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: 4, Troll) by Whoever on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:05PM (26 children)
You are so fucking naive.
The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years. Reagan was probably close to where many of the Democrats are now.
The USA has been sold down the river by Robert Mercer, in concert with Steve Bannon and others. To whom? I'm not sure, but the influence of Russia looks very suspicious.
The emphasis on fossil fuels at the expense of renewables is runs 100% counter to real American interests. Russia needs fossil fuels to have a higher prices.
The sad fact is that ignorant fucks like you can't see how wrong you are. The suggestion that the USA has been moving left for the last 30 years shows how out of contact with reality you are.
So, I am looking forward for the pendulum to swing, and soon, but not in the direction that you think.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:21PM (22 children)
Et tu.
"The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years. Reagan was probably close to where many of the Democrats are now."
Oh pshaw. The motion is consistently in the opposite direction. It takes about 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative *without changing a single position.*
I remember Reagan. I don't remember any legal dope or transexual bathrooms, in fact simply acknowledging that gay men existed was still somewhat socially unacceptable. The country has in no way become more conservative. Quite the opposite, not just the country but the Republican party itself has become drastically more liberal in many very obvious and visible ways.
Now 'left' and 'right,' 'liberal' and 'conservative' are probably not the best ways to analyze this, but just on your own terms you're making no sense, what you're saying has no resemblance to reality. Given that, it's no surprise you finish off with an unironic appeal to Russophobia. When you go too far in one direction or another reality warps and cranial rectosis often occurs as a result.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Whoever on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:57PM (6 children)
Perhaps on some matters the country has become more liberal.
But on fiscal matters?
Look at all the states that are restricting access to abortions: is that a move to the left?
Let's face it, we have had 30 years of trickle-down economics and the disparity between the wealthy and poor has only increased.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday May 07 2017, @11:16PM (5 children)
"Let's face it, we have had 30 years of trickle-down economics and the disparity between the wealthy and poor has only increased."
We've had (quite a bit more than 30 years of) increasing centralized control of the economy, and no surprise, the people that wield that control have benefited greatly from the arrangement, at the expense of the rest of us. It has mattered little if at all whether the blue team or the red team was in power at any given point, the problem is bipartisan.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Whoever on Monday May 08 2017, @01:09AM (4 children)
No, it isn't. That's just another falsehood promulgated by the religious right.
But you still push an agenda that the country needs a correction to the right? Please try to keep on message. It's like trying to argue with an anti-vaxxer: one argument is knocked down and they just invent another line.
If there is a bi-partisan issue, it's because the center of politics has moved so far to the right.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @01:20AM (2 children)
Yeah, actually, it is. In much of Europe it's only unrestricted in the first trimester.
"That's just another falsehood promulgated by the religious right."
Is that what's called an 'alternative fact?' So all the normal sources of info are wrong on this, because some nebulous religous right conspiracy managed to infiltrate each and every one and publish lies under their stamp? Is that really your argument?
"But you still push an agenda that the country needs a correction to the right? "
Where did I say that? We haven't been talking about what I think the country needs, we've been talking about what I see the country doing.
It's swinging hard to the right, as a reaction against the absolutely awful state of the left. And rather than take some criticism on board and clean up its act and become what the country needs, I see the left (for the most part) sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting the same obnoxious BS even louder.
If I thought this country *needs* a hard swing to the right I'd be pleased as punch about that. I'm not, not at all. Are you capable of comprehending such subtleties?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:56AM
Yeah, actually, it is. In much of Europe it's only unrestricted in the first trimester.
That is exactly how it should be. Arguing about anything after the 1st trimester is ignorant, abortions should only happen before then and are generally only performed when the mother's life is in danger from carrying to term. You should be cheering on Europe if they really do make late term abortions harder.
clean up its act and become what the country needs
Please list the things that need cleaning up. If you do have such a subtle view on US politics then enlighten us so we can see if we agree on any of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @07:43AM
Yeah, actually, it is. In much of Europe it's only unrestricted in the first trimester.
Maybe that's true. I don't know.
What I do know is that at best that's a lie by omission.
