Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Trump announced Saturday he intends to sign an executive order mandating colleges and universities take steps to guarantee free speech to attain federal research grants.
"We reject oppressive speech codes, censorship, political correctness and every other attempt by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous and dangerous ideas. These ideas are dangerous," Trump said. "Instead we believe in free speech, including online and including on campus."
"Today I'm proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research grants."
The announcement came after he brought Hayden Williams on stage at the Conservative Political Action Conference. Williams is a conservative activist who was punched in the face at the University of California at Berkeley last month while assisting the university's chapter of the right-wing group Turning Point USA.
Trump threatened that refusing to abide by the executive order would impose a heavy cost on their budgets.
"If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they've got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people and old people to speak. Free speech. If they don't, it will be very costly," he warned.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Hill seeking additional guidance on the executive order.
Free speech has emerged as a chief motivator for conservatives in recent years, particularly after several prominent conservative speakers, such as right-wing provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, had events canceled at campuses across the country.
"If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?" Trump tweeted in February 2017 after an event with Yiannopoulos was canceled following clashes resulting from his invitation.
Tags
Who is online
42 visitors
So trump is going to force universities to bow down to any extremist views or have funds withheld.
The Trump base needs the legitimization in order to justify the revolt.
I'm sure the Satanists are chomping at the bit to do a nationwide collegiate tour.
First stop Liberty University!
The KKK immediately jumped for joy.
They would be able to recruit the younger, the seed corn.
Oh happy day.
As I'm sure Antifa did as well. Two sides of the same coin...
I don't remember antifa trying to hold speaking engagements at university.
No, the attempt to oppress them and use violence to intimidate university officials into canceling them.
I cannot imagine you find such behavior acceptable.
I don't agree with antifa and their tactics. My point being that they are not going to campus and making speeches. They may counteract what they deem hate speech, yet that is a different animal.
No. Not true.
Funny that the left now equates free speech with extremism.
Ideas are scary!
Should anti-semites be allowed to speak at will across college campuses?
That was a course that was cancelled. It only lasted about a week before it was shut down.
There is always a but. A college should not be forced to host anti-semites, anti-gay, anti-racial harmony, etc.
Also, what about trump using EO's. I heard for years how bad they were, now not so much.
Talking about free speech, if a corporation can have it, why not a college?
I would say it's pervasive in a lot of society.
Under this EO, who would decide what is or is not acceptable? The government?
Something tells me that Trump would not fight for the free speech rights of those who criticize him quite as much as he fights for those who kiss up to him. We all know he doesn't support freedom of the press, or free speech for those involved in the production of SNL.
Sure, sure.
Does "Saturday Night Live" have freedom of speech? If yes, please inform Trump. He seems to think it applies only to those who kiss his ass.
Has he questioned how they get away with making fun of him?
Yes.
Are those the words of a man who supports freedom of speech?
No.
Of course he hasn't. He can't. That doesn't mean he supports free speech. He just claims to, when the speaker agrees with him.
I seem to recall the courts forcing him to reinstate Jim Acosta's credentials. He tried to violate freedom of the press, and got spanked.
I absolutely do NOT agree with the author of that linked article, that the cause of antisemitism is lack of unity among the Jewish people. Show me a major religion where there IS unity.
I think it's part of the progressive impulse to control as much as possible. Any speech or ideas they can't control is therefore dangerous.
Far right wing fascism is very scary.
He hasn't done anything to stifle free speech, but his words reveal that he would if he could.
I'm not quite sure how one would slander free speech. Tell lies about it? Would one risk being sued for defamation by free speech?
None of the ideas being presented by the right wing nut jobs are new which is why sane people recognize how scary their racism, religious bigotry and white nationalism are, we've seen them in action before and know where it leads. When you have a speaker get up in front of a group and proclaim white culture is being eroded by an influx of immigrants and how we need to keep immigrants from non-white, non-Christian countries at a minimum, what should be the response?
In many bleach white evangelical Christian colleges and areas that message is received with emphatic endorsement while in places that recognize the importance of diversity and don't hold racist ideas of preserving some fantasy white culture the response has been "Shut the fuck up you fucking racists!". This of course has been met by the right wing claiming the left is "intolerant" of their views. Well no kidding. I may support diversity and equality but I sure as hell won't tolerate child molesters or white supremacists. Yes, we should discriminate against some types of people, but it should never be on the basis of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof. But refusing to accept the Nazi's, KKK and NAMBLA members in our society is, while technically bigotry, a healthy form of prejudice.
