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

Kerotan said:
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. 

Is there a basic right to talk at universities that people are being denied I'm unaware of?



...

Around the Network
Immersiveunreality said:
OlfinBedwere said:

So, I take it colleges will also be punished for denying people the opportunity to speak out about how the Earth is flat, or the superiority of the Aryan race?

Depends where the border going in the territory of hate speech is crossed?

People talking about flat earth should be no problem.

There was a time when people weren't aloud to speak about round Earth. They were silenced, jailed, and even killed for talking about it. One can't help wonder how history would be different if they were aloud to speak up initially, or if they were still being silenced up until today. How did they know back then that a round Earth wouldn't cause major problems down the road? It has caused 'problems' from a certain point of view, especially from a religious standpoint.

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.

Well I don't see too many Satanists being invited to speak at religious schools, but if they were, I can't help but assume their audience is going to be very very small. If the students believe their professors teachings, they aren't likely to participate in the optional event anyway, and attending doesn't necessarily mean they will be converted either.

I do agree that if this were to be scheduled, it wouldn't be a surprise for certain communities to rally to try and stop it from taking place. That would be different than the students themselves trying to stop it though.

I also don't think this point is a great comparison unless your trying to equate conservatism to satanism. Liberal vs Conservative isn't supposed to be good vs evil, it's supposed to be one set of worthy idea's vs another set of worthy idea's. Then again, if your of the impression that satanism is a worthy idea, I guess you could make the argument against it, and you would have a point considering no one factually knows if Satan is evil. We simply know what we're told and can read, much like the media and public documents.

Last edited by EricHiggin - on 24 March 2019

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:
Immersiveunreality said:

Depends where the border going in the territory of hate speech is crossed?

People talking about flat earth should be no problem.

There was a time when people weren't aloud to speak about round Earth. They were silenced, jailed, and even killed for talking about it. One can't help wonder how history would be different if they were aloud to speak up initially, or if they were still being silenced up until today. How did they know back then that a round Earth wouldn't cause major problems down the road? it has caused 'problems' from a certain point of view, especially from a religious standpoint.

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.

Well I don't see too many Satanists being invited to speak at religious schools, but if they were, I can't help but assume their audience is going to be very very small. If the students believe their professors teachings, they aren't likely to participate in the optional event anyway, and attending doesn't necessarily mean they will be converted either.

I do agree that if this were to be scheduled, it wouldn't be a surprise for certain communities to rally to try and stop it from taking place. That would be different than the students themselves trying to stop it though.

I also don't think this point is a great comparison unless your trying to equate conservatism to satanism. Liberal vs Conservative isn't supposed to be good vs evil, it's supposed to be one set of worthy idea's vs another set of worthy idea's. Then again, if your of the impression that satanism is a worthy idea, I guess you could make the argument against it, and you would have a point considering no one factually knows if Satan is evil. We simply know what we're told and can read, much like the media and public documents.

Who says they need to be invited? Didn't notice that in the executive order. 

I'm just interested in how this executive order which is obviously set up to help conservatives talk more at universities will be used by those whose views I agree with more to talk at religious universities. Good and evil doesn't come into it really. The satanists are pretty agreeable from my viewpoint. 



...

I'm confused, what does this executive order achieve? Can I now write an email to the MIT and demand to hold a public speech there? Or does this mean that student groups can invite speakers to their events without permission from the university?



Kerotan said:
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. 

How far does this logic go? Do you wish for these Universities to provide a platform for anyone who requests one?



Around the Network

Trump is THEE man. Fucking boss, Everytime I think he can't do any better like helping to rejoin the Korean peninsula he just keeps on chugging back a can of baddassery and continues winning.



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

Hiku said:
eva01beserk said:

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. 

If someone wants to speak at a public institution then yes, let them. As long as i government funded its public. 

Does having justin bieber stop beyonce from coming? Then I dont see a problem. I know its a straw man what you just said, but to enagage it anyways. at worst lest say theres only one venue. The only issue I see is that they both cant be there at the same time. You could even have the most popular firt if you want, even another week if it pleases you. But having one does not exclude the other.

I know you dint say that they have good reason. I dint claimed that you did. But I was being more specific to my original post as I clearly said thouse anti hate groups where rioting, but you clearly side stepped that. 

But thats the thing, you asume that because some desagree with you you think they are conspiring against you. And even if they do they are doing so in a public square, the first thing to do before silencing them is resonable argument. Let the public know why they are wrong and hateful. If you just shut them down you are admiting to them that you cant respond and they think they are correct. If they are inciting violence then that is against the law and they should go to jail.



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

Torillian said:
Kerotan said:

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

Is there a basic right to talk at universities that people are being denied I'm unaware of?

Yes its called freedom to speak at the public square. As long as your government funded, you are public.



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

sundin13 said:
Kerotan said:

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

How far does this logic go? Do you wish for these Universities to provide a platform for anyone who requests one?

Yes. They wont roll out the red carpet for anyone, but they should still be allowed to speak freely. 



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

eva01beserk said:
sundin13 said:

How far does this logic go? Do you wish for these Universities to provide a platform for anyone who requests one?

Yes. They wont roll out the red carpet for anyone, but they should still be allowed to speak freely. 

What does that mean? Anyone can hang out in the public University quad and talk. Nothing has changed in that respect (and that is protected by the 1st Amendment). However, people seem to be taking issue with how Universities provide people with platforms. There is a very big difference there between allowing speech and providing platforms. You say that they "wont roll out the carpet for any anyone" but that statement is far too vague to actually discuss. Should they allow these people (ie "anyone") to speak in front of an organized assembly as hosted by the University in the manner that a University typically hosts outside speakers?