• 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!

Should Colleges Be Forced To Allow Free Speech Or Lose Federal Funding?

Should Colleges Be Forced To Allow Free Speech Or Lose Federal Funding?


  • Total voters
    55
Guess you don't pay attention to the news.
They never get past the fact TRUMP DID IT. All commonsense, sense of reason, rationality, and logic melts right out their ears as some as his name enters the discussion. :roll:
 
They assessed higher fees that were much less than the total amount they'd have to spend, yes. But those additional fees were struck down, they are not allowed to assess them which is why they backed down from lawsuits. It's not legal for them to assess additional security costs, the University has to eat it. And they end up spending upwards of millions of dollars for additional security. These are the facts you are deliberately skating over.

U.S. colleges spend millions on security to host controversial speakers - MarketWatch

View attachment 67253125

Put your meme away... It's not the norm.
February 2018: University of Washington Sued For Charging Student Group for Event Security $17,000

Can Universities Charge Security Fees to Campus Groups for Hosting Controversial Speakers? - First Amendment Watch

The University of Alabama imposed a fee of $7,000 on the College Republicans chapter which sought to host Milo Yiannopoulos in 2016, which effectively restricted the group’s ability to hold the event.

University of California, Berkeley administrators billed the Objectivist Club of Berkeley an estimated security fee of $3,732.33 in 2009, which would have canceled Elan Journo’s lecture, “America’s Stake in the Arab-Israeli Conflict.”

Students for True Academic Freedom at the University of Colorado Boulder planned to bring Ward Churchill and William Ayers to campus in 2009, but the college’s bureaucratic administration threatened to inflict a security fee of more than $2,000 on the club

According to FIRE, the University of New Mexico attempted to charge two students groups $3,400 for “additional security” deemed necessary by the controversial nature of Yiannopoulos in early 2017.

College Republicans at the University of Wisconsin-Madison planned to hold a speech by David Horowitz, a conservative pundit and the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, in 2007. In a slightly different fashion, students were charged a $1,300 speaking fee after the speech went on without incident. The student group could not pay the “afterthought” security fee so the school was forced to cover the fee. However, their unconstitutional attempt to suppress a certain set of ideas did not go unnoticed. According to the UW-Madison College Democrats Chair Oliver Kiefer, “For me to know that my free speech will be protected, everyone else’s free speech should also be protected.”

Students from the College Republicans and the Young Americans for Freedom invited Ben Shapiro to speak at the University of California, Berkeley in Fall 2017, administrators first said they could not provide a venue for him on the already-publicized date. Then, administrators demanded the students pay up to $15,738

The latter ended up costing Berkeley $600,00 but that is the not the norm. Possibly high because of previous violence on the campus from ANTIFA? I'm thinking that was when Milo was asked to speak but I am not certain.

Top 5 most outrageous 'security fees' for college speakers
 
Last edited:
Ensuring free speech is "propaganda"?

Claiming that the security fees some Universities tried to impose on controversial events to help cover some of the additional costs were assessed solely because the speaker is conservative is propaganda.

Due try to keep up, I know jumping into the deep end without actually reading and understanding the debate that was occurring can be fun, but it makes your arguments pathetic and off-context.
 
How many dollars before a university is not constrained by the first amendment?
 
Nonsense. This turns your first sentence into a reality. For years colleges have denied or curtailed the free speech rights of conservative speakers and students IN SPITE OF FREE SPEECH LAWS. This action merely puts teeth into enforcing what the colleges should have been doing for decades.

Tell that to the woman with a fetus in a jar, the nuts that did a seminar about satan in rock music, and the preacher kid that ranted outside the cafeteria for a month. None were students. Think any weren't conservative??? They WERE all nuts, but they all spoke loud and long. I found it amusing.

You guys are such victims...:lol:
 
Free speech is free speech. You have the right to talk about communism. You have the right to talk about white supremacy. You have the right to talk about the Green New Deal. You have the right to say black lives matter. You have the right to say blue lives matter. You have the right to talk about reparations to slave descendants. That's how our country was formed in the first place on religious freedom and the freedom of speech.

I talk occasionally about the Zeroth Amendment "Congress shall make no law abridging the people's right to be shocked, insulted, challenged or having their feelings hurt".

In my mind you can talked endless about, say white supremacists, but until you hear their words out of their own mouths you have no feeling how vile and despicable they really are. IF we hadn't seen vids of the Westboro Baptist Church demonstrations at military funerals would we be as shocked and reviled?
 
Claiming that the security fees some Universities tried to impose on controversial events to help cover some of the additional costs were assessed solely because the speaker is conservative is propaganda.
Nope, it's been documented many times.
Ikari said:
Due try to keep up, I know jumping into the deep end without actually reading and understanding the debate that was occurring can be fun, but it makes your arguments pathetic and off-context.
LOL, when your case vaporizes, all that's left are insults. Thanks for illustrating the weakness of your thinking.
 
Free speech means the absence of government influence over your speech. If you attempted to use Government funding to force people to listen to your speech then you are the one in violation of the First Amendment.

That would only be a problem if Colleges were required by force of law... to force all of their students to listen to every speaker that gives a speech on Campus in order to get that funding.

Voluntary attendance will fix that problem.

Roseann:)
 
How about tax breaks or federal student loans?

They should follow the same rules and regulations as any other college/university, imo.
 