Bigot: noun - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
I am intolerant of those who believe their race makes them superior to others. I am intolerant of those who believe raping kids is okay. I am intolerant of those who believe their gender somehow makes them superior which justifies their earning more or having more rights than another gender. I am intolerant of those who believe their religion is superior to all others think it should have a privileged place above all other religions in society.
And while I believe it's others right to express their white supremacy, their religious intolerance, their anti-Semitism, it's also the right of the masses to call out those people as bigots, racists and anti-Semites and to tell them to shut the fuck up. They don't have to listen, just like no one has to listen to their message, but both sides have every right to express themselves and both sides should expect to be judged on the message coming out of their mouths.
And some on the right think freedom of speech is only what they say it is.....
So where does all of this finger pointing leave us? I'll tell you... The in exactly the same place after all the spitting and hissing is completed with exactly the same problems. What a waste of energy.
Political point scoring, and division is for childish minds. Team building and compromise is what real leadership is about. What we see here on NT is a microcosm of our current non-functional political system, and we as voters have earned the shit fight we have. Thinking and acting from the center by putting the constitution and the rule of law first with a touch of compassion is the only way I see of getting out of the ditch we've put ourselves in.
Free speech rules should be applied uniformly without regard to the nature of the speech in question.
How is this not obvious?
I was asking questions.
I see below you said the thing that would not be allowed would be inciting violence.
I could see the klan espousing others as inferior could start violence. Same with someone espousing anti-semitism. As DP mentioned above, pedophiles. Should they be able to hold a speech where they tell people how to molest kids?
Lines can and have been drawn. Some just don't like where they may fall.
Free speech rules should be applied uniformly without regard to the nature of the speech in question.
How is this not obvious?
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
As is the U.S. Supreme Court.
And while its obvious to you, apparently the Supremes don't have the depth of knowledge that you do..
Because they have issued many rulings on the subject-- and basically they have said that the nature of the speech does indeed govern whether or not it is allowed.
(Perhaps you may want to contact them, and explain to them why their knowledge isn't as great as yours-- and they should over-rule all their past rulings based on the valuable Constitutional interpretations you would be willing to provide?)
Free speech rules should be applied uniformly without regard to the nature of the speech in question.
How is this not obvious?
Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
As is the U.S. Supreme Court.
And while its obvious to you , apparently the Supremes don't have the depth of knowledge that you do..
Because they have issued many rulings on the subject-- and basically they have said that the nature of the speech does indeed govern whether or not it is allowed
"Without regard to the nature of the speech?" Nope! In terms of "the nature of speech". see, for example, Schenck v. United States:
Schenck v. United States , case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on March 3, 1919, that the freedom of speech protection afforded in the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment could be restricted . . . (cont'd)
Bigot: noun - a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
Well, by that definition-- its comforting to know that there are no bigots on NT!
Nope-- not even one!!!!
(Roflmao)
As are some on the right.
Where does that leave us?
You don't.
Some on the right do.
Like Trump, threatening to take NBC to court over SNL hurting his feelings.
Laughable, that some believe this is about free speech for all.
If you bothered to read carefully, you'll notice the first three words of my post were:
Rules. Was there a part of the word "rules" you did not understand?
Yes, I realize speech can and must be regulated.
Those regulations must be applied uniformly.
I still don't understand how this is not obvious, even to someone who doesn't read carefully.
SNL isn't an institution that receives federal funding that's supposed to be used for educational endeavors.
I never said it was.
I'm saying it's hypocritical of Trump to blather on about free speech when he supports suppressing his detractors.
Some do. Are they elected officials riling up their base about free speech?
Quite the opposite, sandy. There's myriad evidence proving that Trump's detractors are guilty of having attempted to suppress Americans' First Amendment rights on school campuses and classrooms as well as restaurants, movie theaters, parks, private homes, etc.
Hear, Hear!
And Trump's tweets are ample evidence that his support for free speech does not extend to his detractors.
It's hypocritical for him to pretend he champions free speech.
I think what Jasper is missing here is that trmp is the "government". Mrs Robinson getting into someone's face at a restaurant is not the government suppressing free speech.
Jasper isn't missing anything, so your comment indicates incorrect thinking:
No. I'm saying that those who threaten free speech with court action, as Trump does, look ridiculous and hypocritical when they trot out their false support for free speech in public.
For the record, I think public colleges and universities should give fair hearing to both sides of a political debate, but I don't think they are under any obligation to give a pulpit to those engaging in hate speech or promoting harmful behavior. Young Democrats? Sure. College Republicans? Absolutely. KKK or the North American Man/Boy Love Association (yes, such a group does exist)? Nope, they don't get a pulpit.
Ordinarily, I would agree with you.
But the reason we're even discussing this is that the definition of "hate speech" has become so broad as to be not only idiotic but dangerous.
I do think there would need to be a lot of conversation to define parameters about what constitutes "hate speech", and enforce them nationally.
Fair enough. The cool thing is that speech is an enumerated right and we have lots and lots of case law and precedent on it.
Speech is a right. A microphone and a lecture hall to deliver it are not.
Citation?
I disagree. Especially for tax payer subsidized institutions of higher learning.
what you propose is a very slippery slope. A slippery slope indeed.
We transition from the Consititution to other laws.
Renting a lecture hall is every bit as much a right as buying a wedding cake or riding in the front of the bus.
I have a problem with the suppression of conservative views in general.
But some of the guests being denied have engaged in hate speech and promotion or defense of criminal activity. Milo Yiannopolous, for example, defends pedophilia. Maybe the Young Republicans should choose their speakers more thoughtfully.
You want the KKK speaking at colleges?
How about BAMN?
Renting a lecture hall to those who incite hate involves risk to the university. One of the reasons some of these speakers have been cancelled is the violence that occurs at their events.
Wedding cakes and riding buses don't tend to lead to riots.
The Proud Boys have been.
Links?
Renting any facility involves risk to the university. That's why they have insurance,
As far as violence at these events, that is exactly why these events must be permitted to continue. We cannot be bullied by the badly behaved.
If only the supporters of a cause attend the event, who is there to commit violence against? No, the violence in question is fomented by opponents seeking to violate the rights of people with whom they disagree.
The very idea that such opposition should be allowed to prevail is both dangerous and insane. You would never suggest that a gay pride rally be canceled because the KKK might show up and cause a brawl. Suggesting that a conservative speaker should be canceled because leftist may show up and start a riot is exactly the same.
We do not decide the liberty of one individual based on how angry it makes others. Again...that's insanity. That is exactly the same idea as blaming the battered wife for what she did to provoke her husband.
In these cases, we have adults behaving like children. They are convinced that their anger is more important than the freedoms of other people. They believe only they or their approved icons should have certain rights. Thankfully, that's not how it works.
I'm not suggesting that about conservative speakers in general. I have explicitly stated above that both liberals and conservatives be allowed access to such facilities. I'm suggesting it for those engaging in hate speech or those endorsing criminality, on either side of the aisle.
You do acknowledge there is a difference between conservative views and hate speech, I assume.
Thanks.
So, it looks like college administration in both cases are allowing and encouraging the presentation of conservative views. Even Berkeley. Who'da thunk it?
The protesters are to blame, not the universities. Arrest those who protest violently. Don't punish the universities by withholding funds.
And to Trump, make sure not to threaten to sue those who speak ill of you out of one side of your mouth while extolling the virtues of free speech out of the other, or you'll look like an incompetent, hypocritical ass who doesn't have the first clue about the Bill of Rights.
Isn't that exactly the plan? Won't funds only be withheld if a university cancels the event?
Was there ever a point where you doubted this description of him? Why would your expectations be different?
But as we've discussed, the problem with that approach is that the definition of "hate speech" has become nearly anything young angry liberals may disagree with.
Religious opposition to same sex marriage... a position that has been the social norm for 2000 years... is now considered "hate speech". Opposition to abortion is considered by some to be "hate speech".
Then we have the long accepted double standards for "hate speech". So if a campus defines the use of the word "n****r" as hate speech, intending to keep Nazi's from speaking on their campus, do they then also prohibit Chris Rock or any of the dozens of other black comedians who use the word 50 times in an hour?
As for criminality, you realize that Cheech and Chong have "endorsed criminality" for decades, yes? Are we really going to tell UCLA they can't book comedy acts?
