Tennessee Free Speech Bill Signed Into Law

[NineSpine]

You did when you proclaimed yourself as an authority on the topic.....

No, I did not. I also have a PhD in history. That doesn't mean I am absolutely right about everything that has ever happened in human history. It DOES mean that I am a credible authority on the topic though. However, if evidence runs contrary to my claims, then I could easily be invalidated.

- - - Updated - - -

So, what's the solution? Create subjects that are banned from discussion?

You've got to do better than 3rd-world despot solutions.

You guys keep acting like being denied a paid platform is some kind of oppression.

The solution is already partially in place: Immunology conferences or courses don't give anti-vaxxers a platform. If they did, it would make the issue worse.

[Elegiac]

So, what's the solution? Create subjects that are banned from discussion?

You've got to do better than 3rd-world despot solutions.

A fundamental paradigm shift from "you are entitled to your opinion" to "you are entitled to an opinion that you can substantiate".

Someone holding a belief should not automatically raise that belief to the baseline level of legitimacy that merits academic discussion, nor should it protect that belief from criticism and ridicule.

[Tinykong]

Again, " because the government could just take away the funding to force compliance." That's literally how title nine compliance is done.

They wouldn't need a law if they could do it unilaterally.

[satimy]

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.

From Wikipedia

Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.


You’re trying to skirt by some ruling from the 40s that contain the phrase hate speech, which is irrelevant

[A dot Ham]

I did not claim infallibility. You just don't like that someone knows more about this process than you, and you want to shut down the topic because it might embarrass your ignorance.

Do you genuinely believe that most proposed speakers end up speaking? Do you even know what step 1 in getting a speaker approved is?

I'm not naive enough to believe that every university uses the exact same process.

Given your vague reference to your position, I'm going to guess that you were probably a volunteer in one of these clubs/organizations who was/is responsible for booking said speakers. I could counter that by giving you some equally fallacious statement about my job at a university. Which I did btw... but as pointed out, that's equally fallacious and is just a dick measuring contest. I concede... your dick is bigger.

It doesn't matter the number of speakers that actually get to speak vs number of proposals submitted. What matters is of the ones denied what is the real reason behind their denial. How do they differ from the ones that are approved? Are they being subjected to extraneous requirements and additional scrutiny? Is one group being discriminated against in favor of another?

This law is absolutely unnecessary, because it seeks to protect something that should already be protected on a federal level. The free exchange of ideas. If there is ANYWHERE on the planet this should be happening its universities and those institutions should make every effort to maintain an arena that is free of bias and make sure that their commitment to diversity (one all universities "pride" themselves on) is more than skin deep, without laws being made to make sure they do.

[NineSpine]

From Wikipedia

Effectively, the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirms that there is no 'hate speech' exception to the First Amendment.


You’re trying to skirt by some ruling from the 40s that contain the phrase hate speech, which is irrelevant

That's his point: It has a definition, whether it is illegal or not.

[Deleted]

It was a trans student who was fighting the school for use of the locker room. Milo put up her picture, ridiculed her, called her a tranny, and said she was only doing it to sexually prey on women.

This is behavior that would get another student expelled, or would get faculty fired, so for the love of God, just answer the question:

Again, there is plenty of faculty calling for white people to be murdered.

Why should the college be legally obligated to provide a platform for that conduct? It makes no sense. Do speakers have super-rights that faculty and students don't have, OR should faculty be allowed to personally slander individual students, call them slurs and then cry free speech?

Because the totality of speech infringement is A, to great, B, Leans precariously one way.
If that means some Trans people will have to endure people wishing for their murder, well, I apparently have to take it, so, so can they.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not too familiar with US universities and have not read the exact specifics of the bill, but I don't believe universities (even those publicly funded) should be forced to give a platform to anyone.

What part of public funding is hard to understand?

I work as a researcher in an Australian university and we certainly, to some degree, vet the people that come to speak.

Not all views and positions deserve a platform for debate.

Please read John Stuart Mill.

[sarahtasher]

Again, there is plenty of faculty calling for white people to be murdered.
Because the totality of speech infringement is A, to great, B, Leans precariously one way.
If that means some Trans people will have to endure people wishing for their murder, well, I apparently have to take it, so, so can they.

Do you mean ACTUALLY getting murdered, or what the alt right call white genocide ?

(It includes for the record adds with Paddington Bear and an family with a non white father and people crying like little girls that Poe Dameron is not white. That is genocide of cours-a good little rat squeaking that he is going to take his gun and shoot all ''illegals'' he see (presumably receiving visions from Saint Alex Jones to inform him of the legal status of the Mexican he is about to kill) is ''expressing a political opinion'')

[A dot Ham]

No, I did not. I also have a PhD in history. That doesn't mean I am absolutely right about everything that has ever happened in human history. It DOES mean that I am a credible authority on the topic though. However, if evidence runs contrary to my claims, then I could easily be invalidated.

Another logical fallacy!

The burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove? With a PhD you should know better. This is your wake up call.

This ladies and gentleman is why universities should be teaching kids HOW to think and debate, not WHAT to think.

[sarahtasher]

Another logical fallacy!

The burden of proof lies not with the person making the claim, but with someone else to disprove. With a PhD you should know better.

This ladies and gentleman is why universities should be teaching kids HOW to think and debate, not WHAT to think.

They are certainly going to get that with Milo ordering them to attack actresses and Nintendo interns.

[NineSpine]

I'm not naive enough to believe that every university uses the exact same process.

Given your vague reference to your position, I'm going to guess that you were probably a volunteer in one of these clubs/organizations who was/is responsible for booking said speakers. I could counter that by giving you some equally fallacious statement about my job at a university. Which I did btw... but as pointed out, that's equally fallacious and is just a dick measuring contest. I concede... your dick is bigger.

It doesn't matter the number of speakers that actually get to speak vs number of proposals submitted. What matters is of the ones denied what is the real reason behind their denial. How do they differ from the ones that are approved? Are they being subjected to extraneous requirements and additional scrutiny? Is one group being discriminated against in favor of another?

This law is absolutely unnecessary, because it seeks to protect something that should already be protected on a federal level. The free exchange of ideas. If there is ANYWHERE on the planet this should be happening its universities and those institutions should make every effort to maintain an arena that is free of bias and make sure that their commitment to diversity (one all universities "pride" themselves on) is more than skin deep.

Where in the First Amendment does it say "You have a right to a paid platform at any public university of your choice whenever you would like"?

The process for booking speakers is generally that the students appeal to whichever office in the administration approves speakers. That office when approves it or doesn't. This decision is made in private, does not involve open debate, and usually that is pretty much the end of the issue. The vast majority never make it through, because no school has the resources to allow every speaker. That would be insane. It would not be practically feasible.

Choosing speakers is no different than choosing courses. It's part of the academic schedule of the school. You can't just waltz into administration and demand to be allowed to teach a class on whatever you want. This ridiculous insistence on being given paid speaking engagements is NO DIFFERENT than doing that. This is exactly the same as saying "If someone wants to teach a course on why black people are inferior to white people, they should be allowed to or you are violating their free speech". Speaking engagements at colleges are not equivalent to rallies or parades. They are academic events that are supposed to have academic value, just like courses.

Tell me what the academic value of paying Milo to get up on stage and sexually harass, defame, and slander a student is.

[sarahtasher]

Where in the First Amendment does it say "You have a right to a paid platform at any public university of your choice whenever you would like"?

The process for booking speakers is generally that the students appeal to whichever office in the administration approves speakers. That office when approves it or doesn't. This decision is made in private, does not involve open debate, and usually that is pretty much the end of the issue. The vast majority never make it through, because no school has the resources to allow every speaker. That would be insane. It would not be practically feasible.

Choosing speakers is no different than choosing courses. It's part of the academic schedule of the school. You can't just waltz into administration and demand to be allowed to teach a class on whatever you want. This ridiculous insistence on being given paid speaking engagements is NO DIFFERENT than doing that. This is exactly the same as saying "If someone wants to teach a course on why black people are inferior to white people, they should be allowed to or you are violating their free speech". Speaking engagements at colleges are not equivalent to rallies or parades. They are academic events that are supposed to have academic value, just like courses.

