pageok
pageok
pageok
Columbia and the First Amendment:

The New York Sun reports that New York city and state government officials are threatening to retaliate against Columbia -- for instance, by cutting off various government subsidies for Columbia all its students -- for its inviting Ahmadinejad to speak:

[T]he speaker of the Assembly, Sheldon Silver, said lawmakers, outraged over Columbia's insistence on allowing the Iranian president to speak at its World Leaders Forum, would consider reducing capital aid and other financial assistance to the school....

"There are issues that Columbia may have before us that obviously this cavalier attitude would be something that people would recall," Mr. Silver said. "Obviously, there's some degree of capital support that has been provided to Columbia in the past. These are things people might take a different view of ... knowing that this is that kind of an institution."

Mr. Silver faulted Columbia for "attempting to legitimize this individual," saying, "We have an obligation because of the U.N. to allow him to come to this country. It doesn't mean we have to make him welcome. We don't have to give him a forum." ...

"Bollinger made a big mistake, and there should be consequences for him for making that decision," the chairman of the New York City Council's Finance Committee, David Weprin, said in an interview. "We should look at everything involving Columbia, whether it be capital projects, city and state, or other related things that we do in the city for them," he said....

Albany awards Columbia millions of dollars a year in student financial aid and also provides funding for smaller-scale capital projects. Last year, Albany awarded the school $10 million for nanotechnology center and $12 million for a cancer center in Washington Heights.

Columbia uses the state Dormitory Authority to borrow money at low interest rates. Mr. Silver could use his influence over the authority to weed out Columbia bonding projects before they are submitted for approval.

The school is also seeking approval from city lawmakers for its plan to expand into a 17-acre swath of land in West Harlem. Albany also has the power to use eminent domain to facilitate Columbia's expansion....

Naturally, the government is not obligated to provide most subsidies to Columbia. It can also insist that some subsidies not be used for speech of which the government disapproves: For instance, it can require that certain subsidies be used for speech about prenatal care but not for speech about abortion.

But the government may not say, "We'll give you this subsidy, but only if you promise not to say X, Y, or Z using your own money." That's what the Court held in FCC v. League of Women Voters, when it held that Congress can't say to public broadcasters, "We'll give you money, but only if you promise not to editorialize even using your own money." This is surely at least equally true if the extracted promise were viewpoint-based, for instance that the broadcaster (or, here, the university) wouldn't carry speech by enemies of America, or Holocaust deniers, or anti-Semites.

Here, the government isn't saying, "We'll give you this subsidy, but only if you don't invite anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers." Rather, it seems to be threatening to say, "We won't give you future subsidies because you invited anti-Semitic Holocaust deniers." But the latter ought to be at least as constitutionally troublesome as the former (perhaps even more so because it requires subsidy recipients to guess as to what speech will cause them to lose their subsidies).

Now if the government were to say, "Here's a subsidy, which we want you to use for praise of racial and religious tolerance," then it could insist that this subsidy isn't used for other speech. If Columbia then wanted to invite Ahmadinejad to speak, it would have to make sure that all his funding came from sources other than this subsidy. But the government can't use its funding as a means to constrain all of Columbia's speech, without regard to whether that speech took advantage of that government funding. And that sounds like what the New York officials are trying to do.

And such a result strikes me as quite right. Federal, state, and local governments take about 25-30% of the GNP and then redistribute them. Nearly everyone, including speakers, receives a huge amount of government subsidies. If the government could deny subsidies to those who expressed views the government dislikes (not just using government money, but also using entirely private money) then it could restrict what university officials, university professors, corporate officials and employees, and others say on a wide range of topics. Imagine the deterrent effect if a legislature stripped universities of benefits whenever university officials, or even professors or guests whom the universities had invited, suggested that there might be cognitive differences between men and women, that race-based affirmative action is a bad idea, that certain religions were dangerous, that the threat of global warming is overstated, or whatever else.

So my bottom line: Criticize or praise Columbia's invitation of Ahmadinejad as you will. But don't threaten government retaliation for Columbia's speech, or the speech of people whom Columbia has invited.

PatHMV (mail) (www):
As a matter of policy, Eugene, I agree with you, even though I disagree with your position about Columbia's invitation (I agree with David Bernstein that they should not have invited him).

