NYT: Trump Says He Will Sign Free Speech Order for College Campuses

Reread what I wrote. I said STUDENTS. Milo or Ann or Charles are not students. So why is it there is a claim STUDENTS have lost their right to free speech, not political figures who want to speak on campus to cause a ruckus and build their brand.

 

I see so you don't want to state a clear position, instead you just want to accuse others of what you do.

 

While the legal reality should be that twitter is stateless so there isn't really a "Freedom of Speech" protection... you ignoring that, you really want to suggest that freedom of speech is different over twitter as on a campus? Or is it more that it involves a conservative speaker being excluded versus a conservative speaker doing the excluding?

btw, While I really believe Milo or Coulter could rent space right outside the campus if they really wanted to deliver their hateful views... but sure, let them in and let in KKK speakers and let in extremist views on the extreme far left I guess. As a parent of two (soon only one) college students though, I care more for the safety of my child than I do about the rights of any extremist (left or right) to deliver hateful comments that may cause violence. And will I have to pay more for tuition so that schools can afford more security so that milo or coulter can express their thoughts? And what happens if violence happens? I know if my child was hurt as a result I'd be suing that school. Who then covers those costs?

 

I don't approve of this method, even if the ends were justified. If someone's civil rights are being violated, the courts can handle it. Tactics like this take the adjudication out of our established process and puts it in the hands of a bureaucrat. It's authoritarian and a bad road to go down.

 

So ISIS reps should be allowed to speak on Public Campuses and express their views? Where does the University get a say in who is allowed to speak on campus? Should a rapist be allowed to speak on campus and talk about the joys of rape?

 

Just in case you forgot....

 

So why is one form of hate the same as screaming fire in a theatre but white nationalists should be allowed?

can you explain your logic?

 

I don't see how having a rapist speak or having ISIS speak is anything at all like shouting fire in a crowded theatre. There might be some fists thrown, like we might also see at a Milo event, but I don't expect a stampede or anything. Maybe if the ISIS speaker wants to do a beheading as an exercise of his first amendment right.

 

That's true, but I think an argument can be made that something causing fists to ne thrown can construed as "dangerous speech".

 

I can't explain the logic in something I didn't say.

 

Well, Sweets, there is some case law about this I recall from my Constitutional Law class, but the specifics I would need to reference as to not mislead anyone. The rapist part would go back to the Miller Test probably. Then the ISIS thing, well, there you have an enemy combatant of the United States and a terrorist, so I am pretty sure he would be arrested bro.

 

That was the argument Cal was making -- that controversial speakers would inflame emotions and create undue risk of violence -- which Trump is trying to quash. Cal would likely use this same rationalization put guardrails around allowing a rapist to speak on his crimes or an ISIS (or ISIS sympathizer, to @dachuda86's point) speaker to proselytize for the Caliphate. In fact, if this Order is successful in getting access for controversial conservative speakers, you can probably count on it being abused by others to make a point -- much like how we see satanist groups seek protection for their statues alongside Christian symbols on public land just to point out the double-standard being applied.

 

It's invevitable that this is what is going to happen as groups are going to test to see how far they can push the limits. It's going to be a hell of a rule book to determine what is and is not going to be allowed.

Was there a signifigant event that triggered this push back from Trump?

 

So you are ok with a Muslim coming on campus and talking about how Christians are evil and god is demanding that all infidels be cleansed from the earth so long as tthey aren't a member of ISIS?

 

I don't think so? It seems to have been percolating for awhile in right-wing media, since well before Trump was even elected, judging by the threads that would occasionally show up on the bbs. The oldest one I found with a cursory search was from 2006: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/index.php?threads/freedom-of-speech-on-campus.111642/.

 

I find SJW's to be annoying just like anyone else, but the idea that twitter should look like 8chan is ridiculous.

 

Hateful is defined as "full of hate" or "deserving or or arousing hate." Why can't I express my First Amendment right to describe someone else's speech? Why use the "social justice warrior" term to stop my 1A right? Of course you get defensive and start worrying about racism but note no where in my post to mention race, racism, or anything else.

 

trump's twitter accounts, both his official presidential account and his own "personal" account are public forums. Courts already have ruled that since he uses his personal account for official purposes. As such it would be like him saying one person can speak on public property and someone else can't.

btw, I believe "blocked" accounts are not only blocked from posting on trump's twitter threads (and the connected replies threads) but I believe they also can't see his tweets (never been blocked, so this may be incorrect).