By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - President Trump Signs Executive Order Protecting Free Speech On College Campuses | TIME

jason1637 on 24 March 2019
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
eva01beserk on 24 March 2019
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.

Thisguywhokills on 24 March 2019

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 ;)



eva01beserk on 24 March 2019
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.

Kerotan on 24 March 2019
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. 



Around the Network
Torillian on 24 March 2019
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?



...

EricHiggin on 24 March 2019
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

Torillian on 24 March 2019
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. 



...

MrWayne on 24 March 2019

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?



sundin13 on 24 March 2019
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?