You Live In A Dystopia When The Government Has To Force Free Speech On Academia

[dunksby]

[QUOTE]WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Saturday he would soon sign an executive order requiring American universities and colleges to maintain

[Kblaze8855]

The first amendment has nothing to do with what people can say to each other without repercussion. Just says congress cant make laws limiting speech.

The odd thing here is that most of the conservative speakers who try to go to colleges and talk get shut down by protesters in advance. What I read suggested that Trump wants the colleges to prevent the protesters from stopping the appearances which.....would just be using one part of the first amendment against another. How do you push for free speech by limiting free speech and assembly?

Besides most of federal aid to universities is directed by congress which isnt gonna change it for him with Democrats controlling the house. Its another likely empty measure that will just go to court and be overturned in part while the portions that arent simply have no real world effect.

500 protesters will always present enough of a problem for a school to say it called off an event for safety reasons. This is a gesture. Nothing more. Its the kinda thing that even if it worked...and it wouldnt...it would be outside congress so have little impact on their actual funding and whatever impact it did have could be overturned day one by the next executive.

Whats gonna be done? Put together a panel to investigate several thousand schools and figure out how much federal money they get that is within the executives ability to halt then block money to 6-7 schools that get on the news after speakers get pulled while 99.99999% go on doing whatever they want? And even the 6-7 will be large well known schools who wont care about a 2 year reduction in federal grant money to study dolphin diabetes.

Its just noise. The kinda thing to get a cheer in front of a friendly crowd that has few real world implications.

[dunksby]

The first amendment has nothing to do with what people can say to each other without repercussion. Just says congress cant make laws limiting speech.

The odd thing here is that most of the conservative speakers who try to go to colleges and talk get shut down by protesters in advance. What I read suggested that Trump wants the colleges to prevent the protesters from stopping the appearances which.....would just be using one part of the first amendment against another. How do you push for free speech by limiting free speech and assembly?

Besides most of federal aid to universities is directed by congress which isnt gonna change it for him with Democrats controlling the house. Its another likely empty measure that will just go to court and be overturned in part while the portions that arent simply have no real world effect.

500 protesters will always present enough of a problem for a school to say it called off an event for safety reasons. This is a gesture. Nothing more. Its the kinda thing that even if it worked...and it wouldnt...it would be outside congress so have little impact on their actual funding and whatever impact it did have could be overturned day one by the next executive.

Whats gonna be done? Put together a panel to investigate several thousand schools and figure out how much federal money they get that is within the executives ability to halt then block money to 6-7 schools that get on the news after speakers get pulled while 99.99999% go on doing whatever they want? And even the 6-7 will be large well known schools who wont care about a 2 year reduction in federal grant money to study dolphin diabetes.

Its just noise. The kinda thing to get a cheer in front of a friendly crowd that has few real world implications.
The matter is rather simple, despite your Gish Galloping; colleges and Universities cannot cancel a booked lecture or allow intolerant elements to stop a point of view, which they do not agree with, from freely expressing itself on campuses. Especially if it's by using physical and violent means.

The above is only one part of the problem or more accurately in fact a symptom. A symptom of academia being dominated by one extreme school of thought which sees freedom of expression and exchange of ideas an existential threat to itself.

It is truly unfortunate that colleges and Universities, places which got to be the bastion of openness and inviting of civil discussion have turned into a haven for those who are terrified of dialogue and facing individuals who might challenge their dogmatic set of beliefs. The situation is so dire that the damn government has to come in and try threaten these close minded pseudo-intellectuals to get a grip and relax their clutch on discourse within higher education.

[Long Duck Dong]

It's in these schools best interest anyways. Berkeley has had to pay out big money to young conservative groups for not protecting them from violent leftists who are issuing threats while armed, masked, and causing property damage. The police also should never be encouraged to stand down from engaging aggressors who fall more on the side of threat and intimidation than protest. The left is a shit show. They need to be reigned in. No one seems to have a problem with aggressive confrontation of the crazies on the right.