However, as a legal and practical matter, I think individual legislators are free to be motivated in future decisions about future subsidies to Columbia by whatever factors they choose. There's only a real First Amendment claim if they expressly conditioned future subsidies based on Columbia's future behavior with private funds.

But if, say, there was pending a big supplemental appropriations bill to subsidize, say a new classroom building for Columbia, then I think the legislators are perfectly free to decide to vote against it just because they are mad at Columbia right now. Don't think they should, but I think they can.
9.24.2007 9:10pm
John (mail):
Speech or conduct? The sin was the invite, not anything Columbia or the "guest" said. The idea is, you give aid and comfort to an enemy and you pay a price.

What is the speech that Silver wants to punish Columbia for?
9.24.2007 9:12pm
John A. Fleming (mail):
It's the equivalent of regulatory capture. When a critical mass of like-minded tenured faculty only allow like-minded deans and presidents (e.g. Larry Summers), and the trustees/regents know this, and so go along to not jeopardize their own positions: how does the legislature bring the school back under control? Changing the trustees is too slow and ineffective because they serve defined, overlapping terms.

No, the only way left to bring the school to once again serve all the people and support the principles of this country/state, is to cut off the money. That's how you break tenured faculty's grip and bring University presidents to heel.
9.24.2007 9:20pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Slight change of topic here. What about penalties for refusing ROTC? Same thing as Yale and recruiters? Different laws?
9.24.2007 9:25pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Professor Volokh deserves a lot of credit on this one. He's doing Voltaire proud.
9.24.2007 9:26pm
PersonFromPorlock:
Well, I agree with you but does it really matter what Columbia's chattering class, or the Liberal Arts as a whole, do? Intellectual ghettos are by definition irrelevant to anyone outside them and it's their success -- and our failure -- that we still pay attention to them.
9.24.2007 9:29pm
Moneyrunner43 (www):
Is this a law site, a public morals site or something else? As a matter of law, can the legislature change funding for virtually any reason? Is it morally right to reduce funding for an institution that provides forums for people who advocate genocide? Is this a site devoted to consistency even if consistency results in the murder of millions? I’m genuinely curious.
9.24.2007 9:33pm
tarheel:
There is a line of cases (all Courts of Appeals, I believe) that make it clear that counties can't withdraw their legal advertising from newspapers as retaliation for something the paper publishes. This is really no different -- government withdrawing a benefit from a private organization to punish it for its speech.

Of course, if the politicians would just keep their mouths shut and withdraw the funding without comment, there would likely be no problem. But then, how would the voters know how tough they are?
9.24.2007 9:43pm
tarheel:
To clarify my previous comment -- if politicians would keep their mouths shut and decide not to fund an organization in the next budget, there would be no problem.
9.24.2007 9:49pm
Anonymouseducator (mail) (www):

What about penalties for refusing ROTC?


I think the Yale/recruiters thing involved a federal law that required the military to get the access that other job recruiters have. I'm not sure if there is any law that would apply to ROTC, or if there is some sort of non-military ROTC equivalent the way there are non-military job recruiters. Maybe ROTC could be considered job recruitment? Are there analogous programs run by other employers?
9.24.2007 9:49pm
EH (mail):
Is it morally right to reduce funding for an institution that provides forums for people who advocate genocide?

We can't answer this question until we at least ask it in the context of Ann Coulter.
9.24.2007 10:04pm
Gaius Marius:
Sheldon Silver makes Ahmadinejad look like an enlightened leader.
9.24.2007 10:05pm
John A. Fleming (mail):
If the people of a State lose control of the content and/or quality of the education provided to their young men and women, either through ideological capture outlined above, or by the (un)intended consequences of the laws; and are unwilling to do anything about it (change laws/legislators); well, I guess they deserve what they get.

So that means I support the position that it's moral for the legislature to control (in some sense) the content taught in the schools. If it's against the law, well, stupid is as stupid does.

Another way of saying it: free speech is usually considered a negative right. We the people certainly should establish the boundaries of speech that we will support with money coerced from our neighbors.
9.24.2007 10:08pm
frankcross (mail):
I'm genuinely curious, moneyrunner, how Ahmedinejad speaking at Columbia will cause the murder of millions (or anyone, for that matter).
9.24.2007 10:16pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Sure, Frank. Genuinely curious my sweet Aunt Fanny.

