NVBear78 said:

---

Follow up questions:

• Do you support the Furd students in not allowing an opposing point of view (held by fifty of Americans) to be heard?
• And do you believe those Stanfurd Law students have the depth of wisdom, knowledge and experience to declare themselves "right" and all other points of view held by others as wrong?

---

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.

---

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.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

You mean it would have been protective IF this event happened at Cal, right? Because in this actual case it is not Constitutionally protected - Furd is a private institution, which means the government action criteria necessary to invoke 1st Amendment rights does not exist.

---

NVBear78 said:

---

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

---

Blueblood said:

---

"I want to thank you all for inviting
and allowing me, a stanfurd fan, to
appear on your BI Board!

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

I don't know, this recountment of the protest says that the students did let the judge speak -- he just chose not to because he got the response he wanted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-judge-kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

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.

---

You mean it would have been protective IF this event happened at Cal, right? Because in this actual case it is not Constitutionally protected - Furd is a private institution, which means the government action criteria necessary to invoke 1st Amendment rights does not exist.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

I don't know, this recountment of the protest says that the students did let the judge speak -- he just chose not to because he got the response he wanted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-judge-kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html

---

Not that it matters given the tape, but there also is now an audio out, that covers a longer period =, and demonstrates the Judge was trying for some time to get his speech off and that Slate, as one might expect, is full of it. Of course leaked by Fox News, who knows how to milk an opportunity. Enjoy:

Audio released of Judge Kyle Duncan's speech before Stanford Law School's Federalist Society chapter sheds new light on what transpired throughout the event. | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/media/unearthed-audio-stanford-offers-new-insight-protest-against-federal-judge

There is a reason that liberal commentators have been hammering the students/administrator - they did their due diligence. Only Stanford law students could provide a safe environment for bipartisanship criticism

---

Quote:

---

"At 26:53, one of the student demonstrators says, 'Ok, let's just let him finish his rant in complete silence so he can get that out and it can go into the newspaper or whatever. Just pointed silence until the Q&A.' Then the room fell completely silent. At this point, Judge Duncan abandoned his prepared remarks and jumped straight into the Q&A. This is important context because the tone of the conversation nationwide is that the student demonstrators never gave Duncan an opportunity to speak, which is not true. This is clear evidence of that, and the conversation is misleading without it. At the very least, it's worth mentioning in your timestamps because I think the narrative is incomplete without it."

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

I don't know, this recountment of the protest says that the students did let the judge speak -- he just chose not to because he got the response he wanted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-judge-kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html

---

Not that it matters given the tape, but there also is now an audio out, that covers a longer period =, and demonstrates the Judge was trying for some time to get his speech off and that Slate, as one might expect, is full of it. Of course leaked by Fox News, who knows how to milk an opportunity. Enjoy:

Audio released of Judge Kyle Duncan's speech before Stanford Law School's Federalist Society chapter sheds new light on what transpired throughout the event. | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/media/unearthed-audio-stanford-offers-new-insight-protest-against-federal-judge

There is a reason that liberal commentators have been hammering the students/administrator - they did their due diligence. Only Stanford law students could provide a safe environment for bipartisanship criticism

---

I think Fox is misconstruing (or providing spin I guess) on Lat's original article: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/the-full-audio-recording-of-judge

Quote:

---

"At 26:53, one of the student demonstrators says, 'Ok, let's just let him finish his rant in complete silence so he can get that out and it can go into the newspaper or whatever. Just pointed silence until the Q&A.' Then the room fell completely silent. At this point, Judge Duncan abandoned his prepared remarks and jumped straight into the Q&A. This is important context because the tone of the conversation nationwide is that the student demonstrators never gave Duncan an opportunity to speak, which is not true. This is clear evidence of that, and the conversation is misleading without it. At the very least, it's worth mentioning in your timestamps because I think the narrative is incomplete without it."

---

Willing to grant you that being heckled would likely lead one to not want to continue prepared remarks, but the guy clearly heard an opportunity for combat and jumped to it. I don't think its hard to construe a motivation for that.

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

eastbayyoungbear said:

---

I don't know, this recountment of the protest says that the students did let the judge speak -- he just chose not to because he got the response he wanted: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/03/trump-judge-kyle-duncan-stanford-law-scotus-audition.html

---

Not that it matters given the tape, but there also is now an audio out, that covers a longer period =, and demonstrates the Judge was trying for some time to get his speech off and that Slate, as one might expect, is full of it. Of course leaked by Fox News, who knows how to milk an opportunity. Enjoy:

Audio released of Judge Kyle Duncan's speech before Stanford Law School's Federalist Society chapter sheds new light on what transpired throughout the event. | Fox News

https://www.foxnews.com/media/unearthed-audio-stanford-offers-new-insight-protest-against-federal-judge

There is a reason that liberal commentators have been hammering the students/administrator - they did their due diligence. Only Stanford law students could provide a safe environment for bipartisanship criticism

---

I think Fox is misconstruing (or providing spin I guess) on Lat's original article: https://davidlat.substack.com/p/the-full-audio-recording-of-judge

Quote:

---

"At 26:53, one of the student demonstrators says, 'Ok, let's just let him finish his rant in complete silence so he can get that out and it can go into the newspaper or whatever. Just pointed silence until the Q&A.' Then the room fell completely silent. At this point, Judge Duncan abandoned his prepared remarks and jumped straight into the Q&A. This is important context because the tone of the conversation nationwide is that the student demonstrators never gave Duncan an opportunity to speak, which is not true. This is clear evidence of that, and the conversation is misleading without it. At the very least, it's worth mentioning in your timestamps because I think the narrative is incomplete without it."

