Kind of makes me think of those who are trying to ban free speech in Universities

@Ynotisay This is what it means. "Freedom of speech is the right to articulate one's opinions and ideas without fear of government retaliation or censorship, or societal sanction".

@okaybut Right. In the U.S.. Not in Venezuela.
But the university thing? A private university doesn't have to invite speakers. And there is no law that says public universities do either. If they do invite someone then others have the right to protest. See how that works?
You have the right to spew whatever nonsense you want. Just like I have the right to say it's nonsense. That's where it begins and ends.

@Ynotisay Oh course there is a right to protest (and debate whenever possible). But there is not a right to violence. And of course the private and public universities may decide who they want to invite to speak (and not expect a violent protest in response).

@okaybut Of course there isn't a right to violence. That's why violent protestors are arrested. But that has nothing to do with 'free speech.'
The reason I even brought it up is the phrase has been co-opted by the far right as a faux example of how they're being threatened and persecuted. It's just not accurate.

@Ynotisay Universities are choosing what kind of speech is acceptable -- this is the problem.

@SW-User Not sure that's true. I'm also not sure that's a problem. The problem comes when the GOVERNMENT tells private institutions what is acceptable when it comes to speech.
What I find interesting is that those yelling about 'free speech' seem perfectly fine with Christians discriminating when it comes to service.
Funny how that works, huh?

@Ynotisay By not allowing "controversial" speakers they are controlling content. Universities should allow people of the right to speak (and I normally disagree with those of the "right" BTW). You may disagree, but I think it's vile.

Illegal censorship per se is a related issue, and public Universities may indeed have a First Amendment problem on their hands because of content discrimination.

And I am a moderate, and am fine with trans people in the military.

@SW-User What you or I FEEL about it is absolutely irrelevant.
And "content discrimination" in regards to universities? No. Sorry. That doesn't fly. If it did, all religious institutions would be forced to teach evolution and words like "fuck" wouldn't be banned from radio.
You're applying your opinion to an issue as if it holds legal weight. It doesn't. And that's why the "free speech" argument is so off base.

@Ynotisay I can be against any University dictating what views get voiced based on a philosophy of open scholasticism and academic freedom which has existed for centuries and which is good for a liberal Western civilization where freedom of thought is a treasured value. I went to such a University and it would pain me to see that go away even if legal. You are okay with it -- so be it.

@SW-User OK. Not to be dismissive but it doesn't matter what you think in relation to Free Speech. That's pretty much my point.

And I don't quite get why you seem to want to turn this around to my personal beliefs. I haven't mentioned my personal beliefs because they're irrelevant when it comes to this issue.

This is where things get tricky for me. When people depart from the facts, particularly when the law is involved, to impart their personal opinions as if they're relevant, it's nothing but arguing a false premise. It's pointless and something I'll never understand.

That's why this issue is the PERFECT opportunity for extremists to feel persecuted. It's not based in fact.

@Ynotisay I don't think they are all "extremists." See what happened at Evergreen. You keep going back to free speech and private universities, and that's fine, but the exercise of legal authority can still be objectionable based on moral or other values. Scholasticism and academic freedom being such values.

If you don't agree that one can't object to anything that happens to be legal, then we have reached the point where our differences are clear, and there isn't much more to say.

@SW-User You've consistently chosen to ignore the point I'm making. I know why I just don't like it. So yeah...there isn't much more to say.

@Ynotisay I haven't ignored it, I don't happen to agree with it. You can't require people to agree with you, Ynotisay. That seems to be a trait of the left. I'm a moderate dem, not of the right and not this new left, either.

@SW-User Dude. Seriously? You don't agree that private universities hiring or not hiring speakers has NOTHING to do with the LEGALITIES of Free Speech, huh?
Belief over fact. I'll never, ever get it.

@Ynotisay Yes, it would be legal. I still find it objectionable. I've made this point several times.

@SW-User And I'm going to make my point one last time too. I DON'T FREAKING CARE IF YOU FIND IT OBJECTIONABLE. I happen to find it objectionable too. But what I think is IRRELEVANT to the issue. It is NOT an issue of Free Speech. Period. Full stop. THAT'S my point.

@Ynotisay It's relevant because it's happening not in a vacuum, but in the face of the purported values of said private Universities. Values I share. I've purposefully not used the term "free speech." I have pointed to the traditions of scholasticism, and academic freedom. These are also values (liberal Western values), I share. The term "free speech" encompasses these as well but in terms of how people communicate about values distinct from a stricter legal issue which I acknowledge.

@SW-User Indeed, when a university accepts state money they become a voice of the government and therefore have a constitutional OBLIGATION to protect ALL speech, not just speech the little snowflake fascists want to hear. They may as well be taught a lesson before they get out in the real world and find their head bashed in for acting like a wannabe hitler.