As you know, war and other human catastrophes generally come about as an accumulation of factors. If Ahwhosits manages to convince himself and his buds back in Teheran--or to put it another way, if Bollinger convinces those clowns--that we're weak, or is one component of the eventual conclusion that we won't fight when pushed, then they may well push. And then....possibly millions die.

You will recall that the survivors of the Oxford Declaration of 1933 returned to the half-century reprise and begged The Kids do do the opposite this time. Convincing the enemy that you're an easy mark is a way to increase the chances of war.

Now, you've induced me to waste my time telling you what you already know. You win.

But, at least, you know that the rest of us know. Which means, when you say stuff like this, we know better already.

How's that make you feel? It was better when you thought we were ignorant, wasn't it?
9.24.2007 10:32pm
Arvin (mail) (www):
While I will not argue about what the law is, as I defer to Eugene on that, in terms of how things actually work, I don't quite see the difference between "I'll give you $x if you don't spend those $x on Y" and "I'll give you $x if you don't spend any money on Y". In practice, wouldn't I just spend the $x the government gave me on non-controversial stuff (e.g. rent, office supplies, salaries, whatever), and then use the money I would have used for those things on this thing the government doesn't like? If yes, then how is there ever any force to "I'll give you $x if you don't spend those $x on Y"? To accomplish the goal of making sure none of that $x is spent on Y, wouldn't you have to go to the more inclusive, "I'll give you $x if you don't spend any money on Y"?
9.24.2007 10:36pm
JB:
Personfromporlock: It's our loss that they're this irrelevant. Universities should be producing well-educated people who can take leadership roles, institute smart policies as politicians, run good businesses as businessfolk, make good art as artists, and in general benefit society. Universities' not being that way does mean that in the short term we can ignore their pontificating, but in the long run it's a disaster in the making.
9.24.2007 10:41pm
Brian K (mail):
No, the only way left to bring the school to once again serve all the people and support the principles of this country/state, is to cut off the money. That's how you break tenured faculty's grip and bring University presidents to heel.
so you'd have no problem with our currently democrat controlled congress and our likely democrat president using this same tactic to marginalize conservative viewpoints?
9.25.2007 1:18am
Brian K (mail):
Universities should be producing well-educated people who can take leadership roles, institute smart policies as politicians, run good businesses as businessfolk, make good art as artists, and in general benefit society. Universities' not being that way does mean that in the short term we can ignore their pontificating, but in the long run it's a disaster in the making.
and i always wondered why most jobs nowadays require at least a BA or BS.

although on further thought, it does explain why bush managed to screw things up so badly. he not only has a bachelors but an MBA too.
9.25.2007 1:25am
CaDan (mail):

Sure, Frank. Genuinely curious my sweet Aunt Fanny.

As you know, war and other human catastrophes generally come about as an accumulation of factors. If Ahwhosits manages to convince himself and his buds back in Teheran--or to put it another way, if Bollinger convinces those clowns--that we're weak, or is one component of the eventual conclusion that we won't fight when pushed, then they may well push. And then....possibly millions die.

You will recall that the survivors of the Oxford Declaration of 1933 returned to the half-century reprise and begged The Kids do do the opposite this time. Convincing the enemy that you're an easy mark is a way to increase the chances of war.

Now, you've induced me to waste my time telling you what you already know. You win.

But, at least, you know that the rest of us know. Which means, when you say stuff like this, we know better already.

How's that make you feel? It was better when you thought we were ignorant, wasn't it?

I miss Fafblog.
9.25.2007 1:36am
John A. Fleming (mail):
Prof. Volokh, I'm having a hard time with your bottom line. It seems you are saying, I'm a University Professor, I can say anything I want, and Legislature has a duty to fund my speech, and cannot constrain it.

Let's see. You're employed by UC to support the mission of the UC, which is broadly speaking to be a center of learning. The UC makes various proposals to the Legislature about what constitutes appropriate activities to support this mission, and if the Legislature so agrees, they approve the UC's budget and provide the necessary funds.

So if the University Deans and Regents decided that the great State of California, and our young men and women, would benefit from a Center for Chattel Slavery Studies, or a Center for White Aryan Supremacy Studies, what would happen?

No matter how flowery and erudite the language, or how earnest the proposal, it would be a cold day in hell before the Legislature would fund such a proposal. If UC employees continued to advocate this, including tenured professors, and even attempt to circumvent the will of the Legislature, the Legislature would find a way to fire or get rid of every last advocate.