Tell me what the academic value of paying Milo to get up on stage and sexually harass, defame, and slander a student is.

For the usual suspects, receiving orders to send death threats to a random girl at Nintendo over the localization of Fire Emblem is ''EDUKATION'', since it teach alt right values

-Blind obedience
-FRADOM OF SPUCH (that is, to violently attack anyone your Masters order you )
-The conception of ''discussion'' of the alt-right (you are not like me, shut up filthy vermin ! OBEY ME OR DIE)

[Deleted]

So, let me get this straight. You tell me I had eggs for breakfast. I say "No, I had waffles, I was there." You then get to declare that I am engaging in argument from authority?

You aren't an authority figure in regards to what you fucking eat.
The fallacy is I'm X, therefore Y.

- - - Updated - - -

I didn't say "people". I said "individuals".

Oh i get you - Milo Should have said lets Gas all the Trannies instead.
That would have totally been okay since it wasn't targeting any individuals.

- - - Updated - - -

We weren't talking about racism. We were talking about the difference between someone saying "White genocide" and someone putting up photographs of a student and then slandering them and accusing them of sexual misconduct without evidence.

Yeah, I'm going to say that the former is orders of magnitude worse - About a billion times worse actually.

- - - Updated - - -

They wouldn't need a law if they could do it unilaterally.

The state of Tennessee just passed the relevant fucking law
How many fucking times do i need to say this?
The state of Tennessee just passed the relevant fucking law.

- - - Updated - - -

Do you mean ACTUALLY getting murdered, or what the alt right call white genocide ?

Ah, Sarah always nice interacting with you on your medication.

(It includes for the record adds with Paddington Bear and an family with a non white father and people crying like little girls that Poe Dameron is not white. That is genocide of cours-a good little rat squeaking that he is going to take his gun and shoot all ''illegals'' he see (presumably receiving visions from Saint Alex Jones to inform him of the legal status of the Mexican he is about to kill) is ''expressing a political opinion'')

You should take some more of it though.

I have highlighted the magic word:

Again, there is plenty of faculty calling for white people to be murdered.
Because the totality of speech infringement is A, to great, B, Leans precariously one way.
If that means some Trans people will have to endure people wishing for their murder, well, I apparently have to take it, so, so can they.

- - - Updated - - -

Where in the First Amendment does it say "You have a right to a paid platform at any public university of your choice whenever you would like"?

No where - Where it does say that is in this particular bill the Tennessee legislature just passed.

[Orange Joe]

snip

that is not an answer to my question

[Arayaa]

What part of public funding is hard to understand?

Why should a university be forced to provide a platform for the dissemination of false information just because it is publicly funded?

[sarahtasher]

You aren't an authority figure in regards to what you fucking eat.
The fallacy is I'm X, therefore Y.

- - - Updated - - -



Oh i get you - Milo Should have said lets Gas all the Trannies instead.
That would have totally been okay since it wasn't targeting any individuals.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah, I'm going to say that the former is orders of magnitude worse - About a billion times worse actually.

- - - Updated - - -


The state of Tennessee just passed the relevant fucking law
How many fucking times do i need to say this?
The state of Tennessee just passed the relevant fucking law.

- - - Updated - - -


Ah, Sarah always nice interacting with you on your medication.

You should take some more of it though.

I have highlighted the magic word:

You mean that like all the Red states, they pass stupid laws doing exactly what they accuse ''LIBURALS'' of doing, but it's okay kauze they are doing it. They could disband the entire education board and replace it with courses of Milo teaching people to send pictures of their genitals and the usual suspects would applaude-FRADOM OF SPUCH is the freedom to browbeat or kill anyone disagreeing with them

As in the holy books of the alt-right-talking is for sissies, as for when ''duh day of duh rope'' will come, they will just kill anyone they don't like.

[A dot Ham]

Where in the First Amendment does it say "You have a right to a paid platform at any public university of your choice whenever you would like"?

The process for booking speakers is generally that the students appeal to whichever office in the administration approves speakers. That office when approves it or doesn't. This decision is made in private, does not involve open debate, and usually that is pretty much the end of the issue. The vast majority never make it through, because no school has the resources to allow every speaker. That would be insane. It would not be practically feasible.

