Only Fascists Assail Free Speech

[David_42]

PC is almost right: the fascists that want to limit speech in America are far right wing progressives that don't want any opposition from their opponents.

Some of the far left liberals who act that way take aim at religious expression.

I agree with your first statement. Based on my observations ... including postings on this board by people who identify themselves as "conservatives" ... the war on "political correctness" is waged by right-wing loony birds who demand the "freedom" to disseminate hate and to abuse the power of the government to feed their bigotry and to discriminate against minorities ... and to do so without criticism or challenge.

I'm not sure what you mean by your second statement, "Some of the far left liberals who act that way take aim at religious expression." Are you talking about their mere criticism of religious expression ... or did some "far left liberals" propose state or federal legislation that would outlaw or punish religious expression?

Don't try to reason with politicalchic, she has no interest in a genuine debate. She wants to rant about all liberals being fascists, while failing to understand fascism.

 

[David_42]

PC is failing right through the thread.

She has failed to define American Nazi left and has failed to defend against right wing Christian crazies trying to stop free speech.

I feel guilty for helping keep her thread going all day long yesterday by pushing her liar buttons. It was a great platform for promoting FDR's manipulation of Stalin in bringing religious freedom to Americans in the USSR during the 1930's and so I couldn't help myself.

I haven't been here long, but it is easy to see that the author of the opening post is an uneducated person who wouldn't know a valid or sound argument if it slapped her in the face. She has an agenda to place conservatives (and particularly right-winger loony birds) on a pedestal (in her opinion, they can't do anything wrong) and to vilify all others, e.g., "liberals" (whom she labels as "Fascists") because, in her opinion, they can't do anything right.

She's not even entertaining ... just a font of misinformation ... and sometimes we should take the time to point that out.

Excellent summary, but she'll respond by calling you a communist.

 

[David_42]

Fascists like yourself.

Oooo.....looks who's sensitive about being opposed to free speech!

And he comes up with a clever "so are you" post!


OK....now you can return to the 24-Hour All Cartoon Network.

I'm not opposed to free speech at all, mind asserting how I have expressed my opposition to free speech?

Well....let's see how you respond to this post:

Here is the sad result of Liberal domination of universities....


6. "Rutgers: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Free Speech’

A guide to preventing “bias incidents” published by Rutgers University warns students that the idea of “free speech” is a lie,Campus Reform reports.

“There is no such thing as ‘free’ speech. All speech has a cost and consequences,” opens the page dedicated to the school’s “Bias Prevention & Education Committee.”The page, maintained by the school’s office of student affairs, encourages students to “think before you speak” and also offers four other core suggestions to avoid the specter of bias incidents.

“Engage,” says one tip. “Join activities, programs, courses, and practices that promote diversity and social justice.”

“Bias Acts Are: Verbal, written, physical, psychological acts that threaten or harm a person or group on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, age, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, national origin, ancestry, disability, marital status, civil union status, domestic partnership status, atypical heredity or cellular blood trait, military service or veteran status,” the description reads."
Rutgers: There’s No Such Thing As ‘Free Speech’



So....better say the 'right things'...and think the 'right' thoughts.....or else!



BTW...21% of Rutgers' budget is via government funding.
Budget Facts and Figures

As expected, you randomly quote some random dribble.

Well, well, well.....as I predicted: afraid to confront fascism.

Kinda puts you in that camp,huh?

What the hell are you talking about? What you've shown is no where near fascism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

".... young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far..."

What are the characteristics which identify the nexus of the two quotes above?
Answer: youth and inexperience.

The young, sadly, can be convinced of so very many things that simply are not so. And that is where Liberals excel.
So it is with their captives, in university.



There is stark proof that the Left's control of universities, and the media, the dissemination of information, has destroyed what made America the beacon to the world, freedom.


One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

One in six of America's four hundred top colleges has a "free speech zone."


5. "... a legal challenge to an unconstitutional free speech zone policy at the University of Cincinnati (UC) that limited all “demonstrations, pickets, and rallies” to a “Free Speech Area” comprising just 0.1% of the university’s 137-acre West Campus. The policy further required all activity in the free speech zone to be registered ten working days in advance, threatening that “[a]nyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing.”
University of Cincinnati: Speech Code Litigation - FIRE


Shouldn't all of America be a "free speech zone"????

