I never said anyone should have their free speech rights revoked. I’m talking about giving people a platform to speak. No one has a right to a platform. I’m allowed to refuse people at my door who want to speak in my living room. Colleges have their own rules and regulations and if someone wants to get up on the stage and say some bullshit, they have the right of refusal too. I’ll cede your point about public colleges being forced to allow these things as soon as I can walk into any government building in America (including and especially Congress) unimpeded and be given the floor to say whatever I want.
Except most colleges are public institutions, so…
Finish the rest of my post before you reply. wtf people
Edit: This is why I perma-ignored all P&R threads sometime earlier this year. It’s like beating your head against a wall. And then another wall shows up and starts beating your head for you. I think I made a mistake coming back here.
Sorry, but this isn’t really a legitimate argument at all.
The reason why you cannot just walk into a federal building and start talking, is because it would be disruptive to their normal operations. You aren’t allowed to just disrupt the workplace of folks. It has nothing to do with what you would choose to say, but rather the fact that they don’t allow ANYONE to do that.
In the case of a public college, they allow public speaking all the time. The notion of speaking itself is clearly not deemed disruptive.
What makes something censorship, is when the government bans your speech because of its content. If you say that someone cannot speak somewhere because you don’t like what they are saying, then that is a problem.
Or rather, it’s not a problem if you do it as a private individual… but it’s a problem if the GOVERNMENT does it.
And I agree with most of that. It’s exactly what I’m arguing. Just because you have the right to free speech doesn’t mean you can go fuck up some places day just because it’s public.
I.e. someone thinking that they can call up a university and say “I’m giving a speech, how’s Tuesday? Make sure you get me your biggest stage I’m bringing a lot of racist friends with me”. That isn’t something in the normal course of business for universities.
What I disagree with you about is the rest of it. The normal course of business is education and just because a lot of speaking happens to support that goal does not mean that speaking is the goal itself. There is a lot of speech that does not fit their goal/business at all, and it should not be allowed just because some idiots outside of the college/community think that their right to free speech somehow grants them a platform, and any public institution has to allow all speech.
No, you are talking about a public institution censoring someone’s speech based entirely on the content of that speech.
That’s a violation of the first amendment of our constitution.
Only… that isn’t how colleges work. Or have ever worked.
Every ex-President and most ex-Congress people have spoken at universities since the founding of the nation.
Yep, I’m done here. Sky is orange, I’ve been wrong about everything my whole life, fuck it
Yes, blame everyone else for not understanding something and pointing out your errors.
Good luck on your Senate run.
I have no problem arguing with Timex. He’s really thinking out his arguments. You… aren’t.
If you really can’t see the difference between Milo and
then I just can’t help you.
Tell me how say, George Bush talking supports the goal of education at a university?
It doesn’t. At least not any more than say Ben Shapiro speaking (except Ben is a smarter person with more education).
I’m saying the same things as Timex, except I’m citing your statements.
They do not have a constitutional right to get paid to speak anywhere they want.
Bear in mind here, that it’s not like these people are just showing up on campus and demanding they be allowed to speak.
These folks are all being invited to the campus by some college group.
It’s totally reasonable to no let literally anyone come on campus and expect a stage to speak on, but the college saying that a speaker cannot come because they disagree with the content of their speech… that’s a problem.
and thus the difference between the NFL and public institutions of higher learning.
True. But no one does so… I guess I fail to see the point of this statement.
What generally happens is that a group asks for a person to come speak. Young Republicans or Campus Democrats or whoever. Now imagine that one group is told no. For political reasons. And one group gets told yes.
Because that’s where this leads and is what we’re talking about.
Yes, it’s totally legal for the NFL to ban any sort of speech they want. Hell, they could choose to throw out spectators for not standing for the pledge, if they wanted.
Whether it would be morally or ethically correct is another matter entirely.
Actually don’t most colleges now have “free speech areas” where almost anyone can speak on any subject. I know Fresno State has one and I believe UC Berkley does. Now, having that area doesn’t mean anyone will listen to you or that they will agree with you, and you won’t get paid. :)
This is true BUT the government (in the guise of the president) demanded they stop and the NFL owners are on the verge of capitulating. Had they done this before the toddler’s temper tantrum it would have been a different story…
Well, I think even before Trump’s tirade they were needing to do something. Trump’s interference will only speed up the process probably. But so far the NFL has actually resisted what Trump called for and even Jerry Jones has now met with players over his demand that they will be sat if they kneel.
I don’t follow football any longer but I thought the league had left it up to the teams to decide what policies to pursue. The league changing in response to trump (and especially after threatening their tax exempt status (why are they tax exempt anyway?) seems to be open to legal challenge (IANAL so I don’t know.)