How's that Constitution thing working out for you?

marina

Sun, Dec 04 2016, 9:55 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

If you want a 1st Amendment free "safe zone", try Tufts University. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/30122/

or Amherst College. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25086/

or Cal Poly. http://www.dailywire.com/news/.....ndler

or the University of Michigan. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25047/

or Mizzou. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25054/

Sadly, it only took me about 2 minutes to come up with these links - and all without using Breitbart.

No pesky free speech to trigger you with a microaggression, but I'm sure they'll have scented candles, coloring books, and lots of puppies for you to snuggle. I hope your parents are proud of your education! If you are a parent, are you sure this is the education you want to be paying for?

I don't know if there's a big demand for people with degrees in candle sniffing and puppy snuggling. Maybe there's a niche market? I can see it now, one safe space on every street corner, just like Starbucks. Every time you're offended, you can come in for a half hour of special snowflake coddling, all for the cost of a grande latte. Trump Trauma Tuesdays are half price, just show your college ID (no proof of actual voting necessary.)

I don't know what you're saying, to whom you're saying it, and why.

Is there something someone suggested here to lead you to believe we want a First Amendment free zone?

What are you talking about?

SixOfWands

Sun, Dec 04 2016, 10:30 pm

FranticFrummie wrote:

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly. That's why I thank you for helping us to oppose the anti-Semitic my awareness bill.
https://www.insidehighered.com.....enate
Every student has the right to put eviction notices on the doors of Jewish students. To justify the murder of Jews. To accuse Jews of exaggerating the Holocaust for their own purposes. Everyone has the right to call your children "k1k3" "d@mned Jew" "murderer" or whatever pops into their head. To hold rallies screaming "Zionists out of CUNY."

33055

Sun, Dec 04 2016, 10:41 pm

Amarante wrote:

Squishy, I think you hit the nail on the head because your experience is in two or three school districts that have extreme leverage over local politicians and even state politicians because they can deliver large numbers of votes as a bloc.

There is not a strong countervailing opposition that can fight that kind if power because most people don't care if a small group of extremely insular people choose to run their schools by ignoring secular studies. To the extent people even know about this kind of thing because it's my own personal experience that most people are completely unaware that a segment of the Jewish population essentially allows their children to grow up functionally illiterate.

With so many competing causes to take up, who outside the community is going to take up the cause o those who deliberately choose this route since they aren't an immediate threat to others and the politicians are happy to leave the M alone in exchange for their votes.

Since this is a Constitutional thread, I am curious why the equal protection clause doesn't come into play here.

Also, read some of these threads regarding what school is a good fit for their child. They often mention in choosing a school the length of the mother's sheital or how long the skirt is or the father's beard, but what about the actual education for the child? This was my number one concern in choosing schools.

Regrettably, even in the supposed good schools, education is way behind what public schools delivered decades ago, and pedagogy has improved so much since I sat in a classroom.

Why did education cease to be important? I can understand the rebbenim wanting to keep control, but there are many families who arrived in Monsey not part of a particular chassidish. Why didn't they allow their values to stand?

Laiya

Sun, Dec 04 2016, 11:53 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

There is a difference between wanting to ban speech because it incites to violence, and banning speech because you disagree with the content of the political ideas expressed, as in FF's examples.

Eta. It can be argued that one leads to the other. When students are precluded from saying things like, "Islam is a political movement of violence and oppression" (from one of FF's links above), there is no exchange of ideas and stereotypes will fester, resulting in incitements to violence.

Last edited by Laiya on Mon, Dec 05 2016, 12:34 am; edited 1 time in total

Laiya

Sun, Dec 04 2016, 11:57 pm

[quote="marina"]

Quote:

I'm sorry that I am not being clear. The concept of chilling free speech is a legal one and it exists ONLY when the actor is a government official. Free speech is not considered chilled or affected at all - legally - if the actor is a private individual or organization.

So none of the examples Fox gave had anything to do with free speech being chilled, which is a legal term and which is the ONLY way I am using it in all these threads.

Trump is violating the Constitution by chilling free speech, and nothing DePaul or HuffPo can do come even close to that legally. A private university does not violate the constitution because it is not the government.

And the reason for this difference, of course, is that a government actor has much more power over all our lives. DePaul can ban you from speaking at their university and your graduate school dean can kick you out of the program... but Trump - like he suggested - can end your citizenship and put you in jail if he doesn't like your speech. Not even remotely comparable.

Ok. But do you not feel that the ability of non-government entities to discourage, dissuade, impede, prevent etc. the expression of free speech--based specifically upon the political content of that speech--is a societal concern?

Non government entities such as elite private universities that nevertheless benefit from government funding, grants and tax exemptions; and online media such as reddit, youtube, etc.

Should we not be concerned if reddit or twitter for instance delete comments because they disagree with the political ideas expressed? Or if facebook sets algorithms to alter search results?

SixOfWands

Mon, Dec 05 2016, 12:08 am

Laiya wrote:

There is a difference between wanting to ban speech because it incites to violence, and banning speech because you disagree with the content of the political ideas expressed, as in FF's examples.

The articles were so poorly written, I found it difficult to understand what they were trying to say.

In any case, in each instance, students protested, but no one was stopped from first amendment activity.

Back to my examples, clearly the eviction notices, for example, were a political comment relating to Israeli expulsions of Arabs, occupation of Palestinian lands, and destruction of Palestinian homes. So you have no issue with it.

And calling for the expulsion of Zionists from CUNY. political. So again, you have no problem with it.

As long as its not "kill the Jews" the speech is fine.

Laiya

Mon, Dec 05 2016, 12:34 pm

SixOfWands wrote:

Civil liberties must ALWAYS come at the expense of personal safety. And vice versa. Society decides which one to sacrifice for the sake of the other on a case by case basis.

In your example, it's easy to see where the concern for personal safety arises. In Fox's examples, and FF's, not so much.

Fox wrote:

Would that be like when, in graduate school, I was called into my advisor's office and warned that it was "dangerous" to say in class that gender might affect learning styles or attitudes toward learning?

marina

Mon, Dec 05 2016, 12:45 pm

Laiya wrote:

This is a great question! For me, the answer has a few layers. Yes, sure, it's concerning when academic inquiry and political speech is suppressed.

At the same time, how far will we go? What if my boss, a yeshiva menahel, fires me for my political or religious views? Is that a disturbing societal concern or just a private school managing their staff's hashkafa? Does it matter that the yeshiva gets lunch subsidies? What if it's a huge yeshiva, bigger than some colleges?

And moreover, isn't it that menahel's right to fire me at will, because he's a private individual and the government's interference would violate his rights?

Moreover, what about free market principles? Some people believe that the market should take care of these concerns: if you don't like a particular university, don't give them your business. Eventually, the theory goes, capitalism will force the university to close its doors or change.

I was a bit upset about the proliferation of fake news article and the tendency of my friends to believe them and repost. Then I heard a great quote something about how we can only find the truth by comparing it to falsehood, and thus, as a society, we must allow false speech to exist and grow as it will.

Now I'm starting to think that it's fine. Obviously violence and incitement should never be tolerated, but if people have absurd ideas, whether about Israel being an apartheid state or Hillary Clinton being a sociopath, that's part of our overall quest for truth.

marina

Mon, Dec 05 2016, 12:51 pm

Squishy wrote:

The equal protection clause bars the government from discriminating against you based on your protected status, such as race, religion, gender, etc. It doesn't prevent private schools that you choose to send your kids to from giving them a terrible education.

This is also why many people are against vouchers going to private schools. Because it is just more government money going to private schools who will use it for whatever they want with no oversight.

Courts are terrified of the religious clauses of the First Amendment. They often refuse, straight out, to hear cases involving religious disputes or anything remotely related to such. The exceptions are very prominent. You could be a private school and fire someone for being black and it would be touch and go if the court would hear that person's case.