Oakbear said:

---

every time I see this type of post it reminds me of when I was at Cal, about 1960

we had a guy from the John Birch Society that wanted to talk to us

we listened then laughed and basically tore him a new one

BUT WE LISTENED

---

GMP said:

---

Feels like a lot of you are being played, just like those Stanford students were played: what happened in that video is exactly what the Federalist Society hoped for when they invited this judge.

---

juarezbear said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

God help us if those Stanfurd law students ever become lawyers or judges. They are straight out of the Cultural Revolution.

---

Sadly, things aren't any better at Cal for Jewish students.

---

GMP said:

---

Feels like a lot of you are being played, just like those Stanford students were played: what happened in that video is exactly what the Federalist Society hoped for when they invited this judge.

---

berserkeley said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

calumnus said:

---

TomBear said:

---

If that sh__ happened at Berkeley, I would condemn it just as I condemn what happened at 'furd. It was stupid, illustrated the worst of our youth, and accomplished nothing (other than bringing negative attention to some priviledged children. College is a place for debate and sharing of different ideas (among other things). As far as I'm concerned, each one should be either kicked out, suspended or otherwise penalized.

---

Similar things HAVE happened in Berkeley. It was not set up as a debate. And while I do not endorse the actions of protesters (mostly due to efficacy, they are playing into a narrative), the 1st Amendment was not created to protect speeches by government officials from protest, it is the opposite, and a state-run school penalizing students for protesting the actions of government officials seems like a clear violation of the Constitution.

---

Not sure if your 1st Am argument is about Furd or the prior Cal instances. If Furd…private school so the students don't have a 1st Am leg to stand on.

To the extent they are arguing the spirit of the 1st Am protects their right to protest that same spirit extends to the guest speaker.

Finally, the more notable semi-recent Cal protests against right of center speakers was against commentators / columnists (Ann Coulter and that guy who's name I can't remember), not government speakers.

---

The argument was that if Cal expelled, suspended, or otherwise penalized students for engaging in protected political speech, it would be a violation of the First Amendment. There is no legal argument that the protestors violated the speaker's First Amendment rights because the protestors are not the government. That it the speaker was a government official makes the protestor's speech even more protected under the First Amendment. The First Amendment was created specifically to protect the right to protest the government so any governmental restrictions against such protest would be judged by the strictest scrutiny.

This is not to argue that what the protestors did was acceptable. Just that it was Constitutionally protected speech.

---

NVBear78 said:

---

GMP said:

---

Feels like a lot of you are being played, just like those Stanford students were played: what happened in that video is exactly what the Federalist Society hoped for when they invited this judge.

---

What?

---

GMP said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

GMP said:

---

Feels like a lot of you are being played, just like those Stanford students were played: what happened in that video is exactly what the Federalist Society hoped for when they invited this judge.

---

What?

---

This is what the Federalist Society college groups want. They want to create a news story. They want to let the leftist students make themselves look bad. They want people talking about it.

My guess, and it's a guess, is the leaders of the campus chapter are hoping it will make a name for themselves within Fed Soc circles, thus increasing their likelihood of landing a good job out of college.

I would bet that the Fed Soc students left that presentation not feeling stifled or suppressed but high fiving each other - working quickly to get the video edited, uploaded and circulated.

---

NVBear78 said:

---

GMP said:

---

NVBear78 said:

---

GMP said:

---

Feels like a lot of you are being played, just like those Stanford students were played: what happened in that video is exactly what the Federalist Society hoped for when they invited this judge.

---

What?

---

This is what the Federalist Society college groups want. They want to create a news story. They want to let the leftist students make themselves look bad. They want people talking about it.

My guess, and it's a guess, is the leaders of the campus chapter are hoping it will make a name for themselves within Fed Soc circles, thus increasing their likelihood of landing a good job out of college.

I would bet that the Fed Soc students left that presentation not feeling stifled or suppressed but high fiving each other - working quickly to get the video edited, uploaded and circulated.

---

I am shocked at people like the Stanfraud Law students unwilling to listen to a different point of view. All conservatives I know are astounded at the unwillingness of the other side to even listen to let alone consider a different point of view. Berkeley is home of the free speech movement yet the left in our country apparently wants to live in a bubble and only hear one point of view regurgitated to them.

Watch the video of the event which prevented a Federal judge from even speaking and tell me how that was a good thing? Do those young Stanfurd students have all knowledge of all points of views and ways that society may be organized. Can they not benefit from hearing anothers point of view?

I would bet you a million Top Dogs that it was the intention of the Federalist Society and the Judge to provide an alternate point of view to the folks at Stanfurd and not to have a disruption of this nature.

---

TomBear said:

---

The idea of these children becoming judges is disagreeable to the highest degree (no pun intended).

---

calpoly said:

---

TomBear said:

---

The idea of these children becoming judges is disagreeable to the highest degree (no pun intended).

---

I would take these "children" over Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Roberts, and Barrett on the Supreme Court!

---