If US campuses can’t protect free speech, they need new management

[SYTFE]

For me it was as simple as:

UNO - $450
Tulane - $15,000

U of I Chicago and live at home.

I was a full-time worker and a part-time student.

I was full-time student and full time worker.

Wow, ambitious!

did homework at my dinner break and weekends.

What's funny is I was making more per hour than the first offer I got from my forever job. I've been in my forever job 40 years March 28th, same company.

That's a long time flipping burgers.

 

[SYTFE]

Frank speech is truthful and libs hate truth so factual speech is hate speech to them

spot on brother. Again, pointing out that libs can't stand facts.

The Regressive Left tries to make this a First Amendment issue, which it is not. At least it shouldn't be.

This is about the cowardice of the Regressives and their attempts to maintain their ideological grip on our young people.

That, at the very time in our kids' lives they should be exposed to contrary, challenging, stimulating, controversial thought as often as possible.

The Regressives don't care about that. They simply want to use the kids as weapons, which is one fucked up thing to do to a kid.

But again, they don't care. Ideology over country.
.

Not one ounce of truth in your ridiculous diatribe. Perhaps you should try to book some time giving that speech around various universities?

 

[Mac1958]

Frank speech is truthful and libs hate truth so factual speech is hate speech to them

spot on brother. Again, pointing out that libs can't stand facts.

The Regressive Left tries to make this a First Amendment issue, which it is not. At least it shouldn't be.

This is about the cowardice of the Regressives and their attempts to maintain their ideological grip on our young people.

That, at the very time in our kids' lives they should be exposed to contrary, challenging, stimulating, controversial thought as often as possible.

The Regressives don't care about that. They simply want to use the kids as weapons, which is one fucked up thing to do to a kid.

But again, they don't care. Ideology over country.
.

Not one ounce of truth is your ridiculous diatribe.

From your Regressive Leftist perspective.

Go figure!
.

 

[WEATHER53]

Frank speech is truthful and libs hate truth so factual speech is hate speech to them

spot on brother. Again, pointing out that libs can't stand facts.

The Regressive Left tries to make this a First Amendment issue, which it is not. At least it shouldn't be.

This is about the cowardice of the Regressives and their attempts to maintain their ideological grip on our young people.

That, at the very time in our kids' lives they should be exposed to contrary, challenging, stimulating, controversial thought as often as possible.

The Regressives don't care about that. They simply want to use the kids as weapons, which is one fucked up thing to do to a kid.

But again, they don't care. Ideology over country.
.

Not one ounce of truth in your ridiculous diatribe. Perhaps you should try to book some time giving that speech around various universities?

Well then just declare you are offended and brand it hate and seek obliteration

 

[Marion Morrison]

Does Coulter engage in hate speech and incite violence? I've never heard her do that.
And aren't there already laws against that?

Yes, she does. She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech. She also engages in plagiarism, defamation, anti-semitism, among other things. She's absolute trash.

God, do you ever get it right? Per the NRO Website:

"It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."

L'Affaire Coulter

You stupid fucking moron. Did you even READ that article there? They're saying that she decided to end their relationship for going against their wishes.

From the article you idiot:

"We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

But you said this:

"She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech"

Are you drunk?

The article she wrote was indeed hate-speech, you drooling mental midget.

how you figure. quote a line.

"Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."

This was the paragraph that caused the National Review to drop her skinny ass.

and what is wrong with what is in it? It is fking accurate as hell.

So you agree with hate-speech. Why am I not surprised?

which line is hate speech? who is it directed at?

Which line? The whole damn thing. Jesus.

According to whom?

 

[SYTFE]

Hate speech is such a normal way of speaking for conservatives that whenever they come across it, they think it's "normal." That's why they can't tell that Ann's little article was hate speech, but thankfully, the National Review did and gave her the boot.

 

[WEATHER53]

Hate speech is such a normal way of speaking for conservatives that whenever they come across it, they think it's "normal." That's why they can't tell that Ann's little article was hate speech, but thankfully, the National Review did and gave her the boot.

Hate speech is another arbitrary and ill defined effort by libs to obliterate fact speech via emotional blathering that Facts are Hate speech

 

[SYTFE]

Hate speech is such a normal way of speaking for conservatives that whenever they come across it, they think it's "normal." That's why they can't tell that Ann's little article was hate speech, but thankfully, the National Review did and gave her the boot.

Hate speech is another arbitrary and ill defined effort by libs to obliterate fact speech via emotional blathering that Facts are Hate speech

^ Another typical conservative who can't differentiate between opinion and fact. It's an epidemic with you guys.

 

[Borillar]

I agree completely with the sentiments of this article. Universities are supposed to be institutions that offer and value diverse thoughts and opinions. Instead, what we've seen over the last several years are weak-kneed administrators acquiescing to the demands of sniveling little brats who can't handle hearing an idea they don't approve of. Rather than fostering an environment where diverse discussion can take place, most of our universities have been hijacked by extreme left wing administrators, faculties, and students who have embraced fascism and are engaging in modern day Nazi book burnings. If the people in charge won't stop this attack on free speech then it's time to start replacing them, by force, if necessary, particularly at those which are taxpayer funded.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/if-us-campuses-cant-protect-free-speech-they-need-new-management/

I'm sure that Ann the man would be welcome to speak at Trump U.

 

[Montrovant]

I agree completely with the sentiments of this article. Universities are supposed to be institutions that offer and value diverse thoughts and opinions. Instead, what we've seen over the last several years are weak-kneed administrators acquiescing to the demands of sniveling little brats who can't handle hearing an idea they don't approve of. Rather than fostering an environment where diverse discussion can take place, most of our universities have been hijacked by extreme left wing administrators, faculties, and students who have embraced fascism and are engaging in modern day Nazi book burnings. If the people in charge won't stop this attack on free speech then it's time to start replacing them, by force, if necessary, particularly at those which are taxpayer funded.

http://nypost.com/2017/04/20/if-us-campuses-cant-protect-free-speech-they-need-new-management/

There's a difference between free speech and hate-speech/inciting violence. Universities should be able to host whomever they want.