---

Willing to grant you that being heckled would likely lead one to not want to continue prepared remarks, but the guy clearly heard an opportunity for combat and jumped to it. I don't think its hard to construe a motivation for that.

---

STANFORD IS HIDING VIDEO: Stanford is refusing to provide video of event to Stanford Fed Soc, even though Fed Soc contracted with--and paid $150 to--Stanford AV support team to video event. Info is direct from a leader of Stanford's Fed Soc chapter.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 16, 2023

BearGoggles said:

---

A few points - some a bit belated.

Those claiming the first amendment doesn't apply to Furd are forgetting about the Leonard Law - the CA state law which makes the First Amendment applicable to Furd and this situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law

In terms of whether the Judge was prevented from speaking, I note that a video tape of the event apparently exists, the Federalist Society wants to release the tape, and Furd is refusing to provide a copy. Draw your own conclusions about that.

STANFORD IS HIDING VIDEO: Stanford is refusing to provide video of event to Stanford Fed Soc, even though Fed Soc contracted with--and paid $150 to--Stanford AV support team to video event. Info is direct from a leader of Stanford's Fed Soc chapter.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 16, 2023

Finally, I'll note that one of the clearest wrong doers in this case (Tirien Steinbach) is a Boalt grad . . .

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

A few points - some a bit belated.

Those claiming the first amendment doesn't apply to Furd are forgetting about the Leonard Law - the CA state law which makes the First Amendment applicable to Furd and this situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law

In terms of whether the Judge was prevented from speaking, I note that a video tape of the event apparently exists, the Federalist Society wants to release the tape, and Furd is refusing to provide a copy. Draw your own conclusions about that.

STANFORD IS HIDING VIDEO: Stanford is refusing to provide video of event to Stanford Fed Soc, even though Fed Soc contracted with--and paid $150 to--Stanford AV support team to video event. Info is direct from a leader of Stanford's Fed Soc chapter.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 16, 2023

Finally, I'll note that one of the clearest wrong doers in this case (Tirien Steinbach) is a Boalt grad . . .

---

If you want t hear the tape, just click on link in the Fox article I attached.

The letter to alums and the apology to the Judge, both penned by the Furd President, claim Furd's policy is to follow the First Amendment and that it was the Judge who was denied his First Amendment right to speak. The apology is public and can be googled. I'm not going to opine on any of that (not my area of law, and I probably should not have even posted on the heckler thing), other than to say what is in the apology and letter to law school alums is the college's position. I have not heard of any attempt to discipline students, and I suspect that Steinbach's career at Furd is over.

---

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

A few points - some a bit belated.

Those claiming the first amendment doesn't apply to Furd are forgetting about the Leonard Law - the CA state law which makes the First Amendment applicable to Furd and this situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law

In terms of whether the Judge was prevented from speaking, I note that a video tape of the event apparently exists, the Federalist Society wants to release the tape, and Furd is refusing to provide a copy. Draw your own conclusions about that.

STANFORD IS HIDING VIDEO: Stanford is refusing to provide video of event to Stanford Fed Soc, even though Fed Soc contracted with--and paid $150 to--Stanford AV support team to video event. Info is direct from a leader of Stanford's Fed Soc chapter.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 16, 2023

Finally, I'll note that one of the clearest wrong doers in this case (Tirien Steinbach) is a Boalt grad . . .

---

If you want t hear the tape, just click on link in the Fox article I attached.

The letter to alums and the apology to the Judge, both penned by the Furd President, claim Furd's policy is to follow the First Amendment and that it was the Judge who was denied his First Amendment right to speak. The apology is public and can be googled. I'm not going to opine on any of that (not my area of law, and I probably should not have even posted on the heckler thing), other than to say what is in the apology and letter to law school alums is the college's position. I have not heard of any attempt to discipline students, and I suspect that Steinbach's career at Furd is over.

---

That's their policy because (perhaps among other reasons) the law requires it. The president's letter was a good start - the question is whether there will be any follow through by imposing consequences on those involved. There were multiple deans in attendance - not just Steinbach. If there are not real consequences, the words and apology are empty.

And because a picture speaks a thousand words, I'd like to see the full video.

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

A few points - some a bit belated.

Those claiming the first amendment doesn't apply to Furd are forgetting about the Leonard Law - the CA state law which makes the First Amendment applicable to Furd and this situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law

In terms of whether the Judge was prevented from speaking, I note that a video tape of the event apparently exists, the Federalist Society wants to release the tape, and Furd is refusing to provide a copy. Draw your own conclusions about that.

