site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   34430 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of March 13, 2023

This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.

Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.

We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:

  • Shaming.

  • Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.

  • Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.

  • Recruiting for a cause.

  • Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.

In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:

  • Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.

  • Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.

  • Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.

  • Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.

On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's talk about the Stanford Law School situation that has gone on for a few days.

A Timeline:

  • The Federalist Society invited a judge, Kyle Duncan, to speak. 70 students emailed FedSoc to cancel the event. [https://freebeacon.com/campus/dogshit-federal-judge-decries-disruption-of-his-remarks-by-stanford-law-students-and-calls-for-termination-of-the-stanford-dean-who-joined-the-protesters/]("When the Federalist Society refused to cancel, students began putting up fliers with the names and faces of everyone on the board. "You should be ashamed," the posters read.")

  • Duncan was basically shouted down during his talk. Most in attendance were protestors to his speech, with people showing up with signs like "Duncan can't find the clit" and such. They accused him for ruling on cases that were against their beliefs, for example taking the right to vote away ("The students appeared to have little familiarity with Duncan’s jurisprudence. Some accused him of suppressing the voting rights of African Americans, Duncan said—only to cite a case in which Duncan had actually dissented from the majority.")

  • Duncan asked administrators to control the situation, and a DEI Dean went up to the podium and instead of controlling the crowd, read out a statement accusing Duncan of causing harm (video)

  • Duncan was escorted out by federal marshals

  • Dean of Stanford Law School + President of Stanford issued a joint apology letter to judge Kyle Duncan, and the Dean also sent an email to alumni

  • Now, the Dean of Stanford Law School is being targeted. She teaches Constitutional Law and her classroom white board was plastered with statements that argue for their 1st amendment rights and the heckler's veto (source). Some excerpts below:

  • When Martinez’s class adjourned on Monday, the protesters, dressed in black and wearing face masks that read "counter-speech is free speech," stared silently at Martinez as she exited her first-year constitutional law class at 11:00 a.m., according to five students who witnessed the episode. The student protesters, who formed a human corridor from Martinez’s classroom to the building’s exit, comprised nearly a third of the law school, the students told the Washington Free Beacon.

  • The majority of Martinez’s class—approximately 50 students out of the 60 enrolled—participated in the protest themselves, two students in the class said. The few who didn’t join the protesters received the same stare down as their professor as they hurried through the makeshift walk of shame.

  • "They gave us weird looks if we didn’t wear black" and join the crowd, said Luke Schumacher, a first-year law student in Martinez’s class who declined to participate in the protest. "It didn’t feel like the inclusive, belonging atmosphere that the DEI office claims to be creating."

  • The Stanford National Lawyers Guild said Saturday that Martinez had thrown "capable and compassionate administrators" under the bus. The law school’s Immigration & Human Rights Law Association issued a similar declaration on Sunday, writing to its mailing list that Stanford’s apology to Duncan "has only made this situation worse." And Stanford Law School’s chapter of the American Constitution Society expressed outrage that Martinez and Tessier-Lavigne had framed Duncan "as a victim, when in fact he himself had made civil dialogue impossible."

This follows on the heals of similar kind of situations at Yale Law School (no.1 in the country, Stanford's usually no.2).

Don't have much to add here. I've seen a few student protests (but didn't go to UC Berkeley and wasn't present at any big ones). None were like this, but maybe law school is different. Also I wonder whether Stanford and Yale law schools sizes (300-500 law students, versus Harvard's ~2000 law students) means that it's easier to pressure everyone to join in on something. Being starred down by a large % of your classmates is probably not a fun experience, especially when you know most of them.

Yeah

Some have speculated that the reason Yale students seem notably more psychotic than other Ivy Leaguers is that there's literally nothing else to do in New Haven but rabble-rouse. Columbia students live in New York, the center of the universe, and Harvard students are a short skip away from Boston, but I don't think anything really happens in New Haven besides Gilmore Girls fan conventions. Stanford is only a short distance away from Palo Alto, though, so unless Palo Alto is particularly boring I don't know if this explanation still holds good.

Palo Alto is quite boring.

social contagion as a result of peer pressure.

I think you're right. I noticed during covid that the mechanism by which this happens is never a positive one: it's never people independently standing up for their beliefs that they independently believe are positive, but rather, it is borne out of an indignation that their peers aren't being held to the same repressive standards that they're being held to.

Progressivism is a social contagion due to a crabs-in-the-bucket mechanism. It spreads because people are irritated that they can't get away with being racist or sexist or utilize their own privilege to benefit themselves and are thus driven to disempower everyone around them in the same exact way.

HR doesn't really have much input on hiring from T14 law schools. Firms like Skadden and Cravath send senior associates, or sometimes junior partners, to do OCI interviews and their goal is always just to snap up the people with the best grades and journal titles for bragging rights. You're hired by other lawyers, not by HR ladies, and as long as your 2L GPA is great and you successfully impress upon your interviewer that you know how to dress and behave like a Skadden lawyer, the only input HR has is verifying your credentials and running a basic background check.

Any chance of consequences for the DEI Dean who threw fuel on the fire?

As uncomfortable as the “walk of shame” protest may be, I can’t really oppose it on principled grounds. The unprofessionalism of an employee joining in is worse. Judging by this unflattering snippet, she ought to be fired if she can’t be trusted to represent the university. She’s certainly not performing the traditional HR/DEI role of mitigating liability.

I know the default assumption is no consequences, but given the stance of the law dean—and the existence of a lot of wealthy and powerful backers—I wonder if this could be a Felicia Somnez situation.

I oppose the "walk of shame" on the grounds that it is intimidation.

My principle is that we should not seek the destruction of people that disagree with us (neither literal, social, nor professional destruction) unless we're willing to kill or die on the relevant hill. (In case this comes off as melodramatic, I don't mean this in the "I'm an internet tough guy" sense, but nearly the opposite: I think few hills are relevant in this way.)

Edit: "nor", not "or" and added parenthetical clarification.

My principle is that we should not seek the destruction of people that disagree with us (neither literal, social, nor professional destruction) unless we're willing to kill or die on the relevant hill.

This isn't the own you think it is.

The hill "Black Americans should be entitled to the full benefits of American citizenship in the way that white Americans already are" is a hill which many people are willing to kill or die on, painfully literally. As a society, America celebrates the people who killed and died on that hill (Martin Luther King is a de facto saint, and Abraham Lincoln is the secular equivalent), and calls the people who refused to do so Copperheads because they are as well-liked as venomous snakes. Glory, Glory Hallelujah and all that.

The people protesting Kyle Duncan hold the belief "stopping Federalist Society judges indoctrinating the next generation of elite law students with racist ideas is necessary to defend the gains of the Civil Rights movement" entirely sincerely. They are not obviously wrong - the conservative movement of which the Federalist Society is a part really is committed to the idea that locally powerful racists and State governments they elect have a right to do racisms.

I am a supporter of free speech (which goes beyond the specific protections of the First Amendment - the First Amendment says that the government must not violate free speech rights, but even if Stanford is not a government organisation, they still should not). This implies that I think that shouting down speakers is a bad tactic, and that stopping Kyle Duncan indoctrinating Stanford Law students would be achieved better by counterspeech. The wokists' disagreement with me on this point is empirical. Again, they are serious about this - there are good (but obviously insufficient, in my view) pragmatic arguments for censorship.

The people protesting Kyle Duncan hold the belief "stopping Federalist Society judges indoctrinating the next generation of elite law students with racist ideas is necessary to defend the gains of the Civil Rights movement" entirely sincerely.

...

This isn't the own you think it is.

Yes it is, unless you believe these same people would be ok with being attacked in a similar way, as long as their opponents sincerely believe it would prevent negative social consequences.

Yes it is, unless you believe these same people would be ok with being attacked in a similar way, as long as their opponents sincerely believe it would prevent negative social consequences.

The point I am making is precisely that American anti-racists have been willing to both kill and die for their beliefs, going back to the Civil War. So, historically, have American racists. The Civil War was violent. Reconstruction was violent. Redemption was violent. The Civil Rights movement was less violent, but the death toll made it into three figures. Even today, the political opponents of organised American anti-racism like to fly Gadsden flags, take AR-15s to political rallies, and talk about 2nd amendment remedies.

I don't think that the people protesting Kyle Duncan were okay with the idea of suffering physically painful consequences for their protest, but I don't think MLK was okay with being shot either. I do think that American anti-racist protestors are prepared for a physically painful response to their protests and think of it as an unfortunately necessary part of normal American politics. "Don't unleash goons on racists because they wouldn't do it to you" is not plausible to American anti-racists given the history of the last 200 years.

I am not American so I don't have a dog in this fight, but my impression is that the infamous Yonatan Zunger essay on tolerance is accurate as a description of the history of American race relations. The US status quo on black-white race issues is a peace treaty, but the "cold civil war" looks real. The fact that so few people on the centre-left were willing to condemn the George Floyd riots, and that most of the people on the centre-right who did condemn the January 6th riot are no longer competitive in a Republican primary, suggests that "there are no improvements to American race relations that would make large-scale political violence worth it" no longer commands the supermajority support it did ten years ago.

The American anti-racist left do not operate under a delusion that they can set a fire which only burns Red Tribers. (I agree that the specific group of elite law students who protested Kyle Duncan might, but if this kind of behaviour was restricted to law schools then it would be less of a problem). Yonatan Zunger is making a conscious, cold-blooded decision that America is close to the place where setting the normal kind of fire that burns everything it touches is worth it because the current iteration of the peace treaty isn't giving him what he wants and he thinks his side would win the next round of the war.

Anti-racists are conflict theorists who are playing to win. So are Federalist Society lawyers. I am a mistake theorist who (to the extent I can tell from overseas) sees two sides playing 1.5 tits-for-a-tat so every piece of noise gets escalated until it looks like a defect-defect equilibrium. The correct strategy against an opponent playing 1.5 tits-for-a-tat is to play 0.6 tits-for-a-tat until you get back into a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium, but the internal politics of large movements makes it impossible for them to play that strategy.

I don't think that the people protesting Kyle Duncan were okay with the idea of suffering physically painful consequences for their protest, but I don't think MLK was okay with being shot either.

MLK wasn't shooting people, or advocating for people getting shot, though.

If my country goes to war, I'm probably not going to feel very guilty about shooting people, but likewise I'm not going to be morally outraged at them returning fire. On the other hand the entire progressive memeplex seems to be built around "it's ok when we do it", that's what I was getting at.

Anti-racists are conflict theorists who are playing to win. So are Federalist Society lawyers. I am a mistake theorist who (to the extent I can tell from overseas) sees two sides playing 1.5 tits-for-a-tat so every piece of noise gets escalated until it looks like a defect-defect equilibrium. The correct strategy against an opponent playing 1.5 tits-for-a-tat is to play 0.6 tits-for-a-tat until you get back into a cooperate-cooperate equilibrium, but the internal politics of large movements makes it impossible for them to play that strategy.

Can you give an example of even a small group using this strategy, and successfully avoided being taken over by conflict theorists?

I will just say I'm not trying to "own" anyone. Moreover, "Black Americans should be entitled to the full benefits of American citizenship in the way that white Americans already are" is my own central example of a hill worth dying on.

Having said that, even if the students really think that's at stake here and are willing to (literally) fight for it, I would like that to be clearer and better understood.

Edit - turning down the heat.

Apologies - "own" was not as charitable as we are supposed to be on this forum.

With all due respect, that is absolutely unhinged.

Er, proves too much. Is the walk of shame supposed to be social destruction? If so, it's a remarkably low bar. Especially when compared to literal destruction. Coordinated standing in lines is intimidating, but has no actual consequences, especially not irreversible ones.

For society to function, there has to be a gradient of offenses and responses. Lumping everything into the kill-or-die bucket excludes far too many reasonable options.

I wrote "we should not seek the destruction of people that disagree with us (neither literal, social, nor professional destruction)". Your response:

Is the walk of shame supposed to be social destruction?

Were you intentionally dodging the substance here? I don't even have to speculate on their intentions with respect to social destruction: the law students are calling for their teacher (the dean of the law school) to be fired. If you don't agree they're trying to destroy her professionally and that the walk of shame was part of that, we don't have enough common ground to discuss this.

Presuming that was an oversight, I agree there has to be a gradient of offenses and responses. There's an entire universe of proportionately calibrated responses that don't involve silencing or attacking the speaker:

  • Ignore them.

  • Participate in the Q&A, ask sharp questions.

  • Organize a local event featuring a speaker or speakers providing a counterpoint.

  • Publish something critical of the ideas.

I'm aware that people often characterize boycotts, de-platforming, and collective shaming as an alternative to violence, but I think the opposite is true: these things all escalate towards violence. Their widespread currency fuels the volatile, scary environment in which we live. I would prefer to see our society establish different norms that would support engagement and follow the examples of Ira Glasser and Daryl Davis.

Edit: "walk of shame wasn't part of that" -> "walk of shame was part of that"

I waffled on categorizing it as social or professional. While I assume that some of the students involved were baying for professional consequences, as far as I can tell, they did so separately of the classroom demonstration. It wasn't an attempt to intimidate the school into firing her.

Where do you draw the line on destruction? Why is a silent protest violent while a counter-event is not? Sharp questions are an attempt to harm social standing. So is publishing criticism. It is literally the same argument trotted out to deplatform Yiannopoulos: oh, his speech was "literally a form of violence." That's why I say it proves too much.

When speech is directed towards organizing a person's destruction, it's over the line.

Another thing worth mentioning is that I'm promoting this as a normative idea, not a legal one, so I'm not trying to set up a technical test. I think de-platforming Milo was a stupid own goal, but to the extent that he tried to destroy people's lives, he sucked too.

Edit: I want to add that I'm not conflating speech with violence, a lame rhetorical habit. I'm saying that preventing someone from making a living or even just hurting their prospects pushes them into a corner; preventing them from having their say leads them to lose faith in dialogue, making violence look like the only solution; isolating them socially means they've got nothing to lose.

Noble as that sentiment may be, it remains nigh unworkable. Prison can be life-destroying, yet criminal prosecution is a necessary evil.

Tolerance of unpleasant speech is, too. I agree that there is a line--but it is the line of "clear and present danger," of "compelling public interest" and "narrowly tailored restrictions." It is the line set by centuries of jurisprudence that says "my right to swing my fist ends at your face." The silent student protest surely reflects an intent to harm, socially or professionally, the dean. But it is firmly on the right side of that line.

I'm sure I'm testing your patience, but I sense I haven't expressed myself clearly, so I'll try again. My position is at the intersection of The Spirit of the First Amendment and Be Nice, at Least Until You Can Coordinate Meanness:

Bad argument gets counterargument. Does not get bullet. Does not get doxxing. Does not get harassment. Does not get fired from job. Gets counterargument. Should not be hard.

I'm not trying to establish a legal standard. I think what the students are doing is and should be legal. But I also think it is appalling: trying to coerce someone into silence is callow, cowardly, and repulsive. That's an emotional reaction that I wish more people shared, because I think our society would be far better for it, but I don't really think I can make other people feel the same way.

However, it might be possible to convince people that harming or trying to harm people that disagree with you may be emotionally satisfying, but it is not an alternative to violence; instead it increases the chance of violence. Based on my observations and understanding of human psychology, I would say that de-platforming Milo, Trump, Charles Murray, & etc. have radicalized orders of magnitude more people than, e.g., 4chan or /r/TheDonald. I wish I could bring more neutral evidence to bear than my own priors, but I'm not sure what that would look like or who would listen.

More comments

What principled grounds would lead you not to oppose it. If you believe in free speech then you need to believe the other side gets to speek. Intimidation as a tactic is not something protected by principle.

Those students are private individuals. Any policy which cuts off their actions as too intimidating is far more egregious a suppression of speech.

Do you think that "whoever brings more shouters wins" is a stable equilibrium? Will you be willing to defend the same right if it turns out that your ideological enemies can bring more shouters to target you and yours?

First, I was talking about the silent, "intimidating" protest of the Dean's class. The school promised its guest a civil forum, and its failure (or refusal) to control the shouters was deplorable.

Second, yes, I'd defend their right to silently protest my work or politics. Even to shout, so long as I keep my right not to listen. Hurrah for private property.

Threats, probably. This isn't a Rittenhouse scenario.

They had every right to be in that classroom and hallway, to dress how they wanted, and to speak or be silent. Which of those are you going to ban?

Which of those are you going to ban?

All the ones which would be banned or punished if conservatives did them to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

That would be every bit as much a 1A violation. Unless you have some evidence that the courts are, in fact, okay with that?

If they are interfering with others free speech then it’s proper to have policy to stop that and potential legal liability as the government to not do that.

Nobody saying to block them from having their own meetings or posting on twitter. And even putting flyers up with the other side pictures is probably fine. But the second they interfere with others rights is a different story.

What is the net cost for the participants?

This is the fundamental question for all acts of protest, whether this one or the attempts to cancel the wizard game or whatever. Does the act of protest impose a net-negative cost on the protesters, or does it leave them net-positive? If the former, they will probably not do it again. If the later, they will keep doing it, and probably escalate, because they find it rewarding.

The proper response here is to find the students who organized this protest, and expel them. That would be the immediate result if right-wing students tried anything approaching this toward the left, and so it should be the response here. All the falsehoods we entertain about "unsafe environments" and "causing harm" apply in spades here, and if they were motivated by anything other than who/whom, everyone involved in this stunt would have the hammer dropped on them instantly.

Of course, this was a net-win for the students, no meaningful consequences will accrue, and the underlying problem will get worse.

Federal Judges DO have the ability to impose consequences. Namely by refusing to hire from Stanford... excepting active FedSoc members.

Not sure the protestors were ever counting on Federal Clerkships, however.

There will be lefty Federal Judges who hire them, or lefty advocacy orgs who hire them. There are billions of lefty dollars floating around for lefty causes. These students will see few or no negative consequences.

I'll take that bet.

I think fundamental to free speech is a right to NOT here someones speech. Call it a limit in time or that two people can’t speak at the same time limit. A right to ignore seems fundamental to balancing out two peoples right to speech.

The left seems to not realize that. I can’t have free speech if when I’m having a conversation you have a megaphone yelling next to me. Law students should get this complexity.

While Rights always need balanced since they often interfere with others rights. I don’t think a lot of 2020 riots were 1st amendment protected. Because they interfered with others right to speech. If I owned a sandwich shop or say a CVS I can’t advertise my goods/sell if a crowd is outside yelling. A merchant would seem to me to have a right to communicate with their customer.

Obviously all things need to be balanced. On a typical walk in the city their are the annoying people trying to sell some do-gooders, they asks if I have time to stop and chat. And it’s admittedly annoying have to turn them down everyday. Sometimes I walk a marginally longer route because I know where they set up. I think they do violate my right to ignore but it’s relatively minor versus them having a spot to give their message. Sometimes I’m probably even posting on the motte some times while walking so their interruption interferes with my first amendment rights.

Point is there are always balancing acts. And I don’t think the first amendment is a right to interfere unlimited to others.

To me it is more a freedom of association issue.

The fed soc invited a speaker to a particular event and outsider agitators interfered with that association.

The only issue about speech is if the law school allowed groups to generally permit speakers but then practiced viewpoint discrimination.

One other thought — was the judge in anyone fiscally harmed? If so, is there a claim for tortious interference.

I’ve never understood where the idea of a “right to not hear”. The right to speak sure. But I don’t see anything in that statement that requires either that others not disrupt or that you get to have an audience.

If you don’t have a right not to hear then no one has a right to speech. Seems implicit. Since any corporation could blast out noise pollution to disrupt anyone’s speech.

And freedom of association exists to and is after speech.

I don't agree that there's anything implicit about a right to not hear. I think that what is actually implicit in free speech is a right to hear what is being said. Someone disrupting a lecture or whatever isn't infringing on a right to not hear them, but rather on your right to hear the person who is supposed to be speaking.

I guess you could just call that a tragedy if the commons but then you just end up with people competing on who has the loudest microphone to the point that human ears are damaged. And the end result is no communication happens. I don’t think the first amendments purpose is to facilitate ear damage. It’s goal is the exchange of ideas. By founding intent that’s what they were trying to achieve. Not turning the public square into an Aviici concert.

The only way communication is achieved is with a right to hear.

I agree that there's a right to hear what someone has to say implicit in the right to free speech. But I see you vacillating in different posts about whether you describe there being a "right to hear" or a "right to not hear". I don't agree that the latter is implicit in the right to free speech.

A right to not hear would be scope creep. It would not only apply to situations where someone was disrupting speech but also would apply when you just plain didn't like what someone had to say. Indeed, the protestors at Stanford would probably agree that they have a right to not hear this guy give his lecture.

So yes, I agree with you that the right to free speech implies a right to hear what is said (otherwise it would be just shouting into the void and meaningless). I do not agree with your assertion that there is also a right to not hear something/someone which is implicit in the right to free speech.

Are there not always competing Speech to hear at the same time? During the summer 2020 riots were there not store clerks trying to sell goods? Talking to customers? The protest would have interfered with their ability to speak to each other.

Or even if I wanted to stand in Times Square and protest came. I had my AirPods in listening to Tupac. I want to hear his speech?

For the Stanford situation it was in a classroom so they weren’t exposed to that speech.

So yes I think there is always some balancing of rights. Wanting to listen to Tupac in a highly public space probably shouldn’t block a larger protest. A store Can shutdown a day for a protest but they probably do have a right not to be shutdown for 6 months straight of protest.

Technically freedom of assembly is listed after speech so I don’t think speech can interfere with others freedom of assembly. I guess what it comes down to you need balance in these things. Otherwise you don’t really have these rights and it’s a free for all blocking everything.

@sliders1234 has something of a point, but this is a solved problem. There is a class of government-imposed limits on speech that is held to be entirely consistent with the First Amendment--the set of time/place/manner restrictions. Critically, these regulations must be content- and viewpoint-neutral; noise regulations in residential areas after a given hour of the evening would be a common example.

It feels like it’s becoming less of a “solved” problem.

That being said I’m no free speech absolutists. If I thought Speech was leading to really bad things and people were believing an ideology I’d have no problem with summary executions and jail for the speakers. My example would be I am fine with 2% of the population having get togethers discussing how the USSR was actually really good and we do that. But if they started pulling in 10-20% of the country like say has happened in Latin America then I’m fine going all Pinochet on them. Which I guess the federalist are the communists to these people. I just don’t think that behavior fits in the spirit or law of free speech.

Of course today it’s balanced. People might be intimidated by these tactics but then they say fuck it and vote in a guy like Trump to push back.

The 1A doesn’t come into it at all.

The broader right of free speech, yeah, it’s good practice. In a golden-rule sense we can argue that the privilege of the strong (or loud) ought to be limited. “There but for the grace of God go I.” This is not up to the 1A, which only keeps the government from infringing, and even then only to a point. It’s not obligated to secure your platform for commercial or private speech.

Yes, but institutions of higher learning which accept government dollars in various ways can be compelled to accept federal standards on various things. This is how Title IX works, for example. It would be a trivial dodge around the IA if the government could, instead of itself paying bullies and thugs to break the outgroup's kneecaps, get away with only providing "fellowship grants" to social clubs that, in addition to pot-luck lunches on Thursdays, also went around breaking the outgroup's kneecaps.

So what if a corporation released noise pollution. So other people can’t speak. That noise pollution is 1A protected Speech correct so the government can’t block it. Which means there is no free speech.

A freedom of speech seem to include a freedom to hear (ie to have effective communications). Without a freedom to hear then you can’t have free speech.

The exact hypothetical would be the Koch brothers hating Yale so they shutdown Yale with giant noise machines. This is essentially what Stanford allowed to happen to the judge.

The government is perfectly allowed to regulate noise pollution. That’s mostly for the other rights like life, liberty and happiness, I suppose, so the hypothetical isn’t a very good fit.

More importantly, there is a difference between positive and negative actions. Stanford is not obligated to make a welcoming channel for any particular idea. It’s merely prevented from clogging those channels itself.

I think there’d be a case if Stanford actively set up the interference as viewpoint discrimination. This gets thorny very quickly when separating private speech from employee speech from public speech. Perhaps the DEI Dean’s involvement counts, and we’ll see a lawsuit accordingly.

I mean invading another groups space and yelling so they can’t speak sounds exactly like noise pollution to me.

So the Koch brothers could just blast I love Jesus outside of Yale and that’s Speech right?

If Incorporation Doctrine can bind states by the provisions intended to bind only the federal government, why can't it also bind other subjects of fedeal law?

I say, Incorporate the First, against Facebook!

I realize you’re being hyperbolic, but incorporation is based on protecting due process. Forcing that to apply to private companies or individuals would be a huge jump and, in turn, violate freedom of association.

It would probably take a tiring effortpost to correct my misunderstanding here, but don't the Education Amendments of 1972 (most famously Title IX) mean the federal gov is treating universities as an extension of government institutions because they receive public funding, and thus must respect constitutional rights?

Yes and no.

I want to say @KMC is right and public universities have been nationalized for free speech purposes. This might apply to Stanford should they suppress speech, but I wouldn’t expect it to obligate giving Judge Duncan a platform. In general, the 1A doesn’t say what must be provided, only what must not be infringed.

The other flies in the ointment are all the caveats like “compelling interest.” Basically, free speech usually only holds until a wannabe restrictor finds another conflicting right to protect. Here that would be the students’ and employees’ speech rights, I guess?

I won’t rule out the possibility that someone has a case here, but it’s not really what I’d expect to see.

Thank you. This was my understanding as well. The way that the federal government requires private universities to adhere to the Civil Rights Act is by tying those requirements to federal dollars. The scope of what is covered by federal dollars has increased such that any institution that receives any federal money for anything is fully liable to comply, but that also means that it is the federal government who is acting, not the private institution, and thus the bill of rights does apply.

So what’s the next step? This federal judge or students could sue Stanford for violating their civil rights?

I feel like it should be utterly self-evident why a class of aspiring lawyers should be capable of listening to the words of a party they oppose with enough respect to let them give their whole argument in peace, and then responding in kind, without resorting to shouting them down or implicitly threatening their safety.

And that's before accounting for the fact that it's a Federal Judge doing the speaking.

Literally the whole point of having a legal system is to allow civil dispute resolution where each party is heard and the winning party determined according to set rules which usually don't account for "we'll be really angry at you if you don't decide in our favor."

This is largely the reason why Judges sitting on the Bench are kept completely separate from the public, don't walk through the public hallways, and generally have their personal information kept confidential and not publicly available. Because miscreants would use implied or explicit threats to get them to change their rulings.

Of course we've got law grads who are full attorneys throwing molotovs and attending active riots (HOPEFULLY in observer capacity) so I dunno, seems like this is just going to get worse when these guys graduate.

I'll say, I honestly don't know what these students expect will happen when they get into actual legal practice and it turns out ambush tactics and mass social shaming not only won't work but it'll lead to bar complaints and possible license suspension very quickly.

And finally, I flip my lid over the "counter-protesting is free speech" and justifying the heckler's veto logic. Free speech implies reciprocal obligations. You don't shout over somebody else when they're given a platform then claim that because you're louder your speech means more.

Or more simply put, knowingly interfering with another person's speech (especially when they have a willing audience) implicitly forfeits whatever claim you had to being permitted to speak freely. If you're in a court hearing and you loudly scream every time the other attorney is presenting arguments... you don't win the case by default, surprisingly enough.

Not the first time The Federalist Society has caused a kerfuffle at Stanford:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/06/federalist-society-stanford.html

In a sense, I have to applaud those FedSoc students for continuing to position themselves outside the local Overton Window.

I'll say, I honestly don't know what these students expect will happen when they get into actual legal practice and it turns out ambush tactics and mass social shaming not only won't work but it'll lead to bar complaints and possible license suspension very quickly.

They'll have their people on the bar committees and as a result the tactics WILL work.

Sort of?

Gonna get them cut off from the most lucrative legal careers outside of pure grift positions, if so.

Judges still have the ability to exercise contempt powers within their own courtrooms, at least.

Gonna get them cut off from the most lucrative legal careers outside of pure grift positions, if so.

Not even a little bit. The vast majority of BigLaw attorneys (by definition the most lucrative legal career) never see the inside of a courtroom. Sure the Litigation practice group does, but M&A, T&E, IP, etc. never actually go in front of a judge, and a 4th year T&E associate makes just as much money as a 4th year Lit associate.

Why would Biglaw hire them as associates in the first place? They ostensibly DO NOT want the ones who are prone to acting out against authority and becoming actively disruptive to get their way.

They'll be the judges too, after a short while.

I honestly don't know what these students expect will happen when they get into actual legal practice and it turns out ambush tactics and mass social shaming not only won't work but it'll lead to bar complaints and possible license suspension very quickly.

Stanford Law students are perfectly capable of seeing and responding to incentives; it's probably what they're best at. When put into a different institutional environment, they'll conform to fit it very easily, better than the vast majority of the public would.

It's not really accurate to call this a riot, even, if you mean a riot to be some kind of small-d democratic outburst against institutional constraints. This was not only allowed but encouraged by the Stanford bureaucracy. If this was bad for their careers, they'd do the exact opposite.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats