The NFL Protests


I know, but the 1st is not absolute (you mentioned it yourself, “fighting words.”) It’s been applied inconsistently but self-professed “white nationalists” ideology fall into that category IMO.


I am no longer sure they are tax exempt anymore. I think that changed in the last few years, at the behest of the NFL I think. But I could be wrong. It may have just been talked about.

But government has always granted weird things to pro sports, such as MLB being exempt from anti-trust laws.


Except Fighting Words has never been upheld. It’s something the SCOTUS said and then… completely ignored in every decision afterwards to the point that it doesn’t effectively exist. And the SCOTUS has very definitively supported those self-professed white nationals. Hell, they’ve very explicitly supported full on Nazis marching in the streets.


But that’s not what happened, at least not at public universities like Berkeley.

Shapiro was invited by a right wing college group, and actually gave a speech.

Coulter was invited by a right wing college group, and that group later withdrew its invitation. They blamed fears over student backlash. But unlike Berkeley administrators, Berkeley students are not constrained by the First Amendment.


You lost me.


The talks being canceled by student groups unaffiliated with university administration lacks even the tenuous connection to the federal government that you and Scuzz are so worried about.


I think the Berkley administration “asked that she not speak” due to concerns about violence and eventually the group agreed. The costs of security were becoming more than the school was willing to pay.

And much of the violence around Berkley involves non-student groups. Oakland has a very active anarchist group that has no problem with violent acts. They were very active during the Occupy Movement days there.


I’ll spell it out for you. If you are worried about how students or the rest of the general public will react to your speech, then the First Amendment won’t help you. It only protects you from government reprisals.



Again, I don’t see the point you’re trying to make.


So the government, and I guess by extension, the university administration won’t beat your nazi ass. But the students certainly might. As well as any outside protestors. Of course by your, I don’t mean you.


Can’t find the article I read a bit ago and only have these two but you sure of that?

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
315 U.S. 568 (1942)

Chaplinski was on a street corner yelling at people and calling them sinners and fascists. Eventually a mob formed and started a riot.
Chaplinski was arrested and charged with breach of the peace under a New Hampshire law that made it illegal to call people names.
Chaplinski was convicted of breach of the peace. He appealed.
Chaplinski argued that the New Hampshire law was unconstitutional since it infringed on his 1st Amendment right to free speech.
The US Supreme Court upheld the conviction.
The US Supreme Court found that Chaplinski’s statements were fighting words (words designed to incite violence against the speaker).
The Court found that freedom of speech is not absolute, and that certain forms of speech (like fighting words, commercial advertising, or obscenities) do not convey ideas and are therefore not covered by the 1st Amendment.
This is known as the two-tier theory because it divides speech into two tiers of constitutional protection.


Except you can replace Nazi with Jewish or Apostate and the same argument applies (and has been applied) so maybe you want to think that one through a little more.

edit: To unpack that a little - you’re assuming that either no university in the country has a sufficiently large and disruptive group that would intimidate people you don’t want intimidated; OR that if such a group does exist - it’s not the university’s problem. There’s a risk, so they can just ban the speech. Not their fault.

Needless to say, I do not agree with this.


I mean… yeah. And then you can have them arrested.

Pretty much.


No. It’s a simple fact.


So you do not believe there is any duty at all on a university to facilitate invited speech in the face of intimidation?


I did not say that. I was simply attempting to clarify a statement. My beliefs have nothing to do with it.


Fair enough. I thought you were trying to make some other point.


Just a quick thank you for linking that. Not only did it give some perspective of things for Robin Williams, it gave me kind thoughts about such a wonderful man that we’ve lost. RIP, Robin.


Much as I hate to add to the massive tangent here, I thought Jack Lessenberry’s comments about Charles Murray’s speech at Michigan were insightful.

I know, it’s not the same thing, heckling the speaker versus refusing to let the speech go on at all. Still seems like a worthwhile point is made, though.


I’m fairly confident that Trump was not referring to tax-free municipal bonds, but nonetheless they do exist.