We have another successful “deplatforming” of a speaker at a university this week after Rep. Mike Collins (R-GA) had to be removed from an event at the University of Georgia. This follows incidents discussed this week involving student protests at Tulane and Maryland.
Rep. Collins was invited to speak on campus by the University of Georgia Turning Point USA chapter and College Republicans. His remarks, however, were drowned out by protesters screaming profanities and insults.
Collins attempted to discuss the recent death of Laken Riley, who was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant while jogging at the University of Georgia.
One student yelled “How dare you come on this campus and exploit Laken Riley’s death to push your xenophobic, fascist, racist, agenda…people are in this country legally and your f–king cops are gonna get them arrested and deported.”
Others just shouted profanities like “F**k you, you’re a b***h” or told the congressman to “take your white supremacist rhetoric elsewhere, your neo-nationalist rhetoric elsewhere.” Others attacked him for his support of Israel.
Some were led out of the event by police, but the coordinated interruptions succeeded and the congressman was reportedly escorted off campus.
Some groups like the College Democrats had called for protests but it is not clear whether these groups participated in the disruptions during the events.
Once again, this was done by students who were shown on videotape preventing opposing views from being spoken or heard on campus. The question is whether the University of Georgia will take steps to discipline the students and any groups who coordinated this effort. As discussed in a column this morning in the Hill, preventing free speech is not an act of free speech.
The argument that stopping free speech is free speech is nothing more than a twisted rationalization. Protesting outside of an event is an act of free speech. Entering an event to shout down or “deplatform” speakers is the denial of free speech. It is also the death knell for higher education in the United States.
The motto of the University of Georgia is Et docere et rerum exquirere causas, or “To teach, to serve, and to inquire into the nature of things.” That inquiry cannot occur through a filter of screaming profanities and abuse. It is good that the university had security to remove disrupters but that is not enough. These coordinated efforts often involve students who stand up in succession to keep an event from being held.
If these “deplatformings” are to end, the university has to suspend or expel those responsible for such actions. Georgia must choose whether it will stand with free inquiry and free speech or whether it will yield to this entitled mob of speech-phobic students.
Heckler’s veto is all the leftist bolsheviks have.
They have to read the info off their phones. Likely NOT even students but paid organizers.
There are speech rights to be protected on both sides. That is why a government body can regulate time, place and manner – to protect both sides. The adage, “your right to make a fist ends where the other guy’s nose begins.” is apropos. The protesters’ right to free speech does not grant permission to interfere with another’s equal protection of that right, and a government body that chooses to shut down one side “for safety” is disingenuous at best, because those decisions for the past decade or more have favored the fascistic tendencies of the political left nearly 100% of the time. That is no surprise as the seats of invisible power in the administrative state are deeply permeated with the stench of dogmatic authoritarian leftists.
Nowhere in his brief column did Professor Turley reference the First Amendment. “Free speech” is not just a constitutional right; it is also an institutional value of every university worth the name. Shouting down a speaker interferes with the rights of those who wish to hear the speech and reflect on the speaker’s ideas, and should never be tolerated at an institution of higher learning. The First Amendment has nothing to do with it.
Free speech is synonymous with the 1st amendment. Professor Turley is often referring to shout downs as a violation of a speaker’s free speech rights. Once you mention “rights” it clearly infers the right of free speech as guaranteed by the 1st amendment.
Shouting down a speaker does not interfere with the rights of those who want to hear because there is no such right. It doesn’t exist. It’s an inference based on an assumption that free speech also means free to hear. No. Not being able to hear a speaker does not mean you cannot hear the speaker again or learn of their views by other means not subject to a shout down. Nothing says you cannot engage with the speaker personally. Nothing says you will not have access to their views and opinions from other sources like books, videos, podcasts, etc. Your “right” to hear can never be violated as long as the speaker has multiple ways to express their views. In this day and age it’s impossible not to hear any point of view.
You are completely full of crap. By shouting down speakers, the immature , brainwashed students reveal that THEY are the fascists.
This is why the professor is making a bad faith argument about free speech. This happened the next day at the same school.
https://www.redandblack.com/uganews/anti-abortion-speaker-makes-stop-at-uga-on-no-abortion-no-exceptions-tour/article_e9d6f362-f35a-11ee-8406-1753ed1cdd36.html
She wasn’t denied her right to speak. It’s evidence the professor is cherry-picking situations to make bad faith arguments.
Entirely wrong.
1A applies to LISTENER as well as SPEAKER.
That is also why courts are engaged in election and 1A speech interference in their illegal Trump gag orders.
At a minimum, students are subject to UGA’s code of conduct. They are in violation of several sections.
You are literally too stupid to insult. If UGA had any balls they would at least suspend those involved. Which by your writing might include you.
The First Amendment calls for freedom of speech to be protected. It also calls for the Right to freely assemble to express that speech. The right to assemble, the more important aspect of the First amendment is being erased and trampled on.
When people pay for or help organize legal classes and seminars, you are violating their rights when you disrupt their ability to participate in the discussion
So any form of nationality is now wrong. Yeah riiiiight!
That sophomoric logic empowers idiots like yourself to resist mental maturity. In other words, hit the bong again and read something other than Rolling Stone…
The First Amendment has everything to do with it. It protects the speakers right to speech as well as the rights of those who want to hear the speech. Denying the right to listen is a violation of the First Amendment.
No, there is no right to listen. It’s not an enumerated right at all. It cannot be a violation of the 1st amendment because it is not about the right to be heard. It’s a right to speak. Your right to access a speaker’s views is not limited to speech. You can read about their views. You can watch speeches online without having to worry about interruptions from hecklers or protesters. You can listen to live pod casts in the privacy of your home. It’s impossible to prevent anyone from listening, reading, or viewing a speaker’s views and opinions. Racists, bigots, communists, Marxists can all be heard one way or another. It’s not just limited to public university speeches.
Completely false.
1A applies to the listener as well as the speaker.
What if people cancelled all your posts because they are offensive? Would that be OK?
The UofG President and/or university regents should swiftly suspend, and quickly expel the disrupters, with no recourse, no reinstatement possible, and NO TRANSCRIPTS available for forwarding to new institutions. Otherwise, they are responsible, indeed, PART OF the orchestrated chaos preventing PAYING students from learning at UofG. Should the administration refuse to act, Governor Kemp should FREEZE all UofG state funding and support (i.e. including state provided security, EVERYTHING) until new regents are elected, and a new Adminstration is appointed. This stuff will end immediately. The only reason evil like this exists, is that supposedly good, virtue signaling men, do nothing.
Absolutely. The congressman should not have been escorted off of campus; the protesters should have been.
Where are the men?
Those who did not want to hear him had every right to refuse to attend! Those who DID want to hear him had every right to hear him. The goons who should have stayed away in protest, prevented the rights of those who WANTED to hear what he had to say! The protestors were the GOONS, and all who support them are GOONS!
Pretty sure most UGA students didn’t support this kind of rioting–just a minority of narcissistic, spoiled AH’s.
My son was considering the University of Georgia, but not after this.
May I suggest Hillsdale College.
Jonathon, I find this article to be deeply disturbing especially given that you are supposedly a constitutional lawyer.
What you are saying is that the right to free speech carries with it a right to be HEARD!! Really???? Can you point me to the place in the Constitution that gives anyone the right to be HEARD? The Congressman unquestionably has a right to free speech, but what you are saying is that this right somehow imposes upon the students a DUTY to LISTEN.
If a Nazi stands outside a synagogue screaming “Jews will not replace us”, does the congregation have a duty to listen? NO!! They have a right, and I would say, a duty to shout him down.
If a Klansman in full regalia stands outside Ebenezer Baptist Church espousing White Nationalism, does the congregation have a duty to listen? NO. They also have a right and a duty to shout him down.
If an extremist Freedom Caucus congressman such as Mike Collins comes to my house espousing views that I find abhorrent, do I have to sit quietly and listen? NO!!!
The university in question is in fact the “home”, at least temporarily, for the students. Why should they have to tolerate an invasion of their home by someone they despise. Collins may have a right to show up and speak, but in no way does that require the students to listen.
You suggest that universities should be bastions of free speech where anyone is free to make their views known. Fine, I couldn’t agree more. But don’t tell me that the student’s right to free speech is subjugated to the Congressman’s right to free speech. Don’t tell me that my right to speak freely and shout down the speech of someone I despise is somehow a violation of that person’s rights.
The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves.
Yes they are, over your absurd interpretation of free speech and cherry-picked examples defending these spoiled and rude students. They are unable to have a dialogue, and argue their points rationally. so all they can do is throw a temper tantrum. You and their parents should be embarrassed.
Future groups of unemployed societal misfits being prepared by failing universities. Soon to be supported by those they condemn. The free ride has to stop.
The first amendment is a protection from government interfering with your ability to express your views and criticize government without the threat of punishment.
