If you have evidence he is a recruiter for ISIS that can stand up in a court of law, arrest and try him, until then he must be allowed to speak.
Or did you mean to advocate giving Donald Trump the legal ability to stop any and all speech he doesn’t like by simply asserting someone is a terrorist?
While I am not sure I agree philosophically, let’s put that aside.
How do you answer the limited resources question then?
A university only has so many days to host speakers, and so much money to run the events. If there is a complexly open policy insisting everyone who cares to must be allowed to speak, when the resources or time runs out, decisions will have to be made.
How does that work in your mind?
That is the effect of this EO - (taken to the extreme of course).
If the federal government is in charge of ensuring a balanced presentation of political views on campuses, that means THEY get to decide what ‘Balanced’ means. They will get to define the ideology of every speaker for their own benefits.
Re-posting in case you missed this.
What is the distinction between colleges in the educational industry, and corporations in other industries? They both benefit directly from federal tax benefits and subsidies.
Can I be expected to be allowed to speak at both regardless of their chosen mission statements and agendas?
“The greatest threat to progressive liberalism is the free and open exchange of ideas.”
This is why they are desperate to stop Trump’s EO, throwing every ridiculous “if”, “and”, & “but” in the path of statements of support in this thread, lest some open minded reader finds merit in Trump’s EO.
Maybe you don’t know how what we are talking about works. Universities provide venues for student groups to use to have speakers. The dates are typically handed out on a first come first serve basis. If they provide such a venue and are a state run school they are constitutionally disallowed from denying that service based on the content of the speech or the identity of the speaker. Nobody is saying they have to add venues or dates in an unlimited fashion, only that they may not discriminate who is allowed to speak in the venues and on the dates they have made available for the student body to engage speakers already.
I’d also add that the kids attending the speeches need to be taught some manners. If they disrupt, campus police should remove them and the university should penalize them.
Well, there is that, and then of course there are college and university sponsored talks and presentations.
But to your first point - colleges and universities do in fat put limits on teh sed of their resources - you can’t sign up to use the student union to have Fight Club for example, or to have an I Love HItler rally, or a Down with Gays rally.
Per school rules.
How far are we taking this? Can I sign up to use the student union to have a white supremisist rally? Wouldn’t we be up in arms that tax dollars are supporting such hate?
Private corporations as a general rule do not provide open venues for people to speak, if they do, I have no problem with the government not doing business with them if they do provide such a venue and then discriminate in a prior restraint fashion against speech they don’t like. And yes, that includes twitter and facebook. The chief justice has recently hinted he is thinking along the same lines when he said twitter and facebook are the modern equivalent of the public square. Yes, they are private corporations but they openly invited the public in to speak on their platforms. And just as bricks and stick stores give up some of their private property rights when they open to the general public, the private right to say, discriminate based on race for example, they should also give up their private right to discriminate based on the otherwise legal content of speech.
It means no such thing. They or he said nothing of balance, only that they may not discriminate.
Since the government allows you income tax deductions, it is providing a benefit to you. If you want to keep that benefit, Trump’s EO will require that you permit me into your home as a speaker.
See… I can post stupid shit too, just like you.
Did you miss the link I provided about prior restraint and what it is? If the speech is legal, it must be allowed, and it can not be deemed illegal before it has been spoken. Last time I checked neither merely saying you love Hitler or that you don’t like gays, is illegal, nor should it be. We have long legal precedent regarding what speech is legal and what isn’t, I can point you to the controlling legal precedent if you care to educate yourself on the subject.
If universities don’t want to deal with it, they can stop providing speaking venues to any and all students. But if they want to provide a venue for messages they approve of, the first amendment in the case of state run schools, says they may not prohibit legal speech they disapprove of. Because we don’t allow government to dictate what we can and cannot say in this country outside of directly inciting violence.
If you give the government the power to prohibit speech you disagree with, you are giving them the same power to prohibit speech you agree with. How is this hard for you to understand?
I agree - that’s stupid. And there is very little difference between these stupid things you and I are saying and the stupid thing Trump said.
So were/are you against this?
§794. Nondiscrimination under Federal grants and programs
(a) Promulgation of rules and regulations
No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulation shall be submitted to appropriate authorizing committees of the Congress, and such regulation may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date on which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.
Sorry - you did address this already.
Here is why I disagree - since we acknowledge the universities have limited resources - there are only so many days available for presentations, only some much of a budget for hosting etc… first come first serve does not serve their mission.
I would rather have students exposed to academic presentations or non-hateful presentations than those filled with poison. And the administration has a responsibility determine which presentations are helpful to the cause of education and which are wastes of time in that regard.
The same is true for the functions they host directly.
And so in that respect, it is exactly the same as why I can’t expect to go to Exxon Mobile and demand to be heard - what I am saying has nothing to do with their mission.
Now, I realize the trick here is, what if the administration of a school deems someone unhealthy, or hateful who is simply someone expressing a political ideology that is unpopular to the admins.
I don’t think the answer to that is to simply let everyone speak with no curation of the topics of speakers. That is irresponsible.
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs
Wednesday, February 23, 1994
Department of Education
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs;
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 36 / Wednesday, February 23, 1994 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Nondiscrimination in Federally Assisted Programs; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final policy guidance.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education issues final policy guidance on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations. The final policy guidance discusses the applicability of the statute’s and regulations’ nondiscrimination requirement to student financial aid that is awarded, at least in part, on the basis of race or national origin.
Thanks for the nice discussion this morning - I have to shovel snow and get to work. Perhaps can read and reply later.
I don’t care what you would rather have, the constitution and the law is clear, state governments are not permitted to exercise prior restraint on speech. If they permit speech at all, they must do so across the board. If they provide a venue for students to speak or have speakers, they must do so without trampling on the first amendment.