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

The disruptor should have been arrested... wouldn't that have solved the problem?

Funny, the guy tweeting this is a 30+ year old grad student who seems to get on fox news for lots of right wing topics like "white guilt", islamic issues and antifa.

 

Fair points, and I wouldn't want this order to over extend.

I would say that colleges should strive to have respectful discourse on campus. Protesting is one thing, shouting over the speaker is another. BUT that shouting is also free speech, so this gets back to your original point---shouldn't campuses be able to do this on their own? I would hope so...and that this order merely encourages that to occur (ie, doesn't need to result in any actual action taken).

 

Is the order meant to accomplish anything then or is it meant to just pander to his base?

I think the answer is pretty obvious given the context of his speech and who his audience was when giving the speech .

 

I think a mix of both. But I think it should accomplish something simply by being there: if you were a university president, wouldn't you perk up when someone threatens to mess with your money? So, I wouldn't say it was all about pandering--there was a point to it, as well.

 

So you support corporations who get gov't welfare from being free of free speech requirements but not private universities. Thanks for admitting your hypocrisy.

 

You are so uneducated that you don't even know what fascism is and your example is crap since overtime people have moved far away from nazi ideology. Those are fringe ideas that people don't take seriously and they will remain that way. Regardless, nazis should be allowed their speech, as well as other radical groups so long as they are in a public place. Go read a summary of the Brandenberg v Ohio case before you comment again because I am getting tired of educating people like you.

Also I never said that education should be fully private, so you strawmanned all over this thread. Good job. I think quite the opposite since we need education as a vital part of maintaining an enlightened society and the democratic elements of our fine Republic that has improved over time since it began. Do we have slavery and Jim Crow? No. Did our society push and adopt equal rights? Yes. Do we all have a vote? Yes. Do we have a majority of people in favor of gay rights now? Yes. Because that debate was allowed to happen thanks to our Bill of Rights. Did people go the other way? No.

And Nazi Germany or any other country is not a fair comparison because they didn't have free speech protected by the Bill of Rights and Supreme Court cases that back it up (again, Brandenberg V Ohio, read it). Really, you just proved my point about how not having those freedoms in place, actually lead to totalitarian states and oppression. Thanks for the example, even though I didn't need your help. In fact, look at the nazis who burned books which is the equivalent of censoring someones speech at a University. If anyone is a nazi... well... you know where this goes doesn't it? And yes over time bad ideas have died out. Your examples of fascism are currently not popular ideas as I recall, at least in the western world and especially not here in the land of the free. Why? Because they can't compete man, and that's the beauty of free speech and not just assuming everyone is an idiot (except you which I fully have to assume now because you just can't keep up).

You and your kind who are so hungry to censor are partially doing it out of perceived good intentions, but you end up killing the very society you should be careful to preserve by violating the Bill of Rights which is one of the best documents in the history of civilization. Your type think they know what is best for others and the Greater Good, but actually you are the types who would have gone out on the street and burned books in Hitler's Germany because you know better don't you (assuming you were German in the 30s)? Seriously, do you even know U.S. history? Things have continuously improved in this country, making it the most free place on earth and throughout history. If you can't see how great things have become since the country started, you are either stupid, blind, or willfully ignorant.

 

No, I just said I don't support corporate welfare. Nothing is hypocritical since I am not really in favor of the strings used to control private schools in the first place. I'd rather we cut their funding entirely and let them handle their business and do whatever they want. Also I recognize that the govt can tie strings to their money. This is nothing new.

I think you think I got Ole' Trumpy's back, which I don't. I don't like this move because it's a waste of time when he should be going for the kill: cutting their funding without strings. He is making a political move, which seems legit, but hey if they have a problem with it... take it to court. Argue it out... if the case even gets standing.

 

Instantly with the ad hom lol...

Now to tackle this brick as efficiently as I can.

1. You claim that fascism is dying, but do YOU know what it is? You should seriously do a bit of research into the person Brazil elected and what countries like Hungary are propagating.
2. My point was never that "NOTHING GOOD HAS EVER HAPPENED!" I will point out that many of these things you've mentioned are thanks to progressives, not conservatives who have to be dragged along.
3. You claim I know nothing about history yet you bring up book burnings AFTER the fact. Yes they burned books, that was the Nazi regime that did that, the one the people gave power to. This idea that they didn't know they were wrong is discounted in countless stories and historical facts. They knew they were doing wrong, that's why they tried to hide a lot of what they did lol and the fact that they HAD to hide it should tell you that at the time the world looked down upon such genocidal behavior...yet they still did it. Enough people went along with it for it to happen.

Now, these other points you make are quite simple to argue.

