Thread by @lawprofblawg

So, if the @StanfordLaw Dean's letter is true to her word, here is what I would do if I were a student at Stanford Law to assure that there is parity.

(Thread)

#Lawtwitter #Hypothetical

I would, along with like-minded students, form a new student organization, Anti-Federalist Society (anti-Fed for short). I would scream very loudly if my student group did not get approved. Free speech and all that.

I would invite speakers hostile to Fed Soc. Not ones who disagree. Ones actively hostile--with extreme views as to whether Fed Soc should exist.

Every speaker FedSoc would be matched. Please invite Justice Kavanaugh.

Every time Fed Soc had a speaker on a topic, my organization would invite a counter speaker to describe how such notions of the Fed Soc speaker were active in Nazi Germany.

It doesn't have to be accurate. Speech. My speakers would refuse to answer questions. Speech.

My group would be a debate society. No one would be forced to agree with the speaker. I would have @TheFIREorg on speed dial for even the slightest disruption or difficulty with admin. However, my speakers would have a particularly leaning.

Now, I've spoken at Fed Soc events. So let's be clear this is a test of free speech principles. And a hypothetical.

I'm not really suggesting we argue using law that some people should not exist or don't have the right to exist or have their bodily autonomy limited.

And I certainly would hope everyone understands that DEI requires that groups that hate the Fed Soc be allowed to speak. That's part of DEI! -- citing Stanford Dean.

But I just don't see a lot of leftists being invited or shouted down. You know, because they don't get invited to speak at Stanford Law (another issue?).

(Happy to Speak, @Stanfordlaw student orgs!)

Anyway, that's what I'd do. And that's the only way we'll know if it is speech for everyone. Because it is one thing to advocate the speech rights of a prominent and well-funded and supported group. It's another to maintain that parity with groups that don't have that support.

Potential topics: Government surveillance-- how the government loves to target leftist groups and minorities.

After Dobbs--new ways to die in childbirth.

Firearms law--why we need a new wave of armed protests near homes of pro-gun legislatures.

I'd want VERY controversial speakers to get the biggest draw, after all.

So, Stanford law students, DM me if you'd like ideas!

Happy to test the waters with you.

If you're angry at this thread--ask yourself why.

All in the game, right?

abovethelaw.com/2023/03/how-to…

What's the point of this thread. Well, here you go.

https://twitter.com/lawprofblawg/status/1639064642839363584?s=20