I love that he is giving his students copies of his work as gifts. I would love to support that portion of this insanity as a continuing effort! He should be given a new judge and have his case reviewed to end the mandatory BS, but yes, lets get his work in front of as many immigrants as possible!

It is Judge Berman who has the mental disorder. I call it Surrealiberalitis. It is reaching pandemic proportions among liberals. It is unfortunate that Mr. D'Souza has been subjected to the actions of this irrational lib.

By overruling the judgement of two psychiatrists, that judge is placing himself above medicine doctors. This clear abuse of authority, combined with an equally clear suspicion of partiality, should disqualify him from his functions.

The person with a mental disorder is Judge Berman. He suffers from the mental disease I call surrealiberalitis. It is rising to pandemic proportions. Unfortunately, Mr. D'Souza has been the victim of a person who cannot control his liberalism. If you read his excuse, you will see that it is unintelligible gibberish.

Obviously, it is Judge Berman who has a mental disorder. He suffers from Surrealiberalitis. It is unfortunate that this malady is increasing at an alarming rate. Too bad that a rational thinker like Mr. d'Sousa has been punished by the very kind of person who needs help. Just read his excuse for punishing Mr. d'Sousa. It is unintelligible gibberish.

Obviously Judge Berman is the one who is suffering from a mental illness. He has Surrealibitis. Liberals are afflicted with this disorder in alarming numbers. It's a shame that a rational thinker such as Mr. d'Sousa . is subject to the whim of a judge who is mentally deficient. The judge's excuse is so obtuse as to render it unintelligible.

welcome to the new fascist frontier....

Forced psychiatric care? This is truly terrifying. Apparently, it's not enough to brainwash Americans through schools and media. Now the democrats/socialists/nazis have found a way to physically alter the minds of those who disagree with them. How much do you want to bet that he is prescribed some form of tranquilizer. Had the judge truly believed that D'Souza was not thinking reasonably, the sentence should have been therapy, NOT psychiatry (meds).
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
PS - I wonder how many liberals have violated campaign finance laws and what their 'punishments' were.

He is being "re-educated" to a more acceptable way of correct thinking...

How much would you wager he makes no more films critical of "Dear Leader"... under threat of involuntary commitment to a mental facility by selfsame (in)justice?

Now... non-fiction. Ain't it the truth?

Hmmm. Does this "judge" have a FB page? An email address, etc.? A deluge of comments and emails might change his attitude. Wait, no, that wouldn't work. Can't get past his "God" complex and over inflated ego.

Wow! When the judge was talking about D'Souza and his "psychological" state of mind, it sounded like he was talking about most politicians in D.C.
I think this judge needs a little of his own medicine.

While this story is disturbing on its own, it is illustrative of a larger equally disturbing phenomena. When federal judges sentence defendants to supervised release to follow imprisonment, they often order dozens of conditions to go along with it. Those conditions, some of which make sense (don't commit other crimes, don't contact the victim) and some of which don't (get counseling where none is really indicated), come with an explicit threat: If you violate any of the terms of your release it can then be revoked and you may then be imprisoned for the remainder of the supervised release term. This scheme sometimes leads to the kind of bizarre result seen here. It is extremely difficult to challenge any of these conditions because the defendant has often pleaded guilty knowing that supervised release is on the horizon. Therefore he is deemed to have agreed to the terms in advance.

Yes, and the American people are going to just sit back and watch them do it. It's little different than the way returning Vietnam Veterans were treated. Why should it not be any different today.

Anyone old enough to remember Joseph McCarthy?

I have thought for while now that the sentence for someone who violates others' rights should be removal of their rights. The judges would establish what rights would be vacated- then anyone or everyone could take revenge, restitution, or whatever without fear of government reprisals. So if you kill someone, you lose your right to be protected from people killing you. I think it would be a lot fairer than imprisoning someone (and we all have to pay for it).