Quantcast
President Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Free Speech On College Campuses | TIME

Forums - Politics Discussion - President Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Free Speech On College Campuses | TIME

Immersiveunreality said:
Machiavellian said:
So another double edge sword for something that isn't well thought out and doesn't do anything that wasn't already protected under law. So what exactly will this executive order do that is different then what is already protected under free speech. Is this one of those grandstanding type of EO where its suppose to put a smile on Trump base while actually doing nothing. Sort of like that dumb middle class tax which was coming around the midterm elections which never appeared. There is nothing within the EO that changes anything for a Public University. They still are not required to fund any speakers other than what they want and the are not required to give a platform to anyone they do not support. If anything, private universities mainly christian ones will have to look at this EO and see if this will interfere with how they allow such public speaking events to go.

I am really conflicted on that,if there is something signed to protect free speech while in its previous state it already had a similar protection then it is kinda(must be?) logical to assume that this certain protection has even stricter rules now no?

Grandstanding or not,if grandstanding enforces better free speech then thumbs up.

If you can show me how this will effectively do more or how it will be enforced any better than in its current state, I can agree with your stance.  So far, I see nothing current or pass that shows that the current system was some how broken where an EO would enforce or make it better.  What it does do will probably be the opposite of its intention especially if its to give more conservatives free speech at public universities.

I should also mention when I say it's grandstanding I mean, there isn't anything behind it.  One of the things that is very prevalent with this administration is that they continue to go to court, make policy without being prepared.  How many times has this administration made policy only to get it knocked down as quick as it was done because they did not do any preparation or work to make sure it get instituted.  Just throwing something out into the wild is one thing, making sure you are ready to back it up once it hit the courts is another.

Last edited by Machiavellian - on 25 March 2019

Around the Network
Jumpin said:
Hiro94 said:
As a junior at a University this is a huge relief. Leftist students run the show around here and they hate it now that they are getting push back. While I am already protected by the first amendment as a conservative independent student, This gives me extra padding to share my views without fear.

See, the right wing has snowflakes who need safe spaces too!

How did you come to this conclusion?



EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Bullshit.

Sorry, but that comparison is just awful. Of course people should be allowed to sit where they want on public transportation, but not just anyone gets to speak in front of an audience. If I went up to a University and told them that I would like to speak about whatever came to my mind for one hour in an official event in their Auditorium, they would tell me to fuck off, because there is no expectation of universal access there. No one should expect to be given a platform such as this just because they aren't hurting anyone. That isn't how any of this works and making that comparison is patently ridiculous.

The provision of a platform is expression in and of itself, and in order to maintain freedom of expression, we must allow Universities to make these decisions themselves. Mandating equality of expression is a violation of rights, not a protection of rights.

Your saying there was never a time where people of color were only aloud to sit at the back of the bus, yet were still aloud to ride the bus? The reason being at that point in time segregation was seen as normal. They had to fight for the right to sit where they wanted.

There is an overwhelming amount of schools that heavily favor lefty viewpoints and speakers, yet they allow centrists and conservatives to attend the school and it's events. The reason being that catering to the left and ignoring the center and right has become the norm. They have been fighting for their right to speak freely and have speakers who hold their same viewpoints.

I don't see how they aren't similar. Both are groups who are/were oppressed in an unreasonable manner and who fought for their right to be treated equally.

Oh, come off it. This whole victim complex isn't a good look.

Besides, if you are going to ignore my entire post, why do you even bother responding to me? As previously stated, there is no expectation of universal access to hosting speaking events. What you are asking for is not freedom of speech (you already have that), it is government regulated expression.



Torillian said:
EricHiggin said:

They don't have to be, but how many Satanists are going to waste their time pushing to speak at religious schools? If your looking to sell/promote electric cars, you don't set up a booth at Nascar events if your looking at making the most of your time.

It does come into it considering the overwhelming world view is that Satan is evil. You could say half of America thinks conservatism isn't as useful as liberalism, but it's a small fraction that actually thinks its evil. I'm not saying those people shouldn't have a say either, but they need to peacefully protest in that case, not forcefully protest or cause chaos by pulling fire alarms, etc. As far as I'm concerned, if Satanists want to speak on a religious campus, by all means, just don't expect God himself to turn a blind eye.

The same reason they put up satanist statues next to Christian ones on government property: to make sure the government is applying these regulations fairly. 

