• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after. [W: 15]

Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

The constitution does not simply limit what policies any organization can have on its own premises.

It's pretty sad that they restrict free speech to zones and even sadder that they want to ban those zones altogether. I don't think publicly funded institutions should be allowed to deviate from the Constitution.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

It's pretty sad that they restrict free speech to zones and even sadder that they want to ban those zones altogether. I don't think publicly funded institutions should be allowed to deviate from the Constitution.

I don't think any random person should be able to go anywhere on public property and be as disruptive as they like.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

I don't think any random person should be able to go anywhere on public property and be as disruptive as they like.

WTF has disruptive got to do with this using public property? Is the mind of a gun control advocate so closed that everything and everybody must be controlled by some of the most idiotic proposals man has ever made?

Is this just projection on your part that your behaviour is disruptive and you cannot be trusted with anything?
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

The liberal / progressive indoctrination in education marches on. Make no mistake, this is tyranny.

Well said, few indeed see this as the grab for power by government that it is. They forget to count the restrictive laws and constitutional incursion introduced on the back of terrorism and the false flag event of 9/11.

It is not a passing phase and government will not correct itself when the only currency of politics is POWER.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

Well said, few indeed see this as the grab for power by government that it is. They forget to count the restrictive laws and constitutional incursion introduced on the back of terrorism and the false flag event of 9/11.

It is not a passing phase and government will not correct itself when the only currency of politics is POWER.

All the more reason that the political elite need to be shaken up to their core, displaced from government and power.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

The Bannerrhoid movement is almost exclusively staffed by left-wingers-ie collectivists, AKA big government types. Of course they oppose individual freedoms that can be used to oppose the creeping crud of collectivism
The liberal / progressive indoctrination in education marches on. Make no mistake, this is tyranny.

Uhh...are we just pretending free speech zones, which restrict freedom of speech, haven't been around for a long time and used by more than just "liberals/left-wingers"?

When Bush travels around the United States, the Secret Service visits the location ahead of time and orders local police to set up “free speech zones” or “protest zones” where people opposed to Bush policies (and sometimes sign-carrying supporters) are quarantined. These zones routinely succeed in keeping protesters out of presidential sight and outside the view of media covering the event.
“Free-Speech Zone� | The American Conservative
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

Uhh...are we just pretending free speech zones, which restrict freedom of speech, haven't been around for a long time and used by more than just "liberals/left-wingers"?


“Free-Speech Zone� | The American Conservative

I can only speak for myself but I know that speech codes at universities are generally instigated by leftwing PC nanny types. I also note that every single case of a speaker invited to Yale when I was there, who was disrupted was disrupted by left-wingers. Most of the reported cases of disruption involve conservative speakers (Clarence Thomas is a common target) and left wing agitators. RW publications like the Dartmouth Review (Laura Ingraham was a founder along with Dinesh D'Souza) were trashed by leftwing scum
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

I don't think any random person should be able to go anywhere on public property and be as disruptive as they like.

Free speech is disruptive? You really have a problem with free speech, don't you. Maybe it is the entitled attitude of snowflake "don't hurt my feelings with reality" crowd that is disruptive. This is right in line with the argument that "my wife made pissed me off so she made me beat her" argument.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

I don't think any random person should be able to go anywhere on public property and be as disruptive as they like.

If they're being a disruption to the point of violating the public properties listed guidelines or the law, then action should be taken. That is significantly different than prejudging anyone external to the public university as being someone who will cause a disruption and thus seeking to limit the locations on public grounds they are allowed to utilize free speech in a precautionary nature.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

Free speech is disruptive?

Absolutely it can be disruptive, which is the precise reason we have a legal system that can help adjudicate situations where ones freedom of speech oversteps it's bounds because it conflicts with the rights of other people.

For example, if an outside community activist came onto campus and began leading an exceedingly loud and raucus crowd in chants directly outside the window of classroom in the Criminal Justice department of a university, causing the students significant difficulty in hearing the professor that they're paying serious dollars to have lecture to them, that would arguably be a case where said speech is absolutely disruptive to a degree that is problematic. And the university should absolutely have recourse in such a situation to remove those people disturbing the peace.

HOWEVER, what they shouldn't do is deem that the public area around the Criminal Justice building as being a location that "free speech" isn't applicable, coming up with a preconceived judgement that any outside entity attempting to utilize their speech on that part of the campus will be "disruptive".
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

the false flag event of 9/11.

Moderator's Warning:
This isn't the Conspiracy Theory section. The exact same point could've been made simply by saying "event of 9/11" without potentially baiting people into an off topic conspiracy argument. Refrain from this kind of thing outside the conspiracy theory section from now on.

Everyone else, I'd suggest just ignoring that part
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

Absolutely it can be disruptive, which is the precise reason we have a legal system that can help adjudicate situations where ones freedom of speech oversteps it's bounds because it conflicts with the rights of other people.

For example, if an outside community activist came onto campus and began leading an exceedingly loud and raucus crowd in chants directly outside the window of classroom in the Criminal Justice department of a university, causing the students significant difficulty in hearing the professor that they're paying serious dollars to have lecture to them, that would arguably be a case where said speech is absolutely disruptive to a degree that is problematic. And the university should absolutely have recourse in such a situation to remove those people disturbing the peace.

HOWEVER, what they shouldn't do is deem that the public area around the Criminal Justice building as being a location that "free speech" isn't applicable, coming up with a preconceived judgement that any outside entity attempting to utilize their speech on that part of the campus will be "disruptive".

I would agree with this. I can see why they would want limit disruptive behavior in certain areas but I can't see why they want to eliminate all "free speech zones" unless they were trying to control all speech on campus.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

Free speech is disruptive? You really have a problem with free speech, don't you. Maybe it is the entitled attitude of snowflake "don't hurt my feelings with reality" crowd that is disruptive. This is right in line with the argument that "my wife made pissed me off so she made me beat her" argument.

Your argument seemed to be that speech should be unlimited anywhere on public property. That position is absurd if you intend to extend it to college classrooms and faculty offices.

Have you ever seen these screaming religious lunatics ?
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

Your argument seemed to be that speech should be unlimited anywhere on public property. That position is absurd if you intend to extend it to college classrooms and faculty offices.

Have you ever seen these screaming religious lunatics ?

I have been on the CSU campus a lot. It is pretty quiet. We don't have a lot of screaming lunatics around here. Boulder attracts all forms of strangeness.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

If they're being a disruption to the point of violating the public properties listed guidelines or the law, then action should be taken. That is significantly different than prejudging anyone external to the public university as being someone who will cause a disruption and thus seeking to limit the locations on public grounds they are allowed to utilize free speech in a precautionary nature.

They didn't say they were prejudging anyone external.

"Robin Denny, director of media relations for Clemson, says the free speech zones apply only to people who don’t attend or work at the public University; they were created about a decade ago, partially out of security concerns and partially to ensure outsiders didn’t interrupt class or study."

Why do people think that they should be able to do anything they want on college campuses- that colleges should be completely impotent in terms of policies to protect their students ?
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

I have been on the CSU campus a lot. It is pretty quiet. We don't have a lot of screaming lunatics around here. Boulder attracts all forms of strangeness.

Well at SJSU we had this one nutcase who would wear giant signs and run around, spitting in our faces about how we were all going to hell unless we repent.

We also had this (homeless?) woman who would drag her "hungry" kids around to beg for money. I was pretty strained from a budgetary standpoint myself, but i gave her five dollars and she asked "You don't have a $20?"

Students are there to learn. If people create problems on campus, they shouldn't be expected to have wholly unfettered access to speech.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

Well at SJSU we had this one nutcase who would wear giant signs and run around, spitting in our faces about how we were all going to hell unless we repent.

We also had this (homeless?) woman who would drag her "hungry" kids around to beg for money. I was pretty strained from a budgetary standpoint myself, but i gave her five dollars and she asked "You don't have a $20?"

Students are there to learn. If people create problems on campus, they shouldn't be expected to have wholly unfettered access to speech.

That isn't free speech you are referring to. Spitting on someone is assault. Who cares if he is wearing a sign? How does that damage you? If he approaches people in an offensive manner he is disturbing the peace. It is a shame that it isn't legal to slap him upside his head to teach him some manners.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

That isn't free speech you are referring to. Spitting on someone is assault. Who cares if he is wearing a sign? How does that damage you? If he approaches people in an offensive manner he is disturbing the peace. It is a shame that it isn't legal to slap him upside his head to teach him some manners.

There's a difference between protesting, which is fine, and disruption, which isn't.

Protesting an event is done at the curb or outside the building with a respectful and safe distance from entrance / exits allowing people to pass.

Odd that so many struggle with this distinction.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

That isn't free speech you are referring to. Spitting on someone is assault. Who cares if he is wearing a sign? How does that damage you? If he approaches people in an offensive manner he is disturbing the peace. It is a shame that it isn't legal to slap him upside his head to teach him some manners.

I figured he was basically harmless, but he became a bit of an obnoxious obstacle.

I think people do have the right to free speech: but the state is not obligated to provide them an all-expense-paid platform for said speech anywhere on any college campus at any time.
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

I can only speak for myself but I know that speech codes at universities are generally instigated by leftwing PC nanny types...trashed by leftwing scum
Yeah, umm, I was talking about the fact free speech zones were regularly used during the last Republican presidency. The Republican Party, as you might know, hardly bills themselves as leftwing.

In other words, are we just pretending the concept of free speech zones only exist within one political ideology, when facts show us differently?
 
Re: It's not just your gun the liberals are coming after.

They didn't say they were prejudging anyone external.

They absolutely are, as indicated by your own quote. They're limiting external people to "free speech zones" because they MIGHT interrupt class or study. Rather than allowing them their ability to speak freely anywhere they'd like on public property, they're instead making a broad assumption that they are more likely than not going to cause a disruption and thus limiting them to a specific area where that disruption is most limited. That is prejudging.

If a preacher, a protester, or anyone else causes a distraction than ABSOLUTELY the school should take action. They should take action if/when they create a distraction. What they shouldn't be doing is preemptively attempting to stop disruption by limiting everyone external to the school's free speech rights, REGARDLESS of whether or not that individual would've actually caused a disruption.

And people think they should be able to go anywhere open to the public on a public university, that is in part funded by the government, specifically because of those two things...that it's government supported property that is open to the public.

What is ironic is how this is an interesting dichotomy to the whole "gay wedding cake" thing.

People claimed that is a business is "open to the public" then they are required, absolutely required, to provide their service to anyone that wants it because those people have rights. Well if a campus's grounds are "open to the public" then it would stand to reason they are required, absolutely required, to allow people to engage in their constitutionally protected rights on those grounds up until such point that doing so infringes upon someone elses rights.
 
Back
Top Bottom