SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the when-the-First-Amendment-isn't-clear-enough dept.
On college campuses, outrage over provocative speakers sometimes turns violent.
It's becoming a pattern on campuses around the country. A speaker is invited, often by a conservative student group. Other students oppose the speaker, and maybe they protest. If the speech happens, the speaker is heckled. Sometimes there's violence.
In other cases — as with conservative commentator Ann Coulter at the University of California, Berkeley last week — the event is called off.
Now, a handful of states, including Illinois, Tennessee, Colorado and Arizona, have passed or introduced legislation designed to prevent these incidents from happening. The bills differ from state to state, but they're generally based on a model written by the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank based in Arizona.
The model bill would require public universities to remain neutral on political issues, prevent them from disinviting speakers, and impose penalties for students and others who interfere with these speakers.
The author of the model bill argues that the neutrality stipulation is necessary for public institutions funded by tax dollars, "who shouldn't be forced to subsidize speech that they disagree with." In response to the legislation, a Democratic North Carolina legislator criticized the bill as an unnecessary "regulation of a constitutional right." The story also mentions that "Critics say this kind of legislation could hinder a university's ability to regulate hate speech on campus," but the bill author responds that hate speech is "not well-defined in the law."
Although the proposed legislation varies by state, the model bill linked above recommends a number of initiatives, from clear campus policies on protecting free speech to severe disciplinary actions for students who interfere with that right. Perhaps the strongest section of the model bill would require that "Any student who has twice been found responsible for infringing the expressive rights of others will be suspended for a minimum of one year, or expelled" (Section 1.9).
In other free speech news, USA Today reports that the FCC is launching an investigation into an "obscene" joke by Stephen Colbert concerning Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, which caused a Twitter firestorm and led to a trending #FireColbert hashtag. While the joke was sexually explicit, the offensive word was bleeped in broadcast. CNN has argued that the FCC is merely doing its job in investigating "a number" of complaints, but Slate notes the high legal threshold that would be necessary for a fine in this case, given the late hour of the broadcast and the three-pronged test for obscenity.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Lagg on Sunday May 07 2017, @07:42PM (6 children)
That is to say so long as there's a way to use it as a stage prop they'll happily pretend they care about it. Then you'll later hear your county government employees refer to it in slurs.
The fact that Arizona has anything to do with it [phoenixnewtimes.com] immediately makes me suspicious it's an attempt to stop people from rejecting the idea of religion in their studies. Though the point is valid that you can't suppress free speech no matter how toxic it is, it frustrates me so much that they pretend that it's anything besides an attempt to push their cult's dogma into academia. I never had to deal with the protest cunts - since the people who were at a community college can't afford privileged shit like that. We just went to classes. But I can quite certainly say that the ugliest "conservative" opinions imaginable were at the very least tolerated by the campus.
Arizona is also one of the states that likes to blame the opioid and meth issue on people who are fundamentally living life wrong. You know. By having the gall to fall into poverty /or have varying pigmentation. Since it's one of the states that is good at keeping people ignorant [phoenixnewtimes.com]. Probably because southern. And inbreds. And rednecks. (that's our word)
If the Arizona state government is participating in something. Look at it close. Especially if it seems like a progressive cause. Because I guarantee you after years of first hand experience there is something fucky in it.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday May 07 2017, @07:47PM
I meant to link to this article [azcentral.com] for link #2. With this video of total fabrication [youtube.com] to show how far they'll go. Yeah this is another one of my fucking weed posts. But AZ has made me suffer for years due to lies about healthcare and social services. It's the only material I've got that isn't just downright depressing. They engage pretty deeply into the political manipulation.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:02PM (3 children)
From your first link:
So you believe that Russian Hackers and Globalist Meddlers should be able to finance and organize violent protests on our home soil? I have nothing wrong with protesting, but there's a big difference between organic movements and the kind of paid organized thuggery of the kind our own government uses to undermine other governments -- Organically, a bunch of likeminded protesters would get together with a few chants and a leader or two would rise to the top -- but what we're seeing are movements who have handlers rather than leaders, with their rabid attack-dogs commanded from the shadows.
All these Antifa thugs and this BLM shit literally came out of nowhere. Anti-fascist organizations have existed since at least early last century, but something smells funny about this current domestic iteration. I'd take it a few steps further than what Arizona's bill offered -- My bill would charge Color Revolution-style protest organizers with racketeering and sedition, and also RICO statutes if any protesters or protest staff were paid. The penalties, if convicted, would be stiff and would include prison time (Joe Arpaio-style, making them all wear pink pannies and puttin' them in the hole) as well as forfeiture of all assets and outlawing of NGOs or other groups associated with the protests. Arsonists and organizers would both be placed on the arson registry, if applicable to the state. Colleges and police departments who do not provide a safe learning experience and free speech will have their funding pulled and the decision-makers gutted from their organizations.
There's a lot of things wrong with Arizona, but the proposition of that bill is not one of them. Hell, if I could escape California's idiocy and go live in a cabin in the White Mountains, you bet your ass I'd do just that.
(Score: 2) by Lagg on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:09PM (1 child)
My opinion is normally more or less this: If it allows the government to silence dissent easily under a false pretense. I don't want it.
I didn't want the intimidating legal profiling for the same reason. Your idealism is far from reality I'm sorry to say. The reality is that it's another excuse to staple people's mouths shut by a horrible state with long running corruption [wikipedia.org] problems at all levels.
In other words yes, per my Russian handler's orders I am fine with russian hackers and BLM thugs. Which sound like a new subway sammich promoted by DMX. Badass.
http://lagg.me [lagg.me] 🗿
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Arik on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:28PM
You have my full agreement on that principle. The solution to horrible people saying horrible things is good people pointing out how awful they are, and then everyone laughing at them and ignoring them. Not using force against them, not invoking the state.
When, however, they do initiate force, it's legitimate to retaliate with the state force as one option. This can already be done using existing laws against assault, battery, deprivation of civil rights, etc. for the most part. (I'm also of the opinion we have quite enough laws on the books already and any new laws should be required to simplify the existing law rather than simply adding onto the incomprehensible bulk of it.)
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Monday May 08 2017, @05:51PM
So you believe that Russian Hackers and Globalist Meddlers should be able to finance and organize violent protests on our home soil?
Your double-standard is showing, Eth.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday May 08 2017, @03:31PM
Do laws in Arizona apply to rich and poor equally alike?
Does Arizona selectively enforce its law [phoenixnewtimes.com] that allows only two dildos per household [dumblaws.com]? Does this law only apply to poor or non white people? Are rich, white, 'heterosexual', 'christian', males the only ones allowed to have more than two dildos per household?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.