‘Tyranny of the majority’: Appeals court confirms it’s constitutional to make fun of leftist rants

A ruling from the sometimes far-left 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has confirmed that it still is constitutional in the United States to make fun of leftist rants.

The free speech fight comes out of the University of Washington, which had ordered a faculty member to include in his class syllabus an extremist statement about land and native tribes.

Those exclusively political claims stem from an adherence to ideology that indigenous tribes in America built the United States, and the settlers from Europe had nothing to do with it.

The university told its faculty to promote the land claims of “the Coast Salish peoples of this land, the land which touches the shared waters of all tribes and bands within the Suquamish, Tulalip, and Muckleshoot nations.”

Computer-science professor Stuart Reges decided to have fun with it. He said, in his syllabus, “I acknowledge that by the labor theory of property, the Coast Salish people can claim historical ownership of almost none of the land currently occupied by the University of Washington.”

Constitution expert Jonathan Turley pointed out the reference to the labor theory “is a nod to John Locke, who believed in natural rights, including the right to property created through one’s labor.”

Of course, leftists on campus erupted in rage, the school removed his statement without his permission and the punishment campaign was launched.

But according to the Federalist, the appeals court halted that.

“A public university investigated, reprimanded, and threatened to discipline a professor for contentious statements he made in a class syllabus. The statements, which mocked the university’s model syllabus statement on an issue of public concern, caused offense in the university community,” explained Judge Danial Bress, said in the majority opinion.

“Yet debate and disagreement are hallmarks of higher education. Student discomfort with a professor’s views can prompt discussion and disapproval. But this discomfort is not grounds for the university retaliating against the professor. We hold that the university’s actions toward the professor violated his First Amendment rights.”

Illegal then, were the schools “punitive employment actions and reprimand.”

The school’s policy had stemmed from the scheme throughout higher education years ago to have a “performative (and utterly embarrassing) ‘racial reckoning’ overtures” involving “land acknowledgments,” the Federalist reported.

“‘Land acknowledgments’ are meant to falsely state that, in actuality, Europeans did not build any of the United States of America, and that the land is still owned by the American Indian tribes that were once there,” the report said.

Reges simply pointed out that absurdity.

Reges’ lawsuit now is returned to the district court to determine a “proper remedy.”

Turley pointed out the compelled speech issue “is an all-too-familiar pattern. Once a faction assumes power, it will often first seek to censor opposing views and then compel the endorsement of approved views.”

The state of Washington also recently tried to compel “priests and other clerics to rat out congregants who confessed to certain criminal acts. Despite objections from many of us that the law was flagrantly unconstitutional, the Democratic-controlled legislature and Democratic governor pushed it through. The Catholic Church responded to the enactment by telling priests that any compliance would lead to their excommunication,” he wrote.

The federal courts halted the law.

He said, “The Framers would have been appalled by efforts to compel speech as an example of ‘democratic despotism.’ The Framers saw the greatest danger to our system as coming not from a tyrant but the tyranny of the majority.”