On Tuesday, I wrote here about how the Stanford Daily, a student newspaper at Stanford University, libeled me by calling me an “agitator for violence,” amid several other false claims, in a column by hard-Left student activist Terence Zhao. The Stanford Daily has been publishing numerous lies about me since it was first announced that I was going to speak at Stanford (which I did last November, although fascist administrators and students staged a mass walkout and then prevented students who wanted to attend the event from entering), but this one crossed the line: I’ve never called for or approved of violence, and to claim otherwise was outright defamatory, as well as increasing the likelihood that I would be a victim of violence from the Leftist Antifa thugs who are dedicated to committing violence against those whom they hate.
But now the Stanford Daily’s Editor-in-Chief Hannah Knowles and Terence Zhao have caved. They still have the “right-wing bigot” smear in their article, but that is their assessment (however ill-informed) of my work, just as my assessment of theirs is that they are inveterate foes of free discourse and energetic advocates of the fascist suppression of the freedom of speech. But they have edited their article to remove the defamatory claim that I am an “agitator for violence,” and added this note about some of their other false claims:
Editor’s Note: An earlier version of this article stated that The Stanford Review provided Robert Spencer with their article on Professor Palumbo-Liu for publication on his blog, however the Review and Mr. Spencer have denied this and the Daily could not confirm the columnist’s claim. In addition, Mr. Spencer was banned from entering the UK for statements with the potential to cause “inter-community violence” and “foster hatred”, not because he was deemed a “national security threat”. The Daily regrets these errors.
Yeah, I bet you do. And you can be sure I’ll be paying attention should you choose to libel me again.
(By the way, I was in reality banned from Britain for observing quite accurately that Islam has doctrines calling for warfare against unbelievers. If that, in the opinion of the British government, would cause “inter-community violence,” it would have been from Muslims being violent and thereby proving the correctness of my observation.)