• 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!

At Claremont McKenna, the left again shuts down free speech.

Harshaw said:
Mr. Person.
Click to expand...

well he has a point

governments can violate constitutional law, but people cannot because constitutional law does not apply to people, federal law does.

people generally tend to violate state or local laws that have a bearing on rights of the people

if i keep you from exercising speech then i either have to restrain you or violate property rights/ disturb the peace which subjects me to criminal law.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
I have no idea about the number of arrests made in Ferguson. I assume more than several. I don't believe a single protester faced arrest at Claremont McKenna. Laws generally serve the purpose to maintain order. Breaking Laws comes with risk. Society has LE and a judicial system to address law breakers and disagreements.

I have had my Free Speech interrupted more times than I can remember.... and have never felt so aggrieved to pursue a lawsuit over my perceived infringement. Ms. MacDonald has standing and can avail herself of our judiciary system if she wants to.

So, yes Ms. MacDonald, much like me, has had her Free Speech infringed. Now, Ms. MacDonald, like me, can decide whether to pursue legal action. With you in her corner, don't you think she would stand a better chance of winning?
Click to expand...

But you do know that not everyone that was violent at those riots were arrested. Right? Point is that just because someone doesn't get arrested, it doesn't mean that they didn't break the law.

And, btw, there is a difference between someone interrupting your speech and a mob using intimidation and fear tactics to get you to stop. Do you still not get that? No one cares that they protested. What is being talked about in here is the mob using intimidation and fear tactics and assault to stop someone from talking and stop people from listening. When Ms. McDonald held the same kind of talk at the UCLA the protestors there interrupted her numerous times, but were peaceful about it (loud, but peaceful). It never made any media attention like this did. Don't even think it made a thread here at DP.

So what is the difference between her talk at the UCLA and the protests there vs Claremont?

UCLA protests were peaceful.
Claremont protests were not.

Which protests are being badmouthed? The protests at Claremont.

You do the math.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
The protestors didn't cancel the meeting, someone else decided to because of the protestors. You're free as an American to protest anyone you want, and we're not going to clamp down on Americans' rights because you feel you need a safe space.
Click to expand...

You have a right to protest you do not have the right to silence someone else. that fact that you support silencing other peoples free speech is very much in the wrong.
safe space has nothing to do with it or anything at all. You do not have a right to block someone else's speech.
 
Kal'Stang said:
But you do know that not everyone that was violent at those riots were arrested. Right? Point is that just because someone doesn't get arrested, it doesn't mean that they didn't break the law.

And, btw, there is a difference between someone interrupting your speech and a mob using intimidation and fear tactics to get you to stop. Do you still not get that? No one cares that they protested. What is being talked about in here is the mob using intimidation and fear tactics and assault to stop someone from talking and stop people from listening. When Ms. McDonald held the same kind of talk at the UCLA the protestors there interrupted her numerous times, but were peaceful about it (loud, but peaceful). It never made any media attention like this did. Don't even think it made a thread here at DP.

So what is the difference between her talk at the UCLA and the protests there vs Claremont?

UCLA protests were peaceful.
Claremont protests were not.

Which protests are being badmouthed? The protests at Claremont.

You do the math.
Click to expand...

Kal, on many levels I can agree with you. For instance, the protesters at Claremont McKenna appear to have used far more aggressive and disruptive tactics than the UCLA protesters. You describe those more aggressive tactics as "... the mob using intimidation and fear tactics and assault to stop someone from talking and stop people from listening." I assume your reference to assault occurred when the Professor could not enter the building. Now do you think that Professor experienced the kind of aggression Dr. Dao did when LE removed him from an airplane? I don't think so.
You have also emphasized that the mob environment hindered Ms. MacDonald from fully expressing her right to Free Speech. I scoffed at this notion because 1. Ms. MacDonald knew good and well the nature of her speech would incite lively protest. 2. She still made a speech, perhaps abridged, that became widely circulated and discussed.
I agree with you that some of the protesters surely broke laws, that the protest deprived some people from hearing a live version of the speech and the protest affected the content and length of Ms. MacDonald's speech.
We disagree on whether something really bad happened. In my view the protest increased exposure to Ms. MacDonald's message. Both the protest and her message have become widely discussed and debated topics. I view this as something good. You apparently do not.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Kal, on many levels I can agree with you. For instance, the protesters at Claremont McKenna appear to have used far more aggressive and disruptive tactics than the UCLA protesters. You describe those more aggressive tactics as "... the mob using intimidation and fear tactics and assault to stop someone from talking and stop people from listening." I assume your reference to assault occurred when the Professor could not enter the building. Now do you think that Professor experienced the kind of aggression Dr. Dao did when LE removed him from an airplane? I don't think so.
You have also emphasized that the mob environment hindered Ms. MacDonald from fully expressing her right to Free Speech. I scoffed at this notion because 1. Ms. MacDonald knew good and well the nature of her speech would incite lively protest. 2. She still made a speech, perhaps abridged, that became widely circulated and discussed.
I agree with you that some of the protesters surely broke laws, that the protest deprived some people from hearing a live version of the speech and the protest affected the content and length of Ms. MacDonald's speech.
We disagree on whether something really bad happened. In my view the protest increased exposure to Ms. MacDonald's message. Both the protest and her message have become widely discussed and debated topics. I view this as something good. You apparently do not.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing, I don't care whether her speech was disseminated afterwards or not. I don't even care about the topic. For all I cared a KKK member could have been in there spouting truly racist stuff. The ONLY thing that I care about is the fact that it has become quite common lately for mobs to attempt to shut down peoples speech just because they A: Don't like it and B: Don't want to hear it. C: It doesn't agree with what they want portrayed.

Note that I use the word "mobs". Not protestors. I have respect for protestors. Even if they spout off stuff that I don't agree with. I do not however have any respect for mobs. And the reason that I call them mobs is because of exactly what this group did. Use intimidation and fear tactics.

It's great that you agree with me. And yes, I see how in this instance its a good thing that what she wanted to talk about was disseminated widely due to this. But that doesn't change the fact of what happened and that this can happen to someone that doesn't have the advantage of notoriety that this woman has (and probably has happened). This kind of thinking that its "ok" to use intimidation and fear tactics to shut someone up NEEDS to stop. And when you have people defending theses kinds of mobs that is the message that is sent. That it's "Ok".
 
Master PO said:
well he has a point

governments can violate constitutional law, but people cannot because constitutional law does not apply to people, federal law does.

people generally tend to violate state or local laws that have a bearing on rights of the people

if i keep you from exercising speech then i either have to restrain you or violate property rights/ disturb the peace which subjects me to criminal law.
Click to expand...

Only the government can violate the First Amendment. Others can impinge on your free speech.

At Claremont McKenna, there might not be any First Amendment issues, but there damn sure are free speech issues. Mr. Person says that all free speech issues must be First Amendment issues, or they aren't really free speech issues. He's simply wrong.
 
Harshaw said:
Only the government can violate the First Amendment. Others can impinge on your free speech.

At Claremont McKenna, there might not be any First Amendment issues, but there damn sure are free speech issues. Mr. Person says that all free speech issues must be First Amendment issues, or they aren't really free speech issues. He's simply wrong.
Click to expand...

thats true.

people can affect my free speech by actions they take
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Kal, on many levels I can agree with you. For instance, the protesters at Claremont McKenna appear to have used far more aggressive and disruptive tactics than the UCLA protesters. You describe those more aggressive tactics as "... the mob using intimidation and fear tactics and assault to stop someone from talking and stop people from listening." I assume your reference to assault occurred when the Professor could not enter the building. Now do you think that Professor experienced the kind of aggression Dr. Dao did when LE removed him from an airplane? I don't think so.
You have also emphasized that the mob environment hindered Ms. MacDonald from fully expressing her right to Free Speech. I scoffed at this notion because 1. Ms. MacDonald knew good and well the nature of her speech would incite lively protest. 2. She still made a speech, perhaps abridged, that became widely circulated and discussed.
I agree with you that some of the protesters surely broke laws, that the protest deprived some people from hearing a live version of the speech and the protest affected the content and length of Ms. MacDonald's speech.
We disagree on whether something really bad happened. In my view the protest increased exposure to Ms. MacDonald's message. Both the protest and her message have become widely discussed and debated topics. I view this as something good. You apparently do not.
Click to expand...

