NEW: The same students who plastered the names and faces of the Stanford Federalist Society all over the school are now demanding anonymity from the Free Beacon.
They say we've violated their right to privacy by identifying them.
You can't make it up.🧵 freebeacon.com/campus/at-stan…
They say we've violated their right to privacy by identifying them.
You can't make it up.🧵 freebeacon.com/campus/at-stan…
On Sunday, I identified board members of the Stanford National Lawyers Guild--one of the groups responsible for the posters--who in a public statement described the protest as "Stanford Law School at its best."
A few hours later, the board demanded I redact their names.
A few hours later, the board demanded I redact their names.
One of the board members, Lily Bou, demanding that we remove her name and those of her classmates. "Listing our names serves no purpose other than to invite abuse and harassment," she wrote in an email.
I wonder what purpose the posters of the fedsoc board served.
I wonder what purpose the posters of the fedsoc board served.
"You do not have our permission to reference or quote any portion of this email in a future piece," she added.
Needless to say, that's not how the First Amendment works.
Needless to say, that's not how the First Amendment works.
We've gotten similar complaints about publishing images—pulled from social media—of Stanford Law School dean Jenny Martinez's classroom, which protesters covered end to end in flyers after she issued an apology to Judge Duncan.
We received a note from Mary Cate Hickman demanding that we "anonymize the face of the student in the red hoodie" because "California is a two-party consent state, and you have no right to publish this student's identity/likeness/face without consent."
As we explain in our editorial: "California is a two-party consent state for the recording of oral communications, not photographs, and even that only pertains to situations in which there is a presumption of privacy."
There is no presumption of privacy in a law school classroom where student activists are snapping photographs and posting them to Instagram, especially in the wake of a nationally televised protest at your law school.
From our editorial: "What's eminently clear from the drama unfolding in Palo Alto is that while Stanford law students may be the vanguard of an anti-constitutional revolution, they don't know much about the law."
"Where Stanford has failed to educate them in the limits of privacy and the rights of a free press, we will endeavor to fill the void with our continuing coverage of this ugly affair."
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
