• 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!

Trump to Sign Executive Order Protecting Campus Free Speech

trixare4kids said:
I think protecting free speech means just as it says. It's inclusive rather than exclusive. Trump just wants to make sure college campuses are upholding their part of the bargain schools to follow existing laws on free inquiry and direct the federal agencies that fund research to make sure that they’re upholding free speech on campus.

Conservative groups feel like free speech is being censored by their colleges when conservative speaking engagements are being cancelled.
A closer eye needs to be kept on the above.
Click to expand...

Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of audience. It means nothing more than that you can't be charged with a crime for speaking your beliefs. No institution should be required by the federal government to provide a platform for a speaker whom they disagree with.
 
Carjosse said:
And what exactly is Trump's definition of complying with the first amendment?
Click to expand...

Whatever Field Martial Stephen Miller tells him it is. SS Miller writes all of these XOs.
 
haymarket said:
It is my understanding that colleges are not mandated nor ordered to do anything under this presidential order.
Click to expand...

But several colleges and universities (starting with the University of Chicago) have already voluntarily decided "ENOUGH!" and have advised far and wide that so called "safe spaces" are no longer supported, with the argument given that a university environment is the VERY LAST place on EARTH where one should demand "safe spaces" and that it is antithetical to the very concept of higher education itself.

To which I say "BRAVO".
Liberals need to face adversity, or they become FAILED liberals, which means that they eventually become fascists, because everyone on the face of the earth possesses a tiny "inner fascist" that will not tolerate adversity or contradiction, thus fascism is a rather unique and fear based approach.
 
lwf said:
Freedom of speech is not a guarantee of audience. It means nothing more than that you can't be charged with a crime for speaking your beliefs. No institution should be required by the federal government to provide a platform for a speaker whom they disagree with.
Click to expand...

If it's a public university, and they have a policy of allowing students to invite speakers to campus, then they must do so on a content-neutral basis to be consistent with the First Amendment.

Also, the common outside areas of public universities are public grounds, where the First Amendment is in full force, so if they are shutting down speech on the basis of content, then they are violating the First Amendment.
 
Harshaw said:
If one of these groups is denied First Amendment activity on the basis of content, then yes. What are you after here?
Click to expand...

My point is that denying an audience is not a violation of the first amendment. No public speaker's first amendment rights have ever been denied by any educational institution. In fact, the only body that is capable of violating someone's first amendment rights is the federal or state government, and the only way they can do this is by making and enforcing laws that infringe upon them.
 
trixare4kids said:
How so? His E/O requires colleges to certify that their policies support free speech as a condition of receiving federal research grants.
Click to expand...

Easy peasy…. as long as there are no public safety issues.... remember the college will be liable for at least part of any injury resulting from the speech. There are still regulations on civil speech, hate/race baiting... there are limits to the 1st amendment.

But it would be a GREAT EO if it applied to any corporation that wins a government contract.... :peace
 
Harshaw said:
What do you predict?
Click to expand...

That a liberal school will have their funds cut off because of interpretation on that executive order, and turns around to file suit thus a lengthy court battle.

It would not be the first time the results of an executive order end up in the courts hands to figure out.
 
lwf said:
My point is that denying an audience is not a violation of the first amendment. No public speaker's first amendment rights have ever been denied by any educational institution. In fact, the only body that is capable of violating someone's first amendment rights is the federal or state government, and the only way they can do this is by making and enforcing laws that infringe upon them.
Click to expand...

A public university is part of the state government and is bound by the First Amendment.

See my post #30 above for a response to the "audience" bit.
 
OrphanSlug said:
That a liberal school will have their funds cut off because of interpretation on that executive order, and turns around to file suit thus a lengthy court battle.
Click to expand...

Seems to be a pretty low bar for a university to have to pass.
 
Harshaw said:
If it's a public university, and they have a policy of allowing students to invite speakers to campus, then they must do so on a content-neutral basis to be consistent with the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Those in charge of the university have a responsibility to ensure that the grounds are a safe place for its students. Just like they have the power to take private property away from cheating students, (even though cheating is not a crime) they have the power to prevent students from engaging in protected speech by using disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. This is not a violation of their first amendment rights any more than it is a violation of their property rights to seize the personal property of suspected cheaters for investigation.

Harshaw said:
Also, the common outside areas of public universities are public grounds, where the First Amendment is in full force, so if they are shutting down speech on the basis of content, then they are violating the First Amendment.
Click to expand...

Not true, unless the student is actually arrested and charged with a crime specifically in order to shut him up. Expulsion from the grounds for hate speech is in no way a violation of free speech. University grounds are under the jurisdiction of campus security, who have free reign to expel anyone they deem as disruptive.
 
lwf said:
I disagree. Those in charge of the university have a responsibility to ensure that the grounds are a safe place for its students. Just like they have the power to take private property away from cheating students, (even though cheating is not a crime) they have the power to prevent students from engaging in protected speech by using disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. This is not a violation of their first amendment rights any more than it is a violation of their property rights to seize the personal property of suspected cheaters for investigation.
Click to expand...

You may disagree, but you are factually wrong. It must be content-neutral. They are the state. The state may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.


Not true, unless the student is actually arrested and charged with a crime specifically in order to shut him up. Expulsion from the grounds for hate speech is in no way a violation of free speech. University grounds are under the jurisdiction of campus security.
Click to expand...

This is as incorrect as it would be to say that as long as no one is arrested, the police may, consistent with the First Amendment, eject anyone from a public space based on the content of what they're saying, and it wouldn't be a violation of free speech. But of course it would.

A public university is an extension of the state government.
 
Harshaw said:
Seems to be a pretty low bar for a university to have to pass.
Click to expand...

I do not disagree.

The real point of my post is I do not see the Universities that Trump is probably talking about all of a sudden doing everything he wants. Odds are at some future date there will be another incident involving someone leaning right, no real investigation takes place, Trump overreacts with a twitter tirade talking about whatever University it happens at, and somehow funds get shut off via whatever means.

So... University of California-Berkeley, Columbia University, Spelman College, something like that.
 
OrphanSlug said:
I do not disagree.

The real point of my post is I do not see the Universities that Trump is probably talking about all of a sudden doing everything he wants. Odds are at some future date there will be another incident involving someone leaning right, no real investigation takes place, Trump overreacts with a twitter tirade talking about whatever University it happens at, and somehow funds get shut off via whatever means.

So... University of California-Berkeley, Columbia University, Spelman College, something like that.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much he'll personally pay much attention to this after he signs.
 
Harshaw said:
You may disagree, but you are factually wrong. It must be content-neutral. They are the state. The state may not discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.




This is as incorrect as it would be to say that as long as no one is arrested, the police may, consistent with the First Amendment, eject anyone from a public space based on the content of what they're saying, and it wouldn't be a violation of free speech. But of course it would.

A public university is an extension of the state government.
Click to expand...

So is a courthouse. Is it a violation of free speech to eject anyone from the courthouse grounds who is engaging in protected speech? What about public elementary schools?

The first amendment protects American speech from criminal punishment. It does not guarantee an audience.
 
While I do think that Universities need to allow free speech and shouldn't deny right-wing speakers just for their content, I also think that Universities find themselves in a hard spot. Part of the reason sometimes right-wing/alt-right speaker events have been cancelled has been due to the inability to properly provide security. I think we need to take certain threats, like Antifa, very seriously and seriously police that. Those acting violently against ideals or speech need to be dealt with. But there has been increased costs on the side of Universities to be able to provide security in the face of such threats and some have been able to do so.

So in the end, I think a lot comes down to what this EO actually means. If an event is cancelled because of security concerns, is it then the same as "denying free speech", or what (if any) can be enforced through it.
 
lwf said:
So is a courthouse. Is it a violation of free speech to eject anyone from the courthouse grounds who is engaging in protected speech? What about public elementary schools?
Click to expand...

On the basis of content, yes.

The first amendment protects American speech from criminal punishment. It does not guarantee an audience.
Click to expand...

I haven't said a thing about "guaranteeing an audience." It in no case is a question of "audience." It's a question of platform, full stop.
 
