Bipartisan Legislation Would Let the Government Create Speech-Chilling 'Antisemitism Monitors'

https://reason.com/2024/04/29/bipar...create-speech-chilling-antisemitism-monitors/

HYPERLINK has full article

snip

On Friday, several House representatives introduced legislation that would permit the Education Department to create third-party antisemitism monitors at any college receiving federal funding. The purpose of the bill—the full text of which is not yet available—is to crack down on rising antisemitic speech on college campuses. However, the bill's supporters fail to consider how an "antisemitism monitor" would create a chilling effect, curbing academic freedom and encouraging colleges to punish protected expression.

end snip


Once again our elected officials fail to understand the Constitution. Let's use different words and say "Pro-Palestine speech"

What's next? will they monitor to see if folks use pro-Democrat party speech? How about pro-Republican party speech?

Vote out all of them

 

it is a fine line, but comments like "Death To Americans" should be reported - not just being pro-Palestinian, that goes too far

could be a slippery slope

 

Tough to give an opinion on. Unfortunately we've seen what happens when far left groups target Jews (hello nazi germany). On the other hand, we've seen what government does when it gets to control speech (hello Australia, UK, etc...).

 

The slippery slope, imo, is stifling speech of any kind.

 

We'll have to see the full text, but the only thing we should never tolerate is intolerance. So it sounds like a step in the right direction.

 

Prohibiting antisemitism is sure to make it flower on campus.

Students simply resist authoritarianism of all kinds.

 

death threat are not free speech imo

 

Ahhh ... those were the days, right?

 

Not could be, it will be.

 

Except when they get to be the authoritarians. Ironic. Huh?

 

I never said they were.

Why do so few forum participants truly understand the 1st Amendment? Any speech intended to do harm is not free speech.

Censorship or a libel suit (or both, in the case of Alex Jones) can be remedies for that, but otherwise, we should be free to voice whatever we want. The trouble lately is in our inability to respect that right for those we don't agree with.

 

No, censorship is never a solution. If someone incites violence with their words, then they should be prosecuted under the laws that prohibit such incitement.

 

If that is the case, then of course they should be prosecuted. The 1st Amendment will not protect them, not evenyoyr dear leader, DonaldTrump. Thanks for making my point.

As for censorship being the wrong response, I'm pretty sure I said that (see #4). A libel suit is not censorship, it's retaliation.

 

you were replying to my post, I was saying that was the only speech that should be reported, actual crimes or harassment or threats, maybe we misunderstood each others posts and agreed

 

like censoring books from a school library?

 

No, nothing like that.

 

Irony..

 

Do you understand the Constitution? How can you be so willing to cede liberty to a bunch of elected folk?

What might be intolerant to another might be tolerant to you. Whose opinion, and it is an opinion, is correct?

 

we are ALL responsible for our own actions. No words from another changes that.

 

Maybe you don't understand liberty. Your liberty ends where the liberty of others begin. The only way to "cede" liberty would be to elect a guy who has announced that he will become a dictator and has already TRIED.

The CORRECT "opinion" is the one that considers antisemitism intolerance. But if you believe otherwise, SAY it! I don't even see it as an opinion. It's pretty much the definition of the word.

 

let folks protest Israel and chant whatever they want. Let folks protest against pro-life groups and chant whatever they want. Let folks protest non-Democrat voters and shout out falsehoods about them. It's called free speech.

There is nothing in the Constitution about your right to not be offended.

 

Agreed! But the government should take a look at how they're funding the institutions that are supposed to be educating them. Are they taking steps to eliminate intolerance? That HAS to be a requirement for funding.

Let's not confuse different political positions, which should be ENCOURAGED in academic scenarios, with intolerance.

This is why I said we would need to look at the bill before taking a position.

 

You don't consider book banning to be censorship?

 

Not when it's just restricting access to said book within a school library. That isn't a "book ban". A book ban means the book isn't legal to sell, nor available anywhere, schools, online, bookstores, etc. In the case of the latter, yes, it's censorship.

 

What about public libraries? Is it okay for them to ban books? This looks like censorship to me:

https://www.ala.org/bbooks/book-ban-data

I understand the desire to restrict what our kids read, but should that be up to public schools to ensure? I would think that would be a parent's purview.

I get the desire to keep very adult things off our kids' radar, but some of the books they are banning seem innocuous to me, or controversial at worst. For high school, and in some cases junior high or middle school, controversy can be a very good thing, allowing teachers to lead lively classroom discussions on various topic. It's how kids learn to think, analyze, work through an issue to logical consequences. Don't we want our kids to know how to think for themselves? Don't we want them exposed to a variety of ideas? Don't we want them to discuss those ideas with us at the family dinner table? Don't we want them to know right from wrong?

Computers, tablets, phones, televisions and streaming devices all have apps or built in features that allow for parental control, which IMHO is the only legitimate form of censorship.