Free speech and the American University Campus

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

Free speech suggests that I can label it any way I want. It’s the government that can’t do it. Are people not allowed to oppose what other people have to say?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

Free speech suggests that I can label it any way I want. It’s the government that can’t do it. Are people not allowed to oppose what other people have to say?

This. You are free to speak. I am free to think you are an idiot. As to refuse to deal with you because of what you speak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

People who think like you will ruin our society. The cancel culture is completely out of control. Colleges need to take a stand against this (like UChicago has done) and embrace free speech principles, the exchange of ideas, and discussion in the public square. That's what education and intellect is all about. Nobody can be truly educated if they only hear one side of the issue all the time. There are two sides of most issues. You calling the other side "stupid and offensive" just proves the point made in OP's post.

Sigh, OP is on a tear with trying to spam the forums with absurd WSJ propaganda. It's really sad that since being bought by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board has become such a pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Republican billionaires are putting big money into trying to suppress free speech on college campuses by convincing people that anyone who dares to point out the crushingly obvious systemic racism in this country is an out-of-controll woke mob. Of course, the billionaires are panicking because they realize the young Americans will no longer put up with a country that mistreats and oppresses non-white people in every possible arena. They know that banks like Wells Fargo (that just got in trouble AGAIN in 2022 for egregiously, intentionally, wildly racist conduct) was the bank whose executives joked on tape about "junk loans for mud people" in 2012. They've seen the studies -- FUNDED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS -- that show that police stop Black motorists more often than whites (except at night, when they can't see drivers' skin color), search Black people's cars more often than whites (despite whites being statistically slightly more likely to have drugs or guns), charge Black people with crimes like resisting arrest at rates far higher than whites who engage in identical behavior, and, of course, kill unarmed Black people far, far more often than they kill whites. And, they've seen the statistics that Blacks are convicted more often that whites with similar evidence, sentenced more harshly than whites for similar crimes, and denied parole more often than whites with similar records.

They've also likely seen the statistic that came up in OP's other pathetic WSJ propaganda post that Black people are far more likely to die when treated by white doctors than when treated by Black doctors, and they are aware that in 2022 many doctors still hold and promote crazy, unscientific, racist ideas that likely contribute to Blacks dying at a higher rate -- like the notion tha Black people don't feel pain.

But, OP feels that the most important thing they can do with their time is spam the forums about how sad it is that their right to see speeches by Nazis is being compromised. And make no mistake -- that's what the bruhahaha about "free speech" on campus is mostly about -- the Republican tactic of inviting the most offensive speakers they can find to college campuses exactly to provoke a reaction, and then to whine about "wokeness" and "free speech" -- which they clearly don't understand, since the first ammendment doesn't guarantee anybody the right to a speaking tour.

I'm not the OP of this thread, but I have posted WSJ pieces before (and will continue to do so, btw). Deal with it. Newsflash: that's not "spamming," it's simply posting pieces from one of the most well-respected news sources in the world. That you call it a "pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists" speaks volumes about YOU, none of it good.

Every word in your fevered rant makes it clear it is YOU who doesn't understand what free speech is and what the first amendment guarantees. No one cares if you disagree with a speaker - you have zero right to prevent them from speaking. If you don't want to hear them, don't show up. Trying to silence them and prevent anyone else from hearing views you can't handle just makes you a complete ignoramus. "Sigh," indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

Free speech suggests that I can label it any way I want. It’s the government that can’t do it. Are people not allowed to oppose what other people have to say?

This. You are free to speak. I am free to think you are an idiot. As to refuse to deal with you because of what you speak.

DP. Agreed. And that absolutely works both ways. What you are not free to do is try and prevent me from speaking and prevent others from hearing me speak. Just go sulk in a corner if you can't handle opposing viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

Did you see the reference to McCarthyism in that quote? That’s a really dangerous direction for us to go.

OP, thanks for posting. It’s a good quote.

+100

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

"Stupid and offensive" might be read instead to mean "I don't agree, I don't like it, I don't understand it, I don't want to try to understand why others might think like that, and consequently nobody should be able to articulate it or try to make a case for it. They must be silenced at all costs lest their pernicious position be heard by those too unwise to be able to decide for themselves whether it is reasonable, makes sense, is potentially actually valid".

Wait -- this is about the Florida bill banning teachers from mentioning that families like mine exist, right? That's the kind of suppression of free speech that you are opposed to, right?

There is no such bill. Talk about propaganda. The bill simply prevents instruction of gender identity in grades K-3. That's it. No one cares if your kid has two dads/moms, or if the teacher is LGBTQ. No one. But keep on frothing at the mouth about idiotic, non-existent "suppression."
DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Hate speech and (most) dangerous speech is absolutely protected by the first amendment. That you don’t know this is frightening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

Free speech suggests that I can label it any way I want. It’s the government that can’t do it. Are people not allowed to oppose what other people have to say?

This. You are free to speak. I am free to think you are an idiot. As to refuse to deal with you because of what you speak.

DP. Agreed. And that absolutely works both ways. What you are not free to do is try and prevent me from speaking and prevent others from hearing me speak. Just go sulk in a corner if you can't handle opposing viewpoints.

