Yale Law Students Shout Down Bipartisan Free Speech Talk - And, Oh Yeah, The First Source Was Nearly Exactly Right, According to David Lat and Others (1 Viewer)

[IvanKaramazov]

I thought your solution was to just blackball them from practicing law because they decided to protest.  

No, protesting is good.  

Shouting down speakers isn't a legitimate form of protest because it doesn't correspond to free speech norms.  People who do this sort of stuff have no business practicing law and should be kept out of that occupation.  In the same way that people who pick up DUIs can't find work as airline pilots.

I get what you're trying to do here -- you're hoping to change the subject from "shouting down speakers" to "protesting."  I'm not going to agree to conflating those two things.

 

[ZADO]

"Sorority?"

"Forget it.  He's rolling."

oops lol

 

[rockaction]

Yes, we now get updates from David Lat, saying that the event was much closer to the original source story of the Washington Free Beacon than to other stories. 

Anyone still want to question the source and the veracity of the video vs. the story? 

@FreeBaGeL@Juxtatarot

I'm still not posting in this space anymore. A simple, open-and-shut case of a bunch of protestors shouting down a speaker becomes some sort of metaphysical debate and even worse, a source debate. 

Sick of the disingenuousness of some of the posters here when it comes to this. So obviously wrong and I'll no longer have my time commandeered by plaintive cries of utter ####### nonsense. 

Sorry I'm not charitable. I've had it with this sapce. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm still not posting in this space anymore. A simple, open-and-shut case of a bunch of protestors shouting down a speaker becomes some sort of metaphysical debate and even worse, a source debate. 

It's very difficult not to notice the deflection that takes place when stuff like this happens.  It would be very easy just to leave it at something like "wow, that sucks," so it's always interesting when people start hunting for angles that they think will allow them to defend the mob because, man, they really want to defend that mob something fierce.  

 

[timschochet]

Yes, we now get updates from David Lat, saying that the event was much closer to the original source story of the Washington Free Beacon than to other stories. 

Anyone still want to question the source and the veracity of the video vs. the story? 

@FreeBaGeL@Juxtatarot

I'm still not posting in this space anymore. A simple, open-and-shut case of a bunch of protestors shouting down a speaker becomes some sort of metaphysical debate and even worse, a source debate. 

Sick of the disingenuousness of some of the posters here when it comes to this. So obviously wrong and I'll no longer have my time commandeered by plaintive cries of utter ####### nonsense. 

Sorry I'm not charitable. I've had it with this sapce. 

I agreed with you all along about the OP. It was simple, as you’ve pointed out. It was also disturbing, disgusting and wrong. There is no justification, ever IMO, for shouting down speakers. 
There has been a greater discussion here about patterns and what this sort of story portends for our society, and other related issues. On many aspects of those topics, I think I may be opposed to your position. 

 

[rockaction]

It would be very easy just to leave it at something like "wow, that sucks,"

So easy. I'm going ascribe myself some moral high ground here. When there is something in evidence -- something like since 2015 by the Republican Party -- that there is no longer a defense of the ideological underpinnings behind tangible action, it behooves one to disavow, to dissent. I've done that with a place on the ideological spectrum I've long considered myself a tenuous part of. 

I've basically disowned my former position on the spectrum at emotional and potentially financial and physical cost to me. I've done that all my life. At law school, people knew where I worked and asked me to join the Federalist Society and get involved with it. If I hadn't demurred, a path had opened up right there for me. But I didn't join because I no longer saw eye-to-eye with their legal philosophy and my reasons had to do with intellectual rigor and honesty. 

So it makes me wonder, beyond all ####### comprehension, why a bunch of people with nothing to lose can't do it for the sake of a message board. 

"What the #### is wrong with you?" is what I'm asking.

It should not be that hard. 

And it's why I'm likely to comment very infrequently here anymore. This has about done it. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I am serious yes. Let’s be clear: I’m not OK with any kind of government imposed censorship, ever. But if college students want to prevent a bigot from speaking on campus, or if a private entity like Facebook or Twitter wants to prevent a bigot from using its services, then good says I. Society should be intolerant of bigotry, as well as radical ideas like Fascism and Communism. Nothing should be illegal, but we can and should shun and ostracize these people and their lamebrained, hateful ideologies. 

 Interesting juxtaposition with that last post.

 

[rockaction]

There has been a greater discussion here about patterns and what this sort of story portends for our society, and other related issues. On many aspects of those topics, I think I may be opposed to your position. 

I have no problem arguing that. It feels, with you, llke slamming my head into a wall, but that's to be expected when people just flat do not see things the same way. It's a prognostication. I accept that. I do not accept people playing the source game and arguing just a teeny, tiny bit now isn't that all we're doing here is drawing nuanced distinctions when there is no argument to be had. 

 

[timschochet]

 Interesting juxtaposition with that last post.

Shunning, ostracizing is one thing. Shouting them down is another. The latter is unacceptable. Mob behavior is unacceptable. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So easy. I'm going ascribe myself some moral high ground here. When there is something in evidence -- something like since 2015 by the Republican Party -- that there is no longer a defense of the ideological underpinnings behind tangible action, it behooves one to disavow, to dissent. I've done that with a place on the ideological spectrum I've longed considered myself a tenuous part of. 

I've basically disowned my former position on the spectrum at emotional and potentially financial and physical cost to me. 

So it makes me wonder, beyond all ####### comprehension, why a bunch of people with nothing to lose can't do it for the sake of a message board. 

"What the #### is wrong with you?" is what I'm asking.

It should not be that hard. 

And it's why I'm likely to comment very infrequently here anymore. This has about done it. 

I know exactly what you mean.  There was a time when I felt obliged to try to defend the red tribe all the time.  Even when they were obviously in the wrong, I would go looking for some side issue that I could harp on to try to show all the ways the red tribe was good and pure.  And then maybe 10-15 years or so ago a light went on and it suddenly dawned on me that I didn't owe any of these people anything and why bother defending somebody if I think they're on the wrong side of the issue.  I probably owe Bush a beer or something for helping me snap out of that.  

 

[rockaction]

I know exactly what you mean.  There was a time when I felt obliged to try to defend the red tribe all the time.  Even when they were obviously in the wrong, I would go looking for some side issue that I could harp on to try to show all the ways the red tribe was good and pure.  And then maybe 10-15 years or so ago a light went on and it suddenly dawned on me that I didn't owe any of these people anything and why bother defending somebody if I think they're on the wrong side of the issue.  I probably owe Bush a beer or something for helping me snap out of that.  

Yep. I can see that. And I know I'm danger of tooting my own horn here, but there's a certain clarity to be had when one finally realizes that you owe these people nothing and that it's just a disservice to the truth to pretend you otherwise agree. Trump was the obvious tipping point for me; I'm sure others saw things they didn't like from a libertarian-fusionist perspective with Bush and his doings. 

And I hate to lionize myself. I really do. But why the heck can other people not manage the basic test of intellectual honesty when it comes to tribal matters? If your tribe claims it is for free speech but is really always arguing for some sort of on-high nuance in each individual case, say you're not for free speech. Or say it's ad hoc at best. But at least the illiberal among us are honest and we can have a deeper argument. Don't pay lip service to it and say "...but in this case, maybe not so much if you check the nuance" constantly. It's the same net result. You don't want the speech. 

You're not for free speech. Say it. 

Say it, Frenchy. Chowdah. 

 

[timschochet]

Yep. I can see that. And I know I'm danger of tooting my own horn here, but there's a certain clarity to be had when one finally realizes that you owe these people nothing and that it's just a disservice to the truth to pretend you otherwise agree. Trump was the obvious tipping point for me; I'm sure others saw things they didn't like from a libertarian-fusionist perspective with Bush and his doings. 

And I hate to lionize myself. I really do. But why the heck can other people not manage the basic test of intellectual honesty when it comes to tribal matters? If your tribe claims it is for free speech but is really always arguing for some sort of on-high nuance in each individual case, say you're not for free speech. Or say it's ad hoc at best. But at least the illiberal among us are honest and we can have a deeper argument. Don't pay lip service to it and say "...but in this case, maybe not so much if you check the nuance" constantly. It's the same net result. You don't want the speech. 

You're not for free speech. Say it. 

Say it, Frenchy. Chowdah. 

I’m not always for free speech. i usually am but not always. 

I’m never for shouting it down, but sometimes I am for seeing it prevented by legal means. The ACLU might be willing to defend Nazis who want to wave swastika banners in front of synagogues with Holocaust survivors; but I’m not. 

 

[rockaction]

Then you're not really for free speech as even the First Amendment understands it. You're content to let it be an ad hoc decision. That's what I'm asking for. Just admit it. 

 

[timschochet]

Then you're not really for free speech as even the First Amendment understands it. You're content to let it be an ad hoc decision. That's what I'm asking for. Just admit it. 

No I don’t agree with your interpretation. The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. There are exceptions. I’m not going to use the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote because it’s a bit tired, but I’m sure you know it. 

 

[rockaction]

There are exceptions

And those exceptions do not revolve on the judgment regarding the odiousness of political speech. Nazi speech is political speech, and therefore protected. 

 

[rockaction]

I trust Wiki here: 

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising

 

[timschochet]

And those exceptions do not revolve on the judgment regarding the odiousness of political speech. Nazi speech is political speech, and therefore protected. 

Not always. If a high school student wears a t shirt with a swastika on it, the school has the right to send him home. The courts have ruled on this. 

 

[timschochet]

I trust Wiki here: 

Categories of speech that are given lesser or no protection by the First Amendment (and therefore may be restricted) include obscenity, fraud, child pornography, speech integral to illegal conduct, speech that incites imminent lawless action, speech that violates intellectual property law, true threats, and commercial speech such as advertising

Hate speech is restricted all the time. Rightfully so. 

 

[rockaction]

Not always. If a high school student wears a t shirt with a swastika on it, the school has the right to send him home. The courts have ruled on this. 

It's a high school student. You have different constitutional rights in a high school. Trust me on this one. Your Constitutional rights do not end at the doors of the high school, but there are certain things they have the right to police more heavily than in other circumstances. 

The police cannot arrest you for a Nazi shirt in public. 

 

[rockaction]

Hate speech is restricted all the time. Rightfully so. 

No, it isn't. Even statutes against cross burning make their way to the Supreme Court, with cases like R.A.V. vs. St. Paul siding on behalf of speech while cases such as Virginia v. Black side with the statute. 

It's not restricted all the time. At all. That's just unsound constitutional law you're espousing here. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No I don’t agree with your interpretation. The First Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights, is not absolute. There are exceptions. I’m not going to use the Oliver Wendell Holmes quote because it’s a bit tired, but I’m sure you know it. 

Are we going to have to set you straight on the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" thing again?

 

[timschochet]

It's a high school student. You have different constitutional rights in a high school. Trust me on this one. Your Constitutional rights do not end at the doors of the high school, but there are certain things they have the right to police more heavily than in other circumstances. 

The police cannot arrest you for a Nazi shirt in public. 

I’m aware. They can arrest you for wearing no clothes, but not for wearing a Nazi shirt. To me that seems inconsistent, but I don’t write the laws. 
 

To be honest I really don’t care if wearing a Nazi shirt is illegal as much as I care that it is universally regarded as unacceptable- morally shunned in other words. And this is where the university students serve a valuable purpose, so long as they don’t shout people down: they are extending our sense of morality so that the demanding of trans people, for example, is no longer acceptable in modern society- that is the whole point of woke and why it’s overall a good thing. 

 

[bigbottom]

So easy. I'm going ascribe myself some moral high ground here. When there is something in evidence -- something like since 2015 by the Republican Party -- that there is no longer a defense of the ideological underpinnings behind tangible action, it behooves one to disavow, to dissent. I've done that with a place on the ideological spectrum I've long considered myself a tenuous part of. 

I've basically disowned my former position on the spectrum at emotional and potentially financial and physical cost to me. I've done that all my life. At law school, people knew where I worked and asked me to join the Federalist Society and get involved with it. If I hadn't demurred, a path had opened up right there for me. But I didn't join because I no longer saw eye-to-eye with their legal philosophy and my reasons had to do with intellectual rigor and honesty. 

So it makes me wonder, beyond all ####### comprehension, why a bunch of people with nothing to lose can't do it for the sake of a message board. 

"What the #### is wrong with you?" is what I'm asking.

It should not be that hard. 

And it's why I'm likely to comment very infrequently here anymore. This has about done it. 

I wouldn’t say it’s a bunch of people, at least in this thread. I think you‘ve had darn near a consensus here that what these students did was improper and antithetical to the idea of a free exchange of ideas. At least as close to a consensus that you’ll get in this forum (e.g., just a couple outliers is all).

 

[timschochet]

Are we going to have to set you straight on the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" thing again?

No. I understand your position. And I don’t really want to get bogged down in legal issues (my bad, I shouldn’t have started that). I’m attempting to discuss society as I believe it should be. 

 

[rockaction]

I wouldn’t say it’s a bunch of people, at least in this thread. I think you‘ve had darn near a consensus here that what these students did was improper and antithetical to the idea of a free exchange of ideas. At least as close to a consensus that you’ll get in this forum (e.g., just a couple outliers is all).

Those damn rabbit ears again. Killed me in a high school game against New London whereupon I got involved with the left field crowd (yes, I was in left). I'll always hear the heckler. 

 

[rockaction]

I skimmed this half-heartedly, but check out the shirt you could get from the student affairs office at Yale Law. 

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-takeover-of-americas-legal-system?s=w

 

[rockaction]

Prison abolition!

I used to have a friend at Wesleyan that would sign his tagline, "Abolish prisons. Are we our brother's keeper?" 

Nice to see Yale Law adopted this. Seriously loved the people arguing with me about sourcing. 

Sourcing? 

@FreeBaGeL @Juxtatarot

again. 

Sourcing? 

What ####### world are we living in? 

 

[rockaction]

I wouldn’t say it’s a bunch of people, at least in this thread. I think you‘ve had darn near a consensus here that what these students did was improper and antithetical to the idea of a free exchange of ideas. At least as close to a consensus that you’ll get in this forum (e.g., just a couple outliers is all).

I answered this lightheartedly, but at least two posters took long and vituperative umbrage with the sourcing and the "nuance" of the free speech argument. Painting this thread any other way would be disingenuous. 

 

[rockaction]

Now we're getting the real story about Yale Law, and guess what?! It's worse than we thought, because what isn't completely outre and far left in academia these days, especially top-tier law schools. 

I went to one in the past decade almost, and the guy nearly interrupted our moot court to talk about Public Enemy and a pimps and hos party the students had had. 

Seriously couldn't say anything about it but got indignant because he had "listened to Public Enemy" in college. 

#### you, #######. We just finished moot court and you're regaling us about Public Enemy. You #######. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Prison abolition!

I used to have a friend at Wesleyan that would sign his tagline, "Abolish prisons. Are we our brother's keeper?" 

Nice to see Yale Law adopted this. Seriously loved the people arguing with me about sourcing. 

Sourcing? 

@FreeBaGeL @Juxtatarot

again. 

Sourcing? 

What ####### world are we living in? 

I know multiple people IRL who simultaneously believe a) prisons should be abolished, and b) Brock Turner should have received a long prison sentence.

Logical thinking is not a strong suit in this tribe.

 

[rockaction]

I know multiple people IRL who simultaneously believe a) prisons should be abolished, and b) Brock Turner should have received a long prison sentence.

Indeed. As long as there are prisons...let's be nuanced about it

That same anarchist friend believed in reporting hate crimes to the FBI. No lie. Or computer crimes. Because we did when I got hacked back in 2012. 

I'm fired up today. I remember that guy in Moot Court, totally ruining our culminating event with that garbage.

Apropos of this post, after Moot Court, we had a diversity specialist come into to talk about race to our Lawyer Profession course. He asked "Why are you all so fixated on this concept of race?"

I raised my hand. This is no lie. We had to take a break the students all started giving such push back and laughing so hard. I said "Because you've got it circled on the board and are yelling at us about it!"

I was probably coming off being high on cocaine, and that's why I did that. 

"I wanna kill the people that had that party," he then said. "Kill them!"

Our professor told us we all needed to go to break. This guy, DuBois, was the head of CT state ethics board. No lie,. No bull####. He threatened to kill the students. 

THIS IS ACADEMIA, FOLKS. IT'S ####### ROTTEN. BESIDES IVAN. 

Okay, I'm off the deep end. 

 

[FairWarning]

I skimmed this half-heartedly, but check out the shirt you could get from the student affairs office at Yale Law. 

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-takeover-of-americas-legal-system?s=w

Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Hate speech is restricted all the time. Rightfully so. 

Yes, in Canada. In the United States, hate speech is fully protected by the First Amendment.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, in Canada. In the United States, hate speech is fully protected by the First Amendment.

OK. I was referring to the high school situation I described earlier. But you are correct. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

OK. I was referring to the high school situation I described earlier. But you are correct. 

Even in public high schools, speech can't be restricted on the grounds that it's hateful. (It can be restricted on the grounds that it's threatening, harassing, or disruptive -- which does cover a lot of hate speech, but incidentally rather than directly.)

 

[Alonzo Mosely]

There are absolutely parallels. That and to the Cultural Revolution, too. That's why the radical leftists that endorse this #### used to hand out Little Red Books on campus. For all your blather about history, you ignore some obvious corollaries. 

I don't think it is the radical leftists you have to worry about.  Correct me if I'm wrong but the panel was a discussion on how the Progressives and the Conservatives could find common ground on some issues, ie First Amendment/free speech.  Both groups in recent history have come under attack from Liberals in the form of censorship and deplatformization which is why you see Leftists like Greenwald forced to Fox if they want any sort of MSM influence.

 

[rockaction]

Both groups in recent history have come under attack from Liberals in the form of censorship

I get what you're saying, but it's the radical capture by the hard left of the center-left that concerns. It's the voices of mainstream students, journalists, tech pushers, etc. 

That sentence itself "come under attack from Liberals in the form of censorship" makes no sense if we are to treat words as things that have meaning historically. You can't just say "that's a liberal position" when it's clearly illiberal without getting the whole thing confused. Let's say that the current center-left is illiberal and that's what you're talking about. 

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I get what you're saying, but it's the radical capture by the hard left of the center-left that concerns. It's the voices of mainstream students, journalists, tech pushers, etc. 

That sentence itself "come under attack from Liberals in the form of censorship" makes no sense if we are to treat words as things that have meaning historically. You can't just say "that's a liberal position" when it's clearly illiberal without getting the whole thing confused. Let's say that the current center-left is illiberal and that's what you're talking about. 

I think we're undergoing a political realignment and don't fully realize it yet.  

I've "known" people like Matt Yglesias, Conor Friedersdorf, Noah Smith, Ezra Klein, Jonathan Chait, and for about 20 years now.  Those folks were all solidly opposed to George W. Bush and could accurately be described as liberals.  I would have put them in the blue tribe until very recently.  They still sort-of are, but these days progressives have moved so far to the left and conservatives have gotten so deranged that I feel like those people have a lot more in common with me and other Reason-style libertarians than they do with their own folks.  This could just be something happening in my own head, but it does feel like some of us who hold on to traditional liberal values are finding common cause against the illiberal wings of the left and right. 

Probably worth noting that all the "new atheists" seem to have ended up in this camp too.  I was never a big fan of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris (actually I kind of always liked Harris), but I have to admit that those guys have stayed consistent as the world went crazy around them.  There's no question that Hitch would be right here with us. 

It doesn't make any sense at all to refer to people like the Yale law students as "liberals."  They're not liberal at all.  They're just a left-wing flavor of authoritarians.  Unfortunately they're ascendant at the moment.

 

[timschochet]

I think we're undergoing a political realignment and don't fully realize it yet.  

I've "known" people like Matt Yglesias, Conor Friedersdorf, Noah Smith, Ezra Klein, Jonathan Chait, and for about 20 years now.  Those folks were all solidly opposed to George W. Bush and could accurately be described as liberals.  I would have put them in the blue tribe until very recently.  They still sort-of are, but these days progressives have moved so far to the left and conservatives have gotten so deranged that I feel like those people have a lot more in common with me and other Reason-style libertarians than they do with their own folks.  This could just be something happening in my own head, but it does feel like some of us who hold on to traditional liberal values are finding common cause against the illiberal wings of the left and right. 

Probably worth noting that all the "new atheists" seem to have ended up in this camp too.  I was never a big fan of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris (actually I kind of always liked Harris), but I have to admit that those guys have stayed consistent as the world went crazy around them.  There's no question that Hitch would be right here with us. 

It doesn't make any sense at all to refer to people like the Yale law students as "liberals."  They're not liberal at all.  They're just a left-wing flavor of authoritarians.  Unfortunately they're ascendant at the moment.

I sure hope you’re wrong. But I gotta admit that you make a compelling argument. 

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

I skimmed this half-heartedly, but check out the shirt you could get from the student affairs office at Yale Law. 

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-takeover-of-americas-legal-system?s=w

This was interesting thanks for posting.

 

[Sparky Big Time]

I am often saddened by how easily youth are willing to sacrifice the rights that I and my forefathers served to protect. 

Perhaps its a result of receiving these gifts without the sacrifice. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I've "known" people like Matt Yglesias, Conor Friedersdorf, Noah Smith, Ezra Klein, Jonathan Chait, and for about 20 years now.  Those folks were all solidly opposed to George W. Bush and could accurately be described as liberals.

It's funny to compare that group with David Frum, Ross Douthat, Jonah Goldberg, David French, David Brooks...

A couple decades ago, those two groups would have been considered to be on opposite ends of the political spectrum -- left and right, respectively.

Now they're all largely on the same page about all kinds of things. Not because their own views have changed all that much, but because the political spectrum has grown so wide around them that the portion of it they collectively occupy seems small by comparison.

 

[Caveman33]

I think we're undergoing a political realignment and don't fully realize it yet.  

I've "known" people like Matt Yglesias, Conor Friedersdorf, Noah Smith, Ezra Klein, Jonathan Chait, and for about 20 years now.  Those folks were all solidly opposed to George W. Bush and could accurately be described as liberals.  I would have put them in the blue tribe until very recently.  They still sort-of are, but these days progressives have moved so far to the left and conservatives have gotten so deranged that I feel like those people have a lot more in common with me and other Reason-style libertarians than they do with their own folks.  This could just be something happening in my own head, but it does feel like some of us who hold on to traditional liberal values are finding common cause against the illiberal wings of the left and right. 

Probably worth noting that all the "new atheists" seem to have ended up in this camp too.  I was never a big fan of Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris (actually I kind of always liked Harris), but I have to admit that those guys have stayed consistent as the world went crazy around them.  There's no question that Hitch would be right here with us. 

It doesn't make any sense at all to refer to people like the Yale law students as "liberals."  They're not liberal at all.  They're just a left-wing flavor of authoritarians.  Unfortunately they're ascendant at the moment.

While I have never voted, I had always considered myself liberal until recently.  Intolerance towards critical thinking has turned me off.  I'm still fiscally liberal but socially conservative on many issues.  Where you stand on money is what really matters, though, so I am likely way more liberal than most here.

 

[Caveman33]

I am often saddened by how easily youth are willing to sacrifice the rights that I and my forefathers served to protect. 

Perhaps its a result of receiving these gifts without the sacrifice. 

Are you being sarcastic?  What sacrifice did you make to protect free speech?

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I skimmed this half-heartedly, but check out the shirt you could get from the student affairs office at Yale Law. 

https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/the-takeover-of-americas-legal-system?s=w

This was interesting thanks for posting.

That article helps me understand where people like Bill Barr may be coming from.

A recent interview with Savannah Guthrie went something like:

Guthrie: Hi.

Barr: Donald Trump is unfit for office and he tried to overthrow the election.

Guthrie: Would you vote for him again if he runs in 2024?

Barr: Not in the primary, but in the general, heck yeah! Trump is awful, but the radical left agenda favored by Democrats is the biggest threat to our country right now.

And here's how the interview continued in my head:

Guthrie: The radical left agenda -- you mean like weird pronouns and stuff?

Barr: Absolutely.

Guthrie: You think weird pronouns are a bigger threat to democracy than overthrowing elections?

Barr: Um, well, when you put it like that...

But after reading that article, I think the interview could have continued:

Guthrie: The radical left agenda -- you mean like weird pronouns and stuff?

Barr: No, I mean like abolishing freedom of speech, the right to counsel, equal protection under the law, innocent-until-proven-guilty -- you know, all the stuff in that article on bariweiss.substack.com.

Guthrie: You think Joe Biden presents a threat to all of those things?

Barr: He might not be a threat himself, he's too sleepy, but he's not going to fight against those threats the way a Republican would.

Guthrie: Don't you see all of those threats as stemming from general division and radicalization? Aren't the far-left zealots energized and emboldened by a divisive figure like Trump, while a return to normalcy and moderation and civility and boringness that Biden brings to the table may help take the wind out of their sails?

Barr: No.

The end.

 

[rockaction]

That article helps me understand where people like Bill Barr may be coming from.

A recent interview with Savannah Guthrie went something like:

Guthrie: Hi.

Barr: Donald Trump is unfit for office and he tried to overthrow the election.

Guthrie: Would you vote for him again if he runs in 2024?

Barr: Not in the primary, but in the general, heck yeah! Trump is awful, but the radical left agenda favored by Democrats is the biggest threat to our country right now.

And here's how the interview continued in my head:

Guthrie: The radical left agenda -- you mean like weird pronouns and stuff?

Barr: Absolutely.

Guthrie: You think weird pronouns are a bigger threat to democracy than overthrowing elections?

Barr: Um, well, when you put it like that...

But after reading that article, I think the interview could have continued:

Guthrie: The radical left agenda -- you mean like weird pronouns and stuff?

Barr: No, I mean like freedom of speech, the right to counsel, equal protection under the law, innocent-until-proven-guilty -- you know, all the stuff in that one article on bariweiss.substack.com.

Guthrie: You think Joe Biden presents a threat to all of those things?

Barr: He might not be a threat himself, he's too sleepy, but he's not going to fight against the threat the way a Republican would.

Guthrie: Don't you see all of those threats as stemming from division and general radicalization? Aren't the far-left zealots energized and emboldened by a divisive figure like Trump, while a return to normalcy and moderation and civility and boringness that Biden brings to the table helps to take the wind out of their sails?

Barr: No.

The end.

I assume, Maurile, that you're talking about the Today interview? I have it queued up to watch. 

The interview continuing in your head is your concern about the left. Am I understanding this correctly? 

I just want to make sure I clarify before I jump in and say anything. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I assume, Maurile, that you're talking about the Today interview? I have it queued up to watch.

If that's the show Guthrie is on. I saw it on Twitter or YouTube.

The interview continuing in your head is your concern about the left. Am I understanding this correctly? 

I just want to make sure I clarify before I jump in and say anything. 

I'm trying to channel what Bill Barr might think is worse than overthrowing elections.

 

[rockaction]

I'm trying to channel what Bill Barr might think is worse than overthrowing elections.

Yeah, I gathered. Your imagined problems with the left certainly have more gravity than pronouns, while your conclusion is interesting.

I'd say that freedom of speech, right to counsel, equal protection under the law, and innocent until proven guilty have to exist for democracy to be properly understood. It's hard to tell, at least how I approach it, how those are merely ends of the democratic process rather than necessary for democracy to exist. It's like Scalia's statement about the Confrontation Clause. The process itself secures the right. In this case, I'm not sure whether freedom of speech is the end we're seeking to secure, or the process by which democracy is secured. 

Does that make sense at all? 

 

[rockaction]

I think I'm able to better figure out your post after watching the interview. He does end the interview by saying that the greatest threat to American democracy (presumably from within) is the "progressive agenda being pushed by the Democratic Party."

I'd say that's a dedicated Republican. But I like the mental exercise you performed. 

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

It's hard to tell, at least how I approach it, how those are merely ends of the democratic process rather than necessary for democracy to exist. It's like Scalia's statement about the Confrontation Clause. The process itself secures the right. In this case, I'm not sure whether freedom of speech is the end we're seeking to secure, or the process by which democracy is secured. 

I think it's both. I think freedom (including freedom of speech) can always be considered an end in itself, and is also vitally instrumental to other desirable ends like a well-functioning democracy.