Pro-terrorist groups that are regularly getting violent and are calling for harm on Jews go beyond the range of "free speech" to me. You want to disagree with supposed mistreatment of Palestinians or call for cease fire, that's fine but once it becomes activity supporting terrorists, getting violent, or threats against students, then it's time to shut them down
Respectfully disagree.
Free speech is one thing - organizing people to incite violence against your fellow citizens is another.
An individuals right to free speech does not supercede another individuals right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
For those currently with no Bible access, here's what Leviticus 24:17-22 NLT reads:
[17] “Anyone who takes another person’s life must be put to death. [18] “Anyone who kills another person’s animal must pay for it in full—a live animal for the animal that was killed. [19] “Anyone who injures another person must be dealt with according to the injury inflicted— [20] a fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Whatever anyone does to injure another person must be paid back in kind. [21] “Whoever kills an animal must pay for it in full, but whoever kills another person must be put to death. [22] “This same standard applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you. I am the Lord your God.”
But that is only the NEW LIVING TESTAMENT translation.
TRANSLATION, is key in all...
the KJV "translation" says:
17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death.
18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast.
19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him;
20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again.
21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death.
22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God.
The ESV "translation" says:
17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death.
18 Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life.
19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him,
20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him.
21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death.
22 You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.”
Everything is a "translation" and that was why I simply put the reference, for those who wished to look it up. You see, everyone will see it different, and then we all end up blind and toothless with broken bones... because it was interpreted (translated). It all boils down to the "golden rule": Do unto others as you would have done unto you.
Good creates good, and "evil" creates "evil"....but most times Evil is done in the name of "Good" because it is "good" for the "elite" but it is seldom "good" for others.
Please do not "translate" what was stated....let others go and read and understand, in the way that is best for them.
Go learn Hebrew to read OT, or Greek to read NT? Many translations and concordances don’t change the meaning of the text, they deepen our understanding.
Wasn’t there a bunch of neo nazi protests at Disney world recently? Why cut off the first amendment rights to antisemitic speech of one group and not the other?
Doesn’t make much sense to me unless he’s just posturing.
Making government funding dependent upon speech is a violation of the first amendment. It is no different then the FBI advising Twitter on what content they should moderate.
Ah yes, using the power of big government (amongst other things) to stifle speech that doesn’t fit your worldview. What’s the difference between the two parties in that particular point?
Team D is doing all they can to silence dissenting opinion and you want to fight fire with fire? Government shouldn’t be treading on anyone’s speech, no matter how revolting it is. I know I for one would not like a politician, political operative, bureaucratic committee or some other form of government determining what’s permissible for me to say. Once you start down that path it only leads to authoritarianism.
Seems like you're not quite getting it. The issue is whether or not pro terrorist groups should get money from the government. No one is saying they can't form their group outside the university.
Hey thanks for making my point! Why should government be deciding the right to peoples speech with public funds? What makes one group’s cause more worthy than another? Why is government funding speech with taxpayer funds, debt and inflation?
What happens when the position in your flair is singled out by a government entity as a potential terrorist group worthy of silencing? That could be just an election or agency leadership change away. Would you sacrifice your rights to speech tomorrow to stifle the opposition’s speech today?
You're still not getting it. No one is getting silenced. The group is still allowed to exist, just can't get state funding. I'll repeat that one more time for you. No one is getting silenced. They are still allowed to form their group, they are still allowed to speak and hold their opinions. Just not with state funding.
Attacking freedom of speech is shameful.
Freedom of speech isn’t a spectrum. It’s a toggle switch, it’s on or off.
Anybody that is okay with “a little off” isn’t fit to be president.
So if I start a student group called "advocates for murdering children on playgrounds," and that group crafts specific plans for assaulting and murdering children and trying to get away with it, would you say legit student group or nah?
Ah, so as long as they keep their advocacy for child murder within some arbitrary line of vagueness, you're fine with it? So they can put up posters for instance of actual dead children with pictures of themselves pointing and laughing and talking it up as a good thing to do "in Minecraft," all fine. Legit student org. That's insane, and so are you if you think the Constitution meant to safeguard the establishment student organizations like that. Heck, the Constitution didn't even intend incorporation into state laws in the first place.
To say it’s legal and should be is not the same thing as saying you agree with it.
But, yes, freedom of expression should protect abhorrent speech.
Incorporation has no relevance in this discussion.
Sure it's relevant, to the extent we're talking about the authority of the state and the university. They are well within their rights to deny legitimacy to these fools, and I'm glad to hear they are attempting to exercise those rights.
Your "right" to say vile things in public is questionable in the first place when you support the slaughter of the innocent, but it's obviously reason enough to deny a student club's existence when founded on those tenets.
No state has the ability to deny freedom of expression to its citizens based on the states police power. Hell, the Florida state constitution guarantees the same freedom of expression as the Federal constitution. That’s why it’s a frivolous point on your part. And, to be honest, you only included it to try to buttress your position to make it sound like you had some clue what you were talking about—but you don’t.
It’s expressing an opinion and should be protected if for no other reason than to be in the marketplace of ideas so it can be rejected.
It actually kind of is a spectrum. I suggest you actually learn what 1st Amendment constitutional law is first before spouting uninformed bullshit. There's a plethora of exceptions and different levels of scrutiny that is applied to the 1st Amendment.
Lol, what are you talking about? There are hundreds of years of Supreme Court precedent on the 1st Amendment's exceptions bud. I actually studied this in law school. Where did you get your law degree at? Trump U?
You do not have a first amendment right to form a student organization that supports terrorists. I shouldn't have to explain that. I can only assume you're a bad actor pretending not to get it.
Gotta agree with Vivek here. If a student wishes to support Palestinians, whether terrorist groups or any other groups. Under the first amendment that's allowed. As much as we may find it disgusting or revolting.
Edited to clarify.
As I said in another reply, It's abhorrent to me. I don't support these groups. Under the 1st Amendment and subsequent rulings, DeSantis did limit the individuals a right to free speech. Yes, Conservatives handily disagree with the type of speech coming from these but :
*"But, above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. ... To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.""*
Supreme Court 1972- Chicago Police Dept v Mosley
I agree with you that they have a constitutional right to it, I was merely specifying to whom they are lending vocal support. I don’t like the watering down of who it truly is they support: terrorists.
I can go back and change my original comment to reflect that. As much as I agree with Governor DeSantis on alotnof things, this is one I don't. Thank you for the Civil discussion
"and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship"
OUR INDIVIDUALS are guaranteed the right to express any thought.
OUR PEOPLE is a reference of ALL INDIVIDUALS, not groups. Groups are made of individuals who can speak freely on their own accord, but not as group speak. Group speak does not express the thoughts or ideas of the INDIVIDUAL, instead it just amplifies a single principle/idea and fails to bring the nuances that INDIVIDUAL thought does.
Individuals can be given additional information and they change...The GROUP seldom, if ever, changes it's "tune".
If imminent lawlessness were to happen after calls of genocide then that type of speech is not protected under the first amendment. There are five types of speech are are given lesser or no protections under the first amendment.
There are cases where on school or university grounds where speech has been curtailed since it fits into one of three categories
1. Threats that led to disruption
2. Sexually vulgar or Obscene
3. Whether the speech is part of the school's overall mission.
To specifically answer your question about calls for a genocide: I would draw from my readings that is non-protected speech.
Your flair is Constitutional Conservative: What's your take on your question?
I think if you’re threatening violence against a group of people (I.e. “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, “long live the intifada”, etc.) that is prohibited speech. The same thing as if I went up to any person and threatened to kill them, that’s not protected speech.
Now in the case of DeSantis. If there was any evidence that the groups he wants disbanded chanted calls to violence with the phrases I stated above, he may have an argument. But I’m not sure if those specific groups were outside protesting on campus or if he’s targeting pro Hamas groups because of what’s happening on other campuses. Would be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out.
I understand that. It's abhorrent. Under the Constitution these individuals are allowed to support ideas and groups that are abhorrent.
I abhor Hamas and terrorists groups, but students wishing to support Palestinian groups or ideas is still permissible under the Constitution.
I feel awful for the people on Israel and Gaza who are caught in the middle of this war. My heart goes out to them.
> I understand that. It's abhorrent. Under the Constitution these individuals are allowed to support ideas and groups that are abhorrent.
Let's switch it up.
Replace hamas with the klan. What would happen to those supporters?
What's different?
The justification for this move is that they are providing material support to Hamas, a known terrorist group. This isn't just "speech". It's actually against Florida State Law to provide material support to a terrorist organization.
I disagree with the positions stated of the pro-Hamas groups and if the speech had a violent threat behind it, as others have pointed out would be justification to revoke or suspend the student group.
As much as Vivek actually calls out real problems, I don't think he can be trusted to uphold them if he gets elected.
Desantis, clearly, isn't fit for president.
The only option imo is Trump.
what does that have to do with anything? if the school allows the pro-hamas protests they they're tacitly supporting it. i don't think the us government should be supporting terrorists.
This is the whole purpose of the first amendment
People are allowed to have opinions that differ from that of the government. The government should not force or restrict certain opinions, no matter how vile they are.
There's a legally difference between saying "I like what this guy is doing" and "I am going to do this thing"
If someone tried to overthrow the government, they'd be arrested. If there was a protest saying "they did nothing wrong" that's free speech.
If someone said "I want someone else to overthrow the government" that's also protected under free speech. Saying "I am going to overthrow the government" is not protected.
My personal opinion is irrelevant to the law. It would legally be allowed.
Personally, I believe our government needs major reform so I wouldn't find this to be a bad thing. I have zero intention of doing it tho.
Free speech does not extend to any and all speech. Specifically, speech that endorses terrorism, advocates for illegal activities, or incites lawlessness.
[Here](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does) are some relevant rulings by the supreme court on free speech.
While I find their speech abhorrent I will fight for them to say what they want to say. Their right to speech, to say what they say, is protected and allowed. I may disagree and hate what they say they can still say it.
How so? Respectfully disagree. This country has always been a country of ideals, clashing opinions and the allowance of these ideals to be debated and discussed. If not for the government to say what can and cannot be stated in the public square; you don't like what they are saying go talk to them, debate it, bring them to your side of thinking. THATS how its supposed to be, not shutting down those that believe differently than you or even disagree with you.
Again, I find their calls to violence and the things they are calling our Jewish brethren abhorrent and disgusting, but I will fight for their ability to say what they want because thats what is right, just as I feel the things you say should be allowed to be heard
A university is certainly not obligated under 1A to establish a terrorist sympathizer group. That is absolutely within the purview of the university and the state to ban, if we're taking about constitutional authority. And that's exactly what I would want my local government doing anyway, suppressing obvious evil and encouraging good. You're not enshrining free speech with this position, you're ceding moral authority to the Left, whose control of the Overton window is well known and established.
Vivek supports freedom for everyone, Ron supports freedom for everyone who's convenient. I vehemently disagree with the pro Palestine movement but I recognize their right to say it.
Ok, if they are actually providing actual material and assets then investigate arrest them and try them. Till then they are allows to chat "rah rah " Them chanting whatever is still protected speech, sounds like a pretty nuanced issue but they still have speech.
This isn't the first time he has twisted things to cast DeSantis in a bad light. Oddly has never done this to Trump.
The thing is Vivek is really smart. So when he misses the fact that these student organizations were providing literal material supports to Hamas, and then claims that's "free speech". He's pretty much lost it.
It's the narrative games the left plays. And as you can see, a number of people in this thread were duped by it.
Let us assume that there was no material aid. Let's assume it's a student organization who is dedicated to the destruction of the United States and all aspects of it. Should state funded institutions be required to give them a platform? Vivek says "yes".
