When are far Lefties ever invited to speak at Conservative events ?

[tycho1572]

A student at Bob Jones could be expelled for simply owning a copy of one of Gloria Steinem's books.

What do you expect would happen if a student suggested inviting her to campus to speak?

Then why don't you try and get the students to invite her! That is how conservatives got to Bezerkley. If she is invited and a violent riot breaks out, then you have a narrative. Until then, all you have is PROPAGANDA-)

In fact, if there is a progressive student body at Bob Jones University and they invite her and the conservative students protest, I would fault the conservative students, even though the University is not held to the same standard as a public school.

Either you believe in the first or you don't.

I would phrase that a little differently.

Either you understand what the First Amendment is, or you don't.

You guys appear to fall in the latter camp.

No, and now I'm done with you.

I understand it perfectly and the wording of My sentence is deliberate. There is a difference between understanding and believing.

It appears you only believe in it when you agree with the speech.

Have a good night.

Do you think that you're somehow punishing me by running away from this conversation?

You're welcome to give up if you want, but don't expect me to be upset by it.

I think he's tired of arguing with someone he thinks is idiot. Just saying.

 

[tycho1572]

Btw...
You never did answer my last question, theDoctorisIn.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I am serious. Can you answer the question?

Okay, so a private organization, business, a university is private and if they accept no money from government, are not subject to equality of treatment with regard to certain rights.

Let's take the First Amendment since that is what this thread is about.

A private company can't violate someones first amendment right because the right is a protection of the individual from government. That is why it was not a violation of the First when Stormfront was shut down. The server and company that owned the server had the right to set the terms of use for the equipment. A private university can set the terms of use for their campus.

However, if a University is a public university, and accept taxpayer funding, they are subject to the equal and fair treatment of the Constitution. They become a de facto agent of the government and cannot shut down someones right to free speech.

Now, I suggest you google private vs public if you are still confused.

Yes, let's take the First Amendment, and examine it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since no one has suggested that Congress pass a law abridging anyone's right to free speech, how exactly does it apply here?

Read My entire reply. Sheesh.

The school is a de facto agent of the government.

Your entire reply is based on an erroneous reading of the First.

As for being a "de facto agent of the government", they are not. In any sense of the word.

More importantly, denying someone a venue in which to speak is not abridging their freedom of speech.

Oh good. we can now allow teachers to pray in schools. You've said it and this entire time we've been denying them that right on the basis of a teacher being a de facto authority of government.

Goodbye.

There's nothing better than when posters both try to flounce out of the thread, and still try to get the last word in.

First of all, no teacher has ever been denied the "right" to pray in school. They are only prohibited from attempting to coerce their students into praying.

Secondly, the ruling in Engel v. Vitale is based on the Establishment clause, not the first amendment, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then why don't you try and get the students to invite her! That is how conservatives got to Bezerkley. If she is invited and a violent riot breaks out, then you have a narrative. Until then, all you have is PROPAGANDA-)

In fact, if there is a progressive student body at Bob Jones University and they invite her and the conservative students protest, I would fault the conservative students, even though the University is not held to the same standard as a public school.

Either you believe in the first or you don't.

I would phrase that a little differently.

Either you understand what the First Amendment is, or you don't.

You guys appear to fall in the latter camp.

No, and now I'm done with you.

I understand it perfectly and the wording of My sentence is deliberate. There is a difference between understanding and believing.

It appears you only believe in it when you agree with the speech.

Have a good night.

Do you think that you're somehow punishing me by running away from this conversation?

You're welcome to give up if you want, but don't expect me to be upset by it.

What?

I'm telling you that I refuse to play the "did too, did not' childish game. I've made My case, I am right and I have no intention of wasting the whole night beating your head against your obstinance.

You haven't come close to making a case. You're flouncing out in a weak attempt to retain some dignity - and you're undermining that even more by failing to actually leave the conversation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Btw...
You never did answer my last question, theDoctorisIn.

This one?

So then why is not inviting rightwing speakers a violation of first amendment rights for Berkeley?

It isn't. Every speaker that has been denied at Berkeley was invited.

Invited by a student group is not the same thing as being invited by the school.

Only certain student groups are allowed to invite speakers at Berkeley?

No, all groups are allowed to invite speakers, with approval from the school.

Ahh... so the school only denies speakers invited by certain student groups?

The answer is no.

 

[impuretrash]

There's nothing better than when posters both try to flounce out of the thread, and still try to get the last word in.

First of all, no teacher has ever been denied the "right" to pray in school. They are only prohibited from attempting to coerce their students into praying.

Secondly, the ruling in Engel v. Vitale is based on the Establishment clause, not the first amendment, and is therefore irrelevant to this discussion.

There's nothing better than achieving petty "victories" in online debates? I applaud your debate skills, you're a tough customer but you really need to get a life.

 

[jwoodie]

Yes, let's take the First Amendment, and examine it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since no one has suggested that Congress pass a law abridging anyone's right to free speech, how exactly does it apply here?

Next, let's take the Fourteenth Amendment and look up Reverse Incorporation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, let's take the First Amendment, and examine it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since no one has suggested that Congress pass a law abridging anyone's right to free speech, how exactly does it apply here?

Next, let's take the Fourteenth Amendment and look up Reverse Incorporation.

Sure thing. I'm assuming you're talking about Due Process, rather than apportionment of representatives, or public debt.

What's your argument?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

http://www.bju.edu/life-faith/student-handbook.pdf

Why does its status as "public" or "private" matter?

What?

You can't be serious?

I am serious. Can you answer the question?

