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: 8
54
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Byrd

If Republicans are targeting free-speech. They should be disciplined by the schools too. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.

Protecting everyone.




posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254


I think if student loan money isn't targeted then it's clear that this EO has nothing to do with free speech


University funds are going to be targeted. Because they are the people that should be enforcing the First Amendment.

All you guys are claiming that suppression of free speech doesn’t happen on college campuses. Any Data, names, incidents or video I bring up will be called isolated. As I said to Phage that is a unfalsifiable position The exact type of argument the flat earth people use .



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 10:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

Honestly, if the Right wants to use the argument that colleges that only receive federal funds through financial aid are exempt from this EO then go ahead. I just hope they realize that argument can then be used across the board.

For example, Planned Parenthood doesn't actually receive federal funding. They receive funding through Medicaid which comes through individuals. So I would expect that the threat that PP will be defunded because they perform abortions while "receiving" federal funds ceases.

But let's be honest, that's not going to happen because at it's core politics is hypocritical.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 11:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: Byrd

If Republicans are targeting free-speech. They should be disciplined by the schools too. That’s what the First Amendment is all about.

Protecting everyone.


Protecting everyone from the government making laws about speech. A school not opening their doors to someone doesnt rob them of their speech nor is it the government making a law against them speaking at the school.

Its amazing how much these right-wing shock jocks are framing the story and getting the damn president on their BS side.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: theAWfuLWaFFLe

Uh.....YEAH!!!!!



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown


“Today, I am proud to announce that I will be very soon signing an executive order requiring colleges and universities to support free speech if they want federal research funds.”


So, what the president* is saying is that schools aren't allowed to deny certain speakers the right to speak, and if they do they won't receive federal funds

The president thinks those funds buy him the right to decide who gets to speak and who doesn't. How is this not a form of extortion? How does this not violate a private school's 1st amendment rights?

How is this not bullying by a phony, wannabe king - instead of the actions of an elected public servant of a representative democracy?

The president* doesn't seem to understand the 1st amendment

We can agree to disagree (or not) about whether schools should allow everyone that wants to speak a platform. It's not violating anyone's 1st amendment rights if they don't. Only children (I think) believe that everyone should get a trophy

Is a school still private if it receives government money? Do other kinds of private institutions that receive any kind of federal funding still get to make decisions for themselves? Or are they now required to kowtow to the Feds?

Does a school not have the right of refusal?

I guess we'll see how this all plays out in court



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Xcalibur254

You’re operating under the assumption that all private colleges hold conservative views they don’t. Princeton is a private university. It’s make up is 60% liberal and 10% conservative. Furthermore a prospect has a idea about the views of the private institution they applied, for instance a Christian college . Most views are expressed in the college application. So when you signed them it falls under informed consent .

Yes the first amendment can be used across the board by anyone. That’s what it’s there for. If the right suppresses the left it’s wrong if the left suppresses the right it’s wrong.

Planned Parenthood is allowed to express their views on abortion. The pro-life people are allowed to express their views against abortion .

Vegan’s are allowed to express their views on eating meat . The other 99.9% of the world is allowed to laugh at them . Lol

PETA is allowed to call domestication of animals imprisonment. Everybody else is allowed to pet their dog or cat and smile .

Everyone is allowed to say what is on their mind peacefully under the first amendment. That’s one of the things that made this country great .


But I agree politics are hypocritical. It’s just that I think the constitution isn’t.



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown

I never said that all private universities are Conservative. What I said is that most Conservative universities are private.

Do you disagree with that statement?



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

Any time one receives money, it comes with strings attached. If I hire you to do a something, I get to set the terms of the agreement, or you don't get the money. If I give you money, I get to decide whether or not I give it based on whatever criteria I choose to use.

When the government awards a contract, the company receiving that contract has to follow certain rules set in place. When the government decides to give money to a cause, recipients have to follow certain restrictions that determine whether they can get the money or not. Just try and get SNAP benefits with $1 million sitting in your bank... not gonna happen. Try to get disability benefits... takes a lawyer if one is a quadroplegic with two heads!

This is what socialism does and this is how socialism works. Whenever someone is dependent on a single entity, the government for example, they become slaves to that entity. In a job, one can always quit. Under government restrictions, not so much. Under capitalism, one chooses whether or not to work for someone to get what they need, and there's a very good chance there's another job if one looks hard enough Under socialism, not so much. It's the government's way or no way.