We have standing legal precedent for regulating speech that incites violence or causes panic. There isn't any reason why those rules should not apply on a college campus.
The question is whether or not university officials will acknowledge that difference, especially in opposition to angry liberal students.
It's a matter of where the blame is placed. Too many are whining about "liberal" universities not giving conservative speakers a platform. They are, in fact, giving conservative speakers a platform, sometimes at substantial expense to the campus. These speakers were invited. Their speeches don't seem to have been cancelled. They had a platform. So, if the speakers are being invited, and are delivering their speeches, what is the problem?
Not especially. I suppose I had hoped, apparently without reason, that some people would be able to see that "I'll sue SNL for hurting my fee-fees" and "We must have free speech on liberal college campuses" are ridiculously inconsistent.
That's what YOU say the problem with the approach is. When I regularly see some conservatives complaining that not nodding and agreeing that creation "science" is actually "science" amounts to censorship of their views, well, I'm going to go right on ahead thinking that one side isn't always the side in the wrong here.
Calling intelligent design "pseudoscience" is censorship to some.
Some think that teaching science instead of religion in science class is religious persecution and censorship.
So maybe let's recognize that both sides can have a persecution complex here, all right?
Opposing someone politically can be done without stating that they're inferior, or perverted, or fearmongering with regards to them, or saying that they deserve to die or be locked up, etc.
And ok, I'll go ahead and say that colleges shouldn't have to give a pulpit to somebody who is advocating for the harm of others. Cheech and Chong's weed harms only themselves. I doubt anyone wants NAMBLA in their local lecture hall.
IMO, hate speech is like pornography. You know it when you see it.
Tell me specifically, what in my post is psychobabble?
Ok. And that is something with which I have already said that I disagree.
He spoke at Berkeley. And Ohio State.
Oddly enough, he's been turned down by Christian (and presumably conservative) colleges, too - Ganzago and Grand Canyon University.
[Removed]
Like I said earlier, Free Speech is easy to accept when you agree with what is being said. It only gets hard when you don’t.
That said, i’m sure people like Stalin and Pol Pot thought they “knew” when they saw it as well
And like I said earlier, we all have the right to free speech, even hate speech. We don't all have the right to a microphone. And some folks defend free speech only when their guy wants a mic, and look the other way when their guy mentions wanting to take away someone else's mic.
You asked for links on Ben Shapiro. Many other speakers have had their events canceled.
Why would complaining about censorship and attempting to censor something as "hate speech" be the same thing?
How? Are they attempting to have The Origin of the Species banned? Are they attempting to claim that Darwin belongs in the same category as Hitler? How are "pseudoscience" and "hate speech" the same thing?
So again.... you're operating on the idea that allowing something to be said is the same as preventing something from being said. I'm not sure how that makes sense.
We're not talking about a "persecution complex", and if we were, you realize all the people being persecuted are on the same side, yes? We're talking about calling anything you don't want to hear "hate speech" so you can keep people from saying it.
Yes. Or stating that they're inferior, hatemongering, corrupt, uncaring, greedy, otherwise immoral or saying they don't deserve what they've earned in life.
That's actually very sound, and legal precedent supports it.
All the more reason not to censor based on "criminality".
Probably not. Nobody wants Nazi's either, but the Constitution protects their rights, too.
The problem is the whole "eye of the beholder" issue. Hugh Hefner's "art" was Jerry Falwell's "pornography". Truett Cathey's "religious charity" was the SPLC's "hate group".
We have people on this site who believe earnestly that the liberal protesters in Charlottesville were "peaceful", despite their clubs and pepper spray.
This is America. People get to speak. It doesn't matter if people don't like what they have to say.
It's the persecution complex. You complain that liberals (you never mention conservatives) mislabel speech as hate speech in an attempt to censor it. We have examples right here on NT of folks complaining that calling evolution, ID, etc. pseudoscience is an attempt to censor them, and if I looked hard enough, I bet I could find examples of it being called hate speech.
You see a problem on one side only. That's a problem in and of itself.
And I'm willing to bet that's why this article was seeded. Trump sees a problem only on one side. He either is too stupid to see that his own behavior regarding free speech is problematic, or knows and doesn't care because he knows he will be supported in his hypocrisy.
