Your Cart is Empty
John Vecchione
Real Clear Politics
The plaintiffs in Missouri v. Biden have won and received a court order vindicating their free speech rights. The dire predictions after the Supreme Court found insufficient standing to support a preliminary injunction in Murthy v. Missouri have failed to materialize. On March 25, the district court in Louisiana signed a consent decree in Missouri v. Biden admitting that the government wrongfully squelched Americans’ speech for years by strong-arming social media companies to eliminate disfavored speech. The decree allows New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) plaintiffs Jill Hines and Aaron Kheriaty, along with Jim Hoft of Gateway Pundit and the Louisiana and Missouri attorneys general, to obtain sanctions should the surgeon general, CDC, or CISA attempt to do this again.
Comments will be approved before showing up.
I recently listened to Ross Douthat’s interview with the philosopher Jennifer Frey. She is a serious thinker and an unusually courageous academic entrepreneur. What she built at the University of Tulsa before it was dismantled is exactly the sort of thing more universities should be attempting. Yet almost every argument she offered for the humanities is, I think, completely unpersuasive to anyone not already on our side of the table.
This report presents findings from a national survey of 1,959 law school faculty at 192 American Bar Association (ABA) approved law schools in the United States, conducted by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE). As one of the largest surveys of law faculty on free expression and professional norms, the data reveal a profession that strongly endorses free speech principles while struggling to live them out in practice.
I just returned from the University of Wyoming, where I debated the President of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Todd Wolfson over the need for colleges and universities to maintain institutional neutrality. The debate was organized by the Steamboat Institute and was live-streamed.
The formal question presented for debate was: “Is institutional neutrality necessary to preserve the university as a forum for open inquiry rather than an actor in political disputes?” I spoke in favor of institutional neutrality while Wolfson argued against it as a necessary component to higher education.
