UT Law School dean supports free speech except speech that . . .

If you follow @instapundit on Twitter, you are familiar with Twitter's decision to suspend Professor Glenn Reynolds. The reason for doing so was that Twitter didn't like his message! During the Charlotte riots thugs surrounded cars on the Interstate. Professor Reynolds tweeted "run them over." This advice was as opposed to sitting in your car until the thugs pulled motorists from their cars and beat them. 

Well, the sanctimonious Left rose up in outrage--this led to Twitter's action--and demanded action be taken. Twitter did reverse itself; but now UT Law dean Melanie Wilson has decided to investigate Professor Reynolds's speech. (Professor Reynolds teaches law at UT.) Dean Wilson assures us that she supports free speech except speech "that encourages violence." And apparently it is she who will make that determination. 

The surrounded motorists who are on Twitter and who follow @instapundit on Twitter probably had more pressing matters last night than checking Twitter. And by the time they were removed from the situation and checked Twitter it would have been too late for them to run the rioters over. So much for the dean's opposition to speech "that encourages violence." There was no real opportunity for the readers to engage in violence. And if my family and I had been surrounded by that band of thugs, I wouldn't have needed the good professor's advice: it sounds more like self-defense!

Don't let Dean Wilson and her ilk dictate to us the speech that should be allowed and the speech that should not be allowed. 

Here is the text of my e-mail to Dean Wilson and her e-mail address is mdwilson@utk.edu you can also try utk.edu@cmail20.com

Dear Dean Wilson,

Your claim to support free speech is belied by the statement that you don't support speech  "that encourages violence." And it is you who determines that? The speech you support is speech with which you agree. Otherwise, you would simply have told those whom Professor Reynolds offended that you are not in the business of policing speech. 

But I'll play your game and assume you should take action against speech "that encourages violence." How would Professor Reynolds's tweet have encouraged violence last night? Those in their cars who were surrounded by a mob on the Interstate would have had more pressing matters to deal with than checking Twitter. And by the time they were removed from the situation and looked at Twitter, assuming they follow Professor Reynolds, it would have been too late. 

If you insist on policing speech, please don't do it under the banner "I support free speech." Be honest and acknowledge that you support speech with which you agree and investigate all other speech.

Let the dean know how you feel!

  

53 days till the election

With 53 days remaining before the election, I thought I would challenge a couple of the reasons given for voting for Trump.

Trump says that he will push for women to have six weeks paid maternity leave. And he says he will appoint folks to the Supreme Court who are like Scalia.

A. He's a Conservative. Not true!

Maybe you think the first point is a good idea; and maybe so if the employer decides to offer it as a perk to its employees. But it is contrary to conservative principles for the government to force private employers to do this. Why? Because it is contrary to liberty. Some folks say, "Let's see how Donald plans to pay for it." He will pay for it through higher taxes or putting a bigger burden on employers. It's no mere coincidence that Hillary proposes the same thing only larger.

B. He will appoint Scalia-like folks to SCOTUS. 

Now, Trump hasn't got enough sense to know anything about Scalia. One can't be a narcissist and an intellectual: there's not enough time in the day. Trump's sister is a federal judge and her mother is the only person she’s ever thought shouldn't have an abortion. (One can't say there's a constitutional right to own slaves (Scott v. Sandford), to abortion (Roe v. Wade), to engage in homosexual acts (Lawrence v. Texas), or to buy condoms (Eisenstadt v. Baird),  and claim to be textualist in the vein of Scalia.) These are matters for the legislative branch--in the first instance--and the executive branch. Trump will not appoint to the Supreme Court the kind of folks we need there.

C. One of these reasons for voting for Trump is better than the ones discussed above.

So, if you want to vote for Trump, go ahead. But don't do it because he's a Conservative, he's not! Do it because you don't like Hillary, do it because Trump looks better in pants than Hillary, do it because you want more government in your business but at a slower pace, do it because you admire fascism, do it because Trump is more consistent with his hairstyle than Hillary, do it because Sean Hannity told you to, but don't do it because Trump is a Conservative.

And not voting for Trump is not a vote for Hillary. Our presidents are elected by the members of the electoral college. Hillary is not going to win Tennessee. Tennessee’s electors will go to Trump. Throw caution to the wind and write in a candidate or if marijuana is your thing, Gary “what’s Aleppo” Johnson will gladly take your vote.