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

Well, did the fundings came with a stipulation that they have to rent out their buildings out to anyone who wished to? State funding doesn't automatically make them part of the government now does it?

 

That must be why there is a thread where righties cry and whine about the fact she wasn't fired or disciplined.

 

Ok.

Quote the most perfect example in the thread where a "righty" is crying and whining about her not being fired.

Go ahead and find me one.

Then we'll compare reality to your imagination.

 

It was the liberal Democrats who actually proposed in 2014 a constitutional amendment to put some limits, determined by Congress,on political speech.

 

Say what?? And what about Colin Kaepernick? Tell me forum righties didn't want him to be fired.

 

So your best example is someone saying "if they don't fire her it means they're condoning and defending her actions".

What about that statement isn't true?

Good luck with comparing your imagination to reality.

 

yes they evolve, and over the course of decades can turn and twist into the oddest shapes.

In your hypothetical, first I remind you to be precise in your use of '1st amendment rights'. Unless that college student is advocating that someone be arrested, that someone have their printing press taken by a local sheriff, that someone gets audited by the IRS, that someone have their books banned, or that someone have their business license revoked, based on the content of speech, you are misapplying the phrase for impact. There is no right to speak at a university nor a right not to be the target of a campaign to have you fired as a Professor or a right to tenure. The first amendment normally does not mean anyone has a right to access someone else's megaphone, or property. The closest you can get is to say that such behavior defies the broad spirit and general intent of the first amendment.

I will stick with Modern American liberal because I understand its values and history better, but you can apply it to classical liberalism if you like. If a modern American liberal college student does not recognize the potential harm to a serious effort to disinvite a conservative speaker based on the perceived harm he does in advocating conservative view or an effort to so harrass and heckle that effective access to those ideas is denied. and that he does not understand that such is a threat to academic freedom and intellectual pluralism long celebrated by most Modern American Liberals, I do not say he is not a liberal. I say is he is a liberal who has lost sight of the forest for the trees on this issue of tactics. I say he is misguided and blinded by his passionate pursuit of a liberal agenda and he needs reminding . I do not discard everything he values and has fought for, because his sense of tactics is blurred and wrong here.

Pay attention to the emboldened because it does not mean that protest of that speaker or speech is remotely contrary to those values. I am all in favor of the expression of dissent, and of the student body having an active role ( not always decisive) in determining who just is wanted and not. That schedule of speakers has to represent a very broad spectrum and the students should be primary advocates of that intellectual pluralism. They have the most to lose without it.

Primarily, guest speakers should offer balance to the inevitable holes in the bias of the faculty. If the faculty does not have professors teaching the the good side of isolationism, that is where the first invitation should be sent. Nobody but feminists in the political science dept? Well that is were textbooks and guest speakers can fill the void. It does not mean that any old body should be welcome. Sometimes the invitee just does not have the gravitas, or there are serious ethical issues and the university can do better in their search for quality speakers. Ann Coulter is not just conservative, she is a celebrity attention-seeking whore, who has the intellectual heft of a mouse. Conservative representation can do better than that and the vetting process should happen before the invitation goes in the envelope, not after!.

It also does not mean that feminist students should not congregate outside that lecture hall, and yes offer some very pointed and challenging questions inside that hall. It does mean the goal should not be to drive the speaker away, or to inhibit students from attending and listening.

Sorry I digress into a speech. Liberals can be inconsistently liberal, or flawed liberals or immature philosophically ( That happens a lot among 19-25 year olds) and still retain their title. So can conservatives.

As to your last question, LOL, I call you a libertarian/ conservative mutt, but that is only until you tell me what you are. Yes, you mostly tell me, I don't tell you. You know all your views and how you got them. You know what you think you are and what you aspire for, in like-minded ideologues. Maybe you are a libertarian who wants libertarians to be less strident and more pragmatic. Maybe you are a conservative who wants conservatives to remember their core values. You pick, I go with it.

 

You have very poor reading comprehension and analytical skills. Why mentioned the word "fired" if you are a lover and defender of free speech? So what if they are defending her actions? That only means they approved of her rights. Your reality is pretending you are in love only of free speech that suits your agenda.

 

You don't seem to be familiar with this issue, so I'll provide a brief background:

Recognized campus groups are allowed to invite guest speakers. Some of these groups invited conservatives such as the ones I linked, just as other groups invited speakers such as the former Black Panther and communist Angela Davis.

Yet it was only leftist students who used violence to prevent the conservative speakers from appearing.

Don't you find this reprehensible?

 

Oh on the contrary, I have always had a very good ability to comprehend written text. I make my living on analytical skills, and quite a good living at that.

Let me help you with comprehending this issue.

Mentioning the word "fired" is not "whining and demanding she be fired" as in your original response. Suggesting she be fired was due to her dragging the college into it by talking about her "tenure", and how she couldn't be fired.

That's what she should have been fired for, not for flapping her often-stuffed pie hole.

 

What do you consider "abuse"??? If it is a freedom, it requires no permission and has no limits. What part of NO LAW did you miss. The NO or the LAW.
People want free speech for themselves, but not so much for others, that is why it had to be made a simple right! The courts composed of 9 unelected tyrants for life, are not protecting the constitution as written, but as they want it written with their own political philosophies. Instead of upholding it as written, they want to make rules that do not jive with what is written.
If it says "no law" it means "no law" PERIOD. The founders were smart men, if they wanted the constitution to say something else, they would have written something else.

I may not like what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

 

Count Dankula joked about murdering Jews -- I do not see it as valuable speech. It is extremely abusive and offensive.

 

We are genociding our own children, doesn't that bother you? The left with abortion is fine with the genocide to boot.
People like you are the reason we MUST have freedom of speech. One man's junk is another man's treasure. To have freedom of speech for myself, I have to allow freedom of speech for you, it is a two way street. Many people don't like or want freedom of speech, because someone else will say things and hold opinions counter to what you think they should be. But when they shut you up, in the long run they shut themselves up.

 

Why did you ask this?

 

So now can you confirm that you do not believe in freedom of speech or freedom of expression?

 

Except, providing a false number which is an emergency number which could easily lead to a meldown in the call centre which would put lives in danger, is a crime! Calling Barbara Bush a racist is not a crime. Forget about firing her, she should be put before a judge, the dirty, ugly fat cow.

 

I agree, but how might a government use the First Ammendment to argue that a government funded university should be engaging in free speech policies?

 

what are you on about? Shaming a woman on how she looks now??

 

Answer the question.

 

Did you even read the post from @Steve N that you quoted? She gave the number of an emergency help line.

 

Did you not get the alert for my reply? http://www.politicalforum.com/index...ech-documentary.531370/page-4#post-1068995983

 

Yes, we should shame them. To the left, looks are everything.

 

LMAO-----no that would be the righties, who shame women many many times here on this forum. Your forum name fits. You ain't serious.

 

sheesh...take a chill pill already. You calling out people now because they don't instantly respond to you? Grow up.

As far as dial the crisis hotline.....if it's a crime, she would have been arrested. Too bad the idiots that wanted to harass the woman is too DUMB to realize it's not her phone number.

 

How did I "call you out?" I was letting you know that I already answered your question. Do you not recall just a few minutes ago you told me to "answer the question?" Why would you say that if you DID get the alert and saw my answer? Have you seriously still not yet seen my answer?

They certainly are idiots if they want to waste their time trying to harass her, but how are they supposed to know the true identity of the number? She supplied it and lied by saying that it was her number, which could've led to idiots flooding that emergency help line and preventing people from getting help. You seriously don't see a problem with that?