[Akrazotile]

Businesses like Blades of Freedom are designed as a free market solution against this exact thing.

More businesses who hire kids without worthless degree requirements. Fewer kids who feel compelled to take out loans and stress their repayment when they can start makibg money right away.

Who cares about these college nut houses? Conservatives should just walk away from them. But Im sure Starbucks wont hire someone for a job in the marketing deptartmwnt without a degree in gender studies and advanced sensitivity training. We have to give kids who wanna go into business more options.

OP have you copped the official shaving razor of liberty?

Or done anything at all to advance your views on the issues in question...?

[Hawker]

The first amendment has nothing to do with what people can say to each other without repercussion. Just says congress cant make laws limiting speech.

The odd thing here is that most of the conservative speakers who try to go to colleges and talk get shut down by protesters in advance. What I read suggested that Trump wants the colleges to prevent the protesters from stopping the appearances which.....would just be using one part of the first amendment against another. How do you push for free speech by limiting free speech and assembly?

Besides most of federal aid to universities is directed by congress which isnt gonna change it for him with Democrats controlling the house. Its another likely empty measure that will just go to court and be overturned in part while the portions that arent simply have no real world effect.

500 protesters will always present enough of a problem for a school to say it called off an event for safety reasons. This is a gesture. Nothing more. Its the kinda thing that even if it worked...and it wouldnt...it would be outside congress so have little impact on their actual funding and whatever impact it did have could be overturned day one by the next executive.

Whats gonna be done? Put together a panel to investigate several thousand schools and figure out how much federal money they get that is within the executives ability to halt then block money to 6-7 schools that get on the news after speakers get pulled while 99.99999% go on doing whatever they want? And even the 6-7 will be large well known schools who wont care about a 2 year reduction in federal grant money to study dolphin diabetes.

Its just noise. The kinda thing to get a cheer in front of a friendly crowd that has few real world implications.

If it

[Kblaze8855]

The matter is rather simple, despite your Gish Galloping; colleges and Universities cannot cancel a booked lecture or allow intolerant elements to stop a point of view, which they do not agree with, from freely expressing itself on campuses. Especially if it's by using physical and violent means.

The obvious response is to just not book conservative speakers to begin with. Whats your solution then? Government mandated right wing speakers? How you feeling about setting that precedent?

What would you like done? Maybe establish gated off "free speech zones" like they do with some government events?

You thinking that gets us away from a dystopian world? You remember the free speech zones right? The actual cages the secret service put up to keep protesters from making noise near president Bush?

Go read about HR347. A law proposed by a florida republican and passed and signed by Obama(so both parties in on it) giving the feds broad discretion to keep protesters away from some government buildings/events. It was supposedly because of the occupy wallstreet protesters making a safety issue.

A lot of the law around it dates back to vietnam era protests at colleges and some to the civil rights era. Free speech zones were put in a huge number of colleges to keep people from disrupting speakers and so on but there have been many legal challenges. Because of them a lot of college got rid of them.

There are in fact laws against free speech zones in several states. And a free speech zone is exactly what you would need to stop protesters from being able to assemble and make noise to drown out a speaker they dont like. And who would enforce it? The feds did it for Bush. The secret service mostly.

You want to bring in a gang of cops to keep students caged 500 feet from controversial speakers where the story would still become the protest? You wouldnt do anything but make the protests bigger and give them more news coverage....

Simple and plain...if one guy wants to speak and 1,000 people want him not to...they drown him out or create enough disruption so the event is cancelled.

Like I said...it would be a do nothing measure. The most likely result is colleges in question simply not allowing speakers who will be protested to be booked to begin with....while the states pass more laws against free speech zones. Whats odd is they are usually pushed by republicans...a republican tried to get a national law against them passed a couple years ago. But what it will do is give colleges an excuse NOT to limit where people protest.

In the end there isnt much to be done about this. You would have to have the government enforce free speech by limiting other peoples free speech and freedom of assembly. Which is why I dont think its gonna work.

