Rioting in the Streets

Thu Mar 25 19:30:47 PDT 2010

               Sorry - I thought your post was an allusion to Michael Curtis's argument that certain speech needs to be "morally condemned," but I now see that it comes from another strand of the thread.  That's fine.  Here's my problem:  I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "fomenting or encouraging" "vandalism and violence."  Under what strikes me as the natural reading of the terms, I can't think of any Democratic or Republican officeholders or party officials who qualify; there may well be some (I don't pay much attention to party politics), but I suspect there are very few if any.

               So that makes me think that you're thinking of a definition that's broader than mine, which is why I'd like either a definition (rough as it may be) or some examples.

               Eugene

From: Mitch Berman [mailto:MBerman at law.utexas.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:15 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Rioting in the Streets

I actually didn't express any view about behavior by party officials "that needs to be morally condemned."  I just asked whether you (and others who appeared to be drawing parallels between bad behavior from the left and bad behavior from the right) believe that office holders in the two parties have acted in equally irresponsible fashion.  Respectfully, I don't quite get why that question can't be answered without further details from me-either about specific incidents or about my own views about what would be bad behavior by office holders.

Mitch

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 8:58 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Rioting in the Streets

               Well, I'd love to see specific examples, again so I can get a sense of what precisely people are talking about.  But I take it that you have a benchmark of what constitutes "fomenting or encouraging" "vandalism and violence" that needs to be morally condemned.  What in your view would count?

               Eugene

From: Mitch Berman [mailto:MBerman at law.utexas.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:54 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Rioting in the Streets

I really can't provide specific examples unless they are reported in the sports section.  That's why I posed a question about what others (hopefully, better-informed others) believe to be the case rather than asserting that such-and-such is the case.  And even then I 'fessed up to having an impression.

It seems obvious to me, just from my inconsistent reading of this listserv, that you follow political developments far more closely than I do.  So I figured you'd have a view on this question even without my providing specific details.  If you don't, you don't.  But if you do, I'd be interested to know what it is.

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 8:38 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Rioting in the Streets

Well, I've heard vague accounts of Republican officeholders supposedly fomenting or encouraging violence, but would you like to give some specific examples that can give me a sense of what level of "fomenting or encouraging [of] such behavior" you have in mind?  Certainly both sides have accused the other side of doing awful things; Republicans have accused the Democrats of destroying liberty, and Democrats have accused the Republicans of tolerating a system that destroys lives.  But I take it that this can't be the sort of thing we're supposed to morally condemn; it seems eminently plausible argument, even if I think somewhat overwrought.  So if you could give me specific details, I'll have a better of sense of what's involved, how common this is on the Republican side, and how common it is on the Democratic side (and how common it had been in the Bush years).

Eugene

From: Mitch Berman [mailto:MBerman at law.utexas.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 6:29 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Rioting in the Streets

I have not been following this thread so apologize if this has been addressed.  No question there are some people-ordinary citizens-on all political sides willing to resort to vandalism and violence in furtherance of, or at least in some sort of connection with, their views about present political debates.

But I'm curious: do you, Eugene, believe that opinion leaders (conspicuously including, but not limited to, office holders) from the two parties are equally responsible for fomenting or encouraging such behavior?  I understand the impulse to be even-handed in observing that there are bad apples on all sides (or on both sides), but do you believe that visible members of the Republican party, including state and federal office holders, have been no more irresponsible than their counterparts in the Democratic party in encouraging the sort of behavior that we all condemn?  Do others who have contributed to this thread believe that?

This is not a rhetorical question.  As my posing the question probably suggests, I confess to believing that when we shift attention from the crazies on the street to the behavior of office holders and opinion leaders then things do not look so equivalent.  But I have not been paying close attention to these recent firestorms and admit that my belief on this point might reflect my prior biases, so am interested to know whether thoughtful people from the other side believe either that conduct by Republican officials has been pretty blameless or that, although somewhat contemptible, it has been no worse (or even less bad) than the behavior of Democratic officials.

Thanks,
Mitch

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Volokh, Eugene
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 7:36 PM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Rioting in the Streets

               Interesting, thanks - this seems like an unusual coincidence, but unusual coincidences do happen, and I'm happy to defer to the Richmond Police Department's judgment on this.  Still, the other examples that were cited amply show that there are unfortunately some people on all political sides willing to use vandalism and violence (fortunately so far relatively low-level violence, but it could easily get worse on occasion).

               Eugene

From: Crowley, Donald [mailto:CROWLEY at uidaho.edu]
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 3:44 PM
To: David Wagner; Volokh, Eugene; Janet Alexander; Theodore Ruger; Paul Horwitz; matthewhpolsci at aol.com; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Rioting in the Streets

 Eugene notes that it is unfortunate that there is some political violence and vandalism out there.  I agree and don't doubt the left is just as capable as the right of such actions, however, I'm not sure his reference to the events Cantor describes fit that definition.  The Richmond police describe a shot fired up in the air around the Reagan building that "struck the window in a downward direction, landing on the floor about a foot from the window.  The round struck with enough force to break the windowpane but did not penetrate the window blinds.  There was no other damage to the room, which is used occasionally for meetings by the congressman."

Somehow I'm not sure this fits the same definition as some of the incidents that have occurred recently.

Don

From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of David Wagner
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2010 2:59 PM
To: Volokh, Eugene; Janet Alexander; Theodore Ruger; Paul Horwitz; matthewhpolsci at aol.com; conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: RE: Rioting in the Streets

The incidents mentioned by Justice Thomas in his Citizens United partial concurrence merit a mention in this context. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX1.html

David M. Wagner

[cid:image001.gif at 01CACC51.790C58B0]<http://www.pluck.com/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100325/eba18be1/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1026 bytes
Desc: image001.gif
URL: <http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20100325/eba18be1/attachment.gif>