'F*** the Law!': CUNY Law School Students Disrupt Professor's Lecture on Free Speech
A law professor was heckled and shouted down during a recent speech at the City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law by students who opposed his conservative views.
Josh Blackman, a professor at the South Texas College of Law, was invited last month by CUNY Law’s Federalist Society chapter to give a lecture on “The Importance of Free Speech on Campus.”
As he tried to give his talk, Blackman was repeatedly interrupted by protesters holding signs with slogans like “Rule of Law = White Supremacy” and "Oppressors are not welcome here."
At one point during his lecture, a protester yelled, "F*** the law!"
Blackman responded that it was a "bizarre" thing for a law student to say.
He noted that CUNY Law Dean Mary Lu Bilek defended the students after the event and said that they were engaging in a reasonable protest.
"This was not a reasonable protest," Blackman stated.
[Video in article]
Tags
Who is online
112 visitors
These law students will be lawyers, law professors, and judges in a few years, but they shout FUCK THE LAW to shut down someone's free speech at a lecture whose topic is free speech and why we should protect it. Absolutely stunning!!
I applaud these young people for their courage in speaking up. Who's protecting their free speech? They are. Protection of free speech doesn't mean sitting quietly until some social misfit finishes spewing vitriol. Some conservative views will elicit the opposite reaction of equal magnitude. With few exceptions free speech is still a 2 way street in America. Get used to it.
What courage? How was this courageous? I see multiple people bullying one man standing alone against them. If there is anyone with courage in this picture, it's the invited speaker in the suit.
Who's threatening it? No one! The only person whose speech needs defending is the guy at the podium.
He's a law professor. How does that make him a social misfit? And what - specifically - in his speech would you classify as "vitriol?"
you are so wrong! Law students are there to learn not disrespect their instructor.
After they graduate, if they do and pass their bar exam, if they do, then is the time to throw in their two cents.
"With few exceptions free speech is still a 2 way street in America. Get used to it. "
Obviously a lecture is one of those exceptions. How do you not understand that? Do you shout down actors at a theater too?
Your comment is SO way out of line. Obviously you're not a lawyer.
Apparently people on the Right do.
It lasted for two songs during the performance.
There should be a special number added to all musicals just for the left called "Whataboutism".
I can't help that one of your own asked a question of which I had the answer. If you don't like the answer then fix your party.
Cool. They were very brave apparently.
Actually, the person doing the shouting during the performance was an asshat.
There was that Shakespeare play that depicted Trump that also got shouted down - I guess "shouting down" has become the new method of censorship in the USA.
Especially when it has to do with telling the truth about Trump.
Everyone has the right to free speech but that doesn't include disrupting someone else's speech, it doesn't matter if it's left or right if you disrupt or make a nuisance of yourself you should be ejected or arrested. I support their right to hold their own event in which they can make their own speeches or they can picket the event (outside the event) but to attend an event for the specific purpose of disrupting it is disturbing the peace and it is against the law, it is not free speech.
One of your own would clearly disagree. It's two way...
I don't care if they disagree with me, it's the American way, you should learn this. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but, not their own facts.
Exactly.
Protection of free speech doesn't mean sitting quietly until some social misfit finishes spewing vitriol.
Who says he is spewing vitriol? To liberals vitriol is anything they don't agree with. They were trying to censor and suppress his speech, which is an old and common left wing tactic.
You would be correct if you had said;
To partisans, vitriol is anything they disagree with. Censorship and suppression are old and common human tactics.
Actually, my memory may be faulty there. Perhaps all that happened was many in the audience disagreed with what was produced, and some sponsors told the company they just blew their sponsorship. Is removing sponsorship a form of censorship? If so, it can be effective when the country runs on dollars.
Actors? Law students? Where is there any comparison?
Way over your head, huh?
It is not a free speech right to shutdown another’s free speech nor the ability of those trying to hear said free speech to be able to hear it.
It’s their Antifa way.
Once again you are ignorant of what our free speech protections are.
Free speech only says that you cannot be fined or arrested by the government for your speech until that speech becomes an imminent threat to others.
You do not have the right not to be criticized or heckled by other people for your views because doing so would be a restriction on their same free speech rights. This was not a violation of his constitutional rights, unless you can prove that they are government employees and he was fined for arrested after his lecture.
Free Speech only means you can't be arrested for What You Say (as in Subject Matter), it doesn't mean you can say it anywhere or anytime you want. Try to exercise your "Free Speech" in a Movie Theater, Restaurant, or a Court and they'll ask you to leave and if you refuse you'll be arrested. If you stand on your own front lawn a 3am exercising your Free Speech and your neighbor calls the Cops you'll be told to Stop or face Arrest. The only reason these Hecklers weren't arrested is because this Law School apparently lets their students run wild and disrespect guest speakers with no repercussions. They may have gotten away with disrupting this Guys Speech but if you believe it was because they had the right to do it because of Free Speech Protections you are Dead Wrong.