You can make people...not physically block door. I dont know how the government enforces a ban of protest chants in America. Especially in places where you cant setup a free speech zone and make them chant from elsewhere. And the minute the feds try....states will pass more. Especially the blue ones. California wont allow it.

So...when you have a state law keeping you from using free speech zones and the cops are controlled by a democrat governor...whats your solution? Exactly what branch of federal law enforcement goes in? The secret service did it for Bush but they cant do it at a college unless a federal building is at risk.

Without anyone to enforce a federal free speech zone law over the objection of the states it falls to the schools to police it...and they wont. The sheer number of them would make policing it impossible. You only hear about a few major ones on the news. What...you pulling together a FBI task force to investigate every claim protesters drowned a guy out? Then trying to figure out how much of that schools federal money falls outside the congressional power of the purse? For something the next president can just undo?

Its a can of worms.

Its going nowhere.

You have to think past what you want...into piratical application of it. How do you investigate it across thousands of schools and how do you ENFORCE it without having congress pass a law they wont make?

None of this shit is getting done. Its a "Get applause from my base" EO that wont likely have much real world impact...if any. Mostly because they will NEVER get a law passed nationally....but states can. They make it illegal to establish the free speech zones required to tell people they cant protest where they want...you gonna attempt to punish them federally for NOT breaking state law? Think maybe a clever lawyer may find 10th amendment issues?

Call it simple all you like. We will see how simple it is in the real world.

[Raymone]

We've been living in a simulation since at least 2012. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH3exI6I1iY)

[Kblaze8855]

If it’s a safety issue then that’s indication of violence which is no longer free speech so you’re incorrect.

If the university were to shut down a conservative speaker, well that’s arguably discrimination.

The university would simply not allow speakers who posed a risk to be booked in the first place. Hard to "shut down" a speaker who was never booked. Where does that leave us?

Federal government forces the booking of political speakers? That a small government thing to do? And if so...think its legal for the government to mandate speech from one side of the spectrum or the other? They can protect it....im not sure they can protect your right to it by forcing a place to book you to do it.

They can make it be even on TV for political ads because the feds own public airwaves but even those days are ending with all the streaming.

It comes down to one thing...

If colleges are mostly liberal....with a few conservatives....thats a bad place to have a far right speaker go and expect a warm reception. Its like sending Pelosi to speak to 200 democrats at an NRA convention with 10,000 members. Is it her right to speak? Sure. But how do you mandate people who hate her not also speaking to drown her out?

She chose poorly. I dont know why the feds are supposed to get involved.

[Akrazotile]

The university would simply not allow speakers who posed a risk to be booked in the first place.ard to "shut down" a speaker who was never booked. Where does that leave us?

Federal government forces the booking of political speakers? That a small government thing to do? And if so...think its legal for the government to mandate speech from one side of the spectrum or the other? They can protect it....im not sure they can protect your right to it by forcing a place to book you to do it.

They can make it be even on TV for political ads because the feds own public airwaves but even those days are ending with all the streaming.

It comes down to one thing...

If colleges are mostly liberal....with a few conservatives....thats a bad place to have a far right speaker go and expect a warm reception. Its like sending Pelosi to speak to 200 democrats at an NRA convention with 10,000 members. Is it her right to speak? Sure. But how do you mandate people who hate her not also speaking to drown her out?

She chose poorly. I dont know why the feds are supposed to get involved.


The speakers arent the ones posing the risk :hammerhead:

[Kblaze8855]

Obviously they would say the event was a safety risk due to the protesters. Thats exactly whats been done. How you word it is immaterial. End result is the same.

No single speaker posts a safety risk. If Hitler himself rose and went to have a rally he would personally be no risk....but the tens of thousands of protesters he would draw...plus the few people there to hear him...would create a riot putting people in danger. You dont book the speaker....thats your excuse when people claim bias.

The rest is just wording.

