I love fold so much. Goes to a conservative forum and trolls twenty posts telling people they live in a cave and need to do some critical thinking, seems to somehow believe the mods deleting posts is a free speech issue, and for the icing on the cake conflates us laughing at him for this with us defending posters we can't even see what they wrote.

But quick, quote the fire again fast! Maybe nobody will notice how terrible your posting is when you do it all on your own.

Well, you're welcome to go take a look at those posts, I provided the link, but I won't do all the work for you. And of course this is a free speech issue, lol. Just because something isn't protected by the First Amendment doesn't mean it's not about free speech. You should educate yourself, since clearly I cannot do that for you either. That comments section is an echo chamber moderated by viewpoint where the free exchange of ideas is suppressed.

You don't even bother with educating yourself, Foldn. So keep that smug **** down. You consistently posts articles itt and get schooled by people who actually go back and read them.

Lolololololololololl

Just no. Free speech is not "can say anything I want in any venue with zero repercussions". People can form communities of like minded individuals and moderate the discussions there however the **** they want. That you have overtly trolled both Glenn greenwald and now a conservative blog and gotten your posts deleted on both isn't some sign of infringement of freedom of speech.

And to be clear once again: laughing at you for your terrible arguments here is not the same as defending these posters. Just lol. Why on earth would you say that? Man you are a national treasure.

ITT free speech means privately owned commercial websites don't have a say about speech posted on their privately owned website.

Seriously, you guys are confused. Of course any privately owned website, college, whatever can choose to moderate speech however they like. For example, they can choose to suppress free speech by viewpoint, as is done in that conservative comments section, and to a lesser degree in this forum.

No. You are confused. That happens when you fail to read articles in full and not think critically.

Rape laws also interfering with FoldN's right to free sex.

If this issue was so important, why are you the only person spamming this thread with things like privilege101.tumblr.com?

I mean, repercussions take a toll. So any speech that cant't protect you from repercussions can be considered "toll speech," which, by definition, is the opposite of "free speech."

Semantically, you can refer to it as a free speech issue if you want. But, you seem to be trying to draw an equivalence that most people, including the people you cite as supporting your arguments, would disagree with.

That is, in general usage "free speech issue" is meant to indicate suppression of speech in a context in which the law requires that speech be protected, and here the context includes both where the speech takes place and who regulates it. Neither theFire, or Greenwald, or Obama, or the ACLU, or really anyone else would refer to private forum moderation as a "free speech issue" because the term has a more technical meaning which that usage confuses.

It seems to me that mostly we're all just confused about why you brought up your posts being deleted on this other forum or what it has to do with the topic of this thread. As far as I can tell, the only connection is that it's another example of people not engaging in speech in the way you want them to, which for you constitutes a "free speech issue". But there's no other connection to any of the topics of this thread.

I mean, you are just mad-libbing the words free speech into that sentence.

No, that's wrong. FIRE, Greenwald, Obama, et al, all criticize the suppression of ideas not at all related to the what's allowed by the law. You haven't been reading what they say. For example, Obama has multiple times urged college students not to disinvite speakers from campus.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...nscript-222931

You literally had hate speech deleted from Greenwald's forum after assuring us that it wouldn't be deleted because Greenwald doesn't suppress ideas.

I rewrote the relevant sentence and should have left it the way I first wrote it, which spoke of context more broadly than just the legal requirement. The point is, Obama thinks open debate is important on college campuses for reasons that depend on the nature and purpose of a college education. It's not reasonable to extrapolate his comments to privately owned forums. It's highly unlikely he would do so. Obama thinks that it's important for people to be open to debate. It does not follow that he opposes any privately owned forum regulating speech in the way basically all privately owned forums do.

As far as theFire or the ACLU, my comments are not wrong as written. They aren't concerned with a more general question about culture, they are focused on very narrow contexts. Obama is, in some sense, interested in a more general question, but you still draw conclusions that go far beyond his actual words.

Right, they're talking about in an educational setting. Suppression of ideas always tends to suppress learning, which is why it is anathema to colleges, and what this thread is about. I agree private forums don't have to be about free exchange of ideas or learning, and I was pointing out one that is a echo chamber where like minded idiots go to shout at Obama and the moderator protects them from hearing alternate viewpoints.

Stepping back a minute: this thread was first about whether or not there is some crisis of liberalism on college campuses, basically. That's not just a question about whether anyone, anywhere, at any time has a less-than-ideal opinion about speech. It requires a holistic assessment. In my second to last post, a few days ago, I asked you a question in reference to an article you linked. The question was: why I should care that some students "demand" bad policies when those policies are never implemented? You entirely ignored that question.

The point being that almost the entirety of the evidence you've presented is in that style. Someone writes a slightly breathless article about all these college students making stupid demands but they never bother to mention that those demands are rarely met. There is the occasional overstep, but you've managed to present almost no actual harms caused by illiberal campus policies. From that, I conclude that there's hardly a crisis. You ignore this argument by retreating to overgeneralized claims that Greenwald, Obama, theFire, or whomever disagree, but your citations never actually support that claim.

The extrapolation to forum cultures is much the same, except you have even less of an argument because it's unreasonable to expect private forums to adhere to the same standard of openness as public universities to begin with. The importance of an open culture is that debate is possible, not that it has to happen literally everywhere. This is a point bladesman made well the other day.

Well, you see here's where we're just have differing opinions, and that's okay. You disagree that the evidence provided is a threat to free speech on campus, but others disagree with you. For example, the free speech advocates at FIRE discuss this subject in great depth on their website and in their podcasts, specifically the fourth one I believe where they go over all the campus speech problems and policy issues from this past school year. Also, the debate at Yale shows you that 67% of that audience believe free speech is threatened on campus and 25% do not.

It is not merely my opinion that the article you cited gave a lot of examples of students "demanding" things with no evidence that the demands were met.

It is not merely my opinion that an opinion survey from one school does not constitute concrete evidence of your claims. Very early in this thread I provided a link to a much broader survey that suggested students value "free speech" as highly as the general public.

theFIRE's website has specific examples where they claim free speech rights were violated. You should try to cite some individually instead of relying on a generalized claim or links to podcasts. Of course, no one has suggested that no such examples exist. The question is still about making some reasonable holistic assessment of them.

I'll give some examples. The first item in the free speech category is about a NORML group having t-shirt designs rejected. TheFIRE claims this is a free speech issue, but there is an obvious problem: The school's objection has to do with the use of their trademarked logos and images. The school is not telling the group they can't wear or sell t-shirts on campus, only that they can't use the schools intellectual property. Now, my experience with campus IP policies is that they are obnoxious and annoying, but this isn't actually a free speech issue, and it has no connection to any sort of illiberal culture specific to campuses. It's an IP/branding issue in which the school is acting in the exact manner as most corporations.

The second issue is likewise not actually a free speech issue. No speech is being suppressed.

The third appears to involve a possibly legitimate free speech issue, except in reality some overzealous administrator overreacted and was quickly shut down, and nothing actually happened.

The fourth link is a complaint against the DOJ, so certainly not representative of a free speech issue involving a college. It's also more like concern trolling than presenting an actual issue. There is no basis for them to conclude that any court would uphold a reading of the Title IX language that would privilege Title IX over the 1st amendment.

The fifth is a legitimate free speech issue that was resolved properly with apparently no harm done.

I undertook this exercise mostly to demonstrate why it's not sufficient for you to refer generally to theFIRE to support the case you're trying to make.

From the first link you posted.

You're welcome to your opinion that this is not suppression of free speech. The advocates at FIRE disagree, and so do I.

Incidently, FIRE has already won a similar case against Iowa State University in court.

http://www.saveservices.org/2016/01/...-legalization/

Looks like FoldNs practice of google spamming links without reading them has, yet again, put him on the back foot in a debate.

Yes, I am explicitly disagreeing with you and TheFIRE. You failed to quote the most relevant snippet, even though it occurs literally the sentence prior to the part you quoted. In fact, the sentences you quoted only make sense because of the one you failed to quote:

I have provided highlighting to assist you. If the group did not wish to use the university's IP, they would need no permission. Their request for permission was denied because the university, again like every business, has policies about how they license their IP and in what contexts they allow their trademarks to appear. In order for this to be a free speech issue, the university would have to be denying the group the right to wear or distribute any t-shirts due to the drug-related imagery. Instead, they are only denying the group the rights to use the university's IP.

Wait, so Foldn is mad that a university isn't consenting to putting their trademarks on a SMOKE WEED ERRYDAY shirt and this is an egregious free speech violation against the student body?

Bahahahahahhahahahaha

It's reasonable to argue that a publicly funded university has no business seeking trademark protection. I'd sign on to that. Especially for the skyline, that's pretty ridiculous.

Score one for Fold'n imo!