Like many schools, Kent State University has a free speech rock that is a symbol of the right to free expression at that institution. However, some at the school appear to have a narrow view of what constitutes free speech after College Republicans painted “What Is a Woman?” on the rock. The question appears to be a reference to a documentary by conservative commentator Matt Walsh. The rock painting led to a petition declaring that “The Kent State College Republicans must be held accountable for their actions.”
I understand how this documentary can be offensive to many, particularly transgender students and faculty. However, it is all “about free speech.” We cannot simply label documentaries or advocacy “hate speech” because people reject your core beliefs.
Vachon is a self-described “queer activist and educator” who writes on “queer pedagogy […] and collecting queer oral histories.” That is valuable perspective for this (and any) campus and I expect most faculty and students agree with her underlying objections to this documentary. Yet, these students are also part of that diversity of opinion.
Every university must strive to preserve an environment that is welcoming and tolerant. That is why this controversy literally puts Kent State between a rock and a hard place. However, as a state school, it is subject to the First Amendment. Even if it would be inclined to take action against these students or blocking the documentary, it would be prevented from doing so.
This is not the first such controversy caused by “the Rock.” Three years ago, Kent State faced a similar situation after someone painted “White Lives Matter” on the rock. The university president denounced the painting as part of an overall problem with racism in our society.
The planned protests against the film and the rock are precisely why this is all a matter of free speech. Professor Vachon and others can voice their opposition with equal vigor. One would hope that there might also be room for a substantive and civil discussion of the underlying issues. However, as for calls to hold these students “accountable,” the university should continue its position of supporting the free speech rights of both sides.
The anti-free speech movement is a death knell for our higher education, particularly at private universities, which are not directly impacted by First Amendment protections. The anti-free speech movement is making public universities the last line of defense for those struggling to preserve forums for free speech.
In the petition, organizers referenced the university mascot the “Golden Flash,” and asked “how can flashes support flashes when the university is permitting hate speech?” The answer is that the university supports all “flashes” when it supports free speech. Otherwise, free speech will be gone in a flash.
Why is it criminal for a white to pretend being black by wearing blackface makeup but it is perfectly acceptable for a male to pretend to be a female?
Jim22,
Feelings.
Because “they” say so. 🙄
As Yogi Berra said, “it’s de ja vu all over again.” Here, Kent State is pretending that gender dysphoria does not exist in order to promote an ideological point of view that being transsexual is not a psychological disorder. Not too long ago, our government (with the active assistance of many universities) pretended that natural immunity did not exist to push an ideological point of view that the government has the power to control what we do with our bodies (except, of course, in cases of very late-term abortions). The benefit of the open and obvious actions of woke universities like Kent State is that it proves they don’t give a damn about the importance of women, regardless of the posturing they do and the empty words they speak. It also illustrates well the incredibly weak and anti-American students, faculty and administrators who populate these tax supported institutions.
Liz Warren, the fake Indian, is always carping, yes carping, to take away the money from the wealthy, huge corporations and any successful business yet she never has said a word about tapping into the billions accrued in college endowments. Why should Harvard have 39 BILLION in their endowment and have it be NON-TAXABLE? I have no problem with any organization being successful and having or making billions, but why should one and only one entity be NON-TAXABLE?
“why should one and only one entity be NON-TAXABLE?”
Why do you beg the question?
It’s not true that “one and only one entity [is] NON-TAXABLE,” yet you pretend it is.
“Why should Harvard have 39 BILLION in their endowment and have it be NON-TAXABLE?”
Many businesses and private individuals have tax-free foundations. IMO they should end. The alternative is a tax-free entity where the deductions are dollar for the dollar going to a recipient in a limited time frame.
Almost all the important differences between a tax-free foundation, charity, etc., and a private business concern is the tax-free status. NYC has immense amounts of property owned by universities and the church. These properties run almost the same as privately owned properties.
There may be exceptions where the major exception is a religious institution that should be limited to the house of worship and exclude everything else.
Not necessarily disagreeing, S. Meyer. A fair question might be: Instead of indefinite, tax-exempt-for-life-no-matter-what status, maybe every non-profit should submit a plan for spending most, not all, but most (maybe 75-80%) of any cash-on-hand over a five year period to retain tax-exempt status and those funds not spent at the end of five years gets taxed at ordinary income rates? It would give incentive to collect from large-money players first, over chasing people who own a $3 penalty for making procedural error on incomprehensible tax forms two years ago. Granted, it will never happen because elitists never write tax laws that affect *them* in any meaningful way. But it’s mostly Ds that want to implement a wealth tax, right? Let their friends at the wokest of woke colleges pay that wealth tax first.
” cash-on-hand over a five year period”
JAFO, I am not sure of the minimum tax to be paid, if any but the non-profit must spend an amount equal to the cash earnings. If not there is a high tax on those earnings. I don’t know if there is a minimum payment or not, but it is the cash earnings that are taxed. However, the amount of cash earnings can be controlled to meet the needs of expenditures so nothing need be taxed.
I am more concerned with how the money is spent, since a lot of that money can go to things other than direct charity. I don’t like non-profit competition with for-profit organizations.
Apologies, I should have directed the idea more clearly, towards the educational entities sitting on billions of endowment dollars with no plan on spending it on the day-to-day operations of the business. Their students are under crushing student loan debt they can’t replay for decades even if they’re lucky enough to find a career in their preferred area of study. The Universities are collecting billions in student loans but not putting but a fraction of that money into actually providing the education students and their parents are getting in return. It’s those instances, not all non-profits and especially not those who barely make ends meet from year-to-year, that my thought was focused. As far as how much to tax? If treated like ordinary business income the University would have to explain how it accumulated more earning than expenses, but shouldn’t be taxed, for those dollars not spent. Consider a rolling 5-year tax calendar. Spend 80% of dollars earned in 2023 before the start of 2029, no income tax on the remaining dollars not spent. Then the following year, 80% of 2024 income before 2030, etc. Add to the endowment fund as they see fit knowing they’ll be taxed on the portions not being spent within 5 years after receipt. As I said, it’s not going to happen but mostly for only one reason: Ds don’t want to force any wealth tax onto the themselves or their woke friends in education.
JAFO, I like your ideas.
501C3s are taxed on all earnings made and is money used for donations. They have created real estate enterprises and should be taxed like every developer. The expenditures that do not make it to the charitable function should be taxed. Much the money spent is to make big donors happy and satisfy needs making donors or managers happy, and even extends to politics. IMO most of this rips the taxpayer off and benefits the rich.
I am not against rich people. I am only against using the tax code to benefit people who supposedly aren’t receiving any charity.
👍
The best solution is that if we MUST tax, that tax is a flat consumption tax on all goods.
That is the least economically distortive form of tax.
Flat consumption tax. Interesting idea…would anyone or any products be exempt? What rate? Would this replace any current sales taxes like, for example, gasoline/diesel tax? Or maybe FICA or what ever it’s called today?
“Flat consumption tax. Interesting idea”
First, My view is based on best outcomes, and efficiency. This is NOT an issue of principle – just what is likely to work the best.
Further, though I have strong preferences for how this should work, there is nothing about the way taxes are levied that is more moral or principled in one way than another.
With that said my important parameters.
1), Efficiency. The burden associated with collecting taxes should be as low as possible. Complex tax systems are burdensome – that is a problem because it is wasted time. It is a problem because it angers people.
2). Simplicity. Clean simple tax systems – no loopholes.
3). Transparency. To the greatest extent possible everything about taxes should be public.
4). Everyone should have to pay taxes – EVERYONE. The Rich, the poor, You can not participate in decisions about government – such as voting, if you are not subject to the COST of your decisions – that is massive moral hazard. The poor will NEVER contribute much to the cost of funding government. But it is massive moral hazard for people to vote who do not pay the costs imposed by those they elect.
5). There should be one and only one way in which taxes are levied. There can not be wealth taxes, income taxes, and sales taxes.
Pick ONE and only ONE.
All that said – MY “idea”
Flat rate sales tax on EVERYTHING. Nothing exempt.
As to Rate – that is not important – so long as everyone pays that rate there will be massive pressure on government to keep the rate low.
Would this replace current sales taxes like Gas taxes ? YES – it would replace absolutely EVERY tax.
Next, I am not going to get this. So while I will discuss with you why the recomendations I am making are the best.
They are mostly NOT based on principles or morality. They are based on practicality.
We need to get rid of FICA and HI taxes regardless – they promuligate the LIE that social secutity is an earned benefit.
We have politiicians telling that to us everyday = they are lying and they know it. The law says and the courts long ago ruled that There is not right to social security of medicare.
You do not earn them by paying taxes. Ending the lie that SS is earned will be a major step towards fixing it.
I would separately note that numerous economic studies have shown that uniform sales taxes are the LEAST economically distortive taxes.
Every single form of tax distorts the economy and life in some way. There is no way to fund governemnt that does not alter the way people act.
Further there is not a moral difference between different forms of taxation.
The most fundmental problem is Moral Hazard – that is where those who receive the benefit are not paying the taxes.
That is the massive problem with corporate taxes and progressive income taxes.
John, I mentioned to our ‘friend’ George not long ago, suggesting “The Key to Communication is Brevity”. While it’s clear he missed the point or perhaps was offended (I really didn’t expound on it with him), I suspect you already know that. Again, I mostly agree with what you say already; as you said not long ago, ‘there’s likely the width of a sheet of paper that separates our views’. Personally, I’m not offended in any way by your responses, in fact it’s pretty tough for anyone to offend me at all. I count myself lucky that way. I imagine the same might apply to you.
But gosh, can you shorten and perhaps tone down the lectures at bit, at least to those who agree? While they are informative and I appreciate your perspective and insight, they’re coming across more as grumpy and scolding than enlightening.
Thanks and, as always, best to you and yours.
As I have noted before – I post for my own pleasure.
So no I am not going to change how I post.
Separately – there is zero doubt I could improve the quality of my writing dramatically – and when I am paid I do so.
Beyond that while your posts are interesting and I value your input – you are not my audience.
I am not singing to the choir.
I wish there were more intelligent people from the left here. But there aren’t.
Regardless, What I am after is intelligent dialog from someone with DIFFERENT views than mine.
That is how we test our views, when they are criticized by the most intelligent people who disagree.
I welcome your criticism – because you are intelligent and that tests my arguments.
Just not about writing style.
“What I am after is intelligent dialog from someone with DIFFERENT views than mine.” John, I wish you nothing but good luck finding it within the ranks of this motley crew. Then again, one can always hope! 😊
Cheers!
I have not found an intelligent person on the left to engage with in years.
They do, or did exist. But they are all hiding.
“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion… Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them…he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
“ We cannot simply label documentaries or advocacy “hate speech” because people reject your core beliefs.”
Why not? They can label anything they deem hate speech as “hate speech” whether anyone likes it or not. Isn’t that the point of free speech? You may not like being labeled, but all you can do as Turley often says is speak out in your defense. It’s THEIR right to call a documentary whatever they wish to call it.
Wanting to hold students accountable is also not wrong. That doesn’t mean the school will actually do it. Conservatives on this blog are always calling for holding students who protest conservatives speakers accountable for their actions and Turley supports that. Yet here he is doing the opposite. Students circulating a petition to hold those accountable for the message on the rock are no different than those wanting protesting students at a speech event accountable. Many conservatives call for outright expulsion of those students protesting and Turley happily endorses that view that those who “disrupt” the event should be disciplined. In this case it’s just students circulating a petition to hold others accountable for the message. That the school will actually do that is remote, but the idea of holding them accountable itself is free speech. It’s just another form of condemnation about someone else’s message.
Svelaz, Democrat Operative, of course they can label anything they want, the point is that they then want to ban it and hence it is no longer free speech.
Seek help, you are getting more pathetic in your lame attempts to argue any point that is being made by the good professor and it points to your weakening mental capacity.
Hullbobby, wanting something to happen still does not mean it will. It’s telling when you can’t think past your own petty insults and actually think.
You can label it however you want. But labeling it after something that does not exist seems foolish and dumb.
I’m amusingly being sarcastic here, so no offense, anyone….But I cannot help but think how much that trans, gay, LGBQT members are contributing to controlling global population and food crises.
After all, it is the heterosexual population (human or animal) that produces offspring. Thank you, LGBQT, et al, for your unintended contribution to end global suffering!
Lin,
Thank you for the laugh!
👍
Svelaz, you have identified two divergent principles.
You tell us which one a free society should use.
Iowan2, you can’t figure it out for yourself? I thought you were smart. The ability to think for yourself is pretty much the best thing you have going. Why do you insist on wasting that ability it yourself, lazy perhaps?
Svelaz,
You know very well that ‘holding accountable’ means punishing. Any punishment for exercising free speech rights is of course a violation of these free speech rights.
Disrupting speakers so they cannot be heard equally violates the free speech rights of the speaker and the audience.
So, violation of free speech rights should be punished; not the exercise of free speech that you don’t like.
You know this very well, of course, but deliberately try to distract by twisting the issue into something it is not.
DoubleDutch,
Well said.
DoubleDutch,
“Disrupting speakers so they cannot be heard equally violates the free speech rights of the speaker and the audience.”
Disrupting speakers is not a violation of free speech rights. Your right to speak is not violated at all. The 1st amendment’s prohibitions on the infringement of free speech applies only to government. Not private individuals. Students shouting down a speaker is not a violation of free speech. The 1st amendment is NOT a guaranteed right to be heard. The inability to speak at one venue does not mean you can’t speak at another, right? Protesters or those disrupting the event by shouting down the speaker are being at best rude or inconsiderate. That is still not a violation of one’s 1st amendment right to free speech. Protesting a speaker is also a form of free speech. The 1st amendment says nothing about speech being civil, polite, or that one must sit silently when someone else is speaking. The 1st amendment sole guarantee is that GOVERNMENT cannot retaliate against you or punish you for wanting to speak or saying awful, controversial things that could get you hurt if you dared say it in public and anger some people. It doesn’t stop others from shouting that person down if they want to. As long as violence is not used the shouting itself is not a violation of one’s free speech rights.
The 1st amendment does not give you the right to listen to someone else. You can do that anytime by reading their books, speeches on podcasts, or other venues where they can control the crowds better. Such as private venues were protesters CAN be banned.
“So, violation of free speech rights should be punished; not the exercise of free speech that you don’t like.”
You can’t violate one’s free speech rights when the other person is exercising theirs, especially when those persons are NOT government entities. Preventing those who choose to protest or shout down another speaker by using government authorities would be a violation of THEIR 1st amendment rights too. You can see why this is more complicated than people like to admit.
The 1st amendment is not a right to be heard. It never was. It wasn’t meant to be used as a means to shut up someone else because you want to be heard. Demanding that others be held accountable for their “hate speech” is perfectly fine. The distinction is if that demand is actually carried out. People are free to say things even things that are as controversial as demanding others be held accountable. Turley does this all the time. He can demand or call for certain discipline or punishment of students who disrupt conservative speakers as long as he wants. Mere rhetoric is that is not acted upon is just that, rhetoric. Which comes back to my original point. Those students have every right to call for accountability or make demands. That doesn’t mean that they will be acted upon.
Svelaz, your post is a muddled mess of illogical. misrepresentation and tunnel vision.
Yes, the First amendment DOES grant a right to hear others.
https://www.ifs.org/research/first-national-bank-of-boston-v-bellotti-protecting-the-right-to-hear-others/
Private Universities are covered by contract law – because their agreement with students and teachers requires them to provide an environment that fosters free speech. They are free to modify their agreements with NEW students, subject to other limits that might exist because they are government agents.
Public schools – including colleges and universities are subject to the first amendment.
Private schools and colleges that accept government funds are subject to the first amendment BY LAW.
FIRE is incredible successful at first amendment lawsuits against colleges – They NEVER lose.
Separately disruption of events is covered by laws such as Disorderly conduct laws that do not violate the first amendment.
Beyond that you have a massive problem – YOUR arguments DO NOT apply to those disrupting scheduled speakers.
Protest is legitimate. Disruption is NOT.
Once again you make your idiotic and false motive argument. It is both wrong and irrelevant.
The courts have NEVER found that neutrally applied laws that maintain order are unconstitutional.
In many instances they are REQUIRED.
As an example government can require a permit for a protest – but those Permits are “Must Issue” – i.e. they can not be denied.
Various J6 protest groups all had permits.
The purpose of the permits is to maintain order. As an example Antifa and the proud boys will not be issued a permit to protest at the same exact place at the same time. Government MUST issue a permit to the Proud boys and to Antifa – on a first come first served basis. But it CAN say – The first organization to request a permit gets dibbs on the Venue. So if PB was second they will be issued a permit but not for exactly he same place and time as Antifa.
Of course Antifa never gets permits.
I would note that the MUST issue requirements are so strong for public forums that the NORMAL penalty for protesting without a permit is miniscule.
But protesting without a permit makes is much easier for law enforcement to charge for disruptions – such as disorderly conduct.
Venues such as campus meeting rooms or free speech zones are covered similarly.
Colleges MUST make them available to all students and student groups on the same basis.
Public colleges can not even charge an extra security fee for controversial speakers.
Once a colleges has scheduled a speaking event it is OBLIGATED to protect those speaking – both their right to speak and freedom from disruption.
Your idiotic claims would be true for an unscheduled and permitted clash between PB in the public streets.
It is NOT true for scheduled events.
Recall the words of the declaration of independence – the legitimate purpose of government is to SECURE OUR RIGHTS.
You say that there is no private right to free speech – in SOME instances that MAY be correct.
REGARDLESS, where there is a First amendment RIGHT to speak OR where there is a contractual RIGHT to speak has been secured – as by private contract.
Government is OBLIGATED to protect the exercise of that speech. Just as they are obligated to protect you from murder – in your home(or someone else’s)/
Just as the government will arrest people who attempt to disrupt a sports event or a concert, or a church service, or a permitted protest.
There is no right to disrupt individuals engaged in legal activity – not speech, not baseball.
The root of the social contract – as echoed by the declaration of independence is that we agree to allow Government to use force against others to protect our rights.
Those on the left (or the right) have the absolute Right to protest speakers they do not like. Government is obligated to grant permits to counter protesters,
Colleges are obligated to grant permission to legitimate groups seeking to protest a scheduled event.
At the SAME TIME – Both Government and the schools are legally obligated AND empowered by law to PUNISH those who attempt to silence or do violence those permitted to speak. This is called the rule of law – not man, not anarchy.
If you wish to schedule a counter protest event in a available nearby facility, or at a different time – government and colleges are obligated to give you the same opportunity. And just as those you are protesting – to prevent others from disrupting your even.
John Say,
In reading your comment, I actually read what Sleezevez posted.
Your first line,
“Svelaz, your post is a muddled mess of illogical. misrepresentation and tunnel vision.”
says it all.
Thank you.
There are three critical tests that ALL of us should be subject to.
Is is moral ? I would note that is independant of “is it legal”. What is moral is limited, what is legal must be broad.
Does it work ?
Is it consistant ?
Svelaz fails all of these with every argument.
It is trival to find Svelaz arguing exactly the opposite – often int he same post.
This is also why he fixates on “intention”.
Intention is infinitely maleable, it is a belief about a belief. It si ALWAYS trivial to argue that the intentions of “your side” are good and therefore what you have done is good, and what those of others is bad.
In Svelaz’s head these students are protesting hate. Yet it is trivial to argue that those they are protesting are protecting women.
Svelaz sees DeSantis as punishing Disney. Others see DeSantis as protecting children from pervs.
We judge ACTS not beleifs about beleifs.
We judge acts because to the extent anything is knowable. Acts are what is most accurately knowable.
John B. Say. You’re confused. Your example using the bank of Boston case involves money, not speech. The bank was asserting the right to be heard as in the right to spend money in opposition to a law. This was not about the right to hear someone else’s speech which is still not a right guaranteed by the first amendment.
The rest of your long winded diatribe is a bunch of nonsense. Talk about a muddled mess. Geez
“You’re confused. ”
Not in the least – as always that would be you.
“Your example using the bank of Boston case involves money, not speech.”
Nope.
“The bank was asserting the right to be heard as in the right to spend money in opposition to a law.”
LONG ago the courts found that Government can not regulate speech indirectly.
They found – that government can not say – you can speak all you want – from the bottom of a mine shaft on Sundays after 1am.
The regulation of Money is a frequent means Government tries to regulate speech.
Many free speech cases are about money – because government keeps trying to regulate speech by regulating money.
“This was not about the right to hear someone else’s speech which is still not a right guaranteed by the first amendment.”
Read the oppinon – as well as many others.
“The rest of your long winded diatribe is a bunch of nonsense. Talk about a muddled mess. Geez”
non-sequitur. Also False.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/435/765/
PRIMARY HOLDING
The First Amendment allows all speakers that are either individuals or corporations to publicly discuss all matters of public concern without either a prior restraint or the threat of a subsequent punishment.
Read the opinion – it is about speech.
I find it hillarious that you claim my understanding is absurd, that I completely misundertand the case.
And yet the entire majority opinion – and most of the disents are about Free speech.
The issue of the case was free speech,
The court, even the dissents accepted that regulations regarding political expenditures for Speech are regulation of speech.
“Citing a litany of past cases involving speech by corporations, the decision observed that restrictions on corporate speech impede “public access to discussion, debate, and the dissemination of information and ideas.”[5] In other words, restrictions on speech violate not only the right of the speaker, but also the right of those who wish to hear the speech.”
“The self-expression of the communicator is not the only value encompassed by the First Amendment. One of its functions, often referred to as the right to hear or receive information, is to protect the interchange of ideas. Any communication of ideas, and consequently any expenditure of funds which makes the communication of ideas possible, it can be argued, furthers the purposes of the First Amendment. “
You can be counted on ALWAYS to ignore the plain language of the law or the court and claim that the law or a court decisions is about something that neither the law nor the court ever said.
You back to that mind reading idiocy.
Given that I have accurately described the SCOTUS oppinion in much the same words as SCOTUS themselves as well as pretty much every constitutional law site does – I am not the one who is confused.
You can claim SCOTUS is wrong. but you can not argue they did not say what they said.
The decision and the case is NOT about Money, it is about the constitutionality of a law that regulates speech by regulating money.
SCOTUS wasted few words to skip past the nonsense about money, and spent almost the entire decision considering and discussing the regulation of speech.
Further the decision makes clear EXACTLY what I claimed it did , and what is obvious to all but morons – that the right of free speech includes the right of others to Hear.
That when we censor or supress speech we infringe not merely on the rights of the speaker, but on the right of the public to hear what others want supressed.
That these are intrinsically linked would be obvious to all but a moron, and should not need a supreme court decision.
If the right of others to hear what is said was not critical, laws that allow you to speak but prevent you from being heard would be constitutional.
I want to take this singular opportunity to agree with you in theory.
The only caveat being that by “being held accountable,” we agree that those doing so are simply publicly laughing at and naming the morons that proposed the review (you know, for accountability’s sake).
Ah, but what does “hold accountable” mean? And actions that suppress free speech SHOULD be suppressed. Let speakers speak, for example. Or, are you a fan of the heckler’s veto?
Scott. What many people think is a hecklers veto is not what they think it means. A hecklers veto is when government authorities such as police stop an event because of the potential for violence or danger. It’s when they use that as a pretext to prevent someone from speaking. That’s what a hecklers veto is. It’s not the heckling itself. It’s a government official, using as a pretext, hecklers or protesters potential violence or danger to prevent someone from speaking.
Hold accountable can be whatever they think it means. Just saying they want to hold them accountable without specifying what they mean may just be pure rhetoric. It’s like when a mother at the end of her rope in frustration screams, “OOOOH I”m gonna kill those children”. Nobody believes they actually mean it. It’s a rhetorical devise to express frustration, right? You would understand that if you were there to witness it, right? Those students demanding they “be held accountable” can be viewed the same way. Turley is abusing the nuance of that distinction to portray this as an actual intent to inflame his readers into thinking something more than what it is. He’s misleading readers into thinking that is what they really want. It may just be they are venting their frustration and Turley points this out when he says the students have every right to vent that frustration. While still implying misleadingly that is their real intent.
Once again the idiot.
While you are wrong about the definition of the “hecklers veto”
“The Supreme Court first recognized the term in Brown v. Louisiana (1966), citing the work of First Amendment expert Harry Kalven Jr., who coined the phrase. The term is also used in general conversation to refer to any incident in which opponents block speech by direct action or by “shouting down” a speaker through protest.”
It would not matter if you were right.
SCOTUS in multiple cases – including one I already cited has already asserted a right to HEAR a speaker.
There is no right to silence others – which is why you can be arrested an jailed – even for speech when that speech is used to silence others.
” It’s like when a mother at the end of her rope in frustration screams, “OOOOH I”m gonna kill those children”.”
I can assure you that if the Children end up dead – the mother will be charged, and the Jury will hear her remarks.
BTW I agree with these students on accountablilty – and would therefore expel students demanding that others are silenced.
Students have the right to vent frustration. Even if that frustration is stupid and unjustified.
How they vent that frustration matters.
They may not vent their frustration by violating the rights of others.
“Wanting to hold students accountable is also not wrong.” Thank you for that. I will take that as your acknowledgment that it would not have been wrong for the students who disrupted Judge Kyle Duncan’s invite to Stanford University to have been held accountable. I do not recall you having expressed such a sentiment then, but I am sure you had thought it.
