|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Paul doing some more top class trolling of the house
|
The White House asserted this week that broad swaths of federal ethics regulations do not apply to people who work in the Executive Office of the President. Ethics experts say this sets the Trump White House apart from past administrations.
The administration's assertion was made in a letter that White House Deputy Counsel Stefan Passantino wrote regarding the controversy over White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway's recent ethical issues.
Passantino's letter said that "many regulations promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics ("OGE") do not apply to employees of the Executive Office of the President."
The Executive Office of the President extends well beyond the president's inner circle in the West Wing. For example, under Obama, the Executive Office included 11 separate entities, including the National Security Council, Office of Management and Budget, and U.S. trade representative. (The Trump White House webpage on the Executive Office is not yet populated.)
This all began after Conway's endorsement of Ivanka Trump's clothing line in a February Fox & Friends interview. In response, OGE Director Walter Shaub Jr. had advised that there was "strong reason to believe" that "disciplinary action is warranted" against Conway for "misuse of position" in promoting a product.
In his letter this week, Passantino concluded that Conway had "acted inadvertently" and promoted Trump's products "without nefarious motive or intent to benefit personally."
Near the start of his letter, Passantino described the White House's view of ethics:
"We note initially that although many regulations promulgated by the Office of Government Ethics ("OGE") do not apply to employees of the Executive Office of the President, the Office of the White House Counsel has instructed all such employees to abide by 3 CFR 100.1 ..."
Richard Painter, who served as the George W. Bush administration's chief ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007, said that expansive assertion breaks with the past.
"Every White House has instructed employees that these OGE rules are binding rules for White House and other EOP staff," he wrote in an email to NPR. "The only exception is the President and in some cases the Vice President."
Because of the broad, nonspecific nature of what Passantino wrote, Painter advised that the ethics office should work to get more answers.
"OGE should write back and ask the White House Counsel which OGE rules it believes do not apply to EOP staff," Painter said. "OGE is entitled to know that."
When asked about the OGE's response, a spokesman from that office told NPR, "OGE has received the letter, and we are evaluating it."
http://www.npr.org/2017/03/03/518371888/experts-say-white-houses-conway-response-raises-major-ethical-questions
|
On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again.
You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused.
|
On March 04 2017 09:57 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:... On March 04 2017 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I for one have absolutely no problem admitting I don't want Milo to speak on a college campus. And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. I'm not an expert on the US constitution, but doesn't this apply? https://xkcd.com/1357/(i.e. nobody is obliged to give Milo or anybody else a platform to speak, or to protect him from the consequences of what he chooses to say)
He was invited. Murray was invited. And for the latter, if you're scared of letting 74 year old libertarian political scientists speak when he's invited, maybe you're part of the regressive left. Because even Randall Munroe wouldn't go so far as to shouting down speech is equivalent to protecting free speech. Because he has half a brain.
|
On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused.
Okay, I'll make it simple for you.
You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement.
Either justify that statement or retract it.
EDIT:
On March 04 2017 10:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 09:57 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:... On March 04 2017 06:28 Nebuchad wrote:
I for one have absolutely no problem admitting I don't want Milo to speak on a college campus. And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. I'm not an expert on the US constitution, but doesn't this apply? https://xkcd.com/1357/(i.e. nobody is obliged to give Milo or anybody else a platform to speak, or to protect him from the consequences of what he chooses to say) He was invited. Murray was invited. And for the latter, if you're scared of letting 74 year old libertarian political scientists speak when he's invited, maybe you're part of the regressive left. Because even Randall Munroe wouldn't go so far as to shouting down speech is equivalent to protecting free speech. Because he has half a brain.
I don't know whom they were invited by - but even if it were by exactly the same people who later chose to retract or limit that invitation, I don't really care. People and organisations are entitled to change their mind.
Speaking personally, I wouldn't have lifted a finger to prevent or dissuade anybody from speaking on campus - but nor do I have any particular objection to somebody else choosing to do so.