Bad ideas die...so you're going to have to explain the Middle East to me and I ask you to look into the history of Wahhabism, according to your "Bad ideas die" logic it should have died long ago, not pop back up into modern history and being the cause of many a war and conflict and suffering in that region now...but hey, according to you...bad ideas DIE! Not like they didn't have their own history to look back at or any religious crusade of the past...yet here we are...so why didn't it die? Why did it resurface in the 70s and we are still fighting radical Islamists groups today waiting for this bad idea to die.

The issue with you, it isn't about ideas competing in the free market, that's not what this is about. Many people that adopt these ideas are not good or rational actors, you're too naive to see that. Not everyone in the world is good, not everyone in the world wants the world to be fair, there are many that adopt the mentality of bully or be bullied and there are many people that are happy to oppress others for their own selfish needs. You think young men (in Western countries) join ISIS because they believe their ideas? Some do sure, but some just do it on the very idea that they will be given a woman to do with as they please.

This idea is toxic to humanity, this idea that people don't know that they are doing wrong. Americans knew slavery was wrong when they did it. How do I know that? Because the English knew it was wrong. People can be greedy. People can be evil and people can persuade others to join their cause for selfish reasons. To think that bad ideas always just die is to have a child's view of the world and history, to imagine that people always just do good and do right and no matter what will always do good and what's right in the end, yay! If only. As if the only reason the holocaust happened, the only reason slavery happened, that the only reason ISIS exists is because people just didn't know better. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be insulting as I'm not into ad-homs as much as you, but this is an incredibly naive outlook on the world and its history.

Now, as for this strawman that was well built. I never talked about censorship my dude, I just said, and I will say it again because you know I'm right. No one has countered this point yet in this free-speech debate...No one has a right to any platform they wish. Period. That's all this is about. No one is telling Milo he can't speak, they are telling him he can't use the platform that they have built for his speech. That's all.

 

You didn't read my post carefully enough.

No those are not fascists you gave as examples. Simply nationalists, except maybe Hungary, which is not the same thing. Nor is it even applicable to America because you just gave me more crap arguments about other countries and not ours where we are the only ones with the types of protections on speech I mention. The ones you are arguing against in effect. Thanks for the Wahhabism example, which is is not popping up in America because we have an open market place of ideas, and with that a society that is also educated. You can't compare a society that is oppressing free speech to one that is allowing it. My whole argument is that allowing free speech and such competition is good. Do you think that in countries where Wahhabism is rising, that people can question anything in Islam without coming off a heretic? Again you just proved my point. All of your argument actually is looking at places that aren't America, further proving my point about free speech and not actually attacking my position.

Also slavery died a long time ago. Why? Because there was a movement that was allowed to happen and society decided to do away with it. So you just again brought an example that proves my point about how things have improved since the founding of the USA.

Now for you calling my argument a strawman, I don't see how it is. But you know what is? Everything you said. Especially the last part where you say no one has a right to any platform they wish. I didn't argue that once, and you know it. Dear God, I am tired of trying to explain this to you. I am talking about public places, my dude. Go read Brandenberg V. Ohio. Seriously, go read it. Or read my summary in an earlier post. Just seriously, I can't read your trash anymore because you refuse to actually read what I've been saying and what the Supreme Court already figured out in the 60s.

We all can't sit through two semester of legal courses related to this, so I get that you don't know much about it. Here is a short, well-made video about free speech and some of the cases that have affected it. I invite everyone here who isn't up on these cases to take a peak and do further reading:

 

I'm really not sure why you think this counters my post.

First of all, Slavery wasn't abolished because of free speech. It wasn't abolished because someone made some brilliant speech and all the slave owners happily realized their mistake and released their slaves. So this doesn't help your argument that it died a long time ago because of a movement.

By the way, what happened after slavery? Why then, if it was such a bad idea, did the KKK rise so that they can continue hanging and killing black people...I mean, bad ideas die, right?

Why today do we have people voting for a SCOTUS judge only to hope to repeal LGBT rights and women's rights?

You talk as if the Middle East never had basic human rights and always had oppressive regimes...not true...history has shown that regions can indeed go backwards. The idea that Bad Ideas Die suggests that can't happen, but we know it does and quite often.

You discounting the rest of the world as if it is made of different species of human and no one else, ever before, thought of 'free speech'. Did you know the Weimar Republic, the government before the Nazis took over, also had free speech? It was in their very constitution actually.

"Germans are entitled to free expression of opinion in word, writing, print, image, etc. This right cannot be obstructed by job contract, nor can exercise of this right create a disadvantage. Censorship is prohibited"

But yeah...Bad ideas die...right? Did the marketplace of ideas work then? No, because people are not all good, people can knowingly adopt bad or malicious ideas for their selfish desires.

So, quote me, quote where I mentioned censorship since you claim it wasn't a strawman. Go ahead.

Also, I'm not talking about public places, I'm replying to the post I quoted you on, nothing else. If this turns out to be a 20-page thread you think I'm really going to go back and read every post of yours? Quote your point or bring it up again, I'm not wasting time going through the thread to find it again, even if it is 5 pages long. I looked at your opening post of "Bad ideas die" and thought it was bad and was surprised so many people agreed with it and challenged it. I said over and over again that it isn't about censorship but the right to use any platform you deem necessary for your cause. You never responded to this, which was the core tenet to my argument, instead you rambled on about how I was about censorship...yet you call my post trash posts when all you do is insult and strawman. Another bobbythegreat in the making I see.

EDIT: Also, as for Brandenburg v Ohio, I don't see the relevance to what I was discussing about the right to any platform since violence inciting speech is not protected under the 1st amendment anyways and thus would not even be protected by Trump's order. What I'm talking about is Milo and Spencer and these alt-right types that complain that they don't get to have speeches at private universities, which to me, they don't have a right to that platform.

 

Where do you think people got the idea to eliminate slavery? You don't think there was an abolitionist movement and literature? You don't think there were people who thought it wrong and supported eliminating it? That issue didn't resolve immediately and it did have lingering effects, but if you look at our country, things have improve since then and free speech plays a vital role in that. Furthermore you are intellectually lazy. You keep bringing up outside places, when we are talking about the concept of free speech. No the middle east didn't have free speech in the way we did. The Ottomon's owned most of it when we were formed and certainly weren't above dealing with ideas it deemed disagreeable. Even after they fell, there was no country with free speech in the Middle East. Also you are saying something about LGBTQ issues and the SCOTUS. You are sensationalizing and taking a minority opinion. You would make this argument about any right wing candidate because you have a personal bias. Also LGBTQ rights have improved over time as well, further proving my point. You seriously complain too much when there is clear demonstrated progress.

Also your rejection of the notion of bad ideas die concept is way too over the top. I obviously was referring to the concept that shining light on bad ideas kills them, and suppressing them only makes people more radical. Allowing people to argue and voice opinions is a fundamental part of our country and it works. It works by allowing these ideas to compete in an open market place, and people will over time eschew those bad ideas. Thus they "die". Yeah there will probably be some crazy hold outs on bad ideas, but their effects die as time marches on and people embrace the good ideas. Thus slavery is gone, and the KKK is a small group that no one even takes seriously now. The idea is that bad ideas can't win in such an environment. Bad ideas die when you allow them out to be swatted down in the open market place. It actually kills them much faster. You can what about all day, but generally bad ideas die. I bet you can find some lingering bad ideas, but widely accepted probably not. Keep in mind the open market takes time.


Here is my post you disagreed with for some reason.

"Bad ideas will lose in an open market place of ideas... why so worried?"

The open market place of ideas is the key phrase you missed. I am clearly arguing about America which was designed with enlightenment ideals from writers such as John Stuart Mill. I am talking about a place with free speech. The examples you keep bringing are counter to this, so I really don't know what you're on about. And again slavery is a trash example because speech played a role in its elimination. Your other arguments have been attacking things that don't even apply or strengthen the position you took.

If you think bad ideas don't die, fine. I don't expect a heel digger like you to actually change a position, even when you have a terrible position and bad arguments.

 

Did all that literature change the mind of the south though? Looks like it wasn't very convincing to them.

"Furthermore you are intellectually lazy. You keep bringing up outside places, when we are talking about the concept of free speech."

You really going to ignore my point about the Weimar Republic? They had free speech, I linked you the constitution and the part in said constitution about their viewpoint on censorship and free speech.

Also, not talking about free speech in general when it comes to the ME but Freedom of Religion was achieved in the ME long long ago...and they have regressed. The Achaemenid empire had freedom of religion and at the time this was very tolerant.

Also, we'll see about if I'm sensationalizing this or not, but it's not a big mystery that the right, in general, has been frustrated about Obergfell v Hodges and Roe v Wade for a long time now. Don't act like no one on the right wants to reverse these cases. Both of these cases resulting in people getting more rights.

I don't even disagree with this honestly.

What I disagree with is the idea that bad ideas can never take hold of a populace. I think to hold such a view is to be very casual towards these bad ideas not knowing that people can adopt these bad ideas for selfish reasons. My argument is this, people can knowingly adopt bad ideas, in fact, many White Nationalists know their ideas don't hold up under any scrutiny, that's why their plan is to twist and turn falsehoods into facts to convince people.

