As often as we joke about progressives doing everything they can to ensure Trump is reelected in 2020 and perhaps beyond, the truth is he won’t be around forever — and that’s what makes the ever-expanding crop of takes on free speech so disturbing.
Yes, it was shocking to see rioting in Berkeley over a planned speech by Milo Yiannopoulos, but the crackdown on free speech on campuses has been leaking out into the cities. Back in May, the ACLU of Oregon blasted the mayor of Portland, who had asked the feds to bar free-speech and anti-sharia rallies after a Bernie Bro fatally stabbed two men on a commuter train.
That’s sort of what you’d expect the ACLU to do, but in an opinion piece in Wednesday’s L.A. Times, the University of Chicago Law School’s Laura Weinrib argues that the ACLU should view free speech “as a tool of social justice, suited to particular purposes under particular conditions.”
No, seriously.
Prof. Laura Weinrib: "The ACLU's free speech stance should be about social justice, not 'timeless' principles" https://t.co/NTjW8sil65
— UChicago Law School (@UChicagoLaw) August 30, 2017
Because you have none. https://t.co/cYnFkhnZGO
— IWantNothingHat (@Popehat) August 30, 2017
Yes, a woman was killed protesting a white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Va., but let’s not forget that hooded mobs were out in Portland the night Hillary conceded the election, clashing with police, vandalizing property, and so on. Presidential terms are far from timeless, but the First Amendment had damn well better be.
Principles. So horrifying. https://t.co/nfcxoxqgln
— Scott Greenfield (@ScottGreenfield) August 31, 2017
https://twitter.com/LDoren/status/903044879172952064
Students: demand refunds https://t.co/v7RAQvUENp
— Jon Munce (@jonmunce) August 31, 2017
Zero actual practice of law in her UChicago bio. Fucking law professors, man. https://t.co/2hzy4tzoE2 https://t.co/0u5SYEuALm
— Matt Jameson (@RogueNotary) August 31, 2017
Prof. Laura Weinrib is not fit to be a professor. https://t.co/U78fMRO7TG
— Kevin C. McCarthy ?? (@akevinmccarthy) August 31, 2017
What would be lost if we eliminated law schools? https://t.co/yWG7Tbf4X8
— AgainstTrumpDude (@TheAmishDude) August 31, 2017
WRONG, completely WRONG https://t.co/GcInRr8CcD
— KipRKelly (@kiprkelly) August 31, 2017
https://twitter.com/josh_hammer/status/903041339717296128
It really, really is. Come on: “Almost a century later, is a dogged commitment to free speech still the best strategy for an organization that is avowedly pursuing the ‘advancement of civil rights and social justice’? That question once again requires evaluation of conditions on the ground.”
https://twitter.com/molratty/status/903054219971883008
so Free Speech *only* for those … who somebody thinks is entitled to free speech. https://t.co/dLCgDWz1ri
— Arthur Kimes (@ComradeArthur) August 31, 2017
Translation: "The ACLU's free speech stance should be about [something other than free speech], not [free speech]." No thanks.
— Dawhmi (@Dawhmi) August 30, 2017
https://twitter.com/wunderpig/status/903046453307863040
https://twitter.com/LexCorvus/status/903058200248803329
* * *
Related:
LA Times op-ed: Unrestricted free speech is giving marginalized groups PTSD and eating disorders https://t.co/b7WOFL3LAk
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) June 21, 2017
Washington Post: Liberals in 2017 taking a second look at that whole freedom of speech thing https://t.co/B2tJ7KHfLB
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) August 22, 2017
Join the conversation as a VIP Member