STANFORD IS HIDING VIDEO: Stanford is refusing to provide video of event to Stanford Fed Soc, even though Fed Soc contracted with--and paid $150 to--Stanford AV support team to video event. Info is direct from a leader of Stanford's Fed Soc chapter.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 16, 2023

Finally, I'll note that one of the clearest wrong doers in this case (Tirien Steinbach) is a Boalt grad . . .

---

If you want t hear the tape, just click on link in the Fox article I attached.

The letter to alums and the apology to the Judge, both penned by the Furd President, claim Furd's policy is to follow the First Amendment and that it was the Judge who was denied his First Amendment right to speak. The apology is public and can be googled. I'm not going to opine on any of that (not my area of law, and I probably should not have even posted on the heckler thing), other than to say what is in the apology and letter to law school alums is the college's position. I have not heard of any attempt to discipline students, and I suspect that Steinbach's career at Furd is over.

---

That's their policy because (perhaps among other reasons) the law requires it. The president's letter was a good start - the question is whether there will be any follow through by imposing consequences on those involved. There were multiple deans in attendance - not just Steinbach. If there are not real consequences, the words and apology are empty.

And because a picture speaks a thousand words, I'd like to see the full video.

---

Stanford Asst. Dean of Diversity has been suspended per Law School Dean. Asst. Dean says she is on leave.

National ReviewStanford Law Dean Stands by Apology to Judge, Suspends Colleague Who Disrupted Lecture2 hours ago

Apparently the entire law school student body will be required to take mandatory educational programming on the first amendment. That should be will received from the students (sarcasm intended).

She also argued that the First Amendment (hecklers veto) didn't apply in this case. You can read her analysis in this article. State law (which is statutory) would follow Federal law in this case per the actual statue. The Dean teaches constitutional law.

My suspicion is the donor community has spoken and they are not happy.
[url=https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwjl1I_huvD9AhUWQTABHeGkDtgQvOMEKAB6BAgMEAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nationalreview.com%2Fnews%2Fstanford-law-dean-stands-by-apology-to-judge-suspends-colleague-who-disrupted-lecture%2F&usg=AOvVaw2ryM3tpLssrSPgvO92Cgaq][/url]

---

Cal88 said:

---

Blueblood said:

---

"I want to thank you all for inviting
and allowing me, a stanfurd fan, to
appear on your BI Board!

---

Blueblood, ...a dirty furd!?!



Shocking!

---

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

BearGoggles said:

---

A few points - some a bit belated.

Those claiming the first amendment doesn't apply to Furd are forgetting about the Leonard Law - the CA state law which makes the First Amendment applicable to Furd and this situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_Law

In terms of whether the Judge was prevented from speaking, I note that a video tape of the event apparently exists, the Federalist Society wants to release the tape, and Furd is refusing to provide a copy. Draw your own conclusions about that.

STANFORD IS HIDING VIDEO: Stanford is refusing to provide video of event to Stanford Fed Soc, even though Fed Soc contracted with--and paid $150 to--Stanford AV support team to video event. Info is direct from a leader of Stanford's Fed Soc chapter.

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) March 16, 2023

Finally, I'll note that one of the clearest wrong doers in this case (Tirien Steinbach) is a Boalt grad . . .

---

If you want t hear the tape, just click on link in the Fox article I attached.

The letter to alums and the apology to the Judge, both penned by the Furd President, claim Furd's policy is to follow the First Amendment and that it was the Judge who was denied his First Amendment right to speak. The apology is public and can be googled. I'm not going to opine on any of that (not my area of law, and I probably should not have even posted on the heckler thing), other than to say what is in the apology and letter to law school alums is the college's position. I have not heard of any attempt to discipline students, and I suspect that Steinbach's career at Furd is over.

---

That's their policy because (perhaps among other reasons) the law requires it. The president's letter was a good start - the question is whether there will be any follow through by imposing consequences on those involved. There were multiple deans in attendance - not just Steinbach. If there are not real consequences, the words and apology are empty.

And because a picture speaks a thousand words, I'd like to see the full video.

---

Stanford Asst. Dean of Diversity has been suspended per Law School Dean. Asst. Dean says she is on leave.

National ReviewStanford Law Dean Stands by Apology to Judge, Suspends Colleague Who Disrupted Lecture2 hours ago

Apparently the entire law school student body will be required to take mandatory educational programming on the first amendment. That should be will received from the students (sarcasm intended).

She also argued that the First Amendment (hecklers veto) didn't apply in this case. You can read her analysis in this article. State law (which is statutory) would follow Federal law in this case per the actual statue. The Dean teaches constitutional law.

My suspicion is the donor community has spoken and they are not happy.

---

She wrote an excellent letter. Here is the link for those inclined to read it

https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Next-Steps-on-Protests-and-Free-Speech.pdf

From what I can tell, the letter is being reasonably well received by people on both sides of the political aisle.

---