[Kblaze8855]

Anyone curious.....people are tracking the disinvited speakers. Many of them are done for safety concerns just as I said. many from the right and some from the left. Here:


https://www.thefire.org/resources/disinvitation-database/#home/?view_2_sort=field_6|desc


Sort it by date. Some of them may surprise you. Where it says left or right that means who got it cancelled not what the speaker was trying to say.

[Akrazotile]

Obviously they would say the event was a safety risk due to the protesters. Thats exactly whats been done. How you word it is immaterial. End result is the same.

No single speaker posts a safety risk. If Hitler himself rose and went to have a rally he would personally be no risk....but the tens of thousands of protesters he would draw...plus the few people there to hear him...would create a riot putting people in danger. You dont book the speaker....thats your excuse when people claim bias.

The rest is just wording.


If the protests are happening on campus, the university is responsible. People are allowed to protest in civil, organized fashion and if the university wants to permit that it

[Hawker]

The university would simply not allow speakers who posed a risk to be booked in the first place. Hard to "shut down" a speaker who was never booked. Where does that leave us?

Federal government forces the booking of political speakers? That a small government thing to do? And if so...think its legal for the government to mandate speech from one side of the spectrum or the other? They can protect it....im not sure they can protect your right to it by forcing a place to book you to do it.

They can make it be even on TV for political ads because the feds own public airwaves but even those days are ending with all the streaming.

It comes down to one thing...

If colleges are mostly liberal....with a few conservatives....thats a bad place to have a far right speaker go and expect a warm reception. Its like sending Pelosi to speak to 200 democrats at an NRA convention with 10,000 members. Is it her right to speak? Sure. But how do you mandate people who hate her not also speaking to drown her out?

She chose poorly. I dont know why the feds are supposed to get involved.

Do you not know what the difference is between a private event and a public university? Nancy Pelosi speaking at the NRA is a bad comparison.

[Kblaze8855]

Most of these things are just a matter of noise. Of people buying tickets and using numbers to drown out the message. Besides....go look into the federal funding issue. Trump is talking about some research grants which he can direct to some extent but the great majority is through the NIH and such which has a process outside his direct control. Plus many are government contracts and things allocated on multi year deals from long before trump that will outlast his presidency. We are talking cancer research labs and such.

Hes not gonna pull money from cancer research and childhood diseases over politics. I dont care for the man....but I dont think hes thats bad....nor does he want that news story.

[Kblaze8855]

Do you not know what the difference is between a private event and a public university? Nancy Pelosi speaking at the NRA is a bad comparison.


The line is blurred by compartmentalization. Private schools have government funding in ways if you consider research....which obviously we are.

And the issue was one of expectations of your crowd anyway. A state fair gets government money....doesnt mean if Pelosi goes to the Alabama state fair to talk to a few Alabama liberals she should have the feds keep the majority of people who dont care for her quiet. She shouldnt be able to claim they get government money and thus....cant let people with opposing opinions be loud near her.

Dont go to a place where you are hated and expect a warm reception.

You have a reasonable expectation of safety. Not of people who hate you to be quiet. You have free speech. They have free speech. 12 thousand people will drown you out. Which is why you go talk to friendly crowds. Trump isnt going to a black lives matter rally to talk. He goes where most people with access WANT to hear him.

Its common sense.

[Hawker]

The line is blurred by compartmentalization. Private schools have government funding in ways if you consider research....which obviously we are.

And the issue was one of expectations of your crowd anyway. A state fair gets government money....doesnt mean if Pelosi goes to the Alabama state fair to talk to a few Alabama liberals she should have the feds keep the majority of people who dont care for her quiet. She shouldnt be able to claim they get government money and thus....cant let people with opposing opinions be loud near her.

Dont go to a place where you are hated and expect a warm reception.

You have a reasonable expectation of safety. Not of people who hate you to be quiet. You have free speech. They have free speech. 12 thousand people will drown you out. Which is why you go talk to friendly crowds. Trump isnt going to a black lives matter rally to talk. He goes where most people with access WANT to hear him.

