Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The news report is in the first 2 minutes of the video. The rest is just interviews and such on the subject.
I am neither con nor lib - and I realize Trump is doing this to help cons specifically - but I have ZERO problem with this order.
Free speech is - IMO - CRITICAL to a healthy nation.
When I was in university, free speech on both sides was strongly encouraged. It DEFINITELY does NOT seem to be that way anymore. If Ann Coulter (who I am no fan of AT ALL) wants to speak on a campus - people should not be able to stop her from speaking. If you don't like what she has to say - don't listen to it. But trying to muzzle her is deeply wrong and weak.
And if a college/university is going to receive federal funds - the LEAST they can do is make sure their campuses promote free speech.
I am not sure what difference this order will make. But I see no way that it can realistically do much damage.
I think Trump got this one right (for a change).
As I said, I don't think we're talking about liberals. I think we're talking illiberal leftist authoritarians, a.k.a. Regressive Leftists.Talk about having things backwards...There are many in this country who claim to be liberal, but are clearly not.Refusing to allow differing opinions and ideas to be expressed is NOT JUST 'Intolerance' - it is a sign of FEAR.
There is nothing more liberal than the protection and advocacy of freedom of expression.
Instead of looking for every reason to promote it, these people look for any excuse to shut it down.
That is not liberal.
.
The extremely self-admitting LIBERAL politicians today - like the DNC 2016 criminal Presidential candidate - openly called for abandoning civility and an increase in violent intolerance...yet you want to post that BS about how that did not come from 'Liberals' ?
You want to claim self-proclaimed Liberal professors on campuses who taught/teach intolerance and helped have create liberal 'fortresses of solitude' where free speech rejected are not REALLY 'Liberal'?
Are you suggesting a candidate paying thugs to beat and bloody opponent supporters at their rallies is 'Conservative'....that rigging primaries, cheating in debates, stealing nominations and giving them to candidates who can not win them on their own, conducting an exposed coup d'état to undo an election / oust a newly elected President are not 'Liberal'?
I agree, there is nothing 'Liberal' about having to act to protect freedom of speech and to advocate freedom of expression where such activities have been banned or where anyone who tries to engage in those rights are beaten up, as we have seen happen on these 'Non-Liberal' campuses.
It seems what it is really called is what the new Democrats have embraced as the new name for the Democratic Party - The SOCIALIST Democratic party.
The news report is in the first 2 minutes of the video. The rest is just interviews and such on the subject.
I am neither con nor lib - and I realize Trump is doing this to help cons specifically - but I have ZERO problem with this order.
Free speech is - IMO - CRITICAL to a healthy nation.
When I was in university, free speech on both sides was strongly encouraged. It DEFINITELY does NOT seem to be that way anymore. If Ann Coulter (who I am no fan of AT ALL) wants to speak on a campus - people should not be able to stop her from speaking. If you don't like what she has to say - don't listen to it. But trying to muzzle her is deeply wrong and weak.
And if a college/university is going to receive federal funds - the LEAST they can do is make sure their campuses promote free speech.
I am not sure what difference this order will make. But I see no way that it can realistically do much damage.
I think Trump got this one right (for a change).
[
As I said, I don't think we're talking about liberals. I think we're talking illiberal leftist authoritarians, a.k.a. Regressive.
Whatever you'd like. That word means essentially nothing at this point....Socialists.As I said, I don't think we're talking about liberals. I think we're talking illiberal leftist authoritarians, a.k.a. Regressive
I totally disagree. We are seeing 'Socialism' in action right now through the Democrats.Whatever you'd like. That word means essentially nothing at this point..
Yes, that's definitely not the traditional definition of socialism.I totally disagree. We are seeing 'Socialism' in action right now through the Democrats.Whatever you'd like. That word means essentially nothing at this point..
Confirmation that an elitist corrupt criminal politician committed numerous obvious crimes and was protected from indictment and prosecution by an equally corrupt / criminal administration.
Confirmation that a powerful well-connected political party candidate was given a nomination she could not win on her own.
