Liberals: Freedom of speech for me but not for thee

[BeatMan]

Whether or not presidential aspirant Donald Trump's decision to cancel his rally in Chicago Friday night was proper, the reaction to it from liberals is telling. Illinois' senior senator, Dick Durbin, who is a Democrat, responded:

"You step back now and take a look, you say, that was an odd choice of venue for Trump unless he was ready to risk that possibility," Democratic U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin said Saturday. "It was pretty obvious to anyone looking at that campus, you think, why would Donald Trump not be at some conservative, suburban venue rather than coming right into the heart of Chicago's diversity?"

The chilling implications of his reaction, not to mention the internal contradictions of this statement boggle the mind--until one sadly realizes Durbin is a politician, a Democrat and represents corrupt Illinois.

So, let's step back now and take a look at Durbin's saying "that was an odd choice of venue." Oh? The University of Illinois in Chicago (UIC) is a government funded public institution. Its auditorium is a popular venue for a variety of programs open to the public and not university related, including concerts and speakers, after they've made the necessary arrangements including payment. The Clintons--both Hillary and Bill--have spoken there.

After all, this is a university where freedom of speech is so important for a good education. Well apparently UIC doesn't think so. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has given the university's speech code its worst rating--red--because of its restrictions on free speech. FIRE cites these reasons from the university's code of conduct:


To succeed personally and academically, an individual must be able to live free from unnecessary emotional stress caused by others. Hazing, physical or emotional harassment, or behavior which other persons find intimidating, abusive, or offensive to residents or staff, will not be tolerated in a residence hall community and will result in disciplinary action.

[...]

The following conduct is expressly prohibited: … Using offensive, vulgar, and/or insensitive language such as excessive swearing (particularly when directed toward another person or office), partaking in conduct which is disorderly, lewd, or indecent and/or creating a breach of peace or engaging in activity that would otherwise reflect poorly upon the Campus Housing and UIC community



Interestingly, in spite of these red warnings, the school had no problem hiring Bill Ayers--a terrorist, who happened to be "just a neighbor" and who happened to hold an early fund raiser for soon to be Senator Barack Obama (D).

The school also had no problem initially hiring Steven Salaita, although he made numerous remarks against Jews and Israelis and then, after numerous complaints and potential lawsuits unhiring him, ultimately paying a high price for their careless actions. (Well, the taxpayers paid the highprice.)

But apparently the powers that be at UIC didn't consider that some students would suffer necessary "emotional stress and the language of these two professors, such as Ayers proudly stepping on an American flag not to be "offensive, vulgar and/or insensitive."

No problem with that according to the university powers.

Back to politician Durbin: "risk that possibility." What possibility? What risk? Again, does the senator, who is pledged to uphold the Constitution, not believe in freedom of speech? Is freedom of speech for some people risky?

Perhaps in corrupt Chicago in corrupt Illinois, it is.

Durbin further asked, "why would Donald Trump not be at some conservative, suburban venue?" Well, obviously he does appear at those places but is he restricted to them? After all, the man wants to be president of the entire country not just suburban conservatives. How would Durbin the Democrat, who incidentally is from a small town, react if he were told he could only appear in urban, heavily Democrat locales because conservative suburban areas were too "risky"?

And finally Durbin finished with "rather than coming right into the heart of Chicago's diversity?" Diversity? Where is the diversity? The students, faculty and protesters who descended on the school are blindly uniform, molded into the conformity of a herd of unthinking, interchangeable robots which collapse into panic and rioting at even the thought of hearing and seeing someone who looked, sounded, said and acted differently from their limited knowledge. They are proudly close minded and intend to stay well in their small comfort zone and woe to anyone who tries to breach it.

Indeed, the delicate snowflake students and faculty were so infuriated at the possibility of hearing and seeing someone with whom they disagreed that they signed numerous petitions demanding the university cancel the Trump rally.

Ah, if only these university student and faculty liberals, led by Senator Dick Durbin, would dare venture into "some conservative suburban venue" they would learn so much without any risk to their safety. But it would be risky to their narrow minded beliefs so they won't do it.

More the pity.



http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/liberals_freedom_of_speech_for_me_but_not_for_thee.html

 

[Johan]

Freedom of speech is not an excuse for inflamatory speeches in particulary sensitives places.

A Trump rally on the UIC campus is like a muslim speaker at the Voter Values Convention, a neo-nazi in a synagogue, a speech fom David Duke on Martin Luther King's Day, Ted Cruz partiocipating to the LGBT Pride March, etc.

 

[Rey C.]

Freedom of speech is not an excuse for inflamatory speeches in particulary sensitives places.

A Trump rally on the UIC campus is like a muslim speaker at the Voter Values Convention, a neo-nazi in a synagogue, a speech fom David Duke on Martin Luther King's Day, Ted Cruz partiocipating to the LGBT Pride March, etc.

I have no use for the reality TV, circus sideshow that is Donald J. Trump. But the big difference between your examples and this one is this fact, stated in the OP: The University of Illinois in Chicago (UIC) is a government funded public institution. If Harvard doesn't want to let Trump speak or if Bob Jones University doesn't want to let Al Sharpton speak or if Duke doesn't want to let [NOBABE]Gloria Steinem[/NOBABE] speak, that's their right as private institutions. That's how I see it anyway.

If I was a student at UIC, I might not want to hear what Trump had to say. And it would be my right to (peacefully) protest. But I would oppose the PC Thought Police deciding who was or wasn't allowed to speak on campus. This goes back to my pet peeve about "hate speech" simply being speech that's hated by those of a certain political stripe, and they decide to remove its 1st Amendment protections.


Resist the Thought Police til that last shovel of dirt covers your face!

 

[Straight Shooter]

And yet Trump is the one who wants to "open up" libel laws

At a rally on Friday, during which the Republican frontrunner was endorsed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Donald Trump vowed revenge on the U.S. press by promising “to open up our libel so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”

To avoid all doubt about which newspapers he had in mind (i.e., ones that had criticised him) Trump continued: “So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”

Welcome to my world, Donald, where the biggest threat to free speech is not press regulation or laws against incitement or harassment, but our chilling and atavistic laws of defamation.

Unlike U.S. libel laws—which, since the 1964 Supreme Court decision New York Times v Sullivan, require proof of “actual malice”—in the U.K. the burden is on the defendant to prove that a reputation has not been damaged.

Say I claim that I believe Donald Trump is a reactionary populist who barely comprehends the sentences independently issued from his mouth—I’d still be liable to be sued here, unless I could prove that opinion was an honest one

Were I to go on and claim that, in terms of business success, Donald Trump only made his small fortune having inherited a bigger one, I could still be sued, though I would have a defence of “truth” since the wealth of the presidential hopeful would have grown as much if he’d invested his original legacy into a standard S&P 500 linked stock market fund.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...lly-don-t-want-donald-trump-s-libel-laws.html

 

[Jack Davenport]

The flawed assumption here is that no one wanted to hear Trump or supports him that attend the university.

Your first Amendment rights do not give you carte blanche to infringe upon another's first Amendment rights.

Bad choice considering the current climate at universities but this was probably a calculated move.

 

[Straight Shooter]

I'm going to slit my wrists if I hear one more conservative say that Trump's 1st Amendment rights were violated. For the millionth time the 1st applies only to the government. It restrains Congress from prohibiting or punishing speech(though with some exceptions). The government did not shut down Trump's rally. But this doesn’t mean the anti-Trump protesters are free and clear to simply barge into any event or home they see fit.

 

[Will E Worm]

Freedom of speech is not an excuse for inflamatory speeches in particulary sensitives places.

A Trump rally on the UIC campus is like a muslim speaker at the Voter Values Convention, a neo-nazi in a synagogue, a speech fom David Duke on Martin Luther King's Day, Ted Cruz partiocipating to the LGBT Pride March, etc.

Wrong, and there's nothing wrong with David Duke.

I'm going to slit my wrists if I hear one more conservative say that Trump's 1st Amendment rights were violated. For the millionth time the 1st applies only to the government. It restrains Congress from prohibiting or punishing speech(though with some exceptions). The government did not shut down Trump's rally. But this doesn’t mean the anti-Trump protesters are free and clear to simply barge into any event or home they see fit.

The first amendment applies to we the people. We have freedom of speech and thought.

Even though by birthright we have the right to freedom of speech and to have weapons.

No one needs permission.

 

[Jack Davenport]

I'm going to slit my wrists if I hear one more conservative say that Trump's 1st Amendment rights were violated. For the millionth time the 1st applies only to the government. It restrains Congress from prohibiting or punishing speech(though with some exceptions). The government did not shut down Trump's rally. But this doesn’t mean the anti-Trump protesters are free and clear to simply barge into any event or home they see fit.

Who said his rights were violated?

There was no law passed in the state of Illinois recently that impedes the ability of those that want to assemble. However, their rights were infringed upon by a group of fascists that sought to disrupt and silence those that held views that they found objectionable. Which should have at least landed them in jail. The first Amendment implies that they are free to do so without fear of retribution or harm be it the government or an unruly mob or be it through legislation or intimidation. The first Amendment also implies that no individual or individuals can infringe on another's right to exercise their right of assembly.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Who said his rights were violated?

Almost every Trump supporter on Twitter, Megyn Kelly, Newt Gingrich and Trump himself

However, their rights were infringed upon by a group of fascists that sought to disrupt and silence those that held views that they found objectionable. Which should have at least landed them in jail.

Which specific law did they break though?

The first Amendment implies that they are free to do so without fear of retribution or harm be it the government or an unruly mob or be it through legislation or intimidation. The first Amendment also implies that no individual or individuals can infringe on another's right to exercise their right of assembly.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Section One of the 14th Amendment expands the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, but says nothing about an angry mob trying to protest outside a political event.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[Jack Davenport]

Almost every Trump supporter on Twitter, Megyn Kelly, Newt Gingrich and Trump himself



Which specific law did they break though?



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Section One of the 14th Amendment expands the Bill of Rights to state and local governments, but says nothing about an angry mob trying to protest outside a political event.

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Thanks for the refresher course. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with "time, place and manner" the latter of those leave law enforcement and other officials discretion in enforcing what is and what is not considered peaceful or the infringement on the rights of others.

To put it bluntly, you can't walk a city block without breaking a law if law enforcement want to be a pain in the ass.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Thanks for the refresher course. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with "time, place and manner" the latter of those leave law enforcement and other officials discretion in enforcing what is and what is not considered peaceful or the infringement on the rights of others.

To put it bluntly, you can't walk a city block without breaking a law if law enforcement want to be a pain in the ass.

I know about Time, Place and Manner. That and the Miller Test and SLAPS. And how you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. Anyways, a city may require that groups apply for a permit before using a park for demonstrations. The city might insist that the demonstration take place during certain hours. However, the city cannot prohibit such demonstrations outright.

One can argue though that rights were violated at the Trump rally but they weren't 1st amendment rights. It's possible property rights were violated. Or even illegal acts of violence.

I'm not a constitutional expert like you BC but what I know comes from my entertainment law course that I took in college. I still have my legal textbook and all my lecture outlines from the course. We focused mainly on constitutional law, specifically the 1st amendment, copyright, trademark, contracts, business organizations, torts, etc. Those outlines and my textbook come in handy sometimes

 

[Jack Davenport]

Do you really believe that Megyn Kelly is a clueless twit as to what violates the 1st amendment? There are many decisions handed down that clarifies and forms the basis of protecting those rights. Which as a lawyer, she didn't articulate. but is fully aware of inside that pretty little head of hers.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Do you really believe that Megyn Kelly is a clueless twit as to what violates the 1st amendment? There are many decisions handed down that clarifies and forms the basis of protecting those rights. Which as a lawyer, she didn't articulate. but is fully aware of inside that pretty little head of hers.

She said “his First Amendment free speech rights have been shut down.” I agree there have been decisions handed down that clarify the 1st, but none of them apply here because the government did not prohibit any speech. Those protestors can yell and scream all they want....until they commit a crime

 

[sean miguel]

I'm going to slit my wrists if I hear one more conservative say that Trump's 1st Amendment rights were violated.

Trump's 1st Amendment rights were violated.

I kid. Don't do it.

 

[Jack Davenport]

She said “his First Amendment free speech rights have been shut down.” I agree there have been decisions handed down that clarify the 1st, but none of them apply here because the government did not prohibit any speech. Those protestors can yell and scream all they want....until they commit a crime

They weren't peaceful and SCOTUS has ruled that the right to assembly is protected for political, social gatherings under the 1st. There was a ruling involving the Jaycees handed down in the late 70's or 80's that clarified this. I'd have to go back and take a look.

In any event Trump wisely postponed. It was going to become very ugly.

 

[Straight Shooter]

They weren't peaceful and SCOTUS has ruled that the right to assembly is protected for political, social gatherings under the 1st. There was a ruling involving the Jaycees handed down in the late 70's or 80's that clarified this. I'd have to go back and take a look.

In any event Trump wisely postponed. It was going to become very ugly.

Yes that's true. But again that pertains to Congress prohibiting free assembly. For example, that is what would allow a group of communists to hold a protest or even the Westboro Baptist Church to protest military funerals as despicable as it is. Simply protesting outside an event and forcing the cancellation isn't a violation of free speech. This also means that Trump can send his supporters to Clinton and Sanders' rallies with intentions to shut them down. It goes both ways. The government cannot outright shut down a public protest or event. A large group of people outside an event can, as long as they are not being belligerent which in that case the police has authority to book them on various charges. I don't agree with what those protestors did, I found it to be a tasteless publicity stunt. But just because it's tasteless doesn't mean it's also a violation of rights/ illegal. Those are two separate things

 

[Jack Davenport]

The 1st Amendment stands on its own in regards to restricting government. The other rulings are secondary opinions. Megyn and Newt are engaging in hyperbole. Slitting your wrists over that is ridiculous. Save that option when a chick breaks your heart or you can't pay your gambling debts.

 

[Johan]

If I was a student at UIC, I might not want to hear what Trump had to say. And it would be my right to (peacefully) protest. But I would oppose the PC Thought Police deciding who was or wasn't allowed to speak on campus. This goes back to my pet peeve about "hate speech" simply being speech that's hated by those of a certain political stripe, and they decide to remove its 1st Amendment protections

We've seen how Trump.and his supporters deal with peacefull protestors...

 

[Jack Davenport]

We've seen how Sanders.and his supporters deal with peaceful assembly..

Oh my! Welcome to freedom Johan.

 

[Johan]

Freedom = Violence ?