A note that documents which view....Liberal or conservative....represents the real America:


a. A conservative group sued and won..".. In a major victory for student rights, a federal district court issued a final ruling today prohibiting the University of Cincinnati (UC) from reinstating its tiny “free speech zone.” In today’sorder, United States District Judge Timothy S. Black issued apermanent injunctionagainst UC’s unconstitutional system of speech restriction." Federal Court Delivers Final Blow to U. of Cincinnati 'Free Speech Zone' - FIRE


We would all benefit if there were more brave 'conservative groups' in the universities.

The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

In the University of Cincinnati case noted above, Plaintiff's brought an action against the University and the Plaintiffs first obtained a preliminary injunction granted apparently by some "LEFTIST judge". ROFL The parties reached an out-of-court settlement and a permanent injunction was entered. That's how our court system works or should work.

I submit for argument, however, if the plaintiff's had been "LIBERALS" protesting the unconstitutional CONDUCT or POLICIES of a "CONSERVATIVE", then the matter might not have been settled out of court ... but the right wing loony birds would have continued to waste attorney fees and judicial resources appealing the matter all the way to the Supreme Court (and then you would have complained when the SC issued a decision against the "conservative").

Funny thing that people like you credit "CONSERVATIVES" for vindicating "free speech" liberties secured by the Constitution, but vilify "LIBERALS" if they exercise "free speech" liberties and use public walkways to picket a business that is engaged in unlawful discrimination.

"Conservative" double standards of "freedom for me, but not for you" are on consistent display.

This:
" ...no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

vs.

this:
"The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."


Some 'moderate.'

Would you kindly stop trying to make your points with fraudulent quotes?

Would you kindly stop lying about the quotes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've studied them, I own them.

Why are you so afraid of my posts....
....because I expose your lies?

I'm not afraid of them at all. You don't own the words of others, ever.

And you can't expose anything I say as being a lie because you don't actually know what I think, or anyone else for that matter. You take as truth what others say, and then cut and paste it in as your own. That you are able to do, but not answer simple questions? Not a good sign...

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC is failing right through the thread.

She has failed to define American Nazi left and has failed to defend against right wing Christian crazies trying to stop free speech.

I feel guilty for helping keep her thread going all day long yesterday by pushing her liar buttons. It was a great platform for promoting FDR's manipulation of Stalin in bringing religious freedom to Americans in the USSR during the 1930's and so I couldn't help myself.

I haven't been here long, but it is easy to see that the author of the opening post is an uneducated person who wouldn't know a valid or sound argument if it slapped her in the face. She has an agenda to place conservatives (and particularly right-winger loony birds) on a pedestal (in her opinion, they can't do anything wrong) and to vilify all others, e.g., "liberals" (whom she labels as "Fascists") because, in her opinion, they can't do anything right.

She's not even entertaining ... just a font of misinformation ... and sometimes we should take the time to point that out.

Yet, I put you in your place, huh?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've studied them, I own them.

Why are you so afraid of my posts....
....because I expose your lies?

I'm not afraid of them at all. You don't own the words of others, ever.

And you can't expose anything I say as being a lie because you don't actually know what I think, or anyone else for that matter. You take as truth what others say, and then cut and paste it in as your own. That you are able to do, but not answer simple questions? Not a good sign...

Post #42 showed you to be lying about what you claim to be 'Liberalism."

 

[nuhuh]

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

".... young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far..."

What are the characteristics which identify the nexus of the two quotes above?
Answer: youth and inexperience.

The young, sadly, can be convinced of so very many things that simply are not so. And that is where Liberals excel.
So it is with their captives, in university.



There is stark proof that the Left's control of universities, and the media, the dissemination of information, has destroyed what made America the beacon to the world, freedom.


One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

One in six of America's four hundred top colleges has a "free speech zone."


5. "... a legal challenge to an unconstitutional free speech zone policy at the University of Cincinnati (UC) that limited all “demonstrations, pickets, and rallies” to a “Free Speech Area” comprising just 0.1% of the university’s 137-acre West Campus. The policy further required all activity in the free speech zone to be registered ten working days in advance, threatening that “[a]nyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing.”
University of Cincinnati: Speech Code Litigation - FIRE


Shouldn't all of America be a "free speech zone"????

A note that documents which view....Liberal or conservative....represents the real America:


a. A conservative group sued and won..".. In a major victory for student rights, a federal district court issued a final ruling today prohibiting the University of Cincinnati (UC) from reinstating its tiny “free speech zone.” In today’sorder, United States District Judge Timothy S. Black issued apermanent injunctionagainst UC’s unconstitutional system of speech restriction." Federal Court Delivers Final Blow to U. of Cincinnati 'Free Speech Zone' - FIRE


We would all benefit if there were more brave 'conservative groups' in the universities.

The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

In the University of Cincinnati case noted above, Plaintiff's brought an action against the University and the Plaintiffs first obtained a preliminary injunction granted apparently by some "LEFTIST judge". ROFL The parties reached an out-of-court settlement and a permanent injunction was entered. That's how our court system works or should work.

I submit for argument, however, if the plaintiff's had been "LIBERALS" protesting the unconstitutional CONDUCT or POLICIES of a "CONSERVATIVE", then the matter might not have been settled out of court ... but the right wing loony birds would have continued to waste attorney fees and judicial resources appealing the matter all the way to the Supreme Court (and then you would have complained when the SC issued a decision against the "conservative").

Funny thing that people like you credit "CONSERVATIVES" for vindicating "free speech" liberties secured by the Constitution, but vilify "LIBERALS" if they exercise "free speech" liberties and use public walkways to picket a business that is engaged in unlawful discrimination.

"Conservative" double standards of "freedom for me, but not for you" are on consistent display.

This:
" ...no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

vs.

this:
"The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."


Some 'moderate.'

Would you kindly stop trying to make your points with fraudulent quotes?

Would you kindly stop lying about the quotes.

Sorry, but you're the person lying about the quotes. Winston Churchill never said that and in an earlier thread that you conveniently ignored I provided proof of that.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Pick one word to represent America.....you'd probably pick some iteration of "freedom."
The aspect of 'freedom' most often mentioned is freedom of speech.

Sadly, the stronger the Left's influence abounds, the less of that free speech is available.




1. "Americans were asked what they believed was the single most important freedom that citizens enjoy. The majority (47%) of people named freedom of speech as the most important freedom, followed by freedom of religion (10%); freedom of choice (7%); right to vote (5%); right to bear arms (5%); right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (3%), and freedom of the press (1%). Women were twice as likely as men to name freedom of religion as the most important freedom. Thirteen percent of women named freedom of religion, whereas only 6% of men did.


2. Asked to name the five specific freedoms in the First Amendment, 59% of Americans could name freedom of speech, followed by 24% who could name freedom of religion, 14% freedom of the press, 11% the right to assemble, and 4% the right to petition. Thirty-six percent of Americans cannot name any of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.




3. The majority of Americans believes that the First Amendment does not go too far in the rights it guarantees. The gap between those who believe it goes too far and not too far has generally increased over time; however, this year there was a significant increase in those who claimed that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting individual rights.

a. Higher percentages of young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights that it guarantees. Forty-seven percent of 18-30-year-olds agree, while 44% of 31-45-year-olds, 24% of 46-60-year-olds and 23% of people over 60 agree that the First Amendment goes too far.

b. Additionally, African-Americans and Hispanics are more likely to say that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees. Fifty-two percent of African-Americans and 50% of Hispanics agree, while only 29% of whites agree that the First Amendment goes too far.





4. Americans who identify as liberal or moderate are more likely than those who identify as conservative to agree that the news media attempt to report stories without bias. Fifty-one percent of liberals, 50% of moderates and 37% of conservatives support the statement."
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/madison/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/SOFA-2013-final-report.pdf



Where Liberalism is strongest, one is least likely to find free speech.

