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

sundin13 said:
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.

look i'll reiterate this once more... people come to university in order to get exposed to different ideas... wouldn't you agree that leftists taking over and suppressing any opposing view runs kind of counter to that?

or does that not matter in your opinion because you believe that only the leftist viewpoint should be heard?



Around the Network
eva01beserk said:

How about when ben shapiro went to give a speech at Berkeley and there where riots and he got shut down. Riots by the liberals, the suposed "anti nazi anti hate group progressives".  

University said no at first cuz of the danger and their security could not handle it. He then had to pay for separate security then the university made some other excuse and still got denied.

What this executive order is aiming for is for people like ben shapiro to speak freely and if people plan on rioting or anything of the sort, the university must put its effort in diffusing the violence and preventing it from happening, not preventing the speaker from coming. 

Why aren't riots considered a form of free speech?  They are an expression of thought, are they not?

I'm also curious why someone would want to speak at a place that obviously doesn't want them there.

eva01beserk said:

Yes we do, cuz liberals cant handle a difference of opinion. 

Oh, we handle them just fine.  The problem comes when the difference of one opinione is hateful, dangerous, inciteful, etc...

You can say what you want so long as it's not a platform for hate, that inspires hate, that has the potential for harm...

Is that a little intolerant?  Yes, yes it is.  But the difference is we are intolerant of people that want to harm others.  Hateful speakers want to harm other for simply existing.  Our intolerance is a reaction to their intolerance.

Hiku said:

We haven't really heard the devil's side of the story. Maybe he was the good guy all along?
The idea of hell never made sense in the first place. If the devil really is bad, why would he punish you if you do bad things on earth?

Technically, hell doesn't exist according to the original Biblical texts.  It got added in later thanks for pitiful translations and a greater focus on stoking fear. Newer translations have it removed completely.

eva01beserk said:

Is that right? As far as I know the 2 people in congres saying anti israel things are still in congres still saying anti israel things. Who was silenced? 

Did you miss the fact that Congress immediately wrote and passed (407-23) an antisemitism bill after those comments were made?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

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.

If you want to argue that colleges aren't providing equal time, go for it, however that isn't a discussion about free speech and as such, it is not addressed by this order.



SpokenTruth said:
eva01beserk said:

How about when ben shapiro went to give a speech at Berkeley and there where riots and he got shut down. Riots by the liberals, the suposed "anti nazi anti hate group progressives".  

University said no at first cuz of the danger and their security could not handle it. He then had to pay for separate security then the university made some other excuse and still got denied.

What this executive order is aiming for is for people like ben shapiro to speak freely and if people plan on rioting or anything of the sort, the university must put its effort in diffusing the violence and preventing it from happening, not preventing the speaker from coming. 

Why aren't riots considered a form of free speech?  They are an expression of thought, are they not?

I'm also curious why someone would want to speak at a place that obviously doesn't want them there.

eva01beserk said:

Yes we do, cuz liberals cant handle a difference of opinion. 

Oh, we handle them just fine.  The problem comes when the difference of one opinione is hateful, dangerous, inciteful, etc...

You can say what you want so long as it's not a platform for hate, that inspires hate, that has the potential for harm...

Is that a little intolerant?  Yes, yes it is.  But the difference is we are intolerant of people that want to harm others.  Hateful speakers want to harm other for simply existing.  Our intolerance is a reaction to their intolerance.

Hiku said:

We haven't really heard the devil's side of the story. Maybe he was the good guy all along?
The idea of hell never made sense in the first place. If the devil really is bad, why would he punish you if you do bad things on earth?

Technically, hell doesn't exist according to the original Biblical texts.  It got added in later thanks for pitiful translations and a greater focus on stoking fear. Newer translations have it removed completely.

eva01beserk said:

Is that right? As far as I know the 2 people in congres saying anti israel things are still in congres still saying anti israel things. Who was silenced? 

Did you miss the fact that Congress immediately wrote and passed (407-23) an antisemitism bill after those comments were made?

