route, I still don’t understand.

      • Saul Sorrell-Till
        Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:43 pm | Permalink

        You touch on something telling there: they definitely should be able to handle themselves in debate against someone who they call an out and out racist, but if you spend any time watching them when they’re transplanted from their campus safe spaces and placed in front of a camera for a TV station interview or a political debate show you see how uniformly awful they all are at arguing their case. Years of echo chamber campus politics have stunted their ability to convince anyone other than people who already agree with them.

        But the minority of competent SJW debaters are if anything even worse, because they always come across so badly. They’re charmless, unyielding, self-righteous…again, they just damage their own cause(and by proxy, mine, which is why they piss me off so) every time they speak.

    • Max Blancke
      Posted April 13, 2018 at 1:11 pm | Permalink

      People and animals tend to adjust their perception of what is “normal”, based on their own experiences. When they talk about something making them feel “unsafe”, they mean that from the relative perspective of someone who has probably never actually experienced real hardship. All the dialog about their existence being threatened is from the same perspective. The whole of their life experiences is so much more pleasant than the default historical human experience, they cannot begin to comprehend actual suffering or danger.
      If someone with broader life experiences talks to them, we are using much the same vocabulary, but the words mean very different things.

  8. Posted April 12, 2018 at 2:28 pm | Permalink

    “Legal objectivity is a myth.”

    Sez a bunch of future PDs.

  9. Ken Kukec
    Posted April 12, 2018 at 2:53 pm | Permalink

    I’m foursquare behind Blackman’s having the absolute right to make his presentation, without qualification. But I’ve no problem with his having had to run the placard gauntlet on his way to the forum, or with the students opposed to him having had their opportunity to offer a bit of heckling or otherwise to express their disapproval. Free speech in these United States, especially as it pertains to “political speech” (broadly construed) ain’t for the faint of heart; it’s a raucous affair.

    I also find a soupçon of irony in someone invited to expound on “originalism” repositioning himself as a free-speech champion. The First Amendment, by its express terms, applies only to acts of “congress” and, had it been strictly interpreted according to Originalist principles, its speech clause would be a much shrunken and etiolated thing. I also hope that anyone espousing Originalism would appreciate how rough-and-tumble American political speech was at the time of this nation’s founding.

    • Saul Sorrell-Till
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:06 pm | Permalink

      There’s a boatload of hypocrisy involved in the right’s sudden glomming onto free-speech that’s for damn sure.

      And you’re right – I find those slogans utterly, infuriatingly stupid, but that’s as far as it goes. I don’t see where they’ve behaved threateningly or violently. I think the worldview expressed in their fuckwitted signs is deeply damaging to the liberal-left cause, and I think this is like handing out free PR to the right, but they’re perfectly welcome to turn up and protest from what I can see.

    • BJ
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 5:53 pm | Permalink

      Some people may truly believe in philosophies like Originalism, but they often seem to act as a convenient justification for decisions. People often say that Scalia should be respected for his consistency and principled jurisprudence, but I never found that to be true. Scalia’s supposed principles regarding federal power and individual Constitutional rights were easily abandoned when it came to many cases involving the names Ashcroft and Gonzales during the first decade of the new millennium.

      Curious if you agree, more about my opinion on Scalia than about Originalism.

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted April 12, 2018 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

        You can find some of my views on Scalia, expressed while he was still alive and kickin’, here and here.

        That said, reading his opinions for their entertainment value, particularly when he was in his prime, before he descended into abject crotchetiness in his last decade, was one of my guilty pleasures. Overall, my take on him wasn’t much different from yours, I think.

        • BJ
          Posted April 12, 2018 at 8:20 pm | Permalink

          Oh yes, he made me chuckle many times. No question he was by far the funniest and wittiest writer of opinions on the Court.

        • BJ
          Posted April 12, 2018 at 8:29 pm | Permalink

          “…the exchange of mordant footnotes at 20 paces.”

          You sure do have a way with words.

          To clarify: I think most opinions of SCOTUS judges — at the very least when it comes to certain types of issues — are created by deciding the conclusion first and then figuring out the legal justification to get there (I know that this is not a novel opinion). It’s just that I always heard that “principled and consistent” defense of Scalia from many corners and it always pissed me off.

          • Ken Kukec
            Posted April 12, 2018 at 8:55 pm | Permalink

            I think our host’s cat-buddy in Chicago, former 7th Circuit Judge Richard Posner, has been the foremost exponent of the view that it’s outcome first, interpretive theory second. And, like you, I agree with him.

  10. Mark Cagnetta
    Posted April 12, 2018 at 2:56 pm | Permalink

    The Federalist Society is responsible for every judge trump will appoint including Gorsuch, who doesn’t think special needs students deserve an education. They are also funded by the Koch brothers. Free speech goes both ways.

    • Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:09 pm | Permalink

      “….Gorsuch, who doesn’t think special needs students deserve an education.”

      That’s quite a claim. Cite?

      • Posted April 12, 2018 at 3:12 pm | Permalink

        Nevermind. Found it. Google is my friend.

        • Ken Kukec
          Posted April 12, 2018 at 4:35 pm | Permalink

          Part of Trump’s right-wing pacification project. What’s he care? Unless they’re ruling on one of his cases, Trump doesn’t give a good goddamn about judges (any more than he gives a damn about any other form of public policy).

        • Mark Cagnetta
          Posted April 18, 2018 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

          The Supreme Court actually reversed his decision while he was in confirmation hearings.

  11. Posted April 12, 2018 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    Thank you. No matter what your beliefs. I think what you have written should be published and make people aware more often. Your insight, courage, and honesty is a warm welcome to this . I am an old hippie that use to protest way back when. Protest responsibility and keep that good ol’ Grateful Dead music playing.

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted April 12, 2018 at 4:48 pm | Permalink

      What a long, strange trip it’s been, huh?

  12. colnago80
    Posted April 13, 2018 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    According to Steven Novella, there were a grand total of 7 dis-invitations last year, far too small a sample size to prove anything.

    https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/free-speech-crisis-revisited/

  13. Posted April 13, 2018 at 11:30 am | Permalink

    I agree with the heckle-line-should-be-allowed. But no disruptions once inside, assuming procedures were followed to get the speaker invited.


%d bloggers like this: