Federal Judge Vows to Stop Hiring Law Clerks from Yale Law School

[BTR1701]

https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/exclusive-federal-judge-vows-to-stop-hiring-law-clerks-from-yale-law-school/

Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit announced
Thursday that he would no longer be hiring law clerks from Yale Law School and
urged other judges to follow suit. In a keynote address to the Kentucky
Chapters Conference of the Federalist Society, titled "Agreeing to Disagree--
Restoring America by Resisting Cancel Culture", Ho cited a number of
high-profile examples of speakers being shouted down or otherwise censored at
law schools across the country but singled out Yale Law as "one particular law
school where cancellations and disruptions seem to occur with special
frequency”.

"Yale not only tolerates the cancellation of views-- it actively practices
it,” Ho said, according to prepared remarks exclusively obtained by National
Review. “Starting today, I will no longer hire law clerks from Yale Law
School. And I hope that other judges will join me as well.”

Ho has made waves in the past for his outspoken criticisms of left-wing campus
culture. In February, in the wake of Georgetown Law's suspension of Ilya
Shapiro, the judge surprised the audience at a Federalist Society-organized
event on Georgetown Law's campus by giving a resounding defense of Shapiro
during a speech that was initially intended to be about originalism. At the
time, Ho acknowledged that he was scheduled to talk about originalism but said
he'd "decided... to spend my time today talking about Ilya Shapiro". In those
remarks, which garnered significant public attention, Ho delivered blistering
criticism of the campus attitudes that had led to Shapiro's ouster, arguing
that "cancel culture is not just antithetical to our constitutional culture
and our American culture", but "to the very legal system that each of you
seeks to join", and declared: "If Ilya Shapiro is deserving of cancellation,
then you should go ahead and cancel me, too."

Ho's half-hour address to the Kentucky Federalist Society conference sounded
similar notes, arguing that "all too often, law schools appear to be run by
the mob-- whether out of sympathy or spinelessness." ("Colleges aren't
teaching students how to agree to disagree," he said. "They're teaching
students how to destroy. And then they're launching them into the world.") He
cited numerous examples, including Shapiro's suspension at Georgetown, the
shouting-down of law professor and author Josh Blackman at City University of
New York School of Law in 2018, and the "similar dynamics during law school
talks faced by Judges David Stras and Patrick Bumatay of the 8th and 9th
Circuits."

The bigger problem, Ho worried, was that "our whole country has now become a
campus":

"With academic trends trickling out into mainstream American society, he
argued, cancel culture now plagues a wide variety of institutions. I've
written judicial opinions noting how cancel culture has infected our
educational institutions, the legal profession, corporate America, and public
health-- and how even the criminal justice system has been weaponized to
cancel disfavored political viewpoints. Cancel culture is also deeply embedded
in journalism, entertainment, sports, and the arts.

"The consequences for America are significant. I would contend that cancel
culture is one of the leading reasons why citizens no longer trust a wide
variety of once-leading institutions. It turns out that when elite
institutions make clear that people who think like you and me shouldn't even
exist, we return the favor."

After discussing the various examples of attempts to silence dissident voices
on law-school campuses across the country, Ho zeroed in on the specific
instances of cancel culture at Yale Law. Judge Bill Pryor "was disrupted by
loud angry law students in the classroom; Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance
Defending Freedom and Monica Miller of the American Humanist Association faced
a disruption that became so intense the police officers present at the event
had to call for backup and escort the panelists out of the building and into a
squad car, while the associate dean, who was present throughout the entire
event, did nothing; and Yale administrators threatened to destroy the career
of a law student [who] sent an invitation for a party that referred to his
apartment as a ‘trap house’ if the student didn’t apologize, telling him his
membership in the Federalist Society was 'very triggering for students'."

“It turns out that when elite law schools like Yale teach their students that
there are no consequences to their intolerance and illiberalism," Ho said,
"the message sticks with them."

The first way to fight back against these trends, Ho argued, is "to speak out
against cancel culture as citizens. We can stand up for free speech, for open
and rigorous debate, and for tolerance of opposing viewpoints. But that alone
isn’t enough: We’re not just citizens. We're also customers. Customers can
boycott entities that practice cancel culture... I wonder how a law school
would feel if my fellow federal judges and I stopped being its customers.
Instead of millions of customers, there are only 179 authorized federal
circuit judgeships and 677 authorized federal district judgeships."

Refusing to hire law clerks from Yale would strike at the heart of the
illiberal culture in the nation's premier legal institutions, Ho argued: "Yale
presents itself as the best, most elite institution of legal education. Yet
it's the worst when it comes to legal cancellation. The school sets the tone
for other law schools and for the legal profession at large. I certainly
reserve the right to add other schools in the future, but my sincere hope is
that I won’t have to. My sincere hope is that, if nothing else, my colleagues
and I will at least send the message that other schools should not follow in
Yale's footsteps."

Ho's message to law schools was clear: "If they want the closed and intolerant
environment that Yale embraces today, that's their call, but I want nothing to
do with it."

[trotsky]

I wonder if he has a daughter and if she's a Ho too.

[moviePig]

A fine sentiment that everyone can get behind until confronted with
unspeakable speakers. I.e., everyone has bridges that are too far...

[A Friend]

In article <th54m1$1rps$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
wrote:

> > apartment as a Œtrap house¹ if the student didn¹t apologize, telling him his

Maybe he has three. Merry Christmas!

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > BTR1701

> >
> > Ho's message to law schools was clear: "If they want the closed and intolerant
> > environment that Yale embraces today, that's their call, but I want nothing to
> > do with it."
>
> A fine sentiment that everyone can get behind until confronted with
> unspeakable speakers. I.e., everyone has bridges that are too far...

Your bridge doesn't justify censorship. You can counter my free speech
with free speech of your own or fuck off.

[RichA]

On Thursday, 29 September 2022 at 18:02:47 UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 9/29/2022 3:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/exclusive-federal-judge-vows-to-stop-hiring-law-clerks-from-yale-law-school/
> >

> I wonder if he has a daughter and if she's a Ho too.

WOG!

[RichA]

On Thursday, 29 September 2022 at 18:06:13 UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On 9/29/2022 4:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/exclusive-federal-judge-vows-to-stop-hiring-law-clerks-from-yale-law-school/
> >

> A fine sentiment that everyone can get behind until confronted with
> unspeakable speakers. I.e., everyone has bridges that are too far...

Unspeakable. Translated means anyone who disagrees with their opinions on society.

[moviePig]

Suppose NAMBLA petitions Yale to host a recruitment speech...

[suzeeq]

I always thought it was Harvard that's more liberal....

[BTR1701]

In article <l4tZK.272350$9Yp5....@fx12.iad>,

In today's insane 'progressive' climate, Yale would probably give the
speaker an honorary degree in addition to hosting the talk.

[RichA]

Personally, I'd let them speak, however illegal it is. If the brainless, suggestive millenials want to follow them, let them. Then throw them all in jail.

[trotsky]

You must *really* be on weak footing if you have double team mpig with
your sockpuppet. Holy fuck.

[trotsky]

Well anonyshitted and eunuch'd.

[trotsky]

wog1
/wäɡ/
noun
offensive
noun: wog; plural noun: wogs

British
a person who is not white.


Oh noes! I'm a person who is not white? The horror! My mother is from
West Virginia, I don't even think they have people of color there.

[trotsky]

Why, has Gym Jordan said something about this?

[trotsky]

Okay, that made me LOL.

[anim8rfsk]

The irony is that the judge is doing exactly what Yale shouldn’t be doing
in the first place.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

[A Friend]

In article <th6c98$vjg$4...@gioia.aioe.org>, trotsky <gms...@email.com>
wrote:

> On 9/29/2022 9:18 PM, RichA wrote:
> > On Thursday, 29 September 2022 at 18:02:47 UTC-4, gmsin...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On 9/29/2022 3:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/exclusive-federal-judge-vows-to-sto
> >>> p-hiring-law-clerks-from-yale-law-school/
> >>>
> >
> >> I wonder if he has a daughter and if she's a Ho too.
> >
> > WOG!
>
> wog1

> /wä?/

> noun
> offensive
> noun: wog; plural noun: wogs
>
> British
> a person who is not white.
>
>
> Oh noes! I'm a person who is not white? The horror! My mother is from
> West Virginia, I don't even think they have people of color there.

They do, and some of them are blue. Swear to God.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Fugates

[trotsky]

I guess that takes "people of color" to a whole 'nother level.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Your bridge doesn't justify censorship. You can counter my free speech
> > with free speech of your own or fuck off.
>
> Suppose NAMBLA petitions Yale to host a recruitment speech...

