College Turmoil

[Ken]

There is no absolute right to free speech and never has been. Not in public spaces, not in universities, not anywhere. That whole notion is a myth.

Actually, there is an absolute right to free speech. Let's read the Constitution.

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.

I don't see any limits there. Do you?

Take the satanic altars for example.

Last I checked, assembling an altar isn't "speaking". The first amendment also covers "respecting an establishment of religion", which is a different part of the sentence than "freedom of speech".

Likewise at universities or anywhere else. There is no absolute right to free speech in any context and never has been. There are lots of things I could say or publish that would get me expelled from any university public or private. And that is as it should be.

There is an absolute right to free speech as far as federal legislation and regulation is concerned (and this amendment has been found by the courts to be incorporated against state and local laws as well). That doesn't mean a private entity can't regulate behaviour on its own campus. But for a public university, they really do have almost no space to regulate people SPEAKING. They can, however, regulate other things. For example, they can establish rules about WHEN someone can speak in class, or who is admitted to classes, or who is even admitted onto the grounds. But they can't restrict people speaking.

You are wrong. What I said was that there is no ABOLUTE right to free speech. And there isn't.

The First Amendment applies only to the Government and not private universities. But even so, it is not remotely a ABSOLUTE right to free speech. The government restricts speech all the time:

A TV station can't broadcast obscenity or pornography over the pubic airwaves
They cannot publish or broadcast copyrighted materials for which they have not obtained the rights
They can't broadcast or publish libel or slander
They cannot incite violence, insurrection, etc.
They cannot publish or broadcast any classified or confidential material.

Furthermore, the government has extremely wide latitude to restrict speech on government property including restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech. Government employees can and are fired for speech that conflicts with their agencies objectives or purpose. And all government employees are prohibited under the Hatch Act from using any government time or resources to promote or oppose any candidate or promote or oppose any political message. And if you are in the military, try using your free speech rights to tell your commanding officer where to stuff it and see how far that gets you. Or for that matter, just go speak at a political rally in uniform and see what happens.

And those are just restrictions on speech by the government itself. Private institutions have near total ability to restrict speech in any way they see fit.

[Josh]

A TV station can't broadcast obscenity or pornography over the pubic airwaves

There isn’t really any right of free speech on “public airwaves” and never has been.

They cannot publish or broadcast copyrighted materials for which they have not obtained the rights

People have complete freedom to stand on a street corner or in their own private building and speak copyright material. As I said earlier, the “airwaves” are not a free speech zone, but are provided under licence. For example, on ham radio, you can’t send encrypted transmissions.

They can't broadcast or publish libel or slander

This is a special area of law and has significant boundaries for free speech.

They cannot publish or broadcast any classified or confidential material.

Yes they can and news outlets do this all the time. A person who had a clearance can get in trouble for sharing it. Someone who didn’t have a clearance and doesn’t work for the government, won’t. There is plenty of court precedent about this.

Furthermore, the government has extremely wide latitude to restrict speech on government property including restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech. Government employees can and are fired for speech that conflicts with their agencies objectives or purpose. And all government employees are prohibited under the Hatch Act from using any government time or resources to promote or oppose any candidate or promote or oppose any political message. And if you are in the military, try using your free speech rights to tell your commanding officer where to stuff it and see how far that gets you. Or for that matter, just go speak at a political rally in uniform and see what happens.

And those are just restrictions on speech by the government itself. Private institutions have near total ability to restrict speech in any way they see fit.

As I said earlier. The government doesn’t have the authority to abridge free speech by private citizens. Stop muddying the waters by bringing up irrelevant topics.

[Valerie]

There is no absolute right to free speech at all. Otherwise you'd not be threatened with being politically incorrect by "saying" the wrong words with a potential for legal consequences.

[Josh]

There is no absolute right to free speech at all. Otherwise you'd not be threatened with being politically incorrect by "saying" the wrong words with a potential for legal consequences.

The federal government isn’t supposed to abridge free speech, although a lot of liberals would like to.

And now, some conservatives, too, who want to abridge free speech if they don’t like what it says about Palestine.

[Valerie]

There is no absolute right to free speech at all. Otherwise you'd not be threatened with being politically incorrect by "saying" the wrong words with a potential for legal consequences.

The federal government isn’t supposed to abridge free speech, although a lot of liberals would like to.

And now, some conservatives, too, who want to abridge free speech if they don’t like what it says about Palestine.

I see nothing wrong with what's being said about Palestine but I realize your church limits your complete informed information. Non support of terrorists and those who support them should be condemned

[Josh]

There is no absolute right to free speech at all. Otherwise you'd not be threatened with being politically incorrect by "saying" the wrong words with a potential for legal consequences.

