SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The fine folks over at The Tennessean bring us this interesting bit of news:
Inspired by a Breitbart News editor whose speeches have spurred protests at colleges across the country, state lawmakers on Thursday touted a bill that they said would protect free speech on Tennessee campuses.
While discussing the bill in a news conference, sponsors Rep. Martin Daniel and Sen. Joey Hensley referenced the protests against controversial conservative Milo Yiannopoulos, who is a senior editor at Breitbart. Violence erupted at a protest against a planned Yiannopoulos speech at the University of California, Berkeley, prompting officials there to cancel the speech. The lawmakers indicated that the violence had hampered the expression of conservative ideas at Berkeley. Similar issues have cropped up in Tennessee, they said.
Daniel, R-Knoxville, called his legislation "the Milo bill," and said it was "designed to implement oversight of administrators' handling of free speech issues."
Hensley, R-Hohenwald, said the bill was specifically tailored to defend students with conservative views that he said had been silenced in the past.
"We've heard stories from many students that are honestly on the conservative side that have those issues stifled in the classroom," Hensley said. "We just want to ensure our public universities allow all types of speech."
Glad to see my state getting this correct even though they can't pull their heads out of their asses about broadband competition.
[Ed. Note: The current bill has no summary on the Tennessee General Assembly site, but it is likely similar or identical to the previous year's version from the same sponsors which died in committee.]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday February 12 2017, @07:23AM
There are quite a few ideas that don't qualify for the moniker "civil discourse". For example, Milo & crew's inference that being black means you deserve a premature and violent death is an idea that doesn't need free exchange - it needs a kick in the balls. With a baseball bat.
What, specifically, are you saying should happen to such people? That people should use their own free speech to launch vicious insults at them? That people should use violence against them? That universities and other places shouldn't allow them to give speeches? I would agree with the first one but not the other two, since I value the concept of freedom of speech even if I think the speech is horrendous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 12 2017, @10:04AM
What, specifically, are you saying should happen to such people?
That they should die in a fire? That they should die in a fire, with a red hot poker up their ass? I really have a hard time imagining the appropriate treatment for the alt-right racist idiots that have foisted Trump on the American people. But Chinese Buddhist afterlife porn is helpful! Dead, by a thousand cuts? Dead by being tied to a chimney and slowly roasting to death? Dead, by demons with phalluses with the most amazing innovations, not for your pleasure. Death by having the entire civilized world ridicule you, and your President, and his "Cabinet", and Kellyane and Ginger and Spicy, and their little dog too. Wait. Trump does not have a dog? Fuck, even G W Bush had a god-damned Whitehouse dog! What the hell is he doing? Grabbing Pussies in the Whitehouse? Well, we saw how well that worked out a couple of administrations ago.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday February 12 2017, @12:27PM
^ this ^
Whatever happened to the concept, "I despise what you're saying, but I'll defend your right to say it to the death if necessary."
Let's take televangelists for instance. I've never heard one, or even heard OF one, that I can respect. If/when I get trapped into listening to one for even a minute or two, I'm thinking, "Why don't you STFU you cretin?" At the very same time, if some left/dem/progressive/liberal/whatever attempted to silence the inane imbecile, I'd be far more "offended" than I am by the babbling fool himself.