Tennessee Free Speech Bill Signed Into Law

[BuckSparkles]

"I read tumblr once and believe this to be indicative of all left wing philosophy and the Democrats as well despite the fact that they are as a party are center to center right."

You are using EU metrics, which I don't give a shit about when talking about US politics.

[Elegiac]

You are using EU metrics, which I don't give a shit about when talking about US politics.

No, I'm using the international/academic metrics which are based on a comparative analysis of various political ideologies as opposed to which two parties happen to be in power in the US at this point in history.

Hint: The 'US metric' is the one that doesn't matter.

[Deleted]

It will wind up in the SCOTUS and be overturned.

How?

The state telling a university that it has to host hate groups because they receive $1 in state tax dollars is ludicrous because the state doesn't get unilateral authority to tell organizations what to do by virtue of them receiving aid.

By that logic Title nine would have been overturned - It's the exact same fucking thing.

[satimy]

lmao childish arguments? If anyone is being childish it's you with your whataboutism.

Tell me if hate speech has no meaning in the US how did the SC rule on Illinois hate speech laws?

Anyone that uses the term whataboutism can’t be taken seriously, I’m sorry but we are done.


However you can cling to some ruling from the 40s which by the way said obscenity and lewd comments weren’t protected and yet Comedians and pornography exists. If that ruling had any meaning then surely the Cross burning case from the 90s or siding with the Phelps family.


From unanimous decisions in 2017

“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful; but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express “the thought that we hate.” United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting).[9]”

“A law that can be directed against speech found offensive to some portion of the public can be turned against minority and dissenting views to the detriment of all. The First Amendment does not entrust that power to the government’s benevolence. Instead, our reliance must be on the substantial safeguards of free and open discussion in a democratic society.[9]”



Can you make some hate speech ordinance up? Sure there’s nothing protecting us from dumb law makers initially Doing something stupid, but a state legislature could also make slavery legal again.

[NineSpine]

No I'll support free speech, because I know that 99.9% of people who hear neo-nazis speak won't agree with them and that case will be closed.

I do NOT support this idea of "hate speech" because I really don't like the idea of having my opinion potentially silenced in the future because somebody quite like yourself wants to control public opinion through censorship.

Think of it this way: Would you want a republican controlling what is considered hate speech? I am pretty sure you don't...

Please explain why college universities are the only place in the world where they should be obligated to host speakers that sexually harass students publicly, as Milo does.

- - - Updated - - -

How?


By that logic Title nine would have been overturned - It's the exact same fucking thing.

Title Nine does not require universities to do every single thing the government asks. It requires them to do specific things related to the funding.

[BuckSparkles]

Please explain why college universities are the only place in the world where they should be obligated to host speakers that sexually harass students publicly, as Milo does.

When did he ever sexually harass a student publicly? I mean if he has an event and some rabble-rouser shows up, don't get upset if the speaker of the event fires back.

As for the main part of the question, universities should be a place where all ideas can be discussed, dissected, and shared. At the moment they tend to skew heavily towards one side. This will even out the playing field since not everybody who attends college has rainbow hair, 20 piercings, and crusades for social justice (in a first world country lol.)

[Elegiac]

As for the main part of the question, universities should be a place where all ideas can be discussed, dissected, and shared. At the moment they tend to skew heavily towards one side. This will even out the playing field since not everybody who attends college has rainbow hair, 20 piercings, and crusades for social justice (in a first world country lol.)

If not everybody who attends college is <insert left wing stereotype here>, then why do universities apparently have a left wing preference.

Could it possibly be because right wing positions in the US have a tendency of being intellectually indefensible? Shocker. But doubtless you'll claim it's bias on the part of the university and not a result of the fairly cross-cultural phenomenon of academic environments worldwide tending to be more socially liberal.

[BuckSparkles]

If not everybody who attends college is <insert left wing stereotype here>, then why do universities apparently have a left wing preference.

Could it possibly be because right wing positions in the US have a tendency of being intellectually indefensible? Shocker.

I mean, right wing folks aren't violently attacking or rioting at every college speakers events because they disagree with the speaker.

If people like Milo were so easy to defeat on an intellectual level, then why do you folks need to get physically violent instead of using words and debate?

[Deleted]

Please explain why college universities are the only place in the world where they should be obligated to host speakers that sexually harass students publicly, as Milo does.

sexually harass students publicly - Eh?
Regardless, that's a crime so that's not necessary.
As for the non-straw man version of your argument, because Universities are supposed to be institutes of higher learning - that means listening to opinions you don't like.

Title Nine does not require universities to do every single thing the government asks. It requires them to do specific things related to the funding.

Just like this bill requires "It requires them to do specific things related to the funding."

[NineSpine]

When did he ever sexually harass a student publicly? I mean if he has an event and some rabble-rouser shows up, don't get upset if the speaker of the event fires back.

As for the main part of the question, universities should be a place where all ideas can be discussed, dissected, and shared. At the moment they tend to skew heavily towards one side. This will even out the playing field since not everybody who attends college has rainbow hair, 20 piercings, and crusades for social justice (in a first world country lol.)

During a speaking engagement at a college, he specifically singled out a student and put up photos of her and called her a "tranny". You are telling us that the college should be LEGALLY OBLIGATED to endorse that behavior.

