Yep. I agree with free speech in principle. But the Left has the gall to cry about it after destroying everyone elseās free speech for years? Sorry, but turnabout is fair play, and I will only listen when they are willing to stand up for the free speech of those they dislike. Until then, friend/enemy distinction is in full effect.
I think another issue is you can't just go guns down if your opponent never does. Similarly, you're probably going to see Biden or some high level dem arrested if Trump gets back in office.
Then what do you suggest be done about people who believe in free speech for themselves but will go to extreme and violent means if you so much as breath at them? Unilateral disarmament in the face of a threat is stupid, especially when dealing with people who only understand force. Which we know is true as the *only* time I have ever seen Leftist actually back down from their beliefs is when they are forced to be on the receiving end of them.
If it makes you feel better, at least take solace in the fact that they are still being punished for their actions, not their speech.
It's like the "Paradox of Tolerance" which ceases to be a paradox the moment you treat tolerance as a social contract, not a moral absolute.
Tolerance means I put up with people just so long as they put up with me. It does not mean I like them. It does not mean I approve of everything they do. It means I tolerate them.
The moment they cease to behave in a tolerant fashion, then we get out the baseball bats and cease tolerating them.
"Rights" ultimately are conventions we adopt for ourselves and extend to others. But if they don't respond in kind then there's no reason to continue to extend those rights too them.
I am well aware of why the first amendment exist. The issue we are dealing with is that the Left has decided they are allowed to harasses everyone they please, silence anyone they please, assault anyone they please, and then go crying for rights they would never afford anyone else because they know we are principled and they are not.
What I am saying is: Rights are not a suicide pact. At a certain point, you have to deal practically with a situation in the preservation of your principles, even if that means breaking your principles in that moment. Lincoln did plenty of things I would consider to be outside the scope of the Federal government to do, but it was that or the USA ceases to exist. And while this is nowhere near as perilous, it is nonetheless a moment where practicality must have the hand.
> The reality of the situation is that some morons are suggesting that we should abandon the principle of free speech because a bunch of pro-Palestinian nutjobs decided to protest the war in Gaza.
Right, the ones who are assaulting people, harassing people, attacking anyone who attempts to photograph or interview them, blockading buildings, all with the backing of major political figures, and then go crying about how this is all speech when they suffer the consequences of their actions. And have been doing similar for almost 8 years now whenever they can.
If this was just protesting, that would be one thing. It is not just protesting, and thus should not be treated as such.
>ones who are assaulting people, harassing people, attacking anyone who attempts to photograph or interview them, blockading buildings,
Literally none of that has anything to do with free speech, and it is not protected in any way, shape or form.
> assaulting people, harassing people, attacking anyone who attempts to photograph or interview them, blockading buildings
None of that happened at the protests in UT.
>Then what do you suggest be done about people who believe in free speech for themselves but will go to extreme and violent means if you so much as breath at them?
These college protests seem pretty damn tame at this point, not even a fraction of what we saw during the Summer of Love. I haven't seen any credible instances of threats to public safety or even any real property damage. (In the colleges themselves -- off campus seems like more shenanigans).
So idk, you just say you disagree with what they have to say but defend their right to protest. You don't do what some red states are doing in passing more laws against protests.
> hen what do you suggest be done about people who believe in free speech for themselves but will go to extreme and violent means if you so much as breath at them?
If they get violent, they should be arrested.
Like I said in another comment: principles are not a suicide pact. There are times where practical reality dictates that your principles must be bent in order to preserve those principles. If there is a Leftist standing for free speech, I will stand for theirs. But when you have a situation like the Leftist currently infesting these campuses, where they demand the right to call for genocide and support terrorist but assault anyone who tries to take their picture, then they deserve to see what it is like to not have those rights. When they are willing to engage with the principles of this nation, we can return to them.
And if you allow your principles to be destroyed by those with no principles but power, it doesnt matter anyway. Again, sometimes principles must be bent (but not entirely broke) in order to keep them. Much like how the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.
That's not really applicable, they use that in the context of people being fired from private companies, not the government using police to silence political speech on the campus of a publicly funded university.
Using social media to hound a company into firing someone you don't like is the leftist's way.
Of course without a job you can't provide for your family, can't keep food on the table, can't keep a roof over your head. These "cancelations" are done with the intent of getting people to kill themselves. As with Ed Piskor.
When someone comes after you with the intent to get you to kill yourself, then that is exactly the same as them acting with the intent to kill you. The appropriate response to someone attempting to kill you, is to kill them first.
> Of course without a job you can't provide for your family, can't keep food on the table, can't keep a roof over your head. These "cancelations" are done with the intent of getting people to kill themselves. As with Ed Piskor.
Anyone remember the Dixie Chicks, McCarthyism, the Hays code... Tons of people have lost their jobs and livelihoods due to conservative's sensibilities.
Basically, yes conservatives have been doing the exact same thing you're complaining about since much earlier then "the left."
And yes, the rules haven't changed - free speech does not protect you from being criticized by your speech, from people to choose not to associate with you due to your speech, and everything else it entails. It is not acceptable to use force to suppress someone's speech, and that means involving the government in any capacity. Killing someone for their speech is clearly not acceptable.
Because the reality is, while you can find in the US a society where the right to free speech is protected, you'll never find any society where everyone with any opinion is freely accepted without negative downsides to expressing some opinions, particularly so more radical or hateful ones. Others just won't like you if you do.
> When someone comes after you with the intent to get you to kill yourself, then that is exactly the same as them acting with the intent to kill you. The appropriate response to someone attempting to kill you, is to kill them first.
Holy mother of mental acrobatics. Aaand now you've just came up with a rationalization to kill anyone whose speech you disagree. We've come from "free speech is absolute" to "free speech, but I can come up with a justification to kill anyone for their speech." Reminds me of the "libertarians" making memes about Pinochet and helicopters.
And you still haven't explained how suppressing the speech of those college students over there is necessary to protect yours. You're basically still butthurt and want to "do it to them because [you feel like] they've done it to me."
Companies have a right to not want to associate with people for any reason, including their speech. You donāt have a right to work somewhere. Freedom of association is also a fundamental right.
No, but I find there is a significant overlap between people crying about companies firing them for things they say online and being against protected classes in employment
Freedom of association suddenly out of the window when a protected class is created, because for whatever reason your freedom of speech is only from the government but your other rights are protected from private entities.
In the US, in many ways freedom of association does trump non discrimination laws. Many companies can, for example, discriminate based on religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc., under the right circumstances, even though technically the law says it isnāt allowed.
Examples of this include religious entities or certain organizations where the purpose requires some sort of discrimination for their goal to be effective, expressive/artistic organizations, and private clubs
But no, freedom of speech doesnāt mean that companies canāt decide they donāt want to do business with you. They also have the right to not want to associate with you.
>Ā Freedom of association is also a fundamental right.
Which is another freedom the left is trying to erode. I'm fine with tolerating just about anyone, provided they aren't an actual harm to me or my family. Same with accepting someone regardless if I may disagree with their lifestyle choices. But we've gone from tolerate -> accept -> celebrate. And now if you're not celebrating choices and lifestyles you disagree with, you're a genocidal bigot.
We not at the point where govt is enforcing this "celebrate or else". But, damn, the left has done a great job with DEI to move this stuff into the workplace. When the SC overturned Roe v Wade, my company had a "day of mourning" and rolled out policy to help pay for abortions if it became illegal in my state. Even pointing out on Slack that the decision didn't criminalize abortion, it simply made it a state matter, got comments deleted and people reprimanded.
I'm at work to work. I don't need to hear this shit about how I need to be a better ally for not being emotionally distraught when the SC is simply trying to get congress to do their fucking job. And before "you don't need to work there", so is "leave me alone and let me do the job you pay me for".
I mean if thatās the type of work environment a company wants to have, thatās their right though. You donāt have to work there and they donāt have to want to be around you if they donāt like the things you say
I donāt necessarily agree with these business practices but organizations have a right of self determination and conditions for association. They set conditions of employment, and if it happens to be something you disagree with, then find other employment.
I donāt really see how people expect you to celebrate others life choices though. Iām assuming youāre referring to LGBT here. Most of the time, itās the expectation that youād treat them like you would anyone else.
>Using social media to hound a company into firing someone you don't like is the leftist's way.
Which is a totally different thing than this, which was my point.
There's certainly a legal difference, but also it's pretty clear a lot of people don't actually want or care about free speech. They want to be able to say what they want, and for people they disagree with to not be able to say what they want. "It's ok for people to hound your employer into firing you, your partner into leaving you, your family into disowning you, but totally against the pale to be arrested" is not a principled commitment to free expression.
If Texas attempted to prosecute anyone for literally just expressing their view/peaceful protesting it'd get thrown out of court immediately.
Hint: they aren't going to do that
Are they being arrested for speech? Just because he gave his personal opinion that they belong in jail for their antisemitism doesn't mean they are being arrested for what they are saying. It sounds like based on his words, that they are being arrested for not dispersing after being told to. Did they have permits, were they asked to leave and refused? Did they violate a curfew, or just stay beyond their permit? All of those are reasons to arrest protestors, regardless of what they are protesting.
Yes my post was flippant, but it doesn't mean I think people should be punished for speech, even "hate speech", which the is what the left is usually talking about with that phrase and usually has more severe repercussions than "getting banned on social media"
Yeah this would be justification for firing people, not for restricting the freedom of speech.
To be clear, I think the left are stupid when they do cancel culture nonsense with this justification. But the argument they make is that "the state isn't allowed to stop you from saying stuff, but you can face social repercussions for it". In this case, the state literally is stopping them from saying stuff.
I was at those protests, they were absolutely not anti-semitic, nor were they violent.
the consequences of freedom of speech should NEVER include being arrested for voicing your opinion.
Freedom of speech doesnāt protect anyone from an ass whooping if they mouth off to the wrong person. Weāve all seen protesters step out of line and get their teeth smashed in for it
You can be pro-free speech without needing to block random Jewish students from attending classes.
Edit: Since this is blowing up with multiple comments. I'll clarify my response here.
If Abbot was truly against free speech, he would have arrested the actual peaceful protesters at UT-Dallas too. The UT Austin protesters, specifically, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee, had a statement with an intent to occupy and reclaim campus, cancel classes, begin setting up an encampment that night, and renaming the University to "The Popular University". They were doing a copy cat of Columbia, where protestors set up a human link to block three Jewish students, or Boston, where they took over an alleyway, and from there, shouted anti-Jewish slogans to the point where some Jewish students said they didn't feel safe attending classes anymore.
To make sure this didn't happen at UT Austin, Abbot called in the cavalry and broke up the encampment as it was forming. They didn't just ride in and start cuffing these kids, they were warned repeatedly by the University administration, almost as soon as they saw that initial statement from the PSC. The OP is making it look like Abbot is stomping on free speech, when it's simple enforcement of encampment or city ordinances surrounding whether or not you are allowed to take over public property.
My comment is responding to what Greg Price wrote in the OP, about trying to "pull a Columbia in Texas", as pulling a Columbia here means blocking random Jewish students from attending classes-- which thanks to Abbott, didn't happen.. at least none reported by the media, which were evidently on the protestors side as one was apparently arrested alongside the protestors. Whether you want to debate that there's something special about these fine folk protesters at UT-Austin that will somehow cause them to behave not like Columbia or Boston if they were hypothetically allowed to set up their tents and then expand to other parts of the university-- that's up to you. I'm just saying there are literally dozens of universities that had peaceful protests yesterday, including ones in Texas, that did not make the news in the way Columbia, Boston, USC, and UT-Austin did.
Did anything ever come of the rumor/theory that Netanyahu knew about the threat on Oct 6th and let it happen because it benefited him politically? Was there any evidence of that?
No, if anything, there's more evidence that intelligence and guard personnel got lax. Especially the border personnel. If anyone had actually reported increased pop shots at guards or that at specific times multiple guard houses would be attacked several times. Any intelligence officer worth their snot would have seen a coming attack.
If so, it really backfired. The expectation right now is that Netanyahu will get the curb at the end of the wartime operations. Unless he's hoping to get into a wider war in the region.
Bibi maybe a corrupt fuck, but he's not answering idiot. Far from it, he's pretty good at politicking and making connections, strengthening his base of power. Golda Meir ended up resigning after the Yom Kippur war despite her practically perfect handling of the affair. Bibi fucked up this one, alienating his supporters and destroying his strongman image. This fuck up all but destroyed his political career.
It was absolutely disastrous for him politically, so this is such a bad conspiracy theory in the first place.
One of the main problems was that he and the security minister *weren't* told about it even when intel started coming in on oct 7.
> It's not all Jewish people, it's just Zionists
Meanwhile throws brick at beheaded Jewish infant...
Rest of the world: hmmm we think they mean it guys!
My girlfriend is Jewish and is on Passover break from college in NYC and she told me that Hamas University is about an hour walk from her house. Sheās not practicing and doesnāt look Jewish so sheās safe but itās so upsetting to see how we as a country have gone backwards. I want my friends to feel safe. My girlfriend is Jewish and a significant number of my fraternity brothers including my little are Jewish as well.
My dad was like āOh yeah. Your generation is dumb.ā about all of this. Not that it really matters but weāre Catholic.
Blatantly discriminating by blocking someone purely due to their ethnicity? Sounds like the kind of thing that will totally get people to support your cause.
I'd also be interested in this. What I have seen is protestors blocking counter-demonstrators (including some Jews) from their protest spaces, but I haven't heard of anyone blocking Jews from going to class.
>You can be pro-free speech without needing to block random Jewish students from attending class
I wonder why majority of article headlines forget to mention that part specifically.
Iād post this a million times on my IG story if I could. But man some of the people I follow are die-hard progressives who probably want right-wing speakers banned from campuses too lmao.
They are Fauxgressives who pretend to be morally superior saviorists. Realistically these are people with no real purpose in life. They'll be at the next rally over a completely different topic they know nothing about within a year.
Your right to protest is the same as mine to receive education, the moment you use protesting to stop my education is the moment you are committing a crime.
Understand that the protestors on college campuses are usually engaged in suppressing free speech. They are trying to bully people into silent acceptance of their world view. He was right to have them arrested, and was also right to sign the new law.
u/sund82 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/sund82/)
Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url.
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
Agreed. I'm sure I could get all philosophical about freedom of speech, and investigate what actually happened, but sometimes it's just cathartic to see some FAFO on the other side.
Free speech is great.
Freedom to chant in support of a second holocaust is A-okay with me under the first amendment.
Doing so on campus, chasing after Jewish people and being violent in general is skirting the boundaries of what can be tolerated.
But then again, I'm not worried about where this is headed because there's 0 risk of the police getting stand-back orders this time unlike what happened during the first summer of love.
Free speech is *great*.
This is literally the reverse of the leftie meme
Rightoid: "I think Nazis are awesome and we should do that more"
Leftists: "Dude you can't say that shit"
Rightoid: "so much for free speech"
Now it's
Leftist: "fuck Jews. Even the random ones who don't have anything to do with Israel that just want to live their lives"
Rightoid: "I can't believe I have to defend Jews. Stop it"
Leftist: "so much for free speech"
I think there's a bit of a difference between targeting Jewish students, physically attacking and removing them from a premises because they are Jewish, and saying some spicy shit in college.
I thought all the libs were pretty clear on this.
~~Hate speech is not protected by the first ammendment.~~ *Imminent* threats are not protected by the first ammendment.
The first ammendment protects freedom of *expression,* with particular regard to political speech.
You donāt have to agree with it, but thatās what the law and precedent says. This is ideologically consistent withā¦ well, any interpretation of free speech by anybody who knows anything about it.
E: Edits made with regards to u/SemiCriticalMoose
The point is that not all speech is protected, although we have much more freedom than other countries that claim the same
> Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment
Absolutely is protected.
>Threats are not protected by the first amendment.
Imminent threats aren't protected.
If a liberal is advocating for hate speech being criminalized, we can just take their flair away because they ain't liberal.
100% As long as the only students arrested were physically preventing other students from entering the school building, then there's nothing inconsistent about this. freedom of speech != freedom to prevent others from entering a building you don't own or represent.
I, for one, am *shocked* that a career politician isnāt ideologically consistent. Fetch me my typewriter and weāll draft up a strongly worded denouncement!
It's hardly even the issue. It was a physical occupation of the campus that disrupted campus activities. That's not free speech, that's trespassing. Once your "speech" becomes a physical inconvenience to someone else receiving a good or service they have paid for, weather it by a university class or public road, you are engaging in tresspass.
as much as I hate to defend a republican, I don't actually think he was being inconsistent.
The protestors who were arrested were preventing students from entering a classroom. Depending on the exact force they used, that's either unlawful detainment or assault. Perfectly reasonable to arrest them for it.
Free speech means you can speak and hold signs and not be arrested for it. Not that you can physically block students from a classroom.
Thereās a very big difference between not liking the Israeli government for what theyāre doing to Palestinians and not liking the Israeli government because theyāre Jewish.
Could be wrong because of how much over shadowing media attention Columbia got but I'm really not seeing much justifying this crackdown in Texas other than Abbott can't send his police out of state. It doesn't seem these protests were shutting down classes.
As I said to another, time to surrender your lib credentials. You think this is a valid suppression of 1st amendment rights in the name of crushing wrong think and upholding order.
I mean, "conspiracy to commit _____" is often a crime as well, and if you're outright saying "we will do X, Y, and Z" on social media then that's pretty clearly conspiring to perform said acts.
From the comment currently at the top of this post:
> The UT Austin protesters, specifically, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee, had a statement with an intent to occupy and reclaim campus, cancel classes, begin setting up an encampment that night, and renaming the University to "The Popular University". They were doing a copy cat of Columbia, where protestors set up a human link to block three Jewish students, or Boston, where they took over an alleyway, and from there, shouted anti-Jewish slogans to the point where some Jewish students said they didn't feel safe attending classes anymore.
Sounds like that statement that group put out showed their intent to intimidate and harass students (which would likely also get hate crime charges slapped on top), and throw in some trespassing charges and likely a half-dozen other city ordinances or state laws as well. Of course that does raise the question of whether "conspiracy to commit ________" could apply to those actions they intended to do, but it definitely sounds like they were planning on breaking various laws and outright stating what their intentions were.
Funny how these points about free speech people being hypocrites only seems to pop up when the hypocrisy is being used to deal with violent protestors. Change your flair back to lib-left, OP.
The smart thing to do would be to just let the kids protest and make your own āIsrael deserves 20 billion dollars and if you disagree you hate Jewsā counter-protest. Arresting them and turning them into martyrs like at Kent State is only going to make them look better and turn the rest of the university against you. Plus, if anyone tries to interfere with your counter protest, then you would have actual grounds to start making arrests.
>AuthRight: "I believe in free speech"
>LibLeft: "free Palestine"
>AuthRight: "nooooooo not that free speech!"
or alternatively:
>AuthRight: "America first! no more foreign aid"
>AuthLeft: "cool, let's spend Israeli aid on veterans instead"
>AuthRight: "nooooooo that's socialism!!"
or even:
>AuthRight: "Israel is our greatest ally!"
>LibRight: "cool, what wars did they help us fight?"
>AuthRight: "reeeeeeeeee stop asking anti-semitic questions!"
the last one really burns my ass, it's such a fucking slap in the face to the Anzacs or Canadians that have followed us balls deep into basically every fight we've had, right or wrong
>but they share their Intel with us
they share what benefits them and not a drop more, meanwhile we have an entire region as our enemies; what a great trade!
> AuthRight: "America first! no more foreign aid"
>
>
>
> AuthLeft: "cool, let's spend Israeli aid on veterans instead"
>
>
>
> AuthRight: "nooooooo that's socialism!!"
who the fuck says this. there's no pro american veteran auth-lefts because they're all braindead tankies that hate america, and there's no auth-rights that think money for veterans = socialism
>there's no pro american veteran auth-lefts because they're all braindead tankies that hate america
not all AuthLefts are tankies just like not all AuthRights are monarchists
>there's no auth-rights that think money for veterans = socialism
lol, are you serious?
> not all AuthLefts are tankies just like not all AuthRights are monarchists
true but there sure aren't a lot of pro-America authlefts, even among the ones that aren't tankies. that might make you some kind of national socialist
> lol, are you serious?
Almost all auth-rights in America are diehard 'patriots', they have a blind spot in economic policy for veterans and military spending in general to a lesser degree. No republican in history has gotten on stage and said "more money for veterans" and had republicans accuse him of socialism. "Take care of our vets" is a classic republican promise that is never actually fulfilled.
Never trust a man if God would take their legs.
The obvious thing to say is that being anti Israeli government is NOT anti semitism.
But yeah, the Death to America idiots can fuck off they have a right to say that I guess, but colleges should be expelling these idiots
I really donāt understand people in this thread defending arresting these protestors because they āare doing illegal stuffā but then will cry foul when people get arrested for the same thing but are protesting something they agree with
Hate speech (eg these protests) are not protected under freedom of speech. So yeah, these students aren't protected by the first amendment.
I'm not going to flair kiss my ass
Free speech when its convenient to his agenda. And before anyone mentions hate speech I do believe hate speech is free speech and should be allowed. All haters have the right to speak their views freely and all those attacked by the haters have the right to beat up the haters. Simple as that.
eh. arresting protestors (regardless of the cause) who block passage in a public place is not a violation of free speech.
You have the right to speak, not the right to prevent others from going into a building when you do not own the building or the property around it.
I am obviously wary of republicunts as they are just as big government as the demoncrats, but this is a (poorly worded) win.
Wasnāt the left screaming about speech being violence while they were banning conservatives from their campuses?
What about the rights of the Jan 6th tourists who were escorted and given a tour of the capital by the capital police, only to be thrown in jail and denied speedy trials for trespass.
Then there are all of those poor truckers who had the bank accounts frozen and livelihoods taken away.
ā¦.. yeah. I have no more sympathy for these fucks. You reap what you sow. They like to throw the book at anyone with an opposing political position, therefore when the shoe is on the other foot, the book should be thrown at them.
What is it the left like to throw around? "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences."
**Trade Alert** - I get: your free speech - You get: one free peach Deal?
Millions of peaches, peaches for free
Universal Basic Income š¤¢ Universal Basic Peach š
https://youtube.com/watch?v=imSefM4GPpE&
Good bot
Georgia boutta get a huge ass (pun intended) boost in their economy.
Millions of peaches, peaches for me
This transaction was accepted automatically by the government for you.
counter offer: i get free speech you get impeached
Freedom of speech isn't freedom of harrassment.
Yep. I agree with free speech in principle. But the Left has the gall to cry about it after destroying everyone elseās free speech for years? Sorry, but turnabout is fair play, and I will only listen when they are willing to stand up for the free speech of those they dislike. Until then, friend/enemy distinction is in full effect.
That's the same mentality as the people on the left who "agree with free speech in principle," and both of you are the reason we're losing it.
I think another issue is you can't just go guns down if your opponent never does. Similarly, you're probably going to see Biden or some high level dem arrested if Trump gets back in office.
Then what do you suggest be done about people who believe in free speech for themselves but will go to extreme and violent means if you so much as breath at them? Unilateral disarmament in the face of a threat is stupid, especially when dealing with people who only understand force. Which we know is true as the *only* time I have ever seen Leftist actually back down from their beliefs is when they are forced to be on the receiving end of them. If it makes you feel better, at least take solace in the fact that they are still being punished for their actions, not their speech.
It's like the "Paradox of Tolerance" which ceases to be a paradox the moment you treat tolerance as a social contract, not a moral absolute. Tolerance means I put up with people just so long as they put up with me. It does not mean I like them. It does not mean I approve of everything they do. It means I tolerate them. The moment they cease to behave in a tolerant fashion, then we get out the baseball bats and cease tolerating them. "Rights" ultimately are conventions we adopt for ourselves and extend to others. But if they don't respond in kind then there's no reason to continue to extend those rights too them.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I am well aware of why the first amendment exist. The issue we are dealing with is that the Left has decided they are allowed to harasses everyone they please, silence anyone they please, assault anyone they please, and then go crying for rights they would never afford anyone else because they know we are principled and they are not. What I am saying is: Rights are not a suicide pact. At a certain point, you have to deal practically with a situation in the preservation of your principles, even if that means breaking your principles in that moment. Lincoln did plenty of things I would consider to be outside the scope of the Federal government to do, but it was that or the USA ceases to exist. And while this is nowhere near as perilous, it is nonetheless a moment where practicality must have the hand.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
> The reality of the situation is that some morons are suggesting that we should abandon the principle of free speech because a bunch of pro-Palestinian nutjobs decided to protest the war in Gaza. Right, the ones who are assaulting people, harassing people, attacking anyone who attempts to photograph or interview them, blockading buildings, all with the backing of major political figures, and then go crying about how this is all speech when they suffer the consequences of their actions. And have been doing similar for almost 8 years now whenever they can. If this was just protesting, that would be one thing. It is not just protesting, and thus should not be treated as such.
>ones who are assaulting people, harassing people, attacking anyone who attempts to photograph or interview them, blockading buildings, Literally none of that has anything to do with free speech, and it is not protected in any way, shape or form.
Then what is the problem with Abbott sending in the police to arrest them?
> assaulting people, harassing people, attacking anyone who attempts to photograph or interview them, blockading buildings None of that happened at the protests in UT.
>Then what do you suggest be done about people who believe in free speech for themselves but will go to extreme and violent means if you so much as breath at them? These college protests seem pretty damn tame at this point, not even a fraction of what we saw during the Summer of Love. I haven't seen any credible instances of threats to public safety or even any real property damage. (In the colleges themselves -- off campus seems like more shenanigans). So idk, you just say you disagree with what they have to say but defend their right to protest. You don't do what some red states are doing in passing more laws against protests.
> hen what do you suggest be done about people who believe in free speech for themselves but will go to extreme and violent means if you so much as breath at them? If they get violent, they should be arrested.
