It’s ironic that in a thread about freedom of speech you are easily bothered by people speaking.
I said that fund withholding affect public and private schools differently, not
Again, you should get a refund from USC, bc apparently you cant read, mr. manager.
Except you didn’t say this on your initial reply… I said USC receives federal money and you tried to make me feel stupid by saying USC was a private school
like I didn’t know that already.
What was the point in pointing that out, if it wasn’t to say private schools wouldn’t be affected (which you would know since Trump didn’t make that distinction)
If you say so troll.
This conversation is beyond your comprehension. Back to mommy’s basement.
Mr manager? Manages what, picking up doggie poo?
So you can’t answer the question? I thought schools were infringing on free speech? Why is it so hard to find an instance of it?
You wouldn’t be demonstrating conservative victimhood, would you?
The executive order doesn’t put itself in the position of determining who will speak on campus only that the administration cannot selectively cancel speakers.
Is that so difficult to understand? Why is it you take to to the extreme when that is not what was said???
PRIVATE the key word.
PUBLIC Universities: The key word.
Understand the differences?
Clever use of a double negative.
You made it easy for me, as youre still showing your feigned naivety on how funding works for public vs. private schools.
posting by the way.
…but not to shout them down or block their ability to be heard.
It isn’t hard, you have been provided numerous examples, you choose to ignore the schools denying them the right to speak by claiming it is the students who didn’t want them to speak, while ignoring it was some of those students who invited them in the first place. And then there is the dodge that they are denied the ability to speak for security reasons, giving the left the power to veto any conservative speaker by threatening violence if they are allowed to speak.
Ok now let’s address your ignorance of the first amendment and where it is applicable.
Like most of the bill of rights, freedom of speech has be incorporated against the states. You can read what that means here.
Incorporation , in United States law, is the doctrine by which portions of the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. When the Bill of Rights was ratified, courts held that its protections only extended to the actions of the federal government and that the Bill of Rights did not place limitations on the authority of state and local governments. However, the post-Civil War era, beginning in 1865 with the Thirteenth Amendment, which declared the abolition of slavery, gave rise to the incorporation of other Amendments, providing more rights to the states and people over time. Gradually, various portions of the Bill of Rights have been held to be applicable to state and local governments by incorporation through the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the Fifteenth Amendment in 1870.
Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank (1876) still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to “incorporate” most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.
Gitlow v. New York , 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states. It was one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.
Now on to private schools. Freedom of speech is not only something to be found in the bill of rights, it is a principle that is one of the bedrocks in the foundation of this country. It is a common ideal held by the people of this nation. So while you may not be able to get a court injunction to force a private school to allow it, I have no problem with our federal government refusing to do business with, subsidize or otherwise help any private entity profit while they trample on that ideal. Just as I am sure you have no problem with the federal government not doing business with private entities who practice racial or gender discrimination.
The interesting thing is Private Schools like the one my daughter attended allowed all viewpoints to be heard. The state schools as we see often allow only th points of view that is similar to the progressive/liberal viewpoint.
And when presented wit examples the idiot refuses to read the examples proving it only is here to piss people off and be arbitrary.
As stated earlier, why give the idiot airtime??
I don’t post responses to him for his benefit, I post them for the benefit of others, otherwise some people may fail to realize how consistently he is wrong.
I quit that approach as it only encourages IT to continue posting here.
But there must be a mechanism for the federal government to determine compliance, otherwise it’s pointless.
And, I think we can agree there are some people who should rightly be forbidden from speaking at college campuses.
So who decides that line?
Re: public and private - there are no FEDERAL universities. There are state run universities. And both state run and private schools benefit from federal student loans, tax free status and federal research grants, so what’s teh difference?
Since teh federal government subsidizes, provides tremendous tax credits to and otherwise directly supports Exxon Mobile, should I be expected to be allowed to speak at their headquarters?
What about at any church I choose, since they benefit tremendously from their tax free status?
No, nobody should be forbidden from speaking, that’s called prior restraint, if they break the law when they do speak, then you can punish them or stop the speech, not before.
Government prohibition of speech in advance of publication.
One of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is the freedom from prior restraint. Derived from English Common Law, the rule against prior restraint prohibits government from banning expression of ideas prior to their publication. The rule against prior restraint is based on the principle that Freedom of the Press is essential to a free society. Attempts by government to obtain a prior restraint have largely been unsuccessful.
The rule against prior restraint was undisputed for much of U.S. history. The landmark case of near v. minnesota, 283 U.S. 697, 51 S. Ct. 625, 75 L. Ed. 1357 (1931), finally settled the issue, with the U.S. Supreme Court finding that the First Amendment imposed a heavy presumption against the validity of a prior restraint.
So then you would insist a recruiter for ISIS be allowed to speak?