Or are you just blissfully unaware of WHY people didn't want Milo speaking?

[Elegiac]

I mean, right wing folks aren't violently attacking or rioting at every college speakers events because they disagree with the speaker.

'Every' college speaker, you say?

As opposed to just a few notable examples because said examples tend to be human garbage who make a living as professional trolls.

If people like Milo were so easy to defeat on an intellectual level, then why do you folks need to get physically violent instead of using words and debate?

Intellectual/academic debate is contingent on the assumption that both sides have a fundamentally rational basis; you cannot have such a discussion with a viewpoint that is fundamentally irrational.

It's also very specious to claim that "but the alt-reich just wants open intellectual debate :'(" when the fact of the matter is...no, they don't. They want a captive audience to proselytise to, or in the case of Milo they want free reign to troll bystanders.

[NineSpine]

sexually harass students publicly - Eh?
Regardless, that's a crime so that's not necessary.
As for the non-straw man version of your argument, because Universities are supposed to be institutes of higher learning - that means listening to opinions you don't like.

Just like this bill requires "It requires them to do specific things related to the funding."

Sexual harassment is not always illegal. Ironically, it would be a serious problem if another student or if faculty said the things Milo said. The things he said would be grounds for firing faculty. How does it make sense for the college to be legally obligated to host speakers that are there to say things that would be termination offenses for faculty?

- - - Updated - - -

'Every' college speaker, you say?

As opposed to just a few notable examples because said examples tend to be human garbage who make a living as professional trolls.



Intellectual/academic debate is contingent on the assumption that both sides have a fundamentally rational basis; you cannot have such a discussion with a viewpoint that is fundamentally irrational.

It's also very specious to claim that "but the alt-reich just wants open intellectual debate :'(" when the fact of the matter is...no, they don't. They want a captive audience to proselytise to, or in the case of Milo they want free reign to troll bystanders.

What's ultimately telling about their argument is that they focus primarily on the alt-right trolls, as opposed to the best genuine example, which is Charles Murray being run off campus.

[Elegiac]

What's ultimately telling about their argument is that they focus primarily on the alt-right trolls, as opposed to the best genuine example, which is Charles Murray being run off campus.

Oh, so a libertarian troll as opposed to an alt-reich troll.

[Deleted]

Sexual harassment is not always illegal.

Then it's not sexual harassment -

Ironically, it would be a serious problem if another student or if faculty said the things Milo said.

Fun fact, the reason i think that's bad is not the reason you think.

The things he said would be grounds for firing faculty

Given that faculty can get away with wishing for a white genocide -

How does it make sense for the college to be legally obligated to host speakers that are there to say things that would be termination offenses for faculty?

We could trade that for firing people who call for white people not to be treated by first responders - Even the Actual Nazis didn't do that.

[NineSpine]

Oh, so a libertarian troll as opposed to an alt-reich troll.

Charles Murray isn't a troll. He's a genuine academic who is ridiculous and wrong.

[Orange Joe]

snip

You didn't answer my question. If hate speech has no meaning in the US how did the US Supreme court rule on a case about hate speech laws?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beauharnais_v._Illinois

So if you want to change your argument that hate speech isn't enforced much in america you would be correct. To say it has no meaning in america is 100% false.

[NineSpine]

Then it's not sexual harassment -

No, you don't seem to get it. Sexual harassment is not always illegal. Catcalling is sexual harassment but it generally is not illegal.

Fun fact, the reason i think that's bad is not the reason you think.

Given that faculty can get away with wishing for a white genocide -

We could trade that for firing people who call for white people not to be treated by first responders - Even the Actual Nazis didn't do that.

You don't quite seem to understand the distinction between having a stupid, shitty opinion and attacking individuals.

[BuckSparkles]

It's also very specious to claim that "but the alt-reich just wants open intellectual debate :'(" when the fact of the matter is...no, they don't. They want a captive audience to proselytise to, or in the case of Milo they want free reign to troll bystanders.

You keep failing to see the irony.

"Alt doesn't want intellectual debate"

When you just said basically "They have an opinion I don't like so I am not interested in a debate with them."

So who wants intellectual debates then? Clearly not you.

- - - Updated - - -

During a speaking engagement at a college, he specifically singled out a student and put up photos of her and called her a "tranny". You are telling us that the college should be LEGALLY OBLIGATED to endorse that behavior.

Or are you just blissfully unaware of WHY people didn't want Milo speaking?

Nobody thinks the college endorses every speaker they host. It's like the tiki torch thing. Just because a few crazies appropriated a tiki torch does not mean the makers endorse white supremacists.

Like, damn that is such a poor argument. I am sure many murderers and other criminals use many of the same products and electronics you enjoy on a day to day basis. Does that mean all those products endorse them? Of course not.

[Elegiac]

You keep failing to see the irony.

"Alt doesn't want intellectual debate"

When you just said basically "They have an opinion I don't like so I am not interested in a debate with them."

So who wants intellectual debates then? Clearly not you.

Whether or not I "like" the opinion is immaterial, and misses the point entirely.

The point was that their opinion has no rational basis or substance and thus it is impossible to debate that opinion in a context that relies on any given side of the debate having something of a rational basis. All it ends up doing is legitimising an irrational opinion with a halo of credibility.

[timberx]

Given that faculty can get away with wishing for a white genocide

Wasn't that tweet satire?