It doesn't matter if abortion is technically legal if there are no places a woman can go to get an abortion.
For example, In Missouri there is 1 abortion clinic left. [theguardian.com]
That's because the religious right has been going after abortion indirectly, with ridiculous laws like requiring abortion clinics to have doctors with attending privileges at a hospital and then discouraging hospitals from giving those privileges to any doctors who work at abortion clinics.
Other abusive laws are things like waiting periods which require the woman to get counseling and then wait 24-48 hours before having the procedure. If you have to travel 200 miles to get to a clinic and then have to wait another day for treatment that is a significant burden, it means time off from work, money for a motel, etc.
Missouri isn't unique either:
Abortions down in Alabama: Tough laws close clinics, cut numbers [al.com]
Louisiana down to 2 abortion clinics [nola.com]
The number of abortion clinics in Texas had halved to 19. [texastribune.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @03:14PM
No, it isn't. That's just another falsehood promulgated by the religious right.
Europe is a big fucking place buddy. Think beyond the usual Cuckistan countries of the West/North Europe. In many, there are few exceptions, (like Poland). In some states there are no exceptions for abortions at ALL (See Ireland)!
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Sunday May 07 2017, @11:02PM (14 children)
And perhaps, before you accuse me of naivete, you should read this interesting article [theguardian.com] about how democracy in the USA and UK has been hacked by powerful wealthy interests.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Sunday May 07 2017, @11:25PM (13 children)
Their apparent collective inability to understand that simple message, as seen by so many elaborate attempts to invent some sort of alternative meaning, appears to guarantee they'll lose the next one too.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @04:31AM (12 children)
You do realize Trump lost the popular vote right? The electorate actually disagrees with the minority of cowardly nationalists who also happen to have pretty much the entire population of neo-nazis as well. You should really think long and hard about who your compatriots are and what they stand for. Maybe research the issues from an objective standpoint and review actual facts instead of letting your emotions get triggered by click-bait stories.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @04:51AM (11 children)
You mean more people nationwide voted for Clinton, I presume, and that may be true, by a fairly slim margin. She won the big cities where she was always going to win, but the large majority of the country repudiated her, and our system specifically requires the sort of diversity in support that Trump got and Clinton did not in order to win.
My read of the electorate is that they are so sick of the established political authorities and orthodoxies that they intentionally chose a clown for the top post rather than rubberstamp the supposedly inevitable Clinton succession. If you disagree please, feel free to post an explanation that fits the facts and makes sense and isn't some sort of intricate psychothriller plotline that only happens in paperback.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @06:15AM
You realize there is no such thing as 'the popular vote' in that race, right?
Arik, calm down. Of course there is such a thing, and Trump lost it. Burns him to no end, just as the diminutive size of his Johnson, but that is neither here nor there. Loss of the popular vote means the President does not have a "mandate", yes, he is president, but the majority of people do not support him, nor his policies, nor his executive orders, so even though the might have rejected the alternative, and voted for the "joke" candidate, that does not mean that he has the authority to rule. And given how much Congress has paid attention to his budget, no such authority exists. Trump is my president, he is my joke president. Not really a president. A New York Real Estate scammer, who accidentally became president. An old man too old to grab women who thinks that being president will help with that. A man with daddy issues, who thinks, that finally, now that he is president, he will be good enough for the old man, and his Dad might give him back his switchblade. Pathetic. Looserer.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @03:20PM (8 children)
You realize there is no such thing as 'the popular vote' in that race, right?
Really don't see what point you're trying to make here.
but the large majority of the country repudiated her
If you count everybody who didn't vote for her as "repudiating" her, sort of, but that's clearly crazy. An abstention is an abstention; you can't accurately read anything more into it without talking to specific voters. And 51.8% of voters is not a "large majority."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @06:48PM (7 children)
There is no popular vote. That's not how Presidents are elected in the US. This is really basic grade-school civics stuff it shouldn't be hard to understand. The vote tally was 304-227 in favor of Trump. This 'popular vote' is a fiction that our establishment media decided some years ago they preferred to pay attention to instead, but it's just that, a fiction, it doesn't mean anything.
"If you count everybody who didn't vote for her as "repudiating" her, sort of, but that's clearly crazy."
Is it? The media and all the establishment political figures came out for months putting this guy down at every opportunity, ridiculing him, and every time they did it his support increased. Don't pretend that the Bernie voters (rightly!) incensed at the corrupt DNC machine didn't choose to stay home or vote Green knowing full well this could put Trump in there and deciding it was worth the risk because Clinton really is that awful.
Trump's pretty awful but as we've seen with both parties united against him he can't get much done. Clinton would have been able to ram her agenda through Congress on the fast track instead.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @07:05PM (6 children)
There is no popular vote. That's not how Presidents are elected in the US. This is really basic grade-school civics stuff it shouldn't be hard to understand. The vote tally was 304-227 in favor of Trump. This 'popular vote' is a fiction that our establishment media decided some years ago they preferred to pay attention to instead, but it's just that, a fiction, it doesn't mean anything.
The popular vote isn't what (directly) elects the president, no, but it still takes place. They tally the popular vote by district then run it through the electoral college layer.
Technically there's no rule in place that electors *have* to vote according to the state popular vote, but in practice that's what everybody does. So the "fiction" is really a direct correlation. In a somewhat similar fashion, technically the British Monarch has the power to refuse to sign any bill Parliament passes. Of course, this hasn't happened since the 1600s and there would be a huge panic if she actually did. So do you consider Britain a monarchy or a representative government?
Is it? The media and all the establishment political figures came out for months putting this guy down...
Oh, so you switched from hard vote totals to general public feelings mid-paragraph. That's why I was confused.
Trump's pretty awful but as we've seen with both parties united against him he can't get much done. Clinton would have been able to ram her agenda through Congress on the fast track instead.
Yeah, that's what I was hoping really hard would happen before the election.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @08:01PM (4 children)
What you're calling the popular vote is not a vote for President, but a vote for electors. It seems you do understand how it works, why do you speak as if it was an entirely different thing?
"Oh, so you switched from hard vote totals to general public feelings mid-paragraph. That's why I was confused."
Sorry if I confused you, but both are important.
"Yeah, that's what I was hoping really hard would happen before the election."
That Clintons agenda would go through smoothly?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @08:16PM (3 children)
What you're calling the popular vote is not a vote for President, but a vote for electors.
Well then they should put the electors on the ballot instead of the president's name :P
It seems you do understand how it works, why do you speak as if it was an entirely different thing?
I'm not; you're the one who said the popular vote doesn't exist. I'm saying the popular vote is more or less another way of looking at the electoral vote. The electoral college is basically a less-accurate way of doing a popular vote anyway... (yes I know there's other reasons for it but still)
That Clintons agenda would go through smoothly?
That Trump would be fought by everyone on all the crazy stuff he tries to do.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @09:34PM (2 children)
They do. That makes me wonder if you didn't vote or just didn't read your ballot.
"That Trump would be fought by everyone on all the crazy stuff he tries to do."
Unfortunately even the relatively sensible things he wants to do generate the same opposition - even moreso, actually. But yes, it's heartening to see all these folks that have worshipped at the altar of unlimited presidential power for more than a decade suddenly discover the idea of limited powers, at least in some context.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @09:43PM (1 child)
Well then they should put the electors on the ballot instead of the president's name :P
They do. That makes me wonder if you didn't vote or just didn't read your ballot.
This [guim.co.uk] is what the ballots look like in my state. From an image search [google.com] it looks like we're a bit atypical (but hardly unique) in that regard. But that's no surprise; we're stupid about a lot of stuff politically here.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @10:19PM
I'm not from SD but I'm used to ballots that look very much like this one: https://sdsos.gov/elections-voting/upcoming-elections/general-information/2016-Presidential-Ballot-Access_clip_image001.jpg
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Arik on Monday May 08 2017, @09:31PM
I actually agree that the situations are similar. There is a divergence between legal fact and popular understanding and it's strengthened by custom that's contrary to law. It's made even muddier in the UK by the lack of a written Constitution, but it does seem that, in fact, the UK is still a Monarchy, albeit one where the Monarch is unlikely to exercise power out of fear that if she did it might suddenly cease to be a Monarchy. That's not such a long ways off from the philosophy of the USA founders, limited government, checks and balances, it's all coming out of the same common traditions.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @12:34PM
supposing that the electoral college voted in a loose cannon for the purpose of shaking up the current political structure is an intricate psychothriller.
