Is Free Speech Under Attack in this Country?

No need to beat the dead horse of course. This question of this thread has been definitively answered

[Tw]1663631018622959619[/tw]
 
From the article:

"Prominent Jewish groups and allies called for CUNY Law to lose its public funding while condemning her words as "vitriolic, evil, antisemitic" propaganda."

Anyone should be able to express their opinions about her speech. I don't think defunding CUNY Law School because of her words is a reasonable response. Her fellow students selected her as a speaker at their graduation. Surely they should be allowed to do that, no matter how lamentable the choice.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/n...-law-students-commencement-speech/ar-AA1bVWj8

the students got the speaker they chose

not sure CUNY as an institution should be characterizing her speech one way or the other

but anyone should be able to exercise their freedom of expression by expressing an opinion about her speech
Click to expand...

Anyone should but has as has been de.onstrated countless times the left simply would rather censor opposition to its ideals.

Cheerleader by you in many instances
 
If a public university chooses an antisemitic speaker at one of its functions (especially a graduation, which should be inclusive) I'd be ok with the governor and state legislature doing something about it. In fact I think they SHOULD do something about such a situation.

However, I would hope they allow for some distinction to be made between the university making that choice and the students choosing a class speaker. That's the students' choice and it should be allowed to happen without "defunding" or other repercussions for the university. No matter how lamentable the choice.
 
This is why I and many others were against hate crimes. Won't be long before it's a hate crime to call a dude in a dress a dude.
 
FxtJw2JXsAEpj5h
 
In a 70-page ruling handed down late Friday night, U.S. District Judge Thomas Parker wrote that the law was both “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad.” He also added that the statute encouraged “discriminatory enforcement.”

“There is no question that obscenity is not protected by the First Amendment. But there is a difference between material that is ‘obscene’ in the vernacular, and material that is ‘obscene’ under the law,” stated Parker, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. “Simply put, no majority of the Supreme Court has held that sexually explicit — but not obscene — speech receives less protection than political, artistic, or scientific speech.”

This is an important ruling that protects the freedom of artistic expression from some of this country's prudish encroachments. It wlll protect works of art (including the novel below and the painting repurposed for its cover) from being banned from public spaces.

9781429900645.jpg
 
Last edited:
"The measure (HB 269), titled “Public Nuisances,” makes it a felony to harass people for their religion or ethnicity. It also penalizes leaving flyers with hateful images, messages or any other ‘credible threat” on a person’s private property."



Sounds decent on the surface but you always have to ask how will it be applied. How does one define harass. I dont agree that anyone should harass another but I also dont agree that religion counts as something I cant vocally criticize a person for. Religion is a choice not something you cant change. Would it be harassment to call a Catholic person a pedophile enabler? Is it harassment to tell a religious nutjob to **** off and stop voting their religion into laws? If someone is following a person and doing that I might agree its harassment. Law enforcement are overwhelmingly Christian. They will likely have a strong bias when enforcing this. Does atheism count as a religion or can a person be harassed for atheist beliefs because its not a religion? I would grant you harassment of Christians for their beliefs is happening more now than ever but its practically an American tradition for Christians to **** on atheists. I dont know what polls say now but it wasnt that long ago atheists were believed to be the least trustworthy people lower than even black people and muslims. As opposed to religion I would argue atheism is not a choice like religion is and should be protected like something that cant change like race or gender....... that last sentence would get me banned from most places on the internet.
 
sturg33 said:
Yeah free speech is dead as I've explained many times.

Don't cry about it now
Click to expand...

eh...as i've noted a few times previously you wouldn't know an actual for real attack on our constitutional rights to freedom of expression even if they hit you in the balls (note this is a figure of speech, i'm not saying you have any)
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
eh...as i've noted a few times previously you wouldn't know an actual for real attack on our constitutional rights to freedom of expression even if they hit you in the balls (note this is a figure of speech, i'm not saying you have any)
Click to expand...

Don't cry now that you've created an environment that will obviously demand an authoritarian response

And I can't help but laugh at your "manly" comment from the guy who was such a scared little bitch about the common cold that he cried for the end of all constitutional rights at every level
 
To be clear there never was free speech. The only thing that has changed is what speech gets you canceled. There was a time when saying slavery was wrong got you lynched. There was a time when saying interracial marriage was okay made you controversial. Wasnt too long ago peoples lives were destroyed because they were outed as atheists. As best I can tell free speech never existed.
 
I believe there is at least one fine institution of higher learning that banned facial hair in the 1970s cuz it didn't like the counterculture and that ban is still on the books. But that's its bidness. The first amendment is there to protect us against encroachments of state power. And today I come in praise of Vivek Ramaswamy and Judge Parker for their words and actions on behalf of the first amendment. I find it amusing but not surprising that the fake advocates of free speech around here aren't joining me in commending Ramaswamy and Parker.
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
I believe there is at least one fine institution of higher learning that banned facial hair in the 1970s cuz it didn't like the counterculture and that ban is still on the books.
Click to expand...

And then in 2022 most intuitions mandated specific clothing on kids faces because the older people were scared little bitches
 
Adults mandating what kids can wear. Never heard that one before. Let me tell you about that time a teacher stopped in the middle of lunch to yell at me because she didnt like my shirt and then used the fact that everyone was looking at her yelling at me to say my shirt was causing a disturbance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top