Those who profess support for free speech like Turley are the first to call for severe punishment from school officials who are government agents to infringe on students free speech rights when they shout down a speaker. The 1st amendment is not protection from rudeness, obnoxious speech, or is a right to be heard. You’re not entitled to a captive audience you’re not entitled to an obedient audience. Students can be removed. But not punished for exercising their free speech rights to loudly disagree. Heckling and shouting down a speaker is not a crime. Turley wants to treat it like a crime by suggesting expulsion or some other form of punishment.
As was voiced by one of the misguided niwits, he’s a fascist. All government currently is. Doubt me why R they CORPORATIONS with D & B #’s. It’s all a distraction to save there Rico acts asses. Treason by the STATE & FEDS.
Yelling, and acting like a two year old spoiled brats so that others are prevented from speaking, is not free speech. Preventing other points of view is not free speech. This has nothing to do with government preventing their right to speech. It has everything to do with government protecting free speech by not giving in to those spoiled brats who will not allow other ideas but their own. I sure hope that you are not a professor at UGA. Especially Constitutional law.
Have you always been this stupid, or did you have to work at it? Disrupting someone’s presentation is called “disorderly conduct.” But if you want to go whole hog, the statute that they charged the Hillary meme guy with could easily fit here.
Theses students are so dumb, most of them had to look at their phone to read the script that was written for them to regurgitate. Wipe out the universities and start from scratch. This current system is a poisonous well that is spreading evil like cancer through this once great Republic!
Phone jammers should be put up so these complete knobs cant just sit there and regurgitate their comrade masters garbage.
Why should I engage in any type of dialogue, rational or otherwise, with someone who is irrational?
I would argue that the Freedom Caucus, of which Collins is a member, is a bunch of utterly irrational lunatics. Witness the complete dysfunction of the House Republicans and the fiasco over removing their Speaker. You may believe otherwise, and you are quite entitled to believe so. I will always defend your right to hold those beliefs, but don’t tell me I have to sit quietly and listen to them. Don’t tell me I have to engage in some sort of rational discussion with you if I despise you and your beliefs. You are perfectly free to believe what ever you want, but you cannot demand that I am obliged to listen to you or engage in any type of dialogue.
You may say that the students don’t have to attend, or should not attend, the speech if they don’t agree with the speaker. They should simply look the other way, not make their opposition known. Let the lunatics spread their nonsense in peace. Just quietly go about their own business.
That is exactly how Hitler came to power.
Of course, if you are a Republican, this may be exactly what you want.
You and your friends are the nazis.
It’s so simple in my mind, if you find Mr.Collins so detestable… stay home. The students that want to hear him DO have the right to hear him, without the rude, disrespectful behaviors of those in disagreement. What happened to manners in our society and politely listening to the other side? Your defense for this kind of behavior is quite honestly… indefensible.
Anonymous ^^cuckoo cuckoo^^
Hey anonymous…you are pot meet kettle scenario right there !. Your hypocrisy is legion.
You don’t get to disrupt their talks . . . . god what an idiot you are.
Reply to Anne.
Why should I engage in any type of dialogue, rational or otherwise, with someone who is irrational?
I would argue that the Freedom Caucus, of which Collins is a member, is a bunch of utterly irrational lunatics. Witness the complete dysfunction of the House Republicans and the fiasco over removing their Speaker. You may believe otherwise, and you are quite entitled to believe so. I will always defend your right to hold those beliefs, but don’t tell me I have to sit quietly and listen to them. Don’t tell me I have to engage in some sort of rational discussion with you if I despise you and your beliefs. You are perfectly free to believe what ever you want, but you cannot demand that I am obliged to listen to you or engage in any type of dialogue.
You may say that the students don’t have to attend, or should not attend, the speech if they don’t agree with the speaker. They should simply look the other way, not make their opposition known. Let the lunatics spread their nonsense in peace. Just quietly go about their own business.
That is exactly how Hitler came to power.
Of course, if you are a Republican, this may be exactly what you want.
The only “lunatics” I see here are those Marxist useful idiots with their orchestrated rage.
That’s a pretty verbose load of drivel…
You are right on the money. Students are paying customers of the university. Collins has a right to speak. Students are not required or obliged to listen. The 1st amendment protects against government infringement of speech. Not students, private individuals. Shouting down a speaker is correctly an act of free speech. The professor is arguing for civility and uses the 1st amendment as a means to enforce civility on others by threatening punishment for “violating a speaker’s 1st amendment right to be heard”.
When you prevent the speaker from speaking that is not free speech. Your argument is so twisted.
No, Collins was not prevented from speaking. He got to finish his speech. It was after the speech when he started to get shouted down. He spoke his views. Nothing was violated. Students exercised their free speech by shouting him out of the event during Q&A after his speech. Students are paying customers of the university. They CAN express their disapproval of Collin’s views to his face because he’s a public official, their representative. Collins is not entitled to an obedient audience. There’s no expectation that any audience is legally required to be obedient or sit subservient to any speaker.
