Our changing times: which side will the right and left take about this free speech documentary?

Why did you feel the need to post another post asking me if I have received your response?? You are too impatient.

Tell me, would you mind posting your telephone number on here please so we can call you?

 

Free speech dies the moment people think they have a right to not be offended.

 

Hollywood is a good representation of the left, and looks to them and their followers on the left, are everything.

 

Assuming that you're not the worlds busiest person I'll assume that you have read it but why did you even ask me about Kapernick in the first place?

I would mind, yes. What's your point?

 

Great question.

In California, where I live, leftist protesters successfully used violence to prevent the appearance of conservative speakers at the UC Berkeley campus. This repeatedly occurred until conservative groups pressured the university via lawsuits to allow student groups, regardless of ideology, to invite guest speakers and ensure their safety.

What resulted was this:

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-berkeley-protest-shapiro-20170914-htmlstory.html

Sadly, taxpayers were on the hook for the $600K cost of ensuring the event could occur.

Prior to this, Berkeley officials (who, for the most part are of a leftwing ideology) essentially shrugged and allowed violent leftists to act out, and then canceled conservative speakers for what they called safety reasons. I'll note this was no different then brownshirt Nazis oppressing minority views at the behest of government.

The government – in this case, the City of Berkeley, Alameda County and UC Berkeley – were forced to ensure the rule of law was in effect instead of allowing a violent group who shared their ideology to prevent Americans from expressing their 1A rights.

This is how it's supposed to be, right?

 

Many here were against Kaepernick exercising his freedom of speech and expression. They fake outrage about 1A being "endangered" while at the same time advocating squashing dissent.

If you weren't going to make your phone number, what make you think that lady would post her real phone number to the public. Like I said, only an idiot would dial that number than fake the outrage when they find that the number was for something else.

 

You mean like the Kaepernick issue.

 

Non sequitur. How would the Kaepernick scenario fit my assertion? Who was running to the government looking for recourse?

 

Trump suggested Kaepernick should fired. One hell of a position to take considering he holds the highest government position in this country.

 

The president also has free speech rights.

Now if the president suggested he should be arrested or fined? Now we’re talking free speech violation.

Free speech means you have the legal right to express yourself. However, it does not mean you are free from the consequences of that expression — as long as there is no criminal jeopardy.

 

I am 100% against Liberals who silence legitimate criticism -- like Christina Hoff Sommers.

But Count Dankula's statement about the Jews has nothing valuable.

 

Here's more:

 

I enjoy engaging with you, but you make it difficult by inserting your replies inside my quoted posts so that when I click 'reply' to reply to you, your words are not pasted into a new reply. It means that I have to manually copy and paste your words and insert it into my reply. Its not too bad on my desktop computer, but very difficult on my touch devices! Any reason why you do it this way? I wonder if you've ever had it turned back on you? Well you have now!

 

Well those people are idiots.

I wouldn't have expected her to post her real number, but why did she have to post one which wasn't hers? Could she not have simply just not told people to call her?

 

"Their ideology?" Who is they?

The First Amendment only prescribes that no law shall be passed which would restrict freedom of speech, so how can it be applied to college campuses?

 

I was hoping you'd ask.

The public agencies I named are filled with far-left extremist elected officials and bureaucrats. In a state with one-party rule, the San Francisco Bay Area, especially northern Alameda County, is even more leftwing than San Francisco itself.

You do not 'serve' in Berkeley or Oakland or the county they are in without being of a like mind with everyone else there. It makes what used to be called the 'good 'ol boys club' seem like Diversity Inc.

From the Berkeley mayor being a member of the radical group BAM to city officials in adjacent Oakland, they share an ideology with the violent protestors trying to prevent conservative speakers from exercising their 1A rights.

Best comparison would be a small town sheriff in the south turning a blind eye to the local Klan when they begin beating marching protestors.

When a mob is preventing free speech through violence, the government must ensure the safety of that person to speak:

In fact, the Supreme Court has made clear that the government cannot prevent speech on the ground that it is likely to provoke a hostile response — this is called the rule against a “heckler’s veto.” Without this vital protection, government officials could use safety concerns as a smokescreen to justify shutting down speech they don’t like, including speech that challenges the status quo. Instead, the First Amendment requires the government to provide protection to all speakers, no matter how provocative their speech might be.

https://www.aclu.org/other/speech-campus

I've explained this in detail, how about if you use an example or explain a bit more of your confusion?

 

Well....stupid people do stupid things.

 

So you're calling her stupid?

 

I'm just not sure how you get this from what you provided in italics, because government providing "safety" to speakers is not mentioned.

Doesn't this mean legal "protection" from the law? Not physical protection from mobs? People are afforded physical police protection from mobs, but it's not because of the First Amendment.

 

I think it has come to pass that speaker arm themselves in case of a violent reaction to their words, and have the legal right to use the weapons if they feel physically threatened.

Free speech can only mean by the government AND THE COURTS cannot interfere. Person to person is a different story. It becomes a dog eat dog stand off.

If you try to use the courts to sue for speech damages, you should be out of luck.
No retaliation for verbal sexual harassment.

 

If you read the link form the ACLU I provided, court decisions have found that government must mitigate the "heckler's veto" in order to allow 1A rights.

This is how it works (not saying I agree with it, as it is ridiculous that case law has determined speakers need permits to express 1A rights, but it is what it is):

UC Berkeley requires student groups to obtain permits and campus approval to invite speakers. Berkeley then denied these permits to the student groups, as the speakers they invited would cause leftists to commit violence and property damage, as prior incidents have shown and what groups like BAM promised.

Berkeley allowed the heckler's veto to thus prevent 1A rights, were sued and then forced to provide enough security to allow the speaker to engage in 1A activities.

As I noted above, this was often seen during the civil rights era when local officials would stand back and allow the klan and other extremists to prevent Americans from expressing their 1A rights.

This is why I'm amazed that some on the left are not concerned about extremists today not allowing 1A rights...

 

What do you mean?

 

What it says is "the government cannot prevent speech on the ground that it is likely to provoke a hostile response." I am curious if this is based on a law of some sort if it is not in fact the 1A. Like I said before, I don't see how the 1A applies to anything other than congress not being allowed to pass a law which restricts free speech and the other freedoms mentioned. So I can't see how it applies to colleges. After all, it says, "cannot prevent speech", not "cannot prevent 1A rights." Did the court apply this to only publicly funded colleges or private ones too?
Also, it says, "on the ground that it is likely to provoke a hostile response." This seems quite limiting. What is stopping colleges from preventing speech on the ground that they don't agree with the ideology of a speaker? I mean other than the risk of national embarrassment.

This discussion has come from my question about how the federal government would justify pulling funding from a college which has anti free speech policies, an idea which I believe Trump flirted with in response to the Berkeley controversy. You didn't address that, but I wonder if you know how they might be able to justify it because I can't see how a college would be in violation of the 1A shutting down free speech, but I can only imagine that there exists a government mandate by which publicly funded colleges must abide by or risk funding being pulled.

 

Exactly. Public funded colleges can have all their funding removed for restricting any constitutional barriers. Though no direct power by the government, indirect power is still allowed.

Not only direct support, but student loans etc.

 

What constitutional barriers?