Well if you don't think God is real that's less of a concern. Here are their tenets if you're curious. I'm particularly a fan of no. 5

  1. One should strive to act with compassion and empathy towards all creatures in accordance with reason.
  2. The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
  3. One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
  4. The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo your own.
  5. Beliefs should conform to our best scientific understanding of the world. We should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit our beliefs.
  6. People are fallible. If we make a mistake, we should do our best to rectify it and resolve any harm that may have been caused.
  7. Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.

So I'm always happy to see them put up a statue on government property next to one of the ten commandments. 

Not sure what the construction of a statue has to do with free speech.

#5 and #7 are a problem because one says you should base your beliefs around what we know now scientifically, and the other says the rules are designed to promote thought. How do you think people like Einstein came up with their idea's? By using the known methods that weren't working, or going beyond them?

sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Your saying there was never a time where people of color were only aloud to sit at the back of the bus, yet were still aloud to ride the bus? The reason being at that point in time segregation was seen as normal. They had to fight for the right to sit where they wanted.

There is an overwhelming amount of schools that heavily favor lefty viewpoints and speakers, yet they allow centrists and conservatives to attend the school and it's events. The reason being that catering to the left and ignoring the center and right has become the norm. They have been fighting for their right to speak freely and have speakers who hold their same viewpoints.

I don't see how they aren't similar. Both are groups who are/were oppressed in an unreasonable manner and who fought for their right to be treated equally.

Oh, come off it. This whole victim complex isn't a good look.

Besides, if you are going to ignore my entire post, why do you even bother responding to me? As previously stated, there is no expectation of universal access to hosting speaking events. What you are asking for is not freedom of speech (you already have that), it is government regulated expression.

Victim complex? Did you already forget about your prior reply? Probably because you used the victim complex already and now your projecting it onto me. If there's no expectation then why are students asking for it and why did Trump listen and put it in writing? What's being asked for is a level playing field. Equality. Not sure why that's such an issue since it seems to be one of the main goals of the left today.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

Oh, come off it. This whole victim complex isn't a good look.

Besides, if you are going to ignore my entire post, why do you even bother responding to me? As previously stated, there is no expectation of universal access to hosting speaking events. What you are asking for is not freedom of speech (you already have that), it is government regulated expression.

Victim complex? Did you already forget about your prior reply? Probably because you used the victim complex already and now your projecting it onto me. If there's no expectation then why are students asking for it and why did Trump listen and put it in writing? What's being asked for is a level playing field. Equality. Not sure why that's such an issue since it seems to be one of the main goals of the left today.

Tell me, if you went to a Uni in your area and said "I would like to speak about how much I like balloons for two hours at a University sponsored event", would you expect them to say yes? Assuming you are sane, the answer is probably no. Why is that? Because there is no universal right for a University sponsored platform. There is no expectation of universal access here. A Uni doesn't simply provide a platform to whoever asks, there are a number of factors which go into making the decision of who may partake. You are focusing on one of those (political leaning), however, in assuming true freedom, you have to similarly account for all of those. You cannot argue that freedom of speech should give those on the right a platform at a University without similarly arguing that freedom of speech should give literally everyone a platform at a University, no matter what they have to say (or don't have to say).

And in my opinion, that idea is incredibly ludicrous. 



Around the Network
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Victim complex? Did you already forget about your prior reply? Probably because you used the victim complex already and now your projecting it onto me. If there's no expectation then why are students asking for it and why did Trump listen and put it in writing? What's being asked for is a level playing field. Equality. Not sure why that's such an issue since it seems to be one of the main goals of the left today.

Tell me, if you went to a Uni in your area and said "I would like to speak about how much I like balloons for two hours at a University sponsored event", would you expect them to say yes? Assuming you are sane, the answer is probably no. Why is that? Because there is no universal right for a University sponsored platform. There is no expectation of universal access here. A Uni doesn't simply provide a platform to whoever asks, there are a number of factors which go into making the decision of who may partake. You are focusing on one of those (political leaning), however, in assuming true freedom, you have to similarly account for all of those. You cannot argue that freedom of speech should give those on the right a platform at a University without similarly arguing that freedom of speech should give literally everyone a platform at a University, no matter what they have to say (or don't have to say).

And in my opinion, that idea is incredibly ludicrous. 

"I would like to speak about how much I like balloons for two hours at a University sponsored event", would you expect them to say yes? Assuming you are sane, the answer is probably no."

yeah but that's you, you are irrelevant

but we see situations like this

and this 

where leftists are shutting down professors, writers and other speakers for simply having a different perspective(or at least one that isn't fucking stupid) and you don't think this is a problem?

"There is no expectation of universal access here."

this is incorrect... universities in general are expected to be places where students are exposed to differing perspectives on things... that's crucial in developing to be an intelligent tolerant individual who can interact with others in a civil logical manner

"University without similarly arguing that freedom of speech should give literally everyone a platform at a University, no matter what they have to say"

this distinction here is that people who are invited because they have a particular argument to make that is perceived as beneficial for people to have discussion over, obviously no one is saying that the end times preacher standing on the street corner deserves a 2 hour speaking engagement and i'm sure you understand that

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 25 March 2019

o_O.Q said:

this distinction here is that people who are invited because they have a particular argument to make that is perceived as beneficial for people to have discussion over, obviously no one is saying that the end times preacher standing on the street corner deserves a 2 hour speaking engagement and i'm sure you understand that

Thats all well and good, but you aren't talking about freedom of speech.



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Victim complex? Did you already forget about your prior reply? Probably because you used the victim complex already and now your projecting it onto me. If there's no expectation then why are students asking for it and why did Trump listen and put it in writing? What's being asked for is a level playing field. Equality. Not sure why that's such an issue since it seems to be one of the main goals of the left today.

Tell me, if you went to a Uni in your area and said "I would like to speak about how much I like balloons for two hours at a University sponsored event", would you expect them to say yes? Assuming you are sane, the answer is probably no. Why is that? Because there is no universal right for a University sponsored platform. There is no expectation of universal access here. A Uni doesn't simply provide a platform to whoever asks, there are a number of factors which go into making the decision of who may partake. You are focusing on one of those (political leaning), however, in assuming true freedom, you have to similarly account for all of those. You cannot argue that freedom of speech should give those on the right a platform at a University without similarly arguing that freedom of speech should give literally everyone a platform at a University, no matter what they have to say (or don't have to say).

And in my opinion, that idea is incredibly ludicrous. 

Taking your hypothetical example into account, and integrating it into what's going on right now, my reply to the school would be, 'well I'm fully aware that you've had plenty of individuals on campus speaking about how much they like blue balloons, and I've had students ask me to come and speak about red balloons, because they either aren't interested in blue balloons, or they are curious and would like to know what red balloons are like.'

If blue balloons are ok and have a sizable audience, what's wrong with a sizable audience that's interested in red balloons? Are red balloons like peanut butter and for the safety of the few who are 'allergic', only blue balloons are permitted?



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

EricHiggin said:

Taking your hypothetical example into account, and integrating it into what's going on right now, my reply to the school would be, 'well I'm fully aware that you've had plenty of individuals on campus speaking about how much they like blue balloons, and I've had students ask me to come and speak about red balloons, because they either aren't interested in blue balloons, or they are curious and would like to know what red balloons are like.'

If blue balloons are ok and have a sizable audience, what's wrong with a sizable audience that's interested in red balloons? Are red balloons like peanut butter and for the safety of the few who are 'allergic', only blue balloons are permitted?

Again, if "free speech" only applies in circumstances where you are providing equal voice to a counter group, you aren't talking about free speech.



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

Taking your hypothetical example into account, and integrating it into what's going on right now, my reply to the school would be, 'well I'm fully aware that you've had plenty of individuals on campus speaking about how much they like blue balloons, and I've had students ask me to come and speak about red balloons, because they either aren't interested in blue balloons, or they are curious and would like to know what red balloons are like.'

If blue balloons are ok and have a sizable audience, what's wrong with a sizable audience that's interested in red balloons? Are red balloons like peanut butter and for the safety of the few who are 'allergic', only blue balloons are permitted?

Again, if "free speech" only applies in circumstances where you are providing equal voice to a counter group, you aren't talking about free speech.

The problem is just that though. An equal voice is either not being allowed or it's being silenced by using loopholes. The fact it got bad enough that it required an order to try and fix the problem is pretty sad. I guess it could have been presented as equality as well, but they probably didn't want to go that far, considering what some have already brought up in this topic.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.