Why Liberals Hate Free Speech

[regent]

Pulling federal funding to universities for speech it does not agree with would be unconstitutional because there is no compelling interest and it would be a very restrictive mean even if there was a compelling interest.

Any university or college who accepts government money is bound by the same rules the government is. It cannot decide what speech it does or does not like.

So then why can the same government, under Ben Carson, pull funding for speech it doesn't agree with?

Let's see how much 'constitutional law' you actually learned.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to use tax money to support universities and colleges?

Looks like you'll have to give back that 'A,' huh?

Are you suggesting West Point, is an illegal school?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Can you name a liberal college that in its student handbook actually warns students against exercising their free speech rights?

Oh gee you can't?

Hmmm... I can name a famous CONSERVATIVE school that does. Bob Jones University.

"We desire to treat students fairly and to serve their needs effectively. We are open to constructive input regarding how we may improve our service to students, campus life and the testimony of BJU. Mass and social media are powerful tools to communicate truth. In the spirit of honor and wisdom,

however,

students should not use media to disparage BJU

but should instead pursue truth in love by following this grievance process."

So who hates free speech again? lol

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

Can you provide the hand book of any branch of the military indicating where the mess hall is located?
No. You can't Because its not in the Regulations or the UCMJ.....But that does not mean soldiers are not fed.
Nice try genius..
The fact is these liberal speech codes are "unofficial" but very much real and enforced.

So they exist only in the minds of RWnuts like you.

Show me one 'liberal' college that officially attacks the free speech rights of its students AS POLICY.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Liberal hate anything they cannot control, No matter how hard they try they cannot pass any laws in regard to putting limits on free speech.

There are many laws limiting Free Speech, for good reason, although we want as few as possible.

Who doesn't want laws against treason? Libel? etc?

Gads, what an imbecile.

Treason, the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, has nothing to do with free speech.

How about libel? Valid restriction on free speech, or not? Yes or no, please...

Libel...is not restricted. The fact is any can write anything they choose. There are no criminal penalties for writing something that is not true that causes harm to another or a group.
Libel is a civil matter. The aggrieved party(ies) must present their case to a civil court and prove the written words caused them harm and to show how this harm resulted in damage or loss of reputation....
The answer to your pigeon hole question is "yes"..Libel or slander IS valid free speech. Speech that could result in civil penalties for the one providing the speech

 

[thereisnospoon]

Pulling federal funding to universities for speech it does not agree with would be unconstitutional because there is no compelling interest and it would be a very restrictive mean even if there was a compelling interest.

Any university or college who accepts government money is bound by the same rules the government is. It cannot decide what speech it does or does not like.

So then why can the same government, under Ben Carson, pull funding for speech it doesn't agree with?

Let's see how much 'constitutional law' you actually learned.

Where does the Constitution give the federal government the authority to use tax money to support universities and colleges?

Looks like you'll have to give back that 'A,' huh?

Are you suggesting West Point, is an illegal school?

No....No one mentioned anything regarding "illegal"...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberal hate anything they cannot control, No matter how hard they try they cannot pass any laws in regard to putting limits on free speech.

There are many laws limiting Free Speech, for good reason, although we want as few as possible.

Who doesn't want laws against treason? Libel? etc?

Gads, what an imbecile.

Treason, the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, has nothing to do with free speech.

So you're saying that a person who told an enemy of the US secret information involving US security could not be considered committing an act of treason?

You want that considered a free speech right because there are no exceptions to the 1st Amendment?

lol, good one.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Can you name a liberal college that in its student handbook actually warns students against exercising their free speech rights?

Oh gee you can't?

Hmmm... I can name a famous CONSERVATIVE school that does. Bob Jones University.

"We desire to treat students fairly and to serve their needs effectively. We are open to constructive input regarding how we may improve our service to students, campus life and the testimony of BJU. Mass and social media are powerful tools to communicate truth. In the spirit of honor and wisdom,

however,

students should not use media to disparage BJU

but should instead pursue truth in love by following this grievance process."

So who hates free speech again? lol

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

Can you provide the hand book of any branch of the military indicating where the mess hall is located?
No. You can't Because its not in the Regulations or the UCMJ.....But that does not mean soldiers are not fed.
Nice try genius..
The fact is these liberal speech codes are "unofficial" but very much real and enforced.

So they exist only in the minds of RWnuts like you.

Show me one 'liberal' college that officially attacks the free speech rights of its students AS POLICY.

No..These codes in which an OP above listed at least 15 links, are very real and very much the invention of the political Left.
Accept that or not....Its a FACT. An inescapable fact.
Do not argue with this point. There is no valid counter argument.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

2. "Wanting Separation of church and State is not hating freedom, it's embracing freedom to be who we want without the threat of some Flying Spaghetti Monster disapproving."
Can you find such a view in any of America's founding documents?

See: Amendment, First...

Sure:

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.


Clearly you are mistaken in imagining that the first amendment included any such 'separation of church and state.'

I love teaching you new things.

When they banned the nation from calling itself a religious nation, they built the wall, and that was on purpose.

I note you were unable to provide such a reference in our founding documents.

That's because you made up the statement, as you so often do.

Unlike you....I'm certain there'll be an honest Liberal coming along any day......

......any day......

....any........

See: Amendment, First...

 

[thereisnospoon]

Liberal hate anything they cannot control, No matter how hard they try they cannot pass any laws in regard to putting limits on free speech.

There are many laws limiting Free Speech, for good reason, although we want as few as possible.

Who doesn't want laws against treason? Libel? etc?

Gads, what an imbecile.

Treason, the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, has nothing to do with free speech.

So you're saying that a person who told an enemy of the US secret information involving US security could not be considered committing an act of treason?

You want that considered a free speech right because there are no exceptions to the 1st Amendment?

lol, good one.

Chic never stated nor implied that.....You are grasping at air.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This thread is just a re-run of this one:

Only Fascists Assail Free Speech | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...thus proving my point that the OP loses the argument in one thread, then runs off and waits awhile before starting the same thread over again.

Read the old thread, and enjoy how she gets demolished.

You are as usual, making up your own reality.
FAIL

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberal hate anything they cannot control, No matter how hard they try they cannot pass any laws in regard to putting limits on free speech.

There are many laws limiting Free Speech, for good reason, although we want as few as possible.

Who doesn't want laws against treason? Libel? etc?

Gads, what an imbecile.

Treason, the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, has nothing to do with free speech.

How about libel? Valid restriction on free speech, or not? Yes or no, please...

Libel...is not restricted. The fact is any can write anything they choose. There are no criminal penalties for writing something that is not true that causes harm to another or a group.
Libel is a civil matter. The aggrieved party(ies) must present their case to a civil court and prove the written words caused them harm and to show how this harm resulted in damage or loss of reputation....
The answer to your pigeon hole question is "yes"..Libel or slander IS valid free speech. Speech that could result in civil penalties for the one providing the speech

Free speech is speech that cannot be legally penalized.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Liberal hate anything they cannot control, No matter how hard they try they cannot pass any laws in regard to putting limits on free speech.

There are many laws limiting Free Speech, for good reason, although we want as few as possible.

Who doesn't want laws against treason? Libel? etc?

Gads, what an imbecile.

Treason, the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, has nothing to do with free speech.

So you're saying that a person who told an enemy of the US secret information involving US security could not be considered committing an act of treason?

You want that considered a free speech right because there are no exceptions to the 1st Amendment?

lol, good one.

Chic never stated nor implied that.....You are grasping at air.

That's exactly what she said and has said in the past.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is just a re-run of this one:

Only Fascists Assail Free Speech | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...thus proving my point that the OP loses the argument in one thread, then runs off and waits awhile before starting the same thread over again.

Read the old thread, and enjoy how she gets demolished.

You are as usual, making up your own reality.
FAIL

I'll bet you really think your post is substantive.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberal hate anything they cannot control, No matter how hard they try they cannot pass any laws in regard to putting limits on free speech.

There are many laws limiting Free Speech, for good reason, although we want as few as possible.

Who doesn't want laws against treason? Libel? etc?

Gads, what an imbecile.

Treason, the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, has nothing to do with free speech.

Oh my god. Have you seriously said what you've said. I need a brick wall to headbutt.

Treason has a lot to do with free speech.

If.... (this is a conditional sentence, by the way)... speech were 100% free, then treason, say for example telling the Chinese something that just happens to be a state secret, would be a protected right. It's not. Treason, which includes SPEECH, is illegal. Speaking can be ILLEGAL at times.

So, limiting speech with laws such as treason laws, libel laws etc etc is seen by most people as perfectly valid. Why? Because some people realise that no right is 100% absolute.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

PC can't understand that when you ban the nation from declaring itself a ________ religious nation, Church and State have been separated. There's no hope she will understand that free speech doesn't mean all speech.

Seems they don't teach that, in Korea...

 

[frigidweirdo]

Liberal hate anything they cannot control, No matter how hard they try they cannot pass any laws in regard to putting limits on free speech.

There are many laws limiting Free Speech, for good reason, although we want as few as possible.

Who doesn't want laws against treason? Libel? etc?

Gads, what an imbecile.

Treason, the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, has nothing to do with free speech.

How about libel? Valid restriction on free speech, or not? Yes or no, please...

Libel...is not restricted. The fact is any can write anything they choose. There are no criminal penalties for writing something that is not true that causes harm to another or a group.
Libel is a civil matter. The aggrieved party(ies) must present their case to a civil court and prove the written words caused them harm and to show how this harm resulted in damage or loss of reputation....
The answer to your pigeon hole question is "yes"..Libel or slander IS valid free speech. Speech that could result in civil penalties for the one providing the speech

So speech isn't restricted, it's just restricted?

There is a law which says that one person can sue another person for libel. Essentially this is saying that if you say this thing, it's not protected. Do people often get sued for doing something which is protected by a constitutional right? Er.... no....

You can murder someone. It's perfectly possible. You might even get away with it, but you've broken the law.

United States defamation law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

False statements of fact - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"In United States constitutional law, false statements of fact are an exception from protection of free speech under the First Amendment. In United States law, a false statement of fact will not be exempt from some civil or criminal penalty, if a law has imposed one. "

So, the US govt, or a state govt, can make a law which allows people to be punished for saying something that isn't true. Therefore they don't have protections from the first amendment. Which therefore means they've restricted speech.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This thread is just a re-run of this one:

Only Fascists Assail Free Speech | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...thus proving my point that the OP loses the argument in one thread, then runs off and waits awhile before starting the same thread over again.

Read the old thread, and enjoy how she gets demolished.

Gee....I sure hope so!

A couple of months have gone by, and you Liberal fascists still hate free speech!

253 responses in that thread, and you Liberals joined in with a chorus of "is not, is not...!"


I don't know how to thank you enough for helping me spread the truth!

I proved you wrong repeatedly.

I showed you that Bob Jones University officially condemns free speech in its handbook.

Show me where liberal colleges do that.

Bob Jones U?....Yer kidding, right.
15,000 publicly funded liberal institutions of higher learning vs ONE very Christian PRIVATELY funded school...And to you that is the great equalizer.
Oy vey.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This thread is just a re-run of this one:

Only Fascists Assail Free Speech | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...thus proving my point that the OP loses the argument in one thread, then runs off and waits awhile before starting the same thread over again.

Read the old thread, and enjoy how she gets demolished.

Gee....I sure hope so!

A couple of months have gone by, and you Liberal fascists still hate free speech!

253 responses in that thread, and you Liberals joined in with a chorus of "is not, is not...!"


I don't know how to thank you enough for helping me spread the truth!

I proved you wrong repeatedly.

I showed you that Bob Jones University officially condemns free speech in its handbook.

Show me where liberal colleges do that.

Bob Jones U?....Yer kidding, right.
15,000 publicly funded liberal institutions of higher learning vs ONE very Christian PRIVATELY funded school...And to you that is the great equalizer.
Oy vey.

You have 15,000 examples of liberal colleges that include admonitions against free speech in their handbooks?

Can we see one?

 

[thereisnospoon]

PC can't understand that when you ban the nation from declaring itself a ________ religious nation, Church and State have been separated. There's no hope she will understand that free speech doesn't mean all speech.

Seems they don't teach that, in Korea...

Newsflash....Church and state are inexorably ties together and will be for centuries to come.
Figure it out.
The best example is Utah....The Mormon church runs that state and the people are in agreement with it...
Others are the hodgepodge of various restrictions on the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages. All of which are due to religious concerns.
And the majority of those laws and regulations are tied to Christian beliefs and practices.

 

[thereisnospoon]

This thread is just a re-run of this one:

Only Fascists Assail Free Speech | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

...thus proving my point that the OP loses the argument in one thread, then runs off and waits awhile before starting the same thread over again.

Read the old thread, and enjoy how she gets demolished.

Gee....I sure hope so!

A couple of months have gone by, and you Liberal fascists still hate free speech!

253 responses in that thread, and you Liberals joined in with a chorus of "is not, is not...!"


I don't know how to thank you enough for helping me spread the truth!

I proved you wrong repeatedly.

I showed you that Bob Jones University officially condemns free speech in its handbook.

Show me where liberal colleges do that.

Bob Jones U?....Yer kidding, right.
15,000 publicly funded liberal institutions of higher learning vs ONE very Christian PRIVATELY funded school...And to you that is the great equalizer.
Oy vey.

You have 15,000 examples of liberal colleges that include admonitions against free speech in their handbooks?

Can we see one?

Asked and answered.
Stop with the "handbook" crap.
Now you're going to tell me that all those instances where conservative politicians and other public figures were disinvited from speaking at colleges and universities.
Is THAT in the respective "handbooks"?
FAIL

 

[PoliticalChic]

Liberal hate anything they cannot control, No matter how hard they try they cannot pass any laws in regard to putting limits on free speech.

There are many laws limiting Free Speech, for good reason, although we want as few as possible.

Who doesn't want laws against treason? Libel? etc?

Gads, what an imbecile.

Treason, the only crime spelled out in the Constitution, has nothing to do with free speech.

Oh my god. Have you seriously said what you've said. I need a brick wall to headbutt.

Treason has a lot to do with free speech.

If.... (this is a conditional sentence, by the way)... speech were 100% free, then treason, say for example telling the Chinese something that just happens to be a state secret, would be a protected right. It's not. Treason, which includes SPEECH, is illegal. Speaking can be ILLEGAL at times.

So, limiting speech with laws such as treason laws, libel laws etc etc is seen by most people as perfectly valid. Why? Because some people realise that no right is 100% absolute.

1. "Oh my god. Have you seriously said what you've said."

Hmmmm.....let me think about it.....
OK....I've carefully considered what I said, and, yes....you are an imbecile.

To discuss 'treason', as an issue to be accepted as an element of free speech
I haven’t seen such contortions since you gave birth to yourself.


2. And, for your edification:

1. 
   Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
   Article III, Section 3, Clause 1: Treason - Heritage Foundation
   www.heritage.org/constitution/articles/3/.../treason
   The Heritage Foundation