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: 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?