I agree wholeheartedly. I'm a business rights type of person but when a federally subsidized learning institution invites a speaker and then stops them from speaking for some simply biased/partisan reason. Make no mistake. They invited them and they are likely quashing Free Speech by uninviting them for simply biased reasons.
Now for a non federally funded college, like Hillsdale, they are not as beholding to all federal rules, such as admission policies, since they take no federal tax dollars. So they have more freedoms in running their institutions but even they can't legally quash Free Speech.
The constitution applies to all equally. But especially to the most biased that seem to congregate at some of our institutions of higher learning. They are the really dangerous ones the constitution was really intended for.
Agreed - Liberty University is a blatant example of learning institution that does this.
Not familiar with Liberty University case but i'll take you at your word, so agreed if equivalent.
That said, i expect you are equally disappointed when liberal universities do the same type of thing.
Right?
Of course. Half the point of college is to be exposed to different ideas, anyway.
Another problem with Liberty is that it requires its students to attend speeches, which most colleges do not. I think the students should be able to choose whether or not they want to listen to the speeches. But then, they should be looking into the rules before they decide whether or not to attend - I would never attend a college with those types of rules, but if someone else is willing to put up with them, that's their choice.
Then we are in full agreement. Can't do that when you only offer one side of an issue.
Things haven't really changed that much. I remember Profs trying to indoctrinate us nearly 40 years ago when i was in college. One had to be sharp enough to make their own choices after that.
Some were and some weren't.
Should we also be disappointed when Christian (and presumably conservative) colleges uninvite conservative speakers like Shapiro?
Liberty U, BTW, made attendance at a Trump rally mandatory for its students.
Odd. I went to a fairly liberal college, and nobody tried to indoctrinate me.
I majored in IT, so there wasn't any indoctrination going on. Bits and bytes don't leave a lot of room for personal interpretation.
Of course. Perhaps you missed the part when i said the constitution applies to all equally.
That seems to be a pretty big chip on your shoulder. Thinking that many of don't apply this concept of Free Speech equally to both sides. Clearly some don't but IMO most (on both sides) do.
If didn't want to go, i wouldn't have and would have fought any consequences that arose from my actions later. Colleges can't "legally" make you go to a rally if that's what really happened.
I majored in biology, but it was a liberal arts college, so I had a lot of literature, history, and humanities courses, too. No attempts at indoctrination. It was a Christian school, but attendance at chapel was not required, and there was no required attendance at political speeches, either.
Why would "you" consider that odd?
Did you need indoctrination to get where you are today?
Then perhaps those who violate it or advocate for doing so should be called out equally, without those doing the calling out being accused of having chips on their shoulders.
Boy, do we need a sarcasm font. You are the one who seems to think that indoctrination is part of a college education. Katrix and I were pointing out that it isn't.
I majored in Engineering and it was common depending on the Prof. Especially in required non engineering curriculum. You did take classes other than IT classes right?
Splat! Right over your head but i do agree on the sarcasm font.
Right back at you in blue bold.
Inferring that that our higher education system in the US is completely unbiased and not heavily left leaning would possibly be the most obtuse thing i will have read on NT.
EVER!
Liberty does. It's mandatory - or you'll get kicked out. They're called convocations and are required school assemblies. They have a lot of weird rules since they're an evangelist school.
You did take classes other than IT classes right?
Of course ... but there wasn't any indoctrination in those, either. I remember an assignment to go to a planned community as part of Sociology and write a paper about it. My paper was definitely against it - can't even put up a basketball hoop, way too many rules and regulations (this was before HOAs were prevalent, I guess). But there was no pressure to have one view or another. That would have been an ideal class for indoctrination if it were going to happen.
So, were you being sarcastic when you said that
Or did you miss that I was being sarcastic when I replied
Because my sarcasm, which you apparently missed, was to show that your ideas about indoctrination in college are not necessarily true. I knew some of my professors' religious persuasions, because they were ministers. I rarely knew their political leanings - maybe one or two of them, and because of their activities outside of the college. They never brought it up in class.
Apparently, katrix and I attended better colleges than you did.
So are you calling me a liar?
LOL!
I highly doubt that.
Where did I say anything close to that?
And you tell me I have a chip on my shoulder.
Jeezus.
They taught sarcasm there. And not to conflate telling someone that a college requires attendance at Trump rallies with calling them a liar.
Not that those are especially difficult skills.