We have a system of government that allows for free speech. Many colleges have openly prevented speakers from giving speeches, even when invited by student organizations, even when more progressive speakers have been wholeheartedly embraced. Schools regularly use intimidation tactics to accomplish this: security will state that the speaker cannot be assured of protection against students, look the other way when security threats arise, and even block speakers form speaking because of "fear for their safety." If that is the case, why are they not fearful of their student body with other speakers? Why are they unable to control violence on their campus? What are they doing there besides standing around like cardboard cutouts?

While I would argue that requirements in opposition to the constitutional restrictions on government power are unconstitutional, this requirement is completely in line with government authority. So don't try any strawmen arguments about government being able to withhold funds to those who allow free speech. We can nip that one in the bud.

Your argument makes no sense, whether from a socialist, capitalist, contractual, or constitutional perspective.

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 12:38 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck




The Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.


Our phony king doesn't own the gold



Any time one receives money, it comes with strings attached.


Again - does he not have the guts to have this legislated? It seems like he's not speaking for the government - the rules he wants them to follow are his rules


We have a system of government that allows for free speech. Many colleges have openly prevented speakers from giving speeches, even when invited by student organizations, even when more progressive speakers have been wholeheartedly embraced.


So?

Tough noogies. Free speech is not what you think it is - apparently

Are these private institutionS? Are they obligated to dole out platforms? Will his highness now establish quotas?

Like I said Red - we'll have to see how this goes down in court



edit on 3/6/2019 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Our phony king doesn't own the gold

I tried... I tried to make a cognizant argument.

First, this, good sir, is the United States of America. We do not have a king. We have a President who is allowed certain powers by virtue of that title.

Second, Donald J. Trump won the election in 2016 to become President; there is nothing 'fake' about that. I do not appreciate your lame attempts to suppress my voting rights, nor the voting rights of millions of other Americans. Figure out where you are and what you are.


Again - does he not have the guts to have this legislated? It seems like he's not speaking for the government - the rules he wants them to follow are his rules

As President of the United States of America, President Trump has full authority to issue Executive Orders. Issued and legally executed Executive orders are the rules of the United States of America. By definition. Suck it up and live with it.


Tough noogies. Free speech is not what you think it is - apparently

Are these private institutionS? Are they obligated to dole out platforms? Will his highness now establish quotas?

Free speech is the right to state one's opinions without fear of repercussions validated by a government.

I don't care if they're run by little green men from Mars. If they depend on government funding, the government can, in accordance with constitutional principles and Federal law, implement conditions for receiving those funds. there is no inherent right to research funding, government contracts, government assistance, or any type of financial reward. There is nothing in this Executive Order that prevents any private school from operating as they choose. They just can't get money if they violate freedom of speech on their campus. Oh, boo-hoo-hooey!

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck


I tried... I tried to make a cognizant argument.

You didn't actually



First, this, good sir, is the United States of America. We do not have a king. We have a President who is allowed certain powers by virtue ofthat title.

Not a sir

He behaves like a king - ruling by decree. Congress owns the purse. Or they used to...



Free speech is the right to state one's opinions without fear of repercussions validated by a government.


Exactly - the government. Not a college

I would have said once upon a time that I was surprised to hear you support this. But - no longer


Toodles Red - not here for the long drawn out debate or the solid walls of nonsensical verbiage

As I've said twice already - we'll have to see how this plays out. I'm guessing it's just puppy cookies for his base - but we shall see

As for this:



I do not appreciate your lame attempts to suppress my voting rights, nor the voting rights of millions of other Americans. Figure out where you are and what you are.


Yeah - right.


edit on 3/6/2019 by Spiramirabilis because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 03:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Fallingdown

I never said that all private universities are Conservative. What I said is that most Conservative universities are private.

Do you disagree with that statement?


In order to agree or disagree we would need all of the information and we don’t have it .


Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Ahmerst, Brown, Stanford and Duke are all private schools . I don’t see them as Bastognes of conservatism .

But one thing I am sure of is the term “ implied consent”.

