View Single Post
  #4167  
Old 07.02.2017, 15:27
fduvall's Avatar
fduvall fduvall is offline
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Used to be Zurich
Posts: 1,527
Groaned at 43 Times in 31 Posts
Thanked 1,483 Times in 711 Posts
fduvall has a reputation beyond reputefduvall has a reputation beyond reputefduvall has a reputation beyond reputefduvall has a reputation beyond reputefduvall has a reputation beyond reputefduvall has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Will Trump be a Good President?

And just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, UC Berkeley ultimately called off Milo's event for safety reasons. I am not laying any blame on the university for making the decision to cancel; it was not safe for anyone and part of the venue had been destroyed. The protesters who started rioting (most likely NOT students), caused the event to be cancelled. I do find it quite odd that the police present during the rioting/violence, were not doing anything to stop it nor making any arrests, but that is another topic and I expect the truth to come out eventually.

WRT free speech in the US, there are a few limitations, but not many. I think what has changed somewhat recently, is the notion that "hate speech" should not be tolerated. This is NOT in the Constitution (nor the First Amendment), and is a relatively recent interpretation of First Amendment rights. Many groups (often but not always Leftist), are using their own interpretation of the First Amendment.

this is a fair interpretation of what is happening today...
"The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized very few exceptions to the First Amendment," says Robert Richards, founding director of the Pennsylvania Center for the First Amendment at Penn State, which was established in 1992 to promote awareness and understanding of the principles of free expression to the scholarly community, the media and the general public.

"The categories of speech that fall outside of its protection are obscenity, child pornography, defamation, incitement to violence and true threats of violence," he explains. "Even in those categories, there are tests that have to be met in order for the speech to be illegal. Beyond that, we are free to speak."

In the United States, several states have had laws against blasphemy even though such laws violate the U.S. Constitution.

"Many people are mistaken in their belief that offensive speech or hate speech is not protected," says Richards. "The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the notion that unpopular speech enjoys full First Amendment protection. As the late Justice William Brennan put it, in a case involving flag burning, 'If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.'"


Quote:
I am with you on a lot of this, I (personally) don't think people have a right to not be offended, especially when it is incredibly easy to avoid things likely to offend you (don't go to the Milo talk, for example).

However, like it or not, the USA despite it's much trumpeted (no pun intended) Free Speech / 1st Amendment, has many areas of speech which are not protected. Racial/etc incitement for example. It may have just been a pragmatic approach by the uni (and in the end saving Federal taxpayers money) as people offended presumably could have quite easily taken out lawsuits against the uni for permitting discrimination, etc and demanded solatium.

Last edited by fduvall; 07.02.2017 at 16:17. Reason: Added (nor the First Amendment), for clarification purposes
The following 6 users would like to thank fduvall for this useful post: