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

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. 

Aren't university campuses already public spaces? Everyone can go there and talk to people, of course you can't organize an event there without the permission of the university.



Around the Network
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?

It seems to be mostly invited events where the Libertarian or Conservative speaker is being given an extremely hard time, if not completely rejected from speaking on certain campuses. Not just a few either. It's not always the campus administration outright denying the event, but there are lot's of times where a crowd of students from the campus gather to protest and get violent to the point where they won't let people into the event. Sometimes if they can't stop them that way, they will constantly pull the fire alarm to force the event to be cancelled. There are times when the event get's cancelled because another event/speaker was booked instead last minute, just by chance. Sometimes it's flat out rejection due to how they are viewed by the mainstream, which is usually negative. Other times within the event itself, it's bombarded by protesters who yell and shout consistently, making the event a wash. Sometimes there is security to get them to leave, but it's not all that often the speaker pushes hard to get them forced out. Usually they allow them to continue to protest, as annoying as it is, because it is their right, and so they would be hypocrites themselves to forcefully stop them.

People like Milo, Shapiro, Peterson, Ruben, etc, are constantly dealing with these kinds of situations. Libertarians and Conservatives. Even Owen Benjamin, a comedian, who's into politics as well, is constantly hassled trying to set up his events. So many times he's set up the event and paid for it, and they cancel on him last minute to try and silence him. To try and say it's simply bad luck or coincidence would be to simply deny the fact of the matter. It happens so often to him and others, that they now try to set up a back up plan where the event can be moved to another close unknown location that only the people at the original event get told if there's a problem. Ruben was supposed to speak at some campus I believe and he ended up moving to a local arena because of the last minute issues.

You also have to take into account private contributions to these campuses, sometimes quite large, and if those entities refuse to continue to help fund the school due to allowing Libertarians or Conservatives to hold events and speak freely, what are you going to do? By Trump pushing back and holding back Government funding due to denying free speech, directly or indirectly, it will force the campuses to decide what's more important to them, and whether or not they want to educate their students to be as tolerant as possible in the future.

This is just what is happening in the physical world, not to mention the issues these people and many others are having in the digital world in terms of being banned or de-platformed etc. There was an interview with the YouTube CEO and the female host mentioned she wished the CEO would ban Shapiro because her son was watching his videos and she didn't like it and was worried it would lead to him becoming an extremist right winger. She also mentioned how she told the CEO earlier how she needed to ban Jones, which coincidentally ended up happening not much later. Now while Jones is certainly somewhat controversial, Shapiro is about as straight laced as they come, and more importantly, if your the parent, it's your job to take care of your kids. Social media isn't a school or babysitter and expecting them to be, is another main reason as to why censoring has become such a large problem and concern.



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.

sundin13 said:
eva01beserk said:

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?

Already answerd that before. Bur EricHiggins just just made a detailed post, read that. 



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

MrWayne said:
eva01beserk said:

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

Aren't university campuses already public spaces? Everyone can go there and talk to people, of course you can't organize an event there without the permission of the university.

Why not? If I dont require anything from the university why do I need to ask? 

Have you seen the change my mind segment from steven crowder? He brings his own desk and chairs and sits outside wanting to talk to who ever aprouches. How does he harm anyone in that maner. If you dont like the topic just walk away. 



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

Torillian said:
EricHiggin said:

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.

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. 

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 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.

Around the Network
eva01beserk said:
sundin13 said:

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?

Already answerd that before. Bur EricHiggins just just made a detailed post, read that. 

I mean, Eric really does nothing to answer my questions (probably because he wasn't responding to me). I haven't read all of your posts, but if it doesn't say any more than that, it probably doesn't answer me either. Again, should Universitites 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? Are we now arguing that free speech means you have to give people a platform (which isn't what free speech means), and if so, are there any limits to this idea?



I support this but it's extremely sad that it's gotta come to an executive order which can be changed by any future presidents to defend even the most basics of a fundamental right on a publicly funded campus and it's been too long since too many public colleges have been festering in their own toxic liberal echo chambers so it's high time that things are to be set right ... 

Any public institution should be allowed to provide platforms for 'blasphemous' speech unless their against free speech in principle. What is defined to be 'hate' speech is ambiguous so speech should be unconditional regardless. If they want funding then they can seek private sources of income instead ... 



eva01beserk said:
Ljink96 said:

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. 

Well yeah, people who don't look to the past are going to be ignorant. Obama, Clinton, Bush all tried to do something about boarder control. But they handled it differntly from trump which I did appreciate. Don't treat all of them like their villains.

The difference of Obama from Trump is that Trump himself is a hypocrite, while Obama..eh not so much. Constituents come in all shapes, sizes, educaiton backgrounds, mental capacities, etc. so I'm not necessarily worried about them, it's the head I'm more worried about in terms of exhibiting hypocritical tendencies on more than several occasions. 

But yeah, I think everyone should be held accountable not to incite violence on either side, but that doesn't stop it [violence] from happening. I think if anything ti just adds more fuel to the fire. It should be that we all have free speech anywhere, but things that are obscene shouldn't be allowed.



sundin13 said:
eva01beserk said:

Already answerd that before. Bur EricHiggins just just made a detailed post, read that. 

I mean, Eric really does nothing to answer my questions (probably because he wasn't responding to me). I haven't read all of your posts, but if it doesn't say any more than that, it probably doesn't answer me either. Again, should Universitites 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? Are we now arguing that free speech means you have to give people a platform (which isn't what free speech means), and if so, are there any limits to this idea?

Fine. If a university offers money to anita sarkesian to speak thats fine. If ben shapiro wants to speak and the university dosent give him any money thats fine to. The university even has the right to refuse the use of its auditorium if it has one and ben shapiro has no grounds to complain. But if ben shapiro wants to come in and just go to the plaza and stand on a chair and people just gather around, the university can do nothing to stop him as he is able to speak in a public square. If the university wants to stop ben shapiro to even do that, thats fine to, they just have to not receive any money from the goverment. So they can make it dificult if they want, thats what I meant by not rolling out the red carpet. But its up to the speaker to decide if they want to come without any help by the university at his own cost.



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

Ljink96 said:
eva01beserk said:

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. 

Well yeah, people who don't look to the past are going to be ignorant. Obama, Clinton, Bush all tried to do something about boarder control. But they handled it differntly from trump which I did appreciate. Don't treat all of them like their villains.

The difference of Obama from Trump is that Trump himself is a hypocrite, while Obama..eh not so much. Constituents come in all shapes, sizes, educaiton backgrounds, mental capacities, etc. so I'm not necessarily worried about them, it's the head I'm more worried about in terms of exhibiting hypocritical tendencies on more than several occasions. 

But yeah, I think everyone should be held accountable not to incite violence on either side, but that doesn't stop it [violence] from happening. I think if anything ti just adds more fuel to the fire. It should be that we all have free speech anywhere, but things that are obscene shouldn't be allowed.

Na I get it. Orange man bad. I thought you said you where a centrist? Me as a centrist I hold everyone accountable to their actions. If trump does a bad thing, i will not excuse obama, clinton or bush cuz they did not as bad. I dont belong to any party. I will criticize ideas not the person presenting them. 



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