Fifty years ago, my post-military university life was an exciting and stimulating experience. I loved learning. No one tried to "indoctrinate" me to their point of view. Our universities and colleges should get back to that.
I found this essay sufficiently vague and mugwumpish to satisfy any modern “standard” of free speech. Can we not openly proclaim free speech is essential to a free society yet openly advocating the extermination of any group is wholly unacceptable. Freely debate facts but incitement to violence is not constitutionally protected....in any context.
Yet "hate speech", even calling for a genocide is nearly always Constitutionally protected free speech in America. We have openly proclaimed what free speech is, and incitement to violence has been pretty clearly laid out by the Supreme Court, specifically in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Its guiding principles include imminence, intent and likelihood.
For it to be "incitement to violence" it needs to directed, with actual intent to produce an imminent lawless act. Not something down the road, but right away. And, even if inflammatory, that speech needs to have an actual likelihood that to incite that illegality.
So things like chanting "From the River to the Sea," or even a more generic "Death to the Jews" comes nowhere close to illegal speech.
If the context were different ... let's say some thugs were surrounding a couple of Jewish kids and someone was screaming "Death to the Jews", that's a very different story.
If those principles were narrower, Trump's January 6 speech might be considered legal incitement, as would a large number of politicians openly encouraging the George Floyd "protest," i.e. riots.
My mugwumpishness (great word!) stems from the fact that to ban people from saying, "I hate Albanians and pray for their deaths" on a college campus is a shifft away from an incitement standard to a "hate" standard, which opens up nonsense. Those same hate principles are routinely used for such "hate speech" a "a boy has a penis.," and lay at the heart of the college speech mess.
I have no objection to free, comprehensively free, speech. When groups of Jewish students have taken refuge behind locked doors perhaps even the Supreme Court would recognize things have gone a bit over the line. If the Court or a woke college president attempt some sort of nuanced context to excuse such events then I will exercise my free speech to say - WRONG! When such behavior complies with the law of the land then I contend the law of the land has been perverted to call evil good. Such is the nature of mankind’s unredeemed spirit.
Fifty years ago, my post-military university life was an exciting and stimulating experience. I loved learning. No one tried to "indoctrinate" me to their point of view. Our universities and colleges should get back to that.
I found this essay sufficiently vague and mugwumpish to satisfy any modern “standard” of free speech. Can we not openly proclaim free speech is essential to a free society yet openly advocating the extermination of any group is wholly unacceptable. Freely debate facts but incitement to violence is not constitutionally protected....in any context.
Yet "hate speech", even calling for a genocide is nearly always Constitutionally protected free speech in America. We have openly proclaimed what free speech is, and incitement to violence has been pretty clearly laid out by the Supreme Court, specifically in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Its guiding principles include imminence, intent and likelihood.
For it to be "incitement to violence" it needs to directed, with actual intent to produce an imminent lawless act. Not something down the road, but right away. And, even if inflammatory, that speech needs to have an actual likelihood that to incite that illegality.
So things like chanting "From the River to the Sea," or even a more generic "Death to the Jews" comes nowhere close to illegal speech.
If the context were different ... let's say some thugs were surrounding a couple of Jewish kids and someone was screaming "Death to the Jews", that's a very different story.
If those principles were narrower, Trump's January 6 speech might be considered legal incitement, as would a large number of politicians openly encouraging the George Floyd "protest," i.e. riots.
My mugwumpishness (great word!) stems from the fact that to ban people from saying, "I hate Albanians and pray for their deaths" on a college campus is a shifft away from an incitement standard to a "hate" standard, which opens up nonsense. Those same hate principles are routinely used for such "hate speech" a "a boy has a penis.," and lay at the heart of the college speech mess.
I have no objection to free, comprehensively free, speech. When groups of Jewish students have taken refuge behind locked doors perhaps even the Supreme Court would recognize things have gone a bit over the line. If the Court or a woke college president attempt some sort of nuanced context to excuse such events then I will exercise my free speech to say - WRONG! When such behavior complies with the law of the land then I contend the law of the land has been perverted to call evil good. Such is the nature of mankind’s unredeemed spirit.
The GOP wanted to punish those Pro Hamas students for riots
& the damn college professors wanted to Censor ALL speech.
Close down the colleges
NO more Dble stds
Shut down the Ive League
So the problem is not enough freedom on college campuses, and the solution is to not allow colleges the freedom to exist?
Yes allow colleges to exisit BUT they exisit to aid Hamas
& deny others free speech