First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
Post Reply Free Speech and Higher Education
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:

Try looking at the links again.


Okay.
Am I looking for something specific? If there is something that would make that federal judge incorrect in his decision making, please point it out.
A quote from my link

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins in Montgomery, Ala., Tuesday barred Auburn from blocking Spencer, stating there was no evidence that he advocates violence.

“Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment,” he wrote in the ruling.
12117 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Winnipeg, MB.
Offline
Posted 5/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


octorockandroll wrote:

Try looking at the links again.


Okay.
Am I looking for something specific? If there is something that would make that federal judge incorrect in his decision making, please point it out.
A quote from my link

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge W. Keith Watkins in Montgomery, Ala., Tuesday barred Auburn from blocking Spencer, stating there was no evidence that he advocates violence.

“Discrimination on the basis of message content cannot be tolerated under the First Amendment,” he wrote in the ruling.


Didn't say he wasnt but ok.
Posted 5/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:



Didn't say he wasnt but ok.


So you linked those two wikipedia articles on the first amendment and 'discrimination' and said I needed to read them...why?

Posted 5/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


As far as the actual focus of the topic is, I have no clue what to think honestly. On the one hand, my knee jerk reaction is to actually READ THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHERE IT GUARANTEES PROTECTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT DORKY COLLEGE KIDS WITH PINK HAIR

I mean, I'm not going to waste my time defending every shitlord out there that has some dumb thing to say. He's welcome to say it not on a college campus. In fact, even if somehow the First Amendment guaranteed protection from pink-haired college kids WHICH IT DOESN'T I don't really think the First Amendment says that I'm protected from speech on a college campus. I don't understand where people get the idea that we can say whatever we want on a campus.

Regardless, to me, it's more bullshit because the FIRST AMENDMENT GUARANTEES PROTECTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT DORKY COLLEGE KIDS WITH PINK HAIR

The colleges that receive federal funding and refuse to host speakers or discriminate against them due to the possibility of antifa showing up to cause trouble are actually violating the 1st Amendment.


Amyas_Leigh, I don't exactly buy the idea that places that receive federal funding are now acting as a voice of the government and them disallowing speech in their vicinity is a violation of THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES PROTECTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT DORKY COLLEGE KIDS WITH PINK HAIR. If it's a court that interpreted it this way, I'm very curious about seeing that information. You shouldn't feel obligated to provide that information. I'm only very loosely expressing that I think the entire thing is bullshit.
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

KennethKenstar



I don't exactly buy the idea that places that receive federal funding are now acting as a voice of the government and them disallowing speech in their vicinity is a violation of THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES PROTECTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT DORKY COLLEGE KIDS WITH PINK HAIR. If it's a court that interpreted it this way, I'm very curious about seeing that information. You shouldn't feel obligated to provide that information. I'm only very loosely expressing that I think the entire thing is bullshit.


Well there was a link I posted a few comments ago about the federal judge and Auburn.
Also found this, ACLU agrees with the judge.
https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.

Posted 5/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


KennethKenstar



I don't exactly buy the idea that places that receive federal funding are now acting as a voice of the government and them disallowing speech in their vicinity is a violation of THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHICH GUARANTEES PROTECTIONS FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND NOT DORKY COLLEGE KIDS WITH PINK HAIR. If it's a court that interpreted it this way, I'm very curious about seeing that information. You shouldn't feel obligated to provide that information. I'm only very loosely expressing that I think the entire thing is bullshit.


Well there was a link I posted a few comments ago about the federal judge and Auburn.
Also found this, ACLU agrees with the judge.
https://www.aclu.org/other/hate-speech-campus

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects speech no matter how offensive its content. Speech codes adopted by government-financed state colleges and universities amount to government censorship, in violation of the Constitution. And the ACLU believes that all campuses should adhere to First Amendment principles because academic freedom is a bedrock of education in a free society.



I guess they are going after the long game with their belief, but jesus. Eh. I still think the whole idea of the first amendment applying to colleges is as dumb as an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as allowing everyday people to have handguns. Not that I am against guns, but it's a really lame interpretation.
Posted 5/3/17

KennethKenstar wrote:


I still think the whole idea of the first amendment applying to colleges is as dumb as an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as allowing everyday people to have handguns. Not that I am against guns, but it's a really lame interpretation.