Shouting down Milo or whoever else is not equivalent to protecting free speech. It is also not equivalent to denying it. It is completely irrelevant to (what I understand to be) the First Amendment.
|
On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it.
No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again.
|
On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused.
I think the implication is that all right wing people agree all the time, like some sort of hivemind.
On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again.
It's a private university at least in this case, though.
|
On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again.
You said this:
Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law
What are the police/universities doing that is "subverting the law"?
|
All churches first, since they are tax exempt. All church must host pro choice speakers if someone in the community wants it, or lose tax exempt status.
Let's just take this to is ridiculous conclusion asap.
|
On March 04 2017 10:32 Plansix wrote:
All churches first, since they are tax exempt. All church must host pro choice speakers if someone in the community wants it, or lose tax exempt status.
Let's just take this to is ridiculous conclusion asap.
I'd like to hold off on taking things to ridiculous conclusions until Danglars is held to account for the things which he has said.
|
On March 04 2017 10:27 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. I think the implication is that all right wing people agree all the time, like some sort of hivemind. Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again. It's a private university at least in this case, though.
Private universities still receive public funding with strings attached. See for example the wording of Title IX "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Almost all universities receive some form of federal funds.
On March 04 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again. You said this: Show nested quote +Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law What are the police/universities doing that is "subverting the law"?
Quote the entire post, the plain meaning of what I wrote "this right" is adequate. If your comprehension still fails you, xDaunt reinforced the core issue already + Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:50 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 06:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
"Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. The framers used rioting, violence, and mayhem to great effect. Did you think the King went to war over some tea? Pretty sure it was all those Tory homes they burned to the ground. I always find it amusing when you bring up mob violence in the context of the founders. They feared it so much more than most people understand. But keep telling me about your “complete understanding”, its always good for a laugh. Jesus, are you really going to compare a rebellion in which the system was outright overthrown to issues of compliance within the current system? Do you not understand how stupid the comparison is? It is way off, just like you like you evoking the framers when discussing Milo. The free and open discourse of ideas was always prized by the framers, but it would be been carefully weighed against the specter of violence and civil unrest that followed the speaker. Especially from someone who had actively courted that level of unrest while also being a feckless charlatan for their own enrichment. You seem to want to remove that second part and just blame the left because it fits into your pro-wrestling view of politics. Just flatten the issue down and cheery pick the aspect of history you like, forget the rest. No, you're mistaken on pretty much every level, including why I mentioned the founders and why your reference to the Revolutionary War is so badly misplaced. I mentioned the Founders as an explanation for how and why the First Amendment works the way it does as a limit on government. You bringing up inane things like dueling and the conduct of the Founders during the Revolutionary War demonstrates that you really don't understand the issue of balancing the First Amendment with the police power of the state at all. I did that because the government has no role in this discussion. At all. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from a shitty venue not keeping protesters from shouting over the sound system. I already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up again. It's an issue of purposefully withholding the police power as a means to stifle free speech. Show nested quote +If you want to argue that the protesters should be arrested, I would agree in both case.(assuming that the protesters in the most recent case were trespassing or where they should not be). The people from the Berkley protest clearly violated the law.
But that isn’t some crime against free speech or repression of it. That is Milo getting exactly what Milo has been courting for every. He celebrated when he got banned from twitter. He celebrated when his speech was canceled. He wants private venues to cancel on him so he can claim he is being silenced and further his own fame. The government didn’t repress Milo, he just made himself more trouble than he was worth to any venue. What would you say if a certain city decided that it was going to direct law enforcement to not respond to the calls from any citizens who were registered democrats? What if the city directed law enforcement to offer no protection to a liberal speaker who was going to be the subject of protests? Hell, we could really make these hypothetical egregious and start withholding protections on the basis of race. How far do you want to advocate against equal protection under the law?
|
Conservatives are not a protected class under title IX.
|
On March 04 2017 10:34 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:32 Plansix wrote:
All churches first, since they are tax exempt. All church must host pro choice speakers if someone in the community wants it, or lose tax exempt status.
Let's just take this to is ridiculous conclusion asap. I'd like to hold off on taking things to ridiculous conclusions until Danglars is held to account for the things which he has said.
And please, apologize for pretending "universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things" when they register clubs, charge deposits for stuff like rooms, and let the invitations to speakers stand. I mean, in the interest of holding yourself to account for the things you have said, so you may hope others will hold themselves to the same standard.
|
They are allow to act as private universities have always acted. They are allowed to decided to speaks at their campus and who doesn't.
And stop asking people to apologize to you. If you are gunna talk shit, talk shit. Don't be a bitch about it.
|
On March 04 2017 10:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:27 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. I think the implication is that all right wing people agree all the time, like some sort of hivemind. On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again. It's a private university at least in this case, though. Private universities still receive public funding with strings attached. See for example the wording of Title IX "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Almost all universities receive some form of federal funds. Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again. You said this: Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law What are the police/universities doing that is "subverting the law"? Quote the entire post, the plain meaning of what I wrote "this right" is adequate. If your comprehension still fails you, xDaunt reinforced the core issue already + Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:50 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 06:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
"Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. The framers used rioting, violence, and mayhem to great effect. Did you think the King went to war over some tea? Pretty sure it was all those Tory homes they burned to the ground. I always find it amusing when you bring up mob violence in the context of the founders. They feared it so much more than most people understand. But keep telling me about your “complete understanding”, its always good for a laugh. Jesus, are you really going to compare a rebellion in which the system was outright overthrown to issues of compliance within the current system? Do you not understand how stupid the comparison is? It is way off, just like you like you evoking the framers when discussing Milo. The free and open discourse of ideas was always prized by the framers, but it would be been carefully weighed against the specter of violence and civil unrest that followed the speaker. Especially from someone who had actively courted that level of unrest while also being a feckless charlatan for their own enrichment. You seem to want to remove that second part and just blame the left because it fits into your pro-wrestling view of politics. Just flatten the issue down and cheery pick the aspect of history you like, forget the rest. No, you're mistaken on pretty much every level, including why I mentioned the founders and why your reference to the Revolutionary War is so badly misplaced. I mentioned the Founders as an explanation for how and why the First Amendment works the way it does as a limit on government. You bringing up inane things like dueling and the conduct of the Founders during the Revolutionary War demonstrates that you really don't understand the issue of balancing the First Amendment with the police power of the state at all. I did that because the government has no role in this discussion. At all. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from a shitty venue not keeping protesters from shouting over the sound system. I already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up again. It's an issue of purposefully withholding the police power as a means to stifle free speech. Show nested quote +If you want to argue that the protesters should be arrested, I would agree in both case.(assuming that the protesters in the most recent case were trespassing or where they should not be). The people from the Berkley protest clearly violated the law.
But that isn’t some crime against free speech or repression of it. That is Milo getting exactly what Milo has been courting for every. He celebrated when he got banned from twitter. He celebrated when his speech was canceled. He wants private venues to cancel on him so he can claim he is being silenced and further his own fame. The government didn’t repress Milo, he just made himself more trouble than he was worth to any venue. What would you say if a certain city decided that it was going to direct law enforcement to not respond to the calls from any citizens who were registered democrats? What if the city directed law enforcement to offer no protection to a liberal speaker who was going to be the subject of protests? Hell, we could really make these hypothetical egregious and start withholding protections on the basis of race. How far do you want to advocate against equal protection under the law?
Seeing as how xDaunt said "this isn't a first amendment issue and I don't know why you're bringing it up", and you brought up the first amendment in your post, it appeared that you were attempting to make a different argument to xDaunt. If you say that xDaunt's post accurately reflects your opinion, and that you are not trying to make the argument that this is a first amendment issue, then that answers the questions I have asked.
