Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I'm not in favor of this bill, I did have a thought.
Let's say you have a speaker, who is scheduled to speak at some venue (doesn't matter where, just that he's scheduled this time). He has a large group of people who shout him down as he tries to speak, preventing him from saying what he went there to say. Now, was that speaker's civil rights (right to free speech) violated by those shouting him down so they effectively muted his speech? It can be a crime for one citizen to violate another citizen's civil rights. In fact, we know this because it's what helped us fight murders of civil rights activists and jury nullification during the Civil Rights Movement. Dylann Roof, the Charleston shooter, was sentenced to death for violating the nine who were killed civil rights (Feds tried him before the state). So interesting thought and I wonder if anyone knows if there's case law on it?
So another scenario. Speaker speaks at an event. To enter the event have to register and have a ticket. At that point the event is no longer open to the public. Rules at the event should be determined by the individual hosting the event.
With that said if event is public and open to all there should be no rules dictating people raising their voice.
Though this does lead to a grey area if event is on a private property that is not public. Does the owner of the private land dictate rules during these events.
Lol you're advocating an anti-free speech bill to defend free speech?
No, it's called "holding a conversation." Maybe you've heard of it. It's where one person speaks and the other listens. Then the other has his/her turn and the first listens. It works REALLY WELL. Perhaps you should try it sometime. Shouting someone down and not allowing him/her to speak is NOT free speech. At best it's lousy manners, at worst it's tyranny.
So another scenario. Speaker speaks at an event. To enter the event have to register and have a ticket. At that point the event is no longer open to the public. Rules at the event should be determined by the individual hosting the event.
With that said if event is public and open to all there should be no rules dictating people raising their voice.
Though this does lead to a grey area if event is on a private property that is not public. Does the owner of the private land dictate rules during these events.
I would say yes. The owner of the property can dictate the rules. This gets into property rights. Which makes the universities inaction on doing anything about this type of behavior so wrong. They could solve it but instead they sit by and do nothing which is a de facto endorsement of this behavior.
The legislature deciding what college students can and can't say? Wow, that goes even further than 1984. I'm not even sure I can register this idea as something that could actually happen.
They aren't deciding what students can or cannot say.
They are saying there will be consequences for saying it if it prevents someone from exercising their first amendment rights.
Exactly the same way that a company isn't preventing you from exercising your first amendment rights if they fire you for saying something that paints the company in a bad light.
I would say yes. The owner of the property can dictate the rules. This gets into property rights. Which makes the universities inaction on doing anything about this type of behavior so wrong. They could solve it but instead they sit by and do nothing which is a de facto endorsement of this behavior.
So it's property rights. If a privately own venue the property owner and the event individuals can just give waivers out stipulating rules of the event. Individuals who want to attend can sign and follow these rules.
At public venues event people can obtain temporary ownership of the venue. If they choose to for people to enter sign a waiver stipulating rules to follow.
If no waiver or contract (Via a ticket) then free speech is free game. Simple as that.
So it's property rights. If a privately own venue the property owner and the event individuals can just give waivers out stipulating rules of the event. Individuals who want to attend can sign and follow these rules.
At public venues event people can obtain temporary ownership of the venue. If they choose to for people to enter sign a waiver stipulating rules to follow.
If no waiver or contract (Via a ticket) then free speech is free game. Simple as that.
I don't even think they have to require the attendees to sign a waiver. They simply have to post the information and it would suffice. Town Hall meetings do it across America, They have posted rules of decorum and if someone is disruptive and breaks the rules, they are removed from the space.
They aren't deciding what students can or cannot say.
They are saying there will be consequences for saying it if it prevents someone from exercising their first amendment rights.
Exactly the same way that a company isn't preventing you from exercising your first amendment rights if they fire you for saying something that paints the company in a bad light.
Aren't liberals big on that concept?
Or is that only when it works in their favor?
When someone does this it pretty much makes me ignore everything they said. I do NOT speak for entire groups of people. No large group believes exactly alike and being that I am pro-life, fully support the second amendment and a balanced budget amendment, what makes you think I could speak for them anyway?
I don't even think they have to require the attendees to sign a waiver. They simply have to post the information and it would suffice. Town Hall meetings do it across America, They have posted rules of decorum and if someone is disruptive and breaks the rules, they are removed from the space.
And as has been pointed out many times, colleges can do the same. They have in some instances chosen not to.
Actually SHOUTING DOWN speakers is anti free speech....this makes consequences for being a little fascist shouting down people you don't want to hear speak. Its odd for some reason when I don't want to hear someone speak...I turn the channel or just don't attend!
Shouting is a valid free speech protected practice. Granted, I think it's a stupid method (shouting is rarely useful or effective asy communicating a message), but it's valid under the first amendment.
If you physically prevent someone from speaking, (with violence), then we're in a different realm. But that is not what this bill is about.
That all said, I don't necessarily disagree with consequences being handed down to disruptions (depending on what was done exactly), but I think expulsion is a bit ridiculous and these punishments should not be controlled via legislation (first amendment can of worms right there).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