Liberty U is nothing but a bible humping, worthless degree 'university'.
Its a simple question. Can you answer it?
Sheesh!
Sure sounds that way to me!
Lol, they taught "sarcasm" at your college?
Was that a 500 level course?
Sarcasm and irony are widely used tools in literature. Some people recognize them offhand. Some people have to be taught. Some people never learn, and then ask silly questions like
because they didn't recognize that I don't, in fact, consider it odd that nobody tried to indoctrinate me in college.
Read back through my posts and tell me if you can find any that either state outright or imply that you are a liar.
And then stop inferring that which I have not implied. It's dishonest.
Or you could just practice the time honored tradition of simply answering a question when asked. No special college training required to do that. Just simple forthrightness, honesty and respect.
Never-mind, this is going nowhere fast and since you've devolved into making poorly veiled insults and accusations that don't even begin to track, i'll leave you to your devices.
Enjoy and have a nice day!
Your question contained an accusation. And your first comment to me in this thread was deleted because it was the first of several insults, so don't talk to me about respect.
No it did not. You just took it that way.
Yes. Because "hate speech" condemnation is currently a tool used almost exclusively by those on the left.
How is that an attempt to censor something? Those are not remotely the same thing.
I bet you'll have to look pretty hard. The fact you haven't linked anything reinforces that.
If you can provide examples of colleges canceling liberal speakers, I'm certainly willing to reconsider.
I see the current problem as predominantly one-sided, yes. I'm old enough to remember when it was one-sided the other way.
In the minds of some on the right, it is. And I'm willing to bet that many here have read the same comments. NT is peppered with them. I can't call them out by linking them in this article.
And to turn that around..... The fact remains that some on the right are actually for banning speech when it targets them such as the KKK, and the Anti-Semitic Nazis.
We all know hate speech when we hear it. Honest people admit that it we hear it from both he far left and right.
And the middle like David Duke sometimes he supports the Republicans and sometimes he supports the Democrats. Lately he’s been leaning towards the Dems.
Your evidence of this??
This is just descending into nonsense. (You will notice that my calling it nonsense does not remotely approach anything near censorship.)
We're talking about universities who cancel speaking events because of the political views of the speaker. If that's happening with liberal speakers, please show that.
Oh, good grief. Right wingers here on NT complain that they are being censored when people call their pet ideas pseudoscience, and they also refer to such statement as "hate". I'm sorry you haven't come across it (lucky you), but it happens, and with a fair amount of frequency. The fact that you've been lucky enough to miss those conversations does not make this nonsense.
And you don't think that some on the right don't want to do the same?
Any chance that there are a bunch of people that want to meet in the middle? To do that everyone needs to stop paining with broad strokes.
And that relates to public speakers at universities ..... how.....exactly?
Because I'm having difficulty following the connection between a couple of isolated extremists on the internet getting their feelings hurt and publicly funded institutions refusing to let people speak.
Why must it only relate to public speakers? My entire point all along has been that Trump champions only tgat free speech which flatters or agrees with him. He has violated or threatened to violate the free speech rights of his detractors. Goalposts started moving around after I pointed that out.
Because they are actually being censored. Dipshits on the internet are not.
The speech which happens to be censored. There is a connection, BTW.
How? Has he somehow pulled SNL from the air? Has The View been canceled? Has he directed US military satellites to jam MSNBC? What free speech rights has he actually violated?
Only because you're moving them. We went from speakers being barred from public universities to you attempting to rationalize that censorship in the name of "hate speech"...which you can't define... to rationalizing it because of people on the internet getting their feelings hurt. That's not just moving the goalposts, that's taking them down and trying to hide them in the shed behind the bleachers.
And Trump blocked Twitter users, prompting the court to tell him he couldn't. He revoked Acosta's press privileges, and a court told him he couldn't do that, either.
Trump has walked all over the First Amendment. He's not a proponent. You can pretend he is if you like. His actions say otherwise.
Acosta deserved to have his pass revoked. The only reason it wasn't upheld is that there were no written procedures for revoking a pass based on reporter poor behavior...largely because no reporter has ever been such a complete ass in a presidential press conference.
It is important to note that revoking a press pass or refusing an interview is not censorship. For example....you and I do not have a press pass for WH briefings. That does not stop us writing whatever we like.
You're welcome to that opinion. A lawsuit by CNN would have been interesting.