Ron A. Hoffman,
“Wanting to hold students accountable is also not wrong.” Thank you for that. I will take that as your acknowledgment that it would not have been wrong for the students who disrupted Judge Kyle Duncan’s invite to Stanford University to have been held accountable.”
Not quite, let me explain.
The students demanding they hold those accountable for the message on the rock vs. Turley and those demanding students to be held accountable for disrupting the Judge Duncan’s speech I view as two very different things.
I might have to amend my reply to Scott above since I just read the petition, that was my fault, Turley left out a lot of things it seems. This is what the petition says and why they are demanding they be held accountable.
“The Kent State College Republicans claim that their goals are to recruit students, aid in the election of Republicans, and develop professional and political skills. However, this student organization has been using its platform to encourage discrimination and hate crimes against LGBTQ+ students and women. Recently, the KSU Republicans painted the rock in the center of campus to promote their viewing of the documentary “What is a Woman?” This documentary invalidates the queer, non-binary, and trans experience. The group has posted flyers promoting the documentary around campus, specifically targeting the LGBTQ+ center. Messages from the official GroupMe were released exposing that the group’s intention was to “launch a straight up war” and even went as far as to make a joke about May 4th that the response would be to “Careful, they may call in the National Guard.” The Kent State College Republicans must be held accountable for their actions. Kent State University should ensure that all student organizations are respectful and inclusive toward all students. After all, how can flashes support flashes when the university is permitting hate speech?”
https://www.change.org/p/stop-hate-speech-from-kent-state-republicans?recruiter=1304392936&recruited_by_id=7201daf0-d89e-11ed-9a65-4fd73c74412c&utm_source=share_petition&utm_campaign=share_for_starters_page&utm_medium=copylink&fbclid=PAAab818pMn-qyY8Ynops1Y9_yD8F49zmPVdzbXEoJvM0AynhNdEkJCoVaemQ
The rhetoric from the republican students clearly implies threats and intimidation. “Messages from the official GroupMe were released exposing that the group’s intention was to “launch a straight up war” and even went as far as to make a joke about May 4th that the response would be to “Careful, they may call in the National Guard.” It seems there is more to it than just merely painting a message on the rock which Turley “neglected” to mention. The above incidents change the context quite a bit and explains the ire and demands for accountability. The KSU republican students are deliberately taunting their liberal peers. In and of itself there’s nothing wrong with that. But, when they start using fighting words things change. Some measure of accountability may be necessary, but nothing as drastic as what many conservatives on this blog have suggested in the past.
The Judge Duncan event is a little different in that those students while disruptive were indeed exercising their right to protest. Sure, it was rude, obnoxious and annoying, but hey that’s what protesting is oftentimes. Judge Duncan also contributed to the problem by being unprofessional and mocking the students back instead of acting like a judge of his stature should.
Thanks for the link to the petition. I find it worthwhile, but not for reasons you would expect. I have taken up a discussion with another post.
Svelaz – Accoring to you – Wanting to hold Disney accountable is Wrong ?
Why the double standard ?
John B. Say.
“Svelaz – Accoring to you – Wanting to hold Disney accountable is Wrong ?”
Accountable for what? Why is Disney being punished by DeSantis? Remember, the punishment is the governor threatening and voiding the Reedy creek agreement. What is Disney being punished for?
Hint;…they spoke out against the governor’s “don’t say gay” bill. That’s it. Is it legal for the government to punish a company because it criticized a law?
Accountable for what?”
Are you unfamiliar with the long history of sexual abuse of Disney child actors ?
Beyond that you and Disney have made it clear that you OK with SIGNIFICANTLY increasing the risk of sexual abuse of children by teachers.
All of those are things that should be held to account.
You fixate on intent – trying to make your guesses as to bad intentions into crimes – regardless of the moraltiy or legality of the act.
You also do not seem to grasp that you are on the WRONG side – the IMMORAL side of the mirror image.
Good intentions do NOT make immoral acts moral.
Everyday you spew copious nonsense defending Bad acts like censorship.
There are appropriate times to debate the law. But are perfectly content to do or justify things that are WRONG because of alleged good intentions.
You have defended Election lawlessness – forget whether it was criminal or not. In what world is ballot harvesting Moral ?
In what world fighting against election transparency moral ?
In what world is Lying to get the FBI to investigate political oponents Moral ?
In what world is censoring for political advantage moral ?
In what world is Lying about it moral ?
It appears that it is OK with you if people do Bad things – immoral things – if those people identify with the left.
“Why is Disney being punished by DeSantis? ”
They are not. Losing something you that was never yours to begin with is not punishment.
“the punishment is the governor threatening and voiding the Reedy creek agreement.”
No that is something FL never should have done in the first place, and should have ended long ago.
Nor does this have anything to do with Disney. Government is WRONG whenever is puts its finger on the economic scales.
It is WRONG when it confiscates people property and gives it to private parties – allegedly for some public good that in most cases never happens.
It is wrong when it offers tax advantages or other advantages to lure businesses to a community or state.
“What is Disney being punished for?”
Disney is not being “punished”.
It is not punishment to have something taken from you that was never legitimately yours.
“Hint;…they spoke out against the governor’s “don’t say gay” bill.”