My arguments are so bad because you never take them as they are. Instead you say I'm for censorship and then ignore the very example I gave you about a country that had free speech and it still wasn't enough to kill the bad idea.

Don't say my arguments are bad, prove it. Call me a heel digger, if you prove me wrong I'll admit it, but I'm not going to concede points that I don't think are valid. Sorry.

Slavery wasn't abolished by free speech, this literature didn't make the south give up its slaves and after the North won the war the KKK propped up to hunt and hang black people. You're telling me people at the time didn't think that was wrong?

Not only that...but the Klan died and then found life again! In the early 1900s...it allowed events like the one below...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_of_Jesse_Washington
"Jesse Washington was a black teenage farmhand who was lynched in the county seat of Waco, Texas, on May 15, 1916, in what became a well-known example of racially motivated lynching. Washington was convicted of raping and murdering Lucy Fryer, the wife of his white employer in rural Robinson, Texas. He was dragged out of the county court by observers and lynched in front of Waco's city hall.

Over 10,000 spectators, including city officials and police, gathered to watch the attack. There was a celebratory atmosphere among whites at the spectacle murder, and many children attended during their lunch hour. Members of the mob castrated Washington, cut off his fingers, and hung him over a bonfire. He was repeatedly lowered and raised over the fire for about two hours. After the fire was extinguished, his charred torso was dragged through the town and parts of his body were sold as souvenirs. A professional photographer took pictures as the event unfolded, providing rare imagery of a lynching in progress. The pictures were printed and sold as postcards in Waco."

Happened in 1916...You're telling me that people then didn't know that this was 'bad'? In 1916? Come now, and you are calling me a heel digger? Whatever, call me what you like, keep em coming, I'll just focus on what I see are major flaws of this idea that bad ideas just die and go away.

According to you, the Klan should not have reappeared in force in the early 1900s...bad idea...free marketplace...yet it did. Movies, propaganda, and people not wanting to give up their power allowed people to adopt said bad idea and rationalize their evil. I doubt these people were reading Douglass or Booker T Washington before putting on their hoods and having second thoughts going "Gee, you know what, That Frederick Douglass has a really good point! I'm not going to hang that black man today after all!"

It's really easy to get people to adopt bad ideas because it's really easy for people to tune out things they don't want to hear and tune into things they do want to hear. All a charismatic person has to do is know what station to tune it to.

 

smh...

 

Yeah ideas die out over time. Obviously a group can resurface if ideas havent completely fallen from the public mind. Poor evidence man. You really lack critical thinking and the ability to pull relevant examples. Not sure what else I can say to you beyond create a better argument. Historically, racism has waned. My point still stands.

 

You stated you supported Trump's free speech policy for private universities - you've been defending that, now you are saying you don't support public funding for corporations in and effort to be caught in a web.

You're dodging the issue here. The issues isn't public funding or corporate welfare - that is happening. The issue is, given that is happening, do you agree that you should apply the same principle to universities as to corporations?

Sounds like you know that you should not, but admitting that would make you look bad, so instead you are trying to change the issue to one you can save face with.

 

Not only are you ignoring the long span of history that the KKK has existed for and how many times they've resurfaced, you are also completely ignoring my point about how the Weimar Republic had free speech.

Sounds like I've created a pretty good argument since you'll dance around my points and ignore them and throw insults at me.

Again, look at my point.

You have not addressed that.

EDIT: Fun fact, the Klan has its highest membership since the 1960s. Bad ideas die tho, apparently a very slow death, maybe in 2290 we can finally bury this particular idea huh?

 

BINGO.

Now this is some thinking.

Honestly, if I were an honest to God John Birch society member I would be pushing like hell for mandatory military experience like they do in Israel. What better way to ensure intolerance and increased military spending than a 2 year indoctrination. The bottom third idea for pet food is solid too. I was thinking they could be stacked up bloated to form a border wall, but lets use them for good ole fashioned mercantile.

 

When I went to college and graduate school and then law school, there were plenty of conservative professors. Indeed, most of the professors I had did not outwardly show a real bias one way or the other. There were always a few that were big Robert Bork fans or big Ruth Ginsburg fans but I didn't really notice much persuasion or influence to become indoctrinated.

 

That was pathetic on so many levels.

First we have the mentally ill Salvation Army college kid who seems to think it is Christmas time.

Then we have 5-6 people present to see the "speaker" and only one appears to be under 50 years old.

Then we have the officers that are getting paid (multiple officers) for this whole ball of stupid.

They need to move this "speaker" to the local library and take away that kids bell.

 

My opinion clearly differs and isn't the way you frame it. Not really sure you are sane at this point.