“You don’t get to disrupt their talks . . . . god what an idiot you are.”
You cannot disrupt a talk like this. Heck, many moons ago, I attended a talk by that traitor Philip Agee, and I didn’t interrupt or anything like that, nor did I have a right to.
“You cannot disrupt a talk like this. Heck, many moons ago, I attended a talk by that traitor Philip Agee, and I didn’t interrupt or anything like that, nor did I have a right to.”
Yes you can. Heckling is a means of disrupting someone from talking. It’s free speech. Nothing says you can’t heckle a speaker. It’s a personal choice to remain silent. It’s not a requirement, even a law. If you choose to heckle or shout down a speaker you certainly can. The worst that should happen is to be removed from the event.
Regardless of what you think it’s still protected speech.
“Students are paying customers of the university. Collins has a right to speak … Shouting down a speaker is correctly an act of free speech. ”
George, let me see if I understand what you are saying. A theoretical physics class discusses a theory interrupted by students yelling paint the sidewalks purple. This action happens in each class. Do you think the school has no power to stop the so-called free speech group from exercising their free speech?
Using theoretical physics class is a poor one. Because theoretical physics does not involve criticizing a demographic for immoral behaviors or views. Theoretical physics does not discriminate.
The school has a right to remove the students. But not to punish them with expulsion for a first offense. If a theoretical physics professor decided to incite a politician to discuss social issues at a theoretical physics class then students have a right to shout him down. They are there to hear about theoretical physics. Not social culture war issues. Students exercise their free speech rights to shout down the speaker if they don’t agree with the idea of making a speech about political issues in a theoretical physics class. Students didn’t pay for that.
“Using theoretical physics class is a poor one. Because theoretical physics does not involve criticizing a demographic for immoral behaviors or views. ”
George, you generalize frequently and in a discussion of this nature that represents poor writing skills. You created the problem you are now complaining about.
“The school has a right to remove the students. But not to punish them with expulsion for a first offense. ”
Are you trying to write rules for all universities, including private ones? What right do you have to determine classroom rules for universities?
“then students have a right to shout him down. ”
Is there a right to shout people down? No such right exists. Check the Constitution.
You posed the theoretical scenario using a theoretical physics class as an example. It’s still a poor example and I showed you why.
You’re not making any rational sense.
There is a right to free speech. A private individual does not have a right to shout someone down, but it’s also not against the law to do so. It’s not a crime. The right of free speech is not a limitation on how much louder you can be against another speaker. For example, I could scream “shut up” at the top of my lungs 6” from your face and still be well within my rights. It’s up to you to choose to stand your ground and refuse or walk away or just stand there and flip me off. We could be standing 6” from each other screaming all day long and still not violate each other’s 1st amendment right to free speech.
George, I used a theoretical physics example to limit the variables so you would be less confused. You remain perplexed and continue contradicting yourself.
“There is a right to free speech.”
Correct.
“A private individual does not have a right to shout someone down”
He may or may not shout someone down based on the laws, rules, and situation.
“but it’s also not against the law to do so.”
That depends on the laws in place.
George, you are very confused. Free speech is granted in our constitution, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be limited by contract or law where penalties exist to support the laws.
Mr. Meyers, I’m not confused at all. I’m fully aware that you’re not making any sense at all.
George, let me expand on my thoughts in this discussion with you. The right to free speech does not give one the right to nullify rightfully imposed laws, rules, expected behavior, etc.
What is a rightfully imposed law? It cannot supersede a constitutional right. Exercising free speech by shouting down another is not prohibited by the 1st amendment. It’s not a violation of anyone’s right. It’s certainly rude and wrong. But it’s not a crime. Expected behavior is not a guarantee that it will not occur. It’s an assumption only. I cannot expect that you will always be nice to me because I believe it is expected of everyone. That does not mean that if you didn’t meet my expectations that I have a right to demand you be harshly punished for not meeting them.
A university can say there will be no political discussion in the classroom. You think the First Amendment is being violated. It isn’t. The reason can be that it interferes with the teaching of theoretical physics, as politics has nothing to do with theoretical physics. However, they must ban political discussion for all, not just specific views.
Like any business or institution there are rules of decorum and respect. If these activists yelled at a waiter in a restaurant like this they would be escorted out and refused future admission. Students who pay to attend a university do not set the rules. They sign on for the rules when they choose the school. Rude, licentious screaming and shouting at guest speakers demonstrates a lack of intellectual fortitude and proper decorum the school expects of students. These tantrums – which they are- reflect badly on the school and mission of educating thinking, rational and reasonable adults. Supposedly the college experience teaches students to deal with adversity or opposing ideas by using their intellect, not their emotions. This shouting is emotional claptrap sans reason.
You may call them “tantrums” and whatnot. But it’s still an exercise of free speech. You expect civility and decorum and that’s great. But, what you expect and what is the law are two different things. The 1st amendment protects all speech with a few minor exceptions. It is not a template for civility or a requirement for it.
Students who pay to go to a public university do not make the rules. However university rules don’t supersede constitutional rights. Public universities should not be in the business of punishing students for exercising their right to speak by being vulgar, rude, obnoxious, even racist. Using civility rules to silence an opposing view is still a form of censorship. It’s used to force obedience. The only remedy for uncivil speech is more civil speech. This is Turley’s solution for bad speech. Which is more good speech. But Turley seeks harsh punishment for uncivil speech, disruptive speech, speech shouting down another. He prescribes punishment that leads to censorship by removal, expulsion, or suspension. Thats still anti-free speech.
“However university rules don’t supersede constitutional rights.”
Once again, George, you need to think about your words and recognize that sometimes different rights conflict. If the property is private, the owner can create rules of use. Suddenly, your unappreciated right of free speech isn’t the question. It becomes a matter of trespass or some other rule or law. Your free speech isn’t restricted, as you can speak all you want after you are kicked out the door into the street.
But the event didn’t occur at a private venue. It occurred at a government funded venue. A public university. No, it does not become a matter of trespass. To be trespassed the school must explicitly say they were trespassing. Students paid the school to be there. They cannot be charged with trespassing for speaking out against a speaker in class. A student pays to be in class. They don’t have to be out on the street to voice their disagreement when they paid to be in that publicly funded government class.
Do you agree that university rules don’t supersede constitutional rights?
“Do you agree that university rules don’t supersede constitutional rights?”
Of course, but in argument, you are missing the boat and are all wet.
In the classroom, the university can make rules of speech, but those rules must not favor any one group, and the penalties are supposed to be the same. Many times on this blog, the argument is not about the abridgment of speech but instead about the double standards being used.
It’s called disorderly conduct, dipshit.
“Like any business . . .”
Very well said, especially this: “This shouting is emotional claptrap sans reason.”
You brownshirt often ?…asking for a friend.
You need to go live in Israel and see what it is like to live in fear of Palestinians attacking the Jews raping torturing and killing. Go live in Iran if you are so against free speech. Also, get off your lazy woke entitled ass and work for a living.
What an utterly absurd argument! Nobody is demanding that anyone be forced to listen to anyone or anything, nor is anyone being compelled to attend the event. The fascist “protesters” are preventing speech by a person that members of the audience invited to campus because they wanted to hear his ideas. These budding totalitarians can invite their own speakers to their own event where they can revel in their lunacy to their hearts’ content.
Huh, if speech is not heard then is it really free? You have the right to walk or not to listen but to constantly interupt or shout down a speaker, that is a fools choice.
Being able to speak freely is not a guarantee that a speaker is free to be heard. You can stand on a milk crate at a public park and speak your views and complaints. You can say the most offensive views. You can rant and rave against the government. Those who wish to listen can those who disagree can express it by heckling and shouting down the speaker. At a public university it should be no different constitutionally. What is being argued is a lack of civility and demand an audience be compliant to the speaker at an academic setting. Turley treats the 1st amendment like its civility rule that everyone must adhere to and those who violate it must be harshly punished. He claims a speaker’s 1st amendment rights are being violated by those shouting the speaker down. The first amendment’s restrictions do not apply to private individuals. Turley wants it to however. Thats why he treats it like a civility rule instead of what it is, a restriction on government.
I will argue that the speaker ranting from the soapbox in the park gets more respect than this invited speaker received in a classroom. People walk by a park ranter, possibly listen for a few minutes and walk away.
The difference is in a park you can walk away. You didn’t pay to be there. Students at a classroom are essentially a captive audience expected to be compliant after paying for the class. It’s an important distinction.
This speaker was invited by a campus group and spoke in a classroom- it does not say it was part of a class.
You have the right to stand OUTSIDE and protest. You do not have the right to come inside and disrupt the speaker or the ones who came to listen.
The speaker already made his speech. Collins finished his speech without interruption. It was the ensuing discussions during Q&A when students protested and shouted out Collins.
Students have free speech rights and can choose to exercise them anywhere they please. It’s their class, they paid for it. Collins was invited.