"Oh, we handle them just fine. "

etc etc etc



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

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.

If you want to argue that colleges aren't providing equal time, go for it, however that isn't a discussion about free speech and as such, it is not addressed by this order.

i think he's also arguing about leftists promoting an ideology that justifies violence against people they disagree with

https://canipunchnazis.com/

http://neon.uscannenbergmedia.com/2017/10/opinion-punch-nazi-today/

etc etc etc

the problem with this is that these people think a nazi can be anything from a white supremacist to someone who voted for trump

is violence justified against those who advocate violence? sure but that's not what is happening here, and this is why you get kids having their head's split open with bike locks and tons and tons of other cases of leftist intolerance



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:
SpokenTruth said:

Why aren't riots considered a form of free speech?  They are an expression of thought, are they not?

I'm also curious why someone would want to speak at a place that obviously doesn't want them there.

Oh, we handle them just fine.  The problem comes when the difference of one opinione is hateful, dangerous, inciteful, etc...

You can say what you want so long as it's not a platform for hate, that inspires hate, that has the potential for harm...

Is that a little intolerant?  Yes, yes it is.  But the difference is we are intolerant of people that want to harm others.  Hateful speakers want to harm other for simply existing.  Our intolerance is a reaction to their intolerance.

Technically, hell doesn't exist according to the original Biblical texts.  It got added in later thanks for pitiful translations and a greater focus on stoking fear. Newer translations have it removed completely.

Did you miss the fact that Congress immediately wrote and passed (407-23) an antisemitism bill after those comments were made?

"Oh, we handle them just fine. "

etc etc etc

*un-ignores you just to see what silliness you posted now*

*was not disappointed*

Did you miss the part where I said...oh, of course you did.  You always do.  Immediately before and after are the context you needed but intentionally ignored it so you could rush to post your gotcha videos. 

You want to watch something?  Watch this.  I'm going to underline the part you purposefully ignored.

eva01beserk said:

"Cuz liberals cant handle a difference of opinion. "

I said:

"Oh, we handle them just fine. The problem comes when the difference of one opinione is hateful, dangerous, inciteful, etc...

You can say what you want so long as it's not a platform for hate, that inspires hate, that has the potential for harm...

Is that a little intolerant? Yes, yes it is. But the difference is we are intolerant of people that want to harm others. Hateful speakers want to harm other for simply existing. Our intolerance is a reaction to their intolerance."

But I'm not reposting that for your benefit.  Oh no.  I already know your going to ignore it again.  I'm posting it for others so they can see how you ignore entire context because you can't handle it.

But, I'll give you a send off.  A tip if you will...for why we react as you saw in your videos.

It's to prevent this:

And this:

And this:

Now back on the ignore list.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

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.

If you want to argue that colleges aren't providing equal time, go for it, however that isn't a discussion about free speech and as such, it is not addressed by this order.

The allowing of equal time is happening in some circumstances, yet the speech is still being silenced. Much of the time it's being masked as 'peaceful protest', that's actually a group of students who's getting as close to the speaker as possible, and using their voices or noise making devices to make sure the opposing speakers voice isn't heard. Some groups have gone a step further, and are coming to the indoor events, and strategically standing up in pairs and yelling and shouting in protest, just long enough before the school security removes them. Then after a couple of minutes, the next pair stands up and does the same thing, over and over, pair after pair, until the event either get's shut down or the speaker gives up because they can't get a message across because they only get a minute or so before the next group interrupts.

When you see these kinds of things happen constantly, it's not hard to see why some schools aren't allowing equal speaking opportunities. Instead of making the 'protesting' students mind and making them protest peacefully and respectfully, they allow them to act like angry children and ruin the event for everyone else. Part of the reason equal opportunity isn't being given, is due to the way free speech is being allowed to be silenced elsewhere. Free speech is at least indirectly connected to the problem and solution.



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.

SpokenTruth said:
o_O.Q said:

"Oh, we handle them just fine. "

etc etc etc

*un-ignores you just to see what silliness you posted now*

*was not disappointed*

Did you miss the part where I said...oh, of course you did.  You always do.  Immediately before and after are the context you needed but intentionally ignored it so you could rush to post your gotcha videos. 

You want to watch something?  Watch this.  I'm going to underline the part you purposefully ignored.

eva01beserk said:

"Cuz liberals cant handle a difference of opinion. "

I said:

"Oh, we handle them just fine. The problem comes when the difference of one opinione is hateful, dangerous, inciteful, etc...

You can say what you want so long as it's not a platform for hate, that inspires hate, that has the potential for harm...

Is that a little intolerant? Yes, yes it is. But the difference is we are intolerant of people that want to harm others. Hateful speakers want to harm other for simply existing. Our intolerance is a reaction to their intolerance."

But I'm not reposting that for your benefit.  Oh no.  I already know your going to ignore it again.  I'm posting it for others so they can see how you ignore entire context because you can't handle it.

But, I'll give you a send off.  A tip if you will...for why we react as you saw in your videos.

It's to prevent this:

And this:

And this:

Now back on the ignore list.

lol can you elaborate on the hateful rhetoric jordan peterson pushes? or ben shapiro for that matter?

if you could i swear i'll delete my account

and i suppose that 20 year old kid just standing there that got his fucking head split open by a professor is a nazi and he deserved it

this bullshit is why the left are going to lose to trump again in 2020, you've completely lost your way

Last edited by o_O.Q - on 25 March 2019

EricHiggin said:
sundin13 said:

If you want to argue that colleges aren't providing equal time, go for it, however that isn't a discussion about free speech and as such, it is not addressed by this order.

The allowing of equal time is happening in some circumstances, yet the speech is still being silenced. Much of the time it's being masked as 'peaceful protest', that's actually a group of students who's getting as close to the speaker as possible, and using their voices or noise making devices to make sure the opposing speakers voice isn't heard. Some groups have gone a step further, and are coming to the indoor events, and strategically standing up in pairs and yelling and shouting in protest, just long enough before the school security removes them. Then after a couple of minutes, the next pair stands up and does the same thing, over and over, pair after pair, until the event either get's shut down or the speaker gives up because they can't get a message across because they only get a minute or so before the next group interrupts.

When you see these kinds of things happen constantly, it's not hard to see why some schools aren't allowing equal speaking opportunities. Instead of making the 'protesting' students mind and making them protest peacefully and respectfully, they allow them to act like angry children and ruin the event for everyone else. Part of the reason equal opportunity isn't being given, is due to the way free speech is being allowed to be silenced elsewhere. Free speech is at least indirectly connected to the problem and solution.

So you went from saying "We need more free speech" to "We need to silence this other speech".

Neat.



sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

The allowing of equal time is happening in some circumstances, yet the speech is still being silenced. Much of the time it's being masked as 'peaceful protest', that's actually a group of students who's getting as close to the speaker as possible, and using their voices or noise making devices to make sure the opposing speakers voice isn't heard. Some groups have gone a step further, and are coming to the indoor events, and strategically standing up in pairs and yelling and shouting in protest, just long enough before the school security removes them. Then after a couple of minutes, the next pair stands up and does the same thing, over and over, pair after pair, until the event either get's shut down or the speaker gives up because they can't get a message across because they only get a minute or so before the next group interrupts.

When you see these kinds of things happen constantly, it's not hard to see why some schools aren't allowing equal speaking opportunities. Instead of making the 'protesting' students mind and making them protest peacefully and respectfully, they allow them to act like angry children and ruin the event for everyone else. Part of the reason equal opportunity isn't being given, is due to the way free speech is being allowed to be silenced elsewhere. Free speech is at least indirectly connected to the problem and solution.

So you went from saying "We need more free speech" to "We need to silence this other speech".

Neat.

So you aren't reading what I wrote, or your being petty for the sake of it. 

Expected.



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.