Good points and good discussion. For the court thing though, is the the other attorney or the judge who gets to say that, not a random spectator. So within the rules of the occasion. As for the troll thing it could depend a lot on just how trolling the person is and or how much time the people in question allow him or her to do so. This …
For the court thing though, is the the other attorney or the judge who gets to say that, not a random spectator. So within the rules of the occasion.
As for the troll thing it could depend a lot on just how trolling the person is and or how much time the people in question allow him or her to do so. This guy may well be a known troll as a speaker, but then again, is he? Having despicable views doesn't make one a troll as a speaker, per se.
I mean, I leave it up to you whether you categorize the 5th Circuit and its judges as "troll" vs "has despicable opinions" but the legal community writ large has had a problem with the 5th circuit for a long long time.
But like, how else am I supposed to categorize a circuit that has decided that it is unbound by Supreme Court precedent as long as it lets the 5th circuit rule in favor of the Republican litigants and against Democratic litigants (even if the opinion makes no sense at all).
This is the circuit that ruled in favor of Ken Paxton in NetChoice v. Paxton, ruling that Texas could make it illegal for private social media companies to do any sort of moderation because the First Amendment was chiefly "a prohibition on prior restraint and, second, a privilege of speaking in good faith on matters of public concern" contrary to ages and ages of First Amendment jurisprudence. Lawfare in general is very good and I recommend this link explaining this specific case: https://www.lawfareblog.com/fifth-circuits-social-media-decision-dangerous-example-first-amendment-absolutism
I guess on the specifics I'd get to the distinction on whether the man in question is trolling on the Stanford stage vs. making trolling legal arguments in his decisions.
Does he defend the decisions with attempts at logic and reason, or does he stand up there and say, "nah, nah, nah, I can do what I want and you libtards have to suck it!" Now maybe the guy has a track record of that in his university speaking engagements, I wouldn't know. But if not, I'd still default to the University being the responsible party to decide that the guy's legal opinions are so out there (like a earnest flat earther) that they aren't worth tarnishing the schools name by having him. As such, they'd be the ones to protest for allowing the FedSoc to invite a crank.
Good points and good discussion.
For the court thing though, is the the other attorney or the judge who gets to say that, not a random spectator. So within the rules of the occasion.
As for the troll thing it could depend a lot on just how trolling the person is and or how much time the people in question allow him or her to do so. This guy may well be a known troll as a speaker, but then again, is he? Having despicable views doesn't make one a troll as a speaker, per se.
I mean, I leave it up to you whether you categorize the 5th Circuit and its judges as "troll" vs "has despicable opinions" but the legal community writ large has had a problem with the 5th circuit for a long long time.
But like, how else am I supposed to categorize a circuit that has decided that it is unbound by Supreme Court precedent as long as it lets the 5th circuit rule in favor of the Republican litigants and against Democratic litigants (even if the opinion makes no sense at all).
This is the circuit that ruled in favor of Ken Paxton in NetChoice v. Paxton, ruling that Texas could make it illegal for private social media companies to do any sort of moderation because the First Amendment was chiefly "a prohibition on prior restraint and, second, a privilege of speaking in good faith on matters of public concern" contrary to ages and ages of First Amendment jurisprudence. Lawfare in general is very good and I recommend this link explaining this specific case: https://www.lawfareblog.com/fifth-circuits-social-media-decision-dangerous-example-first-amendment-absolutism
I guess on the specifics I'd get to the distinction on whether the man in question is trolling on the Stanford stage vs. making trolling legal arguments in his decisions.
Does he defend the decisions with attempts at logic and reason, or does he stand up there and say, "nah, nah, nah, I can do what I want and you libtards have to suck it!" Now maybe the guy has a track record of that in his university speaking engagements, I wouldn't know. But if not, I'd still default to the University being the responsible party to decide that the guy's legal opinions are so out there (like a earnest flat earther) that they aren't worth tarnishing the schools name by having him. As such, they'd be the ones to protest for allowing the FedSoc to invite a crank.