If this was a question/answer period …? I heard no questions – just screaming expletive filled rants to which the speaker was unable to answer.
If they didn’t want to listen, then they shouldn’t come. Nobody forced them. No, they came to disrupt so OTHERS could not hear what was said. In the case of your Klansman or anyone else, they have no right to disrupt a meeting. If they want to sit and listen to the sermon, there is no harm…except perhaps by the impact of the regalia and what may happen after services conclude. Nobody is coming in YOUR house, but to a public university…by invitation…to speak to groups that wish to hear him. Protest outside if you like. Express your views to the media, post online, whatever…but you don’t have the right to disrupt the meeting and cause a disturbance to prevent people from speaking.
What a twisted response. That was Not their home and many wanted to hear him. The spoiled brats could have remained in their parents basements.
It was their class. They all paid for it. They had a right to shout Collins down.
My country is invaded by illegal criminals, probably some of the demonstrators you talk about, nobody is required to listen, but those who want to listen shouldn’t be blocked from listening by idiots who could easily leave.
According to you you’re post should be deleted.
They were all wearing masks. Their masks should be removed so future employers can know their identities and avoid hiring them.
Wrong! I have the right to listen to different points of view. You seem to think that the freedom of speech only applies to you.
You can still hear his point of view. The speech at the class is not the only place you can listen or even read about his point of view. There are so many avenues to choose from with the availability of the internet that it’s nearly impossible for you not to hear or view his points of view.
Reply to Bill.
You are absolutely right. You have an undeniable right to listen to any point of view you wish.
But don’t tell me that I have to listen to the same points of view. If I disagree, then I have a right to not only refuse to listen, but also to actively refute those points of view in any manner I choose. If that requires shouting down the speaker then so be it. The right to speak freely is not predicated on civility. If I think a speaker is an idiot I have the right, and indeed the obligation, to say so.
By claiming anonymity says it all. Cowardly.
UGA and all college campuses should prohibit masks at any event where there is a guest speaker. They need to be identified so future employers know not to hire them.
Says anonymous.
Using your logic, conservative students should be allowed to bust into liberal professor’s classrooms and disrupt their hatred and lies they spread about certain people in our country.
Dear Anonymous Marxist/Snow Flake/Totalitarian Leftist, etc:
Nice try with the false analogies and red herring arguments, but UGA is a public institution and not the “home” of the students. The students could have either chosen to listen to Mike Collins and perhaps debated him civily on the merits or could have choosen to go about their business and not listened to him at all. They are not harmed by either. Instead they claimed, like you to be a free speech proponent until they encountered someone who they disagree with, then it is shut them down and silence them, claiming superior morality but refusing to have a substantive debate. Professor Turley is correct, and you are just a leftist bully who lacks the intellectial honesty and emotional maturity, and moral capacity to exist with those who have differing views. You are right, the Founding Fathers are rolling their grave – over Marxists/Totalitarian Leftists like you.
Rep Collins was INVITED to speak. Synagogues do not invite Nazis to speak, The Ebenezer Baptist Church does not invite KKK to speak.
These protesters are guilty of theft of Rep Collins time.
OK, Karen
In all of your examples: Those people were outside.
Your point is moot.
You dont see yourself as a commie extremist?
Are you nuts? None of your examples are related to what happened at UGA! People can shout at each other on the public right of way all they want as long as they’re not disturbing the quiet enjoyment of nearby property owners.
And to your comment about the right to be HEARD, nobody is forcing anyone to attend the program and listen to the Congressman.
It was their class. They paid for it. Many didn’t pay to sit there and listen to a congressman make a speech about things students did not agree with. The congressman got to say what he wanted. He finished his speech. It was AFTER he freely expressed his views that he got shouted out by those who disagreed with him. Students exercised THEIR free speech rights. Those who are wanting to met harsh punishment want to because the students were rude, vulgar, and loud and disruptive. They paid for that class. They get a say too. Because it was “uncivil” does not mean it was not free speech.
“It was their class. They paid for it. ”
Again, George, you’re mistaken because you are not being specific. The student might have paid to go to that university, but the university paid for the class. The student can choose to go to the school of his choice. The university can set up guidelines and penalties that specify how classrooms are to function.
The university paid for the class? No. The students paid for the class. Students choose the classes they want. Not the university. Guidelines are not binding. They are guidelines. If it was a formal debate then there would be more specific rules for both the debaters and the audience. But the audience is often ASKED to observe the rules, they are not required to obey them. Of course those who don’t choose to observe the rules can be escorted out. That’s reasonable. It’s not reasonable to be expelled for yelling during a debate.
“The students paid for the class.”