Okay, so a private organization, business, a university is private and if they accept no money from government, are not subject to equality of treatment with regard to certain rights.

Let's take the First Amendment since that is what this thread is about.

A private company can't violate someones first amendment right because the right is a protection of the individual from government. That is why it was not a violation of the First when Stormfront was shut down. The server and company that owned the server had the right to set the terms of use for the equipment. A private university can set the terms of use for their campus.

However, if a University is a public university, and accept taxpayer funding, they are subject to the equal and fair treatment of the Constitution. They become a de facto agent of the government and cannot shut down someones right to free speech.

Now, I suggest you google private vs public if you are still confused.

Yes, let's take the First Amendment, and examine it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since no one has suggested that Congress pass a law abridging anyone's right to free speech, how exactly does it apply here?

Read My entire reply. Sheesh.

The school is a de facto agent of the government.

Private schools? Nope. Try again, Fartwind.

 

[jwoodie]

Yes, let's take the First Amendment, and examine it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since no one has suggested that Congress pass a law abridging anyone's right to free speech, how exactly does it apply here?

Next, let's take the Fourteenth Amendment and look up Reverse Incorporation.

Sure thing. I'm assuming you're talking about Due Process, rather than apportionment of representatives, or public debt.

What's your argument?

Simply that the First Amendment is not limited to laws passed by Congress.

 

[BulletProof]

Yes, let's take the First Amendment, and examine it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since no one has suggested that Congress pass a law abridging anyone's right to free speech, how exactly does it apply here?

The courts take the position that the 14th Amendment makes the First Amendment apply to every government employee, down to the local dog catcher. That includes public universities.

Beyond the law, there's simple respect for Free Speech. If you use your power to silence someone for their views, even when you can legally do it, you might be a fascist libtard, like Google which recently fired a software engineer for saying women aren't as interested as men in being programmers.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, let's take the First Amendment, and examine it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since no one has suggested that Congress pass a law abridging anyone's right to free speech, how exactly does it apply here?

Next, let's take the Fourteenth Amendment and look up Reverse Incorporation.

Sure thing. I'm assuming you're talking about Due Process, rather than apportionment of representatives, or public debt.

What's your argument?

Simply that the First Amendment is not limited to laws passed by Congress.

You're right. It also applies to laws passed by states.

So what?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Yes, let's take the First Amendment, and examine it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Since no one has suggested that Congress pass a law abridging anyone's right to free speech, how exactly does it apply here?

The courts take the position that the 14th Amendment makes the First Amendment apply to every government employee, down to the local dog catcher. That includes public universities.

Beyond the law, there's simple respect for Free Speech. If you use your power to silence someone for their views, even when you can legally do it, you might be a fascist libtard, like Google which recently fired a software engineer for saying women aren't as interested as men in being programmers.

In what cases do the courts take that position?

 

[Timmy]

You really don't know the difference between private organizations and tax-payer funded public universities?

That's irrelevant. Private orgs are free to invite whoever .

And yet you seem to think if they don't invite certain people they are anti free speech

Cons brag that they are for free speech intolerant of other views. Well where are they?

Cons brag that they are for free speech intolerant of other views.

I haven't seen conservatives riot when a liberal speaker is invited to speak at a college. Have you?

My point is that they don't invite liberal speakers .

This Berkeley stuff is a set up. You take the most outrageous offensive far right person and bring them to the liberal capital of the country?

Where does that happen on the other end of the spectrum ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You really don't know the difference between private organizations and tax-payer funded public universities?

That's irrelevant. Private orgs are free to invite whoever .

And yet you seem to think if they don't invite certain people they are anti free speech

Cons brag that they are for free speech intolerant of other views. Well where are they?

Cons brag that they are for free speech intolerant of other views.

I haven't seen conservatives riot when a liberal speaker is invited to speak at a college. Have you?

My point is that they don't invite liberal speakers .

This Berkeley stuff is a set up. You take the most outrageous offensive far right person and bring them to the liberal capital of the country?

Where does that happen on the other end of the spectrum ?

My point is that they don't invite liberal speakers .

Liberal speakers are invited to colleges every week.

You take the most outrageous offensive far right person and bring them to the liberal capital of the country?

Yes. A conservative student group invites Milo or Ann and lib fascists lose their shit.

Where does that happen on the other end of the spectrum ?

Liberal groups invite liberal speakers, conservatives don't riot. Why is that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

You really don't know the difference between private organizations and tax-payer funded public universities?

That's irrelevant. Private orgs are free to invite whoever .

And yet you seem to think if they don't invite certain people they are anti free speech

Cons brag that they are for free speech intolerant of other views. Well where are they?

Cons brag that they are for free speech intolerant of other views.

I haven't seen conservatives riot when a liberal speaker is invited to speak at a college. Have you?

My point is that they don't invite liberal speakers .

This Berkeley stuff is a set up. You take the most outrageous offensive far right person and bring them to the liberal capital of the country?

Where does that happen on the other end of the spectrum ?

So what if they don't.

They don't have to and if they don't it is not a violation of anyone's right to free speech

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

you cons like to talk a lot crap about free speech. When do you ever accept left wing speech ?

I don't see Hillary being invited to NRA conventions . For example .

 

[Some Guy]

The reason conservative, or even just sensible speakers are needed on university campuses is because universities today are generally at the forefront of the assault on free speech.

If there were public universities that openly advocated for discrimination against gay people or black people and actively shut/shouted down any people against those views then you can bet your ass i'd want to see some liberal commentators get in there and try talk some sense into people.