Was it smart for a CUNY Law student to try to stop Prof. Josh Blackman from speaking by yelling “Fuck the law?” Did this student’s friends and classmates think it wise trying to shut down a speech on, of all things, free speech?
Is this what they learn at CUNY Law? That if you don’t like the arguments or positions of another you scream and yell and have a tantrum?
Does anyone think this is good training for lawyers?
What would a judge think of such lawyers? What would clients think?
Is their training so shoddy that they don’t grasp there are differences of opinion on how a law or the constitution is read? Do they understand that certain things are inherently subject to interpretation, such as “unreasonable” search and seizure or “cruel and unusual” punishments?
Do they really think that the way to “beat” a conservative legal theorist is to holler?
Is their education so deficient that they don’t understand the long-term debate between those that think (loosely) that the Constitution is a living breathing document to be interpreted with the times and those that think it shouldn’t?
Do they understand that reasonable people can disagree on interpretations without name-calling? Do they not know that liberal icon Notorious R.B.G. was great friends with liberal boogeyman Antonin Scalia? Do they not know that sometimes liberals actually fall in love with conservatives and marry?
Why are they afraid of words? Shouldn’t people secure in their ideas welcome the opportunity to openly debate? Are they afraid that in the marketplace of ideas they are unable to sell what they have? Do they understand that when they yell and scream others assume that they can’t win a debate?
How can someone get to law school not knowing that if you disagree with what a laws says, that the law can be changed? Have any of then ever tried?
Do they think that trying to shout down Josh Blackman will somehow change the law?
Are they so foolish that they don’t understand that the First Amendment is not a liberal thing, or a conservative thing, but an American thing?
Are they so clueless they don’t grasp that if one of them was stupidly arrested for holding a stupid sign calling Josh Blackman stupid names, that it would be the same Josh Blackman defending their right to display their stupidity to the world?
Have they never heard the saying, “I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it?”
Are they so daft that they fail to understand the magnitude of difference between interpreting what an existing law is, and advocating for what one hopes it should be?
More to the point, perhaps, but if these students are unable to tell the difference between interpreting the law and advocating for changes in the law, why are they in law school? What firm would ever hire them if they can’t grasp such a concept? Why would any firm trust a client to them? What client could possibly want them?
How could such lawyers, hell-bent on trying to shout down the opposition, ever argue a point of law in court? Indeed, how could they even handle a residential closing? A contract? A transaction of any kind?
And this is a public interest law school? What public interest group would want lawyers so terrified of their opponents that they feel the need to shout them down?
Have you ever met a client, lawyer or judge who felt such behavior was persuasive to make a point? Have any friends or family ever thought that shouting someone down was persuasive argument?
Which is more likely to occur, that these people will be disappointed as lawyers, or that they will be disappointing to clients?
…The protest, I think, shows a narrow-mindedness on the students’ part, and an unwillingness to listen to substantive argument. But the heckling, which seems like an organized attempt to keep Blackman from speaking, is something much worse — something that universities ought to punish, and that I would think many universities would indeed punish, at least in other situations….
Josh Blackman And The Guy Who Wanted To Hear (Greenfield @ Simple Justice)
…It was a talk about free speech on campus. Josh was invited. Some students, however, didn’t want him to speak and instead wanted him to know he was unwelcome.
The best answer to “why Josh” seems to be that these students were knee-jerk antagonistic to anyone, any idea, that wasn’t theirs. Children do this, which makes it all the more ironic that when they were finally shut down by an administrator, one protester responded, “we’re not children. You can’t talk to us like that.” Children say that, too….
The Disgrace at CUNY Law School (Hawyard @ Powerline):
…Prof. Blackman was greeted with a protest that was off the chart even on the usual scale of infantile campus protests. Go see his own full account and pictures of the event at his website. Among other offenses, Blackman had written that the Trump Administration was legally correct to rescind DACA because it exceeded the President’s authority. But Blackman supports enacting DACA through proper congressional legislation. This was apparently not sufficient for “law” students at CUNY Law….
“F*ck the law” – CUNY Law students attempt shout-down of conservative law prof (Jacobson @ Legal Insurrection)
…Blackman was invited to speak by the Federalist Society Chapter at the City University of New York (CUNY) Law School. That did not sit well with some progressive law school activists, who tried to shut down and shout-down the event…
CUNY students call law prof ‘racist’ for supporting free speech (Sabes @ Campus Reform)
…Blackman told Campus Reform that he was “shocked” by the disruption, saying this was the first time he was protested.
“I had hoped they would protest before my speech, and ask me tough questions afterwards,” he said. “Instead, they decided to heckle and interrupt me. At the time, I had no idea if or when they would stop heckling. Fortunately, it did not last the entire time.”…
…As you can see from the video, Blackman abandoned his planned remarks about free speech and instead tried to engage the protesters on their substantive criticisms of him, such as his writings about DACA. He explained that he actually supports the DREAM Act and would have voted for it in Congress, but that he believes the DACA policy — which President Obama adopted after Congress failed to pass the DREAM Act — was “not consistent with the rule of law.” He cited this (over jeers and interruptions) as an example of how one can “support something as a matter of policy, but find that the law does not permit it. And then the answer is to change the law.”
That sounds like the premise of an interesting debate, but the protesters would have none of it. Instead, they shouted out that he was “gaslighting” them and “lying to [him]self” — apparently, they already understood his views better than he did, so there was no need for any intellectual engagement. When an administrator intervened to remind the group that they had to let Blackman speak, they asked her, “Why are you bringing racists into your school” and (before Blackman had spoken more than a few prefatory words) “Why are you not providing support for students affected by this hate speech?”…