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:

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.

I believe the megaphone man would primarily be breaking Stalking laws, not free speech laws, so that doesn't really apply here. Again, freedom of speech as described in the constitution does not restrict individual access, it restricts governmental access.

As for why people are removed during certain events, an event can choose to remove someone for being disruptive, however, that removal is not designed to protect the speaker's constitutional right to free speech (I feel like I should clarify here that I am not arguing that colleges are doing anything illegal by removing disruptive protestors).

As for the CNN example, that question did not come down to equal access and I really see no reason to get another large debate which I don't feel is even relevant to this conversation.

Finally, what do I propose:

Well, I don't really think there is a problem. Certainly not a constitutional problem. I think that the White House should butt out and stop overstepping. I believe that your proposition would possibly be unconstitutional (as I've explained numerous times). Any problems within any particularly University should be handled as the University sees fit.

Correct, and if the police, don't or won't do their jobs, then what do you do?

So you've changed your mind on this?

If the WH has the right to whether the press are aloud in or not, then what was wrong with not allowing certain individuals?

If the rest of the entire world, one way or another, ended up with tyrannical leaders, who did everything possible to shut down speech and communication only by individuals seen to be on the left, would that be ok, or should America do something about it?