4 ms·

I think this is one of those extreme cases. The student should be admonished, his actions were presented as absolutely legitimate, and that could have caused ha

I think this is one of those extreme cases. The student should be admonished, his actions were presented as absolutely legitimate, and that could have caused harm. What if someone saw the flyer and decided to react violently not realizing it was just satire? While I’m all for speech being protected, in this case the student’s actions were reckless. Keep him from graduating? No, not that serious, but certainly a stern admonishment that satire is fine but don’t try and pass it off as truth.

awillen 5y ago
This happened at Stanford Law School... these are highly educated people who can recognize satire. None of them were going to engage in violent insurrection because of this. He was also very obviously not trying to pass it off as truth.
- teachingassist 5y ago
  Given that I've never heard of the Stanford Federalist Society, I would be unable to identify this as satire. It's presented as any other official flyer from that organisation might be. In a way, it's defamation - a false statement (in its accreditation) that harms the organisation's reputation. For some people, this will be their first experience of that organisation, and those people have no reason to take it as satire.
  - ModernMech 5y ago
    Please join the Stanford Federalist Society as we welcome Senator Joshua Hawley and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to discuss violent insurrection. Violent insurrection, also known as doing a coup, is a classical system of installing a government. Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government. Senator Hawley will argue that the ends justify the means. Attorney General Paxton will explain that when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy. This is dripping in satire. Pretty hard to miss.
    - BitwiseFool 5y ago
      That's the thing about well crafted satire - the really effective hard hitting kind is obvious to outsiders but will strike a chord with true believers.
    - teachingassist 5y ago
      Please check Poe's Law. Given that I know nothing about the characters here, I have no reason to believe that such people don't exist. A lot worse does exist in fringe politics.
      - ModernMech 5y ago
        You don't need to know anything about the characters here to understand the satire. "Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government." People who believe in limited government believe in the rule of law. Violent insurrection is pointed out to be in conflict with the rule of law, and at the same time held up to be a principle of limited government. Brilliant satire. "when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy." When would a violent mob ever be an appropriate alternative remedy to a free and fair election? The people who actually believe a violent mob is an appropriate remedy would never call the election "free and fair". They believe it was "rigged and stolen". This is what makes this piece satirical; it's making the case from the opposition's point of view while simultaneously refuting itself. Poe's law does not apply. You don't need smiles and winkey faces or a /s to know this is satire.
        teachingassist 5y ago
        This went over my head, I'm afraid. You're trying to explain why I should have understood this - which is fine, except that I genuinely didn't (having read the flyer in a level of depth that I normally wouldn't have given to a flyer). "Limited government" appears to be an American phrase that I'm not familiar with. According to my reading, the "free and fair election" quote could be sarcastic, from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe it was free or fair.
  - mcphage 5y ago
    > I would be unable to identify this as satire. That's more a statement about your reading comprehension skills than about the flyer.
  - awillen 5y ago
    But people who are at Stanford Law School, which is where the Stanford Federalist Society exists, would have heard of it. Whether you can identify it as satire is irrelevant because you are not the audience and you never would have seen it if not for the broader publicity. You're clearly wrong on this, as Stanford Law School has agreed that it is protected speech in the form of satire, and they're obviously much more qualified than you to make that judgement on several levels.
giaour 5y ago
The initial flier advertised a fake talk by US politicians on the subject of violent insurrection, so there was no invitation to actual violence. The listed date and time of the fake talk was 19 days prior to the flier's release, so there was no actual invitation to even attend a peaceful event. Please explain how someone could react violently by not realizing the flier was satire.
- meepmorp 5y ago
  I don't see why your perspective is any more valid than OP's, just because you took the time to read the article and have a grasp of the facts.
  - bilbo0s 5y ago
    This statement brilliantly sums up contemporary American social discourse.
    - avmich 5y ago
      Yes :) . "I measured the spectral characteristics of fresh snow and found that it reflects light in proportions making it appear to be white" - "This distinguished gentleman maintains that it was traditionally assumed since long time ago that snow doesn't reflect or emit light, which makes it black" - "I don't see why perspective of the first is any more valid than the second, just because the first took the time to conduct the experiments and have a grasp of the facts."
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

awillen 5y ago

This happened at Stanford Law School... these are highly educated people who can recognize satire. None of them were going to engage in violent insurrection because of this. He was also very obviously not trying to pass it off as truth.