Soon as I seen that I thought of Kathy Griffin.
She is the epitome of the hard left, I just seen a plea om how life sucks for her.
So how do you feel about that ban she had?
Comedians often cross the line of what is considered good taste. It is part of the job. She moved on and is back on tour with limited dates.
I was unaware that as a lefty I had to like Kathy Griffin because I never found her funny. I never liked Joan Rivers, Jay Leno or Jerry Seinfeld.
And, yet, those of us on the right, at least according to the leftists, must love Donald Trump. You folks probably have a very small clue. I don't even like Trump, I simply despise him less than I despise Hillary and the rest of the Leftist leadership. I think that you'll find that most on the right think the same.
It must difficult for you to understand the way things work in this country, a person can have a difference of opinion in this country, it's the facts that often get in the way of someone's opinion.
Perhaps that both events were disrupted by protestors. Duh.
I am honestly bewildered at the idea that someone is actually admitted to a law school and is incapable of supporting the 1st Amendment, not to mention conflating the ideas of white supremacy and free speech.
Free speech only means that you are not fined or arrested for your speech. Free speech rights do not mean that you aren't criticized for your ideas/speech. If that were the law then the free speech of everyone else would be curtailed in comparison to yours. These students were rude and juvenile but they did not in any way deprive this man of his free speech rights because they could not, unless they were employed by the government.
I saw no one grabbing him, hitting him or preventing him from speaking. The one who responded with "F the Law" to his jab about if you don't like white supremacy then change the law was of course out of line. but it did not appear his freedom to speak was being thwarted. Sure, he was surrounded by counter views to his own and wished he could go back to his safe space in Texas where more people think like he does and don't want to treat DACA recipients with respect or as humans, but he certainly wasn't prevented from speaking. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences of that speech, it means you can say what you want without fear of the government carting you away, but everyone else has the freedom to think you're an ignorant racist waste of space and tell you so to your face.
It seems the real snowflakes who can't take the heat of some hand drawn signs are conservatives.
Your attitude in this makes me shake my head about what a sad world this has become. I won't be around much longer to see where society is headed, but I especially feel sorry for my children and grandchildren who will witness the destruction of civility.
Yes and yes! You are an attorney. Would you have had the audacity to treat your professor this way even if you disagreed?
Good morning Mango!
Donut?
I'm partial to sour cream myself.
Only if I wanted to get booted out of law school - for establishing that I didn't have what it takes to be a lawyer.
Ideas are scary! Musn't let lawyers hear something they don't like.
This guy is an originalist, which is illogical. That idea doesn't get any better if you hear him or you don't. I would have liked to be there any play devil's advocate.
What do you mean by originalist??
He is a constitutional literalist. Scalia was another one of these hypocritical idiots. These people claim to only read the original words of the constitution and ignore the writer's other works or how the combustion or society has changed with time, until those other ideas are in their favor. They like to claim that the Constitution is not a living document.
A free speech originalist should not be on the internet because it was never considered at the time of the writing, so it is not protected speech.
That might be the silliest, most ignorant description of originalism, I've ever seen. Congrats on that, at least.
It wouldn't matter if he's a unicorn. He was an invited guest who was approved by the law school to give a speech. As is virulently common these days starting in Kindergarten, the Left shut down his right to speak about EVERYONE'S right to free speech.
Your reply was far from convincing.
The first thing the Law School Dean said to us on our first day in law school was that the first thing we were going to have to know is that there are at least two sides to every story, and we are going to have to listen to and learn and be as prepared to argue every side as well as the one we represent. Only then can we call ourselves lawyers.
Looks to me like Canadian law students are better prepared to be Lawyers than close-minded American ones.
Most of the time there are more than 2 sides, unless it is completely binary argument.
They would have been intelligent to sit down and then engage him in a debate than a juvenile shouting match
Absolutely right. I pity the clients these children will have when they (or if they) graduate.
I don't believe in shouting down speakers, particularly when they are giving a scheduled and promoted talk in a hall or auditorium. If they were outside on a street corner it might be a different story. They should let him give his speech.
It does make me curious as to why students would oppose this guy so drastically. I'll have to look him up and see what nutty far right positions he espouses.
From what I posted about being aware of every side of an argument, does it really matter, John? An uneducated trash-hat or a person with a very low IQ can be tolerated, but a potential lawyer? You cannot learn, even if it's just to be prepared to argue a different point of view, if your mind is closed.
" You cannot learn, even if it's just to be prepared to argue a different point of view, if your mind is closed."
There is a very good Navajo proverb that sort of covers that:
Is you mind open or closed.
The topic is not me. Don't try to derail.' K?
I think the audience never learned grandpappy's adage, that when you're talking, you ain't learning nothin'.
So very closed.
Why not? You do it to me all the time on my seeds, making me instead of the seeded topic the issue. Well said Greg.
"that when you're talking, you ain't learning nothin'."
Very true. And there is an old Cherokee Proverb as well....