Confirmation that a corrupt criminal administration / agencies engaged in seditious conspiracy in an attempt to effect a coup d'état, and that attempt was supported and protected by those same corrupt agencies and a complicit propaganda-pushing media.
A Political party openly working to ensure our borders remain open, illegal immigration continues, thousands of criminal illegals continue to flood into this nation - thereby endangering the states / this country / our citizens...all to ensure the votes of these illegals will be counted in US election.
A corrupt oppressive government stripped citizens of their ability to make decisions regarding their personal health care while lying about how they coul keep their plans and doctors they liked...
A corrupt oppressive govt illegally spied on citizens, reporters, the media, US Senators, USSC Justices, and even Presidential Candidates / Presidents....and weaponized the IRS against US citizens legally opposing the President's re-election...
A party making it legal to kill newborn babies, declaring they will outlaw personal health care policies when they FORCE citizens to go with govt-mandate health care, declaring they will outlaw eating meat (because it is their personal preference)...
A party that has attacked our constitution for years now calling for dismantling / re-writing sections of the Constitution for the benefit of their party (not the country / Americans)...
Open calls by prominent party leaders calling for an end to civility and an increase in violent intolerance until they regain power / control....
Whatever YOU'D like to call it, I guess...
The reason that some colleges have turned away some voices has nothing to do with denying free speech and everything to do with maintaining security on campus.
Yes, that's definitely not the traditional definition of socialism.I totally disagree. We are seeing 'Socialism' in action right now through the Democrats.Whatever you'd like. That word means essentially nothing at this point..
Confirmation that an elitist corrupt criminal politician committed numerous obvious crimes and was protected from indictment and prosecution by an equally corrupt / criminal administration.
Confirmation that a powerful well-connected political party candidate was given a nomination she could not win on her own.
Confirmation that a corrupt criminal administration / agencies engaged in seditious conspiracy in an attempt to effect a coup d'état, and that attempt was supported and protected by those same corrupt agencies and a complicit propaganda-pushing media.
A Political party openly working to ensure our borders remain open, illegal immigration continues, thousands of criminal illegals continue to flood into this nation - thereby endangering the states / this country / our citizens...all to ensure the votes of these illegals will be counted in US election.
A corrupt oppressive government stripped citizens of their ability to make decisions regarding their personal health care while lying about how they coul keep their plans and doctors they liked...
A corrupt oppressive govt illegally spied on citizens, reporters, the media, US Senators, USSC Justices, and even Presidential Candidates / Presidents....and weaponized the IRS against US citizens legally opposing the President's re-election...
A party making it legal to kill newborn babies, declaring they will outlaw personal health care policies when they FORCE citizens to go with govt-mandate health care, declaring they will outlaw eating meat (because it is their personal preference)...
A party that has attacked our constitution for years now calling for dismantling / re-writing sections of the Constitution for the benefit of their party (not the country / Americans)...
Open calls by prominent party leaders calling for an end to civility and an increase in violent intolerance until they regain power / control....
Whatever YOU'D like to call it, I guess...
.
And show me EXACTLY where in the Constitution it says that Freedom of Speech should be suspended when someone deems that speech 'hate speech'?It’s not a problem that requires action. It’s limited in scope and overblown by RW whiners who need something to stir up their base with.
College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.
'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.'
The protests that you have seen when someone like Milo or Spencer books a gig at a college are organic. Nobody is planning to shut down speech.
Of course they are...the violence about Ann Coulter's speech was trying to do EXACTLY that.
And it seems Elizabeth Warren disagrees with you.
Elizabeth Warren Speaks Out In Support Of Ann Coulter Like A True Patriot (VIDEO)
Freedom of speech has not been suspended.
That’s you being a pants on fire weirdo.
Have you ever looked to see how many colleges and universities that Ann Coulter has spoken at in the last 5 years?
Is it zero?
Is 'hate speech' protected under the 'Free Speech' First Amendment in the Constitution?
Yes or no?
Sure is.
Next dumb question.
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
And show me EXACTLY where in the Constitution it says that Freedom of Speech should be suspended when someone deems that speech 'hate speech'?
