I went to Brandeis University. Full disclosure, I despise Louis Dembitz Brandeis and most of what he stands for. The clueless statist Zionism, the totalitarianism, his position on the Supreme Court.
While I was at Brandeis, I was not a libertarian, but I was headed there, even then.
While I was at Brandeis, there was this guy Igor Pedan. I never met him. I think he was my editor in chief at The Hoot where I wrote humor columns.
Here’s the thread we had. Posting here because I assume it will be deleted soon and it’s not bad. In response to this video of another Brandeis guy who thinks its worth his time to get politicians to condemn people who hit Muslims. He’s probably an aspiring politician, as many lawyers are. Though he’s anti war so he’s less dangerous than the average neocon and he’s a good guy generally, just a bit confused. He wants to spend your money giving it to others who didn’t work for it while you did rather than spend it on killing foreigners. That’s less bad. If he runs for anything, vote for him, because he probably won’t kill people.
Context: Cahn argued for some resolution that politicians in New York City should condemn people who say bad things about Muslims. I think anyone should be able to say bad or good things about anybody for any reason. So I objected.
You’ll see that Cahn’s video is pretty much standard politician-speak meant to sound so obviously moralistic and taking advantage so he can run in the future for some office using these lines as an ad. There’s nothing sophisticated or deep about it, just cheap opportunistic talk. But if you’re a New Yorker vote for him anyway because he’s against war. Seriously. Hopefully he’ll stay that way but I doubt it. Politicians who use these opportunities to pedal nonsense rarely stay principled.
Rafi Farber what’s the resolution? that politicians should condemn people who commit violence against other people? Is this more hate crime legislation? Why aren’t current punishments against violence enough? Why do we need more laws? Aren’t there already laws against violence against innocents?Albert Cahn Rafi, as you’ll see if you review the bill, the resolution does nothing of the sort. It’s
A resolution that expresses the sentiment of the council, not a law restricting individual liberty. Your objection seems a bit off pointhttp://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx…|Text|&Search=1230Rafi Farber Actually, now that I read it carefully, it is objectionable. It condemns rhetoric and speech. For those who care about the constitution, that is unconstitutional, but that doesn’t really matter to most people. It is important for people say hateful things without the fear of being punished. Discrimination is also very important. Everyone discriminates. It’s why I married one female instead of 4 men.Albert Cahn Rafi are you sure you want to use the rhetorical gambit of claiming that you care more about the constitution than I do? I’m a full-time civil rights lawyer, I work every day to defend my clients’ rights, including their rights under the First Amendment. The First Amendment prohibits laws that punish individuals for speaking, it does not restrict the right of our deliberative assemblies to pass a resolution expressing their own opinions. If you think this is censorship, if you think this violates the First Amendment, then there are two centuries of contrary precedent that you need to review. As for the utility of the measure, there’s a power in using civic institutions to reinforce social norms, even if those measures lack the force of our penal law. The reshaping of our political dialogue in recent months has correlated with a significant increase in hate crimes and violence that cannot be readily explained by any other causal factor. If political rhetoric can push the trendline in one direction, what basis do you have for asserting rhetoric can’t push it in the countervailing direction?Rafi Farber I do not care about the constitution at all. Condemning sure is free speech, but politicians should not be allowed to condemn the free speech of others. Their rights should be restricted because they are public officials. They should not be allowed to condemn the speech of others because they live off the money of others.Rafi Farber You use academic legal language a lot. I don’t understand lawyer talk. I’m pretty stupid, as you can see. When I read that congress shall make no law restricting free speech I think that’s what it means. I must be wrong though. I just don’t see the point of getting politicians to say things when it’s already illegal to hit and harass innocent people.Igor Pedan Rafi “politicians should not be allowed to condemn the free speech of others… because they live off the money of others.” First, only elected official actually live of the money of others. Second, pretty much everyone who is employed lives off the money of others. Third, what other things should politicians not be allowed to say? Is there a list somewhere (maybe in the Constitution?) that lists these banned topics for politicians only?Rafi Farber Igor, I said before I don’t care about the constitution. And no, only politicians live off the money of others because they force others to give them money by threatening to kill them if they don’t give the money. Other private people engage in voluntary exchanges, so the money they make becomes theirs on the exchange. Everything politicians do, from their sex lives to going to the bathroom should be recorded 24/7. If you want to be a public official, your life should be 100% public, all of it, everything, no exceptions whatsoever. This way they won’t have any secrets whatsoever. If people want to watch it should be on C-Span.