Its common sense.

People from Alabama probably wouldn't care enough to be honest.

The line is blurred but we're clearly talking about public schools. But with that said - if you do receive government funding and you're clearly biased then that should definitely be looked into. These schools shouldn't be weaponized for a specific point of view.

It's really no different than discrimniation based on race, sexual orientation etc. Was forced integration a good idea? Should the blacks have gone elsewhere?

Trump isn't going to a BLM rally because again it's a private rally. You're blurring it for the sake of the argument when you know the difference.

Jordan Peterson sells out everywhere he goes - clearly lots of people want to see him yet there's tons of protests outside every time he speaks. Same with Shapiro etc. So people DO want to hear him. Bad argument.

[Kblaze8855]

Someone wants to hear everyone. Somewhere. But you dont go where the great majority DONT....and expect them to be quiet. They know the people are gonna do it before they get there. They KNOW it. They can go to places where 90% of the people want to hear them speak...instead of the inverse....if they want a warm reception.

The college itself is not protesting. Individual there are.....individuals who dont even go to the school are when its an open campus. Even when employees protest...it isnt the school itself. Its just people saying shit you dont like. Its a free speech issue both ways. But one side has a LOT more people in these cases...so whats expected?

[Akrazotile]

Someone wants to hear everyone. Somewhere. But you dont go where the great majority DONT....and expect them to be quiet. They know the people are gonna do it before they get there. They KNOW it. They can go to places where 90% of the people want to hear them speak...instead of the inverse....if they want a warm reception.

The college itself is not protesting. Individual there are.....individuals who dont even go to the school are when its an open campus. Even when employees protest...it isnt the school itself. Its just people saying shit you dont like. Its a free speech issue both ways. But one side has a LOT more people in these cases...so whats expected?


People in charge of establishments are accountable for the activity that goes on there, especially when theyre aware of it.

Impediment of free speech is a civil violation and universities bear responsibility. If they know it’s happenig and make no attempt to address it, that is akin to sanctioning it.

Anyway, thats the last Ill say in this thread, Hawker Id advise you not to waste your time further but it’s your call.

Some people apparently get a thrill from endlessly defending a faulty argument. It’s the only explanation. Id just let them be.

[Kblaze8855]

And if you cant "weaponize" anyone getting government funding to push a political agenda....

What about religious schools pushing conservative agendas? Even ignoring it in young children(where its most effective)...it happens with universities too.

Bob Jones right up the street from me is conservative as hell. They only started allowing interracial dating in the 2000s. Because of that policy they couldnt get federal money for a while. But now they can and do. They are considered a non profit again. Conservative speakers there all the time. Get generally warm welcome.

The school being biased a problem?

It isnt to me. I know what Bob Jones is. I wouldnt go expecting people to have my opinions. The staff...the student...they go because thats what they are looking for. I didnt...because it isnt what I was looking for.

I dont support them...but I dont expect them to support me either.

[Kblaze8855]

Impediment of free speech is a civil violation and universities bear responsibility. If they know it’s happenig and make no attempt to address it, that is akin to sanctioning it.

Telling the other side they cant speak(while non violent) is a violation...which you seem to not grasp. The free speech zones needed to keep people from protesting near speakers....are in some states...ILLEGAL...with no federal agency to create and enforce them anyway. Once the states are out...as they would be...there is nobody to police it.

Youre complaining about shit with no realistic solution short of tyranny like the global warming alarmists.

[dude77]

The obvious response is to just not book conservative speakers to begin with



so if a restaurant is trying to serve blacks but keeps getting protests, the solution is to just not serve blacks ? funny a black person, of all people, being ok with this .. apparently discrimination only matters when blacks are being discriminated against .. civil rights and shit

[Kblaze8855]

Not serving blacks....you would have federal and state LEO with jurisdiction to stop it. Who sets up the free speech zones when the state government doesnt send in the police...which they wouldnt?