Choosing speakers is no different than choosing courses. It's part of the academic schedule of the school. You can't just waltz into administration and demand to be allowed to teach a class on whatever you want. This ridiculous insistence on being given paid speaking engagements is NO DIFFERENT than doing that. This is exactly the same as saying "If someone wants to teach a course on why black people are inferior to white people, they should be allowed to or you are violating their free speech". Speaking engagements at colleges are not equivalent to rallies or parades. They are academic events that are supposed to have academic value, just like courses.

Tell me what the academic value of paying Milo to get up on stage and sexually harass, defame, and slander a student is.

LOL I just can't with you...

Logical fallacy number 4 and 5... moving goal posts, and your last ditch comment there about sexual harassment, defamation, and slander, appeal to emotion.

This law addresses this process:

The process for booking speakers is generally that the students appeal to whichever office in the administration approves speakers. That office when approves it or doesn't. This decision is made in private, does not involve open debate, and usually that is pretty much the end of the issue. The vast majority never make it through, because no school has the resources to allow every speaker. That would be insane. It would not be practically feasible.

No one is allowed to question that decision? Even when it is clear that there is an obvious bias, and discrimination taking place. No...

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS ON PUBLIC
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES

As a public institution a university doesn't actually have a say in the matter. They do not get to approve or deny a speaker on a whim based on how they are feeling that day or who they do or don't like, or the safety of students, etc. Providing the group/club sponsoring the event follows all of the policies and procedures of the university for a public speaking event, (assuming those policies/procedures are not discriminatory) then it should be approved. End of story. This law ensures this will happen.

In 1949 the Supreme Court reversed Terminiello's conviction. (Four of the nine justices dissented.) In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "it is only through debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people...." Justice Douglas stated that in a democracy free speech must occur even if it causes disputes, unrest, or "stirs people to anger."

But that's just basic bitch jurisprudence.

[sarahtasher]

LOL I just can't with you...

Logical fallacy number 4 and 5... moving goal posts, and your last ditch comment there about sexual harassment, defamation, and slander, appeal to emotion.

This law addresses this process:


No one is allowed to question that decision? Even when it is clear that there is an obvious bias, and discrimination taking place. No...

FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS ON PUBLIC
COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY CAMPUSES

As a public institution a university doesn't actually have a say in the matter. They do not get to approve or deny a speaker on a whim based on how they are feeling that day or who they do or don't like, or the safety of students, etc. Providing the group/club sponsoring the event follows all of the policies and procedures of the university for a public speaking event, (assuming those policies/procedures are not discriminatory) then it should be approved. End of story. This law ensures this will happen.

In 1949 the Supreme Court reversed Terminiello's conviction. (Four of the nine justices dissented.) In the majority opinion, Justice William O. Douglas wrote that "it is only through debate and free exchange of ideas that government remains responsive to the will of the people...." Justice Douglas stated that in a democracy free speech must occur even if it causes disputes, unrest, or "stirs people to anger."

But that's just basic bitch jurisprudence.

Try to talk about evolution in fundy colleges. Try to say something that is not 100% about killing democrats on the Donald. Alt-righters get into convulsions when someone is not agreeing with them. A no-MAGAboy is not even an animal for the usual edgelord : just someone to be exterminated when they will have the kill orders

[therayeffect]

Tbh, as much as I loathe Republicans, this seems like a good idea. I'm going to college and thankfully I'm not going to a school like Berkeley or w/e where they're out of their goddamn minds. We, as a society, really need to clamp down on the limiting of free speech (within reason). The idiots rioting, yelling and screaming during presentations need to go. The U.S. really suffers from this 'Us vs. Them' mentality and hopefully we can start to weaken that dichotomy.

[A dot Ham]

Why should a university be forced to provide a platform for the dissemination of false information just because it is publicly funded?

As an academic institution they would have to provide evidence and defend a position that such information is false in the first place... which is going to require some sort of debate, which is going to require the opposition to present for.

You don't get to claim fact, bar the opposition from actually opposing you... and then claim that because no one opposes its truth. And the people you are preventing from speaking are fascists?