Given your propensity to use ad hominems in response to everyone who questions you and or disagrees with you, you must be a fascist.

I found great synonyms for "assail" on the new Thesaurus.com!


I wonder, are all fascists also narcissists?

Have a wonderful day.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've studied them, I own them.

Why are you so afraid of my posts....
....because I expose your lies?

I'm not afraid of them at all. You don't own the words of others, ever.

And you can't expose anything I say as being a lie because you don't actually know what I think, or anyone else for that matter. You take as truth what others say, and then cut and paste it in as your own. That you are able to do, but not answer simple questions? Not a good sign...

Post #42 showed you to be lying about what you claim to be 'Liberalism."

I don't have to lie about Liberalism, you do...

 

[Debra K]

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

".... young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far..."

What are the characteristics which identify the nexus of the two quotes above?
Answer: youth and inexperience.

The young, sadly, can be convinced of so very many things that simply are not so. And that is where Liberals excel.
So it is with their captives, in university.



There is stark proof that the Left's control of universities, and the media, the dissemination of information, has destroyed what made America the beacon to the world, freedom.


One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

One in six of America's four hundred top colleges has a "free speech zone."


5. "... a legal challenge to an unconstitutional free speech zone policy at the University of Cincinnati (UC) that limited all “demonstrations, pickets, and rallies” to a “Free Speech Area” comprising just 0.1% of the university’s 137-acre West Campus. The policy further required all activity in the free speech zone to be registered ten working days in advance, threatening that “[a]nyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing.”
University of Cincinnati: Speech Code Litigation - FIRE


Shouldn't all of America be a "free speech zone"????

A note that documents which view....Liberal or conservative....represents the real America:


a. A conservative group sued and won..".. In a major victory for student rights, a federal district court issued a final ruling today prohibiting the University of Cincinnati (UC) from reinstating its tiny “free speech zone.” In today’sorder, United States District Judge Timothy S. Black issued apermanent injunctionagainst UC’s unconstitutional system of speech restriction." Federal Court Delivers Final Blow to U. of Cincinnati 'Free Speech Zone' - FIRE


We would all benefit if there were more brave 'conservative groups' in the universities.

The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

In the University of Cincinnati case noted above, Plaintiff's brought an action against the University and the Plaintiffs first obtained a preliminary injunction granted apparently by some "LEFTIST judge". ROFL The parties reached an out-of-court settlement and a permanent injunction was entered. That's how our court system works or should work.

I submit for argument, however, if the plaintiff's had been "LIBERALS" protesting the unconstitutional CONDUCT or POLICIES of a "CONSERVATIVE", then the matter might not have been settled out of court ... but the right wing loony birds would have continued to waste attorney fees and judicial resources appealing the matter all the way to the Supreme Court (and then you would have complained when the SC issued a decision against the "conservative").

Funny thing that people like you credit "CONSERVATIVES" for vindicating "free speech" liberties secured by the Constitution, but vilify "LIBERALS" if they exercise "free speech" liberties and use public walkways to picket a business that is engaged in unlawful discrimination.

"Conservative" double standards of "freedom for me, but not for you" are on consistent display.

This:
" ...no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

vs.

this:
"The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."


Some 'moderate.'

You're either stupid or willfully blind.

You ignore all responses that highlight that stupidity or willful blindness and post more nonsense.

Courts have a duty to find the facts and apply the law to the facts in order to reach a decision. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions do not abridge the freedom of speech.

For instance, "black lives matters" (BLM) protestors do not have a constitutional right to hijack a public rally, wrest the microphone from the public speaker, and disrupt the rally organizer's event. Even though they had a message to convey and "freedom of speech", there were several laws they probably violated through their conduct. Are you arguing that the First Amendment prohibits the enactment of laws that might restrict the BLM protestors' speech?

In your opening post, you copied and pasted some survey materials from the First Amendment Center website.

Here's some more information from your source website:

The Supreme Court has said “even in a public forum the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989).

So what is it? are you stupid? or willfully blind?

 

[Debra K]

According the creator of this thread, "Only Fascists Assail Free Speech," therefore, Donald Trump must be a Fascist.