The FBI? DEA? Who? The secret service?

Who is moving 1,000 people to the other side of the campus? And what do you do in the states that have laws preventing it? There are 18 states that have passed it or have introduced it. What is the ground level practical way to prevent protesters drowning out a speaker when state laws prevents setting up a place you can move them?

[Kblaze8855]

funny a black person, of all people, being ok with this .. apparently discrimination only matters when blacks are being discriminated against .. civil rights and shit



Its discrimination not to allow black or white or gay people to attend. It is not discrimination not to invite them to speak.

Bob Jones is not as likely to have someone with my opinions speak as they are someone with yours.

That isnt discriminating against me.

Is it really discrimination to not invite a transgender advocate to speak at your school if you dont believe in it? How is the government supposed to FORCE you...to have them come speak?

[dude77]

ok discrimination is the wrong word but still wrong we can agree .. I should clarify I'm only referring to public schools .. but now who decides what the school believes in .. the students make up the school so let them decide ..

how about the universities manage the protesters who get violent(arresting, policing etc) and making sure the other party's free speech isn't infringed .. you would think this would be a worthy cause to do so .. ya know . .in the name of free speech ..

but they get lax and lazy and let these protesters do their thing and eventually shut down these speakers .. almost as if they really don't mind these speakers being shut down .. they sure don't have a problem allowing all the liberal garbage being shoved down the throats of the student body which is being paid by the students(or taxpayers) by the way smh .. why is this being made to be so complicated ?

[Kblaze8855]

Because law isnt simple when you have 3 branches that dont agree. Id like to think everyone(reasonable) could agree that violent protesting should be stopped. But that isnt usually it.

Its just....people making noise. Disrupting your speech.

Dick move?

Absolutely.

Illegal? Im not sure how.

Take a minute and go read the free speech zone law that came out of the vietnam protests at colleges. Its been an issue for a LONG time and some of the people on your side passing these anti free speech zone laws....actually make it hard to stop protesters.

Just go read about it if you think it isnt complicated. Go look into it then tell me what you think. There are cases out the ass on this subject....

[Akrazotile]

Because law isnt simple when you have 3 branches that dont agree. Id like to think everyone(reasonable) could agree that violent protesting should be stopped. But that isnt usually it.

Its just....people making noise. Disrupting your speech.

Dick move?

Absolutely.

Illegal? Im not sure how.

Take a minute and go read the free speech zone law that came out of the vietnam protests at colleges. Its been an issue for a LONG time and some of the people on your side passing these anti free speech zone laws....actually make it hard to stop protesters.

Just go read about it if you think it isnt complicated. Go look into it then tell me what you think. There are cases out the ass on this subject....


So if I go stand outside a calculus class with a megaphone, a whistle, a drum, etc I can stand there and make all the noise I want, even at the expense of people trying to learn?

You think the university will protect my free speech in that instance? If they can find grounds to remove me in that case - which they would - they can obviously find grounds to remove people who are obviously trying to disrupt others who want to learn via guest speaker.

If colleges had parades going thru the hallway nonstop and kids could never learn or focus and nobody learned anything, would they be worth funding with your tax dollars?

People are there to learn. If thats being purposely disrupted, it isnt a free speech issue, it’s a harassment/disturbance issue. A legal issue.




I know I shouldnt have even responded :facepalm

[Kblaze8855]

If you want to go down a making noise means protesting isnt free speech path we have very different cases to study. If you actually care(I assume not) read up on the horn honking as free expression cases. It comes down to the intent of your noise. Came up in new york with the occupy wall street issue...that also spawned the free speech zone law.

[Akrazotile]

If you want to go down a making noise means protesting isnt free speech path we have very different cases to study. If you actually care(I assume not) read up on the horn honking as free expression cases. It comes down to the intent of your noise. Came up in new york with the occupy wall street issue...that also spawned the free speech zone law.


Yeah that’s exactly what I just said.

Thank you for reiterating.

Goodnight kblaze.