|
The fact that there is such a big difference between Public and Private Universities based on an ever decreasing amount of tax money is lame. Just because the source of money is different doesnt mean there needs to be two sets of rules.
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
I don't know why a workable standard has not yet been proposed, but it isn't a fair inference that such a standard is impossible. There could be thousands of reasons. Off the top of my head: only the supreme court can change the law here, they only take 70-75 cases a year, and the current court probably isn't interested in this, so since it probably won't happen, there hasn't been a serious attempt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 20:48
|
|
|
Free expression is a thing in Germany despite their anti-Nazi laws. So while it may very well not be doable under existing first amendment doctrine, and that may well be the right way to keep things, it's probably not correct to conclude that limiting the speech of nazis necessarily imperils everyone else's speech. I think the better way to address this through the legal system is criminally. These events always feature armed people looking for a fight. Just apply judicious discretion in prosecution decisions. If you come to town wielding torches, clubs and ARs you're probably going to violate some laws. So instead of sitting back and doing nothing as in Charlottesville, arrest and prosecute nazis for everything possible. Government discretion in charging decisions is given considerable deference. It wouldn't even be a bad use of discretion enabled by an overly deferential jurisprudence. These people bring violence with them, it's their express goal, they are an actual menace to public safety. Threats like that are why we give discretion to law enforcement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 20:49
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Free expression is a thing in Germany despite their anti-Nazi laws. Doesn't this assume the local cops aren't fascist-leaning shitheads?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 20:51
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:The fact that there is such a big difference between Public and Private Universities based on an ever decreasing amount of tax money is lame.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
It’ll depend on the state, Pennsylvania shows how such schools would be organized.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
Ardlen posted:This brings up an interesting point. If the state is only giving the public university a pittance, when is that school no longer considered public? I would assume once the state no longer has the ability to control it via appointing board members, etc. Public universities aren't just public because they get state money, they also are state controlled.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:10
|
|
|
Ardlen posted:This brings up an interesting point. If the state is only giving the public university a pittance, when is that school no longer considered public? To start with, university professors and administrators would need to not be literally government employees. In most states (all? I wasn't confident enough to say all states), the government either has direct ultimate control over who runs the university, or they have control over who gets to sit on the board that controls the university. We can't even begin to entertain 1st amendment exceptions on universities unless we're willing to get rid of the concept of a public university altogether. Make them all private, if the university is free of direct government control and merely receives grants without any strings attached, then they can start using their discretion to ban some speakers.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:It’ll depend on the state, Pennsylvania shows how such schools would be organized. Oh yeah, this came up during the Sandusky debacle. PSU argued that since they get only ~10% of their funding from PA, PSU is a "state-related" school, not "public", and thus not under FOIA and public record requests.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:Oh yeah, this came up during the Sandusky debacle. PSU argued that since they get only ~10% of their funding from PA, PSU is a "state-related" school, not "public", and thus not under FOIA and public record requests. Penn State is actually legally designated a state-related school it has gently caress-all to do with their funding percentage. It's a unique designation to Pennsylvania. e: here's details if you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_System_of_Higher_Education fast cars loose anus fucked around with this message at 21:52 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:47
|
|
|
fast cars loose anus posted:Penn State is actually legally designated a state-related school it has gently caress-all to do with their funding percentage. It's a unique designation to Pennsylvania. This strikes me as the key part for this discussion: quote:minority state-representation on each school's board of trustees Not having actual control over the university means there's a much stronger ground for arguing it's not subject to the bill of rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Doesn't this assume the local cops aren't fascist-leaning shitheads? Yes. Anything predicated on the government doing the right thing presumes good faith actors in government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 22:15
|
|
|
Kobayashi posted:Doesn't this assume the local cops aren't fascist-leaning shitheads? I'd also be interested in hearing Jan Böherman's take on German freedom of expression.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
Kazak_Hstan posted:Free expression is a thing in Germany despite their anti-Nazi laws. Germany does things like this. There's more freedom of expression in Germany than in, say, China, but there are definitely limits on it that go well beyond banning advocacy of Nazism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 22:26
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Germany does things like this. There's more freedom of expression in Germany than in, say, China, but there are definitely limits on it that go well beyond banning advocacy of Nazism. As I understand it, in the specific German context this sort of thing should be seen not as simple interference with a right to free expression, but as interaction between the right of personal expression and the competing and contrary right to personal honour, which has been a feature of Germanic legal codes AFAIK since they've had legal codes. Particularly if you go back further than a hundred years you can find all sorts of hilarious stories of ordinary Germans suing each other, with shouts and great action, over incredibly petty little matters because their personal honour was at stake. (If you're interested in this sort of thing, this is an excellent book to read if you can afford to; it talks about defamation law's usage by ordinary citizens against each other as well as the Wilhelmine state using it against ordinary citizens.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
Suppressing Nazi resurgence is a fine goal for Germany, but I have to say: I have not been impressed with their success. But I’m an outsider so what do I know?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 01:58
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Suppressing Nazi resurgence is a fine goal for Germany, but I have to say: I have not been impressed with their success. They've been doing a better job of it than a lot of other countries, to be fair.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 02:34
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:They've been doing a better job of it than a lot of other countries, to be fair. Uhhh...
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 02:49
|
|
|
This kind of poo poo is rampant in the US military (and numerous police departments).
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
It's almost like we shouldn't let Nazis upend our legal system They are going to abuse any process you can dream up, because they are Nazis yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 06:07 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 06:01
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:I'd also be interested in hearing Jan Böherman's take on German freedom of expression. Silver2195 posted:Germany does things like this. There's more freedom of expression in Germany than in, say, China, but there are definitely limits on it that go well beyond banning advocacy of Nazism. In Böhmermann's case the prosecution quickly dropped their investigation as they didn't find anything rising to a criminal level, and the paragraph has since been retired like the outdated relic it is. Kinda seems like the system working as intended there. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
yeah and the guy in the third example won his trial because of course you can call a racist an rear end in a top hat in germany. hate speech laws protecting minorities and making nazi apologia illegal are a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 12:03
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:Germany does things like this. There's more freedom of expression in Germany than in, say, China, but there are definitely limits on it that go well beyond banning advocacy of Nazism. Others have already spoken about the first and third of your examples. Regarding the second one about the NetzDG, that one is really recent, got widely criticized and is unlikely to hold up once it comes under scrutiny in the constitutional court. (The NetzDG being unconstitutional is also the opinion of the legal analysis committee of parliament even.) But it was one of the chief concern of the - back then - governing socialist party SPD, that wanted to establish itself as focussed on anti-hatespeech and law and order policies in the run-up to the 2017 election. While Germany has a different, and from a US point of view more restricted, definition of free speech, a lot of the horror stories that get passed around are cases that ultimately got resolved in the court system or are based on misrepresenting the relevant laws.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 15:08
|
|
|
Here's another one to think about : Flyers urging LGBT students to kill themselves would have been allowed if the posters had followed proper procedures. Reminder that LBG and especially T students have much higher rates of attempted suicide and depression than the general student body. If we want to prevent this kind of discrimination in workplaces, including government workplaces, why would we support allowing it on college campuses (or support preventing administrations from addressing it)? If a trans student committed suicide after these posters (or worse) went up, would you support bullying/manslaughter charges? Stickman fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Oct 21, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Here's another one to think about : Because there is literally no alternative middle ground between allowing this poo poo and allowing schools to ban Muslim student groups. Duh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Nazism is absolutely not tolerated in US public high schools, on the grounds that it causes a disturbance in the school that negatively affects the school's ability to educate its students. I don't see why a similar exception to free speech can't be made for US public colleges.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Nazism is absolutely not tolerated in US public high schools, on the grounds that it causes a disturbance in the school that negatively affects the school's ability to educate its students. I don't see why a similar exception to free speech can't be made for US public colleges. Nobody learns anything in college.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
qkkl posted:Nazism is absolutely not tolerated in US public high schools, on the grounds that it causes a disturbance in the school that negatively affects the school's ability to educate its students. I don't see why a similar exception to free speech can't be made for US public colleges. Primary and secondary schools have a lot more power to control what happens because it's a closed campus with a set schedule and the students are minors. Courts usually rule in favor of the least restriction as is practical. Given the amount of crazy poo poo happening on college campuses on a daily basis, there's not really a line to be drawn.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Primary and secondary schools have a lot more power to control what happens because it's a closed campus with a set schedule and the students are minors. Courts usually rule in favor of the least restriction as is practical. uh what college did you go to where it’s hard to draw a line between posters literally telling lgbt students to kill themselves and the normal goings on of a college campus?
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:19
|
|
|
For some people college is learning about how to be an adult in the real world, and experiencing Nazis would certainly help prepare them for actual Nazis. But a lot of students actually just go to college to get an education, and letting rabble-rousers speak on campus hurts those students who just came to learn physics or whatever. Private universities have an advantage over public ones when it comes to actual education if Nazis are allowed to disturb the peace in public schools, but not private ones.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2017 21:37
|
|
|
Laughing at the people in this thread pretending as if the law that protects the Nazis also protects genuinely unpopular speech anymore (or ever truly did), or that we have to preserve it because otherwise we won't benefit from it (as if we actually do). There's nothing in the constitution preventing right wingers from shutting down left wing speech, only stuff preventing left wingers from shutting down right wing speech, and the Republicans are *always* hard at work shutting down left wing speech - after all, being right wing, they can simply shut down (directly or through defunding) the public institutions and platforms and their right-wing institutions will continue to persist regardless, insuring that only the right wing gets a platform at all. This is ignoring the fact that public universities have not just an ability but a duty to regulate content that would undermine the united states government, which always seems to apply to any meaningful left-wing movements but not fascists who want to replace it with fascism. Weird that. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 16:01 on Oct 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 15:58
|
|
|
^^^ Excellent ironipost.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
The court agreed yesterday to hear the case where a guy who was wearing a Tea Party shirt and some kind of political hat was denied entry to a polling place to vote because of the ban on political speech within a certain distance of the polling place. He’s arguing that this is a 1st Amendment violation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The court agreed yesterday to hear the case where a guy who was wearing a Tea Party shirt and some kind of political hat was denied entry to a polling place to vote because of the ban on political speech within a certain distance of the polling place. He’s arguing that this is a 1st Amendment violation. The only violation of speech is whatever gorsuch is gonna be saying
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 15:56
|
|
|
An acquaintance of mine was almost blocked from voting last year because they were wearing an "JON*H RYAN FOR CONGRESS" shirt. (Jonah Ryan is the rapefaced goon from VEEP). I feel like my buddy has a more legit case than TEA PARTY PATRIOT man.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
Depending on state he probably should’ve been prevented from entering the polling place. My mom volunteers as an election “sheriff” (it’s Kentucky we have wacky names for everything) and would’ve told your friend he needs to go outside and turn his shirt inside out before he can enter the polling place.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 18:10
|
|
|
He was turned away and that is why he’s suing
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2017 18:14
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:(it’s Kentucky we have wacky names for everything) Yeah like your senators Also your governor for having a name that's way too close to bepis
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2017 06:52
|
|
|
If ISPs are granted near-limitless power to restrict access/availability based on content, would they incur safe-harbor responsibilities too? Like would they need to prove they have a basic content review and policing process that dutifully investigates reports from the public?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 19:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 20:09 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:If ISPs are granted near-limitless power to restrict access/availability based on content, would they incur safe-harbor responsibilities too? Like would they need to prove they have a basic content review and policing process that dutifully investigates reports from the public?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2017 20:12
|
|