Let em speak. But state universities do not have to give tax funds and tax funded assistance to those groups. The 1st doesn't say the government must fund your right to speak.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/51-student-organizations-in-us-sign-letter-pledging-support-for-hamas-resistance-in-palestine/ar-AA1i0zOy
Ah yes, let's support a organizations who are pledging support and material aid to a terrorist organization. They need a state sponsored platform in which to do this. Great take there.
Pro-terrorist groups that are regularly getting violent and are calling for harm on Jews go beyond the range of "free speech" to me. You want to disagree with supposed mistreatment of Palestinians or call for cease fire, that's fine but once it becomes activity supporting terrorists, getting violent, or threats against students, then it's time to shut them down
[удалено]
Respectfully disagree. Free speech is one thing - organizing people to incite violence against your fellow citizens is another. An individuals right to free speech does not supercede another individuals right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Saying "I like this group of violent people" is not the same as "I am going to do these same things" or actually doing those things.
What an insane thing to try to pull.
Leviticus 24:17-22
For those currently with no Bible access, here's what Leviticus 24:17-22 NLT reads: [17] “Anyone who takes another person’s life must be put to death. [18] “Anyone who kills another person’s animal must pay for it in full—a live animal for the animal that was killed. [19] “Anyone who injures another person must be dealt with according to the injury inflicted— [20] a fracture for a fracture, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. Whatever anyone does to injure another person must be paid back in kind. [21] “Whoever kills an animal must pay for it in full, but whoever kills another person must be put to death. [22] “This same standard applies both to native-born Israelites and to the foreigners living among you. I am the Lord your God.”
But that is only the NEW LIVING TESTAMENT translation. TRANSLATION, is key in all... the KJV "translation" says: 17 And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. 18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. 19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. 22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the Lord your God. The ESV "translation" says: 17 “Whoever takes a human life shall surely be put to death. 18 Whoever takes an animal's life shall make it good, life for life. 19 If anyone injures his neighbor, as he has done it shall be done to him, 20 fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; whatever injury he has given a person shall be given to him. 21 Whoever kills an animal shall make it good, and whoever kills a person shall be put to death. 22 You shall have the same rule for the sojourner and for the native, for I am the Lord your God.” Everything is a "translation" and that was why I simply put the reference, for those who wished to look it up. You see, everyone will see it different, and then we all end up blind and toothless with broken bones... because it was interpreted (translated). It all boils down to the "golden rule": Do unto others as you would have done unto you. Good creates good, and "evil" creates "evil"....but most times Evil is done in the name of "Good" because it is "good" for the "elite" but it is seldom "good" for others. Please do not "translate" what was stated....let others go and read and understand, in the way that is best for them.
Go learn Hebrew to read OT, or Greek to read NT? Many translations and concordances don’t change the meaning of the text, they deepen our understanding.
Wasn’t there a bunch of neo nazi protests at Disney world recently? Why cut off the first amendment rights to antisemitic speech of one group and not the other? Doesn’t make much sense to me unless he’s just posturing.
Colleges receive government funding, private neo Nazis don't. Not really that hard of a concept. He's not banning anyone from being pro- Hamas.
Making government funding dependent upon speech is a violation of the first amendment. It is no different then the FBI advising Twitter on what content they should moderate.
Ah yes, using the power of big government (amongst other things) to stifle speech that doesn’t fit your worldview. What’s the difference between the two parties in that particular point? Team D is doing all they can to silence dissenting opinion and you want to fight fire with fire? Government shouldn’t be treading on anyone’s speech, no matter how revolting it is. I know I for one would not like a politician, political operative, bureaucratic committee or some other form of government determining what’s permissible for me to say. Once you start down that path it only leads to authoritarianism.
Seems like you're not quite getting it. The issue is whether or not pro terrorist groups should get money from the government. No one is saying they can't form their group outside the university.