The federal government isn’t supposed to abridge free speech, although a lot of liberals would like to.

And now, some conservatives, too, who want to abridge free speech if they don’t like what it says about Palestine.

I see nothing wrong with what's being said about Palestine but I realize your church limits your complete informed information. Non support of terrorists and those who support them should be condemned

I'm not sure where you get this idea my church "limits my complete informed information". I can read newspapers and magazines, both offline and online. Today I read a print edition of USA Today. I often read The Atlantic, The Economist, The Intercept, the New York Times, my local city's newspaper, the Farm & Dairy (which is locally published in Salem, and is a great source of local news), and the other local newspaper from Carrolton. I read some online sources but try to limit that due to the low quality and misinformation. I do subscribe to Matt Taibbi's Substack and read that; I have been an avid reader of Taibbi and Mark Ames since the Exile days back in the 1990s. I also read Michael Tracey and Glenn Greenwald wherever they are published.

I also read The Forward, Tablet Magazine, the Jerusalem Post, and Al-Jazeera news. I took an interest in the Middle East when I worked there, and befriended colleagues and other people ranging from orthodox Jews to non-practicing Jews to a Pakistani-Venezuelan-American Muslim to Arab Catholics to Jewish background converts to Christianity, along with many Russians and Ukrainians, who make a sizeable part of Israel's population now. When over there, I worshipped at a congregation composed of Jewish converts plus Russians/Ukrainians who had grown up Christian in Russia or Ukraine, but had migrated to Israel more recently.

I think coverage of the goings-on at Harvard, Yale, and MIT has been accurate. The university presidents were hauled in front of Congress and questioned harshly with "gotcha" questions by a Republican congresswoman. When they gave fair and accurate answers about how their campuses try to deal with antisemitism whilst balancing the importance of free speech, the Republican congresswoman misportrayed them as condoning and allowing antisemitism on campus. Keep in mind her working definition of "calling for Jewish genocide" is chanting the slogan "from the river to the sea". I don't think that's a reasonable stance to take.

Whilst I don't support the idea of a one-state solution with Palestine and Arabs being in control of that state, I also think it's reasonable for political advocates to support that position. It is a political position. Palestinians and their supporters calling for a one-state solution is no different than Israeli Jews and their supporters (who are often evangelical Christians) to call for a one-state solution. My personal view is a two-state solution as proposed by Yitzakh Rabin and Bill Clinton before he was assassinated is the best solution. I place the blame squarely on Yasser Arafat's poor leadership of the PLO for rejecting that offer. Much like present-day Netanyahu, he wanted a one-state solution. The intransigence of both Arafat and Netanyahu is a betrayal of their people and has in turn cost many lives - both Jewish, Arab, and other ethnicities - Muslim, Christian, atheist, and many others.

Non support of terrorists and those who support them should be condemned

I don't think "non support of terrorists" should be condemned but rather should be celebrated.

[Ken]

A TV station can't broadcast obscenity or pornography over the pubic airwaves

There isn’t really any right of free speech on “public airwaves” and never has been.

They cannot publish or broadcast copyrighted materials for which they have not obtained the rights

People have complete freedom to stand on a street corner or in their own private building and speak copyright material. As I said earlier, the “airwaves” are not a free speech zone, but are provided under licence. For example, on ham radio, you can’t send encrypted transmissions.

They can't broadcast or publish libel or slander

This is a special area of law and has significant boundaries for free speech.

They cannot publish or broadcast any classified or confidential material.

Yes they can and news outlets do this all the time. A person who had a clearance can get in trouble for sharing it. Someone who didn’t have a clearance and doesn’t work for the government, won’t. There is plenty of court precedent about this.

Furthermore, the government has extremely wide latitude to restrict speech on government property including restrictions on the time, place, and manner of speech. Government employees can and are fired for speech that conflicts with their agencies objectives or purpose. And all government employees are prohibited under the Hatch Act from using any government time or resources to promote or oppose any candidate or promote or oppose any political message. And if you are in the military, try using your free speech rights to tell your commanding officer where to stuff it and see how far that gets you. Or for that matter, just go speak at a political rally in uniform and see what happens.

And those are just restrictions on speech by the government itself. Private institutions have near total ability to restrict speech in any way they see fit.

As I said earlier. The government doesn’t have the authority to abridge free speech by private citizens. Stop muddying the waters by bringing up irrelevant topics.

Private universities are not the government and college students or faculty (in their role as college students and faculty) are not private citizens. They are invited members of an institution and as voluntary members of that institution agree to various standards of conduct. No different from how you agreed to standards of conduct when you voluntarily joined your church.

