• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Free Speech Legislation in Wisconsin

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Doc Savage Fan said:
YAFs-2017-Commencement-Speakers-Survey-4.png


Education or indoctrination?
Click to expand...

If anything, that should be a badge of shame if you identify with the red cartoons in that image.
 
fskimospy said:
You realize you're posting in a thread where conservatives are attempting to crush speech they don't like, right?

Thank you for proving so clearly that small government conservatism in America is a lie. You're fine with the government suppressing speech so long as they are suppressing speech you don't like. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...


I certainly agree that conservatives aren't for small government, merely big government that aligns with what they agree with.

Both sides should be appalled at how the freedom of speech is being trampled. The left used to be the party that argued they'd defend anyone's right to burn a flag to the death even if they didn't agree with it because the freedom to do so was what made America great, but now they are just as guilty at trying to silence any speech they don't agree with as the right. This country is going down the tubes and both sides are taking it there while pointing the finger at the other.
 
UglyCasanova said:
I certainly agree that conservatives aren't for small government, merely big government that aligns with what they agree with.

Both sides should be appalled at how the freedom of speech is being trampled. The left used to be the party that argued they'd defend anyone's right to burn a flag to the death even if they didn't agree with it because the freedom to do so was what made America great, but now they are just as guilty at trying to silence any speech they don't agree with as the right. This country is going down the tubes and both sides are taking it there while pointing the finger at the other.
Click to expand...

I have to say I really don't agree with the equivalence here. While I certainly think that some students on college campuses need a lesson on what liberal values are and the hostility to even mildly dissenting viewpoints is disturbing I haven't seen anything out of liberals like this, which is a clear intervention by the government intended to stifle speech they disagree with.
 
I've said many times before that conservatives don't even remotely understand the First Amendment. It's nice when DSF chimes in to prove that correct.
 
Xellos2099 said:
The thing is, this rule would apply to the right as well.
Click to expand...

"In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread."

Conservatives aren't the ones protesting, which is what this law is designed to stop.
 
I'm no expert here, but here is my interpretation. Please correct any inaccuracies if you know other wise:
1. Freedom of speech as a 1st amendment protection relates to the federal government (text says Congress shall pass no law..., but I know it is interpreted more broadly), so state constitutions may permit some laws that wouldn't pass federal muster
2. It is not clear to me what mechanisms between the University level and the state legislature exist to consider this matter, but I'm in favor of this being as close to University level as possible
3. I am interested in what differences being a public university may make. If the speaking event is private, I believe they ought to have broad freedom to boot attendees
4. RE: suspension or expulsion -- this may cross the state free speech boundary given the broadness of their determination of offense

But this is perhaps not earnestly a legal matter. We also ought to consider what is morally right. And of course, as @Moonbeam points out, our society generally wishes to promote civil discourse and not disruption for the sake of degradation. It is a moral value I hold to as well, and violating it for me should occur when civil discourse is actively suppressed.

I do think that the legislation here is superfluous, and I am disturbed by the broadness of the definition of offense and the justness of the interventions.
 
interchange said:
I'm no expert here, but here is my interpretation. Please correct any inaccuracies if you know other wise:
1. Freedom of speech as a 1st amendment protection relates to the federal government (text says Congress shall pass no law..., but I know it is interpreted more broadly), so state constitutions may permit some laws that wouldn't pass federal muster
Click to expand...

This is not accurate, the federal first amendment applies identically to all levels of government, federal, state, and local. This is the same for all rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights

2. It is not clear to me what mechanisms between the University level and the state legislature exist to consider this matter, but I'm in favor of this being as close to University level as possible
3. I am interested in what differences being a public university may make. If the speaking event is private, I believe they ought to have broad freedom to boot attendees
4. RE: suspension or expulsion -- this may cross the state free speech boundary given the broadness of their determination of offense
Click to expand...

If it's a public university that means its a government entity, so it has all the restrictions any government would have. They can certainly boot attendees, but if they tried to boot them for political speech that would be unconstitutional.

But this is perhaps not earnestly a legal matter. We also ought to consider what is morally right. And of course, as @Moonbeam points out, our society generally wishes to promote civil discourse and not disruption for the sake of degradation. It is a moral value I hold to as well, and violating it for me should occur when civil discourse is actively suppressed.

I do think that the legislation here is superfluous, and I am disturbed by the broadness of the definition of offense and the justness of the interventions.
Click to expand...

I think people who try and shout down those who disagree with them are petty and pathetic, not to mention they betray the liberal values they claim to hold. The government stopping them is a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease though.
 
fskimospy said:
You realize you're posting in a thread where conservatives are attempting to crush speech they don't like, right?

Thank you for proving so clearly that small government conservatism in America is a lie. You're fine with the government suppressing speech so long as they are suppressing speech you don't like. Hypocrite.
Click to expand...
It's dishonest as hell to frame willful belligerence as "free speech" when it's blatantly intended to disrupt the free speech rights of others. Free speech rights don't guarantee people the right to communicate their views anywhere at anytime.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
It's dishonest as hell to frame willful belligerence as "free speech" when it's blatantly intended to disrupt the free speech rights of others. Free speech rights don't guarantee people the right to communicate their views anywhere at anytime.
Click to expand...

Belligerent speech isn't free speech? Since when!!?! The only type of speech like that which has ever been restricted were words deliberately intended to incite immediate violence. Speech intended to disrupt the speech of others isn't free speech either? Since when!?! I'm going to need some court cases cited here as this would be a radical departure from the first amendment as it's been interpreted for more than a century.

In fact, the bill was so obviously unconstitutional that the author has already changed it to remove the parts related to speech.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ic-to-speak-at-hearing-on-uw-free-speech-bill

Kremer told The Associated Press last week that he planned to pare down the bill to consider only violence or disorderly conduct, after critics said it was too vague to pass constitutional muster.
Click to expand...

It was obvious that it was unconstitutional and yet here you are as a small government conservative defending the government moving in to suppress speech it doesn't like. Total hypocrite, as usual.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
It's dishonest as hell to frame willful belligerence as "free speech" when it's blatantly intended to disrupt the free speech rights of others. Free speech rights don't guarantee people the right to communicate their views anywhere at anytime.
Click to expand...

So in order to limit the ability of private citizens to disrupt the speech of other private citizens, you would back a blatantly unconstitutional bill that has the government banning speech which is "violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct" without even bothering to define any of those terms. Which of course means that no one knows what speech is banned and what is not, so it's better to just keep your mouth shut at all times. It's called a "chilling effect."

There are many examples of rank hypocrisy on this board to choose from, but in recent memory, this one tops them all.

Please spare us any further tedious sermonizing on the importance of free speech.
 
fskimospy said:
This is not accurate, the federal first amendment applies identically to all levels of government, federal, state, and local. This is the same for all rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_of_the_Bill_of_Rights



If it's a public university that means its a government entity, so it has all the restrictions any government would have. They can certainly boot attendees, but if they tried to boot them for political speech that would be unconstitutional.



I think people who try and shout down those who disagree with them are petty and pathetic, not to mention they betray the liberal values they claim to hold. The government stopping them is a classic case of the cure being worse than the disease though.
Click to expand...
Free speech can and does have at least some limitations, like the classic overused example of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. Suppose there are clearly stated rules at the venue that allot time for dissenting views to be expressed; I don't think it would be unlawful at all to prevent disruptions that occur outside those times, especially if it can be shown that the structure of the event really does allow for the expression of dissenting views. Respect for civil discourse really ought to be a matter of a code of conduct that students agree to before attending.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
It's dishonest as hell to frame willful belligerence as "free speech" when it's blatantly intended to disrupt the free speech rights of others. Free speech rights don't guarantee people the right to communicate their views anywhere at anytime.
Click to expand...

Ah, another "I really don't understand the 1st amendment" conservative. Go figure.
 
fskimospy said:
Belligerent speech isn't free speech? Since when!!?! The only type of speech like that which has ever been restricted were words deliberately intended to incite immediate violence. Speech intended to disrupt the speech of others isn't free speech either? Since when!?! I'm going to need some court cases cited here as this would be a radical departure from the first amendment as it's been interpreted for more than a century.

In fact, the bill was so obviously unconstitutional that the author has already changed it to remove the parts related to speech.

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-st...ic-to-speak-at-hearing-on-uw-free-speech-bill



It was obvious that it was unconstitutional and yet here you are as a small government conservative defending the government moving in to suppress speech it doesn't like. Total hypocrite, as usual.
Click to expand...
Disturbing the peace using belligerent speech is not protected by the first amendment.
 
Doc Savage Fan said:
Disturbing the peace using belligerent speech is not protected by the first amendment.
Click to expand...

If they were disturbing the peace that's already a crime, making this legislation meaningless. Are you saying after all this that you're supporting an utterly pointless bill?

I don't think you thought this through, friend DSF.
 
fskimospy said:
If they were disturbing the peace that's already a crime, making this legislation meaningless. Are you saying after all this that you're supporting an utterly pointless bill?

I don't think you thought this through, friend DSF.
Click to expand...
I understand and support what I perceive to be the intent of the bill. However, I do believe it's too broad as written.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top