Yale is free to host it or not as they see fit and if you don’t like what’s
being said, you can protest (outside) or counter their speech (politely) at
the event but you do not get to censor, threaten or attack people because
you don’t like what they’re saying.

Because there will always be someone somewhere who doesn’t like what’s
being said, maybe even what YOU'RE saying.

https://i1.wp.com/www.paradisepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AP22224541304561.jpg

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>https://www.nationalreview.com/2022/09/exclusive-federal-judge-vows-to-stop-hiring-law-clerks-from-yale-law-school/

>Judge James C. Ho of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit announced
>Thursday that he would no longer be hiring law clerks from Yale Law School and
>urged other judges to follow suit. In a keynote address to the Kentucky
>Chapters Conference of the Federalist Society, titled "Agreeing to Disagree--
>Restoring America by Resisting Cancel Culture", Ho cited a number of
>high-profile examples of speakers being shouted down or otherwise censored at
>law schools across the country but singled out Yale Law as "one particular law
>school where cancellations and disruptions seem to occur with special
>frequency".

bonk

How does a student learn law if he's unwilling to listen to an argument
that he disagrees with? No one tell these kids that a trial involves a
matter at controversey with two adversaries arguing on behalf of
clients. One advocate listens to the argument made against his client,
then formulates a counter-argument. The judge rules on which side the
law applies to, the jury makes a finding based on the facts presented.

One cannot simply shout down one's opponent. That will get one held in
contempt of court.

These kids are paying some of the highest tuition in the land to avoid
being taught to think.

>. . .

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>Yale is free to host it or not as they see fit and if you don=E2=80=99t lik=
>e what=E2=80=99s

>being said, you can protest (outside) or counter their speech (politely) at
>the event but you do not get to censor, threaten or attack people because

>you don=E2=80=99t like what they=E2=80=99re saying.

>Because there will always be someone somewhere who doesn=E2=80=99t like wha=
>t=E2=80=99s

>being said, maybe even what YOU'RE saying.

>https://i1.wp.com/www.paradisepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AP22224541304561.jpg

What the hell is that an image of? What was being protested, if
anything? What happened to the speaker who was wearing that pair of hard
shoes?

Wouid it kill you, Ed, to provide context, like ever?

[moviePig]

That's why my suggestion for *practical* enforcement of free speech,
anti-censorship, etc. come down to judgements of whether *ideas* are
being effectively suppressed. I.e., 'informing' vs. 'promoting'.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > https://i1.wp.com/www.paradisepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AP22224541304561.jpg
>
> What the hell is that an image of? What was being protested, if anything?
> What happened to the speaker who was wearing that pair of hard shoes?
> Wouid it kill you, Ed, to provide context, like ever?

I didn't expect moviePig to recognize the picture but I figured someone
like you would.

That's Salman Rushdie laying on the floor being attended to by medics,
after he went "a bridge too far" and got stabbed multiple times last month
by a kook who didn't like what he was saying.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabbing_of_Salman_Rushdie

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Because there will always be someone somewhere who doesn’t like what’s
> > being said, maybe even what YOU'RE saying.
>

> That's why my suggestion for *practical* enforcement of free speech,
> anti-censorship, etc. come down to judgements of whether *ideas* are
> being effectively suppressed. I.e., 'informing' vs. 'promoting'.

Meaningless weasel words. You're trying to avoid admitting that you cheerfully
support mass censorship but are too clueless to understand that this will come
back around to bite YOU (and everybody else) on the ass.

I find it hard to believe that you've spent decades enjoying the free and open
forum of Usenet, yet can't understand the danger of what you're proposing?

[Adam H. Kerman]

I didn't see that it was Rushdie. Now I get the empty pair of shoes.

I understand the point you were making and it's well taken.

But moviePig will never reverse his pro-censorship position.

[moviePig]

Without paying close attention, I thought the kook was enforcing a
"fatwa", i.e., exercising his "freedom of religion"...

[moviePig]

He'll reverse it right after Adam quotes it.

[moviePig]

I hand you a coherent (afaics) idea about the concept of censorship, and
your knee-jerk response is to dismiss it as "meaningless weasel words"
(arguably themselves meaningless weasel words), and then to inform me of
which of your preconceived memes must be what I was "really" thinking.
That may not be censorship, but it's at least a kissing cousin to it.

The fact is that *I* consider 'free speech' to be very much in jeopardy
from *abuses* of it. E.g., "blanket advertising" that manipulates a
society's thinking by sheer force hides behind "free speech" in order to
subvert free thinking. So, I look for ways to bring our regard for
'free speech' more in line with its actual purposes.

[BTR1701]

Those aren't humans. They're Bolians.

And they live in Kentucky, not West Virginia.

[BTR1701]

Not really. He wants the best law clerks and he's recognized that Yale is not
only no longer providing its students with a quality legal education, it's
actively teaching them wrong things.

It's no different than a judge restricting his clerks to being graduates of an
accredited law school.

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 07:06:43 -0400, A Friend <no...@noway.com> wrote:

>> > WOG!
>>
>> wog1
>> /wä?/
>> noun
>> offensive
>> noun: wog; plural noun: wogs
>>
>> British
>> a person who is not white.
>>

Of course the joke was "the Wogs start at Calais!"

[The Horny Goat]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 13:59:31 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>On 9/30/2022 12:53 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman
>>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>>
>>>> https://i1.wp.com/www.paradisepost.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/AP22224541304561.jpg
>>>

>> That's Salman Rushdie laying on the floor being attended to by medics,
>> after he went "a bridge too far" and got stabbed multiple times last month
>> by a kook who didn't like what he was saying.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabbing_of_Salman_Rushdie
>
>Without paying close attention, I thought the kook was enforcing a
>"fatwa", i.e., exercising his "freedom of religion"...
>

It's ok to be offended by someone's actions which offends your
religious sensibilities.

It's NOT OK to take up weapons against them.

The fact that this is intuitively obvious to nearly all of us in our
society is a core piece of what we as a society believe.

If newcomers to our country (countries) are NOT prepared to act
according to that then they ought not be part of our country. I
learned that from my grandmother who was from Belfast.

[Rhino]

I had a British coworker (from Kent) for several years and I once
jokingly said "The wogs start at Calais!". She replied, even more
jokingly, "The wogs start at The Wash!". (This is a reference to the
indentation in the eastern coast of England, which is called The Wash by
Brits. In effect, she was saying that even people from Northern England
and Scotland were considered wogs by some in Southern England.

--
Rhino

[Rhino]

You say that like it's a negative thing..... ;-)

--
Rhino

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Meaningless weasel words. You're trying to avoid admitting that you cheerfully
> > support mass censorship but are too clueless to understand that this will come
> > back around to bite YOU (and everybody else) on the ass.
>

> The fact is that *I* consider 'free speech' to be very much in jeopardy
> from *abuses* of it. E.g., "blanket advertising" that manipulates a
> society's thinking by sheer force hides behind "free speech" in order to
> subvert free thinking. So, I look for ways to bring our regard for
> 'free speech' more in line with its actual purposes.

The corporate entities you claim to be opposed to, are the same ones you're
calling on to act as gate keepers of our speech (i.e. social media corporations).

If you want to counter Wall Street's propaganda, you have to be able to speak
out but the most effective forums for doing so, are owned by Wall Street and
they've shut down free speech (in cahoots with the government) using the same
weasel words as justification that you’ve posted here (on free and open Usenet).

You can’t have your cake and eat it too.

https://i.postimg.cc/5ymnJMXc/1611081227136.jpg

[shawn]

On Fri, 30 Sep 2022 11:30:03 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

Who gets to decide that and on what basis?

[moviePig]

Right, I'm sure he's not grandstanding at all...

[BTR1701]

Weird how this sort of thing is only 'grandstanding' when it disadvantages
leftists.

Like busing and flying illegals all over the country without notifying local
authorities that they're coming. When Republican governors do it, it's a
'grandstanding political stunt'. When the Biden admin does it, it's 'perfectly
fine, nothing to see here'.

[BTR1701]

On Sep 30, 2022 at 5:52:15 PM PDT, "shawn" <nanof...@notforg.m.a.i.l.com>
wrote:

>> being effectively suppressed. i.e., 'informing' vs. 'promoting'.

>
> Who gets to decide that and on what basis?

The moviePigs of the world, of course. Don't you realize that they know better
than us mere proles what's good for us and what isn't?

[trotsky]

I'm not. Eunuch Derp, I'm sure, isn't sure of the difference between
bystanding and grandstanding.

[trotsky]

Kidnapping by inveiglement? You're a fucking eunuch and don't have the
balls to discuss the topic accurately.

[trotsky]

I'd certainly trust his opinion more than that of eunuchs and sockpuppets.

[trotsky]

I assume he means the Appalachian region. But then I'm smart.

[trotsky]

I got taught wrong things once and was decimated by it.

[moviePig]

Good question ...which means I don't have the answer. But, for now,
I'll settle for noting that 'free speech' should protect shouting in a
crowded theater only if you're shouting something new and interesting.

[moviePig]

On 9/30/2022 6:28 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> moviePig
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> Meaningless weasel words. You're trying to avoid admitting that you cheerfully
>>> support mass censorship but are too clueless to understand that this will come
>>> back around to bite YOU (and everybody else) on the ass.
>>
>> The fact is that *I* consider 'free speech' to be very much in jeopardy
>> from *abuses* of it. E.g., "blanket advertising" that manipulates a
>> society's thinking by sheer force hides behind "free speech" in order to
>> subvert free thinking. So, I look for ways to bring our regard for
>> 'free speech' more in line with its actual purposes.
>
> The corporate entities you claim to be opposed to, are the same ones you're
> calling on to act as gate keepers of our speech (i.e. social media corporations).

Where have I called for "corporate gatekeepers"? I've been talking
about what I think should be the essence of 'free speech' protection, as
the founders might have conceived of it in modern times.

> If you want to counter Wall Street's propaganda, you have to be able to speak
> out but the most effective forums for doing so, are owned by Wall Street and
> they've shut down free speech (in cahoots with the government) using the same
> weasel words as justification that you’ve posted here (on free and open Usenet).

Really? And what are those "weasel words"? Unless you're using some
yourself, you must have specific examples in mind...

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > The corporate entities you claim to be opposed to, are the same ones you're
> > calling on to act as gate keepers of our speech (i.e. social media corporations).
>
> Where have I called for "corporate gatekeepers"? I've been talking
> about what I think should be the essence of 'free speech' protection, as
> the founders might have conceived of it in modern times.

Your concept of "free speech protection" is censorship and as somebody's
gotta do it, it'll be the corporations in cahoots with government.

> > If you want to counter Wall Street's propaganda, you have to be able to speak
> > out but the most effective forums for doing so, are owned by Wall Street and
> > they've shut down free speech (in cahoots with the government) using the same
> > weasel words as justification that you’ve posted here (on free and open Usenet).
>
> Really? And what are those "weasel words"? Unless you're using some
> yourself, you must have specific examples in mind...

"Fake news", "on-line bullying", "trigger words", "hate speech" etc. are
all code words for censorship and when you open that door, it will be
applied to ANY speech.

[moviePig]

On 10/1/2022 11:21 AM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> moviePig
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> The corporate entities you claim to be opposed to, are the same ones you're
>>> calling on to act as gate keepers of our speech (i.e. social media corporations).
>>
>> Where have I called for "corporate gatekeepers"? I've been talking
>> about what I think should be the essence of 'free speech' protection, as
>> the founders might have conceived of it in modern times.
>
> Your concept of "free speech protection" is censorship and as somebody's
> gotta do it, it'll be the corporations in cahoots with government.

Umm, *my* concept of 'free speech protection' is that ideas must not be
suppressed. What's yours?

>>> If you want to counter Wall Street's propaganda, you have to be able to speak
>>> out but the most effective forums for doing so, are owned by Wall Street and
>>> they've shut down free speech (in cahoots with the government) using the same
>>> weasel words as justification that you’ve posted here (on free and open Usenet).
>>
>> Really? And what are those "weasel words"? Unless you're using some
>> yourself, you must have specific examples in mind...
>
> "Fake news", "on-line bullying", "trigger words", "hate speech" etc. are
> all code words for censorship and when you open that door, it will be
> applied to ANY speech.

Okay, unless I'm losing my mind, I've never advocated for any of those
proscriptions. I *have*, however, often tried to ask difficult
questions. E.g., what's your take on "trigger words" and "Nigger"?

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Your concept of "free speech protection" is censorship and as somebody's
> > gotta do it, it'll be the corporations in cahoots with government.
>
> Umm, *my* concept of 'free speech protection' is that ideas must not be
> suppressed. What's yours?