'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.'
Of course they are...the violence about Ann Coulter's speech was trying to do EXACTLY that.
And it seems Elizabeth Warren disagrees with you.
Elizabeth Warren Speaks Out In Support Of Ann Coulter Like A True Patriot (VIDEO)
Freedom of speech has not been suspended.
That’s you being a pants on fire weirdo.
Have you ever looked to see how many colleges and universities that Ann Coulter has spoken at in the last 5 years?
Is it zero?
Is 'hate speech' protected under the 'Free Speech' First Amendment in the Constitution?
Yes or no?
Sure is.
Next dumb question.
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
I’m busy now. Will reply later if I remember.
You should spend the meantime researching if anyone has been jailed for hate speech in the US.
That's an easy one (no pun intended).You should spend the meantime researching if anyone has been jailed for hate speech in the US.
How do you define hate speech and who gets to decided what is and is not hate speech that is very subjective. I think pretty much everyone would agree that using racial slurs against someone would be hate speech but what about saying radical Islam is a serious threat I don’t consider that hate speech but some would. Overall I would say it is protected the first amendment is there to protect all speech not just that we like or agree with.And show me EXACTLY where in the Constitution it says that Freedom of Speech should be suspended when someone deems that speech 'hate speech'?The reason that some colleges have turned away some voices has nothing to do with denying free speech and everything to do with maintaining security on campus.
In today’s media on demand cultures, nobody is prevented from being heard.
Next fake controversy.
What you are saying then is all people on campus have to do to stop people they don't like from speaking - is to threaten violence.
That's ridiculous. That is giving into violence...accepting it. Allowing bullies to flourish.
I generally despise Trump as POTUS...but he is right here.
All he is saying is: 'if you want federal funding, you better make damn sure that the people whom you invite to speak are allowed to do so you do not allow people to bully/threaten people on your campuses to muzzle other people from exercising their right to Freedom of Speech.'
There is NOTHING wrong with that.
It’s not a problem that requires action. It’s limited in scope and overblown by RW whiners who need something to stir up their base with.
College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.
'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.'
The protests that you have seen when someone like Milo or Spencer books a gig at a college are organic. Nobody is planning to shut down speech.
Of course they are...the violence about Ann Coulter's speech was trying to do EXACTLY that.
And it seems Elizabeth Warren disagrees with you.
Elizabeth Warren Speaks Out In Support Of Ann Coulter Like A True Patriot (VIDEO)
Freedom of speech has not been suspended.
That’s you being a pants on fire weirdo.
Have you ever looked to see how many colleges and universities that Ann Coulter has spoken at in the last 5 years?
Is it zero?
Is 'hate speech' protected under the 'Free Speech' First Amendment in the Constitution?
Yes or no?
Freedom of speech has not been suspended.
That’s you being a pants on fire weirdo.
Have you ever looked to see how many colleges and universities that Ann Coulter has spoken at in the last 5 years?
Is it zero?
Is 'hate speech' protected under the 'Free Speech' First Amendment in the Constitution?
Yes or no?
Sure is.
Next dumb question.
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
I’m busy now. Will reply later if I remember.
You should spend the meantime researching if anyone has been jailed for hate speech in the US.
No idea and I don't much care.
You admitted 'hate speech' is protected by the Constitution. That is all that matters in regards to this discussion.
And it's obvious to me my questions put your position in a bad light...that is obviously why you won't answer them. Because they are simple questions.
But, don't worry...I'll remind you.
Here they are again:
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
Is 'hate speech' protected under the 'Free Speech' First Amendment in the Constitution?
Yes or no?
Sure is.
Next dumb question.
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
I’m busy now. Will reply later if I remember.
You should spend the meantime researching if anyone has been jailed for hate speech in the US.
No idea and I don't much care.
You admitted 'hate speech' is protected by the Constitution. That is all that matters in regards to this discussion.
And it's obvious to me my questions put your position in a bad light...that is obviously why you won't answer them. Because they are simple questions.
But, don't worry...I'll remind you.