teachingassist 5y ago
Given that I've never heard of the Stanford Federalist Society, I would be unable to identify this as satire. It's presented as any other official flyer from that organisation might be. In a way, it's defamation - a false statement (in its accreditation) that harms the organisation's reputation. For some people, this will be their first experience of that organisation, and those people have no reason to take it as satire.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  Please join the Stanford Federalist Society as we welcome Senator Joshua Hawley and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to discuss violent insurrection. Violent insurrection, also known as doing a coup, is a classical system of installing a government. Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government. Senator Hawley will argue that the ends justify the means. Attorney General Paxton will explain that when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy. This is dripping in satire. Pretty hard to miss.
  - BitwiseFool 5y ago
    That's the thing about well crafted satire - the really effective hard hitting kind is obvious to outsiders but will strike a chord with true believers.
  - teachingassist 5y ago
    Please check Poe's Law. Given that I know nothing about the characters here, I have no reason to believe that such people don't exist. A lot worse does exist in fringe politics.
    - ModernMech 5y ago
      You don't need to know anything about the characters here to understand the satire. "Although widely believed to conflict in every way with the rule of law, violent insurrection can be an effective approach to upholding the principle of limited government." People who believe in limited government believe in the rule of law. Violent insurrection is pointed out to be in conflict with the rule of law, and at the same time held up to be a principle of limited government. Brilliant satire. "when the Supreme Court refuses to exercise its Article III authority to overturn the results of a free and fair election, calling on a violent mob to storm the Capitol represents an appropriate alternative remedy." When would a violent mob ever be an appropriate alternative remedy to a free and fair election? The people who actually believe a violent mob is an appropriate remedy would never call the election "free and fair". They believe it was "rigged and stolen". This is what makes this piece satirical; it's making the case from the opposition's point of view while simultaneously refuting itself. Poe's law does not apply. You don't need smiles and winkey faces or a /s to know this is satire.
      - teachingassist 5y ago
        This went over my head, I'm afraid. You're trying to explain why I should have understood this - which is fine, except that I genuinely didn't (having read the flyer in a level of depth that I normally wouldn't have given to a flyer). "Limited government" appears to be an American phrase that I'm not familiar with. According to my reading, the "free and fair election" quote could be sarcastic, from the point of view of someone who doesn't believe it was free or fair.
- mcphage 5y ago
  > I would be unable to identify this as satire. That's more a statement about your reading comprehension skills than about the flyer.
- awillen 5y ago
  But people who are at Stanford Law School, which is where the Stanford Federalist Society exists, would have heard of it. Whether you can identify it as satire is irrelevant because you are not the audience and you never would have seen it if not for the broader publicity. You're clearly wrong on this, as Stanford Law School has agreed that it is protected speech in the form of satire, and they're obviously much more qualified than you to make that judgement on several levels.

giaour 5y ago

The initial flier advertised a fake talk by US politicians on the subject of violent insurrection, so there was no invitation to actual violence. The listed date and time of the fake talk was 19 days prior to the flier's release, so there was no actual invitation to even attend a peaceful event. Please explain how someone could react violently by not realizing the flier was satire.

meepmorp 5y ago
I don't see why your perspective is any more valid than OP's, just because you took the time to read the article and have a grasp of the facts.
- bilbo0s 5y ago
  This statement brilliantly sums up contemporary American social discourse.
  - avmich 5y ago
    Yes :) . "I measured the spectral characteristics of fresh snow and found that it reflects light in proportions making it appear to be white" - "This distinguished gentleman maintains that it was traditionally assumed since long time ago that snow doesn't reflect or emit light, which makes it black" - "I don't see why perspective of the first is any more valid than the second, just because the first took the time to conduct the experiments and have a grasp of the facts."
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]