Prof Who Said “Trump Must Hang” Relieved of Fall Teaching Duties
“only meant to indicate Trump is a threat to democracy.”
You may recall this story from back in February. Another dumb comment brings real consequences.
The College Fix reports:
‘Trump must hang’ professor is relieved of fall teaching duties
The Fresno State University adjunct who back in February had tweeted out “To save American democracy, Trump must hang” and “Justice = the execution of two Republicans for each deported immigrant” will not be teaching this fall.
Instead, history professor Lars Maischak will be busy “convert[ing] two courses to an online format” according to an email from Fresno State President Joseph Castro.
According to The Fresno Bee, Castro said this course conversion “meets [Maischak’s] unit requirement per the faculty collective bargaining unit agreement.”
The FBI and Secret Service had been “in frequent contact” with Castro regarding Maischak’s tweets, and the adjunct accused Castro of “allowing himself to be instrumentalized for a right-wing smear campaign.”
Maischak also said his Trump tweet was “only meant to indicate Trump is a threat to democracy.”
Nevertheless, the professor did apologize, stating “I ask forgiveness of those who felt threatened or offended by them,” and “It was never my intent to harm anyone, nor to encourage others to harm anyone.” He also deleted his Twitter account.
Inside Higher Ed reports that Maischak believes the fact that he’s not teaching this fall is a direct consequence of his tweets — which, in his view, violates academic freedom.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I’m hoping this is a sign that school administrations are coming around to some common sense.
I think it’s a sign that the Secret Service is starting to put pressure on some of these outspoken twits’ bosses.
I’m ambivalent about that. I think these morons having the sense of freedom to out themselves as nasty little Maolings serves a useful purpose. On the other hand, I understand the prohibition on calling for the assassination of the President, even if I think it goes too far legally.
There is no prohibition on calling for the president’s assassination; it’s protected speech, and it’s illegal for a government entity to fire or otherwise punish an employee for it.
I would refer you to 18 USC 871, which is a statute which specifically addresses the felony violation of making any threat to take the life of, kidnap or otherwise inflict bodily harm to the President of the United States. The statute also applies to candidates for the office and former Presidents.
It is not unreasonable to take his comments as knowingly and willfully making such threats, regardless of his subsequent denial that he meant what he said/wrote.
It is not only completely unreasonable to take his comments as making such threats, it is dishonest and defamatory, and if done by a government entity (such as the secret service) it’s illegal.
1. Advocacy is not a threat. It is 100% legal, in all circumstances, to advocate the commission of any crime, and Congress has no power to make it illegal. Anything done by a government agent to deter someone from such advocacy is a violation of that person’s civil liberties under color of law, which is itself a felony.
2. This person didn’t even advocate a crime. Hanging is not a typical method of murder or assassination; it is a synonym for lawful execution. In the English language, when one says that someone ought to hang the meaning is absolutely clear beyond any ambiguity whatsoever: it means the person has (in the speaker’s view) committed a capital crime, and deserves to be arrested, tried, found guilty, sentenced, and executed. When one predicts that someone will hang one is not predicting a murder but an execution, even if by some other means. So even if advocating the president’s murder were a crime (which it isn’t and can’t be) this person would not have committed it.
Firing him would be absolutely illegal, and whoever fired him would be personally liable for damages, as well as the university. Rearranging his schedule could also be illegal, but he’d have to prove it was retaliation. If, for instance, students didn’t want to attend his classes then the university would be justified in canceling them.
I guess I’ll have to defer to your unsurpassed legal expertise.
You might want to negotiate a contract with the USSS to provide them with legal consultation.
There are points on other subjects where we can agree. This one is one where we can’t.
.Hmm, I just re-read your screed and see that you called me dishonest and claimed that I made a defamatory statement.
“There is no prohibition on calling for the president’s assassination;…”
I show you the statute making it a crime and you launch a into a rant calling me dishonest. You would be a joke if you weren’t such a sad little person
You are a danger to yourself if you act like this in person. But I suspect you hide behind your keyboard and your “avatar” is closer to the truth than you’d like to admit.
“Unsurpassed legal expertise” is not an issue here, because this is not a matter on which there is any possible doubt. You are dishonest, and you have defamed this professor, by accusing him of having threatened the president, which you know he did not do. Since you’re a dishonest person I’m not interested in your agreement, even if you were willing to give it.
No, you did not. You are not only lying your ****ing face off, but you’re stupidly doing so right where people can look back and see that you’re lying. There’s not a word in that statute prohibiting advocacy. (Of course even if there were such a statute it would be completely void, since Congress has no authority to make one, but since it hasn’t that’s not an issue.)
A union saved this nitwit’s job? Why?
A union saved this nitwit’s job because the unions are run by nitwits …
No, the law saved his job. It is clearly established that a State may not discharge an employee on a basis that infringes that employee’s constitutionally protected interest in freedom of speech.
“Freedom of Speach” IS restricted, in the sense that speach that directly threatens violence or causes violence can be illegal. Classic example is the idiot who thinks he has the right to cry “fire!” In a crowded theatre – because he has a “right” to prank people to literal death. Also, Milhouse, if someone threatens to kill you – or, say your wife or kid – that also can be illegal. Even more so, calls or threats to kill public officials can be illegal under additional laws that don’t apply to threats to normal citizens – as they are attacks on both the individual AND the collective society. That’s also the reason for additional protection for jury members, and ACTUAL “Hate Crimes” victims, like for cross burnings and such.
Of, course, the Loony Left (BIRM), as usual, tries to take restrictions on speach too far – or acts as if they don’t apply to THEM – as THEIR hearts are PURE, don’t you know – so they believe in “Laws for thee, but not for me”. It never occurs to educated idiots like this professor that once you open the Pandoras Box of outlawing (or not) speach based on “I like / don’t like” rather than impartial law, you’ve done a Bad Thing, not a good one.
Oh dear. Citing that thoroughly discredited decision is a sure sign that one has nothing useful to say on the subject of the first amendment. You are aware, are you not, that Schenck is no longer law, and that today not only would Schenck’s conviction be overturned unanimously but the person who arrested him would be in prison for it?
Yes, speech that is both subjectively designed and objectively likely to cause the immediate commission of a crime is not protected. Nor are actual, objectively credible threats of violence. What this professor said cannot possibly be construed as either of these things. If a public employee can’t be fired for saying, immediately after an actual assassination attempt on the president, that “next time I hope they get him”, then he certainly can’t be fired for saying merely that the president ought to face trial for some imagined crime, receive the due process of law, and be lawfully executed.
I’m not a lawyer, but citing the overturn of a conviction for urging men to resist the draft applies to a “prankster” deliberately lying about a non-existent fire in a crowded venue… How? One is arguably political speach, the other is trying to engineer death and/or injury due to a panicked crowd.
I believe you’re confusing the overturn of this particular conviction – with an overturn/rejection of the crowded theater line of reason – perhaps deliberately, perhaps not. There may be multiple reasons to convict or uphold conviction, failure on one ground can certainly free an individual without automatically rendering ALL the otyer legal reasoning cited incorrect, can’t it?
And… your assertion the the person who arrested him (the merry prankster) would be him/herself arrested for false arrest – I know the quote is “The Law is an ass”, but I will be surprised to discover that all the 911 callers who have been arrested over the years for crank calls have had their convictions overturned, any fines repaid, and heartfelt apologies tendered to them. Because in Real Workd (as opposed to wherever that supposedly happened) I don’t recall hearing about that.
Nor is “SWATting”, as far as I’ve heard, legal in all 50 (or us it still 57?) states either, despite being a means the Loony Left likes to use to endanger the lives of both Conservatives they don’t like and the lives of the police who respond to reports that someone who doesn’t agree with the Left is holding his family at gunpoint without knowing the report was a merry prankster at play.
Oops, messed up the quotes. Trying again.
Because that is the case you cited. Citing a discredited decision that has been completely overturned is a sign that you have no case. Especially this case, which is so often cited by people who thereby show they know nothing about the first amendment.
Since that is its only source, and that is the purpose for which the argument was made, overturning the decision discredited the argument for all time.
Now you’re just lying about what I wrote just one comment above, which is stupid because anyone can go back and see what I wrote. I wrote that whoever arrested Schenck today would himself go to prison, because it’s firmly established law, which every law officer is expected to know, that you can’t arrest people for disagreeing with the government of the day. Which is precisely the conduct that Holmes compared to falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.
Here, have a read of this.
Milhouse, has this statute been overturned?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2385
“Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government …”
Yes, it has been. Starting with Yates and ending with Brandenburg, the Smith Act has been utterly demolished and is not law.