And Trump still can't block people from his Twitter account, because that was determined to be censorship, considering his status as a public servant (supposedly, anyway). But he did at one time.
And he'd shut SNL up if he could, as shown in his tweets. He just can't.
At least while the far left is not in control.
Not particularly. Most lawsuits aren't. You'll notice Acosta hasn't made a complete ass of himself since then. There are now rules about how to revoke a press pass if the reporter can't behave.
I think that stands simply because it hasn't been challenged. However it is fascinating how the best endorsements for any politician are the nutjobs from the other side who attempt to engage them on social media.
The idea that Twitter is considered a valid form of communication is the end of civilization as we know it.
Finally, something on which we agree. Would you be so kind as to clue Trump in?
I don't have a Twitter account, so I have no way to contact him
Oh I so wish I could. I so wish his handlers would take his phone from him and not give it back until he's out of office. Barring that, I wish they could install some sort of cattle prod technology that shocks the hell out of him whenever he opens the Twitter app.
I have one, but I have never actually Tweeted anything.
Political correctness is a sham term in the same way that Mexico will pay for the wall is.
Besides, why wouldn't every campus want to have honored speakers from the Ku Klux crowd, Nazis, Sovereign Citizens Brigade and those cuddly white nationalists?
As far as the Trump-------------will he dodge criminal international money laundering again?
My money is on obstruction of justice. That's a given.
How he always skips by I will never understand.
Now the asshole is tweeting about how great one of his golf courses is and great for relations with that country.
He is actively promoting his own interests. There has to be financial crimes in there somewhere.
His chances of reelection are pretty damn good, excellent in fact.
Link?
An obstruction of justice charge is the least of the crimes the Trump family has committed.
Something happened at Helsinki. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was also in Hanoi for the Trump-Kim show. Something is going on.
There is so much empirical evidence you would have to be deaf and blind not to see or hear about it. And since investigations are still ongoing, your 'no evidence' is BS, there have already been multiple pleas, indictments and jailing. Trump won't be the FIRST, he will be the LAST. So take a nap, we aren't done yet.
Well there is the alleged old Stalin quote; "You can vote for whomever you want, but we count the votes."
I think it depends on what one calls "free speech". Is shouting down a speaker considered to be free speech, or is allowing the speaker to have their say to be enforced? Will the Palestinian supporters harassing Jewish students on campus be considered "free speech" to be enforced now?
If the speaker was up there telling the crowd all about how Israel stole the country and that they are the aggressors and that the holocaust never really happened and it's all a Jewish cabal of Hollywood executives and Jewish bankers running the world, should the crowd be required to remain respectful and to let the speaker continue speaking uninterrupted? Or might it be the people in the crowds right to stand up and tell that anti-Semite to shove his bullshit world view up his ass? They didn't arrest the speaker, they simply shouted him off stage, is that a denial of free speech? He can go on to sell his books and speeches to other anti-Semites, so he hasn't been denied any free speech.
We have religious conservatives who felt it was their right to blockade Planned Parenthood access with anti-choice protesters screaming and yelling at women attempting access. We had to get the law involved in regulating how close the protesters could be and how they had to allow unobstructed access to the building, just like security has done for many right wing speaker events amidst protesters in Berkeley and other progressives bastions. Do the religious conservatives propose banning any protests of Planned Parenthood? If not then why are they suggesting banning the protesters of right wing speakers? Is it not the same thing?
Representative Omar has a right to hold campaign rallies. ,
Yes.
If they want to rebut, there is a correct way to do that. Shouting someone down is simply mob rule.
Which sounds very similar to angry liberals who felt it was their right to blockade roads to keep people from attending political gatherings with which they disagreed.
Security has failed to do exactly that for many speakers. That's the problem.
Perhaps there should be common sense limitations as to whom is invited to speak in the first place. If it is to be a person with a reputation for the kind of controversial invective you describe, then require that another speaker with an opposing view also speak, or that the speaker must agree to questions being put to him. Would you invite Hitler to speak at a meeting of the American Jewish Congress? Surely common sense is necessary.
Sadly Buzz, common sense perished of natural causes some time ago.
LOL. A very perceptive statement, luther.
You would think the First Amendment would be all you need.
“Free Speech” is an easy concept to embrace when you agree with what is being said. It only gets difficult when you don’t.
True Free Speech is allowing that which you don’t agree with.
Is there any line? Or a complete free for all.
There are well established legal lines already in place. One cannot incite violence, for example.
But it doesn't mean you have to leave all speech unchallenged. Free speech also gives others the right to point out the flaws in others opinions, to judge others based on their words and deeds, to point out a person who is proclaiming the benefits of fecal mastication and to call them what they are, a shit eater. So when Nazi's and the KKK marched around Charlottesville waving their swastikas and confederate flags chanting "Jews will not replace us!", it was allowed, but thankfully it didn't go unchallenged. People all over America stood up and called them out as racists and anti-Semitic as they should, all except the President who said there were "fine people on both sides" because he knew which side had more of his base in it and he didn't want to disrespect his loyal bigots.
So while free speech is allowing speech you disagree with, it doesn't mean you aren't allowed to express your own disagreement with it.
It does mean that you allow that speech to occur.
That's a great example of "doing it wrong" when it comes to challenging ideas.
It does, however, mean that you allow those people with whom you disagree to have their say. Which did not happen in Charlottesville.
How so? We all heard them loud and clear which means they had their say. On one side you had peaceful protesters and on the other you had vile piece of shit Nazi's, the KKK and other white supremacists standing up to defend racist confederate monuments. On one side you had violent bigots, one of whom intentionally rammed their car into the peaceful protesters killing one and severely injuring dozens. Were there a handful of antifa idiots throwing punches at Nazi's? Yeah, but not many compared the massive crowd of peaceful protesters who refused to be goaded into violence even as their streets were filled with flying swastikas.
When you go to their rally and start a street brawl, you have officially not let them have their say.
That's utterly gobsmackingly ridiculous. You had armed violent thugs on both sides.
That is what Trump got wrong in his description, BTW. He said "good people on both sides". What he should have said was "armed, violent thugs on both sides".
They showed up with clubs in hand looking for a fight.
Exactly!
Utilizing “brown shirt” techniques like that they become that which they say they abhor.
Sadly, folks like that rarely seem to make the connection.
Riiiiight….. It was the crowd opposed to the actual marching Nazi's waving swastikas that were the "brown shirts"? It really is stunning how many Trump sycophants have come out to defend Nazi's and to place all the blame on the dumb ass antifa. I watched the march, there were thousands of peaceful protesters with a few dozen antifa who came looking for a fight versus hundreds of Nazi's, KKK members and other white supremacists wearing swastika armbands and MAGA hats waving confederate flags shouting "Jews will not replace us!", yet it's the protesters who get vilified by Trump supporters.
I'll go along with that
Yes. Ironic, isn't it?
Defending a person's right to speak and or assemble does not require agreement with their nonsense.
I know you're smart enough to comprehend this basic idea. You just don't want to.
For example, I believe Bernie Sanders is a hate-mongering asshole and his supporters are imbeciles. But I will defend their right to assemble and demonstrate their stupidity.
Yes. This is simple. In keeping with modern liberal tradition, you want very much for your "feelings" about the message to override the US Constitution. They don't.
As vile as their message may be, and as idiotic as it is to march around a statue, it is their Constitutional right.
Nah, but what is stunning is how some people are so obtuse that they don’t see the real dangers to free speech here.
and it’s not a bunch of nimrods marching around simpy waving swastika flags.
Its the fucking idiots trying to forcibly stop them from doing it. So yeah, they’re the only ones acting like brown shirts here. Anyone who can’t see that doesn’t really understand the concept of free speech.
Not in the least..
Do they go to college to study and learn or act up?
An interesting quote (food for thought?)
Liberty, if it means anything, is the right to tell people what they don't want to hear
while i disagree with limiting or shutting down free speech ... can we stop pretending it's only the " left " ?
how convenient that the President and the conservative minded forgot all about their own shutting down of free speech as well on a college campus ...
I agree that "What's good for the goose...."
Trump says he’ll sign executive order for free speech on college campuses
I believe he may be a bit late, the 1st amendment has this covered if I am not mistaken.
Maybe that should be explained to liberal college students and their loony leftist professors and administrators who act as if the First Amendment does not exist.
I would say that if they are in College and are yet unaware, then perhaps the educational system and their parents have failed them.
Free speech is for all, if you find the speech offensive then do not listen.