Why not? If I can protest and convince someone else to cancel your speaking engagement and I am not the government that’s how life works. Am I guaranteed column inches on the WSJ op-Ed page?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

Free speech suggests that I can label it any way I want. It’s the government that can’t do it. Are people not allowed to oppose what other people have to say?

This. You are free to speak. I am free to think you are an idiot. As to refuse to deal with you because of what you speak.

DP. Agreed. And that absolutely works both ways. What you are not free to do is try and prevent me from speaking and prevent others from hearing me speak. Just go sulk in a corner if you can't handle opposing viewpoints.

But trying to prevent you from speaking if your views are abhorrent to me *is* my speech. Just like boycotting chick FIL a for their stance is my right. Now I may not be successful. You can laugh at me when my pathetic protest does no good. But I am free to do it and by speech, convince others to join me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

Free speech suggests that I can label it any way I want. It’s the government that can’t do it. Are people not allowed to oppose what other people have to say?

This. You are free to speak. I am free to think you are an idiot. As to refuse to deal with you because of what you speak.

DP. Agreed. And that absolutely works both ways. What you are not free to do is try and prevent me from speaking and prevent others from hearing me speak. Just go sulk in a corner if you can't handle opposing viewpoints.

But trying to prevent you from speaking if your views are abhorrent to me *is* my speech. Just like boycotting chick FIL a for their stance is my right. Now I may not be successful. You can laugh at me when my pathetic protest does no good. But I am free to do it and by speech, convince others to join me.

Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. Boycott all you want. What you're not entitled to do is interrupt a speaker or prevent others from hearing a speaker. And when it's turned around on you, you're the first one to bray about "free speech"!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Except that opposing the idea of defund the police, criticizing the utter chaos at our border, and questioning the wisdom of hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery for minors is not "hate and dangerous speech." That's the whole point - YOU don't get to label something "hate speech" simply because you disagree with it and want to silence it.

Free speech suggests that I can label it any way I want. It’s the government that can’t do it. Are people not allowed to oppose what other people have to say?

This. You are free to speak. I am free to think you are an idiot. As to refuse to deal with you because of what you speak.

DP. Agreed. And that absolutely works both ways. What you are not free to do is try and prevent me from speaking and prevent others from hearing me speak. Just go sulk in a corner if you can't handle opposing viewpoints.

Why not? If I can protest and convince someone else to cancel your speaking engagement and I am not the government that’s how life works. Am I guaranteed column inches on the WSJ op-Ed page?

You are completely deluded if you think canceling someone's speaking engagement is an example of free speech. You don't want to hear it? Don't go. Others are allowed to.

[Anonymous]

The last paragraph of the interview is perfectly stated:

On campus, she admits that things are worse than they’ve been at least since the McCarthy era—but she still tries to look on the bright side. “I am absolutely convinced that a future generation is going to look back on this time and say this is another very bad time,” she says. “I’m very hopeful of that. I’m hoping it comes sooner rather than later.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hate and dangerous speech is not protected. The 1st amendment comes with both regulations and responsibilities.

Hate speech and (most) dangerous speech is absolutely protected by the first amendment. That you don’t know this is frightening.

I doubt that most Americans these days have even heard of Skokie, much less understand how the ACLU has changed dramatically since that event.

Check out FIRE (FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND EXPRESSION). They used to only focus on academia but recently expanded to address off-campus free speech advocacy work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

People who think like you will ruin our society. The cancel culture is completely out of control. Colleges need to take a stand against this (like UChicago has done) and embrace free speech principles, the exchange of ideas, and discussion in the public square. That's what education and intellect is all about. Nobody can be truly educated if they only hear one side of the issue all the time. There are two sides of most issues. You calling the other side "stupid and offensive" just proves the point made in OP's post.

Sigh, OP is on a tear with trying to spam the forums with absurd WSJ propaganda. It's really sad that since being bought by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board has become such a pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Republican billionaires are putting big money into trying to suppress free speech on college campuses by convincing people that anyone who dares to point out the crushingly obvious systemic racism in this country is an out-of-controll woke mob. Of course, the billionaires are panicking because they realize the young Americans will no longer put up with a country that mistreats and oppresses non-white people in every possible arena. They know that banks like Wells Fargo (that just got in trouble AGAIN in 2022 for egregiously, intentionally, wildly racist conduct) was the bank whose executives joked on tape about "junk loans for mud people" in 2012. They've seen the studies -- FUNDED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS -- that show that police stop Black motorists more often than whites (except at night, when they can't see drivers' skin color), search Black people's cars more often than whites (despite whites being statistically slightly more likely to have drugs or guns), charge Black people with crimes like resisting arrest at rates far higher than whites who engage in identical behavior, and, of course, kill unarmed Black people far, far more often than they kill whites. And, they've seen the statistics that Blacks are convicted more often that whites with similar evidence, sentenced more harshly than whites for similar crimes, and denied parole more often than whites with similar records.

