8 ms·

The Federalist Society ideals involve "checking federal power, protecting individual liberty and interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning

The Federalist Society ideals involve "checking federal power, protecting individual liberty and interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning". If they truly cared about protecting individual liberty, they wouldn't have complained about one person's satire. They making a big fuss about it is quite antithetical to their organization's ideals.

BitwiseFool 5y ago
Perhaps, but I'm looking at this with a Machiavellian/Realpolitik lens. If you go after people who criticize you, even if those people are perfectly allowed to do so, you create a chilling effect and you signal that your organization has power and needs to be treated with care. Sure, it's perfectly legal to exercise your free speech rights, but dragging someone through the mud dissuades many people from making criticisms.
- Jcowell 5y ago
  This seems like a good method if you actually had the power to fully follow through and incredibly naive If it fails: it’s like if a king were to go against the church without even having the people or nobles on their side.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    I feel like an organization of lawyers can easily pony-up the resources for lawsuits designed to intimidate critics.
virgil_disgr4ce 5y ago
"Freedom! Freedom!! ... whoa, whoa, hold on, OUR freedom, not theirs!"
gotoeleven 5y ago
What if I made a flyer that promoted a "Black lives matter mostly peaceful arson and riot" ? Somehow I don't think Stanford would be saying "chill out it's just satire."
- krapp 5y ago
  For one thing, the flyer in the OP is satirically promoting a debate, not an actual insurrection.
- GPerson 5y ago
  I’m interested in a neutral explanation of why this post is widely downvoted. What is the significant difference between a satirical flyer titled “Black Lives Matter — Mostly Peaceful Arson and Riot” and a satirical flyer titled “The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection”? I’ll grant the second is more original, and perhaps wittier in the context of a mostly progressive law school audience. But both of these are intended to mock one side and entertain the other. Both of these are crass, and both implicitly defame. However only one of these would be met with a school-wide email from the university president apologizing for the offense and reaffirming commitments to support and promote diversity. I think this is what the original poster is asserting.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    If you posted a flyer calling for arson and riot, even satirically, it probably wouldn't have gone over well. This was a flyer advertising a talk. > But both of these are intended to mock one side and entertain the other. Both of these are crass, and both implicitly defame. So what? That's not illegal. You're allowed to criticize others—that's a key purpose of the First Amendment.
    - GPerson 5y ago
      Hello, Respectfully, I believe you’ve missed the point of my post, which is not to assert the validity or invalidity of either perspective (I agree both should be protected by the first amendment), but to question why the audience of this website downvoted the original post so readily, and to boost the opinion that there is a political bias in university administrations. Additionally, the flyer about Black Lives Matter could equally well be a talk.
      - krapp 5y ago
throwaway5752 5y ago
They are a Republican political organization and have been for decades. They provide a bench of bodies for appointments to forward Republican political policies on the judicial side. Their ideals are a worthless slogan, they operate on realpolitik. They get wealth and power for delivering tax cuts for people like the Scaifes and Mercers. This entire episode is completely on-brand.
- an_opabinia 5y ago
  You could call the Federalist Society's activities affirmative action for Republicans.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
spoonjim 5y ago
You are quite wrong, the Federalist Society ideals involve pushing Republican tax cuts through the cap-and-gown sector of American society.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

Perhaps, but I'm looking at this with a Machiavellian/Realpolitik lens. If you go after people who criticize you, even if those people are perfectly allowed to do so, you create a chilling effect and you signal that your organization has power and needs to be treated with care. Sure, it's perfectly legal to exercise your free speech rights, but dragging someone through the mud dissuades many people from making criticisms.

Jcowell 5y ago
This seems like a good method if you actually had the power to fully follow through and incredibly naive If it fails: it’s like if a king were to go against the church without even having the people or nobles on their side.
- BitwiseFool 5y ago
  I feel like an organization of lawyers can easily pony-up the resources for lawsuits designed to intimidate critics.

virgil_disgr4ce 5y ago

"Freedom! Freedom!! ... whoa, whoa, hold on, OUR freedom, not theirs!"

gotoeleven 5y ago

What if I made a flyer that promoted a "Black lives matter mostly peaceful arson and riot" ? Somehow I don't think Stanford would be saying "chill out it's just satire."

krapp 5y ago
For one thing, the flyer in the OP is satirically promoting a debate, not an actual insurrection.
GPerson 5y ago
I’m interested in a neutral explanation of why this post is widely downvoted. What is the significant difference between a satirical flyer titled “Black Lives Matter — Mostly Peaceful Arson and Riot” and a satirical flyer titled “The Originalist Case for Inciting Insurrection”? I’ll grant the second is more original, and perhaps wittier in the context of a mostly progressive law school audience. But both of these are intended to mock one side and entertain the other. Both of these are crass, and both implicitly defame. However only one of these would be met with a school-wide email from the university president apologizing for the offense and reaffirming commitments to support and promote diversity. I think this is what the original poster is asserting.
- mcphage 5y ago
  If you posted a flyer calling for arson and riot, even satirically, it probably wouldn't have gone over well. This was a flyer advertising a talk. > But both of these are intended to mock one side and entertain the other. Both of these are crass, and both implicitly defame. So what? That's not illegal. You're allowed to criticize others—that's a key purpose of the First Amendment.
  - GPerson 5y ago
    Hello, Respectfully, I believe you’ve missed the point of my post, which is not to assert the validity or invalidity of either perspective (I agree both should be protected by the first amendment), but to question why the audience of this website downvoted the original post so readily, and to boost the opinion that there is a political bias in university administrations. Additionally, the flyer about Black Lives Matter could equally well be a talk.
    - krapp 5y ago

throwaway5752 5y ago

They are a Republican political organization and have been for decades. They provide a bench of bodies for appointments to forward Republican political policies on the judicial side. Their ideals are a worthless slogan, they operate on realpolitik. They get wealth and power for delivering tax cuts for people like the Scaifes and Mercers. This entire episode is completely on-brand.

an_opabinia 5y ago
You could call the Federalist Society's activities affirmative action for Republicans.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

spoonjim 5y ago

You are quite wrong, the Federalist Society ideals involve pushing Republican tax cuts through the cap-and-gown sector of American society.