Mizzou versus free speech; microaggression

[Adam H. Kerman]

Chicago Tribune wrote a decent editorial, in Friday's paper 11-13-2015,
about the Mizzou student activists. Seems they declared a media free zone
around the hunger-striking protestor, locking hands to prevent reporters
from getting to the guy.

Their demand from the administration actually sounded like a demand for
re-education about racial issues, and they wanted it taught as part of
all education programs.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-campus-free-speech-first-amendment-edit-20151112-story.html

"What's wrong with policing campus speech?"

Eric Zorn's column: "Missouri protest takes a troubling turn"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-missouri-block-journalists-melissa-click-perspec-zorn-20151110-column.html

A Washington Post writer claims, "Campus racism makes minorities drop
out of college. Mizzou students had to act."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-mizzou-yale-campus-racism-20151112-story.html

PBS NewsHour Race Matters Solution interviewed Derald Wing Sue, the professor
that's promoting the idea that microagressions are harmful, even though
he states that they are unintentional. At one point, I swear the interviewer
rolled her eyes.

"How unintentional but insidious bias can be the most harmful"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/how-unintentional-but-insidious-bias-can-be-the-most-harmful/

[Michael Black]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> Chicago Tribune wrote a decent editorial, in Friday's paper 11-13-2015,
> about the Mizzou student activists. Seems they declared a media free zone
> around the hunger-striking protestor, locking hands to prevent reporters
> from getting to the guy.
>

Kids today don't seem to see any value in "the media", even as they feed
off it without acknowledging where it comes from.

WHen the students were revolting here three years ago, they had that same
sense that "the media is biased, we will block them".

Michael

[Rhino]

I hit a paywall when I tried to read the Chicago Tribune editorials.
Since you apparently have a subscription, could you possibly copy and
paste the editorials?

--
Rhino

[Adam H. Kerman]

I use Firefox with javascript allowed, but control javascript with the
NoScript add on. They enforce the paywall with javascript. Turn off
javascript, you can read it just fine.

As other people point out, Google caches this stuff just fine; search
for the article title.

Trib editorial 11-12-2015 6:16 pm

"What's wrong with policing campus speech?"

This summer, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signed into law the Campus Free
Expression Act, which prohibits the state's universities from restricting
student protests to designated "free speech zones."

The law declares campuses a "traditional public forum" and guarantees
students the right to express themselves freely on any outdoor space.

In recent weeks, as tensions mounted over a series of racial incidents
in and around Mizzou, a group of student activists erected a tent city
on Carnahan Quadrangle. So far, so good.

Then they planted a sign declaring their campsite a media-free zone.

So when their exercise of free speech caused the university president
and chancellor to resign, the students sullied that victory by trying to
chase reporters from that public forum. Yes, they're a little unclear on
the concept of the First Amendment.

There's a lot of that going around. American universities, traditionally
bastions of free speech, have taken a discouraging turn toward policing and
even silencing forms of expression that might make students uncomfortable.

Last month at Yale, an intercultural affairs committee email cautioned
students not to wear Halloween costumes that could be perceived as
insensitive toward women, minorities, religious faiths or socioeconomic
groups. (What's left?)

The committee members had the right to raise those concerns. First
Amendment, remember? But when a pair of administrators suggested the
university shouldn't tell people how to dress -- First Amendment again --
they were pilloried by students.

During an hourslong confrontation captured on video, one student argued
that by pushing back against the Halloween police, the administrators
failed to "create a place of comfort and home" for students. "It is not
about creating an intellectual space!" the student shouted.

At UCLA, some students demanded that administrators punish partygoers
who wore offensive costumes to a Kanye West-themed party hosted by campus
Greek organizations.

Students have demanded that instructors be fired and commencement speakers
be disinvited. They've filed Title IX gender discrimination complaints
against professors over the content of their research. They've complained
about buildings named after the rich white men who paid for them.

Shielding students from thoughts they might find objectionable is the
opposite of what college is supposed to be about. But many universities
have gone out of their way to accommodate those delicate sensibilities.

The University of California system has devoted months to educating its
faculty on "microaggressions," defined as "everyday verbal, nonverbal
and environmental slights, snubs or insults, whether intentional or
unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory or negative messages
to target persons based solely upon their marginalized group membership."

Those land mines include using the pronoun "he" in a gender-neutral context
or mispronouncing non-English sounding names. Saying "America is the land
of opportunity" suggests that those who don't succeed are lazy. Asking
a student "Where are you from?" suggests they aren't a true American.

Some universities have directed instructors to correct (or report) each
other for such utterances. Schools encourage students to report hurtful
speech to online forums or even to campus police, who will forward the
complaints to the administration for possible disciplinary action.

At some colleges, teachers are advised to alert students if an assignment
contains provocative material that could trigger a strong emotional
response. The lists of potential "triggers" goes beyond sexual and racial
violence to include misogyny, classism and privilege. Some students have
even complained about being traumatized by subject matter that wasn't
flagged with a "trigger warning."

All of this creates an environment in which seemingly fragile young adults
are allowed and enabled to avoid troubling thoughts, and the people who
are supposed to be educating those students are required to second-guess
their every word. Four years of that will do nothing to prepare students
to run the world.

Freshman orientation should include an all-purpose trigger warning: This
curriculum may contain material that some may consider racist, sexist,
genderphobic, graphic, tasteless, politically incorrect or otherwise
offensive. You can handle it.

Students are supposed to come to college to be exposed to challenging
ideas, not be protected from them.

Missouri protest takes a troubling turn: Student protesters fumble at Missouri 'football' protest

Eric Zorn Change of Subject column

At first, there was something inspiring about the protests at the
University of Missouri.

Some 30 African-American players on the school's football team, supported
by their coach and many other teammates, announced they would refuse to
practice or play until the university president resigned or was fired
over his failure to adequately address incidents of racism on campus.

No football?! Suddenly the nation was paying attention to what was,
until then, a local issue.

Most of us weren't in a position to referee their claims -- was President
Tim Wolfe irremediably responsible for creating an environment in which
some students were the subject of racial epithets and a vandal used feces
to draw a swastika? What had Wolfe said or not said that he shouldn't
have? What negotiations, what incremental steps, had been tried and had
failed before leading to the dramatic demand? Where was the impasse?

But still. Credit the football players, with a boost from campus
activists, for using their great leverage to bring those questions forward,
forcing the conversation, prompting a deeper and more urgent look at the
long-simmering complaints of minority students at the university.