Does Coulter engage in hate speech and incite violence? I've never heard her do that.
And aren't there already laws against that?

Yes, she does. She was even fired from the National Review for hate-speech. She also engages in plagiarism, defamation, anti-semitism, among other things. She's absolute trash.

God, do you ever get it right? Per the NRO Website:

"It was Ann who decided to sever her ties with National Review — not the other way around."

L'Affaire Coulter

If you go further into the article, you will find this: "So let me be clear: We did not “fire” Ann for what she wrote, even though it was poorly written and sloppy. We ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty."

Nothing in there about hate speech, plagiarism, or anti-semitism. The author does seem to be claiming Coulter engaged in defamation. Just to be clear, the editorial is really saying that National Review ended the business relationship because Coulter was unwilling to have what NR considered to be poorly-written work edited.

 

[Montrovant]

Look here, dumbass.

Being a teacher is not a requirement for guest speakers at universities.

If it was, not as many BLM or NAACP speakers would be allowed.

A bizarro point of view, that to be allowed to be a guest speaker at a University someone has to be a teacher

No one ever said that, toots. Thanks again for the logical fallacy. What is that, 5, 6 in this thread alone? You're on a roll!

"No one ever said that, toots."

Yes they have, you have, you have consistently stated throughout this thread that Ann Coulter has no teaching credentials so therefore she shouldn't be allowed to be invited to address students as a guest speaker at a University.

"Thanks again for the logical fallacy."

Are you channelling C. Clayton Jones or something?

If so you should stop it, Clayton does this thing better than you do.

To be fair to Styfe, that is not what he said. He responded to this post:

BTW, nothing like a university standing in the way of a right wing student's education.

Styfe said that Coulter is not educating, but opining, therefore the university is not standing in the way of a student's education by preventing her from speaking on campus. In the context of the argument he seems to be making, he is probably correct; hearing Coulter speak on campus is not likely to be part of the formal, university-designed education of the students.

It seems to be an argument about a specific point which has spiraled a bit out of control. Coulter's appearance is probably not part of the requirements of any classes. Students can be educated by Coulter, or any speaker, in a more general sense. I think this is a dead horse that has been beaten until it is unrecognizable.

EDIT: I misspelled Ann Coulter's name and had to fix it.

is a library an educational resource?

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this, but yes, a library is an educational resource.

 

[Correll]

Universities are under no obligation to give right wing fascists a platform to "speak." No university owes these useless sacks of shit a goddamn thing. Stop whining.

So, you want to ban your enemies from speaking because they are "fascists"?


Question: Did you go to college?

 

[Montrovant]

For me it was as simple as:

UNO - $450
Tulane - $15,000

No doubt! Schools can get damned expensive.

 

[WEATHER53]

Hate speech is such a normal way of speaking for conservatives that whenever they come across it, they think it's "normal." That's why they can't tell that Ann's little article was hate speech, but thankfully, the National Review did and gave her the boot.

Hate speech is another arbitrary and ill defined effort by libs to obliterate fact speech via emotional blathering that Facts are Hate speech

^ Another typical conservative who can't differentiate between opinion and fact. It's an epidemic with you guys.

And this is also an opinion and laden with emotion versus fact

 

[SYTFE]

Universities are under no obligation to give right wing fascists a platform to "speak." No university owes these useless sacks of shit a goddamn thing. Stop whining.

So, you want to ban your enemies from speaking because they are "fascists"?


Question: Did you go to college?

Already stated in this thread a MILLION fucking times that I believe she should do her speech there. But she is not "entitled" to speak, nor is Berkeley obligated to have her speak.

Learn how to read through a thread first before dumbing down the forum with your inane commentary.

 

[Correll]

Universities are under no obligation to give right wing fascists a platform to "speak." No university owes these useless sacks of shit a goddamn thing. Stop whining.

So, you want to ban your enemies from speaking because they are "fascists"?


Question: Did you go to college?

Already stated in this thread a MILLION fucking times that I believe she should do her speech there. But she is not "entitled" to speak, nor is Berkeley obligated to have her speak.

Learn how to read through a thread first before dumbing down the forum with your inane commentary.

Didn't someone else already point out to you that as Berkeley students were exercising their Right to invite a speaker, that Berkeley thus DOES have the responsibility to give her a platform to speak?


Also, your dismissal of an American rightfully complaining about other "Americans" literally using brownshirt tactics to take away other American's rights, as "whining" shows what side of this debate you are on, fascist.

 

[WEATHER53]

The only speech you seek to eliminate is the speech you can't refute
Cowards essentially being deeducated

 

[Aries]

The only speech you seek to eliminate is the speech you can't refute
Cowards essentially being deeducated

And then we look at the far right "speakers" like milo, and laugh you and your credibility out of the door

 

[WEATHER53]

The only speech you seek to eliminate is the speech you can't refute
Cowards essentially being deeducated

And then we look at the far right "speakers" like milo, and laugh you and your credibility out of the door

Contempt prior to investigation keeps one in everlasting ignorance
Hear him first and see if you really do have to put on your vag hat and take to the streets

 

[Aries]

The only speech you seek to eliminate is the speech you can't refute
Cowards essentially being deeducated

And then we look at the far right "speakers" like milo, and laugh you and your credibility out of the door

Contempt prior to investigation keeps one in everlasting ignorance
Hear him first and see if you really do have to put on your vag hat and take to the streets

yea milos a POS, I've heard him speak.