Thread by @AkivaMCohen

I will never not be tired of people who think "he was exercising his right to free speech" is a get-out-of-consequences-free card no matter what the free speech was.

https://twitter.com/pegobry/status/1414964092595494919

Let's take @pegobry through some examples. Hey, Peg - if Eastman had spoken at a rally and argued that the age of consent should be lowered to 7, because he thinks kids start getting sexy at that age, would you take the same position?

To be clear: Such advocacy would be both abhorrent and *entirely protected by the First Amendment*. Should such a scholar's think tanks and other non-1A-bound associations distance themselves from him, @pegobry?

Another example: Eastman gets up at a hypothetical rally and says "you know what, I've thought it through, and we really SHOULD have open borders, unlimited immigration, no-ID voting, and mandatory drag queen story time in preschools".

If Claremont disassociated from him given those views, would @Pegobry be complaining? If conservatives called for Claremont to do so because his positions were out of line with the values of the institution, what would you say, Peg?

In the end, what it comes down to is this: Claremont doesn't see election trutherism, conspiracy theories, and attacks on American democracy as problematic; certainly not in the way they would find *gasp* liberalism.

And yeah, calling that out is fair

And btw, Claremont seeing extreme progressivism as a reason to dissociate from a scholar is *fine*. They have a mission, and values, and they shouldn't have to associate with people who don't line up with them.

But that's the damn point. They think Eastman still does.

Anyway, thus ends my "stop invoking the First Amendment as cover for saying 'look, I personally don't think what he says was that bad'" screed