Donald Trump Signs Executive Order to Defend Free Speech on Campus

SO the POTUS had to put forth an EO to enforce the EXISTING LAW OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH on college campuses, you know, those open idea hot houses.........and then there are those that are opposing it. Can it get any more convoluted? How does one go about offing themselves politically again? I am so unclear to the message.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Krakatoa

I did.
1) It's stupid because it threatens valuable research.

Sec. 3. Improving Free Inquiry on Campus. (a) To advance the policy described in subsection 2(a) of this Order, the heads of covered agencies shall, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, take appropriate steps, in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the First Amendment, to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

Only if an institution puts their agenda and ideology ahead of their work. A campus that allows equal opportunities of expression should be the norm. If they can't (or don't want to) maintain that environment it's on them. How is that a threat?

Gee the courts ordered charlottesville to host that unite the right rally. Wouldn't even let the change the location of it when the city they were concerned about safety issues involving that location. How did that turn out? To me it would seem saner to allow the cities, universities, whatever pull out if the find that it's gonna be like hitting a nest a angry killer bees than to force them into a situation that they aren't gonna be able to control. Free speech carries responsibilties along wit it. And both sides have that same right. If we can't manage to exercise that right without beating each other to a pulp, burning down half the city, blasting our guns into crowds, or driving our cars into crowds of people. Then ya the governing entities be the city, state, or federal govt, or universities and colleges, first concern should be the safety of their community and the protection of their property. In plain simple words if you feel that your right of free speech is being threatened, don't blame the entities that are just trying to protect and preserve some sense of peace and order. Some of the speakers are trying real hard to stoke the embers, and there's just too many idiots on both sides of the fence that are nurturing those embers into raging fires well enough on there own. Heck just read through a few threads on ats, that's all some of them are is throwing more and more fuel on those fires! Of your not accepting the responsibility that comes wit those rights, you have no one but yourself to blame when the fires you have helped stoked causes enough destruction that the govts and such have to clamp down to preserve live, peace, property, and order!

originally posted by: dawnstar
Gee the courts ordered charlottesville to host that unite the right rally. Wouldn't even let the change the location of it when the city they were concerned about safety issues involving that location. How did that turn out? To me it would seem saner to allow the cities, universities, whatever pull out if the find that it's gonna be like hitting a nest a angry killer bees than to force them into a situation that they aren't gonna be able to control. Free speech carries responsibilties along wit it. And both sides have that same right. If we can't manage to exercise that right without beating each other to a pulp, burning down half the city, blasting our guns into crowds, or driving our cars into crowds of people. Then ya the governing entities be the city, state, or federal govt, or universities and colleges, first concern should be the safety of their community and the protection of their property. In plain simple words if you feel that your right of free speech is being threatened, don't blame the entities that are just trying to protect and preserve some sense of peace and order. Some of the speakers are trying real hard to stoke the embers, and there's just too many idiots on both sides of the fence that are nurturing those embers into raging fires well enough on there own. Heck just read through a few threads on ats, that's all some of them are is throwing more and more fuel on those fires! Of your not accepting the responsibility that comes wit those rights, you have no one but yourself to blame when the fires you have helped stoked causes enough destruction that the govts and such have to clamp down to preserve live, peace, property, and order!

Understood. However, controversial speech is the exact reason for the 1st Amendment protections. It protects that speech that you disagree with or find personally offensive. What one might find offensive, another might find acceptable. If you (the collective you) find a speaker of their platform so offensive that you are compelled to violence, then YOU (the collective you) are to be held responsible for your own actions. Assault and battery are legal offenses, and one must think very hard before acting upon those emotional impulses.

Too often we now see campus and cities citing "safety concerns" as a loophole excuse to deny a speaker on a controversial subject. It is up to the campus/city to KEEP THE PEACE, and educate their constituents that violence from ANYONE will not be tolerated. Stopping a speaker, regardless of topic, should never be an option.

The Charlottesville incident is solely upon the city and police. They modified the agreed upon marching route (the original was keeping both sides separate) to get the two sides closer together. Why was that if they were so concerned with safety? Could it be they were intentionally setting the stage for an altercation so they could use this in future as an example of why they need to curtail speech (like you did)?

Just because someone disagrees with a topic of conversation does NOT give them the right to engage in physical violence of any kind. Peacefully protest, scream, chant, etc... all you want. When it crosses into violence, you have lost your cause.

a reply to: Krakatoa

And yet, in some of these cases, like charlottesville, it seems that much of the actual violence was started by the right if you actually look at the evidence presented in the courts. The guilt lies on both sides. And, no, I don't think it's fair to blame cities or universities when they are being forced by courts and govts to allow their territory to become a warzone. And as far as charlottesville, the courts didn't settle the question as to where the event would be held early enough and the city was preparing as if there request would be granted which it wasn't. And by the way, the first occurance of violence was the tekki torch March that resulted in a campus employee being at least temporarily partially paralyzed!! You can't blame that one on the city when they had no advanced knowledge that it was going to happen. All I am saying is that maybe if we all act a little more responsibly they would have less reason to start stripping rights away. Which I am sorry but if you don't believe that they can and will do that if they can come up good reason you maybe should take a stroll through history.