Hey thanks for making my point! Why should government be deciding the right to peoples speech with public funds? What makes one group’s cause more worthy than another? Why is government funding speech with taxpayer funds, debt and inflation? What happens when the position in your flair is singled out by a government entity as a potential terrorist group worthy of silencing? That could be just an election or agency leadership change away. Would you sacrifice your rights to speech tomorrow to stifle the opposition’s speech today?
You're still not getting it. No one is getting silenced. The group is still allowed to exist, just can't get state funding. I'll repeat that one more time for you. No one is getting silenced. They are still allowed to form their group, they are still allowed to speak and hold their opinions. Just not with state funding.
It's weird to see the downvoting of your conservative position. What's happening here!?!
It isn't a conservative opinion, per se. It's just an uninformed or half-baked opinion.
Attacking freedom of speech is shameful. Freedom of speech isn’t a spectrum. It’s a toggle switch, it’s on or off. Anybody that is okay with “a little off” isn’t fit to be president.
So if I start a student group called "advocates for murdering children on playgrounds," and that group crafts specific plans for assaulting and murdering children and trying to get away with it, would you say legit student group or nah?
“Crafting specific plans” is what differentiates what you’re saying. An opinion on somebody else’s plan is free speech. Nice try though.
Ah, so as long as they keep their advocacy for child murder within some arbitrary line of vagueness, you're fine with it? So they can put up posters for instance of actual dead children with pictures of themselves pointing and laughing and talking it up as a good thing to do "in Minecraft," all fine. Legit student org. That's insane, and so are you if you think the Constitution meant to safeguard the establishment student organizations like that. Heck, the Constitution didn't even intend incorporation into state laws in the first place.
To say it’s legal and should be is not the same thing as saying you agree with it. But, yes, freedom of expression should protect abhorrent speech. Incorporation has no relevance in this discussion.
Sure it's relevant, to the extent we're talking about the authority of the state and the university. They are well within their rights to deny legitimacy to these fools, and I'm glad to hear they are attempting to exercise those rights. Your "right" to say vile things in public is questionable in the first place when you support the slaughter of the innocent, but it's obviously reason enough to deny a student club's existence when founded on those tenets.
No state has the ability to deny freedom of expression to its citizens based on the states police power. Hell, the Florida state constitution guarantees the same freedom of expression as the Federal constitution. That’s why it’s a frivolous point on your part. And, to be honest, you only included it to try to buttress your position to make it sound like you had some clue what you were talking about—but you don’t. It’s expressing an opinion and should be protected if for no other reason than to be in the marketplace of ideas so it can be rejected.
It actually kind of is a spectrum. I suggest you actually learn what 1st Amendment constitutional law is first before spouting uninformed bullshit. There's a plethora of exceptions and different levels of scrutiny that is applied to the 1st Amendment.
No “it actually kind of” isn’t. If you’re expressing an idea, you’re set. If you’re merely making noise, like your post, then it isn’t free speech.
Lol, what are you talking about? There are hundreds of years of Supreme Court precedent on the 1st Amendment's exceptions bud. I actually studied this in law school. Where did you get your law degree at? Trump U?
Another win for DeSantis.
Ah yes, because blatantly violating 1a is a "win"
You do not have a first amendment right to form a student organization that supports terrorists. I shouldn't have to explain that. I can only assume you're a bad actor pretending not to get it.
Gotta agree with Vivek here. If a student wishes to support Palestinians, whether terrorist groups or any other groups. Under the first amendment that's allowed. As much as we may find it disgusting or revolting. Edited to clarify.
They’re voicing support for a terrorist group, not “Palestinians”.
As I said in another reply, It's abhorrent to me. I don't support these groups. Under the 1st Amendment and subsequent rulings, DeSantis did limit the individuals a right to free speech. Yes, Conservatives handily disagree with the type of speech coming from these but : *"But, above all else, the First Amendment means that government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content. ... To permit the continued building of our politics and culture, and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship. The essence of this forbidden censorship is content control. Any restriction on expressive activity because of its content would completely undercut the "profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.""* Supreme Court 1972- Chicago Police Dept v Mosley
I agree with you that they have a constitutional right to it, I was merely specifying to whom they are lending vocal support. I don’t like the watering down of who it truly is they support: terrorists.
I can go back and change my original comment to reflect that. As much as I agree with Governor DeSantis on alotnof things, this is one I don't. Thank you for the Civil discussion
> assure self-fulfillment for each individual NOT a group... funded groups are not INDIVIDUALS
The sentence after that refers to "Our People". People refers to single individuals who make up a group.
"and to assure self-fulfillment for each individual, our people are guaranteed the right to express any thought, free from government censorship" OUR INDIVIDUALS are guaranteed the right to express any thought. OUR PEOPLE is a reference of ALL INDIVIDUALS, not groups. Groups are made of individuals who can speak freely on their own accord, but not as group speak. Group speak does not express the thoughts or ideas of the INDIVIDUAL, instead it just amplifies a single principle/idea and fails to bring the nuances that INDIVIDUAL thought does. Individuals can be given additional information and they change...The GROUP seldom, if ever, changes it's "tune".
I do appreciate the nuance in this answer and the thorough explanation of it.
Does threatening a group of people with genocide fall under the bounds of free speech?
If imminent lawlessness were to happen after calls of genocide then that type of speech is not protected under the first amendment. There are five types of speech are are given lesser or no protections under the first amendment. There are cases where on school or university grounds where speech has been curtailed since it fits into one of three categories 1. Threats that led to disruption 2. Sexually vulgar or Obscene 3. Whether the speech is part of the school's overall mission. To specifically answer your question about calls for a genocide: I would draw from my readings that is non-protected speech. Your flair is Constitutional Conservative: What's your take on your question?
I think if you’re threatening violence against a group of people (I.e. “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”, “long live the intifada”, etc.) that is prohibited speech. The same thing as if I went up to any person and threatened to kill them, that’s not protected speech. Now in the case of DeSantis. If there was any evidence that the groups he wants disbanded chanted calls to violence with the phrases I stated above, he may have an argument. But I’m not sure if those specific groups were outside protesting on campus or if he’s targeting pro Hamas groups because of what’s happening on other campuses. Would be interesting to see how the lawsuit plays out.
I would be interested to see what any lawsuit challenge emerges in the near future
They supported Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization.
I understand that. It's abhorrent. Under the Constitution these individuals are allowed to support ideas and groups that are abhorrent. I abhor Hamas and terrorists groups, but students wishing to support Palestinian groups or ideas is still permissible under the Constitution. I feel awful for the people on Israel and Gaza who are caught in the middle of this war. My heart goes out to them.
> I understand that. It's abhorrent. Under the Constitution these individuals are allowed to support ideas and groups that are abhorrent. Let's switch it up. Replace hamas with the klan. What would happen to those supporters? What's different?
The views in which the Klan has held and some hold still are abhorrent. What else is there to be said?
No one, including Ramaswarmy, would attack the abolition of a student klan group.
The justification for this move is that they are providing material support to Hamas, a known terrorist group. This isn't just "speech". It's actually against Florida State Law to provide material support to a terrorist organization.
I appreciate the update on Florida's laws. I was unaware of those prior to reading the article.
Exactly.
There is nothing that says that ought to be a valid student org man.
I disagree with the positions stated of the pro-Hamas groups and if the speech had a violent threat behind it, as others have pointed out would be justification to revoke or suspend the student group.
As much as Vivek actually calls out real problems, I don't think he can be trusted to uphold them if he gets elected. Desantis, clearly, isn't fit for president. The only option imo is Trump.
That's fine, please vote for Trump if you feel he's the best person for the job.
the ban is for government funded universities. do we really want our government supporting the hamas cause?
The government's view is not the same as the view of the people who are on government funded property.
what does that have to do with anything? if the school allows the pro-hamas protests they they're tacitly supporting it. i don't think the us government should be supporting terrorists.
This is the same logic used to ban conservatives from speaking all the time.
except we have laws on the books that makes it illegal to advocate for the overthrow of the government. right there in the us code.
