Well, I think you've muddied the waters now. You didn't delve into how our courts have defined "incitement of violence" with respect to the First Amendment, especially with respect to such incitement having to be "imminent" calls for "imminent" action.
And it seems pretty clear that you are saying that the First Amendment is too permissiv…
Well, I think you've muddied the waters now. You didn't delve into how our courts have defined "incitement of violence" with respect to the First Amendment, especially with respect to such incitement having to be "imminent" calls for "imminent" action.
And it seems pretty clear that you are saying that the First Amendment is too permissive to be appropriate for college level academic institutions. You even bolster your point by expressing your concern about "hate speech" in the context of your First Amendment argument, even though the term "hate speech" doesn't have a meaningful definition or operative function within our First Amendment legal framework.
You've softened the target for the "you-can't-say-that" crowd, especially by not making clear what it is that you can't say. Like I said, you left out the operative term "imminent" with respect to calls for violence. It's an uncomfortable place to draw the line that does indeed allow people to yell, generally speaking, "Kill the Jews." It doesn't allow them to say, "Let's meet in the quad and go kill some Jews." (Am I allowed to make this argument without expressing how much I abhor such calls?)
So as you push on universities to be tolerant of speech, it's not longer clear what speech you think they should tolerate and what speech they should not. You no longer have the benefit of First Amendment jurisprudence as your ultimate guide. (Was I wrong to think it was?) "Morality," and all its subjective forms, is now in play. As if morality isn't a struggle for each of us to bring into our own views, FAIR becomes another institution that will speak for [fill in which morals here].
I guess I made an incorrect assumption when I thought FAIR's rules were firmly rooted in First Amendment protection of speech. On that point, your position seems to be, "Yes, but..." And that puts you right in step with the university presidents. Your only differences are "moral" ones.
Yes, "morality" is the wrong word (per my earlier comment), but there is no requirement or logic to making institutional codes of conduct -- especially when published and very explicit -- as permissive as the First Amendment.
Well, I think you've muddied the waters now. You didn't delve into how our courts have defined "incitement of violence" with respect to the First Amendment, especially with respect to such incitement having to be "imminent" calls for "imminent" action.
And it seems pretty clear that you are saying that the First Amendment is too permissive to be appropriate for college level academic institutions. You even bolster your point by expressing your concern about "hate speech" in the context of your First Amendment argument, even though the term "hate speech" doesn't have a meaningful definition or operative function within our First Amendment legal framework.
You've softened the target for the "you-can't-say-that" crowd, especially by not making clear what it is that you can't say. Like I said, you left out the operative term "imminent" with respect to calls for violence. It's an uncomfortable place to draw the line that does indeed allow people to yell, generally speaking, "Kill the Jews." It doesn't allow them to say, "Let's meet in the quad and go kill some Jews." (Am I allowed to make this argument without expressing how much I abhor such calls?)
So as you push on universities to be tolerant of speech, it's not longer clear what speech you think they should tolerate and what speech they should not. You no longer have the benefit of First Amendment jurisprudence as your ultimate guide. (Was I wrong to think it was?) "Morality," and all its subjective forms, is now in play. As if morality isn't a struggle for each of us to bring into our own views, FAIR becomes another institution that will speak for [fill in which morals here].
I guess I made an incorrect assumption when I thought FAIR's rules were firmly rooted in First Amendment protection of speech. On that point, your position seems to be, "Yes, but..." And that puts you right in step with the university presidents. Your only differences are "moral" ones.
Yes, "morality" is the wrong word (per my earlier comment), but there is no requirement or logic to making institutional codes of conduct -- especially when published and very explicit -- as permissive as the First Amendment.