pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Cje95 2 Oct \ parent \ on: The two venues of Israeli criticism in the USA have been captured Politics_And_Law
I dunno if they didn’t take billions from the Federal Government that would be one thing but when you take billions from the Feds you sign away part of your independence. The majority of the protestors like with most protests were peaceful but agitators or those that were breaking the law occupying and destroying things…. The collages had no answer so the government fixed the issue for them.
They colleges were so big on being inclusive but there are countless videos of the protestors intimidating Jewish students and facility even those against Israel’s actions.
So the schools took billions of dollars from the Federal Government.
The students, who are customers of the schools (the students pay the school), wanted to have anti-genocide protests.
But the Federal Government can have the school take away the first amendment right of the student because the government gives the school money?
What other rights do you believe should be taken away? What other infringements of the first amendment would you like to see? I'm sure we can take this even further and take away more rights from Americans!
reply
Much like you cant be forced to do something you dont want to do by a paying customer in the US (look at the Colorado cake issue) the same applies. Even the protests in public universities they have laws to follow.
By far the largest customer for these schools is the Federal Government. Look at the billions spent on research.
Your first amendment doesnt protect from hate speech and other illegal things that occurred. Schools completely failed to address the illegal elements that were within the protests and the ruined them because protesters then covered/hid people who assaulted or committed other crimes.
Your idea of the customers is fundamentally wrong because the biggest customer if you want to measure that way is the Federal government. Your first amendment doesnt protect you from other crimes in the name of free speech. Now if the protesters had turned over those who committed the crimes that would have been one thing but they refused and thus the whole thing became a security issue and was shut down.
I have a right to bear arms but that doesnt mean I have a right to shoot someone. You have the right to say what you want but when you cross the clearly established Supreme Court approved line that it is no longer free speech well there are consequences for your actions and to think you can live consequence free is a pretty wild take.
reply
Please only speak for yourself and not for me.
I did not say that any illegal conduct like violence is acceptable.
Hate speech is generally allowed in America. You can say Fuck Trump or Fuck Biden. That is hateful speech. You can say it.
Netanyahu is committing a genocide and starving millions of people. 99.99% of people who protested this on campuses did so in a non-violent, legal manner. It was all shut down. That is perfectly legal, acceptable speech that was stopped by a government that seems to be very much in the pocket of Israel.
You can go arrest the 1, 10, 100 people who broke the law in these protests. It is not anyone's job to "turn over" people, the police should do their job and arrest who they need to. That a group did not "turn over" people is no excuse to violate everyone's first amendment rights.
Similar to the Jan 6th protests. 99.99% of people did not break the law. Many of them did. Trespassing and violence. They were blanket pardoned, including the criminals, but that is another story ;)
reply
Your first amendment doesnt protect from hate speech
This is false. It absolutely does.
reply
I'm mostly on your side on this, but keep in mind that a large share of student funding comes from the feds too.
Take the king's coin, sing the king's song. As they say
reply
reply
I'm not sure why that is relevant. So the congress allocated taxpayer money to schools because they believe(d) that higher education is net beneficial for the country. Whether because it attracts the most talented immigrants from around the world (who typically stay in the country and tend to be some of the most talented workers/leaders) or perhaps for research purposes as many of our military and scientific breakthroughs happen in these universities. The reason is irrelevant, all that matters is at some point congress decided there is a net benefit to the country to invest in universities and up to today, all subsequent congresses reauthorized said funding (they could have repealed it).
In a similar fashion, congress also authorized funds to provide in the form of grants and loans to Americans who would like to pursue higher education.
Now, the executive branch, has decided that they do not like students (paying customers of the universities) expressing their first amendment rights about a particular cause (related to a foreign country). So the executive branch both directly and indirectly stopped these students from expressing their views and violated their first amendment rights.
And the argument is that this is OK because the students are partaking in a system where they did not pay for 100% of their college costs?
By this logic, why can't the federal government tell you that the "Fuck Biden" sign you put in your yard must be removed because the government (fannie/freddie etc.) own or backstop your mortgage? Why can't they tell you to remove the "Fuck Trump" bumper sticker on your car because they paid to build the road your car is driving on?
I can't understand why one would argue for greater government control and for taking away first amendment rights. I imagine this is a partisan issue for you and that is how you reached your viewpoint? I would imagine you'd feel differently if it was your speech that was affected in the same manner or if it affected a cause you cared for.
reply