When Slate’s Mark Josesph Stern isn’t hard at work trying to get conservative/libertarian types fired for racist statements that aren’t actually racist, he evidently enjoys spending his time trying to impugn the Federalist Society’s respect for the Constitution and get judges into trouble for suggesting that prior bad behavior should maybe be taken into consideration when hiring law students for clerkships.
Here’s Stern’s latest exposé:
Incidentally, Judge Laurence Silberman just sent this email to the listservs for all Article III judges in the United States. https://t.co/kfoyQGIGqW pic.twitter.com/TyM0xVhVHo
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 17, 2022
Confirmed by multiple sources who saw the email fyi.
I know we had a big conversation on here about the propriety of complaining to someone’s prospective employer about their free expression of unpopular views, so I’m sure Silberman’s email will be condemned across the aisle.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 17, 2022
Judge John Walker, a Reagan/GHWB nominee on the 2nd Circuit, responded to Silberman: "Thank you for your email. I couldn't agree more."
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 17, 2022
A Reagan/GHWB nominee? Dear God, not one of those!
Judge Donald Graham, another GHWB nominee who serves on a district court in Florida, responded: "Shouldn't there be a finding that a student acted inappropriately at least by the institution of higher learning. I don't intend to get into the fact finding process." pic.twitter.com/X6yUc5UrnL
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 17, 2022
In all seriousness, though, we’re not sure why we’re supposed to be upset about this.
From Judge Andrew Gordon, an Obama nominee on the district court in Nevada:
“Please do not hit ‘reply all.’ It's very distracting to receive all these comments when I'm trying to get my work done. And it clogs up my email inbox.”
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 17, 2022
Recommended
OK, we’ll grant you that chronic “reply all” emails can get frustrating after a while, but still.
There's mixed reporting about what, exactly, happened at YLS. The Yale Daily News suggests that the protest occurred at the start of the event but did not meaningfully interrupt it. After the walkout at the beginning, the ADF attorney spoke uninterrupted. https://t.co/gqaXEmiXP8 pic.twitter.com/khLr4xXMV6
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 17, 2022
The Washington Free Beacon article complains that students protested in the hallway during the event, which irked those attending, but it does not say that anyone's speech was actually silenced. The video also confirms parts of the Yale Daily News report. https://t.co/Q5ny3NCoJt
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 17, 2022
From reports, video, and firsthand accounts, my read is that the protesters interrupted the event at the very beginning—before the ADF attorney started speaking—then either walked out (and protested in the hall) or held signs (without speaking) for the duration of the event.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 17, 2022
At a minimum, I think it is safe to say that YLS' decision to station two plainclothes officers in the room, then call in four armed officers to respond to the protest, was an overreaction.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjs_DC) March 17, 2022
Was it an overreaction, though?
In case you haven’t yet heard about the incident, here is what Judge Silberman is referring to by “the latest events at Yale Law School”:
FIRE is looking into the severe disruption of a @YaleLawSch discussion on a Supreme Court 1A case. Protesters stomped, shouted, and pounded the walls. Forcing the cancellation of speech you disagree with isn’t free speech—it’s an illiberal heckler's veto.https://t.co/bEOS2m6yZF
— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) March 17, 2022
2/ It’s disturbing to see those studying at a prestigious law school prevent the discussion of civil liberties and free speech issues. Effective legal advocacy requires engaging with opposing viewpoints, even those that are unpopular or offensive.
— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) March 17, 2022
3/ FIRE would happily defend protestors displaying signs, hosting competing events, and engaging opposing speakers during Q&A sessions to express their disagreement. But preventing speakers from being heard by shouting them down and drowning them out is not free speech.
— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) March 17, 2022
4/ Behavior that is rewarded will be repeated. Students must remain free to hold expressive events without fear of substantial disruption. We call upon @YaleLawSch to live up to its own promises and ensure that students are free to hear the widest array of speakers on campus.
— FIRE (@TheFIREorg) March 17, 2022
Sounds to us like maybe Judge Silberman et al. have a point, no?
(whispers — the "unpopular view here is law students shouting down and silencing a panel (to where they had to be evacuated for safety) while the purpose of the panel was to find common ground on free speech issues) https://t.co/Dr9AyDJXgM
— Blue Shift Blog (@BlueShiftBlog) March 17, 2022
Free speech is a good thing. Shouting down free speech … not so good. Why is this so difficult for Mark Joseph Stern to understand?
This but unironically. https://t.co/Yx0HfwUlMP
— Payton Alexander (@AlexanderPayton) March 17, 2022
based, tbh https://t.co/VevEAt4Pr5
— kaitlin (@thefactualprep) March 17, 2022
Based or just sensible, Judge Silberman is sounding pretty reasonable. Mark Joseph Stern is another story.
Imaging trying this and imagining that your readers are stupid enough to buy it. https://t.co/JqcY7gq1k5
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 17, 2022
Guy who did what Yale Law students did: "I'm the guy who did what Silberman did."
— Foster (@foster_type) March 17, 2022
Stern, in a few hours: pic.twitter.com/JsIRBUlDfW
— Charles C. W. Cooke (@charlescwcooke) March 17, 2022
Pssst! Mark! You and your ilk are, in fact, the baddies.
https://t.co/eCvUwXUp3b pic.twitter.com/lBzFUBOlY0
— Noam Blum (@neontaster) March 17, 2022
Oh. Am i supposed to be upset about the vanguard of the cancel culture movement being…..canceled? https://t.co/cf0Brihijm
— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) March 17, 2022
To quote Mr. Kruger, we’re not too worried about it.
Open enemies of speech should face proportionate consequences. https://t.co/YVytkrnhFw
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) March 17, 2022
Free expression of unpopular views should not be punished. Mobs shouting down people trying to freely express unpopular views are not the same thing; they are, in fact, the very opposite of the same thing. https://t.co/9u2HFdJRyD
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) March 17, 2022
Just to be clear, is it a good thing when mobs shout down campus speakers? Should that sort of anti-speech behavior be rewarded? Are the members of such mobs likely to be trustworthy with a law license? https://t.co/b7iL8c3obm
— Dan McLaughlin (@baseballcrank) March 17, 2022
***
Related:
Join the conversation as a VIP Member