Private school tuition’s are higher than public schools . The students make a choice to go to private institutions because they have the ability to finance tuition rates of around $45,000 a year. The keyword is choice. They also have the choice not to attend a private institution that doesn’t agree with their principles . But when they make a contract with the private college to abide by its principles and rules. It’s not a contract against that signee, it’s a contract with the student body that enforces the principles of the school that everyone else signed and agreed with . They can try to sue which in all likelihood will be unsuccessful or they can transfer if something offends them .


On the other hand Billie Joe Dinkel who climbs down off her mountain in Kentucky Barefooted, Bucktooth and pregnant with absolutely no credit or any family proof of income . ( I am a country guy I’m allowed to say that) lol

Then applies for student loan or even a Pell Grant and is turned down.

She still wants to go to college. So she gets two jobs one on the breakfast shift at McDonald’s and another on third shift at Walmart in order to scrape together the $5000 tuition to attend Hazard county community college. Knowing full and well she will be living on Ramen noodles, tapwater and prenatal vitamins doesn’t have much of a choice . Which is the reason she turned to public education .

^^^^^^(facetious not aggressive )

To be fair I can see your point and *now I agree there should be new legislation to bring private schools and even private industry in compliance with the first amendment .

But that’s not the way it is right now. I’m sure other people agree with your position. Hell I *now agree that private colleges shouldn’t be excluded. But that’s the way it is.

Maybe Trumps EO will spawn like minded people and push this position . Till it becomes so loud and so universal that SCOTUS will side with it or New legislation will be past extending the privilege to students attending private colleges . ( legislation couldn’t touch religion only SCOUTS can)

That is the beauty of the first amendment free speech and independent thought .


*Now

I made that note to let you know you changed my position somewhat.

Thanks









edit on 6-3-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-3-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis


Not a sir

My apologies, ma'am.


He behaves like a king - ruling by decree. Congress owns the purse. Or they used to...

I have studied history. Never in all the courses and personal research into various eras have I come across a king who was at the mercy of a specious court ruling, nor who was constantly condemned by the media without that media losing their heads in the literal sense.

You do not know what a king is.


Exactly - the government. Not a college

And private schools are free to enact any legal policies they choose, even to specify what speakers can visit and speak. I support that. What I do not support is asking the government to fund it. Employer's business.. employer's policies (even when I think they're heinous). Government's money... government's rules. Don't like the job? Don't work there. Don't like the funding rules? Don't take the funding.

It's really that simple.

Any contractor who is awarded a contract for the government is also required to follow certain government policies in hiring and personnel management, such as maintaining EEOC compliance and providing benefits to employees. Is that wrong too, or it just bad when it's a college?

TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 04:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Fallingdown


On the other hand Billie Joe Dinkel who climbs down off her mountain in Kentucky Barefooted, Bucktooth and pregnant with absolutely no credit or any family proof of income

Billie Joe moved to Kentucky? I had wondered what ever happened to her. I had a date with her when we were 12, I think...



TheRedneck



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I almost said something that would be funny around my neck of the woods .

But would’ve probably kicked a hole in the rowboat for me here .



edit on 6-3-2019 by Fallingdown because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I have studied history.

People always say that like you're supposed to be impressed



You do not know what a king is.

So literal. No wonder we have problems communicating

I think you don't know what a president is - except that when he's your guy he should be able to do whatever he wants. Like a king



Any contractor who is awarded a contract for the government is also required to follow certain government policies in hiring and personnel management, such as maintaining EEOC compliance and providing benefits to employees.


Maintaining compliance? Whatever

Are they also required to give up their 1st amendment rights?


What I do not support is asking the government to fund it.


Trump's Free-Speech Executive Order: Oh, The Ironies


Third among the ironies is that while First Amendment protection is binding on public colleges, it does not equally apply to private institutions. Nonetheless, most private colleges profess to be bastions of free speech, promising staff and students that freedom of expression will be protected.


Also:


The second irony is the notion that Donald Trump is a defender of free speech. As to the president’s record on the First Amendment, recall that he:

Called the New York Times “a true ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE;”

Threatened the press credentials of reporters who criticize him;

Tweeted “With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their license? Bad for country!”

Demanded that NFL owners fire players who protested during the playing of the national anthem;

Ranted that it was “disgusting the way the press is able to write whatever they want to write and people should look into it.”

Blocked critics from following his Twitter account.


