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

Ljink96 said:
eva01beserk said:

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

I don't know if you're referring to me as a liberal but I'm not. I'm more of a centrist than anything. I'm just saying actions have reactions, and if we do experience radical reactions we'll know why is all. 

On a separate note...I remember when Trump criticized Obama for using executive orders...but now he's using them all the time. I kind of don't trust actions of hypocrites. 

I was not refering to you as I do not know you. Good to hear you are a centrist, I am as well. I completly agree, actions do have reactions. I would say if someone says god is real. a good reaction is to refute that. What i not a good reaction is punching the guy. Would you not agree? If radical reactions do happen, would you also not agree that the police or any security would confront thouse overreaction and protect the original speaker who is not being violent or inciting violence?

I agree with you on your separate note as well. Like the democrats even during the obama era that wanted to secure the border and wanted some sort of barier, but as soon as trump wants one to, its suddenly racist. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Around the Network
Torillian said:
Now that I've thought about it a bit, I think the most interesting result of this will be how the Satanists use this. I'm sure they're ready to send speaking requests to every religious institute that gets federal grant money. I'd be surprised if any major university was completely devoid of federal grant funding. Even the crazy places like Liberty University.

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?



Free speech protects your right say what you want, but not necessarily from the ire of your peers.

I want this to be Pandora's box just because it would be fitting. Not bad legislation, but it will be fun to see who might use it.



Hiku said:
Torillian said:
Now that I've thought about it a bit, I think the most interesting result of this will be how the Satanists use this. I'm sure they're ready to send speaking requests to every religious institute that gets federal grant money. I'd be surprised if any major university was completely devoid of federal grant funding. Even the crazy places like Liberty University.

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?

Are you actually taking about lucifer, if so he is the good guy



 "I think people should define the word crap" - Kirby007

Join the Prediction League http://www.vgchartz.com/predictions

pokoko said:
This is ... odd. Free speech is already protected at public universities and it's enforced by the courts, as it should be. Now there is going to be a duplicate law but how is it going to be enforced? The highly partisan legislative/executive branch is going to watch over it? How? By what rules? That doesn't sound good. Who wants MORE government overhead, especially when it's arbitrary.

Hopefully this is just as symbolic and meaningless as it actually sounds.

On a side note, can you imagine how conservative pundits would rage about this as the executive branch trying to extend its reach into Constitutional matters as "Big Government"?

Its for Private Colleges that recieve money from the federal government.



Around the Network
Hiku 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. 

Well, I was asking the person in question because I'm curious about how university attendants feel this impacts them personally.

As for your example, I don't know enough about the situation to assess whether Berkeley should have him speak or not.
But a quick google search shows me he did speak at Berkeley in Sep 2017.

But regardless, a university, like any other similar institution, should be able to decide whether or not it is in their best interest to have any particular person speak at their grounds. That can include things like cost, and whether or not most of their audience would be interested in it in the first place.
Threats of violence should never be tolerated though, and I doubt they ever were. But if there is a perceived risk that required multi million dollar investments, then it would not be out of the ordinary for someone to pass on that for something closer to their intended budget.

As for 'anti hate groups', I believe you're referring anti hate in regards to discrimination, bigotry, etc.
They in turn may very well hate people who hate someone because of the color of their skin. But the difference is, they have a good reason.

Already corrected that I got the speaker wrong, it was milo. 

Universitys can make invitations and cancel them at any point sure. They can offer money to who they like to speak and offer nothing to thouse they deemed hateful. I got no problems with that. But if the university does not incetivice anybody to come and they say thats ok Ill do it for free, I dont even need a stage or anything and you still have a problem and say completly ban the person, then that is just insane. 

And no. It should not require a majority vote. If 100 out off 20000 want to invite a certain person, if they can afford it then just let them.

I dont really mind hate. Im hispanic living in a 99% white state. If people hate me I could not care less. As long as they dont do anything to me they can say what they want. This is the problem I have with what you say. even if I hated someone who hates me, that still gives me no wright to attack them if they have done nothing to me yet. Fighting back in self defense I got no problem with. But the riots i have seen, the destruction, the people getting hurt by antifa and other extremist just because someone is talking and they dont like it is not acceptable. Thats child like behavior. 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

Try to criticise Israel then or something TRUMP and it's people like , and you will be served a big "No Freedom of speech for you" BRO ;)



Thisguywhokills said:
Try to criticise Israel then or something TRUMP and it's people like , and you will be served a big "No Freedom of speech for you" BRO ;)

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? 



It takes genuine talent to see greatness in yourself despite your absence of genuine talent.

eva01beserk said:
Hiku said:

Well, I was asking the person in question because I'm curious about how university attendants feel this impacts them personally.

As for your example, I don't know enough about the situation to assess whether Berkeley should have him speak or not.
But a quick google search shows me he did speak at Berkeley in Sep 2017.

But regardless, a university, like any other similar institution, should be able to decide whether or not it is in their best interest to have any particular person speak at their grounds. That can include things like cost, and whether or not most of their audience would be interested in it in the first place.
Threats of violence should never be tolerated though, and I doubt they ever were. But if there is a perceived risk that required multi million dollar investments, then it would not be out of the ordinary for someone to pass on that for something closer to their intended budget.

As for 'anti hate groups', I believe you're referring anti hate in regards to discrimination, bigotry, etc.
They in turn may very well hate people who hate someone because of the color of their skin. But the difference is, they have a good reason.

Already corrected that I got the speaker wrong, it was milo. 

Universitys can make invitations and cancel them at any point sure. They can offer money to who they like to speak and offer nothing to thouse they deemed hateful. I got no problems with that. But if the university does not incetivice anybody to come and they say thats ok Ill do it for free, I dont even need a stage or anything and you still have a problem and say completly ban the person, then that is just insane. 

Do you mean that as long as someone is willing to do something at your institution, you need to let them do it?

eva01beserk said:
And no. It should not require a majority vote. If 100 out off 20000 want to invite a certain person, if they can afford it then just let them.

I'm not sure I follow you here?
If 100 out of 20000 want Justin Bieber, and 19900 out of 20000 want Beyonce, Justin Bieber should get the spot?

eva01beserk said:
I dont really mind hate. Im hispanic living in a 99% white state. If people hate me I could not care less. As long as they dont do anything to me they can say what they want. This is the problem I have with what you say. even if I hated someone who hates me, that still gives me no wright to attack them if they have done nothing to me yet. Fighting back in self defense I got no problem with. But the riots i have seen, the destruction, the people getting hurt by antifa and other extremist just because someone is talking and they dont like it is not acceptable. Thats child like behavior. 


I didn't say they have a good reason to attack someone. In fact, I said "Threats of violence should never be tolerated though".
What I said was, they have a good reason to hate people who for example hate others due to the color of their skin.
Hate and violence are not the same thing, even if they often go hand in hand. You can hate someone without wanting to physically hurt them.

A person who hates someone that hates others due to the color of their skin would by definition not be anti-hate if you take the term literally. But that term is usually used to describe people who are against discrimination and hate based on ethnicity, sexuality, religion, etc.

When you say that you're fine if people hate you for being hispanic, I'm sure you do to a degree. When it's just words. But those kind of words are often meant to encourage action. 



Torillian said:
So universities can't get grant money unless they allow everyone to speak. I'm curious to see if this is applied across the board. Pretty sure private religious universities can get federal grants too. Will they be required to let anyone speak?

Also, what exactly is this meant to solve?

I think it's less about solving and more about allowing a basic right.