Ikari said:
While I do think that Universities need to allow free speech and shouldn't deny right-wing speakers just for their content, I also think that Universities find themselves in a hard spot. Part of the reason sometimes right-wing/alt-right speaker events have been cancelled has been due to the inability to properly provide security. I think we need to take certain threats, like Antifa, very seriously and seriously police that. Those acting violently against ideals or speech need to be dealt with. But there has been increased costs on the side of Universities to be able to provide security in the face of such threats and some have been able to do so.

So in the end, I think a lot comes down to what this EO actually means. If an event is cancelled because of security concerns, is it then the same as "denying free speech", or what (if any) can be enforced through it.
Click to expand...

The E/O is meant to bring more transparency and accountability by college campuses.
The order, a senior administration official told reporters on a call previewing the signing, is part of the President's vision of "making higher education more transparent and holding institutions more accountable."
Click to expand...
Trump signs executive order on campus free speech - CNNPolitics
 
Airyaman said:
How many toothless and worthless executive orders does that make now?

Seriously, I think he does it just because it makes him feel powerful.

What a joke.
Click to expand...

Ever notice he looks just like a dog that just ate some cat **** after he signs one?
 
Harshaw said:
On the basis of content, yes.
Click to expand...

It is not. You can be forcibly removed from a public elementary school against your will for discussing the vagaries of BDSM with the students. What makes it not a violation of your first amendment rights is that you can't be arrested for it based solely on the content of your speech. You do not have a right to speak wherever you want about whatever you want. You simply cannot be arrested and charged with a crime based solely on the content of your speech.

Harshaw said:
I haven't said a thing about "guaranteeing an audience." It in no case is a question of "audience." It's a question of platform, full stop.
Click to expand...

A guarantee of a platform is a guarantee of an audience. Neither is a right.
 
Ikari said:
While I do think that Universities need to allow free speech and shouldn't deny right-wing speakers just for their content, I also think that Universities find themselves in a hard spot. Part of the reason sometimes right-wing/alt-right speaker events have been cancelled has been due to the inability to properly provide security. I think we need to take certain threats, like Antifa, very seriously and seriously police that. Those acting violently against ideals or speech need to be dealt with. But there has been increased costs on the side of Universities to be able to provide security in the face of such threats and some have been able to do so.
Click to expand...

That, of course, enshrines the heckler's veto and provides an out for ensuring free speech. The right thing to do would be to provide the means for adequate security and expect that it be used. A robust protection of free speech is better for everyone.
 
trixare4kids said:
Yes, to all your questions. Why would who is president make a difference?
As to your last question, the federal government is not regulating free speech. They are protecting first amendment rights.
Click to expand...

Only the government can violate your right to speak. The only angle he has on this is federal funding.

Not one college is violating anyone's rights because not one is the federal government.

The constitution is quite specific on this
 
Harshaw said:
That, of course, enshrines the heckler's veto and provides an out for ensuring free speech. The right thing to do would be to provide the means for adequate security and expect that it be used. A robust protection of free speech is better for everyone.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. Sadly, that's not the case for all who are students on campus.
Ahead of President Trump's Executive Order on Campus Free Speech, Campus Reform's Cabot Phillips headed to Marymount University to ask students: Where is the line on free speech?

Look at these snowflakes whine. Products of liberal academia, no doubt.

 
Last edited:
lwf said:
It is not. You can be forcibly removed from a public elementary school against your will for discussing the vagaries of BDSM with the students.
Click to expand...

You can be forcibly removed from an elementary school for just about any reason. That would be time/place/manner, not content.


What makes it not a violation of your first amendment rights is that you can't be arrested for it based solely on the content of your speech. You do not have a right to speak wherever you want about whatever you want. You simply cannot be arrested and charged with a crime based solely on the content of your speech.
Click to expand...

If the state stops you from speaking on the basis of content, then it violates your freedom of speech, whether you're arrested or not.


A guarantee of a platform is a guarantee of an audience.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. You can have a right to a platform, but no one has to pay any attention to you.


Neither is a right.
Click to expand...

There is no right to speak on public property? That's what you're saying. And it's wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom