https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

(03-05-2019 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

People typically shy away from coming into contact with things that challenge them at a fundamental level. Unfortunately.

I agree 100% with your post.

(03-05-2019 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

I couldn't possibly agree more.

Playing devil's advocate, isn't heckling and protesting, as long as its not disruptivie during the speech, a form of free speech?

(03-05-2019 10:36 AM)king king Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

People typically shy away from coming into contact with things that challenge them at a fundamental level. Unfortunately.

I agree 100% with your post.

All the more reason that our campuses should reflect true diversity, especially so where diversity of thought is concerned.

(03-05-2019 10:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 10:36 AM)king king Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

People typically shy away from coming into contact with things that challenge them at a fundamental level. Unfortunately.

I agree 100% with your post.

All the more reason that our campuses should reflect true diversity, especially so where diversity of thought is concerned.

Indeed. This is something I support DJT in. That it should even have to come to this is very telling about the state of affairs in our higher education system.

(03-05-2019 10:39 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Playing devil's advocate, isn't heckling and protesting, as long as its not disruptivie during the speech, a form of free speech?

Uh, yes. However, how can heckling be non-disruptive? It is inherently disruptive by its very nature. And when was the last time the left actually engaged in a non-violent protest?

For me, as has been mentioned earlier, it's like TV. If there's a show on that you don't like or offends you, change the freakin channel. If there's a speaker at your university, go listen to them if they reflect your values, ignore them if they don't. Easy peasy.

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

We could always reverse-Fairness Doctrine on them. State-run universities are overwhelmingly lib. They should be 50/50.

(03-05-2019 10:39 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Playing devil's advocate, isn't heckling and protesting, as long as its not disruptivie during the speech, a form of free speech?

Protesting is absolutely free speech. If someone wants to protest say Shapiro, they have every right. It's when that crosses over into intimidation and/or violence. It's when protest becomes the mob rules and other's speech is shut down.

As for heckling, I'd chalk that up to lack of common courtesy mor so than free speech.

(03-05-2019 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

I understand and agree with the core concept, but I can't go for ALL speech.

Found this on a message board:

https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/...ed-theatre

Quote:Law

The origin of the phrase is from the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). It specifically rules on the limitation of freedom of speech (first amendment):

The original ruling is this:

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.

As pointed out by @phoog, this does not saying anything about the lawfullness of shouting "fire", it says that if your speech creates a clear and present danger, the first amendment will not protect you, even if the danger does not result in actual harm.

Commentary

If these instances are correct then it would seem clear that Freedom of Speech is being honored as it's the result of speech, not the speech itself, that could be an offense.

You seem to think that it should be illegal, but only if it results in a panic that endangers people. If people ignore you, you think it should be protected by your first amendment rights.

That's not how the law works. The law tries, among other things. To establish norms for human behaviour. For example, you will be punished for driving an automobile while intoxicated, even of this does not result in you running over somebody.

In the words of the supreme court: If your actions "are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger", the congress has the right to prevent you from doing so, despite the first amendment.

If this summary is accurate, acts which create a clear and present danger can be restricted.

What constitutes a "clear and present" danger? To me, the advancement of marxist ideology creates a "clear" danger. Is the danger "present", though?

Planting seeds in the minds of college students that marxism is preferred is creating a very real danger. History tells us marxists governments have killed north of 100 MILLION people.

If it were up to me, destructive ideology would be restricted.

If a person has suicidal thoughts we say they are a danger to themselves and possibly others.

What is marxist ideology if not suicidal or, worse, homicidal?

People should be able to to express their view, but once some one is being harassed; a conservative telling a Mexican to get out or a liberal assaulting a trump supporter...That is when action needs to taken


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(03-05-2019 10:39 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Playing devil's advocate, isn't heckling and protesting, as long as its not disruptivie during the speech, a form of free speech?

What is "disruptive?"

And is there a legitimate concern about safety?

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight

If protecting free speech were indeed a shared goal we wouldn't be having this discussion.

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

WELL JUST DAMN! IF POLITICAL AND SOCIETAL DISCUSSION IS NOT OPEN FOR DEBATE AND ACCESS ISN'T EQUAL IT BY DEFINITION IS PARTISAN! AND IF IT IS PARTISAN THEY DESERVE NO FEDERAL MONEY AT ALL FOR ANYTHING.

(03-05-2019 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

Thats the way its supposed to be. You cant just protect the rights of speech you agree with. You have to protect the right of stuff you may not agree with. Thats the whole point. Universities have it wrong.....and worse yet---they should know better.

(03-05-2019 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

Thats the way its supposed to be. You cant just protect the rights of speech you agree with. You have to protect the right of stuff you may not agree with. Thats the whole point. Universities have it wrong.....and worse yet---they should know better.

They do know better, and therein lies the crime!

(03-05-2019 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

Thats the way its supposed to be. You cant just protect the rights of speech you agree with. You have to protect the right of stuff you may not agree with. Thats the whole point. Universities have it wrong.....and worse yet---they should know better.

Especially after the McCarthy era. It doesn't get ignored now, but it sure seems like they made a lot bigger deal of it when I was in HS.

(03-05-2019 10:39 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Playing devil's advocate, isn't heckling and protesting, as long as its not disruptivie during the speech, a form of free speech?

No, it isn't. It's just another form of stopping free speech, free ideas. Let's take that nut job AOC, she says some really stupid shiate but yet there's NO ONE trying to stop her either through harassment or shouting her down. That's free speech.

Someone asked, "what is free speech?" The answer is very simple and that's allowing the speaker whomever he/she is to state their points and not be banned by the president of the school because he/she is afraid of hurting someones poor little feelings. Now...that's just plain stupid, and is just an excuse for the president to ban the speaker at their school because the president is the one who disapproves.

(03-05-2019 06:59 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 10:31 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(03-05-2019 09:55 AM)bullet Wrote:  https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl...39656.html

Obviously, if colleges don't allow free speech, they aren't eligible for federal contracts. That would solve the problem overnight.

The giant issue is how you determine what constitutes not allowing it. I don't know how you overcome that.


"President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight.


It’s unclear what Trump’s order will contain, but the administration has been laying the groundwork for it for months...."

The answer is actually pretty simple, it's a matter of whether people are going to accept the simple route.

Solution - Allow ALL speech. AOC to Ben Shapiro. Muslims to Christians. BLM to White Nationalists.

Let the people who may or may not attend decide what they wish to hear. If no one wants to hear a white nationalist, no one will show up, but the OPTION is still there.

It shouldn't be the position of a college/university to "protect" someone's "feelings". If anything, exposure to a variety of positions will either strengthen your beliefs or perhaps push you to ask questions.

Thats the way its supposed to be. You cant just protect the rights of speech you agree with. You have to protect the right of stuff you may not agree with. Thats the whole point. Universities have it wrong.....and worse yet---they should know better.

once upon, people understood the true definition of hard work and understanding the penance of such through fail whilst picking oneself up off the mat....

she only whispers to a mere handful now.....thank goodness for them....