White Aryan Supremacy speech as a UC activity would be ruthlessly suppressed by the Calif Govmt. Some speech is beyond the pale. Some ideas definitely belong on the trash heap of history. And We the People will not be forced to pay for it.

So I cannot reconcile my strawman with your bottom line. On your own dime, you can say anything. But as a UC employee, your speech in the performance of your duties is constrained to support the mission, objectives, activities, and policies of the UC System. These activities must be first approved and funded by the CA Govmt and its various proxies (e.g. Regents). Your speech isn't absolutely free. You cannot teach, study or advocate anything you want.
9.25.2007 1:54am
John A. Fleming (mail):
Brian K:

I said "serve all the people" deliberately. For brevity, some things must be implicit. There's broad consensus that our centers of learning serve all the people when they establish policies and environments that encourage and support the free exchange and inquiry and competition among ideas.


There are just a few odious ideas that deservedly belong on the trash heap of history, and we'd prefer they stay there. I'm certain that, for example, Jim Gilchrist and Ann Coulter are not anywhere near there, in spite of the faux howling of the progressives that dominate the American academy.

So no, I'm not worried. The progressives been been at it a long time now trying to suppress the Other. Conservative and libertarian ideas and supporters just keep getting stronger and more numerous. "The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

Finally, just as ideas compete, cultures compete. All cultures have vulnerabilities. How crazy is it to deliberately invite and allow our competitors (jihadis) to exploit ours, while we do nothing? Tit for tat, as the game theorists show, is the best strategy. We do ourselves no favors by providing aid and comfort to our competitors.
9.25.2007 3:20am
abw (www):
There seems to be a disconnect somewhere. Legislators need to be able to say "You are squandering the people's money" at some point. I don't want to say this specific incident merits such termination of funding, but I can't see how previous funding can become an obligation to future funding.
9.25.2007 3:46am
Brian K (mail):
There are just a few odious ideas that deservedly belong on the trash heap of history, and we'd prefer they stay there. I'm certain that, for example, Jim Gilchrist and Ann Coulter are not anywhere near there, in spite of the faux howling of the progressives that dominate the American academy.
this is exactly the problem though. who gets to decide what is so odious that it can't even be talked about? you? me? i guarantee you we have a different definition of what is odious. The majority? i certainly hope not.

Tit for tat, as the game theorists show, is the best strategy.
have you read the travelers' dilemma? tit-for-tat is the absolute worst way to go.

We do ourselves no favors by providing aid and comfort to our competitors.
since you said all cultures compete, does this mean that we should isolate ourselves and not allow any discussion of outside cultures? that is clearly a ridiculous strategy. if not, who and in what way should we determine which cultures we are competing with? who gets to have their will dictated on everyone else?
9.25.2007 4:21am
肿瘤 (mail):
9.25.2007 4:40am
LongSufferingRaidersFan (mail):
Damn Chinese are taking over. :-)
9.25.2007 5:07am
Ralph Phelan (mail):
PersonFromPorlock:

Well, I agree with you but does it really matter what Columbia's chattering class, or the Liberal Arts as a whole, do? Intellectual ghettos are by definition irrelevant to anyone outside them....

Tell that to the Duke lacrosse team.
9.25.2007 8:55am
Ralph Phelan (mail):
Maybe threatening to cut off funding just for hosting Ahmadinejad could be considered "chilling to free speech."

But they're talking about cutting off funding after the day two things happened:
(1) Ahmadinejad spoke at Columbia
(2) It was announced the Minuteman Project would not be allowed to speak at Columbia

I see no reason the taxpayers of New York should support an institution that only supports the free exchange of ideas if they are the ideas of America's enemies.
9.25.2007 9:00am
tarheel:
Ralph Phelan:

Would you feel differently about funding if those two decisions were reversed? Of course. Which is exactly why legislators should not be in the business of punishing speech based on its content.

If New York does not want its funds to go to any speaker, that is fine. But legislators can't pick and choose based on whose speech they approve of.
9.25.2007 9:26am
Ralph Phelan (mail):
"Would you feel differently about funding if those two decisions were reversed?"
Probably, seeing how the Minuteman Project is a legal group of American citizens who represent a substantial minority of public opinion.

Saying "yes" to everybody or "no" to everybody are easy positions to defend. Saying "yes" to American conservatives amd "no" to foreign dictators (and former kidnappers) is a "double standard" that is pretty easy to defend.

It's the opposite that's hard to defend.

"If New York does not want its funds to go to any speaker, that is fine. But legislators can't pick and choose based on whose speech they approve of."

Ahmadinejad wasn't a one-off. He was the last straw. It's entirely within New York's rights to state that that due to Columbia's years-long pattern of bias, hypocrisy and poor sense, they no longer wish to fund it.
Columbia has long ago forfeited any right to demand public support in the name of "free speech" or "freedom of inquiry" as they do not practice either.
9.25.2007 10:21am
PLR:
Rather than criticize Columbia U., people should criticize Bush, Cheney, Addington, Bolton, Cambone, Hadley, Abrams, Shulsky, Ledeen and the other relentless rumormongers that have conflated Ahmadinejad with historical tyrants he does not resemble, and whose powers he does not have. No doubt he is a better villain than the real head of state Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who does not yell into microphones and who looks on the verge of dozing off.

True, the creation of a celebrity tyrant works better when you can keep him behind a curtain, rather than on 60 Minutes. I suggest that information is never bad, especially when information has been previously withheld. That is certainly true as to Iran, a country with which we have no diplomatic relations. Seeing Ahmadinejad in the flesh and getting a contemporaneous translation of his speech from the Persian is informative regardless of whether you believe or support anything he has to say.
9.25.2007 10:24am
MDJD2B (mail):
<blockquote>
Sheldon Silver makes Ahmadinejad look like an enlightened leader.
</blockquote>

Right. Silver wants to cut funds off from someone who disagrees with him. A'jad merely throws opponents into prison and tortures them.
9.25.2007 10:57am
tarheel:

It's entirely within New York's rights to state that that due to Columbia's years-long pattern of bias, hypocrisy and poor sense, they no longer wish to fund it.

This is probably true. If that is the case, then the legislators need to be more careful in how they phrase their decision. To say, "Bollinger made a big mistake, and there should be consequences for him for making that decision," makes the de-funding obviously retaliatory for this instance of speech and therefore unconstitutional.
9.25.2007 10:58am
Adeez (mail):
As someone who's more informed than the average citizen (as is anyone who comments here), I have a lot of questions about his beliefs.

I DO know that according to the MSM, he's an evil man who is hell bent on blowing away Israel, and ultimately the U.S., with nukes. But according to the same MSM, Brittany Spears is front page news.

On the other hand, I'm pretty damn sure that Iranians held vigils for us after 9/11 and the country helped us in Afghanistan and was willing to help us with Iraq. Surprisingly, this is not reported by the MSM.

I'm also pretty sure that Iran has a thriving, 25k strong Jewish community. Hmmmm. I've also heard that he is very unpopular in Iran and that Iranians are generally a young, Western-admiring population. Curiously, I didn't get this from the MSM either.

Good for Columbia. Let us hear it straight from the horse's mouth and see for ourselves what a clown he really is, rather than allowing the MSM to put words into his mouth so that it could drumbeat us into another war that we can't win. I thought that this was an obvious point on this libertarian/conservative website, an issue that we can pretty much all agree on, like the War on Marijuana.
9.25.2007 11:12am
Kelvin McCabe:
Has anyone taken the time to actually listen to or read the transcripts from the Columbia speeches? It would seem Columbia President Bollinger had some very harsh words for the Iranian President - very critical of Iran's human rights record, support for hezbollah, giving aid to iraqi insurgents, denying the holocaust, etc..etc.. So much so that the Iranian President responded that he was personally insulted.

So before the chicken little's decry Columbia has a group of anti american terrorist supporting commie's, perhaps we should be wondering why columbia would invite the president of a foreign country to speak - and then totally tear him a new one. Isnt what president bollinger said, exactly what the administration would say to him if they actually did have communication with the guy? Whats the problem here?
9.25.2007 11:52am
Tony Tutins (mail):
60 Minutes also provided Ahmadinejad with a forum. Will the city council threaten to cut off CBS's road access, water, and sewerage?
9.25.2007 12:10pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):

Has anyone taken the time to actually listen to or read the transcripts from the Columbia speeches? It would seem Columbia President Bollinger had some very harsh words for the Iranian President - very critical of Iran's human rights record, support for hezbollah, giving aid to iraqi insurgents, denying the holocaust, etc..etc.. So much so that the Iranian President responded that he was personally insulted.


