Open/Close Menu وکیل | مشاوره رایگان | وکالت | وکیل آنلاین

Josh Chafts, Georgetown Law Professor He was criticized this week after taking to Twitter to defend “aggressive” protests in the homes of Supreme Court justices. Chafts explained that such mob actions should be allowed when “the mob is right.” For many who have seen the rise of threats and intolerance at our university, Chafts’s views capture the culture of many leftists. While many professors who seem to support the mob’s actions were surprised, this is it.By any means necessaryA justification used to justify everything from packaging to dismissal and disclosure of information in court.

While I have He opposed the arrest of the protesters because of their freedom of expressionI have been one of the outspoken critics of insulting and targeting judges in their homes.

On May 8, Chafts tweeted that “if the court had not fenced off this week to prevent protesters from coming anywhere, the ‘protest in the Supreme Court, not in the judge’s house’ would have been more convincing … and before “Oh” so you support J6 lmao! Trolls appear: the difference is * content *. When the mob is right, some (but not all!) More aggressive tactics are justified. “When not, no.”

There is no better line than that “when more thugs are right, some more aggressive tactics (but not all!) Are justified, academics support this age of anger.” “When not, no.” Chafts will probably tell us when offensive protests are necessary and when they are not. This is the license to support social media censorship.

we have Similar claims have been made Permission for what Nancy Pelosi called this weekJust angerAnd the mayor named Laurie LightfootCalling the troops

Anger can make any means of rational response. Eli Mistal, who writes for Above the Law Nation Justice Reporter, For example, Announced on MSNBCWithout any contradiction from the host, that “you do not communicate with [Trump supporters], You defeated them. “You do not negotiate with these people, you destroy them.”

Many have mentioned that Professor Ilya Shapiro Suspended due to a bad tweet She protested President Biden’s commitment to consider only black women candidates for the next post in court. Chafetz, however, scoffed at the idea that he might be punished for a tweet in support of the liberal mob. “People can tweet the @GeorgetownLaw tag (I’m so sorry, PR friends!), They will not fire me for a tweet you do not like,” he tweeted. (In accordance with News reportsChafetz then restricted access to his tweet).

This is probably true in the same way that Chafts explained. Reckless and even violent rhetoric is tolerable when aimed at conservatives or Republicans on campus. A conservative, libertarian, or even moderate faculty member today does not make such an assumption. The common view is that any dispute that involves conservative, libertarian, or conflicting views will lead to a request for suspension. With a relatively small number of such faculty members teaching in most colleges, the cooling effect is icy.

Concerns about consistent and consistent treatment of speech have long existed in universities. In previous posts, I’ve been a professor with a collection of disturbing comments about “Blowing up white peopleCondemn the police، He wants the Republicans to suffer، Suffocate police officers، Celebrating the death of conservatives، He called for the killing of Trump supportersSupporting Murder of conservative protesters And other oppressive statements, I also defended the right to freedom of expression of a professor at Rhode Island University Eric Lumis, Who defended the killing of a conservative protester and said he saw it “There is nothing wrong” with such acts of violence.

However, even when faculty members engage in hate speech on campus, there is a significant difference in how universities respond depending on the point of view. On the campus of the University of California, The masters actually gathered around a professor who physically attacked the fans of life and tore their screens. U.S. too It has been discussed before Professor Dr. Gregory Thatcher, a professor of public health at Fresno State University, who hired students to dispel life support messages written on sidewalks, mistakenly told life support students that they had no right to freedom of expression.

In all these controversies, my natural premise, despite the offensive content of the statements, is freedom of expression. I have the same tendency in this debate. Chafts should not be boycotted more than Shapiro for his tweets. Intolerance of views has increased in Georgetown, among others Retaliatory measures not only against professors, but also against student writers.

A university’s support for targeting lawyers and their families in their homes should be shocking, but it is not. This is a manifestation of our national anger addiction. Academics are not safe. In fact, they can rationalize and take advantage of such anger. The tool of the mob is justified when “the mob is right” … and many in academia and politics are eager to accept the “just wrath” of the mob.

Write a comment:


Your email address will not be published.