As for the other, I'm prepared to accept that the police, universities, etc. have limited resources which they can assign, and since there are insufficient resources to do everything that might be desired, particularly provocative speakers (whatever their political affiliation) may be judged as having insufficent value to justify their high cost.
|
On March 04 2017 10:38 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:27 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. I think the implication is that all right wing people agree all the time, like some sort of hivemind. On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again. It's a private university at least in this case, though. Private universities still receive public funding with strings attached. See for example the wording of Title IX "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Almost all universities receive some form of federal funds. Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again. You said this: Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law What are the police/universities doing that is "subverting the law"? Quote the entire post, the plain meaning of what I wrote "this right" is adequate. If your comprehension still fails you, xDaunt reinforced the core issue already + Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:50 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 06:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
"Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. The framers used rioting, violence, and mayhem to great effect. Did you think the King went to war over some tea? Pretty sure it was all those Tory homes they burned to the ground. I always find it amusing when you bring up mob violence in the context of the founders. They feared it so much more than most people understand. But keep telling me about your “complete understanding”, its always good for a laugh. Jesus, are you really going to compare a rebellion in which the system was outright overthrown to issues of compliance within the current system? Do you not understand how stupid the comparison is? It is way off, just like you like you evoking the framers when discussing Milo. The free and open discourse of ideas was always prized by the framers, but it would be been carefully weighed against the specter of violence and civil unrest that followed the speaker. Especially from someone who had actively courted that level of unrest while also being a feckless charlatan for their own enrichment. You seem to want to remove that second part and just blame the left because it fits into your pro-wrestling view of politics. Just flatten the issue down and cheery pick the aspect of history you like, forget the rest. No, you're mistaken on pretty much every level, including why I mentioned the founders and why your reference to the Revolutionary War is so badly misplaced. I mentioned the Founders as an explanation for how and why the First Amendment works the way it does as a limit on government. You bringing up inane things like dueling and the conduct of the Founders during the Revolutionary War demonstrates that you really don't understand the issue of balancing the First Amendment with the police power of the state at all. I did that because the government has no role in this discussion. At all. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from a shitty venue not keeping protesters from shouting over the sound system. I already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up again. It's an issue of purposefully withholding the police power as a means to stifle free speech. Show nested quote +If you want to argue that the protesters should be arrested, I would agree in both case.(assuming that the protesters in the most recent case were trespassing or where they should not be). The people from the Berkley protest clearly violated the law.
But that isn’t some crime against free speech or repression of it. That is Milo getting exactly what Milo has been courting for every. He celebrated when he got banned from twitter. He celebrated when his speech was canceled. He wants private venues to cancel on him so he can claim he is being silenced and further his own fame. The government didn’t repress Milo, he just made himself more trouble than he was worth to any venue. What would you say if a certain city decided that it was going to direct law enforcement to not respond to the calls from any citizens who were registered democrats? What if the city directed law enforcement to offer no protection to a liberal speaker who was going to be the subject of protests? Hell, we could really make these hypothetical egregious and start withholding protections on the basis of race. How far do you want to advocate against equal protection under the law?
I actually thought about federal student loans, but that seems harder to regulate. I'm not really clear on what else the University really could've done - they didn't cancel Murray's speech, and they aren't in control of their student's free will in this instance .
|
If an organization in the church invites a speaker and then the church members riot and prevent that person from speaking beacuse they don't like their politics then it would be okay in your world. But this idea that they have to invite speakers that they don't like for no reason is nonsense p6.
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
On March 04 2017 10:49 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:38 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 10:27 Nevuk wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. I think the implication is that all right wing people agree all the time, like some sort of hivemind. On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again. It's a private university at least in this case, though. Private universities still receive public funding with strings attached. See for example the wording of Title IX "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Almost all universities receive some form of federal funds. On March 04 2017 10:29 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:22 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 10:19 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote:On March 04 2017 09:56 Nebuchad wrote:On March 04 2017 09:47 Danglars wrote:
And campaign against the first amendment on these grounds, hate speech, and the rest. It's a constitutional amendment and can be removed by the amendment process. Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law. xDaunt has already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so he has no idea why you're bringing it up again. You want to talk to me, or him? I'm confused. Okay, I'll make it simple for you. You have made the assertion that the universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things, and/or the police which are choosing not to spend their resources protecting these people when they put themselves in the spotlight, are somehow in breach of "the rule of law" or the First Amendement. Either justify that statement or retract it. No, let me make it simple for you. The universities chose to give Milo and Murray a platform to say things ... by allowing student led clubs to invite speakers, giving them the rooms to do so, and not rejecting public funding for the university. This isn't even hard, Aquanim. Take the misinformation out of your post and try again. You said this: Just admit the rule of law gives him this right and police and universities that dismiss it are subverting the law What are the police/universities doing that is "subverting the law"? Quote the entire post, the plain meaning of what I wrote "this right" is adequate. If your comprehension still fails you, xDaunt reinforced the core issue already + Show Spoiler +On March 04 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 06:50 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 06:33 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 06:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 06:05 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:52 xDaunt wrote:On March 04 2017 05:45 Plansix wrote:On March 04 2017 05:40 brian wrote:On March 04 2017 05:14 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
"Go shout them down" is such a pathetic understanding of the first amendment, I seriously doubt you understand speech that needs protecting. Our framers tried to be clear on this, but activists have twisted free speech to only apply to certain agreeable forms of speech. Sad day. this, in context, is an outrageous hypocrisy. you can disagree with what the protestors are doing and i would fully expect you to, and frankly while i disagree with the speakers 'rhetoric' i also find the protesting in a less than flattering position here. but this statement is a bold, bold hypocrisy. Xdaunt has always had a very amusing understanding from the founding fathers. These are guys who talked so much shit in both public and in writings that they dueled and killed each other over it. That spoke on street corners and freely admitted that their ideas might get them shot. Now people want to be like the framers and speak truth to power, but even the mildest hint of risk or opposition and they run to the moral high ground to call everyone fascists. If by "amusing understanding" you mean "far more complete than most everyone else around here understanding," you would be exactly correct. The First Amendment was created to protect free speech from being impacted by the force of government. The goal was to foster open political discourse, subject to the limits of which were to be set by the police powers afforded to the states and local authorities. It just so happens that, back then, dueling was allowed by law. Please show me where rioting, arson, and mayhem are allowed in any state or local law. Actually, don't bother, because you won't find it. So feel free to stop the false equivalence. The simple fact of the matter is that the Left has decided that it is okay for government to withhold police power protection from people with whom they disagree politically. This is acquiescence to mob rule, which is anathema to everything that our country stands for. The framers used rioting, violence, and mayhem to great effect. Did you think the King went to war over some tea? Pretty sure it was all those Tory homes they burned to the ground. I always find it amusing when you bring up mob violence in the context of the founders. They feared it so much more than most people understand. But keep telling me about your “complete understanding”, its always good for a laugh. Jesus, are you really going to compare a rebellion in which the system was outright overthrown to issues of compliance within the current system? Do you not understand how stupid the comparison is? It is way off, just like you like you evoking the framers when discussing Milo. The free and open discourse of ideas was always prized by the framers, but it would be been carefully weighed against the specter of violence and civil unrest that followed the speaker. Especially from someone who had actively courted that level of unrest while also being a feckless charlatan for their own enrichment. You seem to want to remove that second part and just blame the left because it fits into your pro-wrestling view of politics. Just flatten the issue down and cheery pick the aspect of history you like, forget the rest. No, you're mistaken on pretty much every level, including why I mentioned the founders and why your reference to the Revolutionary War is so badly misplaced. I mentioned the Founders as an explanation for how and why the First Amendment works the way it does as a limit on government. You bringing up inane things like dueling and the conduct of the Founders during the Revolutionary War demonstrates that you really don't understand the issue of balancing the First Amendment with the police power of the state at all. I did that because the government has no role in this discussion. At all. The first amendment doesn’t protect you from a shitty venue not keeping protesters from shouting over the sound system. I already said that this isn't a first amendment issue, so I have no idea why you're bringing it up again. It's an issue of purposefully withholding the police power as a means to stifle free speech. Show nested quote +If you want to argue that the protesters should be arrested, I would agree in both case.(assuming that the protesters in the most recent case were trespassing or where they should not be). The people from the Berkley protest clearly violated the law.