Tell that to the woman with a fetus in a jar, the nuts that did a seminar about satan in rock music, and the preacher kid that ranted outside the cafeteria for a month. None were students. Think any weren't conservative??? They WERE all nuts, but they all spoke loud and long. I found it amusing.
Great. First Amendment working as planned
<alt>doxygen said:
You guys are such victims...:lol:
Seems like it's your cohort that's doing the whining. Are you glad YOU have Free Speech to do so?
 
We've already established they cannot assess security fees. Put the meme away, it's not the norm.

What is the norm is the increased cost of security for certain speaks, which Universities have already been putting up.

And we've already established that those few who assess the increased cost of security ONTO STUDENT GROUPS are backing down when threatened with lawsuits. It's already been established that they are responsible for providing security, not the student groups. The ONLY reason they assessed student groups to begin with, was to coerce them into cancelling because they couldn't pay what the university demanded of them. IOW, Universities, unlawfully tried to censor, by imposing security costs onto conservative student groups.

Why is this point eluding you?
 
Nope, it's been documented many times.
LOL, when your case vaporizes, all that's left are insults. Thanks for illustrating the weakness of your thinking.

It's been documented that Universities have tried to assess security fees. Those have been on controversial speakers whose events cause the University to spend considerably larger amounts of money on security. It's not because the are "conservative", but because the event costs more money to provide security for. Those security fees have been struck down, and Universities have spent millions of dollars to provide security for controversial speakers.

So you're wrong. It hasn't been "documented many times" that security fees were assessed to controversial speakers merely for being conservative. What is documented is that controversial speakers hold events that cost significantly greater amounts of money to provide adequate security for.

lol
 
And we've already established that those few who assess the increased cost of security ONTO STUDENT GROUPS are backing down when threatened with lawsuits. It's already been established that they are responsible for providing security, not the student groups. The ONLY reason they assessed student groups to begin with, was to coerce them into cancelling because they couldn't pay what the university demanded of them. IOW, the university unlawfully tried to censor by imposing security costs onto conservative student groups.

Why is this point eluding you?

They are responsible for security. The reason they assessed those student groups to begin with was because the event they were going to hold was going to cost significantly more money to provide security for. It was struck down, so Universities cannot do that, and they must eat the cost of security. Which can range into the millions to cover events for controversial speakers.

Why is this point eluding you?
 
Honest, what is with you people?

Your perceived victimization has you engulfed.

It was only two short years ago that the GOp screamed about personal respectability.

Now most have converted to Trumpism and being perpetual victims.

More like you liberals have decided to try and turn everything that you don't approve of into an attack. Possibly because there is so much to attack.
 
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb

Protesting a speaker is exercising first amendment rights of free speech.
Keep whining right winger, you just make fools of yourself and show to everybody else you don't have any arguments. Deplorables indeed


And you have just proved my statement with your nonsense.
 
Hypothetical hypocrisy is not a strong argument when you are actively being a hypocrite.
What the hell are you talking about. The law is full of restrictions on free speech: libel, slander, pornography, overthrow of the government, inciting violence - just to name a few. So, are you betting for or against Obama?
 
Please. The internet exists. There is no rational reason for someone to show up on someone's college campus anymore if the goal is simply to be heard. The goal of showing up for a speech on a College Campus is to gain legitimacy. These ****ty right-wingers don't show up at UC Berkley to have a rational discussion they show there to troll. They show up there to shove themselves into people's faces and remind everyone they are there. If all they wanted was to put their ideas out there for consideration they would be happy just to have them on YouTube, or a forum like this. They want the legitimacy that a College Forum gives them. No Institution of Higher Education should be forced to let any Tom, dick, or harry that shows up wanting to give a speech that platform. Evaluating the merits of ideas to ensure they are not one big walking fallacy is the job of a college.

You seem to be confused. You are describing the actions of the ***** leftwing and their agendas.

The left can also use what you suggest but somehow feel warm and fuzzy about themselves by personal political appearances. Just what you accuse others of doing.
 
In reality Trump is not going to do any of this.

This is just another publicity stunt for Trump. It will happen when Mexico pays for the wall.
 
It's been documented that Universities have tried to assess security fees. Those have been on controversial speakers whose events cause the University to spend considerably larger amounts of money on security. It's not because the are "conservative", but because the event costs more money to provide security for. Those security fees have been struck down, and Universities have spent millions of dollars to provide security for controversial speakers.

So you're wrong. It hasn't been "documented many times" that security fees were assessed to controversial speakers merely for being conservative. What is documented is that controversial speakers hold events that cost significantly greater amounts of money to provide adequate security for.
And that security is to protect against violence from LW groups
. IF it were being done for ALL speakers you'd have a point. But charging one group more than another is a curtailment of Free Speech.
 
Ensuring free speech is "propaganda"?

LOL! As you said earlier, Oh Trump.

Did they ever call Obama's E/O(s) propaganda? I think not...
We have to understand my friend that we are dealing with the chronic Trump resisters. :argue It's like talking to a :2brickwal
Some of these people would make great front page journalists for The NY Times. ;)
 
And another brainwashed liberal heard from.

Psh...do you actually have a counter point, or are you just imaging yourself intelligent and edgy by throwing random garbage from the peanut gallery?
 
And that security is to protect against violence from LW groups
. IF it were being done for ALL speakers you'd have a point. But charging one group more than another is a curtailment of Free Speech.

Indeed it is, Antifa has proven itself quite a threat, and one of the main reasons why security costs are exploding for specific controversial speakers. But those security fees had been declared illegal. Universities cannot assess them, and have in fact been spending considerable money to provide security for events featuring controversial speakers.
 
Back
Top Bottom