It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump to sign EO for free speech on colleges / universities that receive federal funding .

page: 7
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 07:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Yes I have many times.

Do you what a a codified constitution is ?




posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Yes, yes I do. It is a constitution which takes precedent over legislation. The US Constitution is one of those.

Now tell me how a college denying a person a platform to speak violates this:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Is a college the Congress? Is a college making laws?
edit on 3/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 08:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Well I rarely if ever read the summary on the back of a book and think I understand it’s entirety . The point you’re trying to make right now would fall under absolute privilege . For a better understanding of the first amendment you might also look up the establishment clause and the freedom of exercise clause . Plus the countless supreme court decisions defining It.
edit on 5-3-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 08:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown
So you agree that the First Amendment does not really address the situation.

I'm pretty well aware of how the law and the Court looks at it and I agree that public colleges and universities should be bound by the 1st Amendment, since Congress pays their bills. Private schools are a different matter though, and to threaten federal research funding (medical, science, etc.) for something completely unrelated to that research would be problematic.

But, while highly publicized, there are few cases of schools themselves (public or private) suppressing speech. These cases generally find their way to court when the administrators are involved (with the ACLU often taking an active role in favor of speech). But far more often it is students themselves who engage in such actions (and it should be noted it works in both political directions). In shouting down those who they don't agree with, they are indeed expressing themselves freely, as misdirected it may be. How are the schools to deal with this?

Trump, once again, is feeding his base over something that is not what he makes it to be.
freespeechproject.georgetown.domains...

edit on 3/5/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 10:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
In shouting down those who they don't agree with, they are indeed expressing themselves freely, as misdirected it may be. How are the schools to deal with this?

In many cases it goes well beyond just shouting down the speakers they don't agree with -- but even then I'd expect security to immediately escort them out and enforce some kind of strict administrative punishment (perhaps a 3-strike and you're out policy). If a school hosts a speaker, I'd expect them to ensure a safe environment for this to take place unhindered. Keep protestors quartered off with enough distance and security to prevent them from running riot and being able to affect the safe continuation of the speech from taking place.

My guess is the threat of strict administrative punishment (and possible expulsion) would be enough to deter the vast majority of would-be trouble makers.

Clearly with the way it is/has been, student's aren't at all scared of any repercussions (because there really aren't any) and if anything they're emboldened/encouraged to do what they do by faculty leadership. It's in these obvious cases (after an investigation) that action should be taken against the school itself.
edit on 5/3/19 by Navieko because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Thanks so much for the kind and sincere reply.

Here’s the thing, on any topic there is legitimate policy or activism, and then there are folks that will ‘weaponize’ those topics for personal or political reasons.

I agree with you that right now discussion is so divided, and think that is purposeful to a degree.

I actually agree that the democrats are weaponizing social justice for political ends. Same with Trump hysteria.

However, I’ve seen serious politicizing on the side of conservatives too. Coming of age during 911 and the Bush era, I first woke up to gov and media manipulation through the Patriot Act, Iraq war lies, and torture in our name.

My point is I’m not sure it’s a ‘liberal’ thing. I don’t consider let’s say the Clintons, Corey booker, or Maxine waters to be real ethical liberals, but instead corrupt opportunists.

I know that conservatives may say the same thing about Bush or McCain. And that’s a fair point too.
a reply to: Fallingdown



posted on Mar, 5 2019 @ 10:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



So you agree that the First Amendment does not really address the situation.

I never said the first amendment addressed in any situation. That’s your narrative .

My point was that because it was the first amendment a executive order “ should have never happen “.


I'm pretty well aware of how the law and the Court looks at it and I agree that public colleges and universities should be bound by the 1st Amendment, since Congress pays their bills. Private schools are a different matter though, and to threaten federal research funding (medical, science, etc.) for something completely unrelated to that research would be problematic.


Private schools have never been legally bound by the first amendment. I haven’t heard a whisper about anyone taking their funding or seen the text of the executive order. So monetary penalties against them at this point are speculation .


But, while highly publicized, there are few cases of schools themselves (public or private) suppressing speech.


Again private schools could suppress it if they want. But they for the most part choose not to .

As for conservative speakers being silenced at public universities . You’ve already mentioned you’ve heard of the high profile ones. Here’s a list of 11 you probably haven’t heard of and there are many more.

Banning hats, flags and clothes because they reference Trump is also stifling free-speech .

[url]https://www.thecollegefix.com/11-times-campus-speakers-were-shouted-down-by-leftist-protesters-this-school-year/

Then of course there is Berkeley, Portland and ANTIFA.



Here’s a neat video. BLM showed up at a Trump rally guess what happened ?


That’s right pease broke out.







Trump, once again, is feeding his base over something that is not what he makes it to be.


That quote makes me whince. You’re one of the people I would classify as scary smart.

So instead of giving the reply I just deleted. Lol

I’m gonna bite my tongue and ask you a question .


How thoroughly have you researched that statement ?



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 02:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

This is a load of crap. Why sign an EO when free you already have the first?



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 02:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

Because publicly funded institutions are not upholding the constitution?
But you already know this.
The question becomes why are you against this?



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 06:05 AM
link   
This is great.
We should expand this to all business that are on the take in anyway or receive subsidies from the government or have lobbyists purchasing politicians.

Walmart and other companies would no longer be able to suppress organized labors freedom of speech.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: MyToxicTash
a reply to: XAnarchistX

Good point does a Christian school have to let gay folk give talks?.


Christian schools are private, this is for schools getting federal funding. But if it's a public Christian school then yes, they have to let queers and lesbians give talks if they want to continue getting funding.


Not just federal funding but funding from local governments as well.
There are many business that would only come to a city if the local government did xyz for them with city funds.

Organized labor working together is free speech.
All business should support this.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 06:51 AM
link   
How does one define federal funding? A school like Liberty University doesn't receive federal funding directly but they still receive half a billion dollars in federal money a year through student financial aid.

Would this new policy apply to them?
edit on 3/6/2019 by Xcalibur254 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Good question

I assume if the intent is for the money to go primarily to the student and not the institution . Those funds would be safe.

But nothing is etched in stone at this point. So we’re in the wait-and-see mode until we lay eyes on the EO .

I think it’s doubtful student aid funds would be touched .



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 08:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

If that's the case though I think a legal argument could be made that this EO unfairly targets schools with a specific political point of view. Even though there's a middle man, Liberty receives vastly more federal funding than my alma mater.

If this EO goes through, what's to stop a future President from making an EO that says any university that receives federal funds of any kind must adhere to a secular curriculum?

A large reason Liberty is able to remain in business is because of student financial aid. I wonder how many people cheering this current EO would be as accepting of one that would essentially force schools like Liberty to change their business model or shut down.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

How does EO target individual schools if the goal is free speech for all ? Again I think the EO is going to target institutions not individuals funding .



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

It targets specific schools because it can be argued that most public universities have a liberal bent. Meanwhile it can also be argued that most Right leaning schools are private. Both public and private schools are reaping the benefits of federal money but only one side would be getting punished.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 09:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Actually most private schools operate under free speech. They also don’t have 80% + liberal faculty. But I will ceed your point and agree. If student loan money is targeted I’m going to have to rethink my position.

If student loan money is not targeted what do you think of the executive order?

Violating a constitutional right should have consequences. There is no doubt conservatives are silenced and intimidated at public universities .



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 09:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

I think if student loan money isn't targeted then it's clear that this EO has nothing to do with free speech. It's just another way for Trump to appeal to his base by sticking it to liberals.

Yes, violating a constitutional right should have consequences. But in how many of these cases is it a school that is straight out denying a speaker because of their political views?

In every case I can think of it's a student body led protest that either leads to the speaker pulling out of their own volition or them being forced to pull out due to security concerns.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
It took me a day and I was jarred by the Tucker Carlson show before I thought it through . But how the hell are the liberal indoctrination camps aka colleges and universities going to fight this ?


I take it that it's been awhile since you've been on a college campus. I teach at one.

Most colleges and universities do allow opposing viewpoints to be presented in forums and in class and even at rallies on campus, by the way (I can't tell you how many times I encountered the Young Republicans with megaphones and sound systems talking at the crowd as I walked across UNT a few years ago.) Just because students do not suddenly turn out to have the same political and social beliefs as you does NOT mean that they weren't exposed to it or given an opportunity to learn about it and change their beliefs.

At the time I encountered the Young Republicans and heard fragments of their talks as I walked past them or stood in line to purchase a lunch nearby, I could tell you exactly what the club stood for and what their talking points were. But exposure didn't change my beliefs.


This proposed EO is meaningless.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


Yes, yes I do.


Suppression of free speech may be done in several ways. Plenty of incidents have been made public. Your position is they don’t happen all that often. Several assaults which is a way to silence free-speech through intimidation or force . Have been filmed including the guy that got punched a couple weeks ago.

You believe they’re highly publicized and those are the only isolated incident. That’s like saying when you see a YouTube video of a fight in Seattle. That was the only fight in Seattle that happened that day. As far as I see it what you’re presenting is a unfalsifiable position .


It is a constitution which takes precedent over legislation. The US Constitution is one of those


A EO isn’t legislation it’s a directive . The constitution and the first amendment fall under the judicial branch for interpretation. That happens on a regular basis lawsuits are won or lost.




Is a college the Congress? Is a college making laws?


I don’t understand your premise. Explain to me how you think a college is making a law please ?




top topics



 
54
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join