Posted 5/3/17

Amyas_Leigh wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:


I still think the whole idea of the first amendment applying to colleges is as dumb as an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as allowing everyday people to have handguns. Not that I am against guns, but it's a really lame interpretation.




It's not bait. Settle down there, fell-er.
13316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / AH / Helipad
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17
Colleges and universities no longer encourage open discussion from multiple points of view. Instead, they basically want to live in a bubble filled only with opinions they find agreeable and ignore everything else. It's sad, but it's true.

A few weeks ago when I was sitting in class, politics came up in the discussion and one of the other students said they hadn't met a single Republican yet in all the time they had gone to school there. I don't identify as Republican, but I do lean right and when they said that I thought to myself "of course you haven't." A lot of people who lean right keep quiet about it when they go to school, because a lot of the other students and professors lean left and are not welcoming to alternative view points. A lot of professors like to present themselves as open and objective, but you don't have to listen to the talk very long before you're able to tell that they're really not willing to consider both sides of an argument.

30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/4/17

Ranwolf wrote:

A admirable stance OP but we can't let idealism over rule the historic precedent that letting certain people speak has caused great harm in the history of the human race. If Hitler had been silenced in the 1930s the Third Reich might never have happened and 60+ million people wouldn't have had to die. If Lenin had been silenced Stalin might never have risen to power and 100s of millions of people wouldn't have had to die. If Mao had been silenced China might be less of a cluster fuck then it is now.

And there are literally thousands of other examples I don't have the energy to write that caused great harm. Great harm that begin with mere words. I am not allowed to freely wave around a loaded fire arm in public. So to should a citizen be careful with their words. Speech is not a given right but a privilege earned. Because words can enlighten or they can create genocide and thus are a form of power. And power can not be wielded recklessly.

You say all topics are allowed to be spoken of. I say look at all the bodies of those killed by those who abused Free Speech. It's easy to say such things in the comfort of your 1st world life. But you're not the one who has to clean the mess up when Free Speech is used to turn people into genocidal madmen.


I don't know whether you're being serious or not.

If you're being serious, the irony is STRONG.

You think that the nazis would not have risen to power, if only someone had silenced their speech? The nazis' free speech WAS silenced! Hitler was arrested! Nazi activism was ILLEGAL in Weimar Germany!



The nazis rose to power because the German people were a dissatisfied population which was destitute and starving, and (probably rightly) blamed the victorious western allies of WW1 for causing their suffering through the crushing reparations levied against Germany in the interwar years. The German people were looking for salvation, and the nazis offered salvation (by convincing the German people that the western allies, jews, and Russians were responsible for their suffering). The Weimar government oppression of the nazi party in the 1920s and 1930s only HELPED the nazis, because it allowed the nazis to portray themselves as victims (and therefore kin to the victimized German people) and it gave the nazis the ability to believably portray the Weimar goverment as complicit with the oppressors of the German people.

The communists did the exact same thing in Czarist Russia when the Czarists tried to silence them. The Maoist rebels in China did the SAME THING when the Chiang Kai-Shek nationalist party tried to repress them. Seriously, do you think the parties in power DIDN'T try to silence these upstarts? It didn't help, it just empowered them.

Also, I find the descriptions of early nazi political-activist tactics HILARIOUSLY parallel to those of the modern Antifa.
Seriously:

On 14 September 1921, Hitler and a substantial number of SA members and other Nazi Party adherents disrupted a meeting at the Löwenbräukeller of the Bavarian League. This federalist organization objected to the centralism of the Weimar Constitution, but accepted its social program. The League was led by Otto Ballerstedt, an engineer whom Hitler regarded as "my most dangerous opponent." One Nazi, Hermann Esser, climbed upon a chair and shouted that the Jews were to blame for the misfortunes of Bavaria, and the Nazis shouted demands that Ballerstedt yield the floor to Hitler.[27] The Nazis beat up Ballerstedt and shoved him off the stage into the audience. Both Hitler and Esser were arrested, and Hitler commented notoriously to the police commissioner, "It's all right. We got what we wanted. Ballerstedt did not speak."[28] Hitler was eventually sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and ended up serving only a little over one month.


