You (liberals) don’t like the EO because it gives conservatives back a fair footing on college campuses. You are hiding your dislike of conservative free speech behind what “ifs”. The fear is liberals have gained so much traction and come so far and now are going to share the platform, give freedom of speech to those they have fought so hard to repress and vilify.
Liberals are going to see this as unfair and regressive to their agenda. That is what the opposition to this is all about in a nutshell.
They aren’t very good at thinking things through. My oldest daughter opined to me last Christmas that she doesn’t think the government should allow people to “say hateful things”. The look on her face when I responded, “So, you want to give Donald Trump and a republican congress the legal ability to determine what is hateful and stop people from saying it with the force of law?” was amusing to say the least.
She decided shortly after that she no longer wanted to discuss politics with me.
I find it funny that someone in support of Public Accommodation laws (which are inherently unconstitutional) wouldn’t support this EO which is Constitutional even though they’re basically doing the same thing just with different subject matter. Think 14th Amendment vs. the 1st amendment.
Want to talk about the tax credits for biofuels the federal government extended as they demanded Exxon produce bio fuels???
Want to talk about the 50 billion in tax cuts but ignore the 50 billion they said they would invest in the US??
Did you know Exxon is an international corporation with 55% of it’s business overseas?
ExxonMobil’s cashflow statement shows $4.2 billion in cash income taxes paid. The company says that in the decade to 2015 it made $82 billion in net income and paid out $110 billion in U.S. taxes.
The liberals just don’t want to hear a conservative point of view, nor do they want others to hear or be exposed to it.
It could get people to thinking and that is just not the way it should go.
Imagine if a scientist came into speak and logically laid out reasons against man made global warming. How many would be hearing that for the first time and give them pause. Dangerous stuff to liberals.
No, I am making a comparison of holding them to constitutional bill of rights standards, and withholding federal funds if they do not meet those standards, which should be patently obvious.
Both examples are of constitutional provisions that started out being only applicable to the federal government but have since been incorporated against the states and of federal fund withholding being used as a tool to bring universities into compliance. You are of course being intentionally obtuse.
BTW I am still waiting on examples of university employees infringing on the free speech rights of conservatives.
So far I’ve had @LouMan provide several examples OF STUDENTS protesting speakers and getting them removed. But I have not see where the university banned a conservative speaker because they were conservative
No, those were examples of universities using the excuse of likely violence to pull the permits of conservative speakers. Such behavior should not and cannot be rewarded. If some students get violent over speech, they should be jailed, instead of the speaker being cancelled. You are advocating the rule of the violent mob.
There is plenty of reason for it to exist, Universities are infringing on free speech, no American should stand for that. But we get it, liberalism cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas. It requires government tyranny to flourish.
Can you imagine the (justifiable)outcry from liberals if conservatives staged violent protests over liberal politicians speeches and conservative governors or mayors used that as a pretext to not allow them to speak? Does that help make the situation we are talking about clear enough for you or do you need more help?