You seem to have no concept of how a public university is funded. Or you are evading that fact.
“The students paid for the class. Students choose the classes they want. ”
Wrong again, George. The university admits the students it chooses and has a list of rules and penalties students follow, as long as they are legal. That list will contain rules of behavior and potential penalties. Even the choice of classes can be controlled by the university.
“Guidelines are not binding. ”
Guidelines are not rules.
“But the audience is often ASKED to observe the rules, they are not required to obey them.”
In essence, they are because they can be removed when they violate the rules. Even you recognize that. Students who break the rules can be suspended if that is the penalty. Students decide if they wish to live under the university’s rules, but once the check is accepted, they live under the rules and penalties of the university.
“They paid for it.”
You keep alleging that. But it’s not true. They pay some 15%. The public is compelled to pay the rest.
They still paid. I does not matter if they paid just 2%.
State universities get less and less funding from the state. Students are paying more for it than they used to. Student loans offered by private lenders and guaranteed by the federal government pays for the majority of college tuitions these days.
Whoa , hold on there a minute. You sure they paid for it ?. So many briben bitler loan cancellations the taxpayer is paying for to buy votes. You assume these toads are paying for it….they may already have gotten taxpayer relief under briben bitlers influence peddling schemes to cancel loan debt.
So, yours is the only view that matters? Talk about a liberal Fascism!
Do organizations have the right to conduct affairs in a manner conducive to the accomplishment of their purpose in an environment of “domestic Tranquility” insured by the Founders?
Do citizens in public have a right to quell disturbances of the peace?
__________________________________________________________________________
Preamble
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Your absurdity of equating Mike Collin’s with nazism shows your intent here. You conveniently ignore STUDENTS of UGA invited him to use your term “their home” too. And you hide behind anonymous because you are so brave aren’t you? What a joke you are and lack any reason and ignore the situation of what actually what happened. How about wake up and understand how wrong you are before you help destroy true free speech. Or you can continue to be part of the problem.
Sick
The disruptors have the right to not attend . No one is forcing anything upon anyone except for the brain dead disruptors who are nothing more than drones spewing the usual Marxist propaganda. By your definition of free speech, it would be ok to give the drones a good backhand or three which imo would be a great choice of action.
I can fully understand why you chose to label yourself as “anonymous” given your inane commentary. If you were in a movie theater and a disrupting mob came in and prevented you from watching the movie, would you draw the same conclusions?
The founders are laughing at you from their graves for your silly, fascist supporting comment
WOW! That’s powerful – powerful nonsense! Maybe you should consider throwing ALL logic out the window? Professor Turley stated what Free Speech is succinctly. You just showed your arrogance, ignorance and lack of understanding written words – i.e. comprehension!
Your presumption is incorrect; you are setting up a false argument. Freedom of speech means the right to speak out freely and publicly. If That speech is prevented by protest, then no free speech took place, and that particular Constitutional right was violated. Everyone has the right to freely walk out or stay, but there is no right to prevent another’s free speech. Take your turn with your free speech, but preventing free speech is not a right. Those who interfered were wrong in their actions.
Please explain the difference between the “heckler’s veto” and “shadow banning”…
They need to start disciplining them when efforts are clearly made to silence speech. Expulsion is reasonable.
Expulsion is unreasonable. Your first instinct is to punish severely an act of free speech that is at best uncivil and rude. The constitution says nothing about students who are private individuals not allowed to shout down or even censor a speaker. It’s up to the speaker to stand their ground. It’s their right. But when his/her voice is overwhelmed or no longer heard by protest and heckling it’s still not a violation of a speaker’s 1st amendment rights. You don’t have right to be heard or a right to an obedient audience. You have a right to speak. That does not mean you have a right to an orderly or civil audience.
The only way to guarantee an obedient and receptive audience and a guarantee of being heard is to hold the event at a private venue where those who want to hear can do so. Pay to hear the guy. Not everyone is going to want to pay to hear the guy.
They aren’t punishing the speech, but the actions in disrupting the event. There were many more people in the room to hear the speaker than the few who organized the disruption specifically to de-platform the speaker. If I were the Dean, I would stand at the door with preprinted suspensions and expulsions that could easily be completed and handed to the student as they are escorted out. Suspensions for first timers, expulsions for repeat offenders. The proper and civil way to conduct yourself as a reasoning individual is to contest the ideas. No doubt there was to be a Q&A at the end…challenge the speaker then, without being profane, with your counter thoughts. Engage in debate.
That isn’t debate, it is just the rule of the mob, which is antithetical to a REPUBLIC and the reason Democracies fail.
