FYP.

And I think what we need here is to set up a lecture at Notre Dame and invite an ISIS recruiter to talk.

OK. Two groups of students are seated on opposite sides of a football stadium. Both groups are trying to chear hard enough to drown out the other side's cheers. In this case...

(a) Who is "censoring" who in this case?

(b) How is this any different than two groups of students cheering for, or against, man-boy sexual relations (or whatev the Milo's of the world wanna do their "free speech" about)?

Let's say further than in each case one group happened to get there first, and so started their cheering first. In this case...

(c) Are the group that gets there second "censoring" the group that gets there first?

OK, one last scenario. Let's say the group that gets there first spreads out and half-way fills both sides of the stadium, or half-way occupies wherever area the man-boy cheering is to take place.

(d) Wouldn't the group that gets their first be "censoring" the group that gets there second, by leaving the second group no area they can assemble as a group to do their cheering?

And one final & general question...

(e) If we aren't going to consider the US 1st-A... aren't we just chatting about what we like hearing, and what we don't like hearing. Which is simply a different strokes for different folks, and basically a meaningless and pointless discussion. In other words... if we aren't talking about public policy, and enforcement issues... WTF does this have to do with politics at all ??

Aren't y'all prattling on about Freedom Of Sprech and 1A? The **** we doing here if not discussing legal limits of speech rights?


Let me help you out then - it's not a 1A violation to shout at or boo speakers you disagree with or dislike.

Just woefully ignorant about the topic but not letting that get in the way of forming a hard as **** opinion! Welcome to the GOP base.
Of course I'm cool with censorship that I agree with. Is this a trap? Did I win a prize?

Didn’t read it, speaking entirely from experience on this forum and elsewhere. Whenever a conservative discusses free speech it’s either 1) being mad at liberals for actually having exercised free speech or 2) having got in trouble for something offensive he/she or some other person with a similarly aligned viewpoint said eg Google guy who got fired for his manifesto about women. Usually it’s related to their own terrible viewpoints getting shouted down.

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/1450...al-correctness

Jeff Sessions big anti-safe space speech is an invite-only event with prescreened questions lol

Domer,

What is the first amendment and which part of it do you think college students are "not fans of?" So far I don't see anything in your article to support that assertion.

Doing some research on the case law in various spots including a great article here, I think the heckling/censorship in the poll's scenario would come down as illegal speech, contrary to what you are posting/making up.

The polled question was: "A student group opposed to the speaker disrupts the speech by loudly and repeatedly shouting so that the audience cannot hear the speaker. Do you agree or disagree that the student group’s actions are acceptable?"

Because the intent is to prevent the audience from hearing the speaker (censoring) rather than merely disagreeing in a debate by booing or what have you, the competing 1A interests would fall to the speaker being able to be heard and against the disorderly crowd trying to prevent the speaker from being able to communicate.

So, yes, after doing some research...the scenario is illegal censorship and that illegal censorship has support from a majority of college students. This seems like a troubling development.

Yes, you do seem the sort to be cool with censorship!

Unfortunately there is no prize except embarrassment, although that prize may prove elusive.

These would be construed as incitements to violence, and thus not protected speech as far as I am aware. Also, the point is not that a crowd must be docile, but that they must be engaging in a debate of some kind. Booing or heckling a speaker is fine (and encouraged by case law!), as long as the speaker can finish and the crowd can hear the speech.

What is at issue is political speech you don't agree with being censored by disruption for the purpose of drowning out an idea, and the strong support this censorship has on college campuses.

Setting aside the college students being discussed, you're also running into a slightly similar issue this week from a completely different perspective with Trump calling for punishment for sports players kneeling. The snowflakeness is not isolated to any aisle.

The big news is that censorship is en vogue, but you appear to be avoiding engagement with that topic and instead creating real dumb hypotheticals and dumbly arguing with the hypotheticals.

lmao, what utterly twisted logic. They don't think it's illegal censorship!

Ctrl+F "1st Amendment" ...
Ctrl+F "censorship" ...

Never change, brah.

Hecklers have been arrested for not doing anything violent loads of times...

You can't just make loud noise, call it a protest, and be immune....

You've sort of unwittingly hit the nail on the head here...the ignorance of free speech rights is staggering, and the willingness to fall in line with censoring ideas they don't like is troublesome.

That they don't think it's illegal or unconstitutional to censor an idea they don't like is the heart of the issue, no?

edit: and of course the backdrop to this whole debate is that university/college campuses were designed/envisioned to be literally the best place to debate ideas openly and freely.

Cite. IMO it's absolutely impossible for a private citizen to violate the 1st Amendment. The state can arrest someone for just about any reason and maybe convict them of disturbing the peace or trespassing or something (which may well be a violation of the 1st), but not of violating the 1st Amendment.

Hecklers aren't censors either.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with ideas or not. I've never once even had the thought that conservatives or even Nazis should be arrested for speech or for shouting down anti-Nazis or anything like that. In these controversial events, unless someone physically attacks someone else the police should do NOTHING.

It's almost as if the very first 5 words of the 1st Amendment clearly specify who it applies to and what they can't do.

Private citizens shall make no noises disrespecting an established religion, or criticizing the free exercise thereof; or exercise their own freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances, if it gives conservatives a sad.

I'm sure there was pointing and laughing, but did anyone talk about how the patriots who had a boner for invading Iraq violated the free speech of the Dixie Chicks?

The right has been the biggest oppressors of free speech throughout my life and now they are it's liberators. Sure.

Domer has self owned himself like a dozen times on this page and is SO close to realizing he's doing just that.

domer,

What if the protesters start shouting 5 mins before the nazis show up? Are the nazis then drowning out the protesters free speech by talking over them?

LOL@ your bait-n-switch sophistry here. You quote a California law, then try to palm that off as the US 1stA. Shame on you. FYI: Us Californians enjoy significant legal speech rights over-and-above the US 1stA under state law.

Second the real world doesn't work that way. I know this from experience, in CA, IL, and NY states. During the Occupy Daze we were doing exactly what the article you quoted mentioned... conducting formal business meetings in public spaces. No way we could eject hecklers... never mind physically ejecting them. Just this year the Voting Librulz had a rally at SD CAC Park... a public space which has been used for rallies since it opened. The Alt-Right hooligans disrupted that rally too... the cops did nothing.

Basically... LOL@U !!!1!

fyp

Domer, where did you attend law school?

Does freedom of religion apply to someone who is an atheist?

An enduring theme to all free speech complaints by the right is liberals / minorities / poors just need to shut the f*** up and politely listen while ghastly **** gets said by deplorables. Or, worse, liberals / minorities / poors need to invite and warmly accept the presence of deplorables and afterwards they need to politely listen to the ghastly **** the deplorables have to say.

Oh, and essentially any protest effort that A) gains national attention and B) involves liberals / poors / minorities is disrespectful and generally hateful of America.

The US 1stA applies to the government, not individual peeps. But peeps that happen to be atheists are legally protected from any governmental establishment of religion, just like anyone else, of course.