it doesn't matter if you don't like what someone has to say or not. you are free to protest it all you to. what you don't have the right to do is shut down and or stop what they are saying.
free speech works both ways.

the fact that you want to shut down what other people say is a disturbing trend in this country. why would you defend the loss of freedom for people?
 
ludin said:
it doesn't matter if you don't like what someone has to say or not. you are free to protest it all you to. what you don't have the right to do is shut down and or stop what they are saying.
free speech works both ways.

the fact that you want to shut down what other people say is a disturbing trend in this country. why would you defend the loss of freedom for people?
Click to expand...

More and more "progressives" are being quite open that they don't really value freedom, especially if it conflicts with their Holy Grail - their conception of "equality" and/or "social justice."
 
Grim17 said:
This time the left and their Black Lives Matter supporters shut down a speech by "The War on Cops" author Heather MacDonald.

The thought of people being exposed to actual facts, which of course threatens their phony narrative, was more than they could stand, so in typical anti-American fashion they did everything they could to shut the woman up.

This revolt against free speech is really getting out of hand.





.
Click to expand...


Well I can't support shutting other people down. I mean if you want to protest, then that's fine. But don't go and try to block people from attending the event.
 
ludin said:
it doesn't matter if you don't like what someone has to say or not. you are free to protest it all you to. what you don't have the right to do is shut down and or stop what they are saying.
free speech works both ways.

the fact that you want to shut down what other people say is a disturbing trend in this country. why would you defend the loss of freedom for people?
Click to expand...

Please give me a single instance where I have violated someone else's right to Free Speech. I have never protested on a college campus. How have I defended the loss of anyone's freedom?

The task of arresting people does not fall on me. That task falls on LE. Like you, I have the right to Free Speech and to express my opinions. Like you and Ms. MacDonald, many of us have access to the judicial system and a right to Due Process.

Think about why you have criticized me. Have you criticized me because I consider the widespread publicity and subsequent discussion as something positive and you don't?
 
Harshaw said:
More and more "progressives" are being quite open that they don't really value freedom, especially if it conflicts with their Holy Grail - their conception of "equality" and/or "social justice."
Click to expand...

this has been known for years.
they can no longer claim the so called party of tolerance not that they could anyway. they really don't know what the word means.
 
Trippy Trekker said:
Please give me a single instance where I have violated someone else's right to Free Speech. I have never protested on a college campus. How have I defended the loss of anyone's freedom?

The task of arresting people does not fall on me. That task falls on LE. Like you, I have the right to Free Speech and to express my opinions. Like you and Ms. MacDonald, many of us have access to the judicial system and a right to Due Process.

Think about why you have criticized me. Have you criticized me because I consider the widespread publicity and subsequent discussion as something positive and you don't?
Click to expand...

dodge as typical. You just said you supported them and what they were doing on the college campus. so therefore why do you support shutting down the freedom of other people simply because you don't like what they
might have to say.

how is shutting down free speech something positive?
 
ludin said:
dodge as typical. You just said you supported them and what they were doing on the college campus. so therefore why do you support shutting down the freedom of other people simply because you don't like what they
might have to say.

how is shutting down free speech something positive?
Click to expand...

You dodged my questions. I did not dodge yours. You constantly misstate my points because you do not understand them.
I support Free Speech and the right to protest. Who shut down Free Speech at Claremont McKenna? If you happen to identify who did, then tell me if LE arrested that person or those people?
Why do you refuse to: 1. acknowledge that Heather knew her presence on campus would likely draw protests? 2. comment on the positive publicity Heather received as a result of the protest?
 
Trippy Trekker said:
You dodged my questions. I did not dodge yours. You constantly misstate my points because you do not understand them.
I support Free Speech and the right to protest. Who shut down Free Speech at Claremont McKenna? If you happen to identify who did, then tell me if LE arrested that person or those people?
Why do you refuse to: 1. acknowledge that Heather knew her presence on campus would likely draw protests? 2. comment on the positive publicity Heather received as a result of the protest?
Click to expand...

1. has nothing to do with anything. so it is irrelevant.
2. again has nothing to do with anything so is irrelevant.

the school canceled the speech event due to the protestors.

actually it was worse than just protesting.

Protesters successfully blocked students and professors from entering an on-campus building to hear Heather Mac Donald’s pro-police speech, as reported by The Daily Signal last Friday. Mac Donald is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, a conservative think tank.

now the college is looking to take those students to task from suspensions to expulsion.

again you have the right to protest you do not have the right to stop other people from speaking or from letting other people speak.
College May Punish Students Who Disrupted Conservative?s Speech

the question is why do you support the suppression of peoples freedoms? or is only speech that doesn't agree with you?
 
Some posters continuously prattle instead of debating. Time to use the "Ignore" feature.

Please check with the Official Score Keeper. You continue to not meet the minimum standards to qualify, thus rendering you ineligible for any certifiable wins.
 
ludin said:
College May Punish Students Who Disrupted Conservative?s Speech
Click to expand...

I watched the video's in there and I am wondering what their thought process is for not even attempting to talk to that college reporter. I even heard one protestor state that he (the reporter) was the one that was a danger to from what I could tell a LEO. (a danger to what, who, why, and how I have no clue) Do these people really think that simply chanting some slogans is going to get any sort of coherent message out there? Apparently one group of protestors were talking to some people but as soon as the camera came along they all shut up and refused to speak until the camera was gone. If they're willing to talk to individuals why wouldn't they talk to someone with a camera that stated that they were live streaming? It makes no sense. My thinking is that if you're going to protest something then its good to have discussions. If you don't then perhaps there's something wrong on your end if you can't even defend it.
 
Grim17 said:
This time the left and their Black Lives Matter supporters shut down a speech by "The War on Cops" author Heather MacDonald.

The thought of people being exposed to actual facts, which of course threatens their phony narrative, was more than they could stand, so in typical anti-American fashion they did everything they could to shut the woman up.

This revolt against free speech is really getting out of hand.





.
Click to expand...


You don't know how freedom if speech works. We all have a right to protest anything we want. Nobody stopped her from publishing her book. Nobody is stopping her from speaking her opinion on national TV.

Do you know how the USSR controlled speech? Do you know what they did to protesters and writers alike?

You live in a country with free speech, and you don't recognize it.
 
Grim17 said:
They have every right to protest, but not to prevent people from speaking, or prevent people from listening to a speaker, just because they disagree or don't like what someone is saying.

That's what's at issue here.




The topic of her speech and it's content are irrelevant. If people disagree, that's fine... but stifling speech you disagree with is just plain un-American and goes against what this country stands for.





Is that what she said? Does the phrase "red herring" mean anything to you?

Here's here speech. Please point out where she said any of those things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyfX5UCAe3A






Only thing is, I never said that... But you go ahead and keep dancing around the subject, since you know damned well you can't defend their actions.



Another red herring... Nice.



Red herring.... Anyone? Anyone?



.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious to read this post and apply it to a Trump rally. You are so partisan that you probably saw nothing wrong with the way Trump supporters forced people they didn't like to shut up and even used violence on them. The leader of those rallies, the guy who told his supporters he would pay their legal bills, is in the white house now.

It's a total joke to watch Trump supporters and conservatives react to things like this right now.

As for me, I don't approve of the way people were treated at Trump rallies. But I also know what happened at those rallies does not qualify as a violation of the first amendment. I also never called on police to rough up Trump supporters either.
 
SheWolf said:
You don't know how freedom if speech works. We all have a right to protest anything we want. Nobody stopped her from publishing her book. Nobody is stopping her from speaking her opinion on national TV.

Do you know how the USSR controlled speech? Do you know what they did to protesters and writers alike?

You live in a country with free speech, and you don't recognize it.
Click to expand...

Seriously?

Here are the undeniable facts... She was invited to speak with the blessing of the university, and had every right to do so. Because they disagreed with her perspectives, those leftist thugs using threats of violence specifically set out to a) prevent her from speaking and b) prevent students and faculty from attending the lecture... Both of which they successfully achieved.

