This is a trick that I’ve seen you use elsewhere. You want to flag the post as being “off topic” to have it removed from the debate… just like I said. It is apropos in this thread to see the way you operate since censoring is how libs try to hide the truth on college campuses as well.
But…but…but… it isn’t working that way here for you, is it? And now you are losing in plain view of everyone who will ever read this thread.
You know Pragmatic, there is a rule here, not in your favor, about responding in threads when you haven’t read the OP.
Asking how “they are denying free speech” is a clear indicator that you didn’t read the OP. I think you’d rather go with that explanation than not being able to comprehend the OP if you claim to have read it.
I’ve read the OP. The OP doesn’t explain HOW colleges are violating free speech by not letting certain speakers not speak.
The OP talks about the fact that Trump is signing an executive order. I am challenging the merit of an executive order that is asserting that schools are somehow blocking free speech.
If you don’t understand that, I don’t know what to tell you?
They take the “warrior” in social justice warrior seriously. 
Absent of church and God, this is their religion.
They have more in common with muslim extremists than they realize.
Ahh, so you have taken the plea of reading the OP but not comprehending it. 
I haven’t flagged your post officially. I was just pointing out that the case you brought up is not the same as this executive order.
However since you brought it up, I decided to address it. I addressed it by noting that your high school teacher doesn’t have a leg to stand on due to prior SCOTUS rulings on similar cases. So much so, that’s the SCOTUS won’t take up the case.
In this case Trump is making a claim that he believes colleges are squashing free speech and because of that he needs to sign a EO. I am asking what is the basis of his claim and how does it relate to the first amendment?
Get it?
@Pragmatic was @montecristo1 back in the old forum. Notorious for not reading both the articles in the OP, and your rebuttals, while talking and debating with himself. Feed the troll, and it’ll keep trolling. You have been warned.
Oh I fully comprehend it… I’ve asked YOU and @Call_me_Ishmael several times to explain to me why you support this? To explain this notion that free speech is being infringed upon by colleges?
OMG, too funny @supperhey. I have him pegged as someone from an alternate forum. Sounds the same, posts the same, et al…
Just goes to show that the hive mind and the hive mind talking points make them all sound alike. Indistinguishable from one another. No original thought, no independent thinking. There is just … the borg…
The thing you don’t seem to understand? I don’t owe you an explanation.
The OP was an article from that lib outlet “The Hill” and a tweet from the President. The article said this… quoted from President Trumps CPAC speech (also linked)
“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.”
He called out the “hard left” as his motivation to create this EO. Because the “hard left” is not excerising free speech if that college doesn’t allow a conservative speaker on campus.
So back to a question I had for @DMK how is the “hard left” denying free speech? Or maybe @Call_me_Ishmael can answer the question?
Is a college in violation of the first amendment if they don’t allow a conservative to speak on their campus?
You can’t explain the position in the OP and why you believe it is a worthy cause… but you can post several times in a thread with insults and sarcastic remarks?
One has to wonder why are you even responding in a thread that you have no intention of commenting On?
Ah, bc when a student organization pays for and reserve the venue, sets up an event, and invites and makes accommodation for the invited speaker, only to have the university blocking it bc … feelings. Tell me, how is Ben Shapiro a dangerous figure? Bc hes a ■■■■ Bc he speaks with facts and truth that the coddling universities “feel” like the students couldnt take it, and they are affriad that radical groups like Antifas and BAMNs will raid the college ground?
“Instead we believe in free speech, including online and including on campus.”
I find this sentence particularly interesting. Emphasis on the “online” part.
He seems to be suggesting that private companies can’t restrict speech…
I don’t need to. The OP stands on its own.
Who did I insult? Provide proof of sarcasm.
Who is “one”? I have commented on the thread. If I hadn’t how could you reply?
Do you believe that the colleges who banned Ben Shapiro are violating the first amendment?
I personally don’t think he is dangerous. I personally think he should be able to speak anywhere that he is allowed to.
But I support a universities decision to deny any speaker from speaking on their campus so long as it doesn’t violate PA or Consitutional laws. I don’t care if it Berkeley or Liberty University.
It’s unfortunate that we have to go this far as to create additional laws to reinforce and affirm the Bill of Rights. College campuses have become safe havens for indoctrination when they should be areas of growth that provide the ability to freely debate ideas.
Ok
Sounds like insults
Sounds like more insults
Look it’s ok… I will still respond to you and participate. However you haven’t provided anything of substance in this thread and the questions I am asking seeks to challenge the notion that an EO is required because the “hard left” is denying free speech on campuses AND online.
I don’t think it is necessary because the basis for the EO is false. I am asking the people who believe the basis of this EO to explain WHY the first amendment is being infringed upon by campuses where conservatives wish to speak?
So public universities receiving grants from the governments can deny a, invited person right to speak at that public institutions. Im not sure what part of “free speech” you dont understand. And yes, they can deny a person’s free speech rights as well, but like president Trump said, just dont take public grants.
I dont see why you cant connect these dots.