There is no “don’t say gay bill” everytime YOU or anyone else says that – they are KNOWINGLY LYING.
The Bill bars initiating sexual discussions with children younger than 4th grade.
Is Disney free to oppose that ? Absolutely. Is it wise for a business with a reputation for exploiting children to speak out in favor of others seekign to exploit children ?
“That’s it. Is it legal for the government to punish a company because it criticized a law?”
It is not constitutional for Government to use FORCE against anyone without justification.
Did FL Use Force against Disney ? Did they take from Disney something that was Disney’s by right ?
Separately – as is typical of those on the left you jump the shark.
I can “want to hold someone accountable” for saying “black lives matter” that does not make saying “black lives matter” wrong. or something that anyone should be held accountable for.
We can WANT things that are wrong.
Writing “What is a Woman “” on a Rock in a free speech Rock garden is not Wrong, it is morally virtuous, and seeking to censor it or silence those who wrote is is immoral.
If you can not CLEARLY answer the question “what is a woman ?” in a way that nearly all people will accept.
Then you can not claim to be a woman, or make any other claims for YOU or anyone else based on status as a woman.
You can not claim discrimination for an attribute you are unable to define.
If you can not answer the question in a way that super majorities of people will accept – you can not morally use the world Woman.
“The Judge Duncan event is a little different in that those students while disruptive were indeed exercising their right to protest”
Nope. They were engaged in disorderly conduct – which is a crime.
Again the most fundimental duty of government is to protect the rights of individuals from infringement by others.
Free speech is a right – even when it is not government infringing.
You do not have the right to burst into someone else’s wedding with a Bullhorn and read marx.
The First amendment is specifically about government. It makes clear that GOVERNMENT has very very little ability to limit free speech.
That does NOT mean that anyone else can limit free speech as they please.
The First amendment just puts governments ability to restrict speech in the smallest box possible.
There is no right not to be murdered in the constitution. Yet we all understand that government an thrwart others attempts to murder you.
and that it is in fact the job of government to do so.
The right to free speech exists outside of government, There are just more instances in which private limites of speech are allowed.
Taking a Bullhorn to shout down a wedding is infringing illegally on the speech of others.
Shouting down a Judge at an event where he is the speaker is NOT protected speech.
Shouting him down outside the even, or in front of the courthouse IS protected speech.
Shouting him or anyone down in front of their home – is NOT.
I would not be surprised if they demand the rock to be removed.
Upstate: I agree. I anticipate someone spray-painting over unwanted messaging; followed by counter-destruction of opposing messaging, and then an escalating free-for-all–contributing nothing/NADA to resolution. The good professor has always been correct in encouraging more speech and open discussion, not less speech and open destruction.
At one time, I had a very disdainful, negative attitude about gays. One day, speaking at an event, I was invited by someone to his table during the lunch break. Turned out to be an old grade-school classmate. I could easily perceive that he was gay, but we had such a good talk, laughing and remembering things and classes and teachers, and we stayed in touch. Later, we had more intimate discussions, and I was free to ask him about his sexual proclivities (and their origin). Thanks to him, I have more insightful understanding and knowledge.
I was on the engineering faculty of WSU for a couple of years in the early 2000s. The campus had something like a “civility” campaign for which the slogan was “Many faces. One vision.” They were ahead of their time.
>> I understand how this documentary can be offensive to many, particularly transgender students and faculty. <<
I doubt you've seen the whole documentary. But since you claim to understand why the movie can be offensive to many, please take your best shot rationally explaining it to us.
Aren't you offended by people who lie, deceive, trick and manipulate others? Isn't that what feminized men are doing when they put on a costume, adapt female mannerisms and demand the rest of us play along with their deceit that they are women? It's "offensive" to me to have to play along with a known, indisputable lie. It's offensive to me that these cranks give their middle finger to the norms everybody else accepts from the time we are toddlers experiencing the world.
Seriously, explain why a fact based documentary can be offensive.
You would think that being a STATE school, they wouldn’t put up with this temper tantrum. But no….Kent State University is obediently on their knees worshiping their woke Communist masters. Higher education sure isn’t what it used to be. Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Like 90% of American colleges, today, Kent State is an Orwellian anti-free speech, anti-freedom of assembly, anti-due process, anti-equal protection under the law nightmare.
At least 90%.
For almost all colleges and their students, free speech exists only for those on the communist left.
“collecting queer oral histories.”
‘hate speech’ needs to go the way of ‘N’ word. It is an invention of the left, as a vehicle to censor speech. It’s use has violated the constititutional rights of far too many people. As always the lefts narrative continues to run into a brick wall of facts, and history.
The “trans” thing was just the next invention of the queer hustlers, to continue their grift. Having gained constitutional protected status for the homosexual fetish, they needed a new wedge issue to keep the donors checkbooks open. The trans fetish fills that niche.
I have no idea why my comment got formated so goofy.
There was a typo in the </i> to the right of “histories.” and the WordPress parser then encoded the apostrophies into HTML coding. I corrected it for you.
NOTICE: There will be NO STUDENT ACTIVISM this time around.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org/essays/students-and-the-anti-war-movement
Biden’s WORLD WAR III will continue on unabated with no interruptions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
All Campus Security Protections are now in effect and enforced, with shoot-to-kill on site instructions.