LOL
He's a member of the Federalist Society. Any sane lawyer would have a problem with that.
A sane lawyer SHOULDN'T have a problem with that - if he is so deranged, then it should be easy to debate him to the extent of making a fool of him. The issue here is that either they were incapable of debating him or didn't have the legal wherewithal to make it an exercise to hone their arguing/debating ability, but simply acted like spoiled children instead.
F... the Law -
Such a well thought out and professionally articulated argument.
University is doing a great job.
well I doubt if any of these individuals , if they ever pass the bar in any state , would be of the caliber of a $500 an hr attorney, you'ld be better off calling Saul.
I would love to be in the gallery and watch one of these mental midgets in court , tell any judge , to f*ck the law or the rule of law, they will find out real quick how much "free speech" they have within the walls of the bench and thre justice that sits at its head that day.
I doubt any of these geniuses will graduate let alone pass the bar. They don't have the intellectual capacity.
They can always go to Berkeley and be among their level of ignorance.
Ah, yes, The Peoples Republic of Berzerkeley!
Tough call here. Free speech for those conservatives who, if they could, would remove free speech.
You mean those "students" that attempted to silence the speaker mention in the seed, the "protesters" at Berkley and other places that attempted to keep Ben Shapiro and others from speaking and the group in Portland Oregon who threatened violence if a Republican group would have been allowed to March in the parade and other like them were all conservatives? Tell me of one place where the conservatives have threatened someone's speech in some way.
No.
And where conservatives threaten free speech? How about Gorka and Miller for starters.
and they did what?
Hasn't Trump himself threatened to "jail" reporters?
Please give documented examples with links to show where and how Gorka and Miller shut down free speech and wouldn't allow people to speak.
Left wing lie.
Nope. A right wing goal.
Taking a knee is free speech. Trump wants those players to be fired.
Here is a list of his various First Amendment opposition,
Obama actually had reporters surveilled trying to squash free speech. Obama was more of a threat to our civil liberties than any other president in history.
ya got that right
Free speech is a two way street, if you do not care for what is being said, well don't listen.
A voice of reason, in a sea of partisan comments.
Full disclosure, this was where I did my undergrad. The law school is part of Queens College.
I have no problem with this guy speaking. I don't know if they did or didn't, but they should have a Q&A after at which time, these students could speak. They can protest outside of the auditorium. This way, no one's free speech is encumbered.
And the kid with "F the law", needs to have a meeting with the dean about maybe a new career direction.
But what saddens me, as I read this article and the comments that go along with it, is that everyone is trying to silence each other, but with different tactics. It is truly disturbing. Without free speech, our Constitution means nothing.
I am disturbed at the dean's reaction. While I agree that these kids had the right to protest, I don't agree with how it was handled. When it comes to free speech, the rule of thumb is usually, the right of free speech ends, when it steps on someone else's toes... and this certainly did.. and a dean of a law school should know that.
Well said!
Agreed..
What happened to speech and debate? It 'was' such an important part of communication .. individuals stating their positions, with a debate to follow - one could form a more educated opinion, based on the varying views presented .. seems as though college campuses (as an example - it is happening everywhere) are no longer embracing this form of communication. (Too much I am right and you are wrong .. makes it difficult to see through the 'fog' of partisanship .. in my opinion)
I was a child during the protests of the 60's and 70's over Vietnam .. things became violent, understanding/communication was lost ... there is a song that remains relative.. yet I think the meaning of is misinterpreted....
Peace!
I love that song! We must be about the same age.
Again, I totally agree. But please note, only Vic said something positive about our discussion... everyone else is caught up in their partisanship.
My youngest is 17, does not think he has all the answer - has been involved in speech and debate since his Freshman year ... as a mom, I am a non conformist - and have raised him to think for himself and to speak his mind with respect.
I am honestly confused by what I am seeing happening .. my hat has been off to the young people of Parkland for coming together and speaking their minds - yet I was lost when 'seemingly' a decision was made that a specific position was the correct one and all others were wrong. Is this what America is to look forward to? Is this the 'leadership' to be applauded? Discussion will no longer be relevant just do as one is told to do? .................. is that not what so many are complaining about Trump for doing the same (?) he is acting like a dictator and that his way is the right way - and that he bullies on Social media and in the press?
I am confident that as time goes on things will begin to make more sense to me - as of now, I do not understand shouting over others, demanding ones right to do/speak as they believe - while trying to diminish another's right to speak their beliefs .. scarily those that shout over others are being applauded for having 'courage' .. takes more courage to listen to others views ... and have a conversation!
I turned 52 in February ... Yay : )
Vic has always been open minded to my opinions and research - his opinions/view points are strong - yet, it has always been my experience that Vic does not hesitate to consider 'non combative' input, even if he does not agree.
(of course, as always just my opinion : )
Well said. Often, the best counter to an idiot on the podium is to allow the idiot to speak.
That's dumb, let the man give his speech, be a respectful audience member.