They've also likely seen the statistic that came up in OP's other pathetic WSJ propaganda post that Black people are far more likely to die when treated by white doctors than when treated by Black doctors, and they are aware that in 2022 many doctors still hold and promote crazy, unscientific, racist ideas that likely contribute to Blacks dying at a higher rate -- like the notion tha Black people don't feel pain.

But, OP feels that the most important thing they can do with their time is spam the forums about how sad it is that their right to see speeches by Nazis is being compromised. And make no mistake -- that's what the bruhahaha about "free speech" on campus is mostly about -- the Republican tactic of inviting the most offensive speakers they can find to college campuses exactly to provoke a reaction, and then to whine about "wokeness" and "free speech" -- which they clearly don't understand, since the first ammendment doesn't guarantee anybody the right to a speaking tour.

I'm not the OP of this thread, but I have posted WSJ pieces before (and will continue to do so, btw). Deal with it. Newsflash: that's not "spamming," it's simply posting pieces from one of the most well-respected news sources in the world. That you call it a "pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists" speaks volumes about YOU, none of it good.

Every word in your fevered rant makes it clear it is YOU who doesn't understand what free speech is and what the first amendment guarantees. No one cares if you disagree with a speaker - you have zero right to prevent them from speaking. If you don't want to hear them, don't show up. Trying to silence them and prevent anyone else from hearing views you can't handle just makes you a complete ignoramus. "Sigh," indeed.

No, YOU are the one who doesn’t understand. The GOVERNMENT is not telling them they can’t say these things. They are experiencing natural consequences of their choice to embrace and espouse willfull ignorance. Boo hoo. Here’s a tissue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Disagree. Stay stupid and offensive things, get canceled. That’s known as a natural consequence.

People who think like you will ruin our society. The cancel culture is completely out of control. Colleges need to take a stand against this (like UChicago has done) and embrace free speech principles, the exchange of ideas, and discussion in the public square. That's what education and intellect is all about. Nobody can be truly educated if they only hear one side of the issue all the time. There are two sides of most issues. You calling the other side "stupid and offensive" just proves the point made in OP's post.

Sigh, OP is on a tear with trying to spam the forums with absurd WSJ propaganda. It's really sad that since being bought by Rupert Murdoch of Fox News fame, the Wall Street Journal's editorial board has become such a pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Republican billionaires are putting big money into trying to suppress free speech on college campuses by convincing people that anyone who dares to point out the crushingly obvious systemic racism in this country is an out-of-controll woke mob. Of course, the billionaires are panicking because they realize the young Americans will no longer put up with a country that mistreats and oppresses non-white people in every possible arena. They know that banks like Wells Fargo (that just got in trouble AGAIN in 2022 for egregiously, intentionally, wildly racist conduct) was the bank whose executives joked on tape about "junk loans for mud people" in 2012. They've seen the studies -- FUNDED BY POLICE DEPARTMENTS -- that show that police stop Black motorists more often than whites (except at night, when they can't see drivers' skin color), search Black people's cars more often than whites (despite whites being statistically slightly more likely to have drugs or guns), charge Black people with crimes like resisting arrest at rates far higher than whites who engage in identical behavior, and, of course, kill unarmed Black people far, far more often than they kill whites. And, they've seen the statistics that Blacks are convicted more often that whites with similar evidence, sentenced more harshly than whites for similar crimes, and denied parole more often than whites with similar records.

They've also likely seen the statistic that came up in OP's other pathetic WSJ propaganda post that Black people are far more likely to die when treated by white doctors than when treated by Black doctors, and they are aware that in 2022 many doctors still hold and promote crazy, unscientific, racist ideas that likely contribute to Blacks dying at a higher rate -- like the notion tha Black people don't feel pain.

But, OP feels that the most important thing they can do with their time is spam the forums about how sad it is that their right to see speeches by Nazis is being compromised. And make no mistake -- that's what the bruhahaha about "free speech" on campus is mostly about -- the Republican tactic of inviting the most offensive speakers they can find to college campuses exactly to provoke a reaction, and then to whine about "wokeness" and "free speech" -- which they clearly don't understand, since the first ammendment doesn't guarantee anybody the right to a speaking tour.

I'm not the OP of this thread, but I have posted WSJ pieces before (and will continue to do so, btw). Deal with it. Newsflash: that's not "spamming," it's simply posting pieces from one of the most well-respected news sources in the world. That you call it a "pathetic, incompetent, bunch of propagandists" speaks volumes about YOU, none of it good.

Every word in your fevered rant makes it clear it is YOU who doesn't understand what free speech is and what the first amendment guarantees. No one cares if you disagree with a speaker - you have zero right to prevent them from speaking. If you don't want to hear them, don't show up. Trying to silence them and prevent anyone else from hearing views you can't handle just makes you a complete ignoramus. "Sigh," indeed.

No, YOU are the one who doesn’t understand. The GOVERNMENT is not telling them they can’t say these things. They are experiencing natural consequences of their choice to embrace and espouse willfull ignorance. Boo hoo. Here’s a tissue.

You’re confusing your parenting class with the constitution. Waaah. Here’s a diaper wipe.