Protesting a person's views is fine... Preventing that person from expressing those views under threat of violence is not.

That's precisely what those idiots did, which is something you obviously support... correct?


.
 
Harshaw said:
That's not what happened.



Also:



And the group which protested has a specific goal -- to "shut down" those it deems "fascists."



Claremont McKenna Students, Silencing Heather Mac Donald Is the Stupidest Way to Battle The War on Cops - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Is this all behavior you approve of? Do you find this behavior to be respectful of free speech? Do you find it constructive?
Click to expand...

A bunch of people were protesting and being rude. In any form of protesting there is going to be some civil disobedience. Sit ins disrupted private businesses, and the protestors were legally trespassing. Blocking an entrance and tapping windows is not violent. It's disruptive, and protesting is designed to inconvenience agents being protested against. Rosa Parks action disrupted the bus driver, the bus riders, and it led to massive, nationwide disruptions for the entire transportation system.

You want to act like the woman is a victim, and she is not. She wrote a book that some Americans disagree with and do not approve of, and she knows it.
 
SheWolf said:
A bunch of people were protesting and being rude. In any form of protesting there is going to be some civil disobedience. Sit ins disrupted private businesses, and the protestors were legally trespassing. Blocking an entrance and tapping windows is not violent. It's disruptive, and protesting is designed to inconvenience agents being protested against. Rosa Parks action disrupted the bus driver, the bus riders, and it led to massive, nationwide disruptions for the entire transportation system.

You want to act like the woman is a victim, and she is not. She wrote a book that some Americans disagree with and do not approve of, and she knows it.
Click to expand...

In other words, you support the stifling of free speech you disagree with... Nice.

.
 
SheWolf said:
A bunch of people were protesting and being rude. In any form of protesting there is going to be some civil disobedience. Sit ins disrupted private businesses, and the protestors were legally trespassing. Blocking an entrance and tapping windows is not violent. It's disruptive, and protesting is designed to inconvenience agents being protested against. Rosa Parks action disrupted the bus driver, the bus riders, and it led to massive, nationwide disruptions for the entire transportation system.

You want to act like the woman is a victim, and she is not. She wrote a book that some Americans disagree with and do not approve of, and she knows it.
Click to expand...

^^^^
This is idiotic babble from beginning to end, displaying an understanding of neither free speech, nor indeed, the actual conversation.
 
Grim17 said:
Protesting is fine, but their goal was to prevent the woman from speaking and to prevent students and faculty from attending... both of which they accomplished.

Do you seriously not know the difference between protesting a speech and preventing a speech?

Let me ask you this.... Do you think a group of students should be allowed to prevent a university approved invited speaker, from giving a lecture just because they don't agree with the speaker or what that speaker has to say?


.
Click to expand...

Do you know that that is not what freedom of speech is? Nobody is entitled to a Trump rally. Nobody is entitled to give a speech or presentation without being heckled or cut short.

You don't understand this, but I am going to try to lay this out for you. I know I am not entitled to wear a hijab at a Trump rally. That's a fact I accept. Many minorities live with many such facts. Minorities don't have a sense of entitlement, and that IMO is what you are really illustrating. BLM doesn't owe the woman in the OP anything. BLM could very well treat her like a black girl protesting in the middle of a Trump rally.

This is not a legal debate. It is an ethics debate, and it is on the university to address.
 
SheWolf said:
Do you know that that is not what freedom of speech is? Nobody is entitled to a Trump rally. Nobody is entitled to give a speech or presentation without being heckled or cut short.

You don't understand this, but I am going to try to lay this out for you. I know I am not entitled to wear a hijab at a Trump rally. That's a fact I accept. Many minorities live with many such facts. Minorities don't have a sense of entitlement, and that IMO is what you are really illustrating. BLM doesn't owe the woman in the OP anything. BLM could very well treat her like a black girl protesting in the middle of a Trump rally.

This is not a legal debate. It is an ethics debate, and it is on the university to address.
Click to expand...

So you support people that shut down other peoples speech?

And no, not all protests are going to have some civil disobedience. There's been quite a few that had NO civil disobedience and yet were quite successful. There were lots of protests held by MLK that had none for example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom