By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
EricHiggin on 26 March 2019
Edit Thread
sundin13 said:
EricHiggin said:

I stated the campus security tends to be the one's who have to take care of unruly protests, since based on my prior explanation, the speakers themselves very rarely call for that because it would be silencing free speech, regardless of how peaceful it is or typically not. If you think it's ok to talk over someone else to the point that their free speech is significantly hindered, then there is no point in having a right to free speech, and there sure isn't a point to pushing for equality. If that was the case, then people shouldn't care about things like when the Prez wants to ban members of the media, because if all the Prez is going to do is interrupt and talk over the press, then why bother allowing them to speak? Maybe the Prez should ignore the speech of all the media members he doesn't like. Why give them all a platform, an equal one at that?

I pointed out how the silencing of individuals on campuses would push other schools to just forget about allowing those types of speakers on theirs, largely to simply avoid conflict and headaches. Therefore, by continuing to allow students to shut down free speech, it makes the problem worse. By putting repercussions into place for allowing that to happen, the idea is for the schools to enforce peaceful protest that doesn't inhibit free speech, helping to resolve the problem. I'm not sure where the idea comes from that this will solve the problem in it's entirety. How many orders or bills solve an entire problem all at once? Not many.

The right of free speech as guaranteed by the constitution refers to restrictions to the Government's ability to write laws which would hinder speech. It does not refer to people interrupting each other, or otherwise talking over each other. There is no right to not being interrupted, and those interruptions are also speech. You could argue that it is impolite for a private citizen to shout over someone else, but you could not argue that it was unconstitutional.

For those same reasons, speaking about the freedom of the press in the context of the President is not a sound comparison because the President is acting as an agent of the Government, not as a private citizen. And similarly, the freedom of the press does not provide the press with unhindered access to private citizens.

Again, an order protecting free speech on campuses would not address this issue, because free speech is not the same as the provision of a platform, and in order to "protect" someone's free speech in the manner you wish, they would have to combat other speech.

Sure I could. If every time you left your home, you had someone follow you, and they carried a megaphone and talked over you every time you tried to speak in public, or private if possible, then surely there would be a case, especially if speaking in public was tied to your career. Now the police should take care of this before it get's to that point, but we have to assume they aren't, which is why an order is needed. Why do you think at political speaking events, especially during elections, protesters yelling and screaming in the crowd, interrupting the speaker, are immediately escorted out? Shouldn't they be allowed to continue? Why aren't those events shut down?

My example itself was sound. The Prez doesn't have to let any press in the WH, they just do because it's become the norm, and the WH revoked a media personnel pass somewhat recently, for good reason, yet the media and left went crazy because they believed his speech was being silenced. Why? Is the WH not allowed to decide who they do and don't want to offer a platform to?

I disagree, again, but what do you purpose then?

How about an order that forced campuses to allow equal access to their platform? Maybe based on the types of individuals they themselves allow on campus? So if they bring in left wing speakers, they then are forced to bring in or allow an equal amount of opposing political speakers? That way if someone wants to speak about balloons, the campus doesn't have to because they don't see the benefit of that. This way all offered topics/categories are given equal access and if the schools don't like that, then don't bring in any speakers on campus.