Good protests attract attention and raise awareness. And by that measure,
this was a good protest.

But then, when Wolfe resigned under pressure Monday morning, something
about it had become disquieting. The precipitous result felt a little
like the fruits of extortion -- the school was going to lose $1 million
if it had to forfeit Saturday's game against Brigham Young University --
and of mob rule.

Do we want campus athletes and activists to have the power to oust
administrators? Always? Or just when we agree with the outcome?

Also disquieting are the remaining six demands on a list promulgated by
the student protest group.

They include this paragraph of Orwellian, paternalistic claptrap:
"We demand that the University of Missouri creates and enforces
comprehensive racial awareness and inclusion curriculum throughout
all campus departments and units, mandatory for all students, faculty,
staff and administration. This curriculum must be vetted, maintained and
overseen by a board comprised of students, staff, and faculty of color."

Mandatory "racial awareness" classes in all departments sounds like a
sentence given in lieu of jail time -- a prescription for resentment,
not reconciliation.

Then by Monday afternoon, something about the protests at the University
of Missouri had become ugly and self-defeating.

Student protesters who continued to occupy a tent city on a campus commons
were busily shooing off reporters and photographers so that "the place
where people live, fellowship and sleep can be protected from twisted
insincere narratives," according to a tweet from organizers.

A video shot at the scene shows an advancing line of students trying
to shove away student photographer Tim Tai, working on assignment for
ESPN. Over chants of "Hey hey, ho ho, reporters have got to go," Tai
calmly explains that he's just doing his job and that the First Amendment
protects his right to be in a public place to document the students'
exercise of their First Amendment rights.

They are having none of it, and continue to taunt and menace him while
waving their arms to block him from taking pictures.

A faculty member, Janna Basler, director of Greek life on campus, barges
in and tells Tai to "back off . (the students) have an education to get
and a life to live."

Then the student videographer, Mark Schierbecker, slips inside the
perimeter and is confronted by another faculty member, communications
department assistant professor Melissa Click. "You need to get out!" Click
shouts at him. "Who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I
need some muscle over here."

The video reinforced every stereotype of the entitled, arrogant lefty
and gave comfort to anyone, particularly anyone on the political right,
who wants to dismiss all the concerns at Missouri as just so much
hypersensitivity of the sort that continues to stifle robust discourse
on college campuses.

An email to all Missouri students Tuesday urging them to call campus
police if they witness "hateful and/or hurtful speech" -- even though
such speech is not a crime -- provided a bonus eye roll for skeptics.

Hey hey, ho ho, people. There is nothing liberal about muzzling the media,
stifling speech and forcing people to take classes to raise their awareness
of your point of view.

Or so I once thought.

[BTR1701]

In article <n26lia$m36$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> Chicago Tribune wrote a decent editorial, in Friday's paper 11-13-2015,
> about the Mizzou student activists. Seems they declared a media free zone
> around the hunger-striking protestor, locking hands to prevent reporters
> from getting to the guy.
>
> Their demand from the administration actually sounded like a demand for
> re-education about racial issues, and they wanted it taught as part of
> all education programs.
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-campus-free-speech-fi
> rst-amendment-edit-20151112-story.html

Maoist thugs gotta Maoist thug.

This is going on at Amherst now, too. It's like a snapshot of a Marxist
revolution in action. They're demanding the administration stand up and
publicly recite their propaganda complete with mandatory re-education
camps... er, I mean classes for any student who dissents.

I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
bare.

5. President Martin must issue a statement to the Amherst College
community at large that states we do not tolerate the actions of
student(s) who posted the "All Lives Matter" posters, and the "Free
Speech" posters that stated that "in memoriam of the true victim of
the Missouri Protests: Free Speech". Also let the student body know
that it was racially insensitive to the students of color on our
college campus and beyond who are victim to racial harassment and
death threats; alert them that Student Affairs may require them to
go through the Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed,
and that they will be required to attend extensive training for
racial and cultural competency.

http://www.amherstsoul.com/post/133122838315/amherst-uprising-what-we-sta
nd-for

Oh, wait. Look! Amherst Uprising announces that the Amherst Equestrian
Club has been purged for insufficient ideological rigor.

And it's not just free speech that's under attack. These little Maoist
snowflakes are demanding the systematic dismantling of most of the Bill
of Rights in order to protect their precious feelz. When it comes to any
kind of campus sexual assault, they expect the equivalent of a Stalinist
show trial before summarily convicting the accused:

They demand an absurdly low burden of proof and denial of the accused
the right to cross-examine witnesses against him; and they claim that
allowing the accused to introduce exculpatory evidence showing innocence
is unacceptable because it favors the accused.

https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/665550218918690816

On a side note, I'm really looking forward to this year's Thanksgiving
explainer from Vox and Salon (both "Barb May"-approved media sources!)
on how I should talk to my uncle about safe spaces and microaggressions.

[RichA]

The radical left's disgusting, totalitarian hand is in this. Look for certain professors to be part of this.

[Adam H. Kerman]

BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:

>And it's not just free speech that's under attack. These little Maoist
>snowflakes are demanding the systematic dismantling of most of the Bill
>of Rights in order to protect their precious feelz. When it comes to any
>kind of campus sexual assault, they expect the equivalent of a Stalinist
>show trial before summarily convicting the accused:

>They demand an absurdly low burden of proof and denial of the accused
>the right to cross-examine witnesses against him; and they claim that
>allowing the accused to introduce exculpatory evidence showing innocence
>is unacceptable because it favors the accused.

>https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/665550218918690816

That's about The Hunter Ground documentary about rape on campus.

A columnist for Slate thinks that there's no veracity in the depiction of
one of the rapes. In a coincidence, the man was on trial for the alleged
indecent assault and battery (unwanted sexual touching, not rape) the
day the film opened. He was acquitted of all the sex crimes, but convicted
of one instance of misdomeanor non-sexual touching. Two of the jurors explained
it was a deal made with one juror who held out for a conviction for sexual
assault involving the charge of unwanted touching of a breast.

The point of the film is to repeat a notion that campus rapes are generally
perpetrated by serial predators, the theory of David Lisak, a retired
psychology professor interviewed in the documentary.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/doublex/2015/06/the_hunting_ground_a_closer_look_at_the_influential_documentary_reveals.html

[anim8rfsk]

In article <n27u5l$45o$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >And it's not just free speech that's under attack. These little Maoist
> >snowflakes are demanding the systematic dismantling of most of the Bill
> >of Rights in order to protect their precious feelz. When it comes to any
> >kind of campus sexual assault, they expect the equivalent of a Stalinist
> >show trial before summarily convicting the accused:
>
> >They demand an absurdly low burden of proof and denial of the accused
> >the right to cross-examine witnesses against him; and they claim that
> >allowing the accused to introduce exculpatory evidence showing innocence
> >is unacceptable because it favors the accused.
>
> >https://twitter.com/kcjohnson9/status/665550218918690816
>
> That's about The Hunter Ground documentary about rape on campus.
>
> A columnist for Slate thinks that there's no veracity in the depiction of
> one of the rapes. In a coincidence, the man was on trial for the alleged
> indecent assault and battery (unwanted sexual touching, not rape) the
> day the film opened. He was acquitted of all the sex crimes, but convicted
> of one instance of misdomeanor non-sexual touching.

What the hell is that?

--
SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEQUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuu......

[Adam H. Kerman]

Well, you know, any unwanted contact can be an assault. It's a charge
they bring when they really really want to prosecute for something.

[Rhino]

Thanks, Adam, for pasting the editorials.

I'm happy to see that these are sane and sensible editorials, not the
overheated hysteria that has been coming from the students this past
week or so. One can only hope that they influence students to calm down
and rediscover the concept of free speech.


--
Rhino

[Rhino]

I saw one commenter on a blog say he's sick and tired of calling these
students "snowflakes" because that suggests they are harmless. He said
he was going to call them what they really were, Brownshirts. (And no,
that is not a Firefly reference, boys and girls.) But Maoist thugs is
even better since they are actually insisting on forced re-education for
anyone that offends their delicate sensibilities.

I suppose we can be glad that they aren't actually proposing to line
offenders up against a wall and shoot them. Mind you, these were their
INITIAL demands and they threaten to escalate their demands if these
aren't met promptly. Only time will tell if they are prepared to use
violence to achieve their goals.

--
Rhino

[FPP]

On 2015-11-14 17:58:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
> speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
> bare.
>
> 5. President Martin must issue a statement to the Amherst College
> community at large that states we do not tolerate the actions of
> student(s) who posted the "All Lives Matter" posters, and the "Free
> Speech" posters that stated that "in memoriam of the true victim of
> the Missouri Protests: Free Speech". Also let the student body know
> that it was racially insensitive to the students of color on our
> college campus and beyond who are victim to racial harassment and
> death threats; alert them that Student Affairs may require them to
> go through the Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed,
> and that they will be required to attend extensive training for
> racial and cultural competency.

Complete distortion of what they're saying... but, then, that is what
you're best at.

That demand stated the exact opposite of your characterization.
--
"Bunch together a group of people deliberately chosen for strong
religious feelings, and you have a practical guarantee of dark
morbidities expressed in crime, perversion, and insanity." -H.P.
Lovecraft

[anim8rfsk]

In article <n282ag$bf7$1...@news.albasani.net>,

So "he touched my forearm" ...

--
SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEQUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuu......

[JRStern]

On Sat, 14 Nov 2015 06:49:46 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>Eric Zorn's column: "Missouri protest takes a troubling turn"

"Headless body of university provost found in library, foul play
suspected"

J.

[Michael Black]

Or as Ralph from The Simpsons said one time Marge touched his arm "She's
touching my private parts".

Michael

[BTR1701]

In article <n28781$ltf$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2015-11-14 17:58:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
> > speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
> > bare.
> >
> > 5. President Martin must issue a statement to the Amherst College
> > community at large that states we do not tolerate the actions of
> > student(s) who posted the "All Lives Matter" posters, and the "Free

> > Speech" posters that stated that "In memoriam of the true victim of

> > the Missouri Protests: Free Speech". Also let the student body know
> > that it was racially insensitive to the students of color on our
> > college campus and beyond who are victim to racial harassment and
> > death threats; alert them that Student Affairs may require them to
> > go through the Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed,
> > and that they will be required to attend extensive training for
> > racial and cultural competency.
>
> Complete distortion of what they're saying...

It's a fucking *direct* quote of what they said, Shit Shoes.

[BTR1701]

In article <n2867v$i37$1...@dont-email.me>,

They're snowflakes because they all think they're so unique and special,
but even actual snowflakes can cause real damage when they mass together
into a blizzard or an avalanche.

> He said he was going to call them what they really were, Brownshirts.

That works, too. That would make that UofM nonsense the Mizzou Putch.

> I suppose we can be glad that they aren't actually proposing to line
> offenders up against a wall and shoot them.

Just wait.

[FPP]

On 2015-11-14 21:29:13 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

> In article <n28781$ltf$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2015-11-14 17:58:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>
>>> I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
>>> speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
>>> bare.
>

> It's a fucking *direct* quote of what they said, Shit Shoes.

They said "Support for free speech will not be tolerated here!"?

That was your quote.

Show me where they said it?
--
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice there is. -Yogi Berra

[BTR1701]

In article <n28a8e$2cq$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2015-11-14 21:29:13 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n28781$ltf$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-14 17:58:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
> >>> speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
> >>> bare.
> >
> > It's a fucking *direct* quote of what they said, Shit Shoes.
>
> They said "Support for free speech will not be tolerated here!"?

"We do not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted... the

"Free Speech" posters that stated that "In memoriam of the true
victim of the Missouri Protests: Free Speech".

If that's not saying they won't tolerate support for free speech, then
please, spin one of your typical absurdities for us and tell us what it
"really" means.

[Rhino]

On 2015-11-14 3:59 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 2015-11-14 17:58:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
>> speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
>> bare.
>>
>> 5. President Martin must issue a statement to the Amherst College
>> community at large that states we do not tolerate the actions of
>> student(s) who posted the "All Lives Matter" posters, and the "Free
>> Speech" posters that stated that "in memoriam of the true victim of
>> the Missouri Protests: Free Speech". Also let the student body know
>> that it was racially insensitive to the students of color on our
>> college campus and beyond who are victim to racial harassment and
>> death threats; alert them that Student Affairs may require them to
>> go through the Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed,
>> and that they will be required to attend extensive training for
>> racial and cultural competency.
>
> Complete distortion of what they're saying... but, then, that is what
> you're best at.
>
> That demand stated the exact opposite of your characterization.

He gave an exact quote that matched the characterization that you didn't
like. How that becomes "complete distortion" is beyond anyone who speaks
English and uses logic to think.

--
Rhino

[Adam H. Kerman]

They might offer a choice between getting shot and re-education.

[FPP]

No, you fucking illiterate liar... that's NOT what it says. It says
what it says... not what you THINK it says.

Most literate people can tell that the passage that was quoted wasn't
actually said. That makes it a lie. A fabricated quote that attempts
to put words into someone's mouth that they never said.

Nobody said the quoted text "Support for free speech will not be
tolerated here!".

Except you.
--
“God created war so that Americans would learn geography." -Twain

[FPP]

On 2015-11-14 23:21:34 +0000, Rhino

He said "I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support

for free speech will not be tolerated here!"

That was NEVER said. When you quote something that nobody said, it
isn't a quote, its a lie.

Show me where "Support for free speech will not be tolerated here!"

You won't because you can't.
--
PeeStink Alergy <BeeStin...@email.com> FINALLY admits the truth,
that he thinks I'm a genius, and he's a liar - and is damned proud of
it! Thank you, ever so much!

On 2015-06-24, "BeeSting Alergy" said: "StingNote #1: Of course, the
subject header is mine AND NOT TRUE. But..." and "She makes both "wy" &
"FPP" look like board-certified geniuses."

http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=143520279100
http://al.howardknight.net/msgid.cgi?ID=143518774200

[BTR1701]

In article <n299ar$48i$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
wrote:

How is it a "complete distortion of what they're saying"? Please explain
in detail.

[BTR1701]

In article <n29953$3ml$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> On 2015-11-14 22:34:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
> > In article <n28a8e$2cq$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015-11-14 21:29:13 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>
> >>> In article <n28781$ltf$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 2015-11-14 17:58:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
> >>>>
> >>>>> I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
> >>>>> speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
> >>>>> bare.
> >>>
> >>> It's a fucking *direct* quote of what they said, Shit Shoes.
> >>
> >> They said "Support for free speech will not be tolerated here!"?
> >
> > "We do not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted... the
> > "Free Speech" posters that stated that "In memoriam of the true
> > victim of the Missouri Protests: Free Speech".
> >
> > If that's not saying they won't tolerate support for free speech, then
> > please, spin one of your typical absurdities for us and tell us what it
> > "really" means.
>
> No, you fucking illiterate liar... that's NOT what it says. It says
> what it says... not what you THINK it says.

How is it "complete distortion" of what they said? Please explain in
detail.

[moviePig]

Let me try: denouncing the actions of those who, on a particular
occasion, shouted "X!" doesn't equate to denouncing X.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[BTR1701]

In article <5648a700$0$63014$c3e8da3$1cbc...@news.astraweb.com>,

Ah, so these Marxists only oppose free speech every now and then? Or
only when people disagree with them?

Yeah, that makes it so much better.

[moviePig]

Let me try again: opposing the harmful actions of those who take those
actions in the name of X doesn't equate to opposing X. E.g., killing a
commie for Christ is still murder, even in Westboro KS.

[anim8rfsk]

In article <5648a700$0$63014$c3e8da3$1cbc...@news.astraweb.com>,
moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

So I can denounce Jane Fonda for being a traitor, without denouncing
treason itself?

--
SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEQUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuu......

[moviePig]

And vice versa, depending on what you thought of BARBARELLA...

[Adam H. Kerman]

No, you've still failed to write clearly or make a point. You're still
contributing nothing but STOOPID to the conversation.

[Dimensional Traveler]

But you are saying that denouncing someone for "killing for Christ" is
not that same as denouncing "killing for Christ". Sorry, but that is
incorrect.

--
Even Confucius complained about the younger generation's music.

[BTR1701]

So standing up for free speech and opposing constitutional violations
(i.e., the Mizzou journalism professor-- a government employee-- calling
for "some muscle" to help her shut down and remove a reporter she didn't
like) are "harmful actions" now?

[Barb May]

FPP wrote:
> On 2015-11-14 22:34:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> In article <n28a8e$2cq$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-14 21:29:13 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>>
>>>> In article <n28781$ltf$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2015-11-14 17:58:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for
>>>>>> free speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern
>>>>>> "progressivism" laid bare.
>>>>
>>>> It's a fucking *direct* quote of what they said, Shit Shoes.
>>>
>>> They said "Support for free speech will not be tolerated here!"?
>>
>> "We do not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted... the
>> "Free Speech" posters that stated that "In memoriam of the true
>> victim of the Missouri Protests: Free Speech".
>>
>> If that's not saying they won't tolerate support for free speech,
>> then please, spin one of your typical absurdities for us and tell us
>> what it "really" means.
>
> No, you fucking illiterate liar... that's NOT what it says. It says
> what it says... not what you THINK it says.
>
> Most literate people can tell that the passage that was quoted wasn't
> actually said. That makes it a lie. A fabricated quote that attempts
> to put words into someone's mouth that they never said.

As you know, that is exactly what Thanny does in every debate. He
dishonestly "interprets" to create straw men.

--
Barb

[moviePig]

Well, even what you said isn't *exactly* the same, but I'll admit to
choosing an example more for its rhetorical punch than for clarity.
Instead, let me say that, just as ends don't justify means, some
protests can be inappropriate regardless of what's being protested.

[FPP]

On 2015-11-15 15:11:13 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:

You quoted demand #5 as:

>>>>> I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
>>>>> speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
>>>>> bare.

THAT IS NOT WHAT DEMAND #5 SAYS. Demand #5 says what it says - not
what you want to interpret it as.

It's pretty clear language. They don't tolerate the actions of those
who posted some of the posters put up around campus.

Not tolerating certain actions of a group who have been active is NOT
the equivalent of "free speech will not be tolerated here".

I'll ask again: "Are you illiterate?"

--
"Didn't believe we needed to "Make America Great Again" - until I saw
the people we're seriously considering putting on the Presidential
ballot." - Kelly Hines 2015

[FPP]

Nobody is arguing that.

We're just arguing that you are a lying fuck.
--
Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive. -Hubbard

[FPP]

That professor was an idiot - and she has apologized and resigned, as
she should have.

> Journalism School Dean David Kurpius said in a statement that
> "Journalism School faculty members are taking immediate action to
> review that appointment." Click later resigned from the courtesy
> appointment, Kurpius said.

That's what's supposed to happen when somebody goes over the line.
What about that outcome isn't agreeable to you? What would you prefer?
A public flogging?
--
If your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

[moviePig]

I'm going by what's quoted above: your claim that Statement 5 is
"totalitarian intolerance of free speech". What I read Statement 5 to
say is that the recent actions of certain *students* won't be tolerated
-- specifically, those same students who were waving posters X, Y, and
Z. I see no position taken on the content of the posters themselves --
nor would I expect to, since their sentiments come straight from the
'Mom and apple pie' barrel...

[Adam H. Kerman]

Isn't that the same crap you pull every single fucking time?

>Instead, let me say that, just as ends don't justify means, some
>protests can be inappropriate regardless of what's being protested.

Still determined to bring the STOOPID to any discussion...

[BTR1701]

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> Well, even what you said isn't *exactly* the same, but I'll admit to
> choosing an example more for its rhetorical punch than for clarity.
> Instead, let me say that, just as ends don't justify means, some
> protests can be inappropriate regardless of what's being protested.

So how was it inappropriate to protest the censoring of speech by
government employees at Mizzou-- to the point of even threatening physical
violence against reporters-- inappropriate?

[BTR1701]

And the actions they're complaining about-- the actions they said they
won't tolerate, and that they claim will be subject to discipline and
re-education-- are putting up posters in support of free speech and its
suppression at Mizzou.

[BTR1701]

She resigned her honorary appointment to the journalism faculty council.
She's still fully employed by the College of Communications at Mizzou. She
resigned the meaningless position and kept the one that actually gives her
a paycheck.

However regardless of whether she resigned or apologized or not, none of
that in any way invalidates students who protested her actions or makes
their complaints "inappropriate".

> That's what's supposed to happen when somebody goes over the line.
> What about that outcome isn't agreeable to you? What would you prefer?

I'd prefer that people who complained about a clearly out of control
government prog violating the Constitution by trying to censor protected
speech not being vilified as "inappropriate" (moviePig) or subject to
discipline and ideological re-education (Amherst).

[FPP]

THE key words being: "What I read Statement 5 to say..."

Note that it's not what Statement 5 says... but your interpretations of it.
--
It's 99% of politicians that give the rest a bad name.

[FPP]

How do you know exactly what the posters said, or showed? You don't...
but you interpret their intent anyway.
--
"If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed. If you read the
newspaper, you're mis-informed." -Twain

[anim8rfsk]

In article <5648c7f7$0$29106$c3e8da3$3863...@news.astraweb.com>,

I like Barbarella, and enjoy it all the more for knowing that she
doesn't want us to see it.

--
SUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUZZEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEQUUUUUUUUUUUUuuuuuuuuuu......

[moviePig]

What I actually meant to focus on is what Statement 5 *doesn't* say --
which I think is plain enough to withstand even my interpretation.
Specifically, it *doesn't* say "All Lives Don't Matter" or "Down With
Free Speech". Maybe somebody somewhere *thinks* those things, I don't
know, but they didn't work them into the wording of Statement 5.

[moviePig]

One too many 'inappropriate's, but, if I understand you: *any* protest
can be "inappropriate", depending on whose ox is gored. E.g., on some
level, terrorists consider themselves protesters...

[Adam H. Kerman]

http://amherstuprising.com/demands.html

This is the official Web site of the students making the demands, if you
don't like the Web site BTR1701 quoted from.

They demanded that the president of the college issue a statement that
states that he doesn't tolerate the students who posted "All Lives Matter"
posters and the "Free Speech" posters.

That's a demand that the college not tolerate academic freedom and free
debate. I'm sorry, but there's simply no way to apologize for that demand.

How stupid are you, moviePig?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Wow. You just compared terrorists to those who exercise freedom of speech.

You're trolling. Are you truly this vile?

[moviePig]

On 11/15/2015 2:49 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

Note that I'm learning the facts of this event on the fly. So, some
students politely walked into the provost's office and asked to post
signs saying "Support Free Speech" and were told they couldn't?

[Barb May]

Here's an image of the poster:
http://tinyurl.com/pwv7axg

The text:
IN MEMORIAM OF THE TRUE VICTIM OF THE MISSOURI PROTESTS
FREE SPEECH

1776-2015

Who is constrained by the invisible barriers of our generation’s safe
spaces;
Censored for the open forum of non-conflicting opinions;
Trod upon to build a community of comfort;
And violently persecuted for a safer, less vitriolic world.
Let us honor the life of the first amendment, and the heroes that it
protected:
Journalists, Educators, Philosophers, and Free Thinkers everywhere.
----------------------------------------

There is no justification for demanding punishment for those who posted
this. If the intent was to provide an opportunity for protesters to
prove to everyone just how crazy their demands would be if they were to
be taken seriously, it succeeded.

--
Barb

[moviePig]

Well, it does seem relatively literate and inoffensive. So, unless,
say, it's being pasted over the windshields of speeding school buses...

I wasn't kidding when I admitted to learning the facts on the fly. But
I've now spent a few minutes on Google News trying to piece together the
various events, stances, subtexts, etc., and I have to admit I didn't
get far. I hope the participants aren't as confused as I am about whose
side they're supposed to be on. (I posted only to reject the logic
behind: "Statement 5 is totally totalitarian!")

[Dimensional Traveler]

Appropriate or Inappropriate are not conditions in the Constitution that
allow for restricting freedom of speech. The whole POINT of freedom of
speech is to allow people to say things that others DISAGREE with.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig

> > BTR1701 wrote:
> >
> > So standing up for free speech and opposing constitutional violations

> > are "harmful actions" now?

>
> What I read Statement 5 to say is that the recent actions of certain
> *students* won't be tolerated -- specifically, those same students
> who were waving posters X, Y, and Z.

How is that NOT intolerance for Freedom of Speech?!

[FPP]

It may very well be... but when you quote something that wasn't
actually SAID, it's bullshit.

Just arguing the demand on it's merits is one thing... but lying about
what was actually said is just that: LYING.

Don't make excuses for liars... they will do that all by themselves.
--
A day without sunshine is like, you know, night. -S Martin

[Ed Stasiak]

> FPP
> > Ed Stasiak
> >> moviePig

> >>
> >> What I read Statement 5 to say is that the recent actions of certain
> >> *students* won't be tolerated -- specifically, those same students
> >> who were waving posters X, Y, and Z.
> >
> > How is that NOT intolerance for Freedom of Speech?!
>
> It may very well be... but when you quote something that wasn't
> actually SAID, it's bullshit.

What is "Statement 5", just so that we're all on the same page?

[FPP]

> 5. President Martin must issue a statement to the Amherst College
> community at large that states we do not tolerate the actions of
> student(s) who posted the “All Lives Matter” posters, and the “Free
> Speech” posters that stated that “in memoriam of the true victim of the

> Missouri Protests: Free Speech.” Also let the student body know that it

> was racially insensitive to the students of color on our college campus
> and beyond who are victim to racial harassment and death threats; alert
> them that Student Affairs may require them to go through the
> Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed, and that they will
> be required to attend extensive training for racial and cultural
> competency.

Whatever that means, BTR's quote wasn't in there.
There was plenty to argue about, without fabricating your own quote to
make things worse. Again... it wasn't bad enough, so he felt the need
to make it worse by just making shit up.

Or, as he said "I just make shit up!" (Note: BTR didn't actually SAY
that, so it's a lie. The difference between us is that I know when I'm
deliberately making something up, and I'll admit it. I won't try and
pass it off as true.)

Full text here:

http://www.amherstsoul.com/post/133122838315/amherst-uprising-what-we-stand-for
--
Liberals believe in some elements of socialism.
Conservatives hate socialism and they only believe in some elements of it.

[Ed Stasiak]

> FPP
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > What is "Statement 5", just so that we're all on the same page?
>
> 5. President Martin must issue a statement to the Amherst College
> community at large that states we do not tolerate the actions of

> student(s) who posted ... posters

Again; how is that NOT intolerance for and suppression of Freedom of Speech?!

[FPP]

Don't think I ever said it wasn't, Ed. I just took issue with making
it something it wasn't.

Like I said...plenty to argue about, without resorting to
mischaracterizations and lies.
--
Experience is a hard teacher because she gives the test first, and the
lessons afterward.

[BTR1701]

In article <5648efe7$0$9131$c3e8da3$5d8f...@news.astraweb.com>,

No, students posted their fliers around the Amherst campus, mourning the
death of free speech at Mizzou.

The Amherst Marxist Student Association threw a fit and launched their
own Mizzou-style occupa-- er, protest, in which, among other things,
they demanded the Amherst administration condemn the students who posted
the fliers and subject them to mandatory discipline and political
re-education/indoctrination.

[FPP]

Yup. And then you fabricated a quote about it, and presented the lie
as the truth.

And now you're denying that you did it, as if everybody couldn't read English.
--
Bad politicians are sent to Washington by good people who don't vote.
-William E. Simon

[Tom Benton]

On Sun, 15 Nov 2015 14:24:29 -0500, FPP <fred...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 2015-11-15 15:11:13 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>
>> In article <n299ar$48i$1...@dont-email.me>, FPP <fred...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2015-11-14 23:21:34 +0000, Rhino
>>> <no_offline_c...@example.com> said:
>>>
>>>> On 2015-11-14 3:59 PM, FPP wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-11-14 17:58:20 +0000, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
>>>>>> speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
>>>>>> bare.
>>>>>>

>>>>>> 5. President Martin must issue a statement to the Amherst College
>>>>>> community at large that states we do not tolerate the actions of

>>>>>> student(s) who posted the "All Lives Matter" posters, and the "Free
>>>>>> Speech" posters that stated that "in memoriam of the true victim of

>>>>>> the Missouri Protests: Free Speech". Also let the student body know

>>>>>> that it was racially insensitive to the students of color on our
>>>>>> college campus and beyond who are victim to racial harassment and
>>>>>> death threats; alert them that Student Affairs may require them to
>>>>>> go through the Disciplinary Process if a formal complaint is filed,
>>>>>> and that they will be required to attend extensive training for
>>>>>> racial and cultural competency.
>>>>>

>>>>> Complete distortion of what they're saying... but, then, that is what
>>>>> you're best at.
>>>>>
>>>>> That demand stated the exact opposite of your characterization.
>>>>
>>>> He gave an exact quote that matched the characterization that you
>>>> didn't like. How that becomes "complete distortion" is beyond anyone
>>>> who speaks English and uses logic to think.
>>>
>>> He said "I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support
>>> for free speech will not be tolerated here!"
>>
>> How is it a "complete distortion of what they're saying"? Please explain
>> in detail.
>

>You quoted demand #5 as:
>

>>>>>> I mean, Demand #5 is just so openly totalitarian. "Support for free
>>>>>> speech will not be tolerated here!" This is modern "progressivism" laid
>>>>>> bare.
>

>THAT IS NOT WHAT DEMAND #5 SAYS. Demand #5 says what it says - not
>what you want to interpret it as.
>
>It's pretty clear language. They don't tolerate the actions of those
>who posted some of the posters put up around campus.
>

>Not tolerating certain actions of a group who have been active is NOT
>the equivalent of "free speech will not be tolerated here".
>

>I'll ask again: "Are you illiterate?"

I know i am coming in late here, but what "actions" are not to be
tolerated? It has to be more than putting up some posters, doesn't
it?
______________________________

Tom Benton


"I think I can. I think I can. I think I can"

The Little Engine That Could

[moviePig]

You and me, kid...

[BTR1701]

In article <i9gj4bl54tk4ak01e...@4ax.com>,

Nope, that's enough to enrage the Stalinist Students Association.

[Ed Stasiak]

> FPP
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > we do not tolerate the actions of student(s) who posted ... posters
>

> Like I said...plenty to argue about, without resorting to mischaracterizations
> and lies.

"Support for free speech will not be tolerated here!" is _exactly_ what these
anti-free speech jihadists are advocating.

It is not a mischaracterization and it sure as hell isn't a lie, they are flat-out
telling the world that they want to censor any speech they disagree with, to
the point of expelling students who don't submit to them.

[Barb May]

That's overstating it. One complaint about one specific thing doesn't
automatically become a blanket statment about everything -- that is,
until a right-wing propagandist gets ahold of it.

--
Barb

[moviePig]

And, these *are* kids, right? ...trying to flex mental muscles that kids
of that age overwhelmingly lack, right?

[moviePig]

Thanks for the effort, but there are too many protestors protesting
anti-protest protests for me to start shooting at -- or listening to.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 12:50:37 AM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

> The Amherst Marxist Student Association threw a fit and launched their
> own Mizzou-style occupa-- er, protest, in which, among other things,
> they demanded the Amherst administration condemn the students who posted
> the fliers and subject them to mandatory discipline and political
> re-education/indoctrination.

Got a link for the "Amherst Marxist Student Association" and your
report? Couldn't find anything.

[Adam H. Kerman]

How does that excuse the administration for conceding its duty
to educate? In any event, they're adults under the law, and would be
tried as adults under the law for using criminal means to further their
zeal to suppress civil rights.

[Adam H. Kerman]

He provided links. I provided links. Read the thread.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:57:07 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

> This is going on at Amherst now, too. It's like a snapshot of a Marxist
> revolution in action. They're demanding the administration stand up and
> publicly recite their propaganda complete with mandatory re-education
> camps... er, I mean classes for any student who dissents.

We must remember that a set of demands by a tiny minority of people
is not at all representative of the greater population, nor should
be treated as such.

We also need to remember that "free speech" is a relative concept
to other basic rights, and not an absolute.

For instance, when does 'free speech' end and 'harassment' begin?

Also, libel and slander are limits on free speech. (A local
TV news station learned that the hard way, as did a talk radio
station.)

Lastly, young people are discovering that can't freely take
and share certain photos of themselves without ending up in jail.
Is that a violation of free speech, or an issue of protection
of the vulnerable?

[Barb May]

Exactly. This should be viewed as a "teachable moment" where all can
benefit from a discussion.
--
Barb

[Adam H. Kerman]

What teaching was performed at Mizzou, "Barb May", given the two
administrators who resigned?

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:57:07 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:

>>This is going on at Amherst now, too. It's like a snapshot of a Marxist
>>revolution in action. They're demanding the administration stand up and
>>publicly recite their propaganda complete with mandatory re-education
>>camps... er, I mean classes for any student who dissents.

>We must remember that a set of demands by a tiny minority of people
>is not at all representative of the greater population, nor should
>be treated as such.

Then why did the Mizzou administrators resign, hancock?

>We also need to remember that "free speech" is a relative concept
>to other basic rights, and not an absolute.

What clause is that found in the Constitution, hancock?

>For instance, when does 'free speech' end and 'harassment' begin?

What clause is that found in the Constitution, hancock?

>Also, libel and slander are . . .

. . . and there goes hancock diverting away because he can't make
a valid argument; the rest snipped unread.

[Tom Benton]

Supreme Court case law places limits on the first amendment. "Shouting
'fire' in a crowded movie theater" or some such. Hancock seems to make
legitimate points here.

However, the first amendment puts limits on what the government can
do. In the situations here, the students, at least, were not acting as
agents of the government. A different set of laws probably are in
effect, though I don't know which ones.

[FPP]

Yes, Ed... it is.

When you quote somebody, and that somebody NEVER said what you quote
them as saying - it certainly is a LIE.

By any reasonable definition, when you make up words, and put them into
the mouths of people that did not say them - it is a LIE.

Now, it may very well be totally correct to characterize what they were
saying... but you CAN'T quote something somebody did not say. There
was absolutely no NEED to make up a quote - what they actually said was
damning enough.

That is a lie, and any reasonable person should be able to recognize
the difference... unless the truth isn't important to you.

Anybody who REALLY believes in Free Speech would understand that.
--
A pessimist says the glass is half empty. An optimist says the glass
is half full. An engineer says somebody made the glass twice as big as
it needed to be.

[FPP]

On 2015-11-16 10:56:35 -0500, Ed Stasiak <esta...@att.net> said:

So the posters they were objecting to now qualifies as ALL free speech?

That's a stretch, isn't it? I mean, in addition to being a bald faced lie.
--
Why does the abbreviation for "World Wide Web (www) have nine
syllables, while the words it represents only have three?

[FPP]

And, as you've just admitted, that isn't the same as condemning ALL
free speech, now is it?
--
You see three Branches of Government. I see firewood.

[hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com]

On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 5:53:49 PM UTC-5, Tom Benton wrote:

> However, the first amendment puts limits on what the government can
> do. In the situations here, the students, at least, were not acting as
> agents of the government. A different set of laws probably are in
> effect, though I don't know which ones.

University students certainly have a right to protest, but how far
does that right go? That is, suppose the protesters want to block
access to classes or shut the university down to amplify their
point--do they have that right? What about the rights of students
to attend classes?

In other newsgroups, some folks defended protesters who illegally
blocked streets and disrupted traffic, or disrupted college classes.
They said it was necessary for important points to be heard.
(Normally, parades and marches that close streets have plenty of
advance notice so people can alter their travel plans accordingly.)

The book 'The Ungovernable City", about the Lindsay years in New York,
goes in detail about the Columbia University student riots and
shutdown, and the police action to resolve it. Interesting book.

[BTR1701]

They're not interested in discussion. They're only interested in saying
what they want and having no one challenge it.

[BTR1701]

<hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:57:07 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>
>> This is going on at Amherst now, too. It's like a snapshot of a Marxist
>> revolution in action. They're demanding the administration stand up and
>> publicly recite their propaganda complete with mandatory re-education
>> camps... er, I mean classes for any student who dissents.
>
> We must remember that a set of demands by a tiny minority of people
> is not at all representative of the greater population, nor should
> be treated as such.
>
> We also need to remember that "free speech" is a relative concept
> to other basic rights, and not an absolute.
>
> For instance, when does 'free speech' end and 'harassment' begin?

Somewhere other than what the students who posted the flyers said.

> Also, libel and slander are limits on free speech.

That's interesting but wholly irrelevant, since posting a flyer that mourns
the death of free speech at another university and/or states that "all
lives matter" defames no one.

> Lastly, young people are discovering that can't freely take
> and share certain photos of themselves without ending up in jail.
> Is that a violation of free speech, or an issue of protection
> of the vulnerable?

How does sending a kid to prison on a felony bid "protect the vulnerable"?

There's something morally perverse and legally paradoxical in charging the
victim of a crime with the crime itself.

[BTR1701]

Tom Benton <oo...@hooka.gov> wrote:

> Supreme Court case law places limits on the first amendment. "Shouting
> 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" or some such.

US v. Schenck (the "fire in a theater" case) was explicitly overruled by
Brandenburg v. Ohio and is no longer valid law in the U.S. Why people
routinely cite it whenever the "limits on free speech" comes up is god's
own private mystery.

[FPP]

And I'm sure that you are going to show us proof of what they're "only
interested in". Note that it must be to the complete exclusion of
everything else, as you have chosen to use the word "only".

Or are you claiming that was only "figurative language"?

Lonely up on that petard, isn't it?
--
"Didn't believe we needed to "Make America Great Again" - until I saw
the people we're seriously considering putting on the Presidential
ballot." - Kelly Hines 2015

[Adam H. Kerman]

Tom Benton <oo...@hooka.gov> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 22:38:29 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
><a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>>hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>>>On Saturday, November 14, 2015 at 12:57:07 PM UTC-5, BTR1701 wrote:
>>
>>>>This is going on at Amherst now, too. It's like a snapshot of a Marxist
>>>>revolution in action. They're demanding the administration stand up and
>>>>publicly recite their propaganda complete with mandatory re-education
>>>>camps... er, I mean classes for any student who dissents.
>>
>>>We must remember that a set of demands by a tiny minority of people
>>>is not at all representative of the greater population, nor should
>>>be treated as such.
>>
>>Then why did the Mizzou administrators resign, hancock?
>>
>>>We also need to remember that "free speech" is a relative concept
>>>to other basic rights, and not an absolute.
>>
>>What clause is that found in the Constitution, hancock?
>>
>>>For instance, when does 'free speech' end and 'harassment' begin?
>>
>>What clause is that found in the Constitution, hancock?
>>
>>>Also, libel and slander are . . .
>>
>>. . . and there goes hancock diverting away because he can't make
>>a valid argument; the rest snipped unread.
>
>
>Supreme Court case law places limits on the first amendment. "Shouting
>'fire' in a crowded movie theater" or some such. Hancock seems to make
>legitimate points here.

That's from Schenck vs. United States (along with the "clear and present
danger" nonsense and hasn't been the law of the land in a very long
time. It was a pretty embarassing opinion, actually.

It has nothing to do with one group of college students complaining that
faculty and their fellow students have slighted them and demand censorship.
None of that really would have met the Schenck standard anyway, such as
it was.

>However, the first amendment puts limits on what the government can
>do. In the situations here, the students, at least, were not acting as
>agents of the government. A different set of laws probably are in
>effect, though I don't know which ones.

They were violating the principle of intellectual freedom. One wonders
why they were at college in the first place.

[Ed Stasiak]

> moviePig
> > Ed Stasiak

> >
> > It is not a mischaracterization and it sure as hell isn't a lie, they
> > are flat-out telling the world that they want to censor any speech
> > they disagree with, to the point of expelling students who don't
> > submit to them.
>

> And, these *are* kids, right?

No, these are adults.

> trying to flex mental muscles that kids of that age overwhelmingly
> lack, right?

It was a college professor calling for thugs to beat up journalists
covering the protest (journalists who the ding-bat professor had
invited the day before...)

[Adam H. Kerman]

hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>On Monday, November 16, 2015 at 5:53:49 PM UTC-5, Tom Benton wrote:

>>However, the first amendment puts limits on what the government can
>>do. In the situations here, the students, at least, were not acting as
>>agents of the government. A different set of laws probably are in
>>effect, though I don't know which ones.

>University students certainly have a right to protest, but how far

>does that right go? . . .

We're talking about posters and signs, you know, what's specifically
protected by intellectual freedom.

[Ed Stasiak]

> Barb May

>
> Exactly. This should be viewed as a "teachable moment" where
> all can benefit from a discussion.

"Teachable moments" like this?;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_vgu4ewxVc

[Ed Stasiak]

> Ed Stasiak

Or maybe this "teachable moment"?;

https://usatthebiglead.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/melissa-click-facebook.jpg?w=1000

[Tom Benton]

On Tue, 17 Nov 2015 01:19:56 +0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"

When I researched the quotation, it seemed shaky. What Schenk was
doing clearly falls under what we now know as "free speech". Thanks
for clarifying.

[Tom Benton]

On Mon, 16 Nov 2015 18:38:35 -0600, BTR1701 <no_e...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Sounds a little like charging a failed suicide as attempted murder.

[moviePig]

It's the sort of conflict that's inevitable in any (would-be) logical
environment that permits "absolutes". Like Usenet.

[moviePig]

I don't have the cite, but I read of a judgment whereby animal-rights
activists were allowed to follow hunters throughout a game preserve,
banging pots and pans.

[Adam H. Kerman]

No, you'd be entirely wrong and stupid; that's not what the book
was about. hancock's description was reasonable.

But perhaps you can offer a scenario in which academic freedom can
exist at university while the administration concedes to demands to
shut down peaceful discussion and counter-protest to prevent contrary
points of view from being heard?

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 11/17/2015 6:46 AM, moviePig wrote:
> On 11/16/2015 7:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>> Tom Benton <oo...@hooka.gov> wrote:
>>
>>> Supreme Court case law places limits on the first amendment. "Shouting
>>> 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" or some such.
>>
>> US v. Schenck (the "fire in a theater" case) was explicitly overruled by
>> Brandenburg v. Ohio and is no longer valid law in the U.S. Why people
>> routinely cite it whenever the "limits on free speech" comes up is god's
>> own private mystery.
>
> I don't have the cite, but I read of a judgment whereby animal-rights
> activists were allowed to follow hunters throughout a game preserve,
> banging pots and pans.
>

I don't see a connection between the two.

--
Even Confucius complained about the younger generation's music.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Meet moviePig. He always never comments on the precursor article in followup.

Although the quotes have been excised, this subthread was about hancock's
repeated assertion about limits on free speech in which hancock offered
no examples applicable to academic freedom in a university environment.

[moviePig]

Their actions were allowed as protected by free-speech principles. (I'd
argue that their actions went beyond speech, into harassment.)

[BTR1701]

In article <564b3dcc$0$37575$b1db1813$796...@news.astraweb.com>,

moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:

> On 11/16/2015 7:38 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> > Tom Benton <oo...@hooka.gov> wrote:
> >
> >> Supreme Court case law places limits on the first amendment. "Shouting
> >> 'fire' in a crowded movie theater" or some such.
> >
> > US v. Schenck (the "fire in a theater" case) was explicitly overruled by
> > Brandenburg v. Ohio and is no longer valid law in the U.S. Why people
> > routinely cite it whenever the "limits on free speech" comes up is god's
> > own private mystery.
>
> I don't have the cite, but I read of a judgment whereby animal-rights
> activists were allowed to follow hunters throughout a game preserve,
> banging pots and pans.

Why are hunters even allowed on a GAME PRESERVE in the first place?
Isn't the point of such a place to keep the animals alive?

If the preserve was government property and open to the public, why was
it even a question whether the activists could be there? If it's open to
the public, it's open to everyone.

If the preserve was private property, what authority does the court have
to allow activists onto someone's property without permission for *any*
reason, let alone to disrupt the legal activities of the property owners?

[Barb May]

So it's like a Republican debate then.
--
Barb