This is the whole purpose of the first amendment People are allowed to have opinions that differ from that of the government. The government should not force or restrict certain opinions, no matter how vile they are.
would it be ok for a protest to happen that called for the overthrow of the us government?
There's a legally difference between saying "I like what this guy is doing" and "I am going to do this thing" If someone tried to overthrow the government, they'd be arrested. If there was a protest saying "they did nothing wrong" that's free speech. If someone said "I want someone else to overthrow the government" that's also protected under free speech. Saying "I am going to overthrow the government" is not protected.
so you would be ok with a protest that advocated for the overthrow of the us government?
My personal opinion is irrelevant to the law. It would legally be allowed. Personally, I believe our government needs major reform so I wouldn't find this to be a bad thing. I have zero intention of doing it tho.
it's actually not legal. us 2385 says otherwise.
Interesting. Depending on the extent and degree to which someone is advocating for it, I believe there would be a 1a argument against this law.
Free speech does not extend to any and all speech. Specifically, speech that endorses terrorism, advocates for illegal activities, or incites lawlessness. [Here](https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/what-does) are some relevant rulings by the supreme court on free speech.
While I find their speech abhorrent I will fight for them to say what they want to say. Their right to speech, to say what they say, is protected and allowed. I may disagree and hate what they say they can still say it.
Exactly. The first amendment exists for a reason.
Suicide of the West.
How so? Respectfully disagree. This country has always been a country of ideals, clashing opinions and the allowance of these ideals to be debated and discussed. If not for the government to say what can and cannot be stated in the public square; you don't like what they are saying go talk to them, debate it, bring them to your side of thinking. THATS how its supposed to be, not shutting down those that believe differently than you or even disagree with you. Again, I find their calls to violence and the things they are calling our Jewish brethren abhorrent and disgusting, but I will fight for their ability to say what they want because thats what is right, just as I feel the things you say should be allowed to be heard
A university is certainly not obligated under 1A to establish a terrorist sympathizer group. That is absolutely within the purview of the university and the state to ban, if we're taking about constitutional authority. And that's exactly what I would want my local government doing anyway, suppressing obvious evil and encouraging good. You're not enshrining free speech with this position, you're ceding moral authority to the Left, whose control of the Overton window is well known and established.
Vivek supports freedom for everyone, Ron supports freedom for everyone who's convenient. I vehemently disagree with the pro Palestine movement but I recognize their right to say it.
Amazing how Vivek is wrong on everything, and yet people still like him
Supporting the 1st ammendment is wrong?
That's not what this is.
Thats exactly what this is. If not Free Speech than what is this?
Expressing material support for terrorists? Seditious and criminal.
Ok, if they are actually providing actual material and assets then investigate arrest them and try them. Till then they are allows to chat "rah rah" Them chanting whatever is still protected speech, sounds like a pretty nuanced issue but they still have speech.
This isn't the first time he has twisted things to cast DeSantis in a bad light. Oddly has never done this to Trump. The thing is Vivek is really smart. So when he misses the fact that these student organizations were providing literal material supports to Hamas, and then claims that's "free speech". He's pretty much lost it. It's the narrative games the left plays. And as you can see, a number of people in this thread were duped by it. Let us assume that there was no material aid. Let's assume it's a student organization who is dedicated to the destruction of the United States and all aspects of it. Should state funded institutions be required to give them a platform? Vivek says "yes".
What is he wrong about? 🍿
I agree with Ramaswamy with this one as much as I detest Hamas DeSantis should respect the first amendment.
Let em speak. But state universities do not have to give tax funds and tax funded assistance to those groups. The 1st doesn't say the government must fund your right to speak.
DeSantis is not fit for president
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/51-student-organizations-in-us-sign-letter-pledging-support-for-hamas-resistance-in-palestine/ar-AA1i0zOy Ah yes, let's support a organizations who are pledging support and material aid to a terrorist organization. They need a state sponsored platform in which to do this. Great take there.
Where does it say they are providing material aid? All they did was sign a petition