One of the skill sets of the anti-free speech movement has been the art of faux outrage. Pundits will often adopt a tortured meaning of a statement, an obvious joke, or take some misstatement and go into vapors on social media. That pattern has repeated itself with National Review editor-in-chief Rich Lowry, who was just canceled by Indiana State University under the common excuse of “safety concerns.”Lowry was scheduled to speak on the “Lessons from Lincoln” as well as contemporary politics and media.The use of the safety rationale by ISU raised long-standing concerns over viewpoint intolerance on campuses.We have previously discussed this common rationalization for barring conservative or libertarian speakers. No such concerns seem to arise with speakers who are from the far left at universities, including speakers who regularly engage in intentional inflammatory racial language.Lowry had a verbal slip in an interview on the word “migrant” when he sounded like he used an “n” rather than a “m.” He immediately corrected himself. No one who knows Lowry would suggest anything intentional or that this respected commentator was somehow using a code for the “n-word.”
“On Megyn Kelly’s show, I was discussing the Springfield, Ohio, controversy, and, in the course of saying ‘Haitian migrants,’ I started to mispronounce the word ‘migrants.’ I began to say it with a short ‘i,’ the way you say ‘immigrants,’ instead of the long ‘i’ that you use for ‘migrants.’ I caught myself in the middle, before shifting to the correct pronunciation.”
I understand that people will disagree on this. The mispronunciation was heard by some as the “n-word.” The problem is the unwillingness to consider an innocent explanation. Instead, the usual flash mob immediately formed of hyperventilating hypocrites who rarely criticize intentional race baiting and rage rhetoric on the left.
When people on the left or the right have these moments (particularly when they immediately correct themselves), I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. I find that more plausible than assuming that someone is a raving racist. Moreover, there is a sharp difference in the consequences for such controversies.
Yet, the level of deference over such slips seems to depend greatly on where a speaker is on the political spectrum. We have discussed academics, experts, and commentators engaging in openly racist commentary.
There is also a double standard maintained by the media. There was a feeding frenzy when Trump referred to protecting “black jobs” but nary a peep of objections when Biden (who also attacked Trump for the reference) used the same claim of protecting “Black jobs” in a later speech. Defenders on the left said that it was just a slip of the tongue.
How is this for an idea: Lowry insists that he was not using this word, so allow him to speak and he can address the controversy.
In this case, ISU immediately cancelled the event, citing the ever-convenient concern for “safety.” It announced:
“Indiana State University prioritizes the safety of our students, campus community, and all invited speakers. In light of recent developments and following the advice of our public safety officials regarding campus and community safety concerns, we have made the decision to cancel Rich Lowry’s scheduled appearance on September 30 as part of the Indiana State University Speaker Series.
In accordance with university policy, this decision is consistent with our commitment to maintaining a secure environment and ensuring the well-being of our students, faculty, staff, and the greater Terre Haute community. … We are actively working to identify opportunities to invite a speaker with a proven history of promoting intellectually diverse viewpoints to the Speaker Series, which will be announced at a later date.”
What the university clearly does not “prioritize” is maintaining a diversity of viewpoints or an environment of free speech. Lowry is one of the most popular commentators and the head of a leading conservative publication.
Lowry immediately corrected the pronunciation mid-word and said later that it was nothing more than a slip of the tongue. The question is whether that is enough to cancel a nationally recognized speaker.
Lowry responded with a column headlined: “Next Time Cancel Me for Something I Actually Said” and noted that he was later cancelled at a second event:
“It pains me to say I’ve also been canceled by the Badger Institute, the right-of-center think tank in Wisconsin. The president called on Tuesday to ask me to withdraw from an address at an upcoming dinner, and when I refused and asked him what I’d done wrong, he only said something or other about ‘the environment.’ When I flatly asked him whether he was disinviting me, he said, ‘Yes.’
Cowardice is contagious.”
This is a public university supported by a state with a majority of conservative and independent voters. Rather than accept the immediate correction, the university has cancelled Lowry’s appearance. It is the common hair-triggered response that we have seen with conservative figures on campuses.
As I have previously written, the recent FIRE ranking on free speech shows that the lowest-ranking schools tend to be private universities, which are not subject to the full protections of free speech under the First Amendment. Conversely, the top performers this year are, notably, all public universities — Michigan Technological University, Auburn University, the University of New Hampshire, Oregon State University, and Florida State University.
The fact is that the better performance of public universities likely reflects compulsion rather than agreement for many faculty. Public universities must protect free speech as a matter of law.
The result, however, is a startling and growing divide among private and public universities. For parents and students who value free speech, they must increasingly look to public universities where faculty are subject to constitutional guarantees. In the same way, public universities may be the final line of defense for free-speech advocates.
The use of “safety concerns” has largely succeeded in many past instances to shield cancel campaigns, particularly at public universities. However, courts may have to adopt a more serious review into any ideological patterns in the use of this rationalization.
So much for the liberal version of free speech and equality.
Lowry’s beeñobnoxious for decades. Hilarious that he’s stepped into this.
When I am confident of my argument, I have no need to ask the other party to shut up.
More of Turley trying to validate right-wing radicals under the guise of being “conservative” whose “free speech” is being denied. Turley claims: “This is a public university supported by a state with a majority of conservative and independent voters.” I don’t know where you get your stats, Turley. Obama won Indiana, which also elected Democrats Birch Bayh, Vance Hartke and Evan Bayh, who was Governor. Then, the Republican gerrymandering started and things changed so that Republicans choose their voters, instead of the other way around. Anyway, a university admits students literally from all over the world, and is not limited to admitting students from the state in which its campus is located, so whether you perceive Indiana as having a “majority of conservative and independent voters” is irrelevant–that does not necessarily translate to the politics of the student body and faculty.
The National Review is a radical right-wing publication, infamous to many for its inflammatory punditry. The speaker is reported to have uttered the “n” word in discussing the outrageous lies Trump and Vance told about Haitians stealing household pets and eating them. Whether he did or didn’t is also irrelevant–the perception is there and people are outraged over Trump and Vance lying about Haitians solely to stir up racisim. The University says that safety of its campus and students is its priority, and for that reason, the speaker was cancelled–what’s wrong with that? There really isn’t any “alternative point of view” when it comes to the lies told by Vance and Trump about Springfield, Ohio. The issue isn’t liberal v. conservative.
Time and time again the extreme leftist media itself, has published news accounts both narrative and video, many times posted on this site, of animal sacrifices in multiple locations in New York, Florida, and elsewhere, while simultaneously broadcasting propaganda lies that it isn’t so. Many times on the same network where the National network version is telling the lie that it isn’t true, while their local affiliates are publishing the stories that show it is true. Whether or not they are eating them after torturing them to death I think is of lessor concern. The fact that you choose to opine your personal version of the facts is non-consequential.
The fact that portions of the American public is too ignorant to just google it and believes whatever the Goebbels News Network says, is a different issue.
Gigi says,”Turley claims “This is a public university supported by a state with a majority of conservative and independent voters.” I don’t know where you get your stats, Turley.”
Gigi, I’m really getting sick and tired of you using this site to spread your hate and garbage. Shame on you.
JT’s statement is correct,and yours is hate and garbage.
Take a good look at the political map of Indiana, your dishonesty creeps through like a spreading stain.
https://kubrick.htvapps.com/htv-prod-media.s3.amazonaws.com/images/indiana-2020-election-results-1607635959.png?crop=1.00xw:1.00xh;0,0&resize=1200:*
Tom: yeah–it’s called “gerrymandering”. When Republicans wrested control, they shoved all of the Democrats into the fewest number of districts around places like Indianapolis, South Bend, Bloomington, etc., so as to give more power to the rural areas. From the “Center For Public Integrity”–dateline 10/6/2022:
“As the CEO of Women4Change Indiana, Rima Shahid spends her time talking to potential voters, trying to convince them to support policies that would make the state a better place for women.
“The statement that we hear time and time again is that it doesn’t matter,” Shahid said.
It’s not that people in Indiana are apathetic. According to Shahid, they are disenfranchised.
Indiana’s election laws are strict. Voters need to show a government-issued ID to cast a ballot, they can submit an absentee ballot only if they fall under one of 11 excused categories, and Indiana does not provide drop boxes for people to submit absentee ballots in more convenient times and locations.
The state adopted some of its most stringent election laws after Barack Obama won the state in 2008. He was the first Democratic candidate for president to win Indiana in 44 years, but a Democrat hasn’t taken the state since.
But the real issue with Indiana’s elections, according to Shahid and other activists, is the way the state’s political districts have been drawn up to ensure Republican control over the political process. Christopher Warshaw, a George Washington University professor hired by Women4Change to analyze Indiana’s district maps, found the maps used by the state from 2012 through 2022 to be more biased towards one party — in Indiana’s case the Republican party — than 95% of the maps drawn nationwide over the past 50 years. Republicans, who have long held the majority in the Indiana statehouse, drew new maps in 2021 that will be used in the 2022 elections. In a preliminary study, Warshaw found those maps to “have historically extreme levels of partisan bias.”
“Our elected officials have chosen their constituents instead of the constituents choosing their elected officials,” Shahid said.
Indiana has some of the lowest voter participation rates in the country, and Shahid said the way the state chooses its elected officials is the root issue at the heart of voters’ concerns, no matter the party.
“If you’re upset with public schools, think about gerrymandering. If you’re upset about infrastructure, think gerrymandering,” Shahid said. “Any single issue that you take, you can take it all back to gerrymandering, voting access and fair votes.”
So, Tom, now WHY am I dishonest? Indiana is one of the most-gerrymandered states in America.
Gerrymandering –even if true, has nothing to do with popular vote, which Trump OVERWHELMINGLY won. Look it up on your favorite site, wikipedia. Try again, conniver.
Trump won the POPULAR vote against Clinton in 2016, 56% to 37%.
Trump won the POPULAR vote against Biden in 2020, 57% to 40%.
No matter WHAT “gerrymandered” district voters fall in, popular vote is popular vote, gigi. you should know that since you claim to be lawyer. How many times did you take the bar exam? I bet you are self-employed….
Indiana popular vote
Tom: Turley claimed to be talking about Indiana’s political affiliations generally, not Trump’s vote totals in either 2016 or 2020. Turley was trying to claim that those affiliations applied to college campuses. You will note that the counties that are not red are those where Indiana University , Bloomington, Norte Dame and the University of Indianapolis are located.. Indiana used to be a Democratic state—it had 2 Democratic senators-Vance Hartke and Birch Bayh. Indiana chose Obama, which is when the Republican gerrymandering ramped up in earnest. Trump’s vote totals do not define Indiana’s political climate generally. The gerrymandering applies to Congressional races. So your argument is off-point, but that doesn’t stop the usual insults and the sad efforts to appear intellectually superior.
JT made ONE statement, gigi: “This is a public university supported by a state with a majority of conservative and independent voters.”
His statement is 200% correct. Too bad that the rest went right over your little head, Miss Nurse/Lawyer.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-red-or-blue-is-your-state-your-congressional-district/
Do you get it girl? JT made a one-sentence statement pointing out the IRONY between public university populations and private colleges and surrounding general state populations. THAT was the entire crux of his statement.
DId you catch that yet, gigi girl?
Did you and George take the same classes in Reading Comprehension and Context in high school?
and stop copycatting opening your response with ” yeah, it’s called____” You and George have a very bad habit of copying others.
Tom: just HOW much time do you spend obsessing with trying to prove me wrong, criticizing me, looking up old posts and trying to prove a point, only to fall flat on your face over and over again? Turley doesn’t know anything about how the “majority” of Indiana residents vote–Indiana chose Obama and previously both Senators were Democrats. After Obama, Republicans gerrymandered Indiana to shove most Democrat-leaning voters into the fewest districts as possible, to give advantage to rural areas that tend to vote Republican, to ensure that Indiana’s Congressional representation would favor Republicans. The study said the maps drawn by Republcans: “have historically extreme levels of partisan bias.” I even posted an excerpt from the Center For Public Integrity that proves my point. You pointed only to Trump’s votes in 2016 and 2020, which is off-point because it doesn’t apply to the entire state. The political affiliations of college campuses are not reflective of the state in which they are located because colleges attract people from all over the world. Turley was wrong, and so are you. You just can’t let anything go because you are MAGA, which, IMHO, is a form of mental illness.
I usually stay out of these back and forth quibbles, but GIGI you look like you are off your rocker.
The Anonymous at 1148 just got done saying that Turley was talking about the irony of public universities’ political sentiments and the surrounding community or state’s political majority.
Then you try to turn it around and pretend it was your idea,
like you say,
“The political affiliations of college campuses are not reflective of the state in which they are located because colleges attract people from all over the world. Turley was wrong, and so are you. You just can’t let anything go because you are MAGA, which, IMHO, is a form of mental illness.”
Turley’s sentence is well on-point and has nothing to do with Trump. Obama wasn’t even running against Trump. You are really one sick little cookie, GIGI
Gigi: Here is the political history of Indiana, rated “the reddest state in the Midwest.”
“Indiana joined the Union in December 1816. It has been primarily Republican throughout its history, and today is the “reddest” state in the Midwest. Since 1940, it has only voted Democratic in 1964, when Lyndon Johnson won a landslide over Barry Goldwater and again in 2008, when Barack Obama edged John McCain in the third closest race of that election (behind Missouri and North Carolina). ”
https://www.270towin.com/states/Indiana
If you look at the chart, Gigi, you will see that Indiana’s conservative “red” history has nothing to do with Trump, going back a century or more….
Here’s another historical overview of the “anomaly” of Obama’s win, and Indiana’s reversion back to being a red conservative state thereafter. It also notes the large cities where public universities are located.. Just as Professor Turley noted. In fact, I agree with Anonymous. It was the “irony” that Turley was noting.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/after-brief-role-as-battleground-indiana-exits-stage-right/
(by the way, Obama won Indiana 50 to 49%……..wasn’t like a Democrat landslide and this article discusses the reasons….
Don’t see where gerrymandering is an issue at all?
Oh, and by the way, Gigi, Indiana received an “A” grade on the “Resdistricting Report Card” by the Gerrymandering Project, —and this comes after 2021…
https://gerrymander.princeton.edu/redistricting-report-card/
Not close, and no cigar, Gigi. Try again, with a little less anger and lashing out, and a little more with facts.
“When Republicans wrested control”
You need to have a broader understanding of history and recognize that close-up snapshots do not provide an accurate picture. I wish to provide you with the bigger picture since this subject has been discussed numerous times.
Gerrymandering existed from the start of the nation. It became bold in the early 19th century by the forerunner of the Democrat Party. Democrats markedly increased gerrymandering when blacks were able to vote after the Civil War.
Natacha, or Gigi as she is now called, should know these things before speaking, but like George Svelaz, she lacks the bigger picture and makes things up or copies her responses from sites that meet her ideological needs. It is hard to understand how these people were able to live to adulthood without learning much of anything.
S. Meyer: why don’t you look at what the study I cited from the Center For Public Integrity said. Here’s how the maps drawn by Indiana Republicans were described: “historically extreme levels of partisan bias.” “Historically extreme”, means extreme in comparison to other gerrymandered states. But, you just HAVE to criticize, even though you don’t know what you are talking about and have cited NOTHING to support what you write. Because of the extreme bias, Indiana has one of the lowest voter participation rates in the country, and that’s bad for democracy.
Gigg, look at the bias history of your SOURCE (again and again, you fail to provide a link)
Also, “historical levels of bias” means a concentration of like-minded people. The whole damn state is red, except for the university towns! i guess what you are really saying is that those districts where public universities are located –which voted blue, have “historically extreme levels of partisan bias.!!!! guess the sword cuts both ways, gigi.
@Gigi Natacha, I did not comment about Indiana but gerrymandering in general, so you could understand that they all do the same thing. However, it is not surprising that the Democrats were the ones to move the notch up historically.
I didn’t bother with the study because the data provided and the means of testing were below standard for a true study. You wouldn’t know that, so I didn’t criticize you for that and tried to show you the bigger picture.
You are hopeless.
Brainwashed Extremist
Thanks, Gigi, for validating Professor’s comments about faux outrage.
You are proving the point of those on the Left as being truly intolerant (not to mention insufferable)
“. . . Rich Lowry, who was just canceled by Indiana State University under the common excuse of ‘safety concerns.’”
When a university leadership and its police cannot protect the innocent from a violent mob, it is time to step down.
Such a default is a declaration: Our job is to promote and protect the “life of the mind.” By caving to the mindless, we are utter failures.
No settlement packages. No time to pack your personal belongings. Just a swift boot out the door.
It has already been established that private entities are allowed to censor, not the government, so why is this even an issue?
Everyone is on the wrong road. Take 2 examples: 6 year old BB and her drawings was persecuted. No trial , just sentenced to the bench (prison) and censored ( no drawing).
Another: Salman Rushdie writes a book. No trial just a death sentence.
The Constitution states a person cannot be prosecuted for speech or press or association not prosecuted for religion. In this sense you are free of trials, sentencing and punishment. Lowry was punished for his viewpoint without saying anything and there wasn’t due process nor should there be because he’s free. The punishment is the same as BB and Rusdie. He has been censored and his speech persecuted by cancelation.
People are free from prosecution. Lowry was prosecuted. His statement of – at least cancel me next time for something I actually said couldn’t be more appropriate.
The university in this case is not private.
Has anyone said anything important yet?
Of course, “safety concerns” is just a euphemism for the heckler’s veto. It rewards those whose violence is most feared instead of doing what they are supposed to do, namely protecting the speech rights of those who might piss someone off.
One needs only to look across the pond to England to see what could be coming our way with respect to freedom of speech. Harry Miller, former police officer was visited by police to “check on his thinking.” This was due to what would otherwise be considered an innocuous post on social media. He fought his case to the high court in a David and Goliath setting and won.
If anyone is “offended” by any social media post, they can file a complaint and they are deemed the “victim” and the one who posted is treated like a criminal. The offenders are presented with an option to make it all go away. They can attend an educational seminar at their cost, confess, and be reeducated.
It is bizarre and Orwellian.
Regulating an institution by saying “you may not regulate speech” is not the same as regulating speech. Keeping that distinction in mind will clear up a lot of the smoke Anon keeps throwing out.
His argument is not reflective of what is transpiring. Corruption through misuse and abuse. The examples were provided (not well on my part but still there )with his typical sidetrack deflections smoke and mirrors routine. Like Clintons famous meaning of IS!
You’re spot on.
We suffer from use and abuse of words and language, which do you prefer “putting off,” misinformation, b*** s*** .
[Quote]. When people on the left or the right have these moments (particularly when they immediately correct themselves), I tend to give them the benefit of the doubt. I find that more plausible than assuming that someone is a raving racist. [/Quote]
The far left (especially) has perfected the art of assuming the very worst motives about their ideological opponents.
Oh . . . and that entails being a mind reader.
When was the immigration law of the Founders legislatively, legally, and constitutionally abrogated (i.e. “fundamentally transformed”)?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Act of 1790
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person,…may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application…and making proof…that he is a person of good character,…
The Naturalization Act of 1870. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1870
So it was a result of Lincoln’s unconstitutional “Reign of Terror” which makes is similarly unconstitutional, something akin to unconstitutional Roe v. Wade which was ultimately corrected, struck down, and repealed.
“ARRANGED MARRIAGE”
Kamala Harris and America will soon be in an “ARRANGED MARRIAGE.”
Arranged by the communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) American Deep Deep State “Swamp” Regime Blob.
Kamala won nothing – Kamala Harris won no support, won no campaign contributions, won no funding, won no votes, and won no primaries.
Joke “Mr. Dementia” Biden was ensconced from the basement in a “fixed” election, 2020, in order that he could be strategically removed to allow the ensconcement of Kamala Harris.
America may thank Willy Brown.
When the government provides public funds, it may condition those funds on the recipient agreeing not to act contrary to the government’s legitimate interests, even if the recipient has a right to so act. This principle allows the government to require educational institutions receiving federal monies, and their students, to execute an agreement promising to abide by federal anti-discrimination laws as a condition of receiving those monies. See Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 575-76 (1984). If the government can do that with regard to its legitimate interest in curtailing invidious discrimination – which it can and does – it can also do so with regard its legitimate interest in curtailing censorship in academia.
Doing so would be a political decision to be made by the people acting through their duly-elected representatives. That would be Congress at the federal level, and state representatives at the state level. Doing so would advance the legitimate societal interest in having censorship-free academia, and it would promote freedom and a robust marketplace of ideas where success depends on merit.
It is strange to me that some people commenting here think that is not a legitimate role of the government. I haven’t seen a convincing reason why that lies outside the government’s legitimate sphere. As I said before, my preference would be for the government to stop its wasteful spending. But if it’s going to be giving public funds to universities, my second choice would be fore it to condition the receipt of those funds on the recipient’s agreeing to constrain its speech-infringing actions equivalently to what the government itself must do under 1A.
oldmanfromkansas
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the government requiring universities receiving tax payer money to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Indeed the government has a constitutional duty to enforce those laws.
However the government cannot enforce free speech. It is a false equivalence to state that.
There is everything stopping the government from conditioning grants to universities on “maintaining a free speech environment”, whatever that may be. This would be the government ENFORCING speech which it cannot do.
The comparison with anti-discrimination laws and Civil Rights laws is a false equivalence. These laws are clear cut requirements to enforce equal protections for citizens regardless of race, religion and so forth as required by the Constitution.
The Constitution prevents the government from abridging free speech. There is nothing in the Constitution REQUIRING the government to ENFORCE free speech. One man’s free speech is another man’s tyranny. The Founders recognized this and wisely left individuals free to express their opinions without any kind of government interference for or against any kind of speech.
By contrast the Constitution does provide for equal protections for all citizens, so there is a legitimate government role for enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and civil rights by conditioning the use of tax-payer money.
There is nothing in the Constitution REQUIRING the government to ENFORCE free speech.
I never said the government was required to. I said it is a political decision, and one that I favor. If you missed that part of my comment, please reread it. If you read that part but don’t know what a political decision is, let me know and I’ll be happy to explain it to you.
The comparison with anti-discrimination laws and Civil Rights laws is a false equivalence.
On the contrary, it is a true equivalence. The Equal Protection Clause of 14A constrains state actors, not private actors. The feds have gone beyond that with civil rights legislation that constrains private actors. They then condition money on the receiving institution agreeing to abide by federal anti-discrimination laws. You appear to believe that is permitted and appropriate. I agree.
The free speech clause of 1A likewise constrains state actors. Again, the feds have gone beyond that with legislation. For example, the Equal Access Act. But even if they hadn’t done so yet, that wouldn’t somehow preclude them from placing free-speech-related conditions on money they grant to universities.
You haven’t given me a legitimate reason why it would be unconstitutional for the government to condition the receipt of public funds on the institution agreeing to abide by federal free speech laws. Instead you have fallen back on vague, non-legal notions like “one man’s free speech is another man’s tyranny.” That doesn’t cut it. Please cite a constitutional provision that would preclude the government from doing so, or a Supreme Court case interpreting the Constitution in that way. If you can’t then what is the legal authority you are relying on? Since you haven’t cited it by now, I doubt you will be able to.
***You haven’t given me a legitimate reason why it would be unconstitutional for the government to condition the receipt of public funds on the institution agreeing to abide by federal free speech laws.***
THERE ARE NO FEDERAL FREE SPEECH LAWS.
The only law regarding free speech is the First Amendment, which prevents the government from abridging free speech.
Apart from this there are no “federal free speech laws”. You are demanding adherence to laws that do not exist. You are going down a bizarre rabbit hole and getting yourself all tied up in knots trying to justify something that is not a thing. The government has no role in regulating speech in any way shape or form.
If I am wrong please correct me by citing those laws.
The First Amendment is a federal law (the Constitution is the supreme law of the land). And I mentioned the Equal Access Act which deals with free speech requirements in the context of a limited open forum for secondary schools that receive federal funds. Why couldn’t a federal law say that if a university accepts federal funds, it must agree to refrain from infringing free speech to the same degree a state actor would have to?
I said there are no “federal free speech laws” APART from the First Amendment.
The First Amendment simply prevents the government from abridging free speech. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no other federal free speech laws.
The Equal Access Act has absolutely nothing to do with speech.
It simply requires schools that receive federal funding to provide equal ACCESS to school clubs.
That is a perfectly legitimate requirement. The Constitution requires the government to ensure equal protections for all citizens. Conditioning funding on equal protections is perfectly legitimate. It ensures that schools do not discriminate regarding ACCESS to clubs.
IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH
* The “left” is simply creating a circumstance that will create a demand for quotas from the “right”.
It’s a State issue.
The Equal Access Act has absolutely nothing to do with speech.
False, it requires equal access, meaning the school can’t discriminate in providing access on the basis of the content of the club’s speech.
The First Amendment simply prevents the government from abridging free speech. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no other federal free speech laws.
The relevant portion of 1A states: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” The relevant portion of the Equal Protection Clause states: “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
You can see that these are similarly worded: they both say the government can’t do something. So there is no logical basis to say that the federal government can condition the receipt of federal funds on the receiving institution’s agreement to abide by federal anti-discrimination principles (i.e., equal protection principles), whereas it is impossible for the federal government to condition the receipt of federal funds on the receiving institution’s agreement to abide by federal free speech principles. Your line of reasoning seems to be: the government has already passed affirmative legislation prohibiting discrimination, which can be enforced in any court, and therefore the conditioning of the receipt of funds on complying with those laws is both possible and appropriate; BUT notwithstanding the Equal Access Act the federal government has not yet passed any free speech legislation, therefore it is impossible for the federal government to condition the receipt of federal funds on the receiving university agreeing to do anything related to free speech. To me that doesn’t make sense. First, there is reams and reams of interpretive law concerning how the First Amendment applies to any number of situations. Saying that provision “simply prevents the government from abridging free speech, nothing more, nothing less,” is simplistic in the extreme. Second, you haven’t said why the federal government could not pass legislation protecting free speech. Your entire objection seems to be: “Well, I can’t imagine how Congress would word such legislation.” That is not much of an argument that Congress may not pass such legislation.
So where do you weigh in on the Clinton Speech shakedowns for exorbitant fees with same federal monies versus discrimination against conservative speakers under the guise of safety? It’s like every single thing these Marxist phks touch they distort and destroy. I agree with what you’re saying however this isn’t Kansas anymore if you haven’t noticed. My thoughts are as long as these leftists figures are exempt from any prosecution the further they will go in their criminality believing no one can touch them. Running out Statute of limitations, failure of a AG to indict, failure of the FBI to investigate. Why the next thing they’ll do is kill someone that exposes them. It’s far past time for the reckoning.
So it is now Marxist to demand that the government should have no role in regulating free speech.
Very interesting!!
Not at all, exactly the opposite
Who regulates the regulators
It is not theirs to regulate in a discriminatory manner
You are very confused. Not surprising in MAGA world.
As far as free speech is concerned there is no regulating to be done. The government may not regulate speech of any kind in any way shape or form.
No regulation is allowed either for or against any point of view.
Equal Access Act. It has been upheld by SCOTUS.
The Equal Access Act has absolutely nothing to do with speech.
It simply requires schools that receive federal funding to provide equal access to school clubs.
That is a perfectly legitimate requirement. The Constitution requires the government to ensure equal protections to all citizens. Conditioning funding on equal protections is perfectly legitimate.
IT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE SPEECH.
OMFK
Don’t feed this idiot
I thought I laid out a perfect example of how the Marxist cabal manipulate our laws to discriminate against the conservative citizens while thwarting free speech.
We’ve seen it repeatedly with Charlie Kirk, Ben Shapiro, Anne Coulter and others that go against their talking points. The loonies w blue hair show up create chaos and the Universities cancel the event citing security. Don’t feed this idiot any further.
When you refuse to continue engagement you are simply admitting defeat.
Admit it.
You know I am right.
You’re not right, you’re not responding to the points of my post. You’re not responding to OMFK comments and didn’t correctly read what he posted. My point is that the Marxists controlling American politics and their leftist minions at Universities are thwarting and infringing upon the rights of conservative speakers regularly. It’s done just like the topic of discussion as an obtuse security concern, there are videos of Ben Shapiro showing up to speak and University cops threatening him with arrest for trespass, at his own then cancelled event. I don’t disagree the government has no right or legal foundation to regulate free speech, yet they do through the back door.
Having said, how do YOU feel about the Clinton graft of speaking engagements at liberal Universities where they received exorbitant amount of money for a 30 minute, Socialism is Great talk? My favorite for the week is HRC calling for criminal investigations for misinformation, the mother of the Russia collusion hoax and the subversion of a duly elected President.
People don’t pay to go the speaking events, the Universities put them on at their own expense, aka federal funding. The event I mentioned with Shapiro was a scheduled event that the University took upon itself to cancel as he arrived due to Security concerns. Shapiro indicated he had no concern and was denied access to his own scheduled event. If you invited me to come to your home to give a speech and I spend time and effort to do so and you deny me entry while your other guest that came for that very reason, I don’t know? Breach of an oral contract, agreement? I think we saw something along this line no too far back in time at one of these Universities, I think the student tried an assault claim as they were thrown out of the house after they wore out their welcome. Key point, he was invited and scheduled to speak, UF did the same thing to a White Nationalist Speaker that was going to speak, a shout down by a handful of liberal activists. Civil rights is for everyone, not just the select few.
How much Clinton gets paid and by whom is not a issue of free speech.
The university invited and scheduled Shapiro to speak. It was the university’s event, not Shapiro’s “own scheduled event”.
An invitation does not confer an absolute irrevocable right to appear and speak. An invitation can be revoked at any time for any reason. You seem to think that once given, an invitation is some absolute right that cannot be revoked.
If you INVITE me to dinner I do not have an absolute irrevocable right to demand said dinner. You are perfectly free to revoke the invitation for any reason.
The equal access act is as unconstitutional as Roe v. Wade and awaits correction and repeal.
Congress has no power to tax for or fund education.
Congress may tax for and fund only debt, defense and general Welfare – which means ALL WELL PROCEED or basic infrastructure such as roads, electricity, internet, water, post office, etc. – not one, some, or a few, and not individual, specific, and particular welfare, favor, or charity, quite simply all or the whole; it certainly excludes public schools which do not constitute general Welfare.
* some truth to that. The federal department of education is on its way to the bone pile.
Governors are rising stars. Someone said it’s a political issue and some truth there. If money comes from the government it has strings attached.
De wine is headed for the- it just don’t roll my biscuits anymore.
Roe v. Wade was “upheld” by the totally corrupt Supreme Court of 1973, the concurring Justices of which must have been impeached and convicted for failure to support the Constitution.
The unconstitutionality of secession was upheld by the totally corrupt Supreme Court of 1869, the concurring Justices of which must have been impeached and convicted for failure to support the Constitution.
Every time you disagree with a Supreme Court opinion you think the Supreme Court is corrupt.
Res ipsa loquitur.
The corrected court knew the same thing the correcting knows.
The decision is de facto corrupt when the “Supreme Court” corrects the “Supreme Court.”
Wouldn’t you say?
No! A mistake is not the same as corruption.
Anon– “As far as free speech is concerned there is no regulating to be done. The government may not regulate speech of any kind in any way shape or form.”
Not quite true. Shouting ‘fire’ in a crowded theater may be a criminal act, for example.
But generally you are correct. Hate speech [whatever that is] or speech that hurts feelings is, or should be, protected. Obama judges haven’t been doing well on the law in that area lately.
Legislation abridging the freedom of speech is unconstitutional legislation.
Speech that causes damage may be litigated.
* fees for speakers? They shouldn’t charge at all. Flat rate of travel, food and lodging expenses only.
Please cite the Constitution.
Congress has the power to tax for and fund only debt, defense, and “general Welfare,” which means basic infrastructure, excluding individual, specific, and particular welfare, favor and charity.
Congress has no power to regulate education.
Congress may not tax for, fund, or regulate education.
Article I, Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States
* Define general welfare.
Public schools have always been considered welfare schools because of public funding. They are schools for people who cannot afford education otherwise. They are also for low achieving people. High achieving people are on scholarships in private schools.
Seriously?
General – ALL or THE WHOLE
In the case of Article 1, Section 8, not individual, specific, or particular welfare, and not favor or charity.
General welfare consists of basic infrastructure that ALL or THE WHOLE use such as, roads, water, electricity, post office, internet, sewers, rubbish collection, telecom (archaic), etc.
Public school concerns a very small part of the population and not general or the whole but specific, particular, and individual.
I agree with oldman that funding/appropriations can be conditioned as he proposes. One interesting thing to note is that unlike the Bill of Rights many later amendments like the 13th, 14th, 15th, 19th, and 26th give Congress the power to enforce the amendment by appropriate legislation.
It is not a legitimate role of government.
Funding education sis not a legitimate role of government.
Right
Jonathan: We didn’t think a second debate between Harris and DJT would happen because the latter refused. But now CNN has proposed a second debate in Atlanta for October 23. Harris quickly accepted. Will DJT accept? After his dismal performance at the first debate DJT declared “THERE WILL BE NO THIRD DEBATE!” DJT gets easily confused. He thinks the debate with Joe Biden actually counted!
Last week in California DJT said he was possibly open to a second debate “Maybe if I got in the right mood”. DJT better get in the “right mood” real fast because he has only 10 days to decide. If he refuses to debate Harris for a second time he will perceived as a coward–which he is.
Of course, there are a lot of reasons DJT could use to opt out. By October 23 a lot of voters will have already cast their ballots. What would be actually accomplished in a second debate? Then DJT doesn’t have fond memories of Atlanta. Over a year ago that’s where he had to surrender in Fulton County after Fani Willis’s RICO criminal indictment–then was subjected to the normal booking process and the infamous mug. Not a pleasant experience for the former president. And that criminal case still hangs over his head.
So DJT is in a no win situation. If he refuses the proposed debate a lot of voters will perceived that as cowardice. If he agrees to the debate he will be humiliated again by Harris!
Who the —- is president?
Dumba– Dennis has trouble keeping up with the machinations of the communist American Deep Deep State “Swamp” Regime Blob.
It is likely that Trump will accept – it provides Harris another oportnity to implode before a large audience.
There is really no down side for Trump.
You say Trump lost the 2nd debate – yet that is not what the Polls have said – Independents are moving to Trump.
I would note that Harris rushed to accept – that means she KNOWS she is actually Behind.
When Oprah can not save you from yourself – it is a really bad week.
As to “deadlines” – these are meaningless.
Do you think there is not a network that would not jump at the oportunity for a presidential debate ?
My guess is that Trump will negotiate.
Though honestly I am not sure what for.
You think the last debate was bad for him – but again – his numbers ROSE after the debate, and that is what matters.
Personally I think that the 3:1 debate made him look good. Voters saw the massive media bias.
Throwing softballs to Harris, not fact checking her actual lies and misfact checking Trump may LOOK to you like a Harris win,
but it does not appear to be the way to get voters.
“By October 23 a lot of voters will have already cast their ballots. ”
It is impossible to know how people who already voted, voted – but the numbers so far are pretty bad for democrats.
In most swing states Democrat early votes are running WAY behind 2020, and Republican early votes are running WAY ahead of 2020.
My “guess” is that the early voters are all people who are unlikely to change their mind.
But the shift in the split on early voting means that Harris is far less likely to take the lead in the wee hours of he night or over the following week.
“What would be actually accomplished in a second debate?”
An opportunity for Harris to fall on her ass at worst,
An opportunity for her to once again leave undecided voters with no idea what she would do as president.
I know this is hard for you to understand – but debates in this election are NOT about Trump. He has won his base and they are not leaving.
Further Undecideds KNOW who he is – a great performance or a “dismal” one will NOT change the election.
These debates are entirely about Harris – which is WHY Harris wants another Debate.
She has not closed the deal with undecides and independents. A debate is her best shot to do so.
But her problem is she is NOT going to tell independents what they want to hear.
She is NOT going to explain how she is going to bring down inflation. First because the president has little to do with that, that is the role of the FED. It is the FEDs efforts to lower inflation that have caused the weak economy we have had the past 3 years.
That is what you have to do to reign in inflation. What is necescary is for the Fed to CAUSE a mild recession – but neither Harris nor Trump is going to say that. Trump is atleast wise enough to allow them to DO that. 6 months of recession in late 2024/early 2025 can be blamed on Democrats – after all it IS their fault. It also provides the impetus to cut spending. And coming into 2025Q2 with 1% inflation would be great for Trump and great for the country.
“Then DJT doesn’t have fond memories of Atlanta.”
He has been to atlanta many time – with no rap stars and double Harris’s crowds.
Trump made hay from the Mug shot – it was another of the big mistakes of you left wing nuts.
Further Willis is up to her ass in Trouble – Nathan Wade – who she purportedly ended her affair with before indicting Trump showed up with Willis at the arrest of her daughter. Making it appear that Willis lied AGAIN under oath.
Most of the charges against Trump are gone. There is an excellent chance Willis will be removed from the case. There is a good chance Willis herslef may be indicted or removed from office.
The Trump case is NOT the only high profile case that is going sideways for Willis – The atlanta courts are a disaster – Judges forced off cases.
Willis forced to provide records she has refused. Very unfreindly appealate courts – and not just on the Trump case.
Trump would be ecstatic to see James and Bragg facing all the same problems that Willis is.
I would bet Trump is very happy with Atlanta.
“Over a year ago that’s where he had to surrender in Fulton County after Fani Willis’s RICO criminal indictment–then was subjected to the normal booking process and the infamous mug. Not a pleasant experience for the former president. And that criminal case still hangs over his head.”
That criminal case is DEAD.
“So DJT is in a no win situation. If he refuses the proposed debate a lot of voters will perceived that as cowardice.”
Yes, the man who was hit in the war by a Bullet and got up almost instantly shouting Fight Fight Fight is a coward ?
Do you live in the real world ?
Trump made a tactical mistake rushing the Biden Debate. Biden was going to fall apart no matter what. It was in Trump’s interest to delay that collapse.
“If he agrees to the debate he will be humiliated again by Harris!”
He was not “humiliated” at the last debate. He did perfectly well – Harris told lots of lies – that MOST people KNOW are lies.
The Moderators ganged up on him – I know you do not understand this – but when it takes 3 people to deal with you – that means YOU are strong.
Harris did prove that she could memorize non answers to questions she is given in advance.
My suggestion to Trump would be – demand a Townhall debate – moderators who do nothing except keep time and manage mics.
Or have the candidates ask each other questions. Regardless, since Harris is rushing – because she NEEDS another debate, Trump should require something where
Harris will NOT know the questions ahead.
Regardless, my prediction is there WILL be another debate – possibly more. That because Harris needs the debate – Trump will be able to control the conditions.
Though honestly A repeat of the 2nd debate – the first with Harris, would be fine with me.
You can rant over and over that Trump lost, and Trump can pick up another point or two in the polls.
Why does Harris want another debate ? I though she Won ?
RCP has the battlegrounds Tie.
They have Harris behind in GA, and AZ by nearly 2 pts.
They have Harris up in PA by 0.7 – which is NOT good for her.
They have her up by 1.7 in Michigan – which means Michigan is still in play.
They have her up in WI by 1.0
And up in NV by 0.2
Now look at the actual polls – several Polls have Trump significantly ahead – those were bias +2D in 2020
If that holds in 2024 – Trump is 2pts ahead of where his BEST polls say he is.
Those polls that have Harris leading were biased +5-+10D in 2020 That is REALLY bad for Harris.
Now maybe the polls are accurate – but I can not recall a presidential contest in which the polls were not on average Biased for Democrats right up to election day.
Trump is running 4pts ahead of where he was in 2020 in Battlegrounds and 4.6% ahead of where he was in 2024 nationally.
His favorability is 8pts ahead of where it was in 2020.
If all the poll averages are correct – which they have never been at this time before – this is a horse race.
But if the polls have even half the error they had in 2020 and 2016 – Trump is way ahead and will sweep all the swing states.
I would note that while he is NOT going to win NY or CA and not likely to win VA – All of those will be closer than in the past.
Trump is on track to win the popular vote and that will be the end of this
I would further note that Testor is losing badly in Montana which means the GOP controls the Senate no matter what.
And there are 6 other Senate seats that are within 5pts which at this point in the election with Democrat incumbents running this weak is very bad for D’s It is possible – even probable that Dems will hold them all – but it will be by low single digit margins.
If Indiana State, or any other college or university, is incapable of adequately securing its campus to the extent that individuals may freely exercise their right to speak (or any other basic right), that institution should shut its doors until such time as it is able to provide that security, and refund in full any tuition that it has accepted under the false pretense that it can provide such security.
If the Constitution does not provide that security, the Communist Manifesto will.
If the Constitution does not provide that security, the “dictatorship of the proletariat” will.
Just ask “Crazy Abe” Lincoln.
Sad to say but incivility in politics in the United States is as old as the Republic. Not an excuse but simply an observation. This had resulted in Duels (Burr-Hamilton) and caning of an opponent prior to the Civil War with serious injury to the victimized. The pamphlets and wall posters of the mid and late 19th century would curl your hair. Some of the worst were directed at Abe Lincoln. That being said civility had seemed to improve through the 20th century but seems, of late, to be deteriorating again.
One of the best was about Grover Cleveland (D) which was “Ma, Ma, where’s my Pa?” Since he was alleged to have an illegitimate child according to the Republicans. The Democratic response was “Gone to Washington, Ha, Ha, Ha”. Lincoln was often characterized as an ape.
We have typically had full contact politics. But it would be more productive for there to be civility to a greater degree.
But even more important is for all to be heard and allowed to speak and especially on Universities.
James Buchanan- The Anti-Lincoln
_______________________________________
“Buchanan didn’t think the seceding states had the right to leave the Union, but he also didn’t want to use military force to make them stay.”
– History
___________
James Buchanan, Congress, and the Supreme Court understood and KNEW that secession was not prohibited by the Constitution and was, therefore, fully constitutional.
Lincoln’s denial of secession was unconstitutional, as were all acts of Lincoln—the Civil War, the failure of immigration law, and the improperly ratified “Reconstruction Amendments.”
Lincoln’s acts await retroactive correction and overturning, as was the case with totally corrupt Roe v. Wade.
Culturally we stand upon the same precipice today as the Nation did in 1860. While there are many differences at play now than there were then, never the less roughly half this country’s populace no longer has anything in common with, nor any shared values with, the other half.
Ole Jeff Davis must be laughing in his grave. “Told y’all so.”
In a society of laws, the laws must be adhered to.
Secession is not prohibited and is constitutional.
Lincoln’s entire “Reign of Terror,” Lincoln’s entire era was and remains unconstitutional and awaits overturning and correction.
Unconstitutional and totally corrupt Roe v. Wade was overturned and corrected after 50 years of false constitutionality.
It’s the law that matters.
Anonymous – we are already in the midst of a civil war – but it is not going to be fought with rifles as in 1860.
I had written earlier that I would contact the Indiana State Attorney General but have changed tactics and contacted my state senator who I personally know and is a leader in the state senate. Hopefully this will bring some clarity to ISU and it’s responsibilities to the citizens and students of Indiana.
Turley consistently overlooks the broader context to present a simplistic argument. It’s worth noting that this comes after the controversial issue involving the false claims about Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, allegedly eating people’s pets. These claims have been debunked numerous times by the very individuals who originated them. Despite being informed multiple times that the stories are false, JD Vance and Trump continue to propagate this misinformation.
The perpetuation of these false narratives is a deliberate attempt to vilify and dehumanize the legal immigrants residing in Springfield. The town has greatly benefited from the Haitian community, as they have helped meet the town’s labor needs. The dissemination of these false stories by racists and bigots has fueled hatred and resentment toward the Haitian population and is clearly motivated by political gain. This has unmistakable racist undertones and aims to perpetuate these stories despite being debunked by the town’s mayor, police, and the individual who initiated the falsehood.
In light of this situation, the unintentional mispronunciation of the word “migrant” justified the decision to cancel the event. Although it was an innocent mistake, it has already tainted the speaker’s credibility, particularly because he is associated with the conservative publication National Review. Given this association, the speaker’s views are inevitably linked to those of JD Vance and Trump, who continue to insist on the truth of these stories despite lacking evidence.
Has the National Review acknowledged that the Springfield, Ohio, stories are untrue? Has it made any effort to acknowledge that the pursuit of these false stories is damaging the town’s reputation? Students are already aware that these stories are baseless. Allowing the speakers to proceed with their speech could pose a significant problem, and safety is a legitimate concern.
Listen, little twit.
a. It is “Mr. Turley,” or “Dr. Turley” or “Professor Turley” to YOu. b. A claim may be unproven, without evidence, but if you declare it FALSE, then the burden transfers to you. That’s basic stuff, George. c. the motivated intention to jump on Lowry’s “migrant” pronunciation as racist is as laughable as you are.
Anonymous, I can address Turley however I want. It’s a free country.
I” ‘m not declaring the story is false. The story has been false for a week now by various news organizations. If you have doubts, you are perfectly free to look it up because I suspect that if I provide evidence, you will first dismiss it because of who reported it or because it was “misquoted” by the media. The best way to assuage your bias concerns is to find out for yourself and choose whatever news source YOU find credible. However, I have a hunch. No matter what I say, you will dig deeper and deeper into denial, looking for excuses that will help maintain your delusion that the media is lying to you and that the only way you could be convinced is if Trump or Vance tell you directly. The problem is they will never admit they were lying or were continuing to peddle the lie after being told the stories are untrue.
It’s all out there for you. Just a few keystrokes away, and in less than a second, all the information you seek will appear on your screen.
The third part of your ‘response’ is just my opinion, based on the facts that are known and the sad reality that conservatives are indeed stuck with the image of being racists because conservatives keep saying idiotic racist things all the time. The fact that the National Review author almost let slip a derogatory word caught himself and corrected himself hinted it was more than just an innocent mistake; it was more of a Freudian slip because it may have been what he meant.
The National Review put out an article on the issue on Sept 13 and briefly touched on the pet-eating issue, still leaving the idea that it may still be valid after being debunked multiple times. They focus instead on the ‘harms’ the influx of Haitians has caused by noting with a clear undertone of disingenuousness that while they are indeed there legally, they are also usurping ‘limited’ resources and bringing with them their pre-existing cultural predilections as if that never happens with any other immigrant groups. The town has seen an improvement in its economic outlook, and yes, there are housing issues. Indeed, legally, they are also usurping ‘limited’ resources, a common excuse used to argue that they don’t belong there. We can always work on creating more resources and infrastructure to accommodate more people. There is more than just worrying about “limited resources” or what kinds of cultural predilections they will bring with them. The Review was implying that they are bringing ideas and values that may “taint” ours, and that sounds kinda racist. It almost sounds like, “We don’t want these dirty people because, well…look where they are from?”
no, george, YOU called the claims false, at least three times in your screed. If you wish to remove the burden, you should have cited that OTHERS called the claims false, but instead YOU made those claims, not others, dishonest twit. Stop trying to blame others.
George, YOU said “The perpetuation of these false narratives is a deliberate attempt to vilify…”
and “The dissemination of these false stories by racists and bigots has fueled hatred…”
and “Has it made any effort to acknowledge that the pursuit of these false stories is damaging the town’s reputation?”
Anonymous (Davey),
“ If you wish to remove the burden, you should have cited that OTHERS called the claims false, but instead YOU made those claims, not others, dishonest twit. Stop trying to blame others.”
You should pay better attention. I did cite it. “ The story has been false for a week now by various news organizations. If you have doubts, you are perfectly free to look it up…”
I pointed out that news organizations have been calling the stories false all week long. You can find out for yourself that I’m correct in this assertion. It only takes a few seconds.
“ George, YOU said “The perpetuation of these false narratives is a deliberate attempt to vilify…”
and “The dissemination of these false stories by racists and bigots has fueled hatred…”
and “Has it made any effort to acknowledge that the pursuit of these false stories is damaging the town’s reputation?”
That’s my opinion on why JD Vance and Trump are still peddling these false stories. The stories about pet eating have already been proven to be untrue. That is no longer in dispute except for Trump and Vance who will not admit their BS has been called out. That’s just a fact.
I’m confident you will find the information you seek and trust YOUR choice of source instead of mine. If you can’t handle that, then it’s entirely your problem.
no george, do you have a reading comprehension and context problem? You FIRST pointed out the news organizations, THEN YOU WENT ON TO MAKE YOUR OWN STATEMENTS as I cited. YOU should pay better attention–to what you write, and in what context. clown
Anonymous (Davey),
“ You FIRST pointed out the news organizations, THEN YOU WENT ON TO MAKE YOUR OWN STATEMENTS as I cited. ”
HAHAHAAHA!
“ you should have cited that OTHERS called the claims false,…”
I did. You just admitted it. “You FIRST pointed out the news organizations…”. Duh.
Then, I made my own statements and expressed my opinion on the issue. You seem to be very confused.
It seems you want to believe you understand what you are reading, but you do not. Reading Comprehension and context must be an extreme challenge for you. I sympathize; I genuinely do. But you won’t get anywhere until you try to get it right. Otherwise, you’ll end up in a vicious circular argument that you can’t get out of.
Calling someone a liar is MORE than an opinion – it is defamation if not 100% correct.
Worse still it makes YOU a liar if YOU do not prove the lie beyond a reasonable doubt.
Yes you argued a double fallacy – an appeal to the opinion of an alleged authority.
“I’m confident you will find the information you seek and trust YOUR choice of source instead of mine. If you can’t handle that, then it’s entirely your problem.”
George we are likely more aware of your sources than you are.
We also know what a logic error is when we see one.
We know what an opinion masquerading as fact is.
I do not disagree that the media has claimed this is false, that it is debunked.
But a claim is NOT proof.
Not by the media, and not by public officials.
When you say something is debunked when you call others liars – that requires a higher standard of proof than I do not accept the evidence as credible.
” The story has been false for a week now by various news organizations.”
I am not concerned about the truth of the story. What concerns me is your lack of critical thinking skills. Just because media entities say something doesn’t mean that something is true or false. A credible individual recognizes how many lies came from the media during the Trump administration. You can’t separate fact from fiction, so you are the last person to listen to.
Where is the proof the story is not valid?
S. Meyer,
“ I am not concerned about the truth of the story. What concerns me is your lack of critical thinking skills. Just because media entities say something doesn’t mean that something is true or false. A credible individual recognizes how many lies came from the media during the Trump administration. You can’t separate fact from fiction, so you are the last person to listen to.
Where is the proof the story is not valid?”
You already admitted that you don’t care if the stories are true. So why do you need proof? You know you can find out for yourself and use sources YOU trust. But you already admitted that you don’t care if the stories are true. That tells me that you know they are in the back of your mind. You don’t want to openly admit it because it would expose you to the horrible realization that Trump and Vance lied to you. It’s better to ignore it and not deal with that than acknowledge that it is indeed true.
That is correct, Svelaz. I am more concerned with your lack of critical thinking skills. You have almost none, while others with similar low IQs as yours seem to have more.
“The stories about pet eating have already been proven to be untrue.”
I don’t know the truth and am looking for it, but I shouldn’t expect verified facts when I look at you. Lies, yes; facts, no.
” You know you can find out for yourself and use sources YOU trust.”
That demonstrates how stupid you are. I use good sources, and without more data, they would not be able to prove one way or the other. You need to look up what proof is.
“to the horrible realization that Trump and Vance lied to you. ”
They didn’t lie. They repeated what they heard.
However, in the process, they drew people’s attention to the migrant crisis all over America. There are reports of Haitian drivers with temporary licenses, some criminals who cannot read the signs running people over. Some were killed.
The number of Haitians added to the area was 15,000-30,000. The number of people living in Springfield is less than 60,000. You may be too stupid about what an effect the number of migrants has in the city, but the people living there aren’t. You don’t think, or better said, you can’t think. Think of the infrastructure needed: housing, hospitals, schools, police, and roads.
You are the type of dope that people should never pay attention to.
“ They didn’t lie. They repeated what they heard.”
HAHAHAHAH!
They did lie, S. Meyer. They “heard” it from other people they never identified. Don’t you wonder why they never identified those people?
The Stories have already been tracked down to one lady posting on Facebook about not finding her cat and blaming the immigrants for it. What has been found is that her missing cat was in her basement the whole time. She has since apologized to her Haitian neighbors and has tried to correct the error, but Trump and Vance, after being told about the error, continue to tell the story as if it’s still true. That is called lying, S. Meyer.
Then you make these absurd assumptions about my ‘critical thinking skills’ while babbling on about irrelevant issues I already know about because I have posted about them multiple times here.
S. Meyer, take some reading classes. They would do you some good.
“They did lie, S. Meyer. They “heard” it from other people they never identified. Don’t you wonder why they never identified those people?”
Let us laugh at you, Svelaz, who believed and touted the errant reports from the NY Times and Washington Post for years. We had congressional hearings over things that weren’t true and weren’t even logical. Your bird-brain mind didn’t think about anonymity then, but you do now. Some believe this irrational behavior is due solely to your ideology, but I think it is ideology mixed with stupidity.
“They did lie”
More stupidity Svelaz. You prove that by providing a fact: A woman on FB reported the incident and apologized. At worst, you can accuse them of believing her where there were reasons to believe her. That is not a lie. Your stupidity led you to accuse them of a lie that never occurred (according to your words).
“but Trump and Vance, after being told about the error, continue to tell the story as if it’s still true.”
How do you know what they were told and when? People like you lie and try to deceive all the time. Are they supposed to believe the political operatives that made you so stupid during Trump’s presidency?
“Then you make these absurd assumptions about my ‘critical thinking skills’”
I proved my contentions in my response.
“S. Meyer, take some reading classes. They would do you some good.”
Svelaz, that type of statement works when people talk about you because you repeatedly make yourself look stupid. My posts speak to my credibility, whether one agrees with me or not.
You seem to think that there is only one report.
Why exactly would Vance provide YOU or the media with the names of constituents so that you and the media can harass them and call them liars.
Regardless, there are NUMEROUS actual 911 calls, there are numerous police reports. there is video of suspicious activity, there is video of geese being stolen
I have seen nothing that constitutes ABSOLUTE PROOF.
But we are millions of miles from “debunked” or lying.
George you keep making exactly the same logic error over and over.
This story has NOT been proven false. PERIOD.
When you say it has been debunked – you are not asserting that it is NOT PROVEN TRUE, you are asserting that it is PROVEN FALSE.
These are NOT the same thing. But you conflate them.
When you claim it is debunked – which it clearly has NOT been.
You are making a demonstrably false claim.
And you are falsely accusing others of lying. That is logical and moral failure on your part.
SM does not care about the truth for Two reasons – first – we do not know the truth. We may never know the truth.
Next because you have still made a large logic error and that has lead your to act immorally by falsely claiming others are liars.
John, does Svelaz have the capacity to follow the chain of logic? Most of us can easily do so, but Svelaz cannot retain it even if he can.
“I can address Turley however I want. It’s a free country.”
But it is NOT – and you have made it NOT,
and you are literally arguing that a conservative speaker CAN NOT speak at a govenrment created public forum.
This whole article is about whetther this is a free country and you are LITERALY arguing that it is NOT, and that it SHOULD NOT be.
“I” ‘m not declaring the story is false. ”
Yes you are.
“The story has been false for a week now by various news organizations.”
Since when are they the arbiters of Truth ? This is an absurd argument.
Have you forgotten all the LIES the news organizations have told us just in the past decade ?
The colusions delusion, the hunter biden laptop, that Joe was competent, that Covid came from a wet market, that masks worked, that lockdowns worked,
Precisely WHY should we just take the world of news organizations ?
Vance has actual reports from constituituants – there are police calls, 911 cals, there are government officials raising the issue at city counsel meetings, There is video of geese abuductions and there are reports of actually observing cats being barbecued at a nearby town.
Are these proof beyond a reasonable doubt – no.
Are they debunked – no.
“If you have doubts, you are perfectly free to look it up because I suspect that if I provide evidence, you will first dismiss it because of who reported it or because it was “misquoted” by the media.”
No you will be rejected – because what you provide does not constitute PROOF.
You seem to think that a few city officals saying this is not true – establishes whether it is true of not.
Did Fauxi saying masks worked – make them work ? I can give myriads of examples of public officials lying or just being honestly wrong.
Regardless, what is true or false is decided by evidence. Not by some government officials opinion.
The evidence that Trump and vance have is mostly hearsay. That is NOT proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
One of the MANY reports has proven false – the women’s lost cat returned.
One jew who lived through the holocaust does not prove the holocaust did not occur.
“The best way to assuage your bias concerns is to find out for yourself and choose whatever news source YOU find credible.”
False – again Truth is NOT decided by the media.
“However, I have a hunch. No matter what I say, you will dig deeper and deeper into denial, looking for excuses that will help maintain your delusion that the media is lying to you and that the only way you could be convinced is if Trump or Vance tell you directly.”
The error on the part of the media is more of a logic failure – though in all likelyhood one driven by bias – as we see in you all the time.
There is a difference between:
This has been debunked
Some Govenrment officials says it is false
I do not beleive there is credible evidence.
and the ACTUAL truth – which is most of the evidence is weak, hearsay ro circumstantial.
If the media – or YOU said There was no credible evidence – that would be an opinion – not a fact, but it would also not be a lie.
When you say it is FALSE – you are lying – because your opinion on the evidence is NOT the same as FACT.
“It’s all out there for you. Just a few keystrokes away, and in less than a second, all the information you seek will appear on your screen.”
It is – and it is the self evident logic error of concluding that the absence of evidence the media deems credible is proof of a negative.
Its NOT – that is just simple logic.
The third part of your ‘response’ is just my opinion”
Correct the opinion of a racist, bigot, hateful hating hater, mysoginist who has been wrong about nearly everything he has posted.
George – you have lost on this issue.
First because you – and all those claiming this has been debunked make the simple logic error of conflating the absence of evidence that is in your Opinion credible for proof of absence.
But 2nd because Trump/Vance have FORCED the media to address all the problems of illegal immigration.
We have idiots like you saying that Springfield OH had no difficulty with a sudden 50% increase in school children – all of whom are way behind for their age. With 50% more sewrage, with 50% more water demand, with 50% more housing demand. With large increases in demand for all kinds of things.
That this is magically balanced by filling a handful of jobs.
That claim is FAR MORE absurd than “Their eating the cats”.
“The story has been false for a week”
The story is either true or false. It did not suddenly become false a week ago.
But while the story is true or false – we do not KNOW whether it is true or false.
We know there is alot of evidence it is true, but that much of that evidence is not proof.
If by some miracle a week ago we magically knew for certain that the story was false – Trump and Vance would still have been free to raise it prior to that. But that has NOT happened.
“Asylum” is a colossal communist (liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat, RINO, AINO) fraud.
The Haitians, Mexicans, Central/South Americans, Asians, Arabs, Africans, etc., shouldn’t even be here, much less stealing geese, dogs, cats, pets, and taxpayer dollars and jobs.
100 or 1,000 people may be threatened by their governments but not 20 million.
The singular American failure is the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court.
“100 or 1,000 people may be threatened by their governments but not 20 million. ”
Some would claim (count me among them) that there are 331.5 million people (2020 census) in the US who are threatened by their government. But I know what you meant…
What I meant was the Supreme Court must have struck mass, nation-sized “asylum” down as something entirely political, not related to accretive immigration.
In this case, “asylum” is population “replacement” by Obama who is “fundamentally transforming the Untied States of America.”
Americans are doing nothing to stop this enemy and “asylum” is actually treason, “adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort,” by Obama.
“The town has greatly benefited from the Haitian community, as they have helped meet the town’s labor needs. ”
“Rob Rue said the city was not prepared for the influx of 20,000 Haitians and faced challenges in housing, employment and public safety.”
“local officials plan to open a mobile health clinic in Springfield, hoping to ease the strain on the community’s health care system following the influx of immigrants.”
“Springfield and Clarke County continue to deal with stress on the health care system, law enforcement, infrastructure and schools ”
Population of Springfield <60,000
We have a nutcase, Svelaz, posting on this blog.
No, S. Meyer, we have an ignoramus in you trying to make sense of things you barely understand.
Nobody is questioning the problem of housing and healthcare with the new influx of immigrants. That is a social issue, not an economic one. Springfield had a big problem finding enough workers to sustain companies based there. The influx of legal Haitian immigrants helped them and made them better economically. However, they also create a need to expand other services and needs that should involve the state. Increasing housing and healthcare capacity CREATES jobs for others. You didn’t think about that, did you? Contractors coming from other towns build homes, install utilities, etc. The Haitians are also…GASP! Paying taxes and adding to the local government coffers for infrastructure improvements. All of which creates jobs. Many are harping about immigrants stealing jobs and using up “precious few resources” while ignoring the fact that they are doing the opposite.
“That is a social issue, not an economic one.”
Svelaz, for the people living in that city, social and economic issues merge. You were too stupid to realize “the problem of housing and healthcare with the new influx of immigrants.” As I and others often repeat, you have no critical thinking skills.
“Springfield had a big problem finding enough workers to sustain companies based there.”
If you say something like that, you must know how many workers they need. You must also appreciate the skill sets required, such as the ability to speak English. 15,000-30,000 immigrants to the area where the city of Springfield has less than 60,000. Your words make you look stupider with every sentence.
“The influx of legal Haitian immigrants helped them and made them better economically.”
Is that why the state has to send millions of dollars while local and state officials are looking toward the federal government for financial relief. Don’t you see how stupid you sound?
“The influx of legal Haitian immigrants helped them and made them better economically.”
How much taxes are they paying and how much money are they taking out of the system? You can’t add or subtract so we have to listen to the ridiculous statements you make. You should have spent more time in elementary school.
George – the pets claim has NOT been debunked.
You pay no attention – video has surfaced of several people – including one city official raising the matter at city counsel meetings many months ago.
It has not been PROVEN beyond a reasonable doubt – but that is NOT the same as it has been debunked.
We get this nonsense from those of you on the left all the time.
If an issue favors the left – it is True until proven beyond any doubt to be false – such as the collusion delusion or therussian disinformation nonsense.
If an issue favors the right it is False until proven beyond any doubt to be true.
Has the immigrants eating pets story been proven beyond any doubt ? No.
Are there LOTS of public records of claims where only a few have proven false ? Yes.
ONE person claiming they did not witness what they reported is NOT “debunked” – it is not even an actual recantation.
It just relagates their claim to hearsay – which is not normally admissible in the court of law, but is absolutely admissable in the court of public oppinon.
That is NOT the standard for “debunked”.
I would further note that – even if it was possible to prove that no cats were eaten by Haitians – that would not actually change anything.
Numerous claims were made over the course of 18months asserting that was True. Trump and Vance are entitled to presume that those claims are plausible.
I am honestly surprised that you are continuing this fight – Trump won this fight.
Left wing nuts memed him and he memed them back even stronger.
Further Trump has Everyone talking about the problems of immigration – which the media had tried to bury before.
This was a big win for Trump.
Next – they are NOT migrants. Migrants come and return willingly – such as migrant farm workers.
Immigrants come to STAY – these people came to stay.
They came ILLEGALLY to stay and Biden/Harris gave them temporary amnesty.
Next we are talking about Haitians. No one is trying to “dehumanize” them – they are perfectly human, they are also poorly educated, badly governed, incredibly backward superstitious. It would be very hard to find a group of immigrants anywhere in the world who are as backward.
Are they being vilified ? Certainly – if US immigration law is enforced – we CHOOSE where we will take immigrants from.
We would choose Chinese, or Indian over Haitians. We would choose people from most of south or central american over hatians, we would choose people from much of the middle east over haitians. There are SOME places in africa that are equally backward – but not many.
“The town has greatly benefited from the Haitian community, as they have helped meet the town’s labor needs.”
NO Springfiled has NOT greatly benefited – your nuts if you think a town in OH with a population of 40K has a labor shortage of 20K
I would separtely note that Springfield does not have the schools, nor other infrastructure – water, sewer, etc to instantly support a 50% increase in population.
You are just arguing nonsense – EVERYWHERE that Biden/Harris have dumped illegal immigrants has been hit with massive problems and costs – including places like NYC.
It is not bigotry to note that Haiti is a $hithole country – because it is.
Right next to Haiti is the Domiican Republic – they share the same island. The standard of living in the DR is a hundred times higher the education is dramatically better, and the governmetn is much much better.
I know many LEGAL immigrants from the DR – lawyers, Pastors, professionals.
It is not bigotry to see the world as it actually is.
“In light of this situation, the unintentional mispronunciation of the word “migrant” justified the decision to cancel the event. ”
Nope. It would be unconstitutional to cancel the even even if the speaker had intentionally used the N word.
We are dealing with a STATE college – that is Government, and a government created public forum for free speech.
There is no allowable “Safety” justification in the first amendment for violating the first amendment.
“Although it was an innocent mistake, it has already tainted the speaker’s credibility, particularly because he is associated with the conservative publication National Review.”
What a completely absurd argument. Only a left wing nut would make such a stupid claim.
You are free as an individual to rate the credibility of the National Review however you wish.
AS Government you are completely barred from treating conservative voices differently than those of the left PERIOD.
Further there is no litmus test on first amendment rights. – you can not be denied them even you believe something actually false,
Much less as YOU are asserting – something that your ideology does not accept.
You claim that the pet eating has been debunked – HOW ? You can not prove a negative.
Have you verified that not a single pet in springfield is missing ? That no strays have disappeared ?
Do you have a perfectly accurate census of all pets and all strays ?
You do not and you can not.
You can say that there is no evidence that YOU deem credible to support the claim – just as you said about Hunter Biden’s laptop or the claim that Covid came from Chinese labs.
But others are free to weight he evidence differently – and there is evidence.
The fact that it is not convincing to YOU is not the same as “debunked”
‘Safety concerns’ translates into the refusal to hold answerable to the letter of the law, any and all individuals who violate it. Hence, the mob rules on the college campus’ of this nation.