Violently no-platforming your political opposition? Sounds kind of like Antifa at Berkely, does it not?
4366 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / NJ
Online
Posted 5/3/17
above post!!!
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
22 / M / United States
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

outontheop wrote:


Ranwolf wrote:

A admirable stance OP but we can't let idealism over rule the historic precedent that letting certain people speak has caused great harm in the history of the human race. If Hitler had been silenced in the 1930s the Third Reich might never have happened and 60+ million people wouldn't have had to die. If Lenin had been silenced Stalin might never have risen to power and 100s of millions of people wouldn't have had to die. If Mao had been silenced China might be less of a cluster fuck then it is now.

And there are literally thousands of other examples I don't have the energy to write that caused great harm. Great harm that begin with mere words. I am not allowed to freely wave around a loaded fire arm in public. So to should a citizen be careful with their words. Speech is not a given right but a privilege earned. Because words can enlighten or they can create genocide and thus are a form of power. And power can not be wielded recklessly.

You say all topics are allowed to be spoken of. I say look at all the bodies of those killed by those who abused Free Speech. It's easy to say such things in the comfort of your 1st world life. But you're not the one who has to clean the mess up when Free Speech is used to turn people into genocidal madmen.


I don't know whether you're being serious or not.

If you're being serious, the irony is STRONG.

You think that the nazis would not have risen to power, if only someone had silenced their speech? The nazis' free speech WAS silenced! Hitler was arrested! Nazi activism was ILLEGAL in Weimar Germany!



The nazis rose to power because a) the German people were a dissatisfied population which was destitute and starving, and (probably rightly) blamed the victorious western allies of WW1 for causing their suffering through the crushing reparations levied against Germany in the interwar years. The German people were looking for salvation, and the nazis offered salvation (by convincing the German people that the western allies, jews, and Russians were responsible for their suffering). The Weimar government oppression of the nazi party in the 1920s and 1930s only HELPED the nazis, because it allowed the nazis to portray themselves as victims (and therefore kin to the victimized German people) and it gave the nazis the ability to believably portray the Weimar goverment as complicit with the oppressors of the German people.

The communists did the exact same thing in Czarist Russia when the Czarists tried to silence them. The Maoist rebels in China did the SAME THING when the Chiang Kai-Shek nationalist party tried to repress them. Seriously, do you think the parties in power DIDN'T try to silence these upstarts? It didn't help, it just empowered them.

Also, I find the descriptions of early nazi political-activist tactics HILARIOUSLY parallel to those of the modern Antifa.
Seriously:

On 14 September 1921, Hitler and a substantial number of SA members and other Nazi Party adherents disrupted a meeting at the Löwenbräukeller of the Bavarian League. This federalist organization objected to the centralism of the Weimar Constitution, but accepted its social program. The League was led by Otto Ballerstedt, an engineer whom Hitler regarded as "my most dangerous opponent." One Nazi, Hermann Esser, climbed upon a chair and shouted that the Jews were to blame for the misfortunes of Bavaria, and the Nazis shouted demands that Ballerstedt yield the floor to Hitler.[27] The Nazis beat up Ballerstedt and shoved him off the stage into the audience. Both Hitler and Esser were arrested, and Hitler commented notoriously to the police commissioner, "It's all right. We got what we wanted. Ballerstedt did not speak."[28] Hitler was eventually sentenced to 3 months imprisonment and ended up serving only a little over one month.


Violently no-platforming your political opposition? Sounds kind of like Antifa at Berkely, does it not?


You deserve a medal.
28496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 5/4/17
Looks like someone will be going to jail for using their First Amendment to disrupt someone else's First Amendment right.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39799610
33414 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
39 / Inside your compu...
Offline
Posted 5/4/17

descloud wrote:


nanikore2 wrote:


descloud wrote:

It's funny you are pro-life but are totally against the idea of anyone hindering free speech.

They stem from the same concept, you want to control someone else's decisions.


I want to slice open a dog right now.

Actually, slice open a dog and a cat..... and a kid.

What? Someone wants to "control my decisions"?

C'mon........... you're casting the net WAY too wide there..............


All you did is exaggerate the point I made.


It's no "point" because it applies to basically anything and thus nothing.
19393 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 5/4/17

MysticGon wrote:

Looks like someone will be going to jail for using their First Amendment to disrupt someone else's First Amendment right.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39799610



People do not seem to realize that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.