So in other words, he not only provided him with a public forum, Bollinger was publicly rude to the invited speaker at the event thereby making him appear more sympathetic to the audience and allowing Ahmadinejad to make the issue about hospitality which not only gave the impression that the audience was agreeing with him but probably made him more sympathetic to the folks back home and in neighboring Arab countries.

Can you say “useful idiot.”

Smart thing to do would have been not to provide Ahmadinejad with a public forum in the first place but it seems Bollinger managed to do the one thing guaranteed to make the situation even worse.
9.25.2007 1:00pm
William Van Alstyne (mail):
Just a very brief comment, namely, I've no doubt that Gene has the constitutional issue exactly right. It's not merely that the case law firmly supports the distinction he noted, rather, so, too, do core First Amendment principles as well. And, frankly, I'm quite surprised at the number of comments seeking to efface the distinction he noted...
Wm. Van Alstyne
9.25.2007 1:31pm
hey (mail):
Firstly, a substantial fraction of the american academy are engaging or have engaged in crimes against humanity by aiding and abetting communist democide. While this is true, they will continue to do all in their power to avoid anything close to critical evaluation and consequences for their actions.

I'm very interested to see how this analysis squares with the Solomon Amendment or the Dole cases (national 21 drinking age on penalty of losing highway funds). This is especially true given the myriad sanctions imposed against the Iranian Government and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, both of which Ahmadinejad is a member of - kind of a high ranking one, actually!

The only appropriate thing for Bollinger to have done would have been to walk on stage with a Colt 45 and give a demonstration of the anatomical effects of high velocity, large caliber metallic objects entering the occipital lobe of an Iranian tyrant. Then have the students hold the rest of the Iranian delegation hostage and the Feds not do a damn thing, except support them fully!

Iran delenda est, Saudi delenda est, Salafism delenda est.
9.25.2007 2:41pm
Thorley Winston (mail) (www):
Imagine the deterrent effect if a legislature stripped universities of benefits whenever university officials, or even professors or guests whom the universities had invited, suggested that there might be cognitive differences between men and women, that race-based affirmative action is a bad idea, that certain religions were dangerous, that the threat of global warming is overstated, or whatever else.


You mean sort of like it is right now except that the retaliation tends to come from the taxpayer-funded university rather than the democratically-elected legislature?

Seriously, I get the point you’re making just like I got the point you and other Conspirators were making on the Erwin Chemeresky issue several weeks ago. The problem though is that you’re asking us to (a) defend people who gladly will violate the same rights of conservative speakers/academics that they now invoke when it happens to them from (b) their own fellow travelers.

If the liberal State legislature of New York State wishes to cut off or reduce State funding for a school that provides a forum for one of our nation’s enemies – while at the same time kicking off campus recruiters from the very people who are defending our freedom, they’re just getting a taste of their own medicine. Defending Columbia isn’t going to make them suddenly act in an even-handed manner towards conservative speakers any more than extending the protections of the Geneva Convention to the unlawful combatants of Al-Qaeda is going to get them to stop beheading prisoners or targeting civilians. The only thing your proposal will do is to insulate them from the consequences of their own actions.
9.25.2007 2:46pm
Dilan Esper (mail) (www):
Professor Van Alstyne:

Why the surprise? Many Americans get very jingoistic about these sorts of issues. I can practically see the flush of excitement that certain people get when they get to refer to people as "the enemy", like they are Churchill fighting the Nazis.

Add into that mix the fact that many people remember what Iran did in 1979 and many others believe everything the US government says about Iran's involvement in the Iraqi civil war (of course, next week we'll be fighting the Sunnis of "Al-Qaeda" again, but no matter) and many others are rightfully offended by the man's Holocaust denial and anti-Israel sentiments, and the only surprise is that there wasn't a public lynching at Columbia yesterday.

As I said earlier in the thread, Professor Volokh deserves great credit here-- he is defending free speech principles despite the fact that the speaker is someone he surely vehemently opposes.
9.25.2007 3:49pm
Nate F (www):
I'm with William Van Alstyne on this. EV is clearly right as a matter of law, and I am flabbergasted at this comments thread.
9.26.2007 3:12am