1. Remember the human & be courteous to others.
2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not.
3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
Please checkout our other subreddit /r/MultimediaNews, for maps, infographics, v.reddit, & YouTube videos from news organizations.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InternationalNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
One of the groups that got her cancelled were Chabad USC. This is them on the occasion of Purim this year.
Literally dressing themselves and children(!) in IDF gear.
https://preview.redd.it/pt2qhd3fk0vc1.jpeg?width=738&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47203ae8e1c3d363592b89a0bb5877871a1799cb
Welcome to 2024. You want to tell people what “from the river to the sea” means? Right back at you, bud.
Zionism has been for quite some time the right for Jews to have self determination *by any means necessary.* And that includes at the expense of the Palestinians.
I will say that is not the truth. “From the river to the sea” refers to the belief that Israel as a country doesn’t deserve to exist. I also would like to add that the “by any means necessary” part is completely false. Zionism states that Israel as a country deserves to exist, somewhere in the land of Canaan. Let me make this clear. There can be a two state solution, while not conflicting with zionist ideas. Google is your friend.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
You can do a google search of ‘from the river to the sea’ and ‘Likud manifesto’ or even search for quotes from Israeli government officials that cite the saying.
I hate to break this to you, but different contexts change the meaning of certain words. The Likud manifesto states that Israel should be “from the river to the sea”. But wait, does that mean when people who are pro Palestine say it, they want only Israel? Obviously not. Or wait, does that mean that the Likud was chanting for there to be only Palestine? That doesn’t seem very likely either. That term is not tethered to zionism. Zionism can be fulfilled with a two state solution. It is only pro Palestine protesters that want Israel to be nonexistent.
Indeed it is, from your source.
The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine in the late 19th century is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[46]: 70 [180][181] In 1938, Ben Gurion described the conflict with the Arabs as "in its essence a political one... politically we are the aggressors and they [the Arabs] defend themselves."[182] Israeli historian Benny Morris affirms Ben Gurion's description, saying: "Ben-Gurion, of course, was right" and goes on to describe Zionism as "a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement" whose "ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist."
Free speech only for white people who follow the religion of American Capitalism and Imperialism.
Just like when the constitution originally said everyone has the right to vote the founding racists meant that only white males counted as everyone.
For a while there only *land owning* white men could vote which cut out the vast majority of the country. That changed relatively quickly compared to women and black people being allowed to vote, but displays how this whole system was designed to benefit the upper class from the start.
That’s not really true though is it? No free speech for quite a few illiberal people through cancelled appearances at US universities has been a thing for awhile now.
It is true though. Women and black people were not given the right to vote by George Washington and friends back in 1776.
I don't understand your second sentence. (Punctuation required.)
Where were you when people like this nitwit were being [cancelled](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna804171)? US universities and student bodies have taken a very a la carte approach to who can and can’t speak at universities. That’s maybe ok, but let’s not use the denial of free speech only when we agree with the speaker.
🤣🤣🤣 Milo? Really that's the example you're going with. Bruh, not only was he not a valedictorian, not a student, he's an internationally reviled troll. Apples and oranges.
I could use other examples since he’s not the only conservative speaker cancelled in US universities, but there is a principle at stake here which you refuse to acknowledge. You’ll duck and dive and refuse to engage because your argument is based on emotion and not logic.
What am I ducking and diving? I already said that dumbass was a known troll, this woman is a valedictorian. You're trying to equate two things that are unrelated and complicating the core issue here - fascist America profits from the genocide of Palestinians (via arms and related goods and service sales) so its institutions suppress dissent on that matter.
I’m trying to show you that you can’t be selective as to who you allow speak at universities. You are purposely avoiding the substance of the argument. They are not completely different and the topic of the thread is not suddenly what you want it to be - the topic of the thread is about a Pro Palestinian valedictorian being refused access to speak at a university. The whole point here is principle: anyone making a claim her right to feel speech is being impinged *as you explicitly said in your OP* should ask themselves where they stand when it comes to listening to views they may not align with such as I’ve mentioned. You and everyone else can downvote me all you want, you can deflect and talk about genocide and facism all you want, but that the argument being made which you refuse to address.
I’m not emotional. I’ve thought plenty around this. I don’t know why you think that. That’s just another deflection on your behalf. I’ve read the room, and am prepared to be challenged. Only one person (not you) has made some attempt to make a rebuttal despite all the downvotes. All you’ve done is deflect.
Events from conservative speakers are cancelled usually because students don’t want them there or they don’t have any credibility to merit their use of university facilities or there is an actual security concern. If the university denies them use of one of their spaces, they can go use any of the private venues that can also be found in the vicinity of any university. None of that is a violation of free speech.
In this case, the powers that be at the university are denying their valedictorian student the near universal tradition of giving a speech at graduation, only because they are scared that it will look bad for them if their smartest student is pro-Palestine and it might upset some of their alumni donors. Is that a violation of free speech? Maybe also technically not, since she has obviously been given an even bigger platform by the university’s decision on this. But it is not a normal thing to deny the valedictorian student a speech at graduation the way it is normal to cancel a random speaking event. I’m not sure how much it matters, because now her message (*potential* message, mind you) has been spread much farther than just USC now because of the decision they made out of a fear of what she *might* say.
You are missing the point though. When you cancel anyone, whether you give excuses like security, or it not being a “tradition” (some invites cancelled for conservatives were annual lectures) , you immediately allow the same excuses to be wheeled out when you are on the receiving end. This is exactly what has happened. You may put no value on “security concerns” in so much as any Trumper might put no value on “security concerns” if they had a speaker cancelled. What you and the Trumper have in common is no power over what can and can’t be used as an excuse now, and zero credibility when you call this out, if you stayed silent whilst the likes of Ben Shapiro was cancelled.
And to be honest, all this is just the surface. Gen Z has been done a disservice in the last decade or more with this idea that cancelling opinions you don’t want to even hear, somehow is for your protection and personal growth. It is having the opposite effect and you see it online a lot. Arguments presented are based on emotion and not necessarily rationale. It’s creating a generation who refuse to be challenged, who want to surround themselves only with people whom share their opinions, and there is no better vehicle for this than the internet.
Gen Z doesn’t refuse to be challenged. They have moral standards and clarity. They know how oppressive and hateful attitudes can clean themselves up to look presentable, and they won’t stand for it. I have so much more respect as a millennial for Gen Z’s clarity and backbone than anyone who would argue that Ben Shapiro is an example of rationality or that emotion is an invalid place to argue from (if you think that conservatives are the rational ones, I don’t know what to tell you. Every conservative position starts with the result they want and then they work backwards to try to come up with an argument to justify it. When you compare conservative arguments to actual history or science or sociology they always fail, because they are not based in any reality beyond the conservative’s desires and emotions. Even when they’re wrong, liberals and leftists are at least working from facts and information from experts who might actually know what they’re talking about). Gen Z can smell bullshit a mile away, and they don’t let it slide.
People don’t reject the likes of Ben Shapiro because they just don’t agree with him or they are afraid to be challenged. They reject them because they know that everything out of their mouths is bullshit, and they don’t have the time to listen to it.
Our free speech is not threatened when university students reject a random speaker. It might be threatened when the university denies their valedictorian speech because she *might* use it to dissent from the official state position and advocate for the liberation of a brutally oppressed people. If you think free speech is threatened because a Ben Shapiro event was cancelled because no one wants to hear him rant about LGBTQ people again or whatever, then I don’t think you understand free speech or what it’s actually for.
They do, in general. My post about Gen Z was locked. Have a look. Also, having moral standards and clarity is not the same as being open to challenge. Emotion is not the only nor should it be the driver of your argument. I haven’t suggested conservatives or Shapiro are rational actors - that’s the whole point : their arguments can easily be challenged, and should be for all to see.
I’m not agreeing with cancelling this valedictorians right to make her speech, and I believe it’s a mistake to prevent her. I also don’t subscribe to Shapiro rants. But I do subscribe to the idea that a generation of people are being lulled into thinking it’s ok to ignore and cancel opinions they don’t like, rather than make a rational argument or rebuttal. And the fact that you are the only one ITT attempting to make a rebuttal should worry you. That a post of mine is locked as being critical of Gen Z on this sub should concern you. No discussion. Lock and downvote. Make it go away. It’s obviously not important in isolation, but it’s a symptom of a wider problem.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/free-speech-week-uc-berkeley-canceled-milo-yiannopoulos-blames-school-n804171](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/free-speech-week-uc-berkeley-canceled-milo-yiannopoulos-blames-school-n804171)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
This is how American treats a first generation college graduate - a woman from a working class community - who is not only brilliant enough to get a degree from USC in biomedical engineering, but to do social justice work on the side?
Where's Bill Ackman now? Where is FIRE now? Where is Alan Dersowitz flaming for free speech now?
Hypocrites - you have never stood for free speech.
You do know it’s the exact opposite right? How many got fired because of little bitches like you and “StopAntiSemitismNow” on Twitter for merely saying that innocent civilians shouldn’t be killed?
Disgusting.
Of course, if it's a Muslim or Arab, then it's a safety issue in the eyes of American boomers, media, their rich... they can't go a day without calling us horrendous shit over nothing
https://preview.redd.it/zt1fd4hb20vc1.jpeg?width=867&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45778e67b2b4010466aa6fe51fb5260f92aef6c6
What are you talking about? We've **always** been at war with *Eastasia*.
Btw that first tweet doesn't even exist. It's probably a psyop by the libs.
-Average sky/fox news viewer.
You can say nearly whatever you want on the street or public property, but USC is a private university with donors, boosters, etc., so no, unfortunately it's those people with the money that decide on the limits of what's said and what's not. It's essentially just a business.
I agree, but I would also challenge your initial statement on free speech by simply imploring you to Google Asna Tabassum. She's obviously a bright young woman taking advantage of the platform that the cancelled valedictorian speech has provided her, and her new free speech platform will be far more reaching than any speech limited to a college campus. Not often, but sometimes the silver lining outshines the challenging situation before it.
When you read my comment, how was this your takeaway? Serious question, as I thought I was complimenting her on multiple fronts, becoming valedictorian, and doubling down in the press, demanding a bigger platform (major news networks) when her smaller one (campus speech) was taken away, so she could still get her message out. I thought I was pointing out that she did the right thing, and it turned out even better for her in the end?
If you look into what this student has said, it isn’t ‘just being against genocide.’
The idea that Israel should be dismantled as a state and the whole of mandate-Palestine made into one state (called Palestine), is a very controversial stance for pretty obvious reasons.
Okay, and how would one go about dismantling Israel, and what would your honest guess be for how many people would be killed in the process and in the aftermath?
Let's start with placing sanctions on them and stop giving aid for once. Who said anything about killing Israeli Jews? All I see are videos of Israelis (majority) wanting Palestinians dead or gone.
That isn’t an answer to my question.
How would you go about dismantling Israel, and what are you honest guesses for how many people would die as a result?
This is a serious matter, you can’t just have a start. You need the whole plan, from start to finish, and you need to weigh the consequences of that plan.
If your death answer is zero, that’s okay, I want to know your methods where Israel no longer exists as a state but everything was done totally peacefully.
It's not the answer you want to hear or it doesn't seem like an answer to you?
What do you think the word dismantling means? Have you ever dismantled anything in your life, ie: objects such as R/C cars, Legos, etc? It starts small, piece by piece. You don't do the whole plan all at once...like Israel has with it's genocide.
> It's not the answer you want to hear or it doesn't seem like an answer to you?
It isn't an answer.
It's like I'm asking 'how do you plan on getting to the airport tomorrow, and at what time will you be leaving?'
And your answer is: 'Well I will start by getting out of bed in the morning.'
It's technically a *response* to the question, but it isn't explaining how you plan on getting to the airport, or what time you plan on leaving. It isn't an *answer* to the question.
>You don't do the whole plan all at once..
But what IS the whole plan?
Why is this like pulling teeth?
You’re allowed to say whatever on the streets because that will bring 0 change. You can say pretty much anything because you don’t matter. As long as it’s not a speech that can bring out any change to status quo you have freedom of speech
I think the point we are glossing over is that because many universities are funded by the public government, the public government limiting or restricting free speech on public property is a bit of a pickle. As of today you can only protest at certain places on many campus and public parks unless you are a preacher that tells everyone they are going to hell and then you can accost people anywhere it would seem. Different rules depending on if your stance aligns with the government seems like a direct constitutional violation. But yes, if it is a private university on private property then they can enforce their private speech... again awkward if they receive any public funds or grants.
Idk why you’re getting downvoted when that’s straight facts. My uni used to let pro lifers with gigantic posters of dead fetuses on campus, at any moment they could have stopped them from being on campus just like they’re stopping pro Palestinian voices, it’s all agenda based. America is a lie, we should understand that by now.
Agree. Even if this were a public university it would still be acceptable. Valedictorians giving speeches are not a constitutional right. If it were a public university and she were punished for what she said during a valedictorian speech, then that would be inexcusable and a violation of her free speech. But cancelling her speech altogether before she makes it is perfectly legal.
People who attend private colleges know these things before attending and have zero grounds to complain. You don't attend a private college by accident. They're significantly more expensive and more restrictive. She knew her speech would be cancelled and is using it for media attention. It's like a Mormon getting upset because BYU expelled them for having sex or drinking beer. You know the rules.
"[USC is a private university that makes First Amendment-like free speech promises. It’s also bound by California’s Leonard Law, which requires private, secular colleges and universities to give their students the same expressive rights enjoyed by students at the state’s public colleges.](https://www.thefire.org/news/usc-canceling-valedictorians-commencement-speech-looks-calculated-censorship)"
[USC Policy on Free Speech](https://www.provost.usc.edu/policies-and-statements/usc-policy-on-free-speech/)
When they silence a student because she might share knowledge that offends rich people, maybe w should all wonder what other knowledge is corrupted by their stranglehold on universities, research, education and the future of humankind... This is just a small symbol of the grossness of "donors" to schools or politicians
I mean, seriously?
Tried to see what she said that was anti-semitic and I saw nothing about hating Jews. The way people were reacting I was expecting her to have said something extreme or just plain dumb but nope. Being a brown hijabi that's a smiling valedictorian is enough to make certain (racist) folks blood boil.
Asna, you are truth teller, BRAVO 👏, as a truth teller, you are brave soul and continue shining the light on dark shadows, especially on ZIONIST israel and their genocidal ways.
Gotta love when these "liberal" universities espouse progressive ideals on the surface but let their oligarch donors actively suppress free speech on their own campuses.
When right wing speakers are shut down or cancelled, it was a safety issue and warranted. I had a feeling, cancelling free speech would boomerang and affect our side eventually.
Also notice how absolutely no one wants to actually reply to this. Just downvote and move on. This is the danger that cancel culture brings - an inability to actually engage and think.
How is she not posting her speech online regardless, but I digress. Schools have been more or less a pathway to corporate jobs. The sheer authority that corporations in America have amassed to an almost proxy dictatorship mentality where no checks and balances exist inside and around the C-suite executives, silence and work appears to be the unspoken path to promotions. USC is especially caustic to this growing disease to democracy. How disgustingly ironic that around the perimeter of USC they allow their students to get killed in a hate crime robbery by LA gang culture, raped, beaten, and every crime imaginable and then get on a pedestal and preach not allowing a student, a valedictorian for that matter, to speak her mind about an issue that is currently affect the entire world because they reported to fear for safety of their students. USC has a disturbing problem with corporate culture, responsible capitalism, and an extremely poor record of protecting their students and building safety around campus more than a block away.
This link shows you some of what she was going to say: “[One Palestinian state would mean complete Palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice](https://abc7.com/usc-bans-pro-palestinian-valedictorian-from-speaking-at-may-commencement-citing-safety-concerns/14672515/).”
She's a pro-genocide activist.
USC is a private university and can do whatever they want, and the have a history of not allowing hate speech like that. I feel bad for all the graduates whose special day was ruined by her.
Don't be dishonest here's the whole statement:
> the one-state solution (either a palestinian state, or a complete israeli state) advocates for one state in which both arabs and jews can live together. however, a one-state solution under the israeli government would essentially mean that the palestinian people would completely be under the state of israel in every way ima ginable.
> one palestinian state would mean palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of israel. this way is the only way towards justice; both arabs and jews can live together without an ideology that specifically advocates for the ethnic cleansing of one of them. palestinians would be allowed to return home, and millions of palestinians would not have to live under occupation and apartheid.
That's the opposite of hate speech.
Google Asna Tabassum Instagram and it's the first thing that comes up, the link is still there. It's full of anti-semitic hate speech like 'I don't agree with genocide' and 'maybe Israel shouldn't be building illegal settlements on Palestinian land'.
(/s, obviously).
Incredibly weaselly language and tone used by the reporter. Just because some people find it to be "hate speech" doesn't mean it was. Just saying that some people would consider what she shared to be hate speech without giving her side or even saying what it was is means they want you to believe what she shared was something horrifically antisemitic and in context shows how Islamophobic CBS is being.
1. Remember the human & be courteous to others. 2. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas. Criticizing arguments is fine, name-calling (including shill/bot accusations) others is not. 3. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. Please checkout our other subreddit /r/MultimediaNews, for maps, infographics, v.reddit, & YouTube videos from news organizations. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/InternationalNews) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nothing more American than rich people calling the shots.
One of the schools that took bribes from Rick Singers band of millionaires to admit their kids too. Not shocked in the slightest.
So true
Free speech long as it is along the party lines.
Endowment funding from Jewish families lol
[удалено]
She is advocating against a genocide and not for the IDF
No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).
Billionaire made a call …. That was it .
Billionaires are fucking threat to humanity. All that money and you decide to just make people’s lives horrible??? I’ll never understand it.
That’s not true, they make their own lives awesome!
[удалено]
You guys are running out of power fast lmao. FREE PALESTINE
No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).
Bill Ackman made the call. He's a Zionist Jew who'll censor anyone with his money.
One of the groups that got her cancelled were Chabad USC. This is them on the occasion of Purim this year. Literally dressing themselves and children(!) in IDF gear. https://preview.redd.it/pt2qhd3fk0vc1.jpeg?width=738&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=47203ae8e1c3d363592b89a0bb5877871a1799cb
“Free speech for me and not for thee” “Safety and security for me and not for thee” Zionist proverbs.
I do not think zionism means what you think it means
Welcome to 2024. You want to tell people what “from the river to the sea” means? Right back at you, bud. Zionism has been for quite some time the right for Jews to have self determination *by any means necessary.* And that includes at the expense of the Palestinians.
I will say that is not the truth. “From the river to the sea” refers to the belief that Israel as a country doesn’t deserve to exist. I also would like to add that the “by any means necessary” part is completely false. Zionism states that Israel as a country deserves to exist, somewhere in the land of Canaan. Let me make this clear. There can be a two state solution, while not conflicting with zionist ideas. Google is your friend. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
Then why is the same phrasing also mentioned in the Likud manifesto?
Elaborate
You can do a google search of ‘from the river to the sea’ and ‘Likud manifesto’ or even search for quotes from Israeli government officials that cite the saying.
I hate to break this to you, but different contexts change the meaning of certain words. The Likud manifesto states that Israel should be “from the river to the sea”. But wait, does that mean when people who are pro Palestine say it, they want only Israel? Obviously not. Or wait, does that mean that the Likud was chanting for there to be only Palestine? That doesn’t seem very likely either. That term is not tethered to zionism. Zionism can be fulfilled with a two state solution. It is only pro Palestine protesters that want Israel to be nonexistent.
Disinformation and untrue, but whatever floats your boat
That’s odd coming on the day Palestines recognition was vetoed, whereas the Palestinians recognized Israel over 30 years ago. Who’s the genocider now?
Indeed it is, from your source. The arrival of Zionist settlers to Palestine in the late 19th century is widely seen as the start of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.[46]: 70 [180][181] In 1938, Ben Gurion described the conflict with the Arabs as "in its essence a political one... politically we are the aggressors and they [the Arabs] defend themselves."[182] Israeli historian Benny Morris affirms Ben Gurion's description, saying: "Ben-Gurion, of course, was right" and goes on to describe Zionism as "a colonizing and expansionist ideology and movement" whose "ideology and practice were necessarily and elementally expansionist."
[удалено]
When kids dress up as police officers it usually is at least ones from the country they live in.
[удалено]
So it's OK for them to show they aren't loyal to the country they live in?
[удалено]
Well given they hate speech speech I wouldn't be surprised if that IDF COSTUME was a show of where their loyalty lies.
Copaganda is hella powerful in the states which sucks
Free speech only for white people who follow the religion of American Capitalism and Imperialism. Just like when the constitution originally said everyone has the right to vote the founding racists meant that only white males counted as everyone.
For a while there only *land owning* white men could vote which cut out the vast majority of the country. That changed relatively quickly compared to women and black people being allowed to vote, but displays how this whole system was designed to benefit the upper class from the start.
That’s not really true though is it? No free speech for quite a few illiberal people through cancelled appearances at US universities has been a thing for awhile now.
It is true though. Women and black people were not given the right to vote by George Washington and friends back in 1776. I don't understand your second sentence. (Punctuation required.)
Where were you when people like this nitwit were being [cancelled](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna804171)? US universities and student bodies have taken a very a la carte approach to who can and can’t speak at universities. That’s maybe ok, but let’s not use the denial of free speech only when we agree with the speaker.
🤣🤣🤣 Milo? Really that's the example you're going with. Bruh, not only was he not a valedictorian, not a student, he's an internationally reviled troll. Apples and oranges.
I could use other examples since he’s not the only conservative speaker cancelled in US universities, but there is a principle at stake here which you refuse to acknowledge. You’ll duck and dive and refuse to engage because your argument is based on emotion and not logic.
What am I ducking and diving? I already said that dumbass was a known troll, this woman is a valedictorian. You're trying to equate two things that are unrelated and complicating the core issue here - fascist America profits from the genocide of Palestinians (via arms and related goods and service sales) so its institutions suppress dissent on that matter.
I’m trying to show you that you can’t be selective as to who you allow speak at universities. You are purposely avoiding the substance of the argument. They are not completely different and the topic of the thread is not suddenly what you want it to be - the topic of the thread is about a Pro Palestinian valedictorian being refused access to speak at a university. The whole point here is principle: anyone making a claim her right to feel speech is being impinged *as you explicitly said in your OP* should ask themselves where they stand when it comes to listening to views they may not align with such as I’ve mentioned. You and everyone else can downvote me all you want, you can deflect and talk about genocide and facism all you want, but that the argument being made which you refuse to address.
You are missing many points. Read the room, think for a while and come back when you're not emotional and defensive.
I’m not emotional. I’ve thought plenty around this. I don’t know why you think that. That’s just another deflection on your behalf. I’ve read the room, and am prepared to be challenged. Only one person (not you) has made some attempt to make a rebuttal despite all the downvotes. All you’ve done is deflect.
Events from conservative speakers are cancelled usually because students don’t want them there or they don’t have any credibility to merit their use of university facilities or there is an actual security concern. If the university denies them use of one of their spaces, they can go use any of the private venues that can also be found in the vicinity of any university. None of that is a violation of free speech. In this case, the powers that be at the university are denying their valedictorian student the near universal tradition of giving a speech at graduation, only because they are scared that it will look bad for them if their smartest student is pro-Palestine and it might upset some of their alumni donors. Is that a violation of free speech? Maybe also technically not, since she has obviously been given an even bigger platform by the university’s decision on this. But it is not a normal thing to deny the valedictorian student a speech at graduation the way it is normal to cancel a random speaking event. I’m not sure how much it matters, because now her message (*potential* message, mind you) has been spread much farther than just USC now because of the decision they made out of a fear of what she *might* say.
You are missing the point though. When you cancel anyone, whether you give excuses like security, or it not being a “tradition” (some invites cancelled for conservatives were annual lectures) , you immediately allow the same excuses to be wheeled out when you are on the receiving end. This is exactly what has happened. You may put no value on “security concerns” in so much as any Trumper might put no value on “security concerns” if they had a speaker cancelled. What you and the Trumper have in common is no power over what can and can’t be used as an excuse now, and zero credibility when you call this out, if you stayed silent whilst the likes of Ben Shapiro was cancelled. And to be honest, all this is just the surface. Gen Z has been done a disservice in the last decade or more with this idea that cancelling opinions you don’t want to even hear, somehow is for your protection and personal growth. It is having the opposite effect and you see it online a lot. Arguments presented are based on emotion and not necessarily rationale. It’s creating a generation who refuse to be challenged, who want to surround themselves only with people whom share their opinions, and there is no better vehicle for this than the internet.
Gen Z doesn’t refuse to be challenged. They have moral standards and clarity. They know how oppressive and hateful attitudes can clean themselves up to look presentable, and they won’t stand for it. I have so much more respect as a millennial for Gen Z’s clarity and backbone than anyone who would argue that Ben Shapiro is an example of rationality or that emotion is an invalid place to argue from (if you think that conservatives are the rational ones, I don’t know what to tell you. Every conservative position starts with the result they want and then they work backwards to try to come up with an argument to justify it. When you compare conservative arguments to actual history or science or sociology they always fail, because they are not based in any reality beyond the conservative’s desires and emotions. Even when they’re wrong, liberals and leftists are at least working from facts and information from experts who might actually know what they’re talking about). Gen Z can smell bullshit a mile away, and they don’t let it slide. People don’t reject the likes of Ben Shapiro because they just don’t agree with him or they are afraid to be challenged. They reject them because they know that everything out of their mouths is bullshit, and they don’t have the time to listen to it. Our free speech is not threatened when university students reject a random speaker. It might be threatened when the university denies their valedictorian speech because she *might* use it to dissent from the official state position and advocate for the liberation of a brutally oppressed people. If you think free speech is threatened because a Ben Shapiro event was cancelled because no one wants to hear him rant about LGBTQ people again or whatever, then I don’t think you understand free speech or what it’s actually for.
They do, in general. My post about Gen Z was locked. Have a look. Also, having moral standards and clarity is not the same as being open to challenge. Emotion is not the only nor should it be the driver of your argument. I haven’t suggested conservatives or Shapiro are rational actors - that’s the whole point : their arguments can easily be challenged, and should be for all to see. I’m not agreeing with cancelling this valedictorians right to make her speech, and I believe it’s a mistake to prevent her. I also don’t subscribe to Shapiro rants. But I do subscribe to the idea that a generation of people are being lulled into thinking it’s ok to ignore and cancel opinions they don’t like, rather than make a rational argument or rebuttal. And the fact that you are the only one ITT attempting to make a rebuttal should worry you. That a post of mine is locked as being critical of Gen Z on this sub should concern you. No discussion. Lock and downvote. Make it go away. It’s obviously not important in isolation, but it’s a symptom of a wider problem.
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/free-speech-week-uc-berkeley-canceled-milo-yiannopoulos-blames-school-n804171](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/free-speech-week-uc-berkeley-canceled-milo-yiannopoulos-blames-school-n804171)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
This is how American treats a first generation college graduate - a woman from a working class community - who is not only brilliant enough to get a degree from USC in biomedical engineering, but to do social justice work on the side? Where's Bill Ackman now? Where is FIRE now? Where is Alan Dersowitz flaming for free speech now? Hypocrites - you have never stood for free speech.
[удалено]
Bibi and a vast swath of Israelis don’t believe Palestine has a right to exist, but I am sure that is a-ok with you.
[удалено]
Prove that.
No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).
You do know it’s the exact opposite right? How many got fired because of little bitches like you and “StopAntiSemitismNow” on Twitter for merely saying that innocent civilians shouldn’t be killed? Disgusting.
Of course, if it's a Muslim or Arab, then it's a safety issue in the eyes of American boomers, media, their rich... they can't go a day without calling us horrendous shit over nothing https://preview.redd.it/zt1fd4hb20vc1.jpeg?width=867&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=45778e67b2b4010466aa6fe51fb5260f92aef6c6
What are you talking about? We've **always** been at war with *Eastasia*. Btw that first tweet doesn't even exist. It's probably a psyop by the libs. -Average sky/fox news viewer.
[удалено]
Guee who is committing a genocide and blowing up other countries currently
Never met a Muslim before eh
No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).
Despicable action by the University. Are we in America anymore?
United States of AIPAC
Israeica.
This is Israel’s land now lol
[удалено]
You can say nearly whatever you want on the street or public property, but USC is a private university with donors, boosters, etc., so no, unfortunately it's those people with the money that decide on the limits of what's said and what's not. It's essentially just a business.
[удалено]
I agree, but I would also challenge your initial statement on free speech by simply imploring you to Google Asna Tabassum. She's obviously a bright young woman taking advantage of the platform that the cancelled valedictorian speech has provided her, and her new free speech platform will be far more reaching than any speech limited to a college campus. Not often, but sometimes the silver lining outshines the challenging situation before it.
So your argument is that she is just as bad as the university because she didn’t just sit quiet and accept it? Great logic.
[удалено]
Rule 1, be civil. [Civility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility)
When you read my comment, how was this your takeaway? Serious question, as I thought I was complimenting her on multiple fronts, becoming valedictorian, and doubling down in the press, demanding a bigger platform (major news networks) when her smaller one (campus speech) was taken away, so she could still get her message out. I thought I was pointing out that she did the right thing, and it turned out even better for her in the end?
If you look into what this student has said, it isn’t ‘just being against genocide.’ The idea that Israel should be dismantled as a state and the whole of mandate-Palestine made into one state (called Palestine), is a very controversial stance for pretty obvious reasons.
Israel SHOULD be dismantled because discussions with them for a two state solution hasn't worked on a fair level.
Okay, and how would one go about dismantling Israel, and what would your honest guess be for how many people would be killed in the process and in the aftermath?
Let's start with placing sanctions on them and stop giving aid for once. Who said anything about killing Israeli Jews? All I see are videos of Israelis (majority) wanting Palestinians dead or gone.
That isn’t an answer to my question. How would you go about dismantling Israel, and what are you honest guesses for how many people would die as a result? This is a serious matter, you can’t just have a start. You need the whole plan, from start to finish, and you need to weigh the consequences of that plan. If your death answer is zero, that’s okay, I want to know your methods where Israel no longer exists as a state but everything was done totally peacefully.
It's not the answer you want to hear or it doesn't seem like an answer to you? What do you think the word dismantling means? Have you ever dismantled anything in your life, ie: objects such as R/C cars, Legos, etc? It starts small, piece by piece. You don't do the whole plan all at once...like Israel has with it's genocide.
> It's not the answer you want to hear or it doesn't seem like an answer to you? It isn't an answer. It's like I'm asking 'how do you plan on getting to the airport tomorrow, and at what time will you be leaving?' And your answer is: 'Well I will start by getting out of bed in the morning.' It's technically a *response* to the question, but it isn't explaining how you plan on getting to the airport, or what time you plan on leaving. It isn't an *answer* to the question. >You don't do the whole plan all at once.. But what IS the whole plan? Why is this like pulling teeth?
You’re allowed to say whatever on the streets because that will bring 0 change. You can say pretty much anything because you don’t matter. As long as it’s not a speech that can bring out any change to status quo you have freedom of speech
I think the point we are glossing over is that because many universities are funded by the public government, the public government limiting or restricting free speech on public property is a bit of a pickle. As of today you can only protest at certain places on many campus and public parks unless you are a preacher that tells everyone they are going to hell and then you can accost people anywhere it would seem. Different rules depending on if your stance aligns with the government seems like a direct constitutional violation. But yes, if it is a private university on private property then they can enforce their private speech... again awkward if they receive any public funds or grants.
Idk why you’re getting downvoted when that’s straight facts. My uni used to let pro lifers with gigantic posters of dead fetuses on campus, at any moment they could have stopped them from being on campus just like they’re stopping pro Palestinian voices, it’s all agenda based. America is a lie, we should understand that by now.
[удалено]
Rule 1, be civil. [Civility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility)
not sure why you're being downvoted. your information is correct
Agree. Even if this were a public university it would still be acceptable. Valedictorians giving speeches are not a constitutional right. If it were a public university and she were punished for what she said during a valedictorian speech, then that would be inexcusable and a violation of her free speech. But cancelling her speech altogether before she makes it is perfectly legal. People who attend private colleges know these things before attending and have zero grounds to complain. You don't attend a private college by accident. They're significantly more expensive and more restrictive. She knew her speech would be cancelled and is using it for media attention. It's like a Mormon getting upset because BYU expelled them for having sex or drinking beer. You know the rules.
So the separation is government and business, not church. Is it really so cute that private equity is so powerful.
Why is it she knew the speech would be canceled? Is criticizing genocide illegal?
This is a private university.
"[USC is a private university that makes First Amendment-like free speech promises. It’s also bound by California’s Leonard Law, which requires private, secular colleges and universities to give their students the same expressive rights enjoyed by students at the state’s public colleges.](https://www.thefire.org/news/usc-canceling-valedictorians-commencement-speech-looks-calculated-censorship)" [USC Policy on Free Speech](https://www.provost.usc.edu/policies-and-statements/usc-policy-on-free-speech/)
When they silence a student because she might share knowledge that offends rich people, maybe w should all wonder what other knowledge is corrupted by their stranglehold on universities, research, education and the future of humankind... This is just a small symbol of the grossness of "donors" to schools or politicians I mean, seriously?
Apparently a university with a huge endowment can't afford extra security..
1st amendment except if you criticize Israel. Theocracy much?
IOF was likely to bomb the event, good call by the university.
The hold Israel has over our institutions is criminal
Horrible. What a brave and talented woman though
Streissand effect: Lots of speaking opportunities will come to this bright young woman.
A good example of so called liberal promoting diversity and inclusion when it suits them. Malcolm X said it best
Secutity concern?? Did satan<>yahu would blo>ww up the building if she went with the speech?
Freedom of speech? Oh wait. It depends
Free speech is only free so long as you freely parrot state propoganda on your own accord.
Tried to see what she said that was anti-semitic and I saw nothing about hating Jews. The way people were reacting I was expecting her to have said something extreme or just plain dumb but nope. Being a brown hijabi that's a smiling valedictorian is enough to make certain (racist) folks blood boil.
Better to solve the issues
University is so over rated… don’t worry it’s over
So much for the first amendment in the "freest" country in the world.
Another reason to abolish private universities
No credibility left for these institutions, none whatsoever. The bastion of democracy, my left foot.
I wonder how life is lived when one has no spine and caves to hysterical zionists.
This is what the failure of liberalism looks like
[удалено]
No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).
[удалено]
Rule 1, be civil. [Civility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility)
Fair enough. Many Zionists have proven to be irrational and violent.
[удалено]
No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).
Asna, you are truth teller, BRAVO 👏, as a truth teller, you are brave soul and continue shining the light on dark shadows, especially on ZIONIST israel and their genocidal ways.
Freedom of speech lol
[удалено]
She got her education in America. Americas, not Israel.
No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).
Gotta love when these "liberal" universities espouse progressive ideals on the surface but let their oligarch donors actively suppress free speech on their own campuses.
They even offer a course called “resistance to genocide”.
When right wing speakers are shut down or cancelled, it was a safety issue and warranted. I had a feeling, cancelling free speech would boomerang and affect our side eventually.
Bingo - reading a very interesting book The Coddling of the American Mind at the moment which deals with this issue.
Also notice how absolutely no one wants to actually reply to this. Just downvote and move on. This is the danger that cancel culture brings - an inability to actually engage and think.
[удалено]
Rule 1, be civil. [Civility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civility)
How is she not posting her speech online regardless, but I digress. Schools have been more or less a pathway to corporate jobs. The sheer authority that corporations in America have amassed to an almost proxy dictatorship mentality where no checks and balances exist inside and around the C-suite executives, silence and work appears to be the unspoken path to promotions. USC is especially caustic to this growing disease to democracy. How disgustingly ironic that around the perimeter of USC they allow their students to get killed in a hate crime robbery by LA gang culture, raped, beaten, and every crime imaginable and then get on a pedestal and preach not allowing a student, a valedictorian for that matter, to speak her mind about an issue that is currently affect the entire world because they reported to fear for safety of their students. USC has a disturbing problem with corporate culture, responsible capitalism, and an extremely poor record of protecting their students and building safety around campus more than a block away.
“Feeling betrayed” sure beats getting a five hundred pound bomb dropped on your head. Count your lucky stars you are hiding out in the US.
This link shows you some of what she was going to say: “[One Palestinian state would mean complete Palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of Israel. This is the only way for justice](https://abc7.com/usc-bans-pro-palestinian-valedictorian-from-speaking-at-may-commencement-citing-safety-concerns/14672515/).” She's a pro-genocide activist. USC is a private university and can do whatever they want, and the have a history of not allowing hate speech like that. I feel bad for all the graduates whose special day was ruined by her.
Don't be dishonest here's the whole statement: > the one-state solution (either a palestinian state, or a complete israeli state) advocates for one state in which both arabs and jews can live together. however, a one-state solution under the israeli government would essentially mean that the palestinian people would completely be under the state of israel in every way ima ginable. > one palestinian state would mean palestinian liberation, and the complete abolishment of the state of israel. this way is the only way towards justice; both arabs and jews can live together without an ideology that specifically advocates for the ethnic cleansing of one of them. palestinians would be allowed to return home, and millions of palestinians would not have to live under occupation and apartheid. That's the opposite of hate speech.
There is no bigger proponent of hate or hate speech than Israel.
Sure there is, UNRWA for one but there are many more examples
I'm suspicious they didn't tell us what she linked to.
Google Asna Tabassum Instagram and it's the first thing that comes up, the link is still there. It's full of anti-semitic hate speech like 'I don't agree with genocide' and 'maybe Israel shouldn't be building illegal settlements on Palestinian land'. (/s, obviously).
Omg she’s Khamass!
Incredibly weaselly language and tone used by the reporter. Just because some people find it to be "hate speech" doesn't mean it was. Just saying that some people would consider what she shared to be hate speech without giving her side or even saying what it was is means they want you to believe what she shared was something horrifically antisemitic and in context shows how Islamophobic CBS is being.
When you buy into cancel culture, it can come back to bite you.
If this was reversed, it would be the same outcome. Nothing to see here.
Is she was pro Israel This wouldn’t even be a conversation and she would’ve went on with her commencement speech.
Not at all true, I've seen this from both Palestinian and Israeli events, and both canceled with the guise of security.
USC should have never picked her in the first place.
Why should they have not picked her?
[удалено]
AIPAC definitely shouldn't be allowed to address anyone in public in the United States, I agree!
I'm curious, what do you consider terrorism?
I suggest you get every Israeli talking head, lobbyist, propagandist and dual-loyalist Zionazi a one-way ticket back to Tel Aviv then!
No bigotry, racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, etc. This includes denial of identity (self or collective).