|
Gorsuch writes his opinions like a loving twilight fanfic
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Gorsuch writes his opinions like a loving twilight fanfic That is unfair to Fifty Shades of Grey.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:32
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:That is unfair to Fifty Shades of Grey. Fifty Shades of Plain Language Aw Shucks
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:43
|
|
|
My Immortal Appointment Special fangz (I am referring to teeth and not a stylistic misspelling since that would betray plain language) to my bf (clearly meaning best friend) Mitch 4 the help wif my nomination and holding a space for meee. U rok! Deteriorata posted:Much appreciated your post in the Trump thread. I love legal arguments, although I have no training. Knowing exactly where the limits are and why they're there helps a lot in many situations. Much obliged, though I still wouldn't be surprised if it earned me a stint in catjail. Reading the effortposts of others in D&D was invaluable for developing my ability to synthesize and interpret multiple sources of questionable value into something resembling my own opinion. D&D's shift from effort and content (people posting at Arkane on Climate topics was so enlightening!) into performative irony and circlejerking mirrors the Forums' overall decline, but it bums me out. So if something hits my wheelhouse, I give it a go. Towards that point-am I terribly out of the loop? Is Forsyth no longer controlling?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
I guess I just would like to see a special carve out for universities, allowing them to operate more independently, like private universities, without being subject to all of the restrictions associated with the state. They're really different than the state at large, after all; they don't have the power to take away people's liberty or property and they only have authority in a very limited sphere. The stakes are lower.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:I guess I just would like to see a special carve out for universities, allowing them to operate more independently, like private universities, without being subject to all of the restrictions associated with the state. They're really different than the state at large, after all; they don't have the power to take away people's lives or property and they only have authority in a very limited sphere. The stakes are lower. If anything, protections need to be extended to private universities, because if we cannot allow an idea into a university, then where would it be allowed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:15
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:If anything, protections need to be extended to private universities, because if we cannot allow an idea into a university, then where would it be allowed? No that's stupid. I enjoyed my private, nazi-free education. It wouldn't have been improved by having more assholes shouting inane bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:19
|
|
|
BRB, shutting down universities I disagree with by repeatedly sticking them with ruinous security bills.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:30
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:BRB, shutting down universities I disagree with by repeatedly sticking them with ruinous security bills. Next stop: Lynchburg, VA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:No that's stupid. I enjoyed my private, nazi-free education. It wouldn't have been improved by having more assholes shouting inane bullshit. Now, just... pretend for a moment that people who don't agree with you exist. Would you like to give the ability to decide what speech is and is not allowable over to people like this president? Because those protections don't protect popular speech, they only protect what is unpopular. Anti-war protests, communists, those are the people who you want to strip the protections from in reality. Think about all of the times that you've heard republicans make insane comparisons to Nazis or Stalinists. Would you like them to be able to just remove those groups right to speak?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Now, just... pretend for a moment that people who don't agree with you exist. Would you like to give the ability to decide what speech is and is not allowable over to people like this president? Because those protections don't protect popular speech, they only protect what is unpopular. Anti-war protests, communists, those are the people who you want to strip the protections from in reality. Oh you're blowing my mind I've never thought about why the speech protections in the first amendment exist before. Oh except I totally have and my point is that public universities don't actually have the power to silence anyone, put anyone in prison, or really do anything bad to them except make them go somewhere else to be an rear end in a top hat. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:52
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Oh you're blowing my mind I've never thought about why the speech protections in the first amendment exist before. Apparently you haven't thought about why public universities exist in the first place, then. I was assuming that you probably were one of the "nazis are special, this will never backfire" types. Universities are a major place for intellectual discussion. I don't want to give the government the right to decide what is legitimate intellectual expression or not.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Apparently you haven't thought about why public universities exist in the first place, then. I was assuming that you probably were one of the "nazis are special, this will never backfire" types. Universities are a major place for intellectual discussion. I don't want to give the government the right to decide what is legitimate intellectual expression or not. Okay. My other point is that public universities are distinct from "the government" at large and so your concerns come off as a pretty insipid excuse to make the community deal with their homes and workplaces being overrun with Nazis and other odious people (I understand that isn't how the courts see it, I am suggesting a new rule). A further point would be that universities aren't under any obligation to rent out their space at all, and their space rentals are very much distinct from the educational and intellectual purposes of the university. A final point is that Richard spencer doesn't meaningfully contribute to any discourse and acknowledging that is not a slippery slope to thought police and gulags except in the imaginings of the paranoid.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:27
|
|
|
If the government were a corporation this wouldn’t have happened. They would have subsidiaries.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 06:30
|
|
|
Universities are not distinct from the government. They do have the power to silence, punish, and sometimes imprison. If government's powers are not only invested in the police forces. Look I hate nazis and I wish Spencer had been beaten up or whatever but I don't want governmental officials deciding what speech content is permissible. And I'm a government official! We're dumb as hell!
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
It's really kind of amazing how many people want to expand the power of government institutions at a time when the reigns are held by one Donald "there are some very fine people on both sides" Trump.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Hot Dog Day #91 posted:Universities are not distinct from the government. They do have the power to silence, punish, and sometimes imprison. If government's powers are not only invested in the police forces. I don't think that it's okay to beat people up for nonviolent speech you don't like either, but unless you're saying that we should open up our assault laws or turn a blind eye to selective prosecution it's not really a matter for this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:Okay. My other point is that public universities are distinct from "the government" at large and so your concerns come off as a pretty insipid excuse to make the community deal with their homes and workplaces being overrun with Nazis and other odious people (I understand that isn't how the courts see it, I am suggesting a new rule). A further point would be that universities aren't under any obligation to rent out their space at all, and their space rentals are very much distinct from the educational and intellectual purposes of the university. A final point is that Richard spencer doesn't meaningfully contribute to any discourse and acknowledging that is not a slippery slope to thought police and gulags except in the imaginings of the paranoid. This is the same reasoning people use to argue for prayer in public schools. Schools, they say, are run by "the community," not the government. Sorry, but the community is the government. Public schools (and universities) are run by the government. They're funded by the government. The employees are hired and paid by the government. Public schools and universities are as much a part of the government as courts and police are. Trying to make a distinction leads to all sorts of other problems you don't want, either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 15:51
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:This is the same reasoning people use to argue for prayer in public schools. Schools, they say, are run by "the community," not the government. Sorry, but the community is the government. Public schools (and universities) are run by the government. They're funded by the government. The employees are hired and paid by the government.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:Public schools are clearly different since they are mandatory. No one has to attend a university lecture. Like I wouldn't have a real objection to the government bringing back the Alien and Sedition acts if they only took effect on the grounds of the White House. Making that distinction legally is maybe difficult and not worthwhile, but there's an obvious moral difference between a university campus saying "No, we don't like that kind of speech" and a city government. (edit: and that reason isn't how the city or university is funded, it's the relative police power of the two) It's not mandatory that children attend a public school. They have to attend some sort of school, but it can be at home or other private setting. The fundamental issue is that a public school (or university) is an arm of the government and the same rules apply to it as every other arm. The ban on prayer in public school is based on teachers being agents of the government and not being allowed to push any particular religious point of view, not that the children are required to be there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:14
|
|
|
But isn't a professor at a public university more like a professor at a private one than like a public school teacher? I have a much harder time thinking of public universities as state apparatus than I do thinking of public primary and secondary schools that way. I resent that the law that says the government can't arrest someone for their speech also means that a university campus has to be a freak show for every uninvited guest who wants to scream about abortion every weekend just because it is associated with the state.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:41
|
|
|
As for the "special rules for the public universities mean you'd have to accept government endorsements of religion!" Or whatever parade of horribles, the best response is just a classic: don't do it the dumb way. Recognizing that the public universities have a level of independence that allows them more leeway to exclude some kinds of speech doesn't necessarily mean they'd need to be free of all constitutional restraint.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:50
|
|
|
From my "Education and Law" classes, the difference between secondary schools and universities is primarily in the age of the student. University students are generally adults and thus do not need to be protected from indoctrination like small children. They're assumed to be able to think for themselves and form an independent opinion. Thus the classroom level rules tend to be more relaxed, but institution-wide restrictions still apply. They may make no distinctions based on viewpoint, since they're the government and the 1st amendment applies to them. Whatever rules they set out have to apply to everyone equally.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 16:56
|
|
|
The can of worms you'd open up by declaring public universities not governmental entities subject to the bill of rights is not worth it. There's always something that's unambiguiously public enough they can rent/use, like doing a march.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:05
|
|
|
Sinestro posted:Now, just... pretend for a moment that people who don't agree with you exist. Would you like to give the ability to decide what speech is and is not allowable over to people like this president? Because those protections don't protect popular speech, they only protect what is unpopular. Anti-war protests, communists, those are the people who you want to strip the protections from in reality. Nazism is decidedly dangerous and edge, there really isn't standing to be concerned about a slippery slope here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:34
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Nazism is decidedly dangerous and edge, there really isn't standing to be concerned about a slippery slope here. When it comes to legal precedents there is absolutely reasons to be concerned about a slippery slope. The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" rationale was used to suppress labor movements for decades under criminal syndicalism laws until Brandenberg. Exceptions in the law very often do not stay limited to the specific factual circumstance before the court that made the exception. edit: the actual slippery slope this would be applied to wouldn't be communism these days, it would be Islamic terrorism and anything that could be linked to Islamic terrorism such as regular Islam, supporting the Palestinians against the Israeli state, or the like. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:36
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:It's not mandatory that children attend a public school. They have to attend some sort of school, but it can be at home or other private setting. The fundamental issue is that a public school (or university) is an arm of the government and the same rules apply to it as every other arm. I understand the legal reasoning with respect to prayer in public school, I'm saying that as far as moral calculus goes it very easy to distinguish between public schools and public universities (or between say the area a city occupies and the President's residence). Like I said earlier, maybe translating that moral argument into a legal argument that avoids the slippery slope problem is hard or impossible, but I think people shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the argument that public schools and public universities are clearly different, because they clearly are (practically, if not under current legal theory).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
"let universities decide" sounds great until one of them cites the same reasoning to block Muslim speakers because of terrorism. If your criteria is "high security costs", congrats, you've now incentivized violent threats against controversial speakers. If you don't think the "Nazis" will absolutely run with that kind of idea to poo poo up events they don't like, too, you have far too much faith in the system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:02
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:the best response is just a classic: don't do it the dumb way This is the worst idea imaginable under any government you'd care to name ever e: to expand on this, if your freedom is contingent on the government not being dumb, you aren't free fast cars loose anus fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:05
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:Towards that point-am I terribly out of the loop? Is Forsyth no longer controlling? I am not a lawyer, but I believe Forsyth was limited to Public Forums - you cannot charge security fees to a group or person that is demonstrating in e.g. a park, a university quad, etc. A public university's lecture or performance hall is a Limited Public Forum, and the university has some power in deciding time, place and manner restrictions (but can't set rules based on content).
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:When it comes to legal precedents there is absolutely reasons to be concerned about a slippery slope. The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" rationale was used to suppress labor movements for decades under criminal syndicalism laws until Brandenberg. Exceptions in the law very often do not stay limited to the specific factual circumstance before the court that made the exception. Unfortunately, in those cases, the damage is already done. There have been a number of cases over the years of universities threatening and punishing pro-Palestine activists, often facing no consequences beyond an angry letter from the ACLU. "If we allow universities to crack down on Nazi demonstrations, they might slippery-slope to using those same tactics to crack down on pro-Palestine demonstrations" is a solid argument, but with one significant flaw: universities are already using those tactics to crack down on pro-Palestine demonstrations, without much in the way of public pushback. Not just universities, either - anti-BDS laws have been popping up in legislatures all over the US. The fear of the slippery slope is a valid one, I think, but the slope has already been built. If we don't slide down it, then the only true winners will be the people who set up those abuses in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:46
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Unfortunately, in those cases, the damage is already done. There have been a number of cases over the years of universities threatening and punishing pro-Palestine activists, often facing no consequences beyond an angry letter from the ACLU. "If we allow universities to crack down on Nazi demonstrations, they might slippery-slope to using those same tactics to crack down on pro-Palestine demonstrations" is a solid argument, but with one significant flaw: universities are already using those tactics to crack down on pro-Palestine demonstrations, without much in the way of public pushback. Not just universities, either - anti-BDS laws have been popping up in legislatures all over the US. Legislatures can consider whatever the gently caress they want but anti-BDS laws are unlikely to survive court challenges. As to universities threatening and punishing pro-Palestinian activists and not facing repercussions, without you linking some examples it's hard to respond to it but from the way you phrase it the problem doesn't sound like the law, the problem sounds like a willingness to take the issue to court. The solution to that is to take the issue to court, not to legalize it. Moreover, you're assuming that this supposed exception would be limited to merely public universities which is unlikely at best.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:49
|
|
|
fast cars loose anus posted:This is the worst idea imaginable under any government you'd care to name ever That's not a great argument that the courts can't possibly recognize a constitutional grey area inhabited by institutions that are like the state in some ways, but unlike it in others. It is an argument against letting the government do anything ever, and hence is not very powerful or useful outside of, perhaps, your "tight five". Ogmius815 fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Oct 20, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:52
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:That's not a great argument that the courts can't possibly recognize a constitutional grey area inhabited by institutions that are like the state in some ways, but unlike it in others. It is an argument against letting the government do anything ever, and hence not a very powerful one. you said a stupid thing that was basically meaningless, he interpreted it a logical manner and you're interpreting it in a different one needless to say it was just a stupid thing to begin with, if you think there's a "not dumb way" then say that way
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you said a stupid thing that was basically meaningless, he interpreted it a logical manner and you're interpreting it in a different one My point is that there are some ways that pubic universities are "state like", but they are distinct and weak enough that the the constitutional command not to abridge the freedom of speech may apply to them in a different way than it applies to more traditional state actors. The campus speech cases have chosen not to see the ways in which public universities are different as significant and have applied the same tests to universities as they apply to other state actors and I think maybe that should be reconsidered. This could be done without saying anything as absurd as "the bill of rights does not apply to public universities at all period and now we can build a giant cross in Ann Arbor and make all the students bow down to it and say the lord's prayer".
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
Ok, but give details: in what way does the constitutional command not to abridge the freedom of speech apply differently to universities? e: in the system you're suggesting may be instituted, I mean
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Unfortunately, in those cases, the damage is already done. There have been a number of cases over the years of universities threatening and punishing pro-Palestine activists, often facing no consequences beyond an angry letter from the ACLU. "If we allow universities to crack down on Nazi demonstrations, they might slippery-slope to using those same tactics to crack down on pro-Palestine demonstrations" is a solid argument, but with one significant flaw: universities are already using those tactics to crack down on pro-Palestine demonstrations, without much in the way of public pushback. Not just universities, either - anti-BDS laws have been popping up in legislatures all over the US. Even allowing all of that to go unchallenged, the example of supressing BDS was just that, an example meant to illustrate the kind of broad consequences that allowing universities more authority to block speach could have. It pretty clearly wasn't meant as a comprehensive "this one bad thing will happen if we take this course of action."
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
fast cars loose anus posted:Ok, but give details: in what way does the constitutional command not to abridge the freedom of speech apply differently to universities? I mean that's a lot of work. I'm confident though you can come up with a standard that protects speech rights to an extent but stops short of pretty much requiring a university to spend half a million dollars to protect Richard Spencer even though nobody invited him or wants him and his presence is actively disruptive to the university's mission.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 19:21
|
|
|
mortal posted:I am not a lawyer, but I believe Forsyth was limited to Public Forums - you cannot charge security fees to a group or person that is demonstrating in e.g. a park, a university quad, etc. That's the read I've got as well. I was just thrown by the utter certainty with which he insisted Forsyth didn't apply. Ogmius815 posted:My point is that there are some ways that pubic universities are "state like", but they are distinct and weak enough that the the constitutional command not to abridge the freedom of speech may apply to them in a different way than it applies to more traditional state actors. So, this is currently the case. You believe the restrictions are still much too permissive. Others have pointed out that leaving more power in the hands of administrators probably won't work out the way you're envisioning given the Trump, Betsy, and the number of Red Statehouses. You'd like to create a system that functions similarly to your lefty private school. What everyone is telling you is that making pubic universities more like private schools is going to mean a lot more Bob Joneses and Baylors than it will more Oberlins. If the standard you describe is achievable (without further harming marginalized groups), why don't you think anyone has offered it? Serious question-I'm not asking you to define the policy, I'm asking why nobody else has.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 19:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 16:28 |
|
|
Public universities should take a page from the antiabortion playbook and come up with myriad new and exciting ways to defy the spirit of Supreme Court rulings. They’ll lose in court a lot, but that takes months or years and they can turn around and try another creative restriction with no penalty. And sometimes they won’t lose. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2017 20:28
|
|