But that isn’t some crime against free speech or repression of it. That is Milo getting exactly what Milo has been courting for every. He celebrated when he got banned from twitter. He celebrated when his speech was canceled. He wants private venues to cancel on him so he can claim he is being silenced and further his own fame. The government didn’t repress Milo, he just made himself more trouble than he was worth to any venue. What would you say if a certain city decided that it was going to direct law enforcement to not respond to the calls from any citizens who were registered democrats? What if the city directed law enforcement to offer no protection to a liberal speaker who was going to be the subject of protests? Hell, we could really make these hypothetical egregious and start withholding protections on the basis of race. How far do you want to advocate against equal protection under the law? I actually thought about federal student loans, but that seems harder to regulate. I'm not really clear on what else the University really could've done - they didn't cancel Murray's speech, and they aren't in control of their student's free will in this instance .
If the university has no control over what their student organizations can and can't do with regards to creating events there are a lot bigger problems with the university.
|
On March 04 2017 10:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2017 10:34 Aquanim wrote:On March 04 2017 10:32 Plansix wrote:
All churches first, since they are tax exempt. All church must host pro choice speakers if someone in the community wants it, or lose tax exempt status.
Let's just take this to is ridiculous conclusion asap. I'd like to hold off on taking things to ridiculous conclusions until Danglars is held to account for the things which he has said. And please, apologize for pretending "universities which are choosing not to give Milo/others a platform to say things" when they register clubs, charge deposits for stuff like rooms, and let the invitations to speakers stand. I mean, in the interest of holding yourself to account for the things you have said, so you may hope others will hold themselves to the same standard.
Actually, you were the one that asserted that universities were "subverting the law" by denying somebody the right to speak on campus. The statement of mine that you have quoted was merely a rewording of your assertion, in an attempt to understand your statement.
Please do not misrepresent my point of view further.
|
Canada11378 Posts
I suppose it's an interesting question: how free must speech be so that it remains free speech? A fairly popular argument, and one that I at one time subscribed to, is that the guarantee of free speech is only a guarantee that the government wouldn't suppress your speech. (The whole free speech is not consequence free idea.) Well, alright, let's take two ideas that have been in the news a bit: white supremacy and gender fluidity. I think it's fair to say that adherents to either idea do not have the right to demand to be on CNN or on Fox News. The news organizations can choose to invite you to speak or not to. You are not necessarily entitled to speak on that particular venue when and where you want.
So now advocates of white supremacy are invited to speak at a university, but a) so much noise was created by protestors within the speaking venue (with or without amplification, perhaps generating white noise) that the speaking is inaudible and/or is unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the white supremacists? Does it matter?
Same scenario, but now it is the advocates of gender fluidity that are a) either drowned out by noise that they are unable to proceed or b) a mob forms whose actions are such that the event is cancelled before it starts. Was that both sides simply exercising their free speech? Was speech free for the gender fluidity advocates? Does it matter?
Well, alright that was just one venue. But suppose our haggard defenders of white supremacy and our embattled defenders of gender fluidity are shut down at each and every public venue, not by the government and not be the institution inviting them, but by a mob that forms at each and every location. Is that both sides (protestors and advocates) simply exercising their free speech? Is the speech of a white supremacist free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-white supremacist protestors? Is the speech of a gender fluid advocate free if every single attempt at public presentation is shut down by anti-gender fluid protestors? If no, then where is the dividing line between free speech and not? Is it free speech if you cannot make the speech itself?
|
On March 04 2017 10:51 Sermokala wrote:...
What we're talking about is an event that the university as an organization allowed to go through but then did nothing to protect their peoples rights to free speech in their organization. If the university didn't allow Milo or murry to speak at the events then they shouldn't allow them to come in the first place.
...
The organisation changing their mind when they realised how expensive it was going to be to give somebody sufficient support and protection to give their speech may not have been respectful of the effort or time of the speaker involved, but I don't think it is anything worse than that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