[Josh]

Private universities are not the government and college students or faculty (in their role as college students and faculty) are not private citizens. They are invited members of an institution and as voluntary members of that institution agree to various standards of conduct. No different from how you agreed to standards of conduct when you voluntarily joined your church.

We all know that, Ken,

The entire point is that these institution's Presidents were dragged in front of Congress (which is, for all intents and purposes, the federal government), where a Republican congresswoman exerted pressure to abridge the university's rights to allow students to engage in free speech on campus. In short, the federal government got the President fired for allowing free speech on campus. I think that's wrong. (Harvard and MIT's Presidents are standing firm, but Penn's folded.)

You should know me well enough to know that I'm not at all aligned or in favour of most of what goes on at elite universities, but I also don't think the federal government should be abridging free speech. What that congresswoman did was wrong, and I don't want to see more of it. And this is a political hot button issue - Democrats aren't really fighting it and many are probably afraid to right now.

[temporal1]

Page 8:

i wrote:
.. i don’t believe Ben S would be at odds with HK.
what i understand Ben S to be asking for is: consistent application of university policy, whatever it is. ..

i think this is at the crux of the matter, altho, partisan “noise,” combined with not adequately listening, muddies the waters.

[HondurasKeiser]

Thanks HK, your response reads like an editorial. There is very little there I would disagree with. The liberal project is a runaway train but everyone is along the same track, scoffing those behind them who got off sooner and expressing horror at those who went further. The secular West may experience a "de-creation" event but isn't that the flip side expression of the same passions that produced the horrors of empire, like the Crusades, in previous eras. I am reminded of the epistle to the Hebrews, "We have here no continuing city, for we seek one to come."

For a deeper look at desecration or "de-creation" and the consequences of unshackling ourselves from God-given limitations in the name of Freedom; I recommend Carl Trueman's Erasmus Lecture.

As both Augustine and Freud understood, transgression is pleasurable, and the greater the transgression, the greater the pleasure. Well, there can be no greater transgression than that against the sacred. In killing God, we grant ourselves the privilege of becoming gods ourselves. There is surely no greater exhilaration than in being God. And there is no more dramatic way of being God than in waging a holy war against the God-given nature of embodied human personhood.

There is a heavy price to pay for the desecration of man. In a letter written, like Lewis’s The Abolition of Man lectures, in the early 1940s, Czesław Miłosz commented to his friend Jerzy Andrzejewski that, without a religious and metaphysical underpinning, the word “man” becomes contentless. Elsewhere in the same letter, Miłosz speaks of wartime atrocities being made possible by the philosophical reduction of the human person to a lump of animated meat (or as Mary Harrington put it more recently, “Meat Lego”). Once that reduction is accomplished, Miłosz says, it is easy to imagine young men in clean military uniforms shooting other human beings while also eating their lunch. In Crepuscular Dawn, Paul Virilio observes that the presupposition of Nazi eugenics was that the body possessed no moral significance; camp doctors were therefore free to engage in their horrific experiments with no pang of conscience. Divorced from the image of God and from personhood, the body is animate Play-Doh at best. And so the desecration continues, as recent responses on American university campuses to Hamas violence against Jewish children indicate. Dostoevsky’s Ivan Karamazov, faced with the incalculable suffering of innocent children, was unable to accept that sense could be made of it by any final providential ordering. In a melancholy act of rebellion, he declared that the price of harmony was too high, and he most respectfully returned to God the ticket. Ours is a world that seems all too eager to revel even in the destruction of infants, all enabled by the death of God and the consequent dehumanization that it entails.

Our cultural imagination is steeped in the seemingly endless potential offered by technology. “Man” is an even emptier term for us than it was for Lewis and Miłosz. Technological developments simultaneously destabilize any sense of what it means to be human and push us to see nature as mere raw material. As the folk memory of the Christian moral vision fades, we can define the term “human” however we wish. Indeed, it is this repudiation of the body’s authority that has made the question “What is a woman?” so difficult to answer. Gender confusion is not a discrete phenomenon. It arises from a basic bewilderment about how to answer the question “What is a human?”

This lack of any normative embodied understanding of what it means to be human frees our technologically empowered wills from any limitation. The question of what, if anything, it means to be human is then projected into the future, to the detriment of whatever we have been in the past or are in the present. If to be human is to be embodied according to Christian teaching, then today we are dehumanized, our bodies mere matter without moral or teleological significance, to be moved from potency to act. And yet, having no given nature, our potency has no intrinsic shape to define what that move might look like.