The protesters issue is with the University leadership not with the Congressman. He was invited to share his views and had attendees who wanted to listen.
Your first instinct is to met out severe punishment for those exercising their free speech rights. Collins got to express his views in their entirety. He finished his 42 min. speech. Students, those who paid the school got to express their views during the Q&A discussions. They shouted him out after he expressed his views. His speech wasn’t denied. He was essentially run off from THEIR class.
Why can’t they be profane? You’re arguing for civility and that’s fine. It’s reasonable. But, exercising free speech means expressing your views however you want including using profanity and vulgar disagreement. Nothing in the constitution says free speech is only free if it’s civil. Nothing.
Collins was invited to speak. It was not a debate. He got to say his piece. Students got to say theirs during the discussions at Q&A time. They shouted him down and essentially ran him off their class. That’s an exercise of free speech in itself.
The rule of the mob is what created this country. The mob got tired of being dictated to by the monarchy. The mob chose to express their right to speak freely by shouting down the king’s governors and their accomplices. It was the government at the time who demanded and expected a compliant audience and used civility and rule of law to silence dissent. Just like Turley is now arguing for. He’s arguing that free speech is only valid if it’s civil. If you can’t be civil then you should be harshly punished for not being civil.
can I stop their speech with a punch to the face? Harassment is a CRIME!
Time to END Federal Aid to colleges(including student loans), cities, states, non-profits.
Let Democrats fund their OWN Fascism!
“. . . ‘deplatforming’ of a speaker . . .”
So many examples of the Left’s assault on free speech. It makes you wonder:
By what means does the Left expect individuals to settle disputes? If not by arguments, ideas, speech — there’s only one means remaining: Brute force. Might makes right.
If you want to see that barbaric policy in action, look at any city’s criminal gangs.
My mother brought us up with the maxim: “Your freedom only goes as far as the end of my nose.” In other words, your freedom cannot impinge on my freedom. The protestors are not invoking the right to free speech as much as they are invoking the right to censorship, with the government as role model.
Interesting that this happened in the same state that is going after Trump et al for protesting a stolen election. The new world order people tout “order out of chaos.” Before they can impose their version of order, they must first create chaos which is what we’re seeing, in myriad forms, all over the country and the world.
None of it is by chance. None of it is just randomly happening, or being allowed to happen. It is all intentional and all leading to the same place, which is not a good place.
Who do you hate? Are you referring to the students, yourself or all the people who don’t agree with you? Hate is not the way to go — verbalize you thoughts and share your opinions — not your feelings.
University administrators and professors agree with the protestors. They’re far Left, and typically believe they have the right to censor Jews they disagree with.
We can’t really expect the same people who discriminate against conservatives in hiring practices, and in the classroom, to protect the free speech of conservatives by suspending students who disrupt invite speakers like this.
Conservatives, it may be best to hold such events off campus, in underground speakeasies, with off duty cops hired as security.
The REAL question: How did Turley — a lifelong Chicago democrat who voted for Obama, Hillary, AND Joetard, and a rabid anti-Trump associate of convicted multiple felon Michael Avenatti — become the Mayor of this online lunatic-fringe meeting of the John Birch Society?
Ooo!
Don’t you all sense more panic here?
“One student yelled “How dare you come on this campus and exploit Laken Riley’s death to push your xenophobic, fascist, racist, agenda…people are in this country legally and your f–king cops are gonna get them arrested and deported.””
-=-
Uhm… if they are here legally, how are they going to be deported?
Free clue… they are illegals.
They claim asylum knowing it will take 10yrs before their case is heard and then they are supposed to self deport.
Since that doesn’t happen they are hear for years.
These students are maroons.
-G
Countries with borders are not xenophobic.
Societies of law that enforce the law are not fascist.
Racism is bias, favor, partiality, affirmative action, forced busing, quotas, discriminatory “Non-Discrimination” laws, unfair “Fair Housing,” etc., ad nauseam.
The student who yelled has the Communist Manifesto before the Constitution; takes the names of the American Founders in vain; makes the graven image of the Hammer and Sickle; keeps no day holy; bears false witness; covets and steals as a filthy sinner!
““To teach, to serve, and to inquire into the nature of things.”
No, no. It is currently:
“To screech, to purge, and to ignore the nature of things.”
These poor little Democrats. They’re 21 years old and they just figured out that the only jobs they are qualified for, are the US Senator from Georgia and asking customers if they want fries with their burger. The senate jobs are currently filled, and the burger job was just filled by a robot.
Now they do what Democrats do best, destroy things that are good. In this case, “Free Speech”
Shouting down speakers should not be tolerated.