All Students and Personal must heed these Orders. This is the final Warning.
When the following is your only ideological driving factor then everything you do and say is considered “right” and the ends justifies the means…
Social justice Democrats four tenants of “truth”…
1. The social justice Democrats are right.
2. Republicans are wrong.
3. Wrong is evil.
4. Evil must be destroyed.
…that’s the dead end of the social justice Democrats’ ability to think critically.
Our colleges are full of social justice participation trophy bearing woke snowflakes that are snowflaking really hard and screaming their immature absurd nonsense as if it’s fact.
This social justice woke cult must be stopped and the trend towards social absurdities leading our culture towards Orwellian totalitarianism must be reversed.
“Social justice Democrats four tenants of “truth”…”
You may believe this, but it’s false, and the word you want is “tenet,” not “tenant.”
Anonymous wrote, “You may believe this, but it’s false”
Denial is not a just a river in Egypt.
Anonymous wrote, “…the word you want is “tenet,” not “tenant.””
Yes, I know that. D@*! autocorrect.
What goes around, comes around 🤐
Feminism Is Dead 💀
The ⚢ LGBT ⚣ Trans movement kill You.
🌈🦄🦋
Feminism isn’t dead.
Where the left is concerned, feminism is on life-support.
time to end all federal aid to all colleges and cities
Also to tax all non-profits where anyone gets $100k+ like Colleges
Remember just a few years ago when diversity was the mantra, that different backgrounds and different life experiences will help allow us to develop the best solutions to problems? Now we don’t want diversity of thought, we want group think. Looking forward to the creative solutions this monolithic mindset deploys.
William Forster: The left never applied its “diversity” mantra to thought. It was always just about race and gender.
A dramatic demonstration of the University’s caving-in to the authoritarian Stalinist mob.
The school should change its name to Can’t State.
Can’t read, can’t write, Kent State.
Co-worker told me that one. She went to Kent.
It is becoming increasing clear that the Educational Sector as a whole has become the Communist infiltration source to The USA.
It’s been going on much longer than most people will admit. How many have even heard of the Reece Committee?
??collecting queer oral histories.”??
Sounds rather queer to me.
iowan2: Just another public platform for the narcissist left to gaslight. Why is there even an LGBT department? This is the kind of garbage college students gravitate towards to get a degree without having to do any intellectual work. Might as well just hand out “rage” diplomas for who throws the biggest tantrum.
Indeed, and ‘queer pedagogy’. What the hell is that? Turley states nonetheless that it is a “valuable perspective”. That is kind of him to say but questionable. Sounds like useless research to me and the professor is a waste of tax money.
Yep, classic academic grift. Good job!
I think it’s so – weird – that so many in the left want to censure, hold accountable, ban ideas they disagree with – instead of using their free speech to speak out against the ideas … winning the fight on the battlefield of ideas.
These people come off as immature, spoiled brats. There is an underlying issue, for someone to even think of that anyone would care if their feelings are hurt or not.
They were for free speech back in the 1960s and 70s – when they felt it was THEIR speech being supressed. It’s all explained in a simple cartoon:
https://calvinanddune.tumblr.com/post/56234161686/when-i-am-weaker-than-you-i-ask-you-for-freedom
Nice!
they were NEVER for free speech…they were FOR POWER though any means!
They are Machiavellian fascists! Democrats have seized total power in DC…and are funding a Nazis like grip of power on the country. Think Germany 1920-1930’s. The rule of law and economics are dead…the DOJ, IRS, FBI, FED, etc are 100% corrupt FOR Democrats!
guyventner wrote, “They are Machiavellian fascists!”
You’re welcome to your own opinion but you’re simply wrong on this one.
They are Orwellian totalitarians.
Steve and Guyventner, tomato Tomahto, you are both right.
hullbobby: Exactly. Americans never parsed political ideologies very well…may have something to do with leaning on only two parties and being gaslighted by both. Totalitarianism by any other name is still totalitarianism.
Unlike the late 60s and early 70s, when college students protested the draft, America’s involvement in a war, and the toxic chemicals being spewed into the environment, the college students of today are an embarrassment, protesting for the right to kill unborn children, the right for children to have surgery to change their gender, and for government action to make sure planet earth is the proper temperature.
It is important to note that the young protesters of the late 60s and early 70s did not attempt to shut down the speech of conservatives. There were even open and unashamed Christians amongst the protesters. Most notable were the Jesus Freaks, comprised of tie-dyed, long-haired students who cheerfully evangelized for the Lord, and who, amazingly, were not attacked for it by their less-than-religious friends, something that would be unheard of today.
The left is mentally ill, has been never more true, than these days, although, it’s been around for decades. Ultimately, they are advocating for their own eradication. Because, they aren’t capable or refuse to procreate. They are a Death Cult!
they know exactly what they are doing. They are distracting people with this insanity as they seize money and the power to destroy enemies. Fascism.
Power has Centralized to DC, Wall Street and Silicon Valley…they have to power to TAKE MONEY, Cancel Free Speech and over ride the Rule of Law
We need to Decentralize this…50% cut of federal spending, cut all aid to cities and colleges…make them fund their failures!