look at it differently, climate science doesn't tell us exactly what a radical shift in temp will do to the planet, some folks argue that Los Angeles will be underwater in 6 months, some argue that plants will be happier with more heat and co2. the scientists aargue specifically that we can't know the result of such a large system shifting radically in such a short time, and that small, incremental changes are more predictable just by virtue of smaller and fewer factors.
if 400-odd people really did think they could predict the result of an orthoganal change in direction of our political infrastructure, they are incredibly irresponsible, at best, and thrilling psychos at worst
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday May 08 2017, @11:37AM (1 child)
"The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years"
I have no idea from what point in time you have made your post. I am posting from May of 2017, and the US has most definitely NOT been moving right. The momentum is actually toward the left - witness the fact that a half-white man got elected to the White House in the past decade. In times past, only a real-white man could have been elected. Witness the number of shrill women in congress - in times past, you would only have seen males, and slim chance that any of them would be non-white, half-white, off-white, or whatever.
This is what makes the left so very obviously crazy - they are changing things in this country, but they pretend that they are not. "The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years" Preposterous. That statement has no connection with reality at all.
You've forgotten gay rights, women's rights, black rights, and so much more. What period of time are you comparing today to? Give me a precise point in time, when this country was further left than it is today. Something about "The USA has been moving right for the last 30 years", right? Well let me just look at May 8, 1987 - pull up my trusty search engine, and enter that date in search . . .
All I'm finding on the first go-around is triva - Gary Hart and Donna Rice affair - the Loughgall ambush in Ireland - that stupid assed Dallas TV series killed off one of it's characters - Doris Stokes died. Nothing about a leftist utopia on that day. Houston Astros at Montreal? Maybe that was leftist, I don't know. Oh - the NYT news summary here: http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/08/nyregion/news-summary-friday-may-8-1987.html [nytimes.com] Iran-contra hearings. Yeah, now THAT sounds like a leftist utopia - pushing drugs to get guns.
I wonder how old you are. If you're still a young person, your PERCEPTION of the political climate in the US has probably changed some. If you happened to grow up in a liberal area, and then grew up to find that the entire nation isn't populated by leftist crazies, then your perception of the nation would have changed drastically.
1987 - I lived through it. Believe me, from about 1960-something up through today, this nation has moved further and further left, without much, if any, backpedaling. Start with the first Catholic president, then move on from there. Two or three steps left, with an occasional half-step right.
It is only in the past couple of years that the right has begun to re-assert itself. The Trumpster, who is hated by all the left, embodies that assertion. Trump, the populist choice.
Get used to the idea that the US is not a socialist or a leftist country. It never has been, and I hope it never becomes one.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday May 08 2017, @03:14PM
The momentum is actually toward the left - witness the fact that a half-white man got elected to the White House in the past decade. In times past, only a real-white man could have been elected.
I'll see your "white dude" and raise you a "white Protestant dude"--note the only Catholic president we've had so far got assassinated in rather suspicious circumstances.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday May 08 2017, @01:18PM
The USA has been sold down the river by Robert Mercer, in concert with Steve Bannon and others. To whom? I'm not sure, but the influence of Russia looks very suspicious.
Why are Russian cooties supposedly so peculiarly effective? They're not the only ones who've heard of propaganda.
The emphasis on fossil fuels at the expense of renewables is runs 100% counter to real American interests. Russia needs fossil fuels to have a higher prices.
The obvious rebuttal here is the huge investment and industry in fossil fuels in the US which completely undermines your "100%" claim. It will be a huge cost one way or another when the US moves away from fossil fuels for good. This includes not just the cost of retooling electricity and transportation infrastructure, but also the competitive disadvantage with countries that don't take the plunge.
The later that gets put off, the better a position the US will be in when they do it.