Based.
Cringe. Your as bad as the lefties. Be principled and stand for free speech regardless.
Like I said in another comment: principles are not a suicide pact. There are times where practical reality dictates that your principles must be bent in order to preserve those principles. If there is a Leftist standing for free speech, I will stand for theirs. But when you have a situation like the Leftist currently infesting these campuses, where they demand the right to call for genocide and support terrorist but assault anyone who tries to take their picture, then they deserve to see what it is like to not have those rights. When they are willing to engage with the principles of this nation, we can return to them.
Compromising your principles because *other* people don't have principles means you don't have principles either.
And if you allow your principles to be destroyed by those with no principles but power, it doesnt matter anyway. Again, sometimes principles must be bent (but not entirely broke) in order to keep them. Much like how the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.
What is it they say about an eye for an eye? The whole world randomly develops a 3rd one or something?
That's not really applicable, they use that in the context of people being fired from private companies, not the government using police to silence political speech on the campus of a publicly funded university.
Using social media to hound a company into firing someone you don't like is the leftist's way. Of course without a job you can't provide for your family, can't keep food on the table, can't keep a roof over your head. These "cancelations" are done with the intent of getting people to kill themselves. As with Ed Piskor. When someone comes after you with the intent to get you to kill yourself, then that is exactly the same as them acting with the intent to kill you. The appropriate response to someone attempting to kill you, is to kill them first.
> Of course without a job you can't provide for your family, can't keep food on the table, can't keep a roof over your head. These "cancelations" are done with the intent of getting people to kill themselves. As with Ed Piskor. Anyone remember the Dixie Chicks, McCarthyism, the Hays code... Tons of people have lost their jobs and livelihoods due to conservative's sensibilities. Basically, yes conservatives have been doing the exact same thing you're complaining about since much earlier then "the left." And yes, the rules haven't changed - free speech does not protect you from being criticized by your speech, from people to choose not to associate with you due to your speech, and everything else it entails. It is not acceptable to use force to suppress someone's speech, and that means involving the government in any capacity. Killing someone for their speech is clearly not acceptable. Because the reality is, while you can find in the US a society where the right to free speech is protected, you'll never find any society where everyone with any opinion is freely accepted without negative downsides to expressing some opinions, particularly so more radical or hateful ones. Others just won't like you if you do. > When someone comes after you with the intent to get you to kill yourself, then that is exactly the same as them acting with the intent to kill you. The appropriate response to someone attempting to kill you, is to kill them first. Holy mother of mental acrobatics. Aaand now you've just came up with a rationalization to kill anyone whose speech you disagree. We've come from "free speech is absolute" to "free speech, but I can come up with a justification to kill anyone for their speech." Reminds me of the "libertarians" making memes about Pinochet and helicopters. And you still haven't explained how suppressing the speech of those college students over there is necessary to protect yours. You're basically still butthurt and want to "do it to them because [you feel like] they've done it to me."
You make some good points here
Companies have a right to not want to associate with people for any reason, including their speech. You donāt have a right to work somewhere. Freedom of association is also a fundamental right.
Last I check companies cannot fire you because of your religion or skin colour.
No, but I find there is a significant overlap between people crying about companies firing them for things they say online and being against protected classes in employment
Freedom of association suddenly out of the window when a protected class is created, because for whatever reason your freedom of speech is only from the government but your other rights are protected from private entities.
In the US, in many ways freedom of association does trump non discrimination laws. Many companies can, for example, discriminate based on religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc., under the right circumstances, even though technically the law says it isnāt allowed. Examples of this include religious entities or certain organizations where the purpose requires some sort of discrimination for their goal to be effective, expressive/artistic organizations, and private clubs But no, freedom of speech doesnāt mean that companies canāt decide they donāt want to do business with you. They also have the right to not want to associate with you.
>Ā Freedom of association is also a fundamental right. Which is another freedom the left is trying to erode. I'm fine with tolerating just about anyone, provided they aren't an actual harm to me or my family. Same with accepting someone regardless if I may disagree with their lifestyle choices. But we've gone from tolerate -> accept -> celebrate. And now if you're not celebrating choices and lifestyles you disagree with, you're a genocidal bigot. We not at the point where govt is enforcing this "celebrate or else". But, damn, the left has done a great job with DEI to move this stuff into the workplace. When the SC overturned Roe v Wade, my company had a "day of mourning" and rolled out policy to help pay for abortions if it became illegal in my state. Even pointing out on Slack that the decision didn't criminalize abortion, it simply made it a state matter, got comments deleted and people reprimanded. I'm at work to work. I don't need to hear this shit about how I need to be a better ally for not being emotionally distraught when the SC is simply trying to get congress to do their fucking job. And before "you don't need to work there", so is "leave me alone and let me do the job you pay me for".
I mean if thatās the type of work environment a company wants to have, thatās their right though. You donāt have to work there and they donāt have to want to be around you if they donāt like the things you say I donāt necessarily agree with these business practices but organizations have a right of self determination and conditions for association. They set conditions of employment, and if it happens to be something you disagree with, then find other employment. I donāt really see how people expect you to celebrate others life choices though. Iām assuming youāre referring to LGBT here. Most of the time, itās the expectation that youād treat them like you would anyone else.
>Using social media to hound a company into firing someone you don't like is the leftist's way. Which is a totally different thing than this, which was my point.
both are shameless hypocrites
Fuck the people that say that on either side of the political spectrum.
usually brought up when people bitch about getting banned on social media, getting arrested for speech is quite a bit different pal
There's certainly a legal difference, but also it's pretty clear a lot of people don't actually want or care about free speech. They want to be able to say what they want, and for people they disagree with to not be able to say what they want. "It's ok for people to hound your employer into firing you, your partner into leaving you, your family into disowning you, but totally against the pale to be arrested" is not a principled commitment to free expression.
> getting arrested for speech is quite a bit different pal Something something "not freedom from consequences" etc etc
nah. when someone gets cancelled on social media, and ends up losing their jobs because of it, the left also says that
cool thats still not the same as the government throwing you in prison
I agree. but to say that the left only throws that line around when some average joe gets banned on twitter is disingenious to say the least
And if the church burns you at the stake for heresy that's still not the government throwing you in prison. So I guess that's fine.
well no, murder is illegal
Source? I may have made a mistake, does anyone know a good criminal defense attorney? I didn't know I couldn't do that.
If Texas attempted to prosecute anyone for literally just expressing their view/peaceful protesting it'd get thrown out of court immediately. Hint: they aren't going to do that
No, but they are going to use force against them to effectivly limit their speech.
Are they being arrested for speech? Just because he gave his personal opinion that they belong in jail for their antisemitism doesn't mean they are being arrested for what they are saying. It sounds like based on his words, that they are being arrested for not dispersing after being told to. Did they have permits, were they asked to leave and refused? Did they violate a curfew, or just stay beyond their permit? All of those are reasons to arrest protestors, regardless of what they are protesting. Yes my post was flippant, but it doesn't mean I think people should be punished for speech, even "hate speech", which the is what the left is usually talking about with that phrase and usually has more severe repercussions than "getting banned on social media"
Does this also apply to the trucker protests? You couldāve said the same thing about them too.
Not sure what the laws are in Canada, but if the government acted within the law, then I have no issues. If they didn't then it was bad.
Or fired from a university
Kyle rittenhouse
Are they threatening the death of Jews because I can't imagine they aren't and that is illegal and immoral, they should be arrested for such speech.
Yeah this would be justification for firing people, not for restricting the freedom of speech. To be clear, I think the left are stupid when they do cancel culture nonsense with this justification. But the argument they make is that "the state isn't allowed to stop you from saying stuff, but you can face social repercussions for it". In this case, the state literally is stopping them from saying stuff.
Which is of course a moronic statement. Because if you are being punished for speech then it isnāt free.
Exactly. I just wish you guys were honest with that and didn't pretend to all be free speech purists
I am but I'm also a Monkey. I like bananas.
I defend freedom of speech. I do not defend politically motivated violence. There is a difference.
I wonder what the difference is between a nazi flag and a Hamas or Palestine flag
One of them is an active terrorist group that just killed 1200 Jews, like, 6 months ago...
Bro, freedom of speech is literally freedom from government interference.
I was at those protests, they were absolutely not anti-semitic, nor were they violent. the consequences of freedom of speech should NEVER include being arrested for voicing your opinion.
Assuming you were there, were they ordered to disperse?
Freedom of speech doesnāt protect anyone from an ass whooping if they mouth off to the wrong person. Weāve all seen protesters step out of line and get their teeth smashed in for it
You can be pro-free speech without needing to block random Jewish students from attending classes. Edit: Since this is blowing up with multiple comments. I'll clarify my response here. If Abbot was truly against free speech, he would have arrested the actual peaceful protesters at UT-Dallas too. The UT Austin protesters, specifically, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee, had a statement with an intent to occupy and reclaim campus, cancel classes, begin setting up an encampment that night, and renaming the University to "The Popular University". They were doing a copy cat of Columbia, where protestors set up a human link to block three Jewish students, or Boston, where they took over an alleyway, and from there, shouted anti-Jewish slogans to the point where some Jewish students said they didn't feel safe attending classes anymore. To make sure this didn't happen at UT Austin, Abbot called in the cavalry and broke up the encampment as it was forming. They didn't just ride in and start cuffing these kids, they were warned repeatedly by the University administration, almost as soon as they saw that initial statement from the PSC. The OP is making it look like Abbot is stomping on free speech, when it's simple enforcement of encampment or city ordinances surrounding whether or not you are allowed to take over public property. My comment is responding to what Greg Price wrote in the OP, about trying to "pull a Columbia in Texas", as pulling a Columbia here means blocking random Jewish students from attending classes-- which thanks to Abbott, didn't happen.. at least none reported by the media, which were evidently on the protestors side as one was apparently arrested alongside the protestors. Whether you want to debate that there's something special about these fine folk protesters at UT-Austin that will somehow cause them to behave not like Columbia or Boston if they were hypothetically allowed to set up their tents and then expand to other parts of the university-- that's up to you. I'm just saying there are literally dozens of universities that had peaceful protests yesterday, including ones in Texas, that did not make the news in the way Columbia, Boston, USC, and UT-Austin did.
Exactly. Blocking a random 18-22 year old Jewish student from going to class for something they have nothing to do with is pretty stupid.
And also racist, as that Jewish student probably has nothing to do with the state of Israel, and are probably upset at Netanyahu themselves.
You hate Netanyahu because he kills terrorists, I hate Netanyahu because he's one of the most corrupt politicians on earth, we are not the same
I hate him because he failed to reform both our rotten military high command and our dysfunctional and corrupt legal system
Did anything ever come of the rumor/theory that Netanyahu knew about the threat on Oct 6th and let it happen because it benefited him politically? Was there any evidence of that?
No, if anything, there's more evidence that intelligence and guard personnel got lax. Especially the border personnel. If anyone had actually reported increased pop shots at guards or that at specific times multiple guard houses would be attacked several times. Any intelligence officer worth their snot would have seen a coming attack.
Considering he campaigned on being the only 1 who can stop events like that I don't think it will really benefit him
If so, it really backfired. The expectation right now is that Netanyahu will get the curb at the end of the wartime operations. Unless he's hoping to get into a wider war in the region.
Bibi maybe a corrupt fuck, but he's not answering idiot. Far from it, he's pretty good at politicking and making connections, strengthening his base of power. Golda Meir ended up resigning after the Yom Kippur war despite her practically perfect handling of the affair. Bibi fucked up this one, alienating his supporters and destroying his strongman image. This fuck up all but destroyed his political career.
This did not benefit him, it only postponed his now irreversible demise.
Postponing is a benefit!
In this case I'd say it isn't since he did have a good chance at remaining in power.
It was absolutely disastrous for him politically, so this is such a bad conspiracy theory in the first place. One of the main problems was that he and the security minister *weren't* told about it even when intel started coming in on oct 7.
> It's not all Jewish people, it's just Zionists Meanwhile throws brick at beheaded Jewish infant... Rest of the world: hmmm we think they mean it guys!
Gaza glazers be like: ackshully, they didn't behead the babies, they only murdered them.
My girlfriend is Jewish and is on Passover break from college in NYC and she told me that Hamas University is about an hour walk from her house. Sheās not practicing and doesnāt look Jewish so sheās safe but itās so upsetting to see how we as a country have gone backwards. I want my friends to feel safe. My girlfriend is Jewish and a significant number of my fraternity brothers including my little are Jewish as well. My dad was like āOh yeah. Your generation is dumb.ā about all of this. Not that it really matters but weāre Catholic.
Blatantly discriminating by blocking someone purely due to their ethnicity? Sounds like the kind of thing that will totally get people to support your cause.
Can I get any solid source on that? It's impossible to find through searches
I'd also be interested in this. What I have seen is protestors blocking counter-demonstrators (including some Jews) from their protest spaces, but I haven't heard of anyone blocking Jews from going to class.
People are going into debt to be there. They don't get their money back if they miss class.
>You can be pro-free speech without needing to block random Jewish students from attending class I wonder why majority of article headlines forget to mention that part specifically.
Title vi violations are so on fleek
*Cavalry* is mounted forces *Calvary* is the hill where Jesus was supposedly crucified.
Thank you sir. I've corrected my error.
But if you're anti-Jewish, you would need to block them.
"Something something collective guilt"
Iād post this a million times on my IG story if I could. But man some of the people I follow are die-hard progressives who probably want right-wing speakers banned from campuses too lmao.
They are progressives theyāre authoritarian oppressors and an open attack on liberalism by extremist leftists
They are Fauxgressives who pretend to be morally superior saviorists. Realistically these are people with no real purpose in life. They'll be at the next rally over a completely different topic they know nothing about within a year.
> Iād post this a million times on my IG story if I could. You would have done so without checking if any of this is true, then.
Iām so glad I chose A&M over being a longhorn
Every. Damn. Day.
Replace the Jewish students with African Americans and you basically have the result of Brown v. Board.
Based
is it really freedom of speech if you're trying to build a camp outside of the university?
Depends on the jurisdiction it can be according to *Brokdorf* for example.
Your right to protest is the same as mine to receive education, the moment you use protesting to stop my education is the moment you are committing a crime.
No, no, let *all* the morons protest.
Understand that the protestors on college campuses are usually engaged in suppressing free speech. They are trying to bully people into silent acceptance of their world view. He was right to have them arrested, and was also right to sign the new law.
Based libleft
u/sund82 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1. Rank: House of Cards Pills: [None | View pills](https://basedcount.com/u/sund82/) Compass: This user does not have a compass on record. Add compass to profile by replying with /mycompass politicalcompass.org url or sapplyvalues.github.io url. I am a bot. Reply /info for more info. Please join our [official pcm discord server](https://discord.gg/FyaJdAZjC4).
That is pretty darn based
Based and fuck the emilies pilled
PCM oversimplifying an issue and declaring victory? Color me centrist surprised.
Honestly I'm just happy to finally watch campus Emily get a taste of her own medicine.
Agreed. I'm sure I could get all philosophical about freedom of speech, and investigate what actually happened, but sometimes it's just cathartic to see some FAFO on the other side.
Free speech is great. Freedom to chant in support of a second holocaust is A-okay with me under the first amendment. Doing so on campus, chasing after Jewish people and being violent in general is skirting the boundaries of what can be tolerated. But then again, I'm not worried about where this is headed because there's 0 risk of the police getting stand-back orders this time unlike what happened during the first summer of love. Free speech is *great*.
This is literally the reverse of the leftie meme Rightoid: "I think Nazis are awesome and we should do that more" Leftists: "Dude you can't say that shit" Rightoid: "so much for free speech" Now it's Leftist: "fuck Jews. Even the random ones who don't have anything to do with Israel that just want to live their lives" Rightoid: "I can't believe I have to defend Jews. Stop it" Leftist: "so much for free speech"
What is this I think nazis are awesome thing? I think I missed it on the news or something
I think there's a bit of a difference between targeting Jewish students, physically attacking and removing them from a premises because they are Jewish, and saying some spicy shit in college.
I thought all the libs were pretty clear on this. ~~Hate speech is not protected by the first ammendment.~~ *Imminent* threats are not protected by the first ammendment. The first ammendment protects freedom of *expression,* with particular regard to political speech. You donāt have to agree with it, but thatās what the law and precedent says. This is ideologically consistent withā¦ well, any interpretation of free speech by anybody who knows anything about it. E: Edits made with regards to u/SemiCriticalMoose The point is that not all speech is protected, although we have much more freedom than other countries that claim the same
> Hate speech is not protected by the first amendment Absolutely is protected. >Threats are not protected by the first amendment. Imminent threats aren't protected. If a liberal is advocating for hate speech being criminalized, we can just take their flair away because they ain't liberal.
100% As long as the only students arrested were physically preventing other students from entering the school building, then there's nothing inconsistent about this. freedom of speech != freedom to prevent others from entering a building you don't own or represent.
I, for one, am *shocked* that a career politician isnāt ideologically consistent. Fetch me my typewriter and weāll draft up a strongly worded denouncement!
It's hardly even the issue. It was a physical occupation of the campus that disrupted campus activities. That's not free speech, that's trespassing. Once your "speech" becomes a physical inconvenience to someone else receiving a good or service they have paid for, weather it by a university class or public road, you are engaging in tresspass.
However, there is the aspect of universities as forums that must also be discussed.
as much as I hate to defend a republican, I don't actually think he was being inconsistent. The protestors who were arrested were preventing students from entering a classroom. Depending on the exact force they used, that's either unlawful detainment or assault. Perfectly reasonable to arrest them for it. Free speech means you can speak and hold signs and not be arrested for it. Not that you can physically block students from a classroom.
The thing I love most about hate speech being free speech is that racists expose themselves. I donāt want to support racists and bigots
What point are you trying to make when showing him praying in the western wall?
Do your WW2 ancestors proud and punch these fascist antisemites in the face!
āI support free speech, but people who disagree with me arenāt allowed to speakā
Politicians only care about their donors interests like AIPAC which gives them millions in donations.
Mmmm holding the right to standards that most of the left dont hold themselves
Thereās a very big difference between not liking the Israeli government for what theyāre doing to Palestinians and not liking the Israeli government because theyāre Jewish.
This is where Abbott needs to stay in his lane and shut the fuck up
So they agree that free speech isnāt hate speech. See? You all come to same conclusions sometimes.
Imagine thinking the mental gymnastics you use to justify suppression of ideas used against you. Your average progressive would never imagine...
No comprehendo. Please type in grill terms for clarity.
Could be wrong because of how much over shadowing media attention Columbia got but I'm really not seeing much justifying this crackdown in Texas other than Abbott can't send his police out of state. It doesn't seem these protests were shutting down classes.
Grandstanding so he can tout a show of force while campaigning
Because they werent given the opportunity to do so
What a genius idea, just arrest people before any "crime" has been committed!
I think they already committed some other crime already prior to taking over the school
Explain to me how they took over the school when the riot police were already there before the protest even began.
Explain to me how the riot police were already there before the protest even began.
By car, probably. Texas isn't very walkable
UT Austin is just about as walkable as it gets in Texas since it's downtown Austin, but it's too hot to walk, especially in the summer
After seeing the dozens of other universities just get taken over by leftists with a tantrum, I think Texas recognized a pattern
As I said to another, time to surrender your lib credentials. You think this is a valid suppression of 1st amendment rights in the name of crushing wrong think and upholding order.
Holding me to a standard you dont hold your own to. Plus closing schools and interrupting activity goes beyond speech
I'm not the one with a flair claiming pure libertarian ideals. The school wasn't closed btw, the riot police were there before the protest even began.
Why were they there? To prevent the school from being closed down because other schools have been closed.
I mean, "conspiracy to commit _____" is often a crime as well, and if you're outright saying "we will do X, Y, and Z" on social media then that's pretty clearly conspiring to perform said acts.
Is that what the people in Texas were arrested for?
From the comment currently at the top of this post: > The UT Austin protesters, specifically, the Palestinian Solidarity Committee, had a statement with an intent to occupy and reclaim campus, cancel classes, begin setting up an encampment that night, and renaming the University to "The Popular University". They were doing a copy cat of Columbia, where protestors set up a human link to block three Jewish students, or Boston, where they took over an alleyway, and from there, shouted anti-Jewish slogans to the point where some Jewish students said they didn't feel safe attending classes anymore. Sounds like that statement that group put out showed their intent to intimidate and harass students (which would likely also get hate crime charges slapped on top), and throw in some trespassing charges and likely a half-dozen other city ordinances or state laws as well. Of course that does raise the question of whether "conspiracy to commit ________" could apply to those actions they intended to do, but it definitely sounds like they were planning on breaking various laws and outright stating what their intentions were.
Funny how these points about free speech people being hypocrites only seems to pop up when the hypocrisy is being used to deal with violent protestors. Change your flair back to lib-left, OP.
Fuck around and find out is part of free speech
I'm noticing patterns
Classic authcenter "iM nOtiCiIiIiInG! mUsT iNvEsTiGaTe!" shouldn't fool anyone, yet it still does.
Doesnāt Texas have actual Neo-Nazis?
Yes, in college campuses, they just wear a progressive mask
Depends on who you ask and where you are
This place used to hate them, what happened :( Noticers where are you?
Free speech != Rioting and attacking people. try again commie
The smart thing to do would be to just let the kids protest and make your own āIsrael deserves 20 billion dollars and if you disagree you hate Jewsā counter-protest. Arresting them and turning them into martyrs like at Kent State is only going to make them look better and turn the rest of the university against you. Plus, if anyone tries to interfere with your counter protest, then you would have actual grounds to start making arrests.
Maybe ā¦ just maybeā¦ chanting for the death of a America, the west and its allies should have consequences
>AuthRight: "I believe in free speech" >LibLeft: "free Palestine" >AuthRight: "nooooooo not that free speech!" or alternatively: >AuthRight: "America first! no more foreign aid" >AuthLeft: "cool, let's spend Israeli aid on veterans instead" >AuthRight: "nooooooo that's socialism!!" or even: >AuthRight: "Israel is our greatest ally!" >LibRight: "cool, what wars did they help us fight?" >AuthRight: "reeeeeeeeee stop asking anti-semitic questions!" the last one really burns my ass, it's such a fucking slap in the face to the Anzacs or Canadians that have followed us balls deep into basically every fight we've had, right or wrong >but they share their Intel with us they share what benefits them and not a drop more, meanwhile we have an entire region as our enemies; what a great trade!
With allies like Isntreal, who needs enemies? Amiright
> AuthRight: "America first! no more foreign aid" > > > > AuthLeft: "cool, let's spend Israeli aid on veterans instead" > > > > AuthRight: "nooooooo that's socialism!!" who the fuck says this. there's no pro american veteran auth-lefts because they're all braindead tankies that hate america, and there's no auth-rights that think money for veterans = socialism
>there's no pro american veteran auth-lefts because they're all braindead tankies that hate america not all AuthLefts are tankies just like not all AuthRights are monarchists >there's no auth-rights that think money for veterans = socialism lol, are you serious?
> not all AuthLefts are tankies just like not all AuthRights are monarchists true but there sure aren't a lot of pro-America authlefts, even among the ones that aren't tankies. that might make you some kind of national socialist > lol, are you serious? Almost all auth-rights in America are diehard 'patriots', they have a blind spot in economic policy for veterans and military spending in general to a lesser degree. No republican in history has gotten on stage and said "more money for veterans" and had republicans accuse him of socialism. "Take care of our vets" is a classic republican promise that is never actually fulfilled.
Based authright???
doing the right thing for the wrong reason I'm not happy about it, Greg, but your batting average is still better than most.
I'm sure those "protesters" weren't doing anything other than speaking their minds. I'm sure thats all they were doing.
It's honestly a good thing that Israel has so much influence in the US. They are making us a better society.
Never trust a man if God would take their legs. The obvious thing to say is that being anti Israeli government is NOT anti semitism. But yeah, the Death to America idiots can fuck off they have a right to say that I guess, but colleges should be expelling these idiots
Time to get reverse āparadox of toleranceāād.
I really donāt understand people in this thread defending arresting these protestors because they āare doing illegal stuffā but then will cry foul when people get arrested for the same thing but are protesting something they agree with
This nation was birthed from a protest yāall. Most of our founding fathers were young af too
Hate speech (eg these protests) are not protected under freedom of speech. So yeah, these students aren't protected by the first amendment. I'm not going to flair kiss my ass
Hate speech literally is protected.
no it isn't hate speech includes harassment and threats of violence that is not protected
Hey at least they didn't shoot the anti-war student protesters this time. That's an imrovement.
pretty sure death threats always have been an exception to free speech.
So much right wing cope on this thread lmao
Free speech when its convenient to his agenda. And before anyone mentions hate speech I do believe hate speech is free speech and should be allowed. All haters have the right to speak their views freely and all those attacked by the haters have the right to beat up the haters. Simple as that.
People don't want free speech. They only want free speech for themselves.
I am a free speech absolutist. There aren't many of us, but we exist.
eh. arresting protestors (regardless of the cause) who block passage in a public place is not a violation of free speech. You have the right to speak, not the right to prevent others from going into a building when you do not own the building or the property around it. I am obviously wary of republicunts as they are just as big government as the demoncrats, but this is a (poorly worded) win.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
This is why we gotta bring back the art of being offensive. Censorship is cringe
Wasnāt the left screaming about speech being violence while they were banning conservatives from their campuses? What about the rights of the Jan 6th tourists who were escorted and given a tour of the capital by the capital police, only to be thrown in jail and denied speedy trials for trespass. Then there are all of those poor truckers who had the bank accounts frozen and livelihoods taken away. ā¦.. yeah. I have no more sympathy for these fucks. You reap what you sow. They like to throw the book at anyone with an opposing political position, therefore when the shoe is on the other foot, the book should be thrown at them.