He's a liar and a hypocrite. I know you feel the need to defend whatever our mad king desires or does. But, everyone can see this for what it is



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 05:24 PM
link   
I hope this is considered on topic. I remember way back before most of us were born, I saw Eldrige Cleaver speak at Utah State University in Logan, Utah. There were several groups of people gathered, both in opposition and support. The local police had drawn resources from neighboring cities, and were more than double at 40 officers.

Now, curiously enough, this was a decade before Mr. Cleaver joined the Church of Latter-Day Saints and became a Mormon. At that time, he was thought to be diametrically opposed to the tenets of the Mormon religion. There was a group of Middle Eastern folk who were opposed to Mr. Cleaver's works, and I don't recall why. There were LDS groups opposed to his speaking at USU.

There were a small group of pale skinned folk who were opposed to Mr. Cleaver speaking at all, however they didn't show much of a presence, being only about 30 strong.

At that time, Utah State University was in turmoil; how to allow a person to speak against the State, and yet honor the Constitution? Well, they pondered, and the whole state government met and discussed and took input from the public and they came to the CORRECT resolution that the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights would be upheld, regardless of how the speaker might conflict with City, County, State, or Federal laws.

It was a huge moment in Utah's history. One that was hardly written about at all in the newspapers or talked about on TV.

And this is the crux of it, imo. The American citizens must support and provide for complete and unfettered freedom of speech, regardless of the platform. If people speak publicly and confess to or espouse criminal activity, then they are subject to prosecution. Anything short of that -- especially that which we don't like and don't want to hear -- that is guaranteed under the law.

Oh.. .. the rest of the story. Eldridge Cleaver was magnificent. He was charismatic, funny, melancholy, powerful and inspiring. He was animated as he moved around the podium. I thought he would talk about his history, his life. Eldridge Cleaver had become a philosopher. Maybe he always was one.

The locals had nothing to fear. Mr. Cleaver still had fire, but his rage had dissipated.

I don't think it matters whether institutions get federal or state funding; they are not allowed to go astray from the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights. It is already mandated. I think what President Trump did was to slap those institutions which seek to curtail the free speech of minorities who go against the general grain of university life. I think it was necessary.

I can recall watching a KKK rally and parade and seething at seeing them in public. I had to keep telling myself that these are the very folk whose rights must be protected. Nobody is entitled to hate speech, nor that which constitutes a 'clear and present danger.'



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 05:40 PM
link   
a reply to: argentus




The American citizens must support and provide for complete and unfettered freedom of speech, regardless of the platform.


Does this mean everywhere, at any time - nobody has the right to say no you can't speak here? A University will be forced to provide space and time for anyone that wants to speak?

The 1st amendment was meant to protect us from our government - not our private universities

Does a (private) church have the right to prevent me from speaking in their church?

From the link I provided above:

Will the president’s executive order apply to private colleges who restrict speakers from campus? Or will they be allowed to privilege their moral or religious beliefs above protection of free expression? Can Liberty University continue its “tradition of not allowing uninvited demonstrations or protests on campus”? Will Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute finally be required to permit students to protest policies governing its Student Union? Should Fordham (the president’s alma mater) be forced to recognize Students For Justice In Palestine (a group it's previously rejected) or face the loss of federal funds?

Campus policies on free speech are again stirring strong emotions, and clearly institutions don’t always get them right (speech codes being one example). However, over the long haul, American colleges have vigorously protected free speech, embracing it as one of their defining values. They don’t need political grandstanding in the form of Trump’s threatened executive order to continue that vigilance.


What I wonder is - who was prevented from speaking?



posted on Mar, 6 2019 @ 06:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

No, it doesn't mean that. Private property is exempt. I do not have to allow any expressions on my property, nor do you. Public places are subject to the laws and rules that govern them, meaning that people or groups have a right to assembly, but also have to apply for permits and other legal constructs.

A university, being a public entity, must endorse the rights of all to speak and/or demonstrate, except those that espouse illegal activities. If we cannot protect the rights of the extremes, we are not protecting the rights of the all. We can personally reject the ideology of any group or person, and even use our own rights to demonstrate against others.

I will, however, pull up short of an outcry to "silence anyone who doesn't endorse freedom of speech".
irony rocks




top topics



 
54
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join