After all, "PoliticalChic" a/k/a IgnorantGirl, apparently argues that the "NO LAW" portion of the First Amendment is absolute and means that the government may not even impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech. Thus, if BLM protestors want to make a political speech at one of Donald Trump's political rallies, and Donald Trump assails them, then Donald Trump must be a Fascist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

".... young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far..."

What are the characteristics which identify the nexus of the two quotes above?
Answer: youth and inexperience.

The young, sadly, can be convinced of so very many things that simply are not so. And that is where Liberals excel.
So it is with their captives, in university.



There is stark proof that the Left's control of universities, and the media, the dissemination of information, has destroyed what made America the beacon to the world, freedom.


One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

One in six of America's four hundred top colleges has a "free speech zone."


5. "... a legal challenge to an unconstitutional free speech zone policy at the University of Cincinnati (UC) that limited all “demonstrations, pickets, and rallies” to a “Free Speech Area” comprising just 0.1% of the university’s 137-acre West Campus. The policy further required all activity in the free speech zone to be registered ten working days in advance, threatening that “[a]nyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing.”
University of Cincinnati: Speech Code Litigation - FIRE


Shouldn't all of America be a "free speech zone"????

A note that documents which view....Liberal or conservative....represents the real America:


a. A conservative group sued and won..".. In a major victory for student rights, a federal district court issued a final ruling today prohibiting the University of Cincinnati (UC) from reinstating its tiny “free speech zone.” In today’sorder, United States District Judge Timothy S. Black issued apermanent injunctionagainst UC’s unconstitutional system of speech restriction." Federal Court Delivers Final Blow to U. of Cincinnati 'Free Speech Zone' - FIRE


We would all benefit if there were more brave 'conservative groups' in the universities.

The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

In the University of Cincinnati case noted above, Plaintiff's brought an action against the University and the Plaintiffs first obtained a preliminary injunction granted apparently by some "LEFTIST judge". ROFL The parties reached an out-of-court settlement and a permanent injunction was entered. That's how our court system works or should work.

I submit for argument, however, if the plaintiff's had been "LIBERALS" protesting the unconstitutional CONDUCT or POLICIES of a "CONSERVATIVE", then the matter might not have been settled out of court ... but the right wing loony birds would have continued to waste attorney fees and judicial resources appealing the matter all the way to the Supreme Court (and then you would have complained when the SC issued a decision against the "conservative").

Funny thing that people like you credit "CONSERVATIVES" for vindicating "free speech" liberties secured by the Constitution, but vilify "LIBERALS" if they exercise "free speech" liberties and use public walkways to picket a business that is engaged in unlawful discrimination.

"Conservative" double standards of "freedom for me, but not for you" are on consistent display.

This:
" ...no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

vs.

this:
"The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."


Some 'moderate.'

Would you kindly stop trying to make your points with fraudulent quotes?

Would you kindly stop lying about the quotes.

Sorry, but you're the person lying about the quotes. Winston Churchill never said that and in an earlier thread that you conveniently ignored I provided proof of that.

You're serious?

Winston Churchill quotes says it was Churchill....

...but, fine....maybe it was someone else.

But to be incensed about who said it....without commenting on the truth of the quote makes you appear.......
...how to say it....

Let's just say Forrest Gump would have speak loud and slow to you…

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've studied them, I own them.

Why are you so afraid of my posts....
....because I expose your lies?

I'm not afraid of them at all. You don't own the words of others, ever.

And you can't expose anything I say as being a lie because you don't actually know what I think, or anyone else for that matter. You take as truth what others say, and then cut and paste it in as your own. That you are able to do, but not answer simple questions? Not a good sign...

Post #42 showed you to be lying about what you claim to be 'Liberalism."

I don't have to lie about Liberalism, you do...

Let's see find any lies in post #42.

Smashes a custard pie in your kisser, doesn't it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

In the University of Cincinnati case noted above, Plaintiff's brought an action against the University and the Plaintiffs first obtained a preliminary injunction granted apparently by some "LEFTIST judge". ROFL The parties reached an out-of-court settlement and a permanent injunction was entered. That's how our court system works or should work.

I submit for argument, however, if the plaintiff's had been "LIBERALS" protesting the unconstitutional CONDUCT or POLICIES of a "CONSERVATIVE", then the matter might not have been settled out of court ... but the right wing loony birds would have continued to waste attorney fees and judicial resources appealing the matter all the way to the Supreme Court (and then you would have complained when the SC issued a decision against the "conservative").

Funny thing that people like you credit "CONSERVATIVES" for vindicating "free speech" liberties secured by the Constitution, but vilify "LIBERALS" if they exercise "free speech" liberties and use public walkways to picket a business that is engaged in unlawful discrimination.

"Conservative" double standards of "freedom for me, but not for you" are on consistent display.

This:
" ...no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

vs.

this:
"The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."


Some 'moderate.'

Would you kindly stop trying to make your points with fraudulent quotes?

Would you kindly stop lying about the quotes.

Sorry, but you're the person lying about the quotes. Winston Churchill never said that and in an earlier thread that you conveniently ignored I provided proof of that.

You're serious?

Winston Churchill quotes says it was Churchill....

...but, fine....maybe it was someone else.

But to be incensed about who said it....without commenting on the truth of the quote makes you appear.......
...how to say it....

Let's just say Forrest Gump would have speak loud and slow to you…

Help for ya: Quotes Falsely Attributed

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've studied them, I own them.

Why are you so afraid of my posts....
....because I expose your lies?

I'm not afraid of them at all. You don't own the words of others, ever.

And you can't expose anything I say as being a lie because you don't actually know what I think, or anyone else for that matter. You take as truth what others say, and then cut and paste it in as your own. That you are able to do, but not answer simple questions? Not a good sign...

Post #42 showed you to be lying about what you claim to be 'Liberalism."

I don't have to lie about Liberalism, you do...

Let's see find any lies in post #42.

Smashes a custard pie in your kisser, doesn't it.

The lie is liberals aren't who you think they are. You are lying to yourself, and everyone else.

 

[PoliticalChic]

“If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”
Winston Churchill

".... young Americans tend to agree with the statement that the First Amendment goes too far..."

What are the characteristics which identify the nexus of the two quotes above?
Answer: youth and inexperience.

The young, sadly, can be convinced of so very many things that simply are not so. And that is where Liberals excel.
So it is with their captives, in university.



There is stark proof that the Left's control of universities, and the media, the dissemination of information, has destroyed what made America the beacon to the world, freedom.


One can gauge it via the term "free speech zone."

One in six of America's four hundred top colleges has a "free speech zone."


5. "... a legal challenge to an unconstitutional free speech zone policy at the University of Cincinnati (UC) that limited all “demonstrations, pickets, and rallies” to a “Free Speech Area” comprising just 0.1% of the university’s 137-acre West Campus. The policy further required all activity in the free speech zone to be registered ten working days in advance, threatening that “[a]nyone violating this policy may be charged with trespassing.”
University of Cincinnati: Speech Code Litigation - FIRE


Shouldn't all of America be a "free speech zone"????

A note that documents which view....Liberal or conservative....represents the real America:


a. A conservative group sued and won..".. In a major victory for student rights, a federal district court issued a final ruling today prohibiting the University of Cincinnati (UC) from reinstating its tiny “free speech zone.” In today’sorder, United States District Judge Timothy S. Black issued apermanent injunctionagainst UC’s unconstitutional system of speech restriction." Federal Court Delivers Final Blow to U. of Cincinnati 'Free Speech Zone' - FIRE


We would all benefit if there were more brave 'conservative groups' in the universities.

The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

In the University of Cincinnati case noted above, Plaintiff's brought an action against the University and the Plaintiffs first obtained a preliminary injunction granted apparently by some "LEFTIST judge". ROFL The parties reached an out-of-court settlement and a permanent injunction was entered. That's how our court system works or should work.

I submit for argument, however, if the plaintiff's had been "LIBERALS" protesting the unconstitutional CONDUCT or POLICIES of a "CONSERVATIVE", then the matter might not have been settled out of court ... but the right wing loony birds would have continued to waste attorney fees and judicial resources appealing the matter all the way to the Supreme Court (and then you would have complained when the SC issued a decision against the "conservative").

Funny thing that people like you credit "CONSERVATIVES" for vindicating "free speech" liberties secured by the Constitution, but vilify "LIBERALS" if they exercise "free speech" liberties and use public walkways to picket a business that is engaged in unlawful discrimination.

"Conservative" double standards of "freedom for me, but not for you" are on consistent display.

This:
" ...no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

vs.

this:
"The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."


Some 'moderate.'

You're either stupid or willfully blind.

You ignore all responses that highlight that stupidity or willful blindness and post more nonsense.

Courts have a duty to find the facts and apply the law to the facts in order to reach a decision. Reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions do not abridge the freedom of speech.

For instance, "black lives matters" (BLM) protestors do not have a constitutional right to hijack a public rally, wrest the microphone from the public speaker, and disrupt the rally organizer's event. Even though they had a message to convey and "freedom of speech", there were several laws they probably violated through their conduct. Are you arguing that the First Amendment prohibits the enactment of laws that might restrict the BLM protestors' speech?

In your opening post, you copied and pasted some survey materials from the First Amendment Center website.

Here's some more information from your source website:

The Supreme Court has said “even in a public forum the government may impose reasonable restrictions on the time, place, or manner of protected speech, provided the restrictions are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.” Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989).

So what is it? are you stupid? or willfully blind?

Calm down...I'm sure I'm not the first one to spot you as a phony.

No court has any duty nor authority to rule counter to the text of the Constitution.

Any view other than that identifies you...not as a "moderate," whatever that is....but simply as another iteration of a modern Liberal.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This:
" ...no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;..."

vs.

this:
"The First Amendment does not prohibit reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions."


Some 'moderate.'

Would you kindly stop trying to make your points with fraudulent quotes?

Would you kindly stop lying about the quotes.

Sorry, but you're the person lying about the quotes. Winston Churchill never said that and in an earlier thread that you conveniently ignored I provided proof of that.

You're serious?

Winston Churchill quotes says it was Churchill....

...but, fine....maybe it was someone else.

But to be incensed about who said it....without commenting on the truth of the quote makes you appear.......
...how to say it....

Let's just say Forrest Gump would have speak loud and slow to you…

Help for ya: Quotes Falsely Attributed

See post #73....it applies to you, too.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Would you kindly stop trying to make your points with fraudulent quotes?

Would you kindly stop lying about the quotes.

Sorry, but you're the person lying about the quotes. Winston Churchill never said that and in an earlier thread that you conveniently ignored I provided proof of that.

You're serious?

Winston Churchill quotes says it was Churchill....

...but, fine....maybe it was someone else.

But to be incensed about who said it....without commenting on the truth of the quote makes you appear.......
...how to say it....

Let's just say Forrest Gump would have speak loud and slow to you…

Help for ya: Quotes Falsely Attributed

See post #73....it applies to you, too.

Tell us, are going to stop cutting and pasting that false quote now, yes or no?

And please, use your own yes or no...

 

[PoliticalChic]

I've studied them, I own them.

Why are you so afraid of my posts....
....because I expose your lies?

I'm not afraid of them at all. You don't own the words of others, ever.

And you can't expose anything I say as being a lie because you don't actually know what I think, or anyone else for that matter. You take as truth what others say, and then cut and paste it in as your own. That you are able to do, but not answer simple questions? Not a good sign...

Post #42 showed you to be lying about what you claim to be 'Liberalism."

I don't have to lie about Liberalism, you do...

Let's see find any lies in post #42.

Smashes a custard pie in your kisser, doesn't it.

The lie is liberals aren't who you think they are. You are lying to yourself, and everyone else.

Your version of "Liberal" is no more than what were called Socialists.

That is a fact.

Communist John Dewey prevailed on the Socialists to steal the good name of Classical Liberals, those who would be called conservatives today.


Simple enough to prove: today's Liberals do not endorse individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government.
Classical liberals did.

You remain a liar.