“Anywhere they are allowed to”
If they aren’t allowed to speak… based on university guidelines… then I support the university’s right to deny them the ability to speak.
University’s denying a speaker isn’t a violation of that speakers first amendment rights.
Ah - so glad that you approve of the Executive Orders that President Obama had to sign because of Republican obstructionists.
What should the congress do about the 1A rights of conservatives being allegedly infringed?
What law should be in place?
I get it. Conservatives who walk around antagonizing and needling the hell out of people need to be given safe spaces so some puny liberal doesn’t whoop their ass again.
From my cold dead hands…lol
You don’t know what the 1A… is do you?
They can do as the please. But they need to forfeit federal money and any benefits given by the federal government.
Which would apply to any entity receiving government funds. Which would include private companies.
So Amazon.com would have to allow any speech on their product reviews because they receive money from the government.
They arnt forced to take the money.
Outside of your urban shitholes, educated people debate without baseball bats and fists.
How would this work exactly? Who will determine who is allowed to speak?
Will universities have to let everyone speak? Would they have to allow ISIS recruiters speak, because after all, free speech?
Side note: How much federal $$$ do colleges take?
USC is private school, my friend. Im surprised that for the 4 years that you attended, you did not know that, the fact that your school is a private institution, and how they are different than public ones like the one regarding the incident that president Trump mentioned(Cal and UCLA), trust fund baby boy.
Actually, this ex. order is about exactly that- the Dems in Congress do not want actual free speech; they favor ‘speech codes’, that allow anyone to make a complaint, however vacuous, that a speaker is (choose your mantra) 'homophobic, xenophobic, sexist, misogynist-etc. ad infinitum, without evidence- and have that speaker revoked.
Wow, personal insult, got it.
Yes I do, but this is not specifically a 1A matter: it is a matter of universities becoming the bootlicks of the left and the enemies of the right. The whole concept of universities up until the last thirty years, was to allow all sides of an argument to present themselves, and the best ideas win out.
Today almost all universities have taken on the mantel of the hard left, to the point of actively excluding other viewpoints, and allowing (or even encouraging) open hatred and sometimes violence against those who disagree. At the same time they are taking tax monies (let’s face facts - conservatives contribute far more to the tax systems than progs- by several magnitudes) and engaging in discrimination based on creed.
It is for that reason that I agree with Trump’s EO.
Not to mention tax benefits.
Valid questions,
ISIS recruiters can be shown to advocate murder with very little effort, and the evidence is abundant - bit of a strawman.
Your first question would be answered- anyone, of any political or religious belief, as long as they do not espouse harm to others. The students can vote with their feet which ideas they wish to hear.
Side answer - a lot, more than you would imagine. Tuition is a small percentage of any university’s budget, the rest is government, and a bit is patronage. If the UC and Cal State systems lost all federal funding- they would shut their doors -period, full stop.
Now now, be nice to him, he is blinded by his privilege, LOL
Trump made no such distinction. He didn’t not distinguish between public and private schools.
He said NO GOVERNMENT FUNDING for colleges who deny free speech.
So a EO without a basis in fact… just feelings. Got it.
But who exactly decides what ‘do not espouse harm to others’ means? Does that mean a pro-choice politiician could be blocked? Or someone espousing trans bans in the military?
And ISIS…ok, sure, we all know what they are, but consider perhaps in light of recent events, a member of the saudi family. Or a palistenian.
There are members of this forum who deny the holocaust and I imagine they would not be satisfied with holocaust deniers not then being allowed to speak.
So, someone must make these decisions. If it’s not the university whom is the host and whom is charged with overseeing the institution, then who will it be? An appointed office;l? An elected one?
My very quick internet sleuthing suggests private universities take federal money in teh form of loans, research grants and of course their tax free status.
You really need people to hold your hands every step of the way, do you? You know the difference between private and public schools and how they are funded, right? Here, let me do a quick internet search that you apparently cant intelligently do, at the very least. Youre really making that shiny private degree from USC looks bad, come one
The major difference between public universities and private colleges lies in how they are funded. This affects students because funding is tied to tuition prices. Most public universities and colleges were founded by state governments, some as early as the 1800s, to give residents the opportunity to receive public college education. Today, state governments pay for most of the cost of operating public universities. They also oversee these institutions through appointed boards and trustees.
This influx of public money is why tuition is lower at a public university. The real cost of an attendance is subsidized. Money raised from tuition doesn’t need to cover all of a public college’s expenses, such as paying faculty.Meanwhile, priv_ate colleges don’t receive funds from state legislatures. They rely heavily on tuition and private contributions. This means tuition rates are generally higher._
Ah yes. Of course. I should have realized that.
I am proponent of taxing churches and schools. It makes no sense that they pay no taxes - especially local and state taxes - when they reap direct ebenifits from the towns they operate in.
Also, mega-endowments should be taxed. It’s absurd that they aren’t.