Compelling argument. In other news, from Chez's side of the pond:

http://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/upl...ort-85-Web.pdf
Always ahead of the times, it looks like our special friends in UK have a somewhat different relationship with freedom of expression than has traditionally been found here in the US. But it appears we're moving closer in line with their views this generation. Thankfully, we have freedom of speech protections engrained into most of our laws and protected by the Bill of Rights, which should at least hinder the movement to restrict freedom of expression on many US campuses and public institutions. And since the UK has no such firm protections, they'll be a nice petri dish to watch and learn from as these restrictions on speech are implemented.

FoldnDark, did you support boycotting SA over apartheid?

You quoted this:
As an example of a violation of the first Amendment. I couldn't read the article because of a paywall, but your argument makes no sense regardless. If we take that text literally, the first amendment regulates Congress, not the Supreme Court, so in that sense your point makes no sense. But also, if "instituted its own rules" actually means "overturned the lower court's holding" your point is still stupid because the Supreme Court iterprets the constitution, so if it says the law is allowed under the 1A then the law doesn't violate it. It is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is. When you say the Supreme Court issued its own guidance" you're trying to downplay the fact that they said the lower court was wrong, just like you. Judge Berry Powell mother ****er! Does not sit on the Supreme Court. His opinion is worthless.

What, sanctions? Yes.

How naive are you? You know it went beyond sanctions, right? For instance - relevant here - an academic boycott?

It depends. I wouldn't support any laws preventing SA citizens entering or speaking in the US, like the silly idea to ban Trump from the UK that was put down. Protesters would be welcome to show their disapproval, but not prevent them speaking. If academic institutions wanted to boycott hiring or admitting SA citizens, that's their prerogative, but I imagine that could also be counter-productive, serving to hinder their citizens access to Western ideas. I assume you would support an academic boycott on countries like Iran, China, Israel, to send them a message?

Wow. You're completely ignorant.

loooooool @ helpfully introducing South Africans to "Western ideas." As if that would have been a solution instead of the problem.

Yo, FoldN, the UK and the Netherlands are Western countries. Just an FYI.

Massive lol SMP always and forever.

FoldnDark is truly a national treasure.

Not that I am actually following this tread, but what exactly is Foldn's complaint here? Isn't he a noted moral relativist? Don't the endemic rise of safe space culture in and of itself justify that behavior, putting its practitioners beyond reproach? Maybe they could meet you half way and just abandon the safe space business but revive the practice of chattel slavery.

Evidently he thinks reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on protesting are Safe spaces run amok.

I don't think having angry mobs outside of places where important decisions are made is a good idea anyway.

We talked a bit before about how it used to be. Any pro apartheid speaker visiting a college would have got a decidedly unsafe space.

Chezlaw and FoldN just want safe spaces for racists and apartheid supporters. Classic SMP.

You what?

Is that lack of ability to understand anything Paul, or are you just past caring?

What about the feelings of pro-Apartheid stand-up comics who didn't feel like don't shows at Oberlin?

I don't recall any. Who do you have in mind?

No. It's very clear from your posting history you are a mere concern troll and pretty much rally behind every racist there is.

Go back to SMP.

It's just BAFFLING that after getting repeatedly dunked on throughout this thread for having no idea what he's talking about and pretending he's bringing BRAND NEW BREAKING NEWS issues to the attention of the form, FoldN is incredibly excited to discover time, place, and manner restrictions.

Literally like the second day of a Con law class.

I continue to have no idea what his thesis is. Well, scratch that, obviously we all know his REAL point is "I want to call ragheads terrorists without getting disagreed with", but what point does he imagine he's building towards?

With the SCOTUS thing and the UK poll it kinda seems like he's just hijacked this thread as his blog, there's no connection at all to the subject of this thread.

Lol.

I still don't know if you can't comprehend or are past caring but lol either way

You are no one to talk about comprehension. You are literally the guy who struts into threads and later admits he doesn't know much about the subject. You are also the guy who just said pro-apartheid supporters wouldn't get a safe space. You're reinforcing FoldN's temper tanturm on purpose. You're not clever. People understand your game.

In many ways SMP posters in this forum suffer the same indignity as pro-apartheid speakers of the 1980s.

The most obvious and direct way lol is that there's like a 99% chance FoldN and chez think apartheid was "bad" in theory, but that it would be mean to call it racist and it would be EVEN WORSE to overlook the order it provided to South African society.

Also, those speakers didn't know any better, they thought apartheid was good, and who are we to tell them otherwise?

And just like those heroes of civil discourse and asking the hard questions on race in 1985 got told to go back to South Africa, chez today gets told to go back to SMP. Where is his benefit concert, though?

What you on about now fly. Of course apartheid was racist. It was also totally indefensible.

Are you just trying to be mean?