Its sad that we have to have an executive order to remind people of the Bill of Rights.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
Its sad that we have to have an executive order to remind people of the Bill of Rights.

It is sad, very sad. I can't believe this is even a thing.

originally posted by: underpass61
a reply to: xuenchen

“People who are confident in their beliefs cannot censor others.”

I wish a liberal could explain this to me. If they are so righteously correct then what do they have to fear from opposing viewpoints?

Toxic thought crime exposure. Spreads like a disease, like memes

now schools can teach about pro-abortion, LGBT+ literature, anti-religious theory classes


your "Marxist teachers" can run wild with freedom

and all with support from the right

amusing

It's an interesting reaction from the left - I'd wager they really want to scream 'Dictator', but they actually understand how ridiculous that would be.
So, we get - "oh it's not going to make a difference anyway".

Even I am surprised that this EO is not one that EVERYONE could applaud.

Where do you guys draw the line on this thing? Where's the line on freech speech?

Who will decide who'll make-up the list?

What are Trump's terms?

I believe that this move is over-policing by biased group of people, that will likely incite violence on our college campuses.

a reply to: Erno86

Presumably the courts should decide whether something is in conflict with the 1st.

This EO would leave it in the hands of bureaucrats.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Erno86

Presumably the courts should decide whether something is in conflict with the 1st.

This EO would leave it in the hands of bureaucrats.

But courts don't decide where funding goes.

I think the EO pertains to budget and funding, not law.

a reply to: Tartuffe

It says that a bureaucrat decides whether something is in conflict with the 1st amendment.

originally posted by: UKTruth
It's an interesting reaction from the left - I'd wager they really want to scream 'Dictator', but they actually understand how ridiculous that would be.
So, we get - "oh it's not going to make a difference anyway".

Even I am surprised that this EO is not one that EVERYONE could applaud.

It's all for show--something that makes him look good to his base but does nothing. And it reflects just how out-of-touch he is with things.

I teach on campus. We get all kinds of speakers; people from many nations and many ideologies and they don't get kicked off campus UNLESS they and their followers seem to pose a threat to the people on campus.

No one has stopped the Young Republicans from having a club and inviting speakers and the Free Speech area often gets very conservative Christian preachers or people with unusual ideas using a bullhorn to address passersby. If you don't believe me, go spend a week or two on campus and look at the activities and all. You're going to see art clubs and journalism activities and sports and competitions and lectures on things like math and architecture and the like. Almost nobody mentions politics unless you're in political science or economics and then you generally are presented a broad spectrum of views.

originally posted by: Tartuffe

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Erno86

Presumably the courts should decide whether something is in conflict with the 1st.

This EO would leave it in the hands of bureaucrats.

But courts don't decide where funding goes.

I think the EO pertains to budget and funding, not law.

The budget and funding is controlled by law. So, yes, the courts could challenge it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tartuffe

It says that a bureaucrat decides whether something is in conflict with the 1st amendment.

The bureaucrat doesn't interpret or enforce the law. He ensures institutions that receive grants promote free inquiry.

a reply to: Tartuffe

Under the EO, bureaucrats, not the courts, decide what violates the first amendment.

(a) encourage institutions to foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate, including through compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions;

(a) To advance the policy described in subsection 2(a) of this Order, the heads of covered agencies shall, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, take appropriate steps, in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the First Amendment, to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

This EO is an attempt to bypass the courts and leave the determination to bureaucrats.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Tartuffe

Under the EO, bureaucrats, not the courts, decide what violates the first amendment.

(a) encourage institutions to foster environments that promote open, intellectually engaging, and diverse debate, including through compliance with the First Amendment for public institutions and compliance with stated institutional policies regarding freedom of speech for private institutions;

(a) To advance the policy described in subsection 2(a) of this Order, the heads of covered agencies shall, in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, take appropriate steps, in a manner consistent with applicable law, including the First Amendment, to ensure institutions that receive Federal research or education grants promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

This EO is an attempt to bypass the courts and leave the determination to bureaucrats.

I'm still not sure what courts are being bypassed and what they have to do with federal research or education grants.

a reply to: Tartuffe

You're not sure if courts are where violations of the Constitution and other laws are determined?