Here they are again:
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
1. Wherever people are not forced to support it. College students are invested in their institutions. They don't want
hate speech sanctioned by said institutions. Hate speech isn't just ideas...it incites violence. Those are the types of
people who are being protested on the rare occasion that it occurs.
2. You're confused. You seem to think there is an epidemic of snowflakes attacking hate speakers on campus.
A handful of instances where students protested a paid speaker got out of hand....its a rare occurrence...( you can name them ). Overblown RW whining.
Sure is.
Next dumb question.
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
I’m busy now. Will reply later if I remember.
You should spend the meantime researching if anyone has been jailed for hate speech in the US.
No idea and I don't much care.
You admitted 'hate speech' is protected by the Constitution. That is all that matters in regards to this discussion.
And it's obvious to me my questions put your position in a bad light...that is obviously why you won't answer them. Because they are simple questions.
But, don't worry...I'll remind you.
Here they are again:
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
1. Wherever people are not forced to support it. College students are invested in their institutions. They don't want
hate speech sanctioned by said institutions. Hate speech isn't just ideas...it incites violence. Those are the types of
people who are being protested on the rare occasion that it occurs.
2. You're confused. You seem to think there is an epidemic of snowflakes attacking hate speakers on campus.
A handful of instances where students protested a paid speaker got out of hand....its a rare occurrence...( you can name them ). Overblown RW whining.
You skipped both questions (the second one ENTIRELY). I will rephrase the first one:
1) you agreed that hate speech is covered under the First Amendment. So that means 'hate speech' is legally protected at colleges/universities?
Yes or no?
2) are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
I’m busy now. Will reply later if I remember.
You should spend the meantime researching if anyone has been jailed for hate speech in the US.
No idea and I don't much care.
You admitted 'hate speech' is protected by the Constitution. That is all that matters in regards to this discussion.
And it's obvious to me my questions put your position in a bad light...that is obviously why you won't answer them. Because they are simple questions.
But, don't worry...I'll remind you.
Here they are again:
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
1. Wherever people are not forced to support it. College students are invested in their institutions. They don't want
hate speech sanctioned by said institutions. Hate speech isn't just ideas...it incites violence. Those are the types of
people who are being protested on the rare occasion that it occurs.
2. You're confused. You seem to think there is an epidemic of snowflakes attacking hate speakers on campus.
A handful of instances where students protested a paid speaker got out of hand....its a rare occurrence...( you can name them ). Overblown RW whining.
You skipped both questions (the second one ENTIRELY). I will rephrase the first one:
1) you agreed that hate speech is covered under the First Amendment. So that means 'hate speech' is legally protected at colleges/universities?
Yes or no?
2) are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
You're a persistent little heel nipper...ain't ya?
Hate speech is legally protected on college and university campuses. But that does not mean that a college or university MUST sanction it.
Hate speech gets plenty of play on college campuses. This is a solution to a non-problem.
I'm bored of you. You are free to be outraged that a few conservative trolls have been boo'd off of a few campuses.
I agree, except isn't Trump saying, with this order, that colleges are obligated to accept the speakers that Trump approves of? Think that through a bit. At the bottom of his order is a push to tell colleges who will speak there.The reason that some colleges have turned away some voices has nothing to do with denying free speech and everything to do with maintaining security on campus.
In today’s media on demand cultures, nobody is prevented from being heard.
Next fake controversy.
What you are saying then is all people on campus have to do to stop people they don't like from speaking - is to threaten violence.
The school will then cave and revoke the invite of that person to speak (like what happened with Ann Coulter).
That's ridiculous. That is giving into violence...accepting it. Allowing bullies to flourish.
I generally despise Trump as POTUS...but he is right here.
All he is saying - in essence - is: 'if you want federal funding, you better make damn sure that the people whom you invite to speak are allowed to do so AND you better protect them from assault/violence simply for exercising their right to free speech.'
There is NOTHING wrong with that.
I’m busy now. Will reply later if I remember.
You should spend the meantime researching if anyone has been jailed for hate speech in the US.
No idea and I don't much care.
You admitted 'hate speech' is protected by the Constitution. That is all that matters in regards to this discussion.
And it's obvious to me my questions put your position in a bad light...that is obviously why you won't answer them. Because they are simple questions.
But, don't worry...I'll remind you.
Here they are again:
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
1. Wherever people are not forced to support it. College students are invested in their institutions. They don't want
hate speech sanctioned by said institutions. Hate speech isn't just ideas...it incites violence. Those are the types of
people who are being protested on the rare occasion that it occurs.
2. You're confused. You seem to think there is an epidemic of snowflakes attacking hate speakers on campus.
A handful of instances where students protested a paid speaker got out of hand....its a rare occurrence...( you can name them ). Overblown RW whining.
You skipped both questions (the second one ENTIRELY). I will rephrase the first one:
1) you agreed that hate speech is covered under the First Amendment. So that means 'hate speech' is legally protected at colleges/universities?
Yes or no?
2) are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
You're a persistent little heel nipper...ain't ya?
Hate speech is legally protected on college and university campuses. But that does not mean that a college or university MUST sanction it.
Hate speech gets plenty of play on college campuses. This is a solution to a non-problem.
I'm bored of you. You are free to be outraged that a few conservative trolls have been boo'd off of a few campuses.
So...you the first answer is 'yes'. So you have no leg to stand on about insinuating that hate speech does not 'belong' on campuses. It belongs EVERYWHERE...LEGALLY.
And - you completely chickened out twice on the last question.
You aren't 'bored' of me on this. If you really were, you would not be giving answers ten times longer then the answer I am requesting (yes or no). You just KNOW that you cannot answer the second question without completely destroying your argument. So - you feign 'boredom' as a way to try and blow me off. When really you are desperately trying to avoid answering the INCREDIBLY simple question for fear of being proven wrong on this argument. It's ridiculously obvious.
I will ask again:
2) are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no, please?
No idea and I don't much care.
You admitted 'hate speech' is protected by the Constitution. That is all that matters in regards to this discussion.
And it's obvious to me my questions put your position in a bad light...that is obviously why you won't answer them. Because they are simple questions.
But, don't worry...I'll remind you.
Here they are again:
You said above:
'College students and their institutions are not opposed to hearing differing POV. They simply want to keep hate speech where it belongs.'
1) where EXACTLY does 'hate speech' belong?
2) so, are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
1. Wherever people are not forced to support it. College students are invested in their institutions. They don't want
hate speech sanctioned by said institutions. Hate speech isn't just ideas...it incites violence. Those are the types of
people who are being protested on the rare occasion that it occurs.
2. You're confused. You seem to think there is an epidemic of snowflakes attacking hate speakers on campus.
A handful of instances where students protested a paid speaker got out of hand....its a rare occurrence...( you can name them ). Overblown RW whining.
You skipped both questions (the second one ENTIRELY). I will rephrase the first one:
1) you agreed that hate speech is covered under the First Amendment. So that means 'hate speech' is legally protected at colleges/universities?
Yes or no?
2) are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no?
You're a persistent little heel nipper...ain't ya?
Hate speech is legally protected on college and university campuses. But that does not mean that a college or university MUST sanction it.
Hate speech gets plenty of play on college campuses. This is a solution to a non-problem.
I'm bored of you. You are free to be outraged that a few conservative trolls have been boo'd off of a few campuses.
So...you the first answer is 'yes'. So you have no leg to stand on about insinuating that hate speech does not 'belong' on campuses. It belongs EVERYWHERE...LEGALLY.
And - you completely chickened out twice on the last question.
You aren't 'bored' of me on this. If you really were, you would not be giving answers ten times longer then the answer I am requesting (yes or no). You just KNOW that you cannot answer the second question without completely destroying your argument. So - you feign 'boredom' as a way to try and blow me off. When really you are desperately trying to avoid answering the INCREDIBLY simple question for fear of being proven wrong on this argument. It's ridiculously obvious.
I will ask again:
2) are you saying that students that utter 'hate speech' on campus should not be protected from violence by the college they attend?
Yes or no, please?
Answered. Eat shit.
