Image 01 Image 03

Stanford Students Who Shouted Down Judge Demand Their Names and Photos be Removed From News Reports

Stanford Students Who Shouted Down Judge Demand Their Names and Photos be Removed From News Reports

“California is a two-party consent state, and you have no right to publish this student’s identity/likeness/face without consent.”

The Stanford students who shouted down Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan last week have found something new to be outraged about. They don’t want their names or photos to appear in any news reports about the incident.

Isn’t it a little late for that?

FOX News reports:

Stanford Law protesters demand to have names redacted from news reports: ‘Not how the First Amendment works’

Last week, students at Stanford Law disrupted a Federalist Society event that featured U.S. Circuit Court Judge Kyle Duncan. Duncan was prevented from speaking by unruly protesters and berated by the school’s associate dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

Now, some of the protest leaders, many of whom shared the names and pictures of Federalist Society members online and in posters, are unhappy because the Washington Free Beacon published their names.

“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,” Aaron Sibarium, a journalist for the Washington Free Beacon, tweeted Friday.

The Washington Free Beacon is right about this, of course:

The school’s chapter of the National Lawyers Guild—the organizing force behind the Maoist horde of would-be lawyers—papered the hallways prior to Judge Duncan’s arrival with the names and photographs of the Federalist Society’s board members.

Yet when Free Beacon reporter Aaron Sibarium quoted the group’s board members describing the protests as “Stanford Law School at its best,” and named those board members, we got a note from one of them, Lily Bou, demanding that we remove her name and those of her classmates. “You do not have our permission to reference or quote any portion of this email in a future piece.”

That’s not exactly 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 the following note from Mary Cate Hickman, who identified herself as a second-year law student and describes herself on LinkedIn as “passionate about social justice” and a graduate of the Sorbonne.

Hickman demanded 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.”

Aaron Sibarium wrote a thread about this on Twitter:

The names and photos of these students should be made available to the public for future reference. You know, if one of them decides to run for office or gets nominated to sit on a bench someday.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


stevewhitemd | March 19, 2023 at 6:04 pm

“The names and photos of these students should be made available to the public for future reference. You know, if one of them decides to run for office or gets nominated to sit on a bench someday.”

And that’s exactly why they want their names, images, etc., all removed from the public record. They understand, far better than most, how the game works. They are allowed to behave as poorly and scurrilously as they wish; you and I are held to standards we can never meet.

    CommoChief in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 19, 2023 at 6:14 pm

    These folks have an aversion to consequences in part b/c they have been shielded from them for their lifespan up till now. They are at least smart enough to understand that there are still consequences in the real world outside the academic bubble. Even if they aren’t motivated by shame at least they still respond to fear.

      Sometimes a good ass beating is healthy for everyone involved.

        CommoChief in reply to Paul. | March 19, 2023 at 10:22 pm

        I can definitely recall a richly deserved ass kicking from a dude way out of my weight class. I managed to PO this guy 6’3 about 265 he had been a SR when I was FR and this happened my JR year.

        My sarcastic mouth and indifferent attitude to consequences lasted about twenty seconds. I got in the 2nd thru 8th punches then he managed to get a front mount and I couldn’t move him. I was 6′ 190 but too much difference in weight and strength.

        He deserved the verbal abuse I handed him and I deserved the ass kicking. It didn’t stop me from running my mouth but it did make me pause to weigh whether I was willing to take an ass kicking for running my mouth. A lessen everyone needs.

          Yeah, my mouth has earned me a couple as well. I’m not sure if I’ve learned to keep my mouth shut (yet) but I have learned to watch out for the guys with cauliflower ears.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | March 20, 2023 at 1:31 pm


          And the guys with Popeye forearms, those dudes are crazy strong and hit like a truck.

          CaptTee in reply to CommoChief. | March 20, 2023 at 2:03 pm

          Growing up skinny without much muscles, I learned early that giving someone a bloody nose gives one a second or two more time to either outrun or get to a more defensible position.

          My mother used to lecture me that I could accidentally kill someone by pushing their noise into their brain. My response was “Well, tell the bullies to leave me alone, because I will defend myself”, but I’d think “the bullies have no brains to damage”.

    fscarn in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 19, 2023 at 6:25 pm

    I know it’s the Stanford Law School, but it seems as if law isn’t been taught or these students are failing to learn.

    Or both.

      pfg in reply to fscarn. | March 19, 2023 at 9:32 pm

      Reminds me of a famous dialogue,

      Customer: It’s not much of a cheese shop, is it?

      Owner: Finest in the district sir!

      C: (annoyed) Explain the logic underlying that conclusion, please.

      O: Well, it’s so clean, sir!

      C: It’s certainly uncontaminated by cheese.

    gospace in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 19, 2023 at 8:16 pm

    Or applies for employment anywhere.

    diver64 in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 20, 2023 at 3:22 am

    I think someone pointed out to them that they still need to pass The Bar in the state they wish to practice in and part of that is an examination of their character, past actions and law enforcement records. A simple Google search will show what they did at that meeting and so much for practicing law in that state.

    ConradCA in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 20, 2023 at 3:58 pm

    Conservative students who invite speakers to their events should require those who attend provide a driver’s license or equivalent state ID.

    Taxpayer in reply to stevewhitemd. | March 23, 2023 at 11:43 am

    Correct. the left – since 1930s Germany – Socialists burned books – hate freedom of speech.

E Howard Hunt | March 19, 2023 at 6:09 pm

Would he perhaps settle for depicting his hoodie as more of a burgundy?

That’s EXACTLY how the 1st Amendment works.
You said it in public, you wear it.

“You do not have our permission to reference or quote any portion of this email in a future piece,” she added.”

Thank goodness you are still in school where that misbelief can be corrected, or not.

It’s an admission that what they did is something to be ashamed about.

The Left are so enamored of their secret courts.

“No evidence given by bad people is acceptable”

Be wary of anyone who exercises liberal license to indulge diversity (i.e. color judgment, class-based bigotry, politically congruent) dogma.

Send them to Planned Protesterhood. It’s not just for baby… fetal-baby and granny.

That said, diversity of individuals, minority of one. #HateLovesAbortion

I guess that a police body cam videoing a crime can’t be used since the criminal didn’t agree to be photographed.

BierceAmbrose | March 19, 2023 at 7:14 pm

So much stupid. Clearly, I have been wrong about current higher-ed. It takes knowledge, training, and practice to pack that much ridiculous into such a small space. 7-8 out of 10, kids. You have a future in “public service.”

The Gentle Grizzly | March 19, 2023 at 7:15 pm

“The Grizzly Forest Press reports that Twyla Troublemaker, room 440, Dorm #5, and Wallace Whiner, 23 Skidoo Street, Redwood City, and Janine Genderqueer, 1234 Gotbucks Circle, Atherton, all pictured above, are among the disruptors demanding their names be withheld and faces anonymized in all news coverage.”

They may have a point. Somebody might snap a picture of you in a crowd (no expectation of privacy etc) and use your image to promote their business. Something protects you from that.

On the other hand I snapped a candid picture of Stravinsky (yearbook) and published it without consequence. I’m not sure what the rules are.

    stevewhitemd in reply to rhhardin. | March 20, 2023 at 12:52 am

    Copyright rules apply. You take a picture, at that very moment you own it and it’s yours. You can transfer or assign the copyright as you wish.

    The person in the photograph MAY have certain rights. If the image was for hire (e.g., you took a portrait of that person in return for money) then the contract the two of you signed governs the copyright. If the image was in the public view (e.g., a street photo, a candid in the open, in the news, etc) then that person has no right to the image (since it was in public). If in private (e.g., you took a pic in the ladies’ room) then the copyright is still yours but you have other problems.

Ain’t they the brave ones?

The Hunter Biden right to privacy doctrine.

“…protesters demand to have names redacted from news reports:”

Golly. It’s almost as if they’re not proud of what they did to an invited guest speaker.


healthguyfsu | March 19, 2023 at 7:37 pm

I know that the person I’m most intimidated by with legal threats is someone who doesn’t have a passed bar and a license yet.

Would love to see a rogue’s gallery of all of these top rate would-be attorneys, especially the one who yelled that he or she hoped the judge’s daughters would be raped–very tolerant of them

These people are “enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Steven Brizel | March 20, 2023 at 6:04 am

The First Amendment clearly is viewed as legally superior to any right to privacy and that California statute is of dubious constitutionality

    NotCoach in reply to Steven Brizel. | March 20, 2023 at 9:55 am

    Such statutes exist in all states as far as I know, and they don’t have anything to do with public places. Someone, at least one person in many states, and two in other states like California, has to consent to being recorded privately. Such laws are meant to keep people from spying on your private interactions, not to curtail public recordings.

    An example would be a phone conversation. Both parties to the conversation in California must be aware it is being recorded for it to be a legal recording. In single party states, such as the state I live in, Michigan, only one party must be aware that the conversation is being recorded.

I’m a lawyer who hires other lawyers. I can see why they want their names removed – because they have at least 1 less potential employer out there.

    stella dallas in reply to rso3. | March 21, 2023 at 10:03 am

    To be on the safe side, you’ll need to carefully scrutinize any student from Stanford Law and probably some of the other Ivy law schools as well.

Suburban Farm Guy | March 20, 2023 at 7:36 am

Suck it up, snowflakes

So Mary Cate Hickman is passionate about social justice? I wonder if she is passionate about getting a good job? LOL.

The public has a right to know which alleged lawyers think they are on the side of the angels, and then avoid them.

Post their names on billboards, and also in advertisements in legal magazines. Also, shouldn’t Stanford’s ratings as a top law school be yanked? The students and their colluding professor clearly don’t understand major aspects of the law.

Section 403 of the California Penal Code should also be taken into account. Section 403 makes it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 6 months in jail, for a person to wilfully interrupt a lawful meeting or assembly. That law students would engage in unlawful conduct at their law school is unconscionable. The students should be expelled from the law school and be prosecuted by the county district attorney for violating Section 403. No one is above the law, including Stanford law students.”
Expel the students who participated in the shout-down, and fire the Asst Dean who supported it. Make sure their records are marked to show they do not understand Constitutional Law, nor classroom or court decorum.
If the expelled students try to transfer to another law school, make sure they are required to take Constitutional law all over again.”

Publish EVERY name and photo. Actions have consequences. Let the bastards face the music when they interview for a job in the real world.

OK, so these people are LAW students who don’t understand the “public place” exemption to recordings? That is present in EVERY state, so far as I know?

Can their law professors simply fail them now and get it out of the way? Because they either don’t understand the law or they don’t intend to practice it ethically. Either of which should prevent them from ever achieving bar status, anywhere.

Why didn’t they just pull black panties over their heads like all the pantifa wimps do when they don’t want their moms to recognize them on TV?

I thought that criminals don’t have the right of privacy while committing crimes for afterword when on wanted posters?

Demand? It’s time for those “children” to learn that every action has a consequence, even something as easy as putting on your shoes in the morning. Time for you to go out and yell some more? Knock yourselves out. Welcome to the real world, kiddies.

Quick, quick! Everybody! Copy those names and faces on the internet and distribute them more widely. No chance of unfair accusations if one has the pictures of these hoodlums with their ugly signs. They should be run out of every even semi-respectable corner of the legal profession unless they make a very public recantation and do some really serious penance. That so-called dean deserves no path to public forgiveness, however: she should be disbarred. (Wanna make a bet on whether that happens? I’ll take the other side.)

—This is what comes of treating the legal profession like a better-paying alternative to social work, a corrupting process that has been going on for years.

    Dimsdale in reply to HarvardPhD. | March 21, 2023 at 7:38 am

    At least leave an internet trail that will interfere with future employment (assuming the legal profession hasn’t gone down the toilet by then).

BTW, this is what comes of schools like Stanford looking for students with qualifications such as ‘a public commitment to social justice,’ ‘a record of political activism,’ ‘dedication to eradicating systemic racism,’ and other such necessary items on their applications, in lieu of the traditional qualifications such as very high grades, very high LSATs (—remember that exam? it used to be required!), and an essay on ‘the importance of law to a civil society’ and suchlike. They clearly got what they were looking for: revolutionaries. “As ye sow, so shall ye reap.”

The most vile of lawbreakers are the ones who scream the loudest at those who observe them also identifying them. No wonder Kalifornica is becoming the disappearing state.

Since when can there be a “reasonable expectation of privacy” when behaving like a jackass to a federal judge in a public environment like a law school in California? That’s like trying to sue someone for posting your bare keister all over the internet after you flashed the Super Bowl.