Mine is: say whatever you please about whatever you want, short of calling
for violence against someone and even then, it has to be a pretty specific
and targeted call for violence:

"Kill all the Jews!" = perfectly legal free speech.
"Kill this particular Jew!" = illegal and actionable.

> > "Fake news", "on-line bullying", "trigger words", "hate speech" etc. are
> > all code words for censorship and when you open that door, it will be
> > applied to ANY speech.
>
> Okay, unless I'm losing my mind, I've never advocated for any of those
> proscriptions. I *have*, however, often tried to ask difficult questions.
> E.g., what's your take on "trigger words" and "Nigger"?

My philosophy has always been "no blood, no foul".

Feel free to call me a "nigger" if you like (Adam has called me worse...)
and I'll still happily shoot the shit with you about any subject.

[Adam H. Kerman]

moviePig has willfully and knowingly argued for censorship for decades
in article after article he's posted to Usenet. He knows exactly what
he's saying.

It's so strange that he chooses not to live in a country that permits
freedom of expression without protecting freedom of speech and without
protecting a free press.

What could the possible explanation for this massive hypocrisy be?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ed Stasiak <edstas...@gmail.com> wrote:

Congratulations to Ed Stasiak for finally figuring out how to post
unencoded plain text. Could you please do this from now on and stop
encoding?

>>moviePig
>>>Ed Stasiak

>>>Your concept of "free speech protection" is censorship and as somebody's
>>>gotta do it, it'll be the corporations in cahoots with government.

>>Umm, *my* concept of 'free speech protection' is that ideas must not be
>>suppressed. What's yours?

>Mine is: say whatever you please about whatever you want, short of calling
>for violence against someone and even then, it has to be a pretty specific
>and targeted call for violence:

>"Kill all the Jews!" = perfectly legal free speech.
>"Kill this particular Jew!" = illegal and actionable.

I had no idea. There has been no shortage of people threatening to kill
me who haven't been arrested.

>>>"Fake news", "on-line bullying", "trigger words", "hate speech" etc. are
>>>all code words for censorship and when you open that door, it will be
>>>applied to ANY speech.

>>Okay, unless I'm losing my mind, I've never advocated for any of those
>>proscriptions. I *have*, however, often tried to ask difficult questions.
>>E.g., what's your take on "trigger words" and "Nigger"?

>My philosophy has always been "no blood, no foul".

>Feel free to call me a "nigger" if you like (Adam has called me worse...)
>and I'll still happily shoot the shit with you about any subject.

You never get over anything, and I'm sure I meant it.

[moviePig]

Cite one.

> It's so strange that he chooses not to live in a country that permits
> freedom of expression without protecting freedom of speech and without
> protecting a free press.
>
> What could the possible explanation for this massive hypocrisy be?

Maybe fantasy fixation. Do you ever suspect your goldfish of scheming?

[moviePig]

Let's combine them: Will you allow the Church Of The Bleeding Gospel to
post its billboard about next Sunday's sermon: "Kill all the niggers!"?

[BTR1701]

There you go. In moviePig's world, you're obligated to-- at a minimum--
entertain him or the state can suppress your speech.

[BTR1701]

Yes.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 15:02:28 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

>Let's combine them: Will you allow the Church Of The Bleeding Gospel to
>post its billboard about next Sunday's sermon: "Kill all the niggers!"?

Not even Hitler advocated that though one can speculate over his next
target once he had enforced his "Final Solution" on Jews and Slavs.

[moviePig]

Then, would you allow the same on a 3rd-grade teacher's t-thirt?

If not, then would you allow "Eat your vegetables"?

[moviePig]

Iirc, Adolf was mighty put out when dark-complected Jesse Owens kicked
the Fatherland's fair Aryan ass at the Berlin Olympics.

[BTR1701]

In article <Hc1_K.529363$Ny99....@fx16.iad>,

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 10/1/2022 3:17 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > On Oct 1, 2022 at 12:02:28 PM PDT, "moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/1/2022 12:53 PM, Ed Stasiak wrote:
> >>>> moviePig
> >>>>> Ed Stasiak
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Your concept of "free speech protection" is censorship and as
> >>>>> somebody's gotta do it, it'll be the corporations in cahoots with
> >>>>> government.
> >>>>
> >>>> Umm, *my* concept of 'free speech protection' is that ideas must not
> >>>> be suppressed. What's yours?
> >>>
> >>> Mine is: say whatever you please about whatever you want, short of
> >>> calling for violence against someone and even then, it has to be a
> >>> pretty specific and targeted call for violence:
> >>>
> >>> "Kill all the Jews!" = perfectly legal free speech.
> >>> "Kill this particular Jew!" = illegal and actionable.

Careful Ed, you're going to give Mime one of those erections that's so
persistent, he'll need to seek medical help.

> >>>>> "Fake news", "on-line bullying", "trigger words", "hate speech" etc.
> >>>>> are all code words for censorship and when you open that door, it
> >>>>> will be applied to ANY speech.
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay, unless I'm losing my mind, I've never advocated for any of those
> >>>> proscriptions. I *have*, however, often tried to ask difficult
> >>>> questions. E.g., what's your take on "trigger words" and "Nigger"?
> >>>
> >>> My philosophy has always been "no blood, no foul".
> >>>
> >>> Feel free to call me a "nigger" if you like (Adam has called me
> >>> worse...) and I'll still happily shoot the shit with you about any
> >>> subject.
> >>
> >> Let's combine them: Will you allow the Church Of The Bleeding Gospel to
> >> post its billboard about next Sunday's sermon: "Kill all the niggers!"?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> Then, would you allow the same on a 3rd-grade teacher's t-thirt?

Employees fall under an entirely different legal standard.

The 1st Amendment doesn't allow an employee of a school to stand up
during a principal's address to the student body and start playing a
trumpet solo, either.

[trotsky]

Who the fuck are you talking to? Is this a new shitposting technique?

[moviePig]

Here you come. In BTR's world, the National Guard should be deployed to
protect his 10,000 campaign bullhorns deployed 24/7 across the city.

[trotsky]

Duh, that word is Oath Keepers approved.

[Adam H. Kerman]

It's a trick question. What moviePig refuses to acknowledge about this
free speech/free press civil liberty that moviePig wants no one to enjoy
is that no opinion of any person who is not a party to the contract to
display the billboard matters. No one is being asked for permission and
no one else can give permission.

A free press is quite liberating indeed. If one doesn't approve of what
someone else has written, one isn't responsible for it in any way, only
the author is.

[trotsky]

How's yours doing, does it still look like a bent carrot? (Anim8r told me.)

[Ed Stasiak]

> Adam H. Kerman
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > Feel free to call me a "nigger" if you like (Adam has called me worse...)
> > and I'll still happily shoot the shit with you about any subject.
>
> You never get over anything,

Nonsense. I'm still happily shooting the shit with you, ain't I?

> and I'm sure I meant it.

Oh, I'm sure you did.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 1 Oct 2022 16:17:23 -0400, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com>
wrote:

Agreed - though he forcefully excluded any Nazi cooperation with the
Ku Klux Klan who he considered clowns not sufficiently dedicated to
white supremacy

[moviePig]

Maybe some of them mixed colors in with the whites...

[David Johnston]

On 2022-10-01 10:53 a.m., Ed Stasiak wrote:
>> moviePig
>>> Ed Stasiak
>>>
>>> Your concept of "free speech protection" is censorship and as somebody's
>>> gotta do it, it'll be the corporations in cahoots with government.
>>
>> Umm, *my* concept of 'free speech protection' is that ideas must not be
>> suppressed. What's yours?
>
> Mine is: say whatever you please about whatever you want, short of calling
> for violence against someone and even then, it has to be a pretty specific
> and targeted call for violence:
>
> "Kill all the Jews!" = perfectly legal free speech.
> "Kill this particular Jew!" = illegal and actionable.

The issue is not whether saying it is illegal. It's whether companies
have the legal right to refuse to broadcast it.

[Micky DuPree]

suzeeq <su...@imbris.com> writes:

>> On 9/29/2022 4:53 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

>>> Ho's message to law schools was clear: "If they want the closed and
>>> intolerant environment that Yale embraces today, that's their call,
>>> but I want nothing to do with it."
>

> I always thought it was Harvard that's more liberal....

That's the way the stereotype has always been represented to me. Of
course, some lump them together, such as